The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991-03-06 Memo, Review of CUP ApplicationTot Dates Mayor Peterson t Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator March 6, 1991 Subjects #1493 & #1570 Chuck Downey, 2665 Casco Point Road - Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution The compreher.sive application review involves the following ordinances: 1« Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 — After—ther—Fact Average Lakeshore Setback Variance for second story deck constructed sometime in 1982. Note: Entire second story deck is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Review Exhibits J, M-1 and M-2. At the August 20, 1990 k^ieetlng of the Planning Commission, members recommended approval of the after-the-fact variance for the lakeside deck subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit and paying appropriate penalty fees. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (a) - Hardcover variances required for new improvements within 0-75* and 75-250* setback areas. a. 0-75* setback area = 4,500 s.f. Existing » 718.7 s.f. or 15.97% Proposed ■ 652.9 s.f. or 14.5%* * Original steps » 142.5 s.f. Proposed steps » 153 s.f., a net increase of 10.5 s.f. Retaining walls « 29 s.f. additional hardcover * Applicant proposes removal of 105.3 s.f. of existing hardcover (90.6 s.f. of structural hardcover) for a reduction of 66.3 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75* setback area. b. 75-250* setback area = 8,325 s.f. Existing hardcover ■ 4,990.1 s.f. or 59.94% Approved hardcover in Application #787 (1982) ■ 3,760 s.f. or 45% Proposed hardcover « 3,967.8 s.f. or 47.6%* * 114 s.f of entry addition + 10 s.f. for retaining wall matched with removals of 1,136.3 s.f. of paved/gravel driveway, landscape area underlain with plastic. Refer to Exhibits I and J. Zoning File #1493 6 #1570 Page 2 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 - Land Alterations involving retaining walls within the 0- 75* setback area require both a conditional use permit and variance approval as no land alterations or structures are allowed within the 0-75' setback area. List of Bschibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Council Minutes 10/1‘*/82 E - Street Elevation P - Floor Plan G-1 - Hardcover/Existing 0-75' G-2 - Hardcover Proposed 0-75' H - Hardcover Existing 75-250' I - Hardcover Proposed 75-250' J - Survey-Revised 7/26/90 K-1, K-2 - Cook Reports L - Cross Profile Retaining Walls M-1, M-2 - Letters from Adjacent Neighbors N - Planning Commission Minutes - 2/20/90, 8/20/90 O - Council Minutes for 9/90, 9/10/90 3/19/90, Review of Application #1493 - At the September 10, 1990 meeting of the Council, Council tabled all action on the hardcover variance application phase of this review as applicant proposed major land alterations involving tiers of retaining wall within his lakeshore yard. Application #1493 involved a hardcover variance for a 6' x 19' street side addition to the existing residence. Half of the structure would be an enclosed entry addition and the second half an open porch with roof overhead. The new addition required no setback variances only a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area. 84 square feet of the area covered by the 114 square foot entry addition was already covered with non- structural hardcover consisting of landscape area underlain with plastic and paved walkways. As already noted in the hardcover facts above, with the addition of 124 s.f. of structural hardcover (114 s.f., entry addition - 10 s.f., retaining wall), applicant proposes a matched removal of 1,136.3 s.f. of non- structural hardcover. Zoning File #1493 & #1570 Page 3 The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed entry addition subject to the removal of existing hardcover as set forth above in the hardcover facts. Although the Planning Commission's original recommendation required removal of hardcover up to the allowed amount of an earlier 1982 review at 45%» it was noted that surveys of hardcover in that year did not include landscape areas underlain with plastic. In addition staff had already confirmed that in the 1982 review, the expanded gravel area was approved by Council to assist in the backing out maneuver. Cook at an earlier meeting confirmed that based on the location of the garage, the gravel area could not serve as a turnaround area but that the right-of-way of Casco Point Road was used. The existing gravel area serves as only additional parking space. The Planning Commission has recommended that this be removed as a condition of the variance approval. The Planning Commission recomiriended approval of the after- the-fact average lakeshore setback variance for the lakeshore deck constructed without a building permit sometime in 1982. They based their findings as follows: 1.Recent letters submitted by adjacent and most affected neighbors site no problem with location of existing deck. Review Exhibits M-1 and M-2. Second story deck does not interfere with the site line views of lake because of the sloping topographies within the lakeshore yards. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the after- the-fact variance at a 3 to 2 vote. The 2 denial voters did not support the motion as it included a condition that would require applicant to pay a double fee with building permit. The minority opinion felt that because of the lapse in time it was not appropriate to charge the penalty fee. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's approval recommendation for Council's review and action. Please note that the after-the-fact phase of the application has been conditioned on the penalty fee payment. If Council wishes to amend the majority action of the Planning Commission, the resolution can be amended accordingly. Review of Application #1570 - Review Exhibit J. Members will note levels of tiered retaining walls shown on the original land alteration plans for applicant's lakeshore yard. In the first review the Planning Commission denied the request finding the plan did not address the real erosion problems within the lakeshore yard. The Zoning Pile #1493 & #1570 Page 4 section witV ont rinniSrapnr^^^^^^ limited to two and continuing eastward’parallel to the lake section will bl placed along ^he sourif’i’r® fhe second a 3 to 3-1/2. height for 25+ approximately stairs within the 0-75" and within*^+h«^+? «n.° i^e access stairs Will be reins’tLl“e"d" a‘'t“a*'^". ‘m^’nil^^Ti^th!^’’”' be at approxiMteiy a* 4 to* 4-1/2® height a° f''® ‘^®‘*'0“se will :h«7el?rrthria*t ” i°d tratn*he“l?[l'':“ maintain/repair this retaining tall ?;^ordei +‘’® ‘oany negative impact on the lake in ensure against he asks that a Epical section’of (Exhibit K-2), including a lower row of dea^mAn strengthened by center. Applicant !s reau?reT i-o 8* between the work areas on the lak^f°'^^Ero«f°®^°" control fence 7l-t\Vb*a^ck-a^%^-iri\t®;^uHv&- 250. setback area as already noted abov^ in “the ttrdcovtt ttVs"' lakesto"?e"ro?rclrd"®atta'r;r7l-»*0.'st^^ **>eExhibit J based on the fallowing findings: “"®* ®® hardcover triTs“*wii “l"tta^\*ntlTh“"K of retainingerosion. ilize the banks and prevent further Ind er^^“^‘o"f°itk“eti*dt^®btt7st^^^^^^^^^^ *- ®®®“«-^ 2. 3. Approval would be subject to the following conditions: ^ EsctVon®"*^ is placed on notice that the upper wall quality of run-off into lake. ®rosion and protect r Zoning Pile 11493 & «1570 Page 5 2. Typical section of wall shall be strengthened by including a lower row of deadman offset from the top row at 8' on center. 3. Applicant shall be required to provide erosion control fence between the work areas and lake. Such erosion control to be established prior to any land alteration. A single resolution has been drafted for both Applications #1493 and #1570 that incorporates the findings and conditions in the approval recommendation of the Planning Commission. Isv