HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-20-2023 Planning Commission PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE l/lZd 2-3
CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
PARK COMMISSION
OTHER
Assistive Listening Device available upon request
Please complete the following information for City Records
Name (please print)
L�
v
5
7
la
12.
Address
C�
Present for (from agenda)
Name or Number
o l CXi cv 'Q —.r
Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting
Monday, November 20, 2023, 6:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.oronomn.gov
Sign up for email notifications at www.oronomn.gov – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
Audience Members:
Information regarding each of the Agenda items is available on the City website (www.oronomn.gov) under Agendas
Minutes & Videos and in the Public Packet – located in the lobby near the entrance.
Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they
will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a
Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur.
Council Representative: Dennis Walsh
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
Approval of Minutes: October 16, 2023
Public Hearings:
1. LA22-000045 Ellette Anderson and James & Melissa Easley, 1250 Spruce Place & 1260 Spruce Place,
request vacation of the adjacent unimproved right-of-way of “Lake Street”. (Staff: Melanie
Curtis)
2. LA23-000060 Brian Benson, 3600 Casco Avenue, requests variances for average lakeshore setback and
hardcover to exceed 25% for the construction of a new home. (Staff: Natalie Nye)
3. LA23-000061 Outdoor Excapes, 2601 Casco Point Road, requests a 75’ lake setback variance for
the construction of retaining walls within the lakeyard. (Staff: Natalie Nye)
Other Items:
• Peak Agenda Management Introduction
• Update on November 13, 2023 City Council meeting.
Adjourn
Planning Commission Liaison to December 11, 2023 City Council meeting: Dennis Libby
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 11
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Chris Bollis, Commissioners Mark McCutcheon, Dennis Libby, Jon Ressler, Ted Schultze and Bob
Erickson. Commissioner Gary Kraemer was absent. Representing Staff were Community Development
Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Natalie Nye.
Chair Bollis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Libby moved, Ressler seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 2023
Ressler moved, McCutcheon seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of September 18, 2023. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LA22-000059 TOM RYAN, 2245 WATERTOWN ROAD, REQUESTS
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL
BUILDING SITE
City Planner Curtis said the property owner is requesting preliminary plat approval to combine five
separate PIDs into two buildable lots. The combined area of the property is 5.13 acres located within the
RR-1B one-family rural residential zoning district. This application is not a subdivision. Rather, it should
be viewed as a more formal boundary line adjustment (subdivision exception) due to the need to formally
re-plat two of the parcels which are currently classified as “outlots”, she said. The wooded site includes a
small drainage creek which the property owner is planning to reorient slightly. Work began on the
drainage creek in the Fall of 2022 without proper City permits. The work was stopped, and the applicant
has been working with Staff to complete the project through permitting. The property is not located
within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA); the properties will be served by private onsite
septic systems. The applicant proposes to retain the existing home on lot 1. Development of lot two is not
proposed at this time. The application results in two conforming lots. The City’s Engineer has reviewed
the plans for the preliminary plat and the applicant’s request for City resources regarding the ditch. There
were no substantive comments regarding the plat. The City received two comments on this project. The
comments were focused on the erosion from the unpermitted land alteration and downstream
sedimentation which resulted from the unprotected ditch. Staff supports the approval of the preliminary
plat subject to the City Engineer’s requirements. Staff further recommends that the applicant be required
to remove the downstream sediment and obtain the proper permits for the drainage creek reorientation.
Erosion control measures should be installed prior to the work and be maintained throughout the duration
of the project until vegetation is established.
Tom Ryan, 2245 Watertown Road, the applicant, said he thought they had approval to start the
preliminary work on the ditch. He stated the erosion was caused by the roadwork done previously on
Watertown Road. The addition of curb and gutter resulted in more water flow at that area, he said, adding
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 11
he has been there 33 years. He has worked with the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District to
come up with a plan to mitigate the erosion.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m.
Tom Major, 2200 Devin Lane, said he is the property owner to the south of this property so the ditch
flows into his property. They have been there 37 years and had no problem until two to four years ago.
Sand has raised the bottom of the ditch a foot or more. He asked if downstream effects of the project have
been looked at. He said there is also a flood plain below that next to another property. The ditch is along
the property line between the two houses.
Heidi Hust, 2225 Devin Lane, said they have been in the house almost 20 years and the road project up on
the corner was a huge disaster. The silt came down and destroyed everything, she said, adding she is a
professional gardener and used to take her Girl Scouts down that area and the marsh has changed so much
and a delta has formed. They have lost a half a dozen trees due to standing water. It is a deep ditch and
has spread out everywhere. More than grass is needed on the side. The DNR should have a list of plants
that will stop the erosion. Crawdads and other creatures are gone because of the silt.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m.
Ressler asked if the DNR is in control of the ditch.
Curtis said the area is not identified as protected so it is a City action and a grading permit is required.
Staff does recommend that the applicant remove any material caused by the work done last fall.
McCutcheon said it seems that when there are big road projects there can be adverse reactions and this
seems like one of those situations. He said the residents were looking for more information and asked if
details could be posted for the public.
Curtis said that is done with road projects but this is a private improvement. The City would not be
responsible, but would make sure erosion control measurers were not removed until the plan is executed
and vegetation installed.
Bollis pointed out the application has the review of the City Engineer and several other agencies.
Ressler noted the applicant has submitted a plan that includes everything that staff is recommending. It
would be better to leave this in the hands of the engineers, he said.
Libby said he is in support of the staff recommendations but is grateful for the extra information supplied
by the applicant and the neighbors. He said the Planning Commission does not have the engineering
expertise but that this will be reviewed by the experts. There is significant expertise involved in this.
Tom Major said the Commission has been mainly talking about the project. He questioned what would
happen downstream. He asked who is responsible for maintaining the ditch.
Curtis said staff is recommending any sediment that is a result of the work last fall is the responsibility of
the applicant to remove with permission of the adjacent property owners to enter their property. She said
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 11
all of the sediment is not the responsibility of the applicant. She said the ditch is the responsibility of the
property owners unless it has a public easement.
Ressler moved, Schultze seconded, to recommend approval of LA22-000059, 2245 Watertown Road
Preliminary Plat with the conditions recommended by staff including removal of sediment and
proper permitting and erosion control measures. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
2. LA23-000050 LUCID BUILDERS, 3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, REQUESTS
VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK,
HARDCOVER, HARDCOVER WITHIN THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, AND
REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE
City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the property is substandard in size and width
and has a building envelope that cannot accommodate a single-family home. Crystal Bay Road is located
within the boundaries of the property. The area of the lot excludes the area of the road bringing the total
area to 5,500 square feet. A minimum lot size for the LR-IC zoning district is 21,780 square feet. The
width of the lot is 50 feet where 100 feet is the minimum requirement for the zoning district. The existing
home on the lot is nonconforming as it relates to the required lake yard setback, side yard setback, rear
yard setback and hardcover. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new
single-family home. The neighborhood along Crystal Bay Road has experienced many redevelopment
projects in recent years resulting in the construction of many new single-family homes. Most of these
homes have required variances, she said. The City Council and staff have been strict on the application of
average lakeshore setback in order to preserve the uniformity of the street and preserve the neighboring
views of the lake. Additionally, a 10-foot rear yard setback has been approved in previous applications.
The proposed project meets the average lakeshore setback and maintains a 10-foot rear yard setback. The
project also includes the removal of an illegal shed located to the rear of the house on Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) owned land. The applicant has identified the property’s
substandard size and width as practical difficulties. The applicant added that the proposal will be in
harmony with the neighborhood and the variances will allow for the construction of a modern home in a
similar location on the lot. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment. The property is substandard in
size and width and unique in that Crystal Bay Road is located on the property. The existing home on the
property is nonconforming and the applicant is proposing to construct a slightly larger home in a similar
location. The home is in line with the Average Lakeshore Setback consistent with the neighborhood. The
increase in hardcover brings the overall hardcover to over 45peercent of the lot when 25 percent is the
maximum allowed, due mainly to including a 2-stall garage where a 1-stall garage exists today and the
widening of the driveway in order to support off-street parking for Crystal Bay Road. The project will
meet the structural coverage limitations for the site. The proposed home will be built within 10 feet of the
rear property line consistent with the neighborhood. Staff finds the request for the new home on the site in
character with the neighborhood and reasonable use of the site and supports the variance requests.
Planning Staff noted the property cannot use HCRRA corridor for any personal improvements and a shed
currently in that corridor will be removed; pervious pavers or similar material must be used for any
walkways or patios and stormwater mitigation such as gutters must be installed on the property.
Ressler said it looked like the rear setback was improving by 3 feet but lakeshore setback was decreasing
by 2 feet.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 11
Nye said the City has been strict about the 10-foot rear setback but because of the shallowness of the lots
there has been wiggle room on the 75-foot setback.
A representative of Lucid Builders, the applicant, showed photos of the existing neighborhood and a slide
with the ages of the homes from the early 1900s to 2019 and showing the hardcover in the neighborhood,
as well as a photo of the shoreline with the existing home and an artist’s rendition with the proposed
home. He said the request is similar to other properties and in harmony with the neighborhood.
Libby said the roof is about 10 feet higher than would be normal but due to a rise in grade at the back.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, said he is in one of the oldest original houses on the road. He
said there are several tall houses on the road but this would be the first one that would protrude out and
impede the view of the lake.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m.
Schultze asked how the new house could impede the neighbor’s view of the lake.
Nye said the average lakeshore line preserves that but there is more mass in the proposed house at the
front and could impede some views from the side. The neighbor would still have the same view out of the
front of their house.
Ressler said he supports the staff recommendations for provisions like gutters and pavers. These lots are
tight and building up is naturally going to happen. This application does not need a variance for exceeding
height. He said he recognizes there could be a change in how the view is appreciated by the neighbors but
it doesn’t seem to change the spirit of what is going on in that neighborhood.
Bollis pointed out the hardcover is higher but less than the average on that street. He said he agrees with
Ressler and also the safety of having room to turn cars around and go out onto Crystal Bay Rd.
McCutcheon also said the height jumped out at him but it appears to be in character with the
neighborhood. He said it is the toughest area for zoning in the whole City of Orono because of the small
size of the lots.
Commissioners said they would rather move the house back and not preserve the 10-foot rear setback and
have the mass of the house further from the lake and the view of neighbors.
Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of LA23-000050, 3359 Crystal Bay Rd,
Variances as applied with staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
3. LA23-000051 KEPLINGER & KERANEN BUILDERS, INC., 2795 SHADYWOOD
ROAD, REQUESTS LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, HARDCOVER, REAR YARD
SETBACK, LAKE SETBACK (LAKE AND CHANNEL), BUILDING ON FILL
AND NOT MEETING A 15 FOOT FILL BENCH REQUIRMENTS WITHIN THE
SHORELAND DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 11
City Planner Curtis said the owners plan to build a new home on the existing footprint with a garage
addition as well as other hardcover changes/improvements on the property. Their plans involve elevating
the new home on fill to comply with FEMA regulations and bring the home up to modern standards with
respect to ceiling heights resulting in an increase of mass within the 75-foot setback. As a result of the
required fill and the changes to the structure of the home, the overall height is proposed to increase by
approximately 14 feet over existing conditions. The existing home on the property is situated within the
75-foot setback from the Forest Lake Channel. There are hardcover improvements within the 75-foot
setback (from the channel and the lake), and the home is nonconforming with respect to FEMA floodplain
regulations relating to the low floor elevation and the adjacent grades. The applicant has identified the
channel as the primary practical difficulty supporting the requested variances. Regarding practical
difficulty, Staff finds that the existing conditions of the lot (the house elevation and location, the narrow
width of the lot, and its location along the channel requiring a 75-foot setback) are practical difficulties
supporting variances. Staff finds there are practical difficulties for the requested variances with the
exception of the screen porch portion of the home within 13 feet of the channel. The increased height of
this porch combined with the extreme proximity to the channel cannot be supported, she said. The
applicant has the right to rebuild this portion of the home in-kind but staff does not find practical
difficulty supporting the vertical expansion of the porch due to the close proximity to the lake. The
applicant should redesign the porch to minimize the massing impact so close to the Ordinary High Water
Level, she said.
Ressler clarified that it will be necessary for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to review the plan
as well.
Erick Hill with Keplinger & Keranen Builders, Maple Plain, and two other representatives of the
builder as well as the homeowner, the applicants, said they tried to design something that fit the
neighborhood and blended in with the neighborhood. They were required to raise the house because of the
flood plain. The lot is on the Narrows Channel and so heavily wooded you would not see the massing. A
hedge will be added where necessary, but the massing will be completely hidden by the tree cover. The
porch is in about the same place and at the same level of the house as the current home, but the house is
being raised because of the floodplain. There is also a peaked roof.
Ressler asked if the porch roof could be changed.
Libby pointed out the pitch of the roof would result in a fair amount of water flow off the roof. He asked
if there were other higher-level views of the location.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Bollis said he is in favor as applied and isn’t concerned about the porch. The massing isn’t within any
neighbor’s view of the lake and they have been thoughtful about the design, he said.
Ressler said they just had the discussion about going up on narrow lots and he would agree.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 11
McCutchenon said with water, a flat roof would not work out well and the roof line fits the look of the
neighborhood.
McCutcheon moved, Ressler seconded, to recommend approval as applied, including the porch
roof, of LA23-000051, 2795 Shadywood Road, Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
4. LA23-000053 PILLAR HOMES PARTNER, INC., 3765 WATERTOWN ROAD,
REQUESTS A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
COVERED ENTRY
City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the property owner is requesting setback
variances in order to construct new covered porch entry and cover two other entries on the existing home.
The existing home is nonconforming to the setbacks of the RR-1A zoning district which requires a 100-
foot front yard setback and 50-foot side yard setback. The existing home is situated 70 feet from the front
property line and 16 feet from the side property line. The new improvements include a 43 square foot
front porch over an existing stoop and two roof expansions over existing doorways. None of the
entryways will protrude any closer to the property lines than the existing home. The property is not
subject to hardcover or lot coverage limitations. The applicant has provided supporting documentation
regarding practical difficulties. Staff finds the location of the existing home a practical difficulty. The
existing home does not conform to the required setbacks and the proposed improvements do not extend
beyond the closest point of the house. The proposed covered entries are very minimal and meet all other
zoning requirements, she said.
K.C. Chermak of Pillar Homes said the changes requested are pretty minimal as there is no foundation
work. Water management was one of the driving forces.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Libby said this is pretty straight-forward. Staff has been diligent.
Ressler said it was a better use of the property.
Libby moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval as applied of LA23-000053, 3765
Watertown Road, Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
5. LA23-000058 TRIPP SNYDER, 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD, TWO PUBLIC
HEARINGS
a) An Appeal of the staff interpretation of Section 78-1279 relating to this request.
b) After-the-fact approval of setback variances to address expansions to a nonconforming deck
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 11
City Planner Curtis explained that in June the property owner submitted a building permit application to
rebuild an existing 16’ x 24’ deck, in-kind. During the construction the City’s building inspector noted
discrepancies between the previous deck and the deck under construction. The new deck had been
elevated from the existing approximately 7-8 inches, so that the deck was even with the door threshold
eliminating a step down from the home to increase safety. This small deck height increase within the ALS
and side yard setback is considered to be an expansion of the volume of the deck within the setback. The
previous deck did not have a guard rail. The newly reconstructed deck requires a guard rail following
MN State Building Code Guidelines. The new railings would be an expansion of the existing deck within
the ALS. The stair on the north side of the deck was reoriented. The previous stairs were set into the deck
at the northeast corner and joined a set of stairs which were set into the grade. Due to the height increase
the existing stair configuration would not be able to meet building code requirements. To address this the
owner turned the stair 90 degrees toward the lake and widened the treads by 1 foot, 4 inches. A second
staircase against the home on the south side of the deck was eliminated and the deck was constructed to
abut the home. The owner has filed two separate applications, each requiring a public hearing. The first is
an appeal of the staff interpretation of the deck stair within the average lakeshore setback (ALS); and the
second is an after-the-fact (ATF) approval of an average lakeshore setback and side yard setback variance
for the expansion of a reconstructed deck within the setbacks. Staff recommends the Planning
Commission uphold the staff. The owner asserts that 78-1279(6) permits all stairs within the average
lakeshore setback. Staff position is that because the stair in question is an integral part of the deck
connected to the home, and not a stair to access the lake or a dock, it is not permitted within the average
lakeshore setback.
Bollis restated the facts of the application for verification. He said the first public hearing would be on the
appeal process.
Tripp Snyder, 1513 Bay Ridge Road, the applicant, said they have owned the house since 2007. His
appeal on the staff’s interpretation is a reading of the code, which he quoted to the Commission. Staff
interprets this section as applying only to stairs go down to a dock. He said the code in his opinion
excludes deck stairs.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the code appeal at 7:41 p.m. p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Bolllis said traditionally in this section of code stairways attached to decks have been park of the principal
structure but he tends to agree code was written to exempt stairways from the average lakeshore setback.
If that is the case, they need to clarify but have no way of knowing what the original intent was. He said
he intends to agree with the applicant.
Ressler said he agrees the language needs to be cleaned up but he agrees with the staff interpretation of it.
Libby said there have been many situations where they have applied this code and he cannot agree with
the applicants. He supports the Commission’s previous decisions which have been upheld by the City
Council. He said they have been consistent in advising the City Council on that.
Ressler said he was prepared to deny the appeal and move on to the application.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 11
Bollis said the language clearly exempts stairways and doesn’t say attached. He said it is poorly written as
it exempts all stairways.
McCutcheon said precedent has been to treat stairs attached to decks as part of the structure.
Curtis said the DNR was responsible for that wording. It is meant to refer to stairs going down to the lake.
Libby said he still maintains that they have certain precednets they have to work with the language they
have in front of them.
Ressler moved, McCutcheon seconded, to deny the appeal portion of LA23-000058 and encourage
Staff to draft language to clarify the code according to the Staff interpretation. VOTE: Ayes: 5,
Nays 1 (Bollis).
The applicant, Tripp Snyder, in speaking of the request for the After-the-Fact variance, said when they
purchased the home the old deck was in place with no guardrails, only a bench around the perimeter.
Their initial permit application had a different location for the stairs and it would have landed on the pre-
existing concrete that the inspector said was not the right size. The landing led to concrete stairs going
down to a fire pit. Changing the landing would have meant changing the stairs. They moved the stairs and
the new configuration caused the need for a variance. The new stairs are ADA compliant so the safety
issues has been mitigated and they come down to a wider landing which is safer than the original, he said.
When their neighbor’s house was torn down and rebuilt the average lakeshore setback for his home was
changed. Their new stairs are two feet closer to the lake than the old stairs. The increased height of the
deck was also a safety issue because there was an 8-inch height differential between the threshold of the
door and the step down to the deck. He said now you walk straight out onto the deck without any
difference in height which is safer for residents in their 70s.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the variances at 7:59 p.m.
Don Germanson, 1501 Bay Ridge Rd, the neighbor to the north, said they view this as a grandfather
situation, not an average lakeshore setback issue. He said they saw this deck go up and it was higher and
where there were three steps there are now eight or nine. This is not grandfathered, which means replace
like-kind, he said. Everything should have been built in the existing footprint. They would encourage
keeping the new deck within the existing footprint.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m.
Bollis said after-the-fact variances are always hard and they need to look at it as what they would have
approved if it had come before the Planning Commission as a request. There are safety concerns that he
thinks would have brought the Commission to the conclusion of approving the variance if it had been
requested in the first place. He said they probably would have had more control over where those deck
stairs went if they had seen it in advance. He said he had no doubt they would have approved the safety
concerns.
Snyder said the stairs are built and attached but the deck is not completely finished. He said both decks
were 16 X 24 not counting the stairs.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 11
Bollis said he did not think the applicant is asking for much.
Bollis moved, Schultze seconded, to recommend approval of LA23-000058, 1513 Bay Ridge Road,
Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
6. LA23-000059 PEBL DESIGN, 980 TONKAWA ROAD, REQUESTS APPROVAL
OF AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SIDE YARD.
City Planner Nye explained the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a side
yard setback variance for the construction of a 6-foot screen wall and outdoor kitchen area. The proposed
screen wall is considered an accessory structure and not a fence due to the grill, sink, and other elements
that are incorporated in its design. The proposal does not meet the 10-foot setback requirement for
accessory structures and is 6 feet in height within of the average lakeshore setback line where 42 inches
(3.5 feet) is permitted. All other zoning requirements, including hardcover, are met. The applicant has
identified the existing conditions of the property as a practical difficulty. Currently there is an accessory
structure of a 3-foot-tall wall enclosing a grill within the required side yard setback. The applicant is
proposing to recapture this element of the current outdoor space in their new design. The applicant has
also identified the topography and extreme average lakeshore setback line as practical difficulties. The
current home is within the average lakeshore setback and the neighboring and impacted neighbor is
situated at a much higher grade and therefore is not impacted by the proposed 6-foot accessory structure.
There is also substantial vegetation between the neighboring properties. There are some practical
difficulties to support a variance to the average lakeshore setback. However, Staff does not find that there
is practical difficulty to allow a side yard setback variance. Staff does recognize that the proposed taller
height of the accessory structure would not impact the neighbor’s view of the lake due to the difference in
grade, vegetation, extreme average lakeshore setback limits and distance from the lake. However, the
property owner has reasonable use of the site for the single-family home. An accessory structure of an
outdoor kitchen is not necessary for the use of the property. The proposed location for the outdoor kitchen
is out of convenience since there is a conforming building envelope on the site for the proposed project to
meet the 10-foot required side yard setback.
The applicant, representing PEBL Designs, said they were under the impression that they had removed
the outdoor kitchen based on staff recommendation. He pointed out the intent of average lakeshore
setback doesn’t really apply because of the difference in grade and vegetation.
Nye said Staff would be in favor of the variance for the six-foot wall without the kitchen.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Joe Hoffman, 1000 Tonkawa, the neighbor, said they have no problems with what the neighbor wants to
do and in fact the six-foot wall would give them more privacy.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m.
Bollis said he was in favor of the six-foot fence as it does not impede anyone’s view.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 11
Nye said as proposed it would be about six feet from the property line. The side-yard setback variance is
not needed if they drop the outdoor kitchen.
Libby asked if there would be space to move the wall so the applicant could still have the accessory
kitchen.
The applicant said moving it that close to the house doesn’t make any sense.
Ressler said he would not support a six-foot wall but a fence would be acceptable at a height of six feet.
McCutchen moved, Schultze seconded, to recommend approval of LA23-000059, 980 Tonkawa
Road, Variance for Average Lakeshore Setback removing the outdoor kitchen. VOTE: Ayes: 5,
Nays 1 (Ressler).
7. LA23-000054 TEXT AMENDMENT WITHIN CHAPTER 78 WHICH
CONTEMPLATES THE ALLOWANCE OF RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE
SHORE SETBACK ZONES
Community Development Director Oakden explained the City Council processes many variances for
retaining walls within the lakeshore setback every year. The Council directed staff to review the current
regulations relating to retaining walls and determine of if any amendments to the City Code should be
considered. City Staff presented information to the Council at the April 24, 2023 and May 19,2023 work
sessions which included general background information, examples of different types of walls and wall
construction, guidance from the Comprehensive Plan, DNR and other lake area communities. Currently,
the City Code prohibits retaining walls within the shore setback. The required shore setback for Lake
Minnetonka is 75-feet. The strict prohibition presents multiple challenges for residents who are working
to repair or replace failing walls or to address erosion issues. The current regulations do not provide any
guidance for best practices regarding material, methods, or screening of walls. Staff recommends the
Council amend the City Code to create an administrative process and a conditional use permit process to
permit retaining walls within the shore setback on properties with specific conditions. Additionally,
clarification to the definition of retaining walls and elimination of redundancy within the City Code will
be achieved with the proposed ordinance, she said. The ordinance would allow for an administrative
permit under some conditions and a conditional use permit process for others. To obtain a CUP it would
require a public hearing and professional engineering. This would include new walls or walls with
significant changes. Swapping out material on an existing wall up to four feet within the 75-foot
Lakeshore Setback could be accomplished with the administrative permit.
Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the proposed ordinance revision at 8:39 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m.
Bollis said he felt this was a needed change as retaining walls built in the 1970s are beginning to fail and
new materials and techniques are now available. It would be good for residents to be able to address more
of these with an administrative permit.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 2023
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 11
Oakden said there were some additions of definitions including defining the difference between boulder
walls and landscape edging.
Bollis said he feels the definition needs more work because as written it could cover decorative features
or create too many loopholes for walls.
Oakden said the definition also includes the requirement that the purpose of the structure is to hold back
earth. She said the definitions were pulled from DNR best practices. She said the commission has
discussed some options for the definition and asked the Commission members which they favored.
Libby said he was comfortable with the ordinance as written since it is required that the applicant use
professional design services.
Ressler moved, McCutcheon seconded, to recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted
removing in the definition the language for two or more boulders. VOTE: Ayes: 6, Nays 0.
OTHER BUSINESS – Update on October 9, 2023 City Council Meeting
Oakden updated the Commissioners noting the City Council followed the Planning Commission’s
recommendations at the last meeting with the exception of reducing the size of a deck on one project at
the suggestion of the applicant.
ADJOURNMENT
Ressler moved, McCutcheon seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes
6, Nays 0.
The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
ATTEST:
_________________________________________
Christopher Bollis, Chair
Date Application Received: 08/14/2023
Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/16/2023
60-Day Review Period Expires: 12/15/2023
To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 20 November 2023
Subject: #23-000045, Ellette Anderson
Vacation of ROW between 1250 and 1260 Spruce Place
Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is requesting to vacate the unimproved right-of-way situated between 1250 Spruce
Place (owned by James & Melissa Easley) and 1260 Spruce Place (owned by Ms. Anderson, the
applicant). This unimproved right-of-way is also known as “Lake Street” on the plat of Saga Hill,
Revised, and terminates at the OHWL of North Arm Bay. There are no City utilities within the right-
of-way.
Within the right-of-way there are riprap spillways facilitating overland drainage from Spruce Place,
retaining walls, and approximately 900 square feet of the Easleys’ driveway accessing their side load
garage.
Applicable Regulations:
MN State Statute 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS
The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part
thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the
street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no
petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the
council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a
hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written
notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at
least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or
proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street,
alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to
any public water, written notice of the petition or proposed resolution must be served by
certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 60 days before the hearing on
the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources does not create a right of
intervention by the commissioner. At least 15 days prior to convening the hearing required under
this section, the council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources
to review the proposed vacation.
The commissioner must evaluate:
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting City approval of vacation of undeveloped
right-of-way between 1250 and 1260 Spruce Place.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the request to
vacate.
FILE # LA23-000045
20 Nov 2023
Page 2 of 4
1. The proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so;
2. the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters; and
3. how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources.
The commissioner must advise the city council or its designee accordingly upon the evaluation.
After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the
proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a
statement of the time of completion thereof, and a description of the real estate and lands
affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in
the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in
the transfer record." The notice shall then be recorded with the county recorder. Any failure to
file the notice shall not invalidate any vacation proceedings.
MN State Statue 462.358 Subd. 7. Vacation
The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or
boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric,
telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same
manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways under a
home rule charter or other provisions of law.
A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the
purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the
recorded plat as "boulevard reserve".
Orono City Code. Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds.
Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this
chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners
abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and
posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly
owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage,
electric, telegraph, and telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes,
in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public
ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for
the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on
the recorded plat as boulevard reserve.
Orono’s 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Chapter 4A - Lake access, preservation
and management
Orono's lakes provide a significant recreational resource for all Orono residents. This value was
long ago realized by City leaders. In order to provide lake access for the general public, as well as
to provide for fire department access to the lake as a water source, a number of lake access
corridors were created as the shore land developed. These typically are platted, dedicated right-
of-ways leading from the local road system to the shoreline, and are commonly from 16' to 66' in
width.
These right-of-ways (often referred to as “fire lanes” or “lake access roads”) vary considerably in
their proximity to traffic, parking availability, proximity to housing, lakeshore conditions, and
other factors that effect their recreational value. Some of these corridors have been maintained
by the City for local swimming beaches or as winter snowmobile and ice-fishing accesses. Certain
FILE # LA23-000045
20 Nov 2023
Page 3 of 4
accesses have docks for fishing, and some have ramp areas suitable for launching a small boat.
However, most do not have designated parking available, and are primarily intended to serve the
neighborhood rather than the general public. A number of these access corridors have steep
topography, shallow water depths, undesirable lake bottom conditions, and/or dense vegetation
and experience little or no usage. Of the City lake accesses shown on Map 4E-2 (Exhibit G), half
of those located outside of Big Island are either undeveloped or closed to public use.
Orono’s 2020-2040 Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 4E Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces
• Orono will maintain Lake Access for all residents. With shore land abutting a dozen separate
bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated
access corridors. It is the City’s intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake
access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance.
(Supports goal 5) To this end, the City will follow these policies:
o Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right of ways will be evaluated
carefully, in particular where equal or better lake accesses are not available nearby.
The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public’s right to use of
any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated.
o The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access
corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private
landowner are upheld.
Engineer Comments
City Engineer Adam Edwards provided the following comments on the request: “I do not
recommend vacating the right of way. Although heavily encroached, the site serves as a draining
way for the area. The site has also been identified as a possible future public accessway to the lake.
Areas that provide a public purpose should not be vacated.”
Staff Analysis
The right-of-way corridor addressed in this application is identified on our Comprehensive Plan Lake
Access Point Map as having no public access. The City does not have any Park improvements in that
area. The access has a public purpose serving as a drainage way for the area. There are identified
lake access points in this area. Sandy Beach is located to the south which is established as a
swimming beach, and the City’s fishing dock off of Loma Linda Avenue to the north. Both are less
than 500-feet from this location.
The challenge with vacating rights-of-way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the City have
access or utility needs in the future, the cost to taxpayers to reacquire the property will be at a
premium. For this reason, vacation reduces options for the City in the future. The subject right of
way secures opportunity for future access to the adjacent properties.
DNR Comments
At the time of the writing of this memo, we have not received the written comments from the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). However, staff has spoken with the DNR
representative, they have reviewed the vacation request and provided verbal comments: the DNR
opposes the vacation. The basis for their opposition is that the proposed vacation does not provide
a public benefit nor does it protect future public use of the land to access the lake. Written
comment will be provided upon receipt.
Public Comments
Comments received from the public are attached as Exhibit H.
FILE # LA23-000045
20 Nov 2023
Page 4 of 4
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the land have a public benefit?
2. Does this request meet the statutory requirements for approval?
3. Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations?
4. Are there any issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the right-of-way at this time as there is currently a
public benefit for drainage purposes and the future purpose of the land is undetermined.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Proposed Vacation
Exhibit C. Legal Description
Exhibit D. Aerial Photos
Exhibit E. Utility Company Notifications & Responses
Exhibit F. DNR Notification
Exhibit G. Comp Plan Map 4E-2 Lake Access Points
Exhibit H. Comments from the Public
Exhibit I. City Engineer Comment
Exhibit J. Property Owners List
Exhibit K. Plat Map
8/25/23, 2:36 PM Permit List | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=87601897&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/1
Land Use Application Summary
Application Date:08/14/2023
Address:1260 Spruce Place
Orono, MN 55364
Parcel Number:0811723320012
Land Use Number:LA23-000045
Application Submitted By:Property Owner
Owner:Name: ELLETTE A ANDERSON
Address: 1260 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 55364
Applicant:Name: Ellie Anderson
Company:
Address: 1260 Spruce Place
orono , mn 55364
eanderson@griffinarcher.com
Contact Information:Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Project Description:Vacation of unused fire lane.
Land Use Application Type:Amendmend Application
Appeal of Admin Decision
Concept Application
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Application
Subdivision Application
Subdivision Exception
Vacation Application
Variance Application
Applicant Signature:
Narrative
The home at 1260 Spruce Place has been in our family since 1972. I
was born and raised here and recently purchased the home from my
parents who still have a part-time residence in the house. During this
time the vacant fire lane has not been used by anyone in the
neighborhood or the city of Orono for any purpose.
In 1979 a neighbor across the street requested to put a dock there and
the city of Orono declined the request for multiple reasons. See letter
uploaded to application. Because the land is not fit for a public dock,
and there are three other lake accesses within a half mile of the
property, we would like to request that the property be split equally
between our house and the home of Jim and Melissa Easley who live at
1250 Spruce Place. This would allow the Easley family to have a proper
driveway (currently their land ends within a few feet of their garage door
and they have a gravel driveway). Both parties have lovingly maintained
this property for more than 50 years – mowing, planting, and adding 10k
of rip-rap to the shoreline. It has been the place of soccer games,
bonfires, gymnastics practice, and host to multiple wood duck families.
Now we would love the opportunity to “officially” incorporate it into our
two properties.
Additionally, I would like to note that there is a large gully/watershed in
the middle of this fire lane that fills during every rainstorm sometimes up
to three feet wide which would inhibit this from safely being used for any
type of public walkway or access.
Ellette A Anderson
1260 Spruce Place
Orono, MN 55364
612-309-2050
From:Mayers, Charles J
To:Melanie Curtis
Cc:Mayers, Charles J
Subject:Proposed Vacation 1250 Spruce Place, Mound Minesota
Date:Tuesday, October 31, 2023 10:52:12 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
Hi Melanie,
CenterPoint Energy has no issues or concerns with your vacation request. We have no facilities
within the vacation area.
Have a great safe day.
Chuck Mayers
Chuck Mayers SR/WA
Senior Agent, Right of Way
System Integrity & Operation Support
612-321-5381 w. | 952-334-9180 c.
Charles.mayers@centerpointenergy.com
11/9/2023
Katie Fitzsimmons
Planning Assistant
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
P858384
No Reservations/No Objection
SUBJECT: Request for Vacation - Abandonment of an unimproved street Right-Of-Way located
at 1250 & 1260 Spruce Pl, Orono, MN.
To Whom It May Concern:
Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC (“CenturyLink”) has reviewed the request for the subject
vacation and has determined that it has no objections with respect to the areas proposed for
vacation as shown and/or described on Exhibit “A”, said Exhibit “A” attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference.
It is the intent and understanding of CenturyLink that this Vacation shall not reduce our rights to
any other existing easement or rights we have on this site or in the area.
This vacation response is submitted WITH THE STIPULATION that if CenturyLink facilities are
found and/or damaged within the vacated area as described, the Applicant will bear the cost of
relocation and repair of said facilities.
If you have any questions, please contact Richard Hollis at 903-559-1095 or
richard.hollis@lumen.com
Sincerely,
CenturyLink Right of Way Team
Exhibit “A”
CITY OF ORONO
2750 KELLEY P ARKWAY,ORONO,MINNESOTA 55356
www.oronomn.gov
24 August 2023
SENT VIA U.S. CERTIFIED MAIL: 70151520000035763243
Sarah Strommen
Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4040
RE: Proposed Vacation ofunimproved right-of-way between and adjacent to1250 Spruce Place and
1260 Spruce Place in Orono
File: #LA22-000050
Ms. Strommen:
The City of Orono has been requested to vacate unimproved right-of-way which lies between the
properties addressed 1250 Spruce Place and 1260 Spruce Place; this right-of-way terminates at or about
the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka; as depicted on the enclosed.
Enclosed are copies of right-of-way area. Please advise whether you have any objections to vacation of
the area shown.
This request will be presented at the November 20
th Planning Commission meeting for a public hearing.
Receipt of your comments by or before Monday, November 6th would be appreciated. Please contact
me directly at mcurtis@oronomn.gov or 952.249.4627 for more information of if you have any
questions on the request.
Thank you for your input.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO
Melanie Curtis
Planner
Enclosures
c: via email
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
Cook'sBay
SpringParkBay Carman'sBay
HarrisonBay
WestArm
MaxwellBay
NorthArm
ForestLakeJenning'sBay
StubbsBay
LafayetteBay
WayzataBayTanagerLake
LakeClassen
DickeyLake
LongLake
LydiardLake
MooneyLake
CascoPoint
CrystalBay BohnsPoint
SmithBay
LakeMinnetonka
BrownsBay
BrackettsPoint
FrenchMarsh
KatrinaLake
DutchLake
LangdonLake LongLa k e CreekM inne h ahaCreek
Pai
n
t
e
r
C
r
e
e
k
M in n e h a h a C r eek
Paint er C reekGVWX15
GVWX16
GVWX15
GVWX112
GVWX84
GVWX135
GVWX101
GVWX110
GVWX146
GVWX125
GVWX5
GVWX151GVWX19
GVWX6
GVWX19 GVWX101
GVWX6
GVWX51
%&'(394
%&'(494
)*12
)*12
?@A@7
ST26
ST201
M inne t o n kaD r
Minnetonka Blvd
WoodhillRoadT hreePointsB lvd
Lake St Extension
Orcha rd Roa d
Highland Ave
LynwoodBl vd
P eaveyRoad6 t h Ave N
Ferndale Road NCounty Road 19 NStar
keyRoadRutledge Road 22 ndAve N
Commerce BlvdHighway 12 E6thAveN
TonkawoodRoadCountyRoad101Interstate 494Highw oo d D r
N
Arm
Dr
Williston RoadAzure RoadBrownRoadNShorelineDr
Ferndale Road W
19th Ave N
Man o rR o a d
O
akla
n
d
RoadFerndaleRoadSInterstate394
Highway 7
8th Ave N
NShore Dr
StoneRoad
Rice St E
W
atertownRoad G l e a so n L a k e D rCarlsonPkwyN21 s t A v e N
3rdAve N
Wayzata Bl vd EWillow Dr NBayside Road
W a y zata
B
lv
d
W
Ke lley P k w y
Lakeview AveCounty Road 151
Grays B ayB lvdRanchview Ln NLake Ave
Daniels St
Ma
pl
ewood
RoadLakeStE
Pkwy4th Ave N
Av onDrD e v on Dr
P ar k Ave
S Ln
OrchardLn
S
h
or
e
w
ood
L
n
SteeleStPark St E
Grand Ave
N o r t h e r n A ve
Vine StDove Ln2 0 th Ave N
County Road 839thA v e NRidge
v
i
e
wDr
EOld Crystal Bay Road NFox St
OldLongL ake
R
o
a
dMinnehaha PlDay PlHeritageLnRainbowDrLyricAve
W Branch Road Ringer R oa dHunter DrWayzata Blvd
Spring HillR oadTemp le Dr
Arco l a LnCountyRoad15Crow n DrEastwoodRoad5thAveNChimoWWildhurstTrl
Moline Road Tamarack DrWayza
t
a
B
l
v
d
W
To go Roa d
W Arm Dr
Regent s W
a
lkGaleRoadPea vey Ln
C y gnetPlDrake Dr
Turner Road
Linwood RoadKelly
Ave
McGintyRoadW
M
an
it
o
u
R
oadWilshireBlvd
CountyRoad101ShadywoodRoad
G leasonLakeRoadCrosbyRoadHarborLnNBa rtlettBlvdHighland RoadCounty Road 19Old Crystal Bay Road SVineHillRoadCanterbu r yDrDonald
Dr LinnerRoadDunkirk Ln NW
illo
wDrSLeaf StHoldridg e Dr
To
n
k
a
w
a
Ro
a
dMcCulleyRoadCo
unty
Road1
10N
Victoria StBrownRoadSI slan dViewDrEastmanLn Niagara Ln NEd g e w ater
Dr Vicksburg Ln NWPointRoadLafa y ette RoadBushawayRoadWoodhillR oadLakeview
Pkwy
Leroy StStubbs Bay Road NSussex DrTroy
L
n
N
Hi
l
lside D rW18thA v e N
2
1
34
5
6 7 8
9
10
111213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
222324
2526
27 28
29
30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
A B
CD
E
FG
HI
1A
Map Document: \\Arcserver1\GIS\ORNO\C13114814\ESRI\Maps\LandUse\ORNO_4E-B_LakeAccessPoints_11x17L.mxd | Date Saved: 11/9/2018 3:27:44 PM2040 Comprehensive PlanOrono, MN November 2018Lake Access Points
Legend
City Limits
2040 MUSA
Lakes & Ponds
Rivers & Streams
0 3,500FeetSource: Met. Council, City of Orono, Hennepin County, MnDOT
!I Lake Access Points
#*Lake AccessPoints
Map 4E-2
From:Walter Moe
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Nov.20 agenda item
Date:Monday, November 6, 2023 9:43:27 AM
Dear Melanie,
Re: LA23-000045 vacation of right-of-way.
We have lived here on Spruce Place for over 50 years, and we support the vacation as
requested.
Let us know if we can be more helpful, and share this opinion with other council members.
(We are unable to attend the meeting, Nov. 20)
Nancy and Wyatt Moe
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Adam Edwards
Melanie Curtis
Katie Fitzsimmons; Josh Lemons; Brent Weldon; DJ Goman
RE: LA23-000045 / 1250 + 1260 Spruce Place / Vacation
Wednesday, October 18, 2023 11:04:33 AM
Melanie,
Engineer Comment: I do not recommend vacating the right of way. Although heavily encroached,
the site serves as a draining way for the area. The site has also been identified as a possible future
public accessway to the lake. Areas that provide a public purpose should not be vacated.
Adam
From: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@oronomn.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:26 AM
To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@oronomn.gov>
Cc: Katie Fitzsimmons <kfitzsimmons@oronomn.gov>; Josh Lemons <jlemons@oronomn.gov>
Subject: LA23-000045 / 1250 + 1260 Spruce Place / Vacation
Adam
The applicant has requested vacation of the “Lake Street” right-of-way. Please review and provide comment on
the attached survey and other information. The public hearing will be held at the planning commission meeting on
November 20th. Please provide comment by or before November 1st.
Thank you,
Melanie
Melanie Curtis, Planner
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Website: www.oronomn.gov
Email: mcurtis@oronomn.gov
Direct 952.249.4627
Planning & Zoning Department 952.249.4620
38 07-117-23 14 0068
DAVID OTTO & SARA OTTO
1185 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0006
SUZANNE M PELTIER HINRICHS
1205 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0007
JEFFREY D UDELL
1225 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0008
DANIEL J RUEGEMER
1295 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0050
SAMUEL GORDON & ALYSSA WOOD
1370 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0051
CLAYTON R FUCHS
1305 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0052
CHARLES PATRICK RIPLEY
JESSICA LYNN RIPLEY
1376 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0053
MICHAEL DABU
ANGELA DABU
1374 NORTH ARM DR
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0076
KENNETH L & LINDA S HOFFMANN
1254 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0077
KENNETH L & LINDA S HOFFMANN
1254 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0078
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 07-117-23 41 0087
CAROLYN UDELL
1210 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0089
DANIEL DAHLIN
CAROLYN DAHLIN
1290 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0091
W WYATT & NANCY S MOE
1230 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0092
W WYATT MOE
1230 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 07-117-23 41 0093
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 08-117-23 23 0003
JEREMY RICHARD MITCHELL
1190 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 23 0027
CAROLYN E UDELL
2635 KELLEY PKWY
UNIT# 139
LONG LAKE MN 55356
38 08-117-23 32 0007
JENNIFER LINDER
1240 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0008
JAMES B & MELISSA J EASLEY
1250 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0012
ELLETTE A ANDERSON
1260 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0013
SCOTT G YOUNGSTRAND
HEATHER YOUNGSTRAND
1270 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0016
MICHAEL WILLIAMS
KATHLEEN SCARLETT
1300 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0017
ROSS N RIFKIN
CHRISTINE E Z RIFKIN
1310 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0018
PHILLIP CASEY & LESLEE CASEY
1318 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
38 08-117-23 32 0027
JOHN C RYAN
1280 SPRUCE PL
MOUND MN 55364
He nn epin Co u n ty L oc ate & N o tify Map
125 0 & 12 60 Spr uc e Place
0 100 20050 Feet
Da te : 8/1 5/20 23
Buffer Size:500Map Co mm e nts :
Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no represen ta tion as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is fu rn ish ed with n o warra nty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineerin g or surve yingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not b e liab le for a ny da ma ge , in ju ryor loss resu lting from this dat a.
Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hen ne pin Co un ty GI S Off ice300 6th S tree t So uth , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / gis.in fo@h en ne pin.us
Item #1 - LA23-000045 (1250 + 1260 Spruce PI)
Neighbor Comments + DNR comments
From: John Ryan
To: Melanie Curtis
Subject: The property that is before you south y neighbors Elle and Rob anderson
Date: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:34:23 PM
I'd like to give my full approval for the vacation of the an They are excellent neighbors and
take very good care of the property and shore.
Thanks Ms Curtis for your kind consideration.
Regards
John Ryan
1280 spruce place
Orono
Get Outlook for iOS
Il . 2v . 23 pc, t� I
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Office of the Regional Director
DNR Central Region Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
November 173 2023
Melanie Curtis, Planner
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Re: Street Vacation right of way between and adjacent to 1250 Spruce Place, 1260 Spruce Place and North Arm
Lake
Dear Ms. Curtis,
Thank you for your letter to Commissioner Strommen regarding this proposed road vacation. Your letter was forwarded to
me for review and comment, as required by M.S. 412.851.
M.S. 412.851 indicates, "No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so." In response
'The commissioner must evaluate:
(1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so;
(2) the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters; and
(3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources."
Our charge is to evaluate the proposed vacation using M.S. 412.851 criteria. With these criteria in mind, the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) concludes that the proposed vacation does not clearly state how the vacation is to the public
benefit. Lake access is vital to community as future land use and population growth can cause a scarcity of these
necessary amenities. The DNR is not in favor of the vacation and would encourage the city to preserve public access to
the lake.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed vacation. DNR does not plan to attend the public hearing.
Please send us the results of the hearing and the city's final decision on this road vacation.
If you have any questions or concerns about this letter, please contact Nancy Spooner -Walsh, Acquisition and
Development Specialist with DNR Parks &Trails, at nancy.spooner-walsh@state.mn.us. You may contact her by phone at
651-259-5874. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Grant L. Wilson
Central Region Director
cc: Nancy Spooner -Walsh, Division of Parl<s and Trails
David Olsen, Division of Parks and Trails
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources •Central Region 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106
Ielll Awne 473.7357
�1.2b.23 q(W0 40
;
(CITY of ORONO
1'ue4t ()ffice liox f 60Crystnl I;:,y, Minnesota 553236 Municipal (.)fficce
On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka
August 9, 1979
Mr.. Ronald Gartner
1254 Loma Linda Avenue
P4ound, Minnesota 55364
Dear Mr. Gartner:
In response to your request asking
private dock on public property or
the City of Orono install a publ:i c
public street located between 1250
the following information:
i.f you could install your
if this is not allowed, would
dock on the platted undeveloped
and 1260 Spruce Place, I offer
The public street that provides access to North Arm is 40 feet in
width. It is public property and cannot be used for construction
or maintenance of private docks.
In considering your request to construct a public dock at this
location, we have reviewed the history of the area and the site
to determine the rationale for a City dock at this location.
The past history reveals that a public dock has not been utilized
at this location because of the natural grade to the lake, where
persons could walk to without undue hardship.
I understand from the neighbors in the area that individuals have
installed their own docks at this location, which is not permissible
because of the liability to the City.
Because of the gradual slope to the lake and the natural shoreline,
the construction of a City dock would only encourage storage of
boats or other private property that is not allowed at 'these locationse
Since the area is not maintained as a street to the lake, a dock
would only encourage excessive use in an area that is not prepared
for any other uses except to allow foot traffic to the lake.
There are locations that are prepared for dock construction, one
which is located approximately three blocks from your residence,
which is a gravelled lake access to North Arm on Loma Linda Avenue.
s
tir. Ronald Gantner
August 9, 1.979
Page 2
To conclude, I am recommending to the City Council that the area
be left in its natural ,state and not be used as a public
launching site for boats or other recreational purposes because
of inability of the City to maintain, regulate or provide adequate
public parking facilities in the area.
Please feel free to call me if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
;
Waite
City
."�enson
inistrator
cc:/ City Council
T.,,.--'-s Coordinator
ace
Place
Date Application Received: 10/13/2023
Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/30/2023
60-Day Review Period Expires: 12/29/2023
To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Natalie Nye, Planner
Date: November 20, 2023
Subject: #LA23-000060, Brian Benson, 3600 Casco Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home on the property and construct a new home in a
similar location. The subject property is uniquely shaped with an extreme average lakeshore setback that
does not allow a reasonable building envelope. The existing home on the property is entirely forward of
the average lakeshore setback line. The property also contains a wide easement and 355-foot-long
driveway that restrict the sites overall building envelope and hardcover. The applicant is requesting
variances from average lakeshore setback and to exceed the hardcover maximum of 25% in order to
construct a new home.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the property’s unique flag shape and
position on a point as practical difficulties. The unique shape of the lot creates a very long driveway that
comprises a large percentage of the overall hardcover on the site. The driveway is 355 feet in length and
over 15% of the overall hardcover for the site. The orientation of the property in relation to the neighbors
is also unique and creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line. There is also a wide utility easement
along the southern portion of the property that further restricts the building envelope.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment. The property is a
unique shape and does not have a reasonable building envelope due to an extreme average lakeshore
setback. Due to the placement of the neighboring homes, building in front of the average lakeshore
setback line would not impact their views of the lake. The neighbor to the north does not currently have a
view of the lake due to their reverse flag shaped lot and the neighbor to the south enjoys a view of the
inlet bay which is not impacted by the subject property’s home. Development on the lot is further
suppressed by the long driveway and utility easement. The long driveway on the property comprises
about 15% of the hardcover on the site when a maximum of 25% is permitted. Part of this driveway is
used by a neighbor to access their property. The proposed hardcover for the site is 30%, which is a
reduction from the current 34% on the site. If the property had a standard driveway length, the property
would be in compliance with hardcover. Please find the hardcover analysis found in Exhibit H. Staff finds
the variance requests to be reasonable and in character with the neighborhood, as the current home on
the site is in a similar location.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances from average lakeshore setback and hardcover
for the construction of a new home.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE #LA23-000060
November 20, 2023
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 & 78-1279 – Setbacks:
LR-1C District Required Existing Proposed
Rear (Street) 30’ 300+’ 300+’
North Side 10’ 36’ 22.3’
South Side 10’ 11.4’ 10.3’
Lakeshore 75’ 101.8’ 98.8’
Average Lakeshore Not Compliant Not Compliant
Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C District Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 33,719 s.f. (0.77 acre) 137’ @ 75’ / 112’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
33,719 s.f. (0.77 acre) Allowed: 6,743.8 s.f.
Existing: 3,311 s.f.
Proposed: 4,693 s.f.
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 33,719 s.f. 8,429.75 s.f.
(25%)
11,482 s.f.
(34.05%)
10,011 s.f.
(29.69%)
Applicable Regulations:
Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Section 78-1279)
The property is subject to an extreme average lakeshore setback. The current home on the property is
completely in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant is proposing to demolish the
existing home and accessory garage and construct a new home. The new home will also be fully within the
average lakeshore setback as it will be in a similar location. The existing home is approximately 101.8 feet
from the OHWL. The proposed home will be slightly closer being 98.8’ from the OHWL at its closest point.
The existing and proposed structure will meet the minimum 75-foot lake setback that is in place to protect
the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. Due to the orientation and positioning of the neighboring homes,
the proposed home will not impact any currently enjoyed lake views.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1680)
The existing hardcover on the property is approximately 34% of the total area which is over the Tier 1
maximum of 25%. While the size of the property is conforming in size, the unique shape requires the need
for a long driveway. The driveway is about 355 feet in length and therefore about 15% of the total
hardcover. The driveway is needed to access the property and is also used by a neighboring property. The
proposal will reduce the hardcover from 34% to 30%, but will still require a variance to exceed 25%. The
applicant could also consider the use of some permeable pavers in order to offset the increase in
hardcover needed for the driveway.
FILE #LA23-000060
November 20, 2023
Page 3 of 5
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed
variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal
provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend
approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical
difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy
systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any
use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a
two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Due to the
placement of the neighboring lots and homes there is an extreme average lakeshore setback
that eliminates a reasonable building envelope. The neighboring lake views that are currently
enjoyed should not be impacted by a new home built in a similar location. The uniquely shaped
lot has a very long driveway that greatly impacts the overall hardcover on the site. If the lot had
a standard driveway length, a hardcover variance would not be required. The proposed project
is also impacted by a wide utility easement. The proposed home will meet the 75-foot lake
setback and be in harmony with the neighboring homes. The construction of a new home is in
harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance due to the practical difficulties present. This
criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a new single-
family home is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has identified the
necessary practical difficulties inherent to the land supporting their requests. The proposal will
reduce the overall hardcover on the site which is consistent with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the official controls; The construction of a new single-family home is a reasonable use
of the property. The proposed home will be located in a similar location to the existing
home on the property. This criterion is met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The
unique lot shape and orientation of the neighboring homes creating an extreme average
lakeshore setback are not the result of the current property owner’s actions; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variances
resulting in the construction of a new home are supported by practical difficulties and
will not alter the character of the area. This criterion is met.
FILE #LA23-000060
November 20, 2023
Page 4 of 5
Additionally, City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as
follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations
have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in
Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This
condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono
City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This
condition is not applicable, as a residential home is a permitted use in the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a
two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property
or immediately adjoining property. The unique lot shape, location of the existing utility
easement, and the position of the neighboring homes are unique conditions to this specific
property. This criterion is met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is
located. The unique shape of the lot and existing conditions do not apply to other land or
structures in the neighborhood or district. This criterion is met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. The existing home is in a nonconforming location. The proposal
will maintain a similar lake setback. The application proposes to decrease the total hardcover on
the site, bringing it closer to compliance. Granting the average lakeshore setback and hardcover
variances allows the property owner to build a new home in a similar location utilizing the
existing conditions of the long driveway. This criterion is met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,
or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances
will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals of the community. The proposed
home will not impact any currently enjoyed views of the lake by neighboring properties. This
criterion is met.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances allow for the construction of a new
home in a similar location to the existing home, while improving the overall hardcover on the
site from 34% to 30% total hardcover. There is no reasonable building envelope on the site and
therefore the variances are needed in order to rebuild in a similar location to that of the existing
home. This criterion is met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any
conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact
created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter
FILE #LA23-000060
November 20, 2023
Page 5 of 5
in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
The applicant has provided neighbor support letters from both the neighbor to the north (3630 Casco
Avenue) and the neighbor to the south (2914 Casco Cove) found in Exhibit I.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property
in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the variance requests for average lakeshore setback and hardcover as
applied.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form
Exhibit C. Narrative
Exhibit D. Existing Survey
Exhibit E. Proposed Survey
Exhibit F. Overlay
Exhibit G. Plans
Exhibit H. Hardcover Information
Exhibit I. Neighbor Support Letters
Exhibit J. Site Photos
Exhibit K. Mailing List & Map
10/24/23, 2:08 PM Letter View
file:///C:/Users/mcurtis/Downloads/Land Use Application Summary.htm 1/1
Land Use Application Summary
Application Date:10/18/2023
Address:3600 Casco Avenue
Orono, MN 55391
Parcel Number:2011723310042
Land Use Number:LA23-000060
Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner
Owner:Name: JON DUK KIM & YOUNG HYI AN
Address: NIH Homes -
Applicant:Name: Brian Benson
Company: B Benson Group
Address: 401 E Lake St
Wayzata, MN 55391
brian.benson@compass.com
Contact Information:Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Project Description:Variance Request for ALS line and Hardcover
Land Use Application Type:Amendmend Application
Appeal of Admin Decision
Concept Application
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Application
Subdivision Application
Subdivision Exception
Vacation Application
Variance Application
Applicant Signature:
10/24/23, 2:08 PM Permit List | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=87837524&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/2
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
LA23-000060
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the Zoning Chapter.
Response: Proposal meets existing zoning code for residential single family use. .
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
Response: Correct. Please see Narrative for a detailed description of this uniquely shaped site, point-
like lakeshore location and a wide sewer easement.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Response: Correct. Our proposed house is a one and half story design that will not create massing,
blends in well with the surrounding housing stock and has a classic timeless cottage style.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.
Response: Our variance requests are related to practical difficulties with the site.
5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Response: N/A
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any
use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located.
Response: Submitted plan is for single family residence meeting existing zoning.
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
Response: N/A
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.
Response: Yes. See narrative.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
said land is located.
Response: Correct. This is a unique site with the 355’ narrow driveway requiring a higher hardcover
10/24/23, 2:08 PM Permit List | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=87837524&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 2/2
percentage and a site where the ALS ordinance does not work. The 20' sewer easement is also
unique.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Response: We cannot build a new home without the ALS and hardcover variances. The proposed
new home will make the site more in compliance with hardcover. The existing home is dangerous after
decades of neglect and needs to be torn down.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
Response: Correct.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.
Response: The site is not buildable without these variances.
Justification for Variance Requests
3600 Casco Ave
Unique Lot Configuration - Lakeshore Point Setting - Wide Utility Easement
10/18/2023
To Orono City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council,
I am writing to provide a comprehensive rationale for the variance requests pertaining to a proposed new
home located at 3600 Casco Ave. Our team is requesting variances for the Average Lakeshore Setback
(ALS) line and the hardcover allowance. The unique lot configuration, lakeshore point setting and a wide
utility easement are practical difficulties necessitating these variance requests. The following points
outline the substantive reasons behind our requests.
Average Lakeshore Setback Line & Utility Easement:
The ALS line ordinance does not allow a new home or even the existing home to be build without a
variance. In fact the ALS line setback and the utility easement would only allow for approximately 500
square feet of total buildable area. Please review to the aerial exhibit that shows the ALS line and the
utility easement line in white.
The adjacent property to the north at 3630 Casco Ave has a unique lot configuration where the buildable
area is a long distance from the lake. This house is setback 250 feet from the water and the site has a 20’
strip of land that goes to the shoreline. This house does not have a view of the lake currently and the
owner supports the variance request.
The shoreline for adjacent property on the southern side at 2914 Casco Point Road comes into the inlet
and makes the ALS line logic invalid for this shoreline section. This neighboring home has views towards
the inlet and Carmans Bay looking southeast and not towards the subject property. This owner also
supports the variance request.
Our proposed house placement also needed to accommodate a unique wide utility line easement that
comes 20’ onto the property along most of the southern and southeastern property lines. This is double
the normal side setback requirement. The proposed house plan location does not impact this utility
easement.
The proposed new house location is very close in proximity to the existing house and deck. We did push
the new house farther away from the close neighboring house to the south and slightly closer to the lake
to accommodate the wide utility easement. The closest lake location for the proposed home is 92’
however this distance is more like 96’ due to a small shoreline inlet notch measuring 4-5’ which lowers the
distance.
The proposed house placement is well beyond the 75’ typical setback. Moreover, our proposed house is a
one and half story design that will not create massing, blends in well with the surrounding housing stock
and has a classic timeless cottage style.
Please refer to colorized survey exhibit that shows the existing home, proposed home and the utility
easement. There is clearly a practical difficulty for granting an ALS line variance for 3600 Casco.
Hardcover:
This property has a unique long narrow driveway that measures approximately 355’ and requires
significant hardcover versus a typical driveway entrance. The current hardcover on this subject property is
34% reflecting this driveway and overages in the buildable area as well.
To accommodate this long driveway, we are requesting a variance for 30% hardcover, which equates to a
substantial 9% reduction from the existing hardcover. If this site had a normal driveway configuration our
proposed hardcover would be lower than 25% and not require a variance. This would assume to the
property started just beyond the long driveway.
Worth noting, the adjacent property at 3630 Casco Ave utilizes approximately 121’ of the subject’s
driveway length to access their property.
The long and narrow driveway creates a practical difficulty to meet the 25% hardcover allowance. Our
plan significantly reduces the existing hardcover but still needs some hardcover accommodation. There is
clearly a practical difficulty for granting a hardcover variance for 30%.
Summary:
In summary, we firmly believe that our variance requests are both necessary and reasonable, given the
practical impediments posed by a unique lot configuration, a point-like lakeshore setting, and a
substantial utility easement. We respectfully request that the city weigh these compelling factors in favor
of our proposal and grant the required variances.
We express our gratitude for your valuable time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brian Benson
Realtor
Compass
Representative of NIH Homes
Lake MinnetonkaCasco Ave.#LICENSE NO.DATES1JUNE 2, 20223Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comAdvanceSurveying & Engineering, Co.CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSSHEET TITLEEXISTING CONDITIONSSURVEYSHEET NO.SHEET 1 OF 1DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE40200230677 TBDRAWING NUMBERDATE DRAFTED:DATE SURVEYED:MAY 31, 2023JUNE 2, 2023# 42379Thomas M. BloomSHEET SIZE22 X 34SCALE - 1" = 20'LEGENDLEGAL DESCRIPTION:Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVYE NO. 1115, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of ourservices does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legaldescription with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it iscorrect and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have beenshown.2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property.4. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existingeasements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this surveydoes not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon.5. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the sidingand or stucco of the building.6. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. Wehave also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. Theelevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at leastone other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or beforebeginning construction.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.PATTY MORRIS3600 CASCO AVENUEORONO, MN18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 401Deephaven, Minnesota 55391PC Exhibit D
PC Exhibit E
PC Exhibit F
0712 OCTOBER 20233600 CASCO AVEORONO, MNOFDRAWING DESCRIPTION:ISSUE DATE:PREVIOUS ISSUE DATES:COVER PAGEA-1
01
3 6 0 0 C A S C O AVE
O R O N O ~ M I N N E S O T A
0712 OCTOBER 20233600 CASCO AVEORONO, MNOFDRAWING DESCRIPTION:ISSUE DATE:PREVIOUS ISSUE DATES:ELEVATIONSA-2
02
A-2
2
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
RIGHT ELEVATION 12'-1 7/8"10'-1 1/8"8'-0"8'-0"9'-1 1/8"TOP OF
PLATE
UPPER LEVEL
SUBFLOOR
MAIN LEVEL
SUBFLOOR
945.65'
TOP OF
PLATE
3.15'HIGHEST
existing
GRADE
942.5'
A-2
1
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FRONT ELEVATION EQUALEQUAL3.15'MID POINT
OF HIGHEST
GABLE
HIGHEST GABLE
MAIL LEVEL
945.65'
HIGHEST EXISTING
GRADE
942.5'26'-2"
0712 OCTOBER 20233600 CASCO AVEORONO, MNOFDRAWING DESCRIPTION:ISSUE DATE:PREVIOUS ISSUE DATES:ELEVATIONSA-3
03
A-3
2
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
LEFT ELEVATION
A-3
1
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
REAR ELEVATION
0712 OCTOBER 20233600 CASCO AVEORONO, MNOFDRAWING DESCRIPTION:ISSUE DATE:PREVIOUS ISSUE DATES:ELEVATIONSA-4
04
A-4
2
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
GARAGE BACK
A-4
3
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
GARAGE END
A-4
1
Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"
GARAGE FRONT
9#;<#6#/0
'#56.#-'564''6
2JQPG
9#;<#6#/0
'#56.#-'564''6
2JQPG
9#;<#6#/0
'#56.#-'564''6
2JQPG
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address: 3600 Casco Avenue (our survey 230677)
Prepared by: Thomas M. Bloom P.L.S. No. 42379 Date: 10/24/2023
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one)Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER
In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to
accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet)
(Example)(Garage) (24' x 30')(720) S.F.
A House 2,657 S.F.
B Garage 654 S.F.
C Deck East 954 S.F.
D Gravel Drive 3,470 S.F.
E Deck West 176 S.F.
F Pavers 328 S.F.
G Bituminous 3,195 S.F.
H Concrete 227 S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Existing Hardcover 11,661 S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78‐1684)
Ret. Walls 79 S.F.
Deck/Porch Credit 100 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover 179 S.F.
(3) Net Existing Hardcover 11,482 S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area 33,719 S.F.
Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3) / (4)]34.05%
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a licensed professional land surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Thomas M. Bloom
Thomas M. Bloom P.L.S. No. 42379
Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to
accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet)
(Example)(Garage) (24' x 30')(720) S.F.
A House 4,042 S.F.
B Bituminous Driveway 5,127 S.F.
C North Stoop 23 S.F.
D Rear Patios 202 S.F.
E Rear Screen Porch 290 S.F.
F Front Porch 361 S.F.
G Front Walk 66 S.F.
H Retaining Walls 118 S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover 10,229 S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78‐1684)
Retaining Walls 118 S.F.
Permeable Pavers 100 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover 218 S.F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]10,011 S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area 33,719 S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3) / (4)]29.69%
ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO.
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and
that I am a licensed professional land surveyor under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
Thomas M. Bloom
Thomas M. Bloom P.L.S. No. 42379
Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to
accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet)
(Example)(Garage) (24' x 30')(720)S.F.
A House 4,042 S.F.
B Bituminous Driveway 1,596 S.F.
C North Stoop 23 S.F.
D Rear Patios 202 S.F.
E Rear Screen Porch 290 S.F.
F Front Porch 361 S.F.
G Front Walk 66 S.F.
H Retaining Walls 118 S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover 6,698 S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684)
Retaining Walls 118 S.F.
Permeable Pavers 100 S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover 218 S.F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]6,480 S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area minus 20 foot flag portion 26,597 S.F.
Hardcover Analysis - Hardcover Calculations without flag portion of lot
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3) / (4)]24.36%
38 20-117-23 24 0005
CYNTHIA J WUNDERLICH TRUST
FREDERIC D WUNDERLICH TRUST
18080 VIA BELLAMARE LANE
MIROMAR LAKES FL 33913
38 20-117-23 24 0007
RANDALL L ENGELHART
ELIZABETH A ENGELHART
2715 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0008
DONALD J & DAWN R HEBIG
2735 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0010
LANCE L & RHODA L VICKNAIR
2740 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0033
ZIV & TAL LIBERMAN
2690 CAROLINE AVE
ORONO MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0034
JONATHAN MARSHALLA
2696 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0040
CATHERINE R & JOEL W SHOOP
2720 ETHEL AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0041
ROBERT T LUND
2732 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0002
DONALD SCHRADER
3704 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0003
JILL R & WILLIAM H KOCH II
3730 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0004
JOHN F KLICK
3703 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0005
ROBERT PRESLER
3709 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0009
ALISA A MILLER
3753 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0010
PAUL J FUHRMAN
COLLEEN FUHRMAN
3759 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0015
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0016
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0020
PENNY J SAIKI
2874 CASCO POINT RD
ORONO MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0021
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0022
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0023
PENNY J SAIKI
2874 CASCO POINT RD
ORONO MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0026
STEVEN G SIGAFOOS
2900 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0027
CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0028
ANGELA L WILSON
2910 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0031
BENJAMIN M MAYER
MEGHAN J HERMANN
2914 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0032
MARY STEPHANIE POWELL
2916 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0033
DENISE B DAU
JAMES N DAU III
2920 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0034
JONATHAN A MENTH
2930 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0035
ROBERT G SORENSEN
STACI D SORENSEN
2940 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0036
PAUL F JOHNCOX
2948 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0039
DONALD SCHRADER
3704 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0040
JAMES W & PATRICIA DONGOSKE
3700 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0041
PETER M GRAFFUNDER
3630 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0042
JON DUK KIM & YOUNG HYI AN
4700 COVEY TR
MEDINA MN 55340
38 20-117-23 31 0043
SUSAN C STIELOW HOME LLC
3660 FORT CHARLES DR
NAPLES FL 34102
38 20-117-23 31 0047
MICHELLE WILLIAMS-ABBOTT TR
2941 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0048
NANCY G BROWN
2933 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0049
DON ADAMS & SHEILA ADAMS
2927 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0050
JENNIFER L BREKKEN
2925 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0051
ALYSSA DWYER & ERIC BIERMANN
2915 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0052
ERIK C MELIN
BETHANY H MELIN
2905 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0053
GREGGORY A SMITH
MELANIE S SMITH
2895 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0054
LAWRENCE D & KATHERINE ELSEN
2879 CASCO POINT ROAD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0055
ALYSSA DWYER & ERIC BIERMANN
2917 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0056
R E WOLFE
2871 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0058
D R WELTY & M M JIN
3721 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0062
DAVID HEISER
JENNIFER ANN HEISER
2740 CAROLINE AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0063
DENNIS-OARE TRUST
MICHELE WILLIAMS-ABBOTT TRU
2967 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0065
THE CITY OF ORONO
P O BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 31 0067
DAVID B ADAMS
2868 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0071
MARTI LYNN
STEVEN ROBERT GOUDY
3750 CASCO AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0072
MICHAEL D BARRETT
2912 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 31 0073
DANIEL CLEMENT PALMER
CHELSEA TAYLOR PALMER
2918 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 42 0005
CITY OF ORONO
PO BOX 66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323
38 20-117-23 42 0006
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
NOT FOR SALE/UNDER WATER IN
LAKE MTKA
38 20-117-23 42 0038
PAUL J TAUNTON
3600 IVY PL
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 42 0040
RUSSELL KOCON
JACQUELINE GIBNEY
3570 IVY PL
ORONO MN 55391
He nn epin Co u n ty L oc ate & N o tify Map
360 0 C a sco Avenu e
0 200 400100 Feet
Da te : 10 /18/2 023
Buffer Size:500Map Co mm e nts :
Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no represen ta tion as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is fu rn ish ed with n o warra nty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineerin g or surve yingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not b e liab le for a ny da ma ge , in ju ryor loss resu lting from this dat a.
Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hen ne pin Co un ty GI S Off ice300 6th S tree t So uth , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / gis.in fo@h en ne pin.us
Date Application Received: 10/18/2023
Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/26/2023
60-Day Review Period Expires: 12/25/2023
To: Chair Bolis and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Natalie Nye, Planner
Date: November 20, 2023
Subject: #LA23-000061, Amy Eakman with Outdoor Excapes o/b/o Jereme & Stephanie
Tom, 2601 Casco Point Road - Variance, Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is proposing to construct a new lake stair and retaining walls within the lakeyard.
The property is currently experiencing erosion on the hillside that is impacting an existing
lakeside shed and oak tree. The property currently has some boulders that are no longer
preserving the hillside. The proposed design will protect the structural integrity of the shed and
preserve a mature oak tree within the lakeyard. While new lake stairs are permitted within the
lakeyard, a variance is required for any new retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the erosion of the hillside and
protection of the existing shed and mature tree as practical difficulties supporting the requested
variance. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical
Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the
application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds the existing conditions of the property and
the preservation of the existing structure and tree as practical difficulties which support the
variance request. The new retaining walls would support and protect the existing tree and
existing shed on the property. Vegetative screening of the walls should be installed where
possible.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-1279 – Setbacks:
No retaining walls are permitted within the 75-foot lakeshore setback and therefore a setback
variance is required. The proposed retaining walls are 28 feet and 50 feet from the OHWL.
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Retaining walls are excluded from the hardcover calculations. The property is compliant with the
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a 75-foot lake setback variance for the
construction of new retaining walls within the lakeyard.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE #LA23-000061
November 20, 2023
Page 2 of 4
maximum hardcover requirement of 25%.
Applicable Regulations:
Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279)
Retaining walls are not permitted within 75 feet of the lake, in order to construct two new
retaining walls to replace the existing boulders, a setback variance has been requested.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
Preserving and protecting existing trees in the lake yard is in harmony with the intent
of the ordinance. The requested variance will preserve a hillside from erosion and
protect an existing mature oak tree. This criterion is met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed retaining walls
will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect the existing tree and
shed. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The owner proposes to install two new
retaining walls which are residential in nature and reasonable from a
residential scope.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The applicant has proposed retaining walls to protect the existing tree and
existing shed on the property. There are existing boulders on the property that
are no longer preserving the hillside. The proposed walls will support a new
lake stair and preserve the integrity of an existing shed and mature tree. The
current erosion of the hillside is not the result of actions by the owner; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance
to permit two new retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback will
preserve an existing tree and existing structure on the property. This will
preserve the character of the area. This criterion is met.
FILE #LA23-000061
November 20, 2023
Page 3 of 4
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono
City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are
permitted to support a residential use in the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The erosion of the hillside and the existing
conditions of the property are unique conditions affecting the subject property. This
criterion is met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The issue of erosion on the hillside on the subject property does
not apply to any adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a setback variance to allow the
retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback to support a new lake stair and
preserve a mature oak tree and existing shed is a reasonable solution. The variance is
supported by practical difficulty. This criterion is met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
lake yard setback variance allowing new retaining walls within the 75-foot lake
setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be
contrary to the ordinances. This criterion is met.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed walls within the lake
yard will continue to preserve the integrity of the slope, existing tree, and existing
shed. Preserving the existing conditions of the property are not a convenience. This
criterion is met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
The applicant has provided two letters from the adjacent neighbors in support of the variance
request.
FILE #LA23-000061
November 20, 2023
Page 4 of 4
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the lake setback variance for the construction of two new
retaining walls as proposed with the following condition:
1. Additional screening of the walls be implemented to preserve the natural
vegetated view from the lake where feasible.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Narrative
Exhibit D. Plans
Exhibit E. Renderings
Exhibit F. Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Existing Survey
Exhibit H. Site Photos
Exhibit I. Neighbor Support Letters
Exhibit J. Address List & Map
10/30/23, 10:20 AM Permit Details | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=13924536&WorkOrder_ID=877…1/1
Land Use Application Summary
Application Date:10/18/2023
Address:2601 Casco Point Road
Orono, MN 55391
Parcel Number:2011723240036
Land Use Number:LA23-000061
Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner
Owner:Name: BRUCE J HEDBLOM AND
Address: - Jereme & Stephanie Tom
Applicant:Name: Amy Eakman
Company: Outdoor Excapes of Lake Minnetonka
Address: 2345 Daniels Street
Long Lake, MN 55356
aeakman@outdoorexcapes.com
Contact Information:Associated Contact: Jereme & Stephanie Tom
jereme.tom@gmail.com
Associated Contact: Hans Frees
hfrees@outdoorexcapes.com
Associated Contact:
Associated Contact:
Project Description:Retaining walls under 4' and steps to the Lake; within the 75' setback
Land Use Application Type:Amendmend Application
Appeal of Admin Decision
Concept Application
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Application
Subdivision Application
Subdivision Exception
Vacation Application
Variance Application
Applicant Signature:
10/30/23, 10:21 AM Permit Details | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=13924536&WorkOrder_ID=877…1/2
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
LA23-000061
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the Zoning Chapter.
Response: The request to permit residential improvements on the narrow lot within the lake setback
appears to be reasonable considering the Property's small size and the neighboring support. The
neighboring property owners have indicated similar hardships and agree they are in support and will
not be adversely affected.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
Response: The unique step grade change between the existing structure and the large tree
significantly impacts the lakeshore access. The conditions were not created by the owners.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Response: The variance is requested in order to permit modifications to the improvements on the
Property which are designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and improve neighbor's views.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.
Response: Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Response: This condition is not applicable.
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any
use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
person's land is located.
Response: This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed use in the LR-
1A District.
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
Response: This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.
Response: The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated on
smaller parcel lots resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the 75’ lakeshore
10/30/23, 10:21 AM Permit Details | Citizenserve
https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=13924536&WorkOrder_ID=877…2/2
setback. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
said land is located.
Response: The home on the Property and the neighboring homes are mostly in line and situated on
smaller parcel lots resulting in a narrow area for improvements conforming to the 75’ lakeshore
setback. This condition applies to the immediately adjacent properties. This criterion is met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Response: The variance supporting changes to the structures and hardcover within the lake setback
area support the use of the Property and are necessary for the preservation of the property rights of
the owners. The 75' lake setback variance improves the accessibility of the lot and results in a
reduction in hardcover from the existing condition.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
Response: Granting the requested variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of
the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.
Response: The variance does not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant. The variance is
necessary as the Property has considerable practical difficulties impacting access and erosion
concerns.
Narrative:
Subject: Request for Variance for Landscaping Steps and Retaining Walls within Lakeside 75' Setback
Dear Members of the Orono City Council,
We are writing to formally request a variance to install landscaping steps and retaining walls within the
75' lakeside setback of the property of Jereme and Stephanie Tom at 2601 Casco Point Road. Our
request is driven by the need to address an issue related to hillside erosion, which is negatively
impacting their lakeside shed and a significant oak tree on their property.
The hardship they are experiencing is two-fold:
Lakeside Shed Erosion: The existing hillside erosion has led to a buildup of soil around the lakeside shed,
causing damage to its structure. The soil accumulation has resulted in rotting wood and damaged siding,
compromising the safety and integrity of the shed. Installing a retaining wall will help mitigate further
soil accumulation and erosion, thus safeguarding the lakeside shed from further deterioration.
Preservation of Oak Tree: They have a mature oak tree on the hillside of their property that is not only
an important aesthetic feature but also contributes to the ecological balance of the area. However, the
ongoing erosion has begun to expose the tree's root structure, jeopardizing its health and longevity. To
preserve the oak tree and its root system, we’re proposing to install a retaining wall to stabilize the soil
and prevent further erosion.
In granting us a variance for the installation of landscaping steps and retaining walls within the lakeside
setback, we are committed to ensuring that the project complies with all necessary environmental and
safety regulations. We will employ the best practices to minimize any potential adverse impact on the
surrounding environment and the lake.
We kindly request your consideration of our request and your understanding of the critical nature of
these issues. Granting this variance will not only help us address the immediate concerns related to the
lake hillside but also contribute to the long-term preservation of the natural beauty of the area.
We appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome any site visits or additional information you
may require to assess our request thoroughly. We look forward to your favorable decision and would be
happy to attend any relevant hearings or meetings to discuss our request in more detail.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Outdoor Excapes of Lake Minnetonka on behalf of Jereme and Stephanie Tom
BC#653834
House 2,862
Driveway 880
Concrete walk/pad 199
Porch 169
Deck 238
Shed 83
Stone Retaining wall 143
4,574 sq ft
4,574
18,317
24.9700
2601 Casco Point Road
Demarc Land Surveying 08/04/2023
Last Updated: January 2023
Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained
herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail.
Page 9 of 9
City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by: Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan
or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as
well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately
depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter
which are within the 75-foot setback or split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage
separately for each portion.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total
(Square Feet)
(Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.)
A S.F.
B S.F.
C S.F.
D S.F.
E S.F.
F S.F.
G S.F.
H S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] %
931.9936.7949.0PowerPole948.5SSanitary Manholerim=948.24Catch Basinrim=947.91Catch Basinrim=948.06948.3948.4PowerPole948.8Ttped950.7949.8949.1948.9948.3948.2947.3947.4952.1952.4953.1951.0950.3GuyAnchorPowerPole951.9953.4944.8944.3947.9947.1945.9944.7943.5940.5943.1940.5937.9937.8942.8943.8940.9939.6938.1937.8940.6937.3936.1934.7936.0936.2938.8943.1929.1929.4929.4929.1933.4945.4946.3943.3943.3941.5941.0941.4932.7932.4932.5932.7931.9elec929.0929.4930.1929.4929.1Water Elevation929.07929.1929.4930.3931.5929.4929.1929.1929.4929.4929.113.1
53.519.3
P o r c h10.08.210.08.2
D e c kN 16°36'36" E 51.46S u r v e y - l i n e
2.9
30.92.4 S 89°28'34" E 252.49N 79°13'00" W 233.54109.028.8
Ca
s
c
o
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d 930936938940944
946952950
94894895095296.412±28±7'6"
15'0"24.10.573.114.5
15.07.5
7.4
35.84.5
24.032.1 9'11 1/4"13'5"12'6 1/2"20.5
8.0
10.07'1"20'7 1/2"946.7944.5944.4944.3944.3944.3944.4944.2943.7942.2944.1950.4950.3950.1GF950.3950.294
9
.
9
949.3949.0948.6948.4949.0948.4948.9948.5948.3948.4949.9950.1949.8949.7949.3949.2948.6949.4949.3949.8950.1950.1951.5951.0950.1949.7949.4949.6949.8950.3950.7951.8952.2951.5952.0950.2950.2950.3950.2950.4950.2950.3949.4950.0950.6949.8950.4950.2950.0950.4950.2950.1950.9951.0950.7950.9950.0951.3951.7951.4950.1950.7950.1949.6950.8950.3944.4944.5944.8948.3948.4948.6949.6950
948948946
Residence No. 2601tw947.9bw945.9S h o r e l i n eHWL = 929.4ShedCant.tw949.0bw944.5S t o n e W a l lC a n t i l e v e rC o n c r e
t
e
O v e r h e a d W i r e sL a k e M i n n e t o n k aRip-Rap Rip-Rap
Abandoned Orono AvenueAdjacent B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
Site Line
To closest
l
a
k
e
s
i
d
e
corner of h
o
u
s
e
C a n t.D e c k
P o r c h
12.2T i m b e r W a l lO v
e
r
h
e
a
d
W
i
r
e
s
S 2
2
°
3
6
'
3
0
"
W
9
8
.
2
4 WALLRETAINEDUNDERDECKDrivewayPlanterD e c k
tnh951.9894.5NE CornerLot 141 SPRING PARKF:\survey\winships sub of Lot 1 spring park 2nd division\2601 casco point road\01 Surveying - 90077\01 CAD\01 Source\02 Final Grade.dwgBasis forbearings isassumedSurveyors Certificatex000.0Denotes Existing ElevationDenotes Surface DrainageDenotes Iron MonumentDenotes Found Iron MonumentDenotes Existing ContoursBenchmark: Top Nut Hydrant on West Side of Casco PointRoad south of Driveway of Residence No. 2617.Elevation = 951.98Drawn BySignedGregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992Scale: 1" = 20'F.B.No.Project No.The only easements shown are from plats of record or informationprovided by client.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor underthe laws of the State of MinnesotarevAddress:7601 73rd Avenue NorthMinneapolis, Minnesota 55428(763) 560-3093DemarcInc.comNOTE: The only easements shown are from plats of recordor information provided by client.CORTLAND CUSTOM HOMESProperty located in Section20, Township 117, Range 23,Hennepin County, Minnesota90077C2601 Casco Point RoadOrono, MNPrepared this 4th day of August 2023.That part of Block 1, and that part of Lots 14, 15, and 16, Block 2, and that part of abandoned Orono Avenue, all in "Winship'sSubdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park, 2nd Division, described as commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 141, Spring Park; thenceNortheasterly along the extension of the Easterly line of said Lot 141 a distance of 94.5 feet to the point of beginning; thenceNorthwesterly, deflecting to the left 101 degrees 13 minutes, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, said line hereinafter referred to as Line"A"; thence Northerly along said shore to the North line of said Block 1; thence East to the point of intersection of the North line of saidLot 14 with a line drawn parallel with and 30 feet Northwesterly from the Northeasterly extension of the Westerly line of Lots 14, 15, 16,and 17, Block 3 "Winship's Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park, 2nd Division; thence southwesterly along said parallel line to itsintersection with the Southeasterly extension of said Line "A"; thence Northwesterly along the extension of said Line "A" to the point ofbeginning. According to the recorded Plat thereof.Legal DescriptionProperty Zoned LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential - 12 AcreBuilding Setback Requirements per Zoning Ordinance Front - 30 feet Side (Interior) - 10 feet Side (Street) - 15 feet Rear - 30 feet OHWL - 75/100/150* Wetland - 25 feet or MCWD Buffer*OHWL setback is determined by the classification of the lake as defined insection 78-1217 and the applied minimum setback from the OHWL asoutlined in section 78-1279.1128-09Final Grade Survey For:ALetters refer to Orono HardcoverWorksheet objects (PROPOSED)HGAEFBDICExisting HardcoverLot Area18,317 sq ftBuilding2,862 sq ftDriveway880 sq ftConc walk/Pad199 sq ftPorch169 sq ftDeck238 sq ftShed83 sq ftStone wall143 sq ftTotal4,574 sq ftPercentage24.97%PC Exhibit G
1
Amy Eakman
From:Stephanie T <stephanie.boudeman@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:01 PM
To:Amy Eakman; Drew Torrence; Hans Frees; Lauren Haugen
Cc:Jereme Tom
Subject:Fwd: Variance approval
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi! Here is an email from one of our neighbors for support of the variance. I’ll forward the email from the other
neighbor as soon as I have it.
Thanks
Stephanie Tom
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rewati Teeparti <rewati.teeparti@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 2:48 PM
Subject: Variance approval
To: <Stephanie.boudeman@gmail.com>
To whom so ever it may concern,
We have reviewed the plans that the Tom’s are requesting the variance for and are in support of the work.
Thanks,
Rewati Teeparti
Sent from my iPhone
1
Amy Eakman
From:Jereme <jereme.tom@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2023 3:57 PM
To:Drew Torrence; Lauren Haugen; Amy Eakman; Hans Frees
Subject:Fwd: Casco Landscaping
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Hi! Here is the email from our other neighbors for support of the variance.
Thanks
Jereme Tom
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jeff & Wendy Dankey <wapaspen@gmail.com>
Date: October 11, 2023 at 3:50:30 PM CDT
To: JEREME.TOM@gmail.com
Subject: Casco Landscaping
To the city of orono,
We, Jeff and Wendy Dankey are good with our neighbor, Jereme Tom, and the addition of two retaining
walls (one behind their boat house and the other in front the tree at the top of where the stairs will be)
and to add in steps down to the lake where they once were.
Thanks
Jeff and Wendy Dankey
38 20-117-23 21 0020
LINDA K O'NEEL/ROBERT O'NEEL
2520 DUNWOODY AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0021
EMILY M DUNLAP
2540 DUNWOODY AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0023
KURT KENNAN KROLL JR
AMY ELIZABETH KROLL
2560 DUNWOODY AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0024
CHARLES & CAROL PRICE
2813 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0030
STEVEN M HENTGES
JEANETTE MARIE HENTGES
13780 OLD BRICK YARD ROAD
SHAKOPEE MN 55379
38 20-117-23 21 0031
MICHAEL J RUSINKO
MARY L RUSINKO
2565 DUNWOODY AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0032
WENDY W DANKEY
2599 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0034
MATTHEW W & SARAH J DAVIS
BLAKE E & JULIA J LARSON
2590 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 21 0035
PATRICK FITZGERALD
2598 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 22 0017
JAMES S NORDLIE
PO BOX 2223
BOCA GRANDE FL 33921
38 20-117-23 22 0018
PATRICIA M DILLON
ROBERT L DILLON
4702 SUNNYSIDE RD
EDINA MN 55424
38 20-117-23 23 0001
GERALD ERICKSON
SANDRA ERICKSON
PO BOX 584
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0020
ZHIHUA LIU & YING LIU
2677 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0021
DAVID D GUTERMUTH
LYNN J GUTERMUTH
2665 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 23 0022
ATRION FAIOLA & LISA FAIOLA
2659 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0002
TODD M KIMMES
2660 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0003
DAVID L RUNKLE
2684 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0029
DUSTIN J KINDL
CASIE L KINDL
2649 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0030
TIM HANSON
1270 ARBOR ST
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0031
PATRICIA REDMOND WEBBER
15159 TECHNOLOGY DR.
EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344
38 20-117-23 24 0032
THOMAS & PATRICIA KUBALAK
2623 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0035
REWATI TEEPARTI
2617 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0036
JEREME TOM & STEPHANIE TOM
2601 CASCO POINT RD
ORONO MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0038
JENNIFER HARRIS
QUINTIN ANDREW HARRIS
2618 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0039
JEANNE KOBS & MICHAEL KOBS
2648 CASCO PT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0042
PAUL J KASTER
2600 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 20-117-23 24 0043
PAUL J & MARY E KASTER
2600 CASCO POINT RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
He nn epin Co u n ty L oc ate & N o tify Map
260 1 C a sco Pt R d
0 100 20050 Feet
Da te : 10 /23/2 023
Buffer Size:500Map Co mm e nts :
Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no represen ta tion as tocompleteness or accuracy; (ii) is fu rn ish ed with n o warra nty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineerin g or surve yingpurposes. Hennepin County shall not b e liab le for a ny da ma ge , in ju ryor loss resu lting from this dat a.
Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hen ne pin Co un ty GI S Off ice300 6th S tree t So uth , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / gis.in fo@h en ne pin.us