Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Project Packet
• CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 11-3521 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 DATE OF NOTICE: October 10, 2011 TO: Tami Helmer COPIES: Mike Sharratt—via Email 3131 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: October 10, 2011 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you including the minor modification made during the meeting regarding the removal of Finding "F". Please arrange to sign the original resolution at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolution. The edited resolution will be available for signature after Wednesday. Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. A building permit must be obtained no later than October 10, 2012. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions please contact Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, at mcurtisc ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. Melanie Curtis From: Tami Helmer[tamihelmer@me.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:27 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Fwd: Last night Begin forwarded message: From: Charles R Jones<crj333@aol.com> Date: September 27, 2011 9:54:15 AM CDT To: Tami Helmer<tamihelmer@me.com> Subject: Re: Last night Tami, Thanks for the heads up. Would like to see the plan before you approach the council again. If the only thing non-conforming is the height of the dormers, I won't object. Reason that I am adamant about the sight line has to do with the history of the property. A compromise was made originally to fit the house on the property with the least obstruction on my side. The yellow house guy was the one selling the property. Charlie On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Tami Helmer wrote: Charlie, Just thought to mention that we are not on the agenda for tonight's council meeting. We have been very busy and not able to accomplish revisions in time. Glad to hear you approve of dormers. We are bringing Baxter to dog daycare. Tami On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Jones <crj333@aol.com>wrote: Tami, I am sorry to have had to do what I did last night. The aim is to maintain the value of my property. Try to think of it in the reverse. Let's say that I wanted to build i something • • ten feet fromyour lot line and forward of the average setback line. g Would you approve? The reason for my last email is that I wasn't interested in discussing the issue as if it were a done deal. The council makes these decisions.Not the planning commission and not the staff of Orono. What bothers me most is that you were led to believe that this project was "doable". Mike Sharrat knows, (or at least he should know)the building codes. The reason that I take issue with him is that he allowed you to draw up elaborate plans for a project that was never going to be issued a building permit. In his defense, Orono has been inconsistent in their enforcement/granting of easements in the past and perhaps he was under the impression that would be the case here. A plan for the "lipstick and rouge" portion of your project will meet with no objection from me. The dormers are attractive and hopefully a good solution to your leaky skylights. If you want to put a screened porch over your existing deck, that would probably work. And it would alleviate the need to take up valuable parking space by extending your garage. AND it would be considerably easier on the budget. I hope that over time, we can again be friendly. I hold no grudge. Al seemed rather angry at me. If I said something that personally offended either of you, I am truly sorry. Baxter has been much quieter. Thank you for that. 2 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. #11-3520 HAROLD&SANDRA WINGERD, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD, Continued) Eve when he and his wife were out of the country and their children were having a party at their residence. Mr. Puzak currently resides in Florida during the wintertime. In addition to the area in front of the garage,there was a turnaround to the left that became a turnaround because there was no other place to turn around. In the wintertime there used to be a big post with a chain from one of the boulders to the post. Occasionally Mr.Puzak's coworkers would take it down to check on his house. Wingerd indicated they no longer have a way to access that area to turn around. Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting,three of the boulders have been relocated to what used to be the turnaround. The post is in the middle of that and there is also a four inch steel pipe that in all likelihood was going to be used to string his chain fence from the pipe to the 6 x 6 post. Wingerd indicated his wife called the City and someone came out to stop the work. In addition to those changes, there have been 22 sections of Mr. Puzak's dock that have been placed near their property. Wingerd stated there does not appear to be any reason to place the dock sections there except for retribution. Wingerd indicated they have invested in excess of six figures in the litigation. Wingerd stated they would be happy to allow him to use his access and that they would like to create a new access for their property. Wingerd stated one of the recommendations was to flare both ends of the driveway,which he does not see in the report. Curtis indicated the turnaround would eliminate the need for the flared end. Wingerd indicated they are willing to comply with Staff's recommendations and noted there is a portion of the easement where the hardcover would not be removed. McMillan commented in her view this is a good solution and that she is in agreement with the resolution. Rahn and Bremer indicated they are also in agreement with it. Rahn moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6074,a Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288,for the Property Located at 1376 Baldur Park Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES Tami Helmer,Applicant, and Mike Sharratt,Designer,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake side deck, driveway,and a garage addition are also proposed. The dormers and deck changes are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The garage addition involves changing nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover. No overall increase in hardcover is proposed. The proposed garage addition will meet the side and rear yard setback requirements and is outside the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal is within the 15 percent structural coverage limitation. Page 13 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff and the applicant conducted additional hardcover analysis on the property. The result is a revised actual 1995 approved hardcover level of 4,955 square feet of hardcover. The applicant's proposed hardcover plan includes removal of the existing"illegal plastic"within landscape areas within the 75-250 foot zone and results in no net increase in hardcover above the existing 1995 approved level. The property owner to the west, Charlie Jones,expressed concern at the Planning Commission meeting regarding screening for the new deck. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variance as requested. The applicant was directed to add evergreen trees to the existing deciduous trees along the west lot line to enhance the screening year-round. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance including the screening enhancement,consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. As part of this approval, Staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property in order to further reduce hardcover. Rahn asked if the underlying plastic is being traded in exchange for the additional hardcover. Curtis indicated it is not being traded and it was not removed as required in 1995. McMillan asked whether it is still part of City Code to allow structural coverage on top of hardcover. Curtis stated that is one of the issues the Council will need to discuss. Staff does not have the ability to approve that portion of the application since the hardcover exceeds 25%within that zone. Tami Helmer,Applicant, indicated she purchased the property approximately one year ago. At the time she was considering purchasing the property, she researched whether she could conduct some remodeling on the property and met with Orono Staff several times to learn about the restrictions on hardcover and the different ordinances. Since that time they have purchased the property and have been designing those improvements since they are looking to make this their long-term residence. Mike Sharratt,Designer, indicated they initially received some direction from Staff that was different from where they ended up. Sharratt noted there was some confusion over what the exact hardcover numbers were for the property. After some lengthy discussions,they arrived at a number of 6,315 square feet for existing,which has been reduced to 4,955 square feet of hardcover after removal of the landscape plastic. Sharratt indicated during the design phase they looked at a number of options to achieve all the desired amenities that the property owner designed as well as comply with City regulations. One option was to take the back part of the garage and convert it into a screen porch. They also eliminated the 30 x 12 foot structural deck. Sharratt stated their end goal was to address all those issues and make the property more aesthetically pleasing. (Recess taken from 9:01 p.m.to 9:08 p.m.) (Cynthia Bremer is no longer present) Page 14 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Charlie Jones, 3129 Casco Circle, stated this property has been in his family for 54 years now. It was originally purchased in 1957. In 1977,the lot became part of the adjacent lot on the other side and was subsequently sold off. A variance was granted at that time for the hardcover and for the average setback line. Jones pointed out the view of the property from his house on the overhead. The hardcover issue relates to replacement of deck hardcover. The original as-built survey indicates that the deck was 8'x 32'and there is no evidence that it was ever approved to be 12'x 32'. Jones pointed out the hardcover the applicant is proposing to place over existing blacktop. Jones stated the portion that is being removed does not cover the 14-foot addition to the garage or the other area. A portion of the proposed deck juts out further to the lake and also impacts his sightline. According to the building code,it says that it is unlawful to convert,enlarge or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. Jones indicated he has documents that indicate this property is at 42.9 percent hardcover. He was made aware by Staff that Melanie Curtis is not a surveyor,but somehow new hardcover calculations have come out showing there is 30 percent hardcover. Some of that decrease is from removal of four inch crushed limestone to mitigate a drainage problem that still exists. City Building Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be located or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except a roofline may be changed,an additional story may be added over the roofed portions of a structure,or an open or screen porch may be converted into a two or three-season porch. Jones pointed out that this property does not meet any of those exceptions. Jones noted the deck hardcover is being moved over existing hardcover but it is becoming structural coverage and would be totally impervious hardcover consisting of concrete and footings The setback line was established prior to the house being constructed,which was by agreement between the City of Orono,his grandfather,and the adjoining neighbor. The property is currently nonconforming in three ways. The width of the lot is only 95 feet and it is over on total hardcover. The property is allowed 25 percent but they are at 30 or 31 percent with the present proposal. The proposed screen porch is also located in front of the average setback line. The deck is four feet wider than was originally approved. Four feet of that 32 x 12 foot section that is being used to trade hardcover actually was never approved. As of 1995,the existing calculations on that hardcover were 42.9 percent. Jones displayed a picture of the current deck and the area of the proposed screen porch. Jones stated the house is 31 feet from the edge of his house,and that according to City Code,this project is not allowed and that he does not see how the Council cango against the rules that theyhave set u . Jones illustrated g p the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis indicated that is not the correct setback line. Rahn noted the average setback line is depicted in their packet. Jones stated the proposed screen porch is unacceptable. The applicant purchased the property last August but there is no hardship since she could have purchased another property that would have met her needs better. Jones requested the Council follow the rules that are currently in place which states that Page 15 of 28 . MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. Franchot asked where he is taking the sight line from on his house. Jones stated the sight line depends on where you are standing and that he is talking about anywhere on his lot. Jones stated if he builds another house on the property,the setback line is back further and he would be required to construct it further back. Franchot indicated he was attempting to figure out where the sight line is that Mr.Jones was speaking of. Jones stated he is allowed to be anywhere on his lot and not have his view impacted. Jones indicated he has not discussed screening with the applicant.The current vegetation is approximately ten years old and is half dead. McMillan asked as it relates to the nonstructural hardcover,whether property owners are allowed to trade that for structural coverage. Curtis indicated Staff does not have the ability to trade when the hardcover exceeds the regulations and was approved by a variance. McMillan asked whether the City has been pretty strict in enforcing hardcover regulations. Gaffron stated there have been dozens of variances granted over the years to address a situation that is not in compliance with City Code. Franchot stated part of Mr.Jones'claim is that a portion of what is being removed was approved by a variance and part of it apparently wasn't. Curtis indicated the deck that exists today is the deck that is reflected on the survey and was approved by a variance. Franchot asked if the City considers the entire deck to have been approved. Curtis stated that City records indicate it was approved by a variance. Rahn stated the new structure is not an issue since the property owner is under the 15 percent structural coverage limit. If the current deck is considered nonconforming,then that would be an issue since nonconforming hardcover cannot be relocated or expanded. Franchot asked if there was a variance granted, if it does not become conforming. Mattick stated basically structural versus nonstructural hardcover functions the same from a hardcover perspective but that the regulations generally do not make sense to someone when they come in and remove a different piece of hardcover in exchange for constructing new hardcover which results in no net gain. Council has given Staff the ability to administratively approve the type of application where there is no net increase in the hardcover when the lot is conforming. In this particular case,not every aspect of Page 16 of 28 � � MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) the lot is conforming so Staff does not have the ability to approve the application. Mattick commented it basically is the same as a swap since there is no net gain in the amount of hardcover,but because the lot is nonconforming, Staff does not have the ability to grant approval. Rahn commented in his view the applicant has done their due diligence in researching the City rules prior to purchasing the property. Rahn stated in his view everything looks great except there is a neighbor who feels he will be negatively impacted by the changes. McMillan stated they are intensifying the average lake setback variance since the new deck will impact the neighbor more than the old deck does. The new deck is more intrusive to the neighbor since it is located closer to the lot line. Franchot asked if Mayor McMillan has visited the site. McMillan indicated she has. Franchot stated he visited the property and that the concern being expressed by the neighbor in his view is not really an issue given the amount of vegetation between these two properties. Franchot stated based on his tour of the property,it does not appear to be as much of an imposition as what has been implied and that there is a huge arc to the right that provides a good view of the lake. McMillan commented that vegetation can come and go and that planting evergreens will also block someone's sight line. Franchot commented that his point is that there is no change in the sight lines with the proposal. McMillan commented screening is not always a good solution and that the Council should address the issue of whether the deck should be there or not. The average lakeshore setback is never perfect and there are many situations where it does not work because of existing conditions prior to enactment of the ordinance. The City has granted variances in the past to the average lakeshore setback but in those situations it did not have a negative impact on the neighbor's sight lines. McMillan stated in her view there will be a negative impact to the neighbor in this case. Franchot stated that was why he questioned where the sight line was being taken from on the neighboring lot. If you stand on the property line,almost everything would get in the way. Mr.Jones'house is located far away from any setback. Rahn commented it also becomes an issue of noise since it would be located closer to the property line. Rahn asked if the applicant is still proposing a screen porch when it appears to be a four-season porch on the plans. Sharratt indicated it is a screen porch. Sharratt pointed out the back portion of the garage,which is being converted into the screen porch. Sharratt indicated they established the sight line by taking the corner of the deck as it is in its present location. If that line is drawn further back to the dining room,it is not any more intrusive than what currently exists,which is why they located it in that area. The new line is no further forward than what the existing line is. Page 17 of 28 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated another aspect taken into consideration for removing that portion of the deck is that it is located closer to Mr.Jones'house than what they are proposing. They are proposing to take this area and put it over existing hardcover,which is why the hardcover is being reduced. Jones pointed out Helmer's lot line and stated that he is asking the Council to not take away his view across their property by allowing them to construct the screen porch. Jones commented it is not just the sight line that is an issue but it also becomes a noise issue by having them move their garage,deck, umbrella,and other items closer to the property line. Jones stated it was never intended to be that way and that his property was intended to have that sight line. Jones indicated his house is situated so it looks southeast across their property. Rahn stated he is not aware of a variance request that the Council has approved where the neighbors were not in agreement with what is being proposed. McMillan commented that even though the houses are far apart, when you have something that could impact a sight line, it becomes an issue. Rahn asked Mr. Jones to clarify what he was speaking about with regards to the location of the deck. Jones stated there is no screen porch currently but that it would look directly into his porch,his dining room, and bedroom. The proposed garage addition is so they can have a screen porch. The problem is that it is a 14-foot addition,one and a half stories tall,and a screen porch. Jones indicated the property could be sold tomorrow and that the new neighbors may not be as nice as Ms. Helmer. Jones indicated he does not want the screen porch and reiterated that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way. There has been no attempt to bring the property into conformance. Franchot stated they do not have to cover the garage since it is being put over existing hardcover. Jones commented there is more hardcover in this area. Franchot noted the deck has to offset the proposed screen porch. Rahn noted the garage is extending over existing driveway hardcover. Franchot stated what Mr.Jones is saying is that the screen porch should not be added to the garage since it is over existing hardcover. McMillan pointed out that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Sharratt stated they are taking something this is more nonconforming and making it less nonconforming, which is a quantitative improvement. Sharratt stated they are not changing his sight line,which will still exist after this project. Jones stated he also has a patio that he uses from where he will be viewing the lake and that they cannot say he can only view the lake from one location on this property. Page 18 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated due to the vegetation, it is not possible to see through that area in the summertime. McMillan reiterated that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Franchot asked if the situation is being made worse. McMillan indicated in her view it is. Franchot asked if the Council can get a picture of where the actual average lakeshore setback line is located. Franchot stated in his view it is a sight line issue only. Curtis displayed the average lakeshore setback line and pointed out that it cuts back into the existing garage and is ahead of it. The corner of the deck does not extend further into the average setback and they are maintaining the sight line from the home to the lake. McMillan stated because they are locating the proposed garage addition over existing driveway,they are able to gain additional hardcover versus swapping hardcover for structural coverage. Rahn stated in his view that is what Mr.Jones is saying. They are talking about a building that is already sitting too far forward,and even though they did not extend it closer to the lake,there is more structure being proposed. Rahn noted the draft resolution says the deck will result in minimal negative impact to adjacent property owners,but that in his view there should be no impact. The sight line is one issue but that he personally would be more concerned with the noise since the area of entertainment has moved closer to the lot line. Rahn stated he has a hard time approving something where an adjacent neighbor was opposed to it,which is one of the main reasons why the City has an average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view of the lake. The noise or activity could be there anyway without the deck but that it is an issue to consider as part of the variance request. Al Wahlin,3131 Casco Circle, stated in regards to the proposed deck,they have carefully considered the current rules and regulations and they were also considerate of the neighbor to not come out past the existing visual footprint that is currently in place. Wahlin commented they are not proposing anything that is different than what he can currently see from his perspective. Wahlin stated they have worked very hard to follow the rules and regulations that the City has set up as well as the rules of the DNR and the State of Minnesota. They have gotten professional help from Mr. Sharratt. Wahlin commented he is not sure how much one person can have control of their property but that he understands and respects his neighbors and will continue to do that. Wahlin stated he also has a right to be comfortable in his own home and that unfortunately the system is set up to pit one neighbor against another and cause conflict. Wahlin stated he attempts to do what is right within the rules that are set up and that they have tried to follow the rules and do what is required of them. The deck is within the existing sight footprint. Wahlin noted they also agreed to meet with Mr.Jones but that he did not want to meet with them. Page 19 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Franchot stated when he walked the property, it was apparent that there may be an open door to oppose the application but that the reason for the opposition in his view is that the neighbor does not want any change to the neighborhood. Franchot stated for the neighbor to imply that he will in any meaningful way be impacted on his sight lines is not true and that there is a huge arc to the right of lake view. Jones stated he is not pitting neighbor against neighbor and that if they want to do something within the footprint of the house,he would be fine with that. Adding a story and a half ten feet from the lot line is a change. Jones states his sight line is affected and that the applicant does not have a right to affect his sight line one inch. Jones indicated he is not asking for special treatment and that justice is treating everyone the same. Jones requested the City Council follow the rules. Franchot commented he understands Mr.Jones'position but that the variance procedure allows some flexibility to accommodate different situations. Jones noted the City's Building Code states that existing nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded and asked where the gray area is in that language. Mattick stated the rule does say that but that the variance procedure allows for some flexibility to that rule. If there is a practical difficulty that is determined to exist,the Council can grant the variance. Jones asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Jones stated he does not see a practical difficulty. McMillan stated the issue is making changes to nonconforming items without bringing the entire property into conformance. The property is still nonconforming,which is part of the difficulty with this application. Franchot stated the City has granted a number of variances in the past which has not required the entire property be brought into conformity. McMillan commented that all parties have their concerns and that the City Council has the difficult decision to decide how to best deal with the situation. When dealing with nonconforming properties, it does have impacts when you change things around. Franchot stated he is in agreement that it does have some impact but that in his view it is a reasonable request. Rahn asked whether the structural coverage will change. Curtis indicated it will be increased. There is 2,400 square feet of house currently,which is 9 percent, and that the deck and patio would increase the structural coverage. Sharratt stated there is also additional overhang. Page 20 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Curtis stated if you add the entire existing deck and patio to the house footprint,there is 3,225 square feet of structural coverage. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing why the Planning Commission was unanimous in approving the application. Schoenzeit indicated one of the key points was that this sight point exists now and is not changing. The thought of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the visual arc that sweeps the property,which is not changing. The building is happening away from the lake and will preserve the existing viewing arc on the neighboring property. The applicant does not need the screening and they are moving things further away from the lake,which is why the Planning Commission approved it. Curtis noted the structural coverage will increase from 11.3 to 14.6 percent. Lizz Levang stated the Planning Commission also looked favorably at the removal of all the hardcover under the deck as well as in other spots. Jones stated the hardcover under the existing patio is counted the same hardcover as the deck but they are adding a screen porch,making a two-car garage into a three-car garage,and adding a deck in return for removing a small strip of the deck. Rahn stated they are going to relocate the deck. Rahn asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Printup stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting and then later toured the property. This has become less of a hardcover issue and is turning into a sight line and privacy issue. The structure is going to be expanded and go up with the dormers,and even if there is a line of trees that currently provides screening, in his view the Planning Commission lost focus of what the neighbor was concerned about, which was preservation of the sight line. Planting additional pine trees is not going to stop the noise or the activity that will go on in that area. Schoenzeit stated in his view sight line is the wrong word and that it is what the view is of the neighbor. The property owner has relocated some items near the lake to in front of the garage. The neighbor cannot now see through the house and he won't after the project is completed.The sightline of the lake remains the same even if you can see more house. Jones pointed out there is 14 feet more house. Schoenzeit stated the applicant is allowed to build there. McMillan stated the proposed deck is being put in front of the average lakeshore setback. The property is nonconforming now and the applicant is proposing to relocate some items. The Council is dealing with a nonconformity piece with the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated in her view you cannot move it around without bringing the property into conformity. Rahn asked if the neighbor on the other side has issues with it. Page 21 of 28 • r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Helmer indicated since the Planning Commission meeting they have called them and they have indicated they are in support of the project. They were asked to provide a written statement of support,which was not done,but that they did receive a verbal statement of support. Rahn stated in his view it is a matter of moving a nonconformity. Rahn stated they have the rule so that it does not cause an impact to the neighbors even if it is minimal. Sharratt stated instead of making this less nonconforming,they are faced with the decision to leave the deck that is currently there and putting a screen porch underneath that portion. Suzann Passet stated the issue comes back to practical difficulty and that they have not addressed whether there is a practical difficulty. Rahn asked whether screening on the underside of the deck would be allowed. Curtis indicated that would be allowed since it is already considered structure. Rahn asked if that would be allowed even though it is in front of the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated they can add the screen porch underneath the deck but not above. Rahn asked if the applicants would like to table the application. Helmer stated she would like some clarification and asked whether the entire application would be denied or whether the different aspects of the application could be considered separately. McMillan commented it may be best to table the application since it does not appear it will be approved. Sharratt asked whether the Council is against all the issues or simply the screen porch. Sharratt stated he would like direction from the Council. Rahn stated it is an average lakeshore setback issue and that any alterations in front of the average lakeshore setback would be an issue. Franchot asked how that would impact the dormers. Sharratt stated to his belief they would be okay. Sharratt requested that they be given some time to discuss their options. (This application was adjourned from 10:10 to 10:38 p.m.) Sharratt requested the existing first floor plan be displayed on the overhead. Sharratt stated if they describe a change as it relates to the deck,whether that could be approved at this meeting or whether they would have to resubmit it. Rahn stated the Council should really act on the plan before them. Page 22 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Mattick stated he would encourage the City Council to review the revised plans before to voting on them. Sharratt asked whether the modification to create dormers on the lake side would be something they would be allowed or whether it would need to be changed. Curtis displayed a drawing of the dormers looking east. Sharratt pointed out the dormers on the overhead. The dormer that is visible goes across and would include some skylights. Rahn stated from a side view it appears to be up near the ridge of the house. Sharratt indicated that is correct. Rahn stated in his view there should be no encroachment in front of the average lakeshore setback except for maybe a very minor encroachment. McMillan commented she is not sure whether the dormers would have as much impact as the deck on the sight line. Printup asked whether the guidance is needed to redraw the plans. Franchot noted it would cost the applicant money to redraw the plans. Franchot indicated the dormers are not a problem for him. McMillan commented it is difficult to visualize a change without a drawing. Curtis pointed out the line for the chimney. Sharratt stated that chimney would be removed. Franchot asked whether the applicant would like to table the application. Sharratt indicated he would. Franchot asked whether Council Members Rahn and Printup could give the applicant some sense on whether there is zero tolerance or whether they would allow some minor encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Franchot stated the next question would then be what would be considered minor. Rahn stated if the applicant is going to encroach,they will need to show practical difficulty. Rahn stated they could have a dormer up to the average lakeshore setback line without a variance. Sharratt stated the practical difficulty is that the existing skylight is within the existing timber frame of the house and that it is already beyond that line. They are attempting to match the roof pitches that exist on the house. Page 23 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Rahn commented it is a design issue and making the exterior more aesthetically pleasing,which is not a practical difficulty. Franchot moved,McMillan seconded,to table Application#11-3521,Tami Helmer,3131 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD UPDATED COST ESTIMATES Amundsen noted he has been the project manager on the Old Crystal Bay Road project from the beginning. At the last meeting the Council requested some cost estimates for a mill and overlay as close to the existing road footprint as possible and whether the mill and overlay would require the City to meet some minimum state aid standards. Amundsen commented that it would be difficult to qualify for state aid funding for the mill and overlay project. Amundsen indicated he will attempt to obtain state aid funding but that it is his belief it will not be approved due to the poor sub base of the road. Amundsen indicated reconstruction of the road would result in the road looking very similar to what exists today but the main difference would be that the shoulders would be paved. Amundsen noted he has provided some estimates for the sewer and water replacement and pointed out that the City would likely incur substantial additional cost to do those at some point in the future. As with most projects,the sewer and water infrastructure beneath the road tends to last longer than the road but that the reconstruction of each impacts the other. It is a common decision to replace the existing sewer and water under the road even though there is some life left in them. Amundsen stated the mill and overlay project would cost approximately $151,000. The road reconstruction would be$1.75 million whether the utilities are included are not. The water utilities would add$317,000 and$342,000 for the sanitary sewer if they are done in conjunction with the road reconstruction. Amundsen noted there are also some other options outlined in the memo. McMillan stated a fourth option would be to divide the road in half and reconstruct the north half and mill and overlay the south end with a reconstruct of the south end being done at some point down the road. The biggest issue with the reconstruction for the entire road is that it does make sense to do the utilities but that it may not be as important as some other water and sewer projects that should be completed throughout the rest of the city. McMillan commented the City could perhaps buy some additional time on that road with the mill and overlay. McMillan noted she requested the City Engineer provide some cost estimates to reconstruct the north end and mill and overlay the southern half,which would allow the school to still run their summer school. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing what other sewer and water projects would take precedence over Old Crystal Bay Road. Page 24 of 28 • • CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE: 11-3521 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 DATE OF NOTICE: September 20, 2011 TO: Tami Helmer COPIES: Mike Sharratt—via Email 3131 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: September 12, 2011 VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table the application. Revised plans should be submitted by Wednesday, September 21 by noon, which address the Council's stated concerns. Applicant's next meeting is tentatively as: Monday, September 26, 2011 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council. If you have questions please contact Melanie Curtis, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, at mcurtiscThci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. • 0 OoJwL- i*crc 0 x1 v) (rn pi o O 7J 70 x A U) > ....Nr----‘ A 11 -_-1 m ) 0 0 > 0 0 11 ,,\c.\ U) (n -.IT '1 1 .__L \ \ oo l CO CO (n �• °� ,C/i iti _i_„1 _ J/ "1 ty"- v �, ___ m � xI_3D0 70 W r' p � r0 0U) rnDr- 0 _7' -IcnTOC --i7J --1c _iC x01 °1cN3, 7 _/iy � rn DrnO;� ,.„" n0rn r- II wrn 0CD0 = „�o fi O Z 11 II Il 1l it �II it II 0 rn 7) �� Z II II II •/)rr, CD it 11 N -P 0 s//% ;,. - O / II " 000� . 1UC0 (n000 (� 00 II I . s� / ( (n � -..J --, 01 0 < < ( ) 1 47'G V 0) oi00Ul i001 (n (I) (n (n (n (n & -; rn 9' -nrnrn -n -n (nrn -ncnrn 20 • < 0) ' (n (n W (n (n "1 II J \ / ,11-1 ....... x 0 � I \koy 1•v/ c0 o Arn ?1 / cam o '° I � c5 /r \ ,% f � /, o '-0 � r � r T' NpxI / T m n s \' jJ. \ � f/ / C m t0 --i73 -1c x ( coo 1 \ CP 40 \ r2 1 0 Z � r� II IIFII 0 II "'-1D II I, rn � � / � / I� 01 COOON0rn -P•CD oi / 1 D o ' © U) cn O (n o li - • , �_.•AD 4 r (r) \ -nrnrnrn = m0 :_'_‘_\, w .so O „ rn/ / .°0\ 1 6,, 'y ° < 00 ,,-o3(\6-0 1:\\A'•‘\`,1 6-.1:•:9‘; • \� \ . / 7 s ! \ -fig \O-fS l 71 • • Date Application Received: 07/20/11 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/29/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/26/11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 21 September 2011 Item No. 4 Department Approval: j , ( ' Administrator Appro al: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis i Title: Planning&Zoning Coordinator Item Description: #11-3521,Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle—Variances— Resolution Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential,%acre/100' Lot Area: 25,800 sf(0.59 acre) Lot Width: 95' List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Revised Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Revised Survey Exhibit C. Revised Plans Exhibit D. Revised Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Revised Project Summary Exhibit F. Email Correspondence Exhibit G. Site Photos—by Applicant Exhibit H. Aerial Photo—by Applicant Exhibit I. Roof Dormer Encroachment Detail ExhibitJ. City Code Sections Exhibit K. 60-Day Deadline Extension Exhibit L. Council Packet 08/9/11 Exhibit M. Council Minutes 09/12/11 Application Summary: This request for variances was before the Council at the September 12th meeting. At that time the applicant was requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to allow the construction of roof dormers and rearrangement of an existing lake side deck. A hardcover variance within the 75' to 250' zone was also requested to convert portions of driveway (non-structural hardcover) to garage (structural hardcover). With the exception of the fabric or plastic underlayment areas, the hardcover level proposed on the property is conforming based on the variance granted in 1995. City Code 78-71 allows for the rearrangement of non- structural hardcover with City Staff approval, however the conversion of non-structural hardcover to structural hardcover when the property exceeds Code established limits is only permissible by City Council approval. Based on Council feedback, the applicant has revised the proposed plans limiting their request to an average lakeshore setback variance to allow encroachment of dormers (the average setback variance request for the new deck has been removed) and a 75' to 250' hardcover variance to allow conversion of driveway hardcover to garage. For structural reasons, the applicant plans to rebuild the existing deck, smaller in size, as illustrated on the attached revised survey. Reconstruction of the existing deck is permitted. The proposed garage • . #11-3521 5 October 2011 Page 2 of 2 addition will conform to all setbacks and structural coverage limitations and will be within the conforming level of hardcover established by variance in 1995. (Note: The granting of a variance establishes conformity of the items approved via that variance; for example although the hardcover may exceed the code requirement the variance approval makes that new level conforming.) Planning Commission Recommendation On August 15, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances as initially requested. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance consistent with the planning commission recommendation to convert non-structural hardcover to garage. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow roof dormers to encroach ahead of the average lakeshore setback as views of the lake currently enjoyed by adjacent properties will not be adversely impacted by the dormers. As part of this approval staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property — including the 0-75', 75'- 250' and 250'- 500' zones — in order to further reduce hardcover. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should consider adopting or amending the draft approval resolution. • • Council Exhibit A A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279(6) and 78-1288 FILE NO. 11-3521 WHEREAS, Tami R. Helmer, a single person (hereinafter"the Applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3131 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 44 and that part of Lots 43 and 64 lying west of a line and its extension 100 feet west of and parallel with the east line of Lot 42 and that part of Lot 45 lying east of a line 75 feet west of and parallel with the east line of Lot 44, and that part of adjacent vacated Lake Shore Avenue and tract of land between said avenue and Lake Minnetonka lying between the extensions of the east and west lines of above, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (PIN 20-117-23-34- 0007), (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow construction of roof dormers as well as reorientation and construction of the lakeside deck on the existing home ahead of the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow rearrangement of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot zone resulting in no net increase to allow 29.9% (4,955 square feet) hardcover where 25% is normally allowed and 29.9% was previously approved, in conjunction with a garage addition, reorientation of the driveway and lakeside deck; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 15, 2011 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: Page 1of5 • • FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11-3521. 2. The property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 100'. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 15, 2011 and recommended approval of the variances. 4. The City Council reviewed the application at the September 12, 2011 meeting and tabled the application to allow the Applicant to refine or revise their request. 5. The City Council reviewed the application at their October 10, 2011 meeting and reviewed the request in light of the following findings: a. The property contains 25,800 square feet in area and has 95±-feet in width. b. The Applicant's request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. c. Based on feedback from the adjacent property owner and the Council, the Applicant removed the new, lakeside deck from the proposal which was to be located ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. d. The Applicant's proposed dormers will not adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties. e. A practical difficulty exists due to the Property's position along a curved shoreline and its relationship to the location of the adjacent homes. f. The dormers will alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from existing skylights which are inefficient and facilitate water damage to the home while maintaining the ability for sunlight to enter the home. Page 2 of 5 g. Resolution No. 3571 granted a hardcover variance to the Property to allow the equivalent of 4,955 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot setback zone. h. The Property has an existing lake access stair accounting for approximately 40 square feet which will remain. i. The proposed garage addition is proposed to be constructed over existing driveway hardcover and will not cause in increase from the existing hardcover level on the Property. j. The Applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. k. The Applicant has demonstrated that enforcing the average lakeshore setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the Applicant of the reasonable use of their property. \� 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow construction of roof dormers on the existing home ahead of the average lakeshore setback; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow rearrangement of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot zone resulting in no net increase to allow 29.4% (4,955 square feet) hardcover where Page 3 of 5 25% is normally allowed and 29.9% was previously approved, in conjunction with a garage addition and reorientation of the driveway, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the revised survey/site plan dated 10/05/11 and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 3. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not increase above the level of 40 s.f. or 0.5%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall be limited to 4,955 s.f. or 29.9% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 4. The home plans submitted are for the purpose of hardcover and setback review. The construction plans and survey submitted for building permit will be reviewed for conformance with Orono's building height and number of stories calculation. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (October 10, 2012). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned Applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicant and the Applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 10th day of October, 2011. Page 4 of 5 • ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN \\ This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2011, by Tami R. Helmer, a single person. NotaryPublic Page 5 of 5 • • re50l v-i-1 F14k- i'xiflI 9.doc 2 `—'`Z o p m t 17 m ;MI LiAoiz a-2 R P-4g 6mmn KqNyo £Xg age 2 -4 o b,-'A., o$w >A 514l"a N746 OZ 11AT.i g., imi e° / " ° N Na / -_'w o a / x fS jq O / ~O / I 'k / n ill. 9 / V m , s -I!gr$ om< xo "I%I., ^+ ° ° Y ° v° y>tTo T. 11 \ \ >m�} > '1>22 a g ° YY°Y io.+°°S IQ 2 Yos C)oanO^, + Y.,,no -. oo018 p<Y, 0 �' �r/ g : "NON uuinny��i gym_ 13 I 41 \ —_f \\ ` . u . ,� ems I r\ N obbbeee w' / I i' , 2,7s4, , / �tn P p„s I I 1 pq I °" 1 ��.�.�,YT' ` p,�J �� ,y,u A t` i� __1--.-.l Pl" I1 _Z - ' -, -,_ / T ..:217��� j'\,. eo / m aAm$ u'o / ,,,,, / \as ♦f �, g 9 r N 9YN+ 1?l A51,t. I / r- : o'• I/' I /k/ —T.L., �. �4 -4 ,—aa�, r ; !N !•';'_'. 00�n 6 Nis 1 t will^I� I �y" 1 17a i� ,:, _ 8 R6!_11___, /a Al 1j/ " IIi it ,,� I R °o`" y�. 4' " =ro e o Ill,j u -_"y__I 1I I, 1 II uD___; ; 1 hi • ! W / \'/• % x 'lit I //45. , 1'fI,o 4\I ''k-TI 424, ram` , e F •III -�, - -1 _ �_ _rd^xwi __ r:`� r_' �4 fj I l C_ I I / L I \, t' a , N,,08'0O,w 2822 ki 4' Zy, 1l\� `.o • f• a 1 , ,n , ---------:C.:_-__ g r" \r--,:, \ .y„ \c` s I 1 ( \ 11 v\ ' ' I ,\ p N \ \A F,ia \ \\\ ` v a p . , \ \ �S \\ Y \ \\ I \. \ . 0 N mrA<i ` i\ n ay \\(a))_ -1 1 m �N \\ /1OSdO 0 N < �� 904-'''' 0 o m �� o o 0 o Da I PAWS IC a CEO[,xC xoiE IaAOYc AY 6,2010y'a BUILDING— '„9/11 MOP ADM IC PERMIT SURVEY Freak a Ca dere//e Lana eyor ELMER RESIDENCE 8410 RYNO CLOUD MAW 952-41-30PRAIRE..1 55344 c no.eras 952-841-5O31 reA • _ J. tio4-451-N . • op: 1 ! CP, DChdtkik.- .11 o E, • , 0 I " ----------------- : '-•'-'41.- . 2 IIII -----. -is,,,,t T 1- Do , i , . , ;. -,-, .. ___ 11- 111111 - 1 7 ,• ----- . ,sm F 1 1 lo'is- . 1 II r , I .. 1. III I. t 1 7 -g- -CC Z 0 0• ...f_F T- 00 -w r- 0 I 0 Z Or L . • • 1 , 1 i j PK 1 -I • 1 ' I I I I r i j . kr • • yr . r 0 i T, g 01$89..Ftttch ,...1 . rii/Mil! I g= A g .-0 — III © 8i5g1 CHECK 11 11 E 4 E 0. d q t.1 trl XI MI . MM=MME MEMMEMM 2 t il' 4 'il IC 0 4 t Rzzmari. -•mpv ..r=m-i..... •• . .., o C-3 M n 1 m 0 1 lo ( . I VT . . • . , • . /----111 . • • 1 ' I , • ' ..".: .....,.".i . , 4 • • ri — • 1 . '67` 1-------f----r . .0 . . . ... ut I .... • I, . r , . • ....._ • . . , , • -14 . - g k. • 11'1 i; ; . -p-E• i • I 1 ; 1• i . i 1 • • • i I h "P, I I::,4! ,.._____ .,- ;, i . i ! i 1 illi , T •, . , a I 1-1-- I--- I --I • -A 1 Ht' tIttw,tt- ag, - EMIlqki:X .1 i th i 7.'M i, ;Ur!. .0 = urays, c 10 CD gi 018g1 ,..mmi _ma-rwcsrr ." i , If041Cm:M ' :Z ril x g gm=gm.... li F. 1. . ii t...m-,.. . il CONSIRUCII. , 70 g ilIF ..1. 1p: F t - i o* OROaX • ..., 0 c) XI c-, m ° ' 0 nn 0 Ln r„, Zr,-. ••••• o '='' m 0 • 1: 1 31 i .T.,,. I . ,i —11. \„...____... -- 1-LC .I I , ,, • . . .. . , • . ,L . , I' , . _-. , . ; ...... . . r- I -- ' P.n ' -'• 7. 1 fr---- _t7'..t- • . ,1 - i • , —.IF ri; , ,. ..z , .i ; _ .. I. ; i q i:Ly X,1 C•••• F 1111 • i — i _ I L — 11 d m ; . T . , , I; ; •, . i• _ ----, r—IT—T-Li.TJ . . ; - -_- • I ' ; ;-s„. 1 " ' •• -, , .1 t,---• .1 I 1 _• . 1, ; 1 1 • i ;I I I . •I I 13 • 31 : I 1 I • I I . I • I i 3 I I i . 'I •3 I I ',I . • LI, I F I I, I• I I • ,LI • 1- -I I 3 3 I 4-• ' •,.'_____1 I . • • ' 3 •. • - . . I • . ' : • :„::. : • 1. , • i 3• i i • , I . , I 7- Tri i 6 i kt.tctratze. 11 "3 -11 g '-• c.n cr, ii 1 !!fililiii g iIr =a, IP .. 11 C), 1',.' ;3 Z "3,3, 11111 '' i • 'i i! kl iiiiiii B r• Al g Z ;; 1 1 i a i •,, , .4, 11 i 1 f ill i 1,3:3,. -, •_k .III E' 3r6="7:7•M V" ^•I''2 : "" • -, . . • 0 0 Xi c) M -11 i m 0 c=' m Z L: 0 0 _ PriT Mi ___ . ' t‘,. _ _ __ , , . II! o_ a —�' = IIII II:.; - , ' - I'I , ! i5' r�.nLnLnnnLJi r ' I. -` ' -h II �'i I� � ' 1..... ,I ,itt • �I .._ — ..Sillini ❑odnI I = :' —--- JIIIIIIII( _ ' i DI1f1®_ , j, �}- 0000_+ _ 1 �= ®�11 = _ i I vlU i= _(�•1 1 I ��_coop— - J ® gg m y� y� �+ „S8:i6LEz h; i " oylip le alai m ! igF EMIOWi ! t? e1 Il .o X � �. ■ rya x E t.N 5 w a l e • () c) m o (-, m o rn Z _ 0 0 111 • • Fi -.— �, ...___ r..__ a,.zs ' J aft Ir *Mr \. -.N I �, : - __ 11; 1 1-1= / 1\, - �. vo-,. ._...m I/ - mi� 3 \ 1, / 1 - 1!. 111/ 1 i 1 il I . � II- R 6§ 5 0 e S fr :lYm I ill Cal � to 2gEism .� a- 2 a ;'s 011 I 1. 'Al ii Z x _, ° i [nil 3 d i m u n o 23 -n , n m O cm o N m O z - 0 O •7 / ' \ 1 sme; 1 . 1 . ,,c I e ..'• erI . L 'il 1r7 K 1 _ 4.;775a til ..4 .,•• ,• ,,•,,, 1. E ,,,...., ., lr -APP_.1 -I 4-'1 1 e T I'Lt Z ti I .1- $ Ell tlf-17 1 -- , li , 1- 44t.--1" li I M 4 --' z i_ --i4 1,,11 i - -- ., . -r— — I 1. r44' E , 44 f• -- ------------- -:4-----'-- - 4 I I 1 1 11 1 v ! 11- Ill I 1111 1 11 I 1. r - 31 111 I . IIII I } • 1 ............, ,. ......... _ _ • ...... 16 11 ' 0.oc r..0 I, . 1 LI- '-‘: • . .,,-, ,_,4- .,,. \ , il , , cz 4,1 1 0 , 1 .... • =-7; i D 11 . -f I ... k , ,,-- .FA_ 1 -lig Ei I r,- ,i- it 1 t i $ I k' 4 ..F it.t 11 .E'5 E It I I 'W 3 .-- ------------- ., , ' 5 .,0-- -ii ,,.cv 1.4:‘,PPAPJ Fp,. -II , t g g tttgttttttt , 2 8 v, IA k a s Im gE xr.., 3'• 8 5 . 9 €1 e ..g,0 ftlittii i 9 trI S. EMINT7j,4, Mill mt:7 g 1 i tl_i i -' g, I'll I a Qtr1 r'' ' ' 11§18 rciadmem - 1 i EpN i T, P1 r '' A •• 1P32. 1° g 11111 gt'f 'IA: ren,L4--,n41n P5 0 C) 171 -n 1 m O Lr A...... O '• ') m z 0 !.--—=,1 0 I HI ' _ _ i11111111__ infi-a "1c`R • i i K- I - - w Y,it gF R' _-r - - ----- 1 ----- __ __c C , : r r ! eC i fgQ I , r ---5--lif----1---!4 1-- i rif .m, 11 ,, , ii; 7 rn I I r�__�� • z r ..� �o_L r. 1I 1 I of L >� iw��aa u irel 1 _ f r1 11 W311m 1 ----z i ii I s -_ I i1gtrl rit_______ w o. . Ili :I II i A I, i „--' Nti _ _—t•"id", isM ———-—— --— ————4- 5- tr'sa F� p$p b 1n 6yy01'L�'ui It" 4 nos :_44 s.. Cg ,..0 iti 96 0' ` S i DDLg�3R:RL YEEE o I' .M® i � . m i �t iig.5 ;1 € l 1§l i 1 i :RIi c), igg ; a ';` q 4 i g i - ..1I Z ,,,. � z ii. mu tri a 3 CHANGE ORD 3 C) o m o m o m Z _ 0 0 r- 172 • ' 1 I - - E --"-"- 1.\ r ><_, 1 11. s I 41' .FT Z pp z_____47 z F. :,, ,1_,4____ ,, --w v, 8 i' i II gi tl-' / II 17 -=. -w I )_I-- r-,--_, ..ii " • 1 4'-, -I'N 1 1i •-f _, Ui:.rigi I0E.tL,.k,,1 4A,,epr,,,g l.,\ ...,./ i / \ / 4A,:21,, 24 1L4 4iIt; 4i3 "A 5.1.2 1 1 _ h _______, : ___: s ;4 P4 'gi itr 1 €4.---\ . 4 . i5.._,„......R.....d,..— , — q I r'-iE x _r 1 "-r5 74/94.-Ft • f I 1-,-„ t'-- . g Kg r. . l' 1 w, f I, 'i ti A I . I, i w•I _. --- 1 1 , , I ------1 —\ .I ni I I L1 1-- _i) WIllirgia ii I 1 1 - / , l' ,cP \ 7 if ti 1. _I) ir(.....--..., 1/444%, 'I 5 ER -O. .t: It'•_,4 §I a. t 6 q , . tN 'lll I i I -Fi-t 1. 'T 11 e gl-,IT /1 1. 1 t 1 t * 1 .P 1 I T & r F . i 5 • I I i hi,I 1 I 1 I I r4 i $ le I --'' .C6)' kl,o ' 1' 7 0 '.1—)''jj L_____ __I i_____ _ I _ ,\\ '-‘\---'.--1 , _ il& . .... 1 .-00, 4-1- o ,t,*44 I It'i P f c e-,6 i 7 !L P a t4 • z •iii -.• . fl, c - mk Mx>toz-vccainc,i ,1,- - -_, gpLo. El-35111Jc PECK flasJlr[r1C,r--__=- , , 0 i u, . ''" 11 - ._. a p t tg,t8tt&rtek 7 F E 11 r, 1115 A tl 2 1 . . ' ' iii=1 A imp:mill I 1 „. T.ni 11 cD, ig -4. mmmmmm..........mmmmmmmmm Ti.-1.. .,- 1,1 0 0 0 r, amum•-iim - 1. N "1 m -0•=2B.m. ., 4 -9,. 0,,uf1;;;;; . _ it 0 In ill 3„„ra-. i Mi• l mr.mbri.m. CHANGEORDER ,4 4 ' I . I, 0 ci. 73 C-3 m o ---, 0 m m o (-7, ,..- 0 m 0 • I I I '11. ', . 11III j ' i r Ori \ I I I Tti _' I Ilk. 411111115 1 91 I ri.1 rill si 1,000, .:... i.. ....„...._ , 7 i 1,rt-' • / - - igl moth um, ._.,it,MIK ,.,.....-- ansi Ta f i-1 Il'1i -F 1 1.P, h,� p- F ' p ;mow i in =v 1--1 [ III i 'F i fir_. NOV S 4 I I ®'Tel Irk i - :i_ mi,1 • PR it Lir Ihretki g '1„,„',j,,,Itm. 110 i I��� . .✓4,e I , !fit- P.;r • 4 _mama- I -, "i. I 1®mo I 1 4: Ill 'M NON WI 1;� 1-117:ri '' l'-' iticTi� ° - . "E R 111:::115 r -illy 6i ' t a111'IT III 1 ,', oimm �i® � 141_ -' 1 M"� I r :;:::ii) oo _ .7=1__iorrn • Ci � . . \ i I d- I�-. - i'j _ ".I�•!' !iXLcJJ 1�11 _ u0.,,j��p \ I i ' I [-67�A1 � .M� "�_ 11 /_ \- I I I 1 — -rh in l��-i-oa lam, 11 ; I i / z ! - \ - r '‘i ' • , cli-, 1 /. , ( \ \ ' I 1 i r ,+7 $ -0T. r a� o F ; s e n£ •C' .,77 1'. E G:. Tk i+- £ . FQ s ¢'. 'n A k R^ E E "', e E i •rtn ri f�E E�� Lam -°e �` '2I '6 P /e %g i-, 1_ "I -3 s k a 4 tF st '1 ' : e 2 .P rr ,- al laiE @ r. HUN llp O 1 [�z 6 .� X 11 : l y-S ■ 31 c'4 ir n 'E A C� 'CtJa3■7 'F r�i Of x 0'1 K.10-41 iiiii iii 1,18 C) o -1 m Ti1 m p o < o — 0 , 'OAF 4 R 4- .t 11.e Il I I II1 4'li i II1II .l., \i I: i 1I t _ tl\•s\ 11 il1 2i I 1 \ I I---------7- 1 rl 1 141 0 - i 1 1 '---' 11 I (di- , , ==, f 1, I I ° ri / i 1 ri it- .01, 4._, cip II Am",' / oi_ I_ T1 I E / 1 _ 11 11 „..'e,i!!. ,' iiii,p ..---1 if, 1,10 _ _ --_-_---,_._--7—Ai / 1 i 1 4E5 /1, Ii'l.' - --I i ' Tit It tfr'iti:ir ,,z- , •1 tgti i- , i :pax/irri st ,..,, 1 iii , _ i 1 _ 7-.7., s , i •. ill " I 1111 II 1 i .=,=.ilibilk ..,,...... .1 ' - Nigh-. ren ginsii.v , . sIL Imiumsommul IP•••••t. • ./ _ t 31Ljk t- I ' T LL__ Milli 1. ...- firiiiitt=i ,i_, Iyil _ ii. = .1 1 . =._.... , La, A.1 ,_ ...i , y 4 r I 1 -t IIMI l'i 1.. Will \ ' %f iE \\ 1 i ' I' E - -,IV 4=1.•.-= I / ___L.L ; -Wi7 7t gl (- gzra ,, ;_:, / __........7. \ \ , I 1 — ----.1 HH fi t i 7 -I- ' ' l• i^. -0.°:i? IT i--4— ir =-/ili E----z e 1 i i I , 4= \ I = ''•'-c' " ' ,s-r4 7 7- EE \ ' —- i g --___---- 1,.. , 1 1, -- 1 t 1 -1.1 1 ••_F.; iir 47/ilei _t_i 1110,. \ \ \ \ I \\ ( 1 e, - = -c , i;7 4F- st.1., I.:1 -g:k q p If rs, ' r =_-.- -I;i-- if Li 1-'47 42-. -f,,:-.4 'i-3,2T... ,,RF -,_ I l'''-- -1011-- -4 4-4 Iti 17,1:',-,7 -..it.8.'_. 7.t. ri 2 ii,-5 lil VEi. ,tt; 41i z 1 4.4 4 A-it is. 0 t 1 zi T..-,r q..1 Pi i i a SE 4 1 1 A it or,c ,0-, 0-.4 4, ° ' if-gv r tt „tl_,„ it .„,i , t _,. g ef.-7 v at'' -`. ,,. 4 i r,,2 N. 1 -.--F 4 i 411 i 1 1 1,,z 4 Tgi 7 En, ai 1 t .z, g. 1 1 1 A t 4 i 4.4 fi ig g 3 c' 7. 2 . ettgwttetk P W., 9_1,91 ^ I li t -Ft , g l' .- ';'g,1 Mill§ifil 1 i ! Zrvi- l'`I 4 ti,...msnis cmcm-mrams ! M qigliMig i1 11 IR Q m rA L 9' 3 3 811 I .6 II ikt- .1 -.*.„i, 1111x r_-.:,,h, .T.-.,-.'„.4•0-gi 0 . 73 '71 i m 0 CT — 0 c' M Z -----: 0 0 O� ak0 A-1m 7DC�fm*1D mm{0 z-lN r x r-i G)0 C'1 D' Nm ONC mO�-I D0 0 .apt n mm rrrl r x�. re, U) — 0 m O 4•A . 0 D OAU1A A O� TD11Z/1Z ;D.p,m,� AmDO p tl II tl tl 11 H I V 7C O�Q m- XIn Z 0 ny ox mr o_DO mO mO ngN OG m fTl I La D D Nnzr-O-1 oem O - z r" m 0frtD -4-3 c i ZO -1 m m mm m D m -- y z A mDvr v o, mom oz• L— —L(4 = �m O > AO0o -En coZ ZDZ O"I � DOn D 01 � -1 �cvpQ(7 D xDO --1MDrz o m1 m, < T O -I Zx0m DoO T Zn � v < <Cn AZ Dp cr ZmD - pmO .1-- D m Dry - mpi cnr =r= z o m mr Z Z Om• - Omm O a DD a mo rm *Dm _ 8 z P1roD=� mZ:Hx� Z 4 z --� 03 —rro D, 4• m 0 ZD-lO 0-sw Om vrnm-.1 -IOOD m ZN 0* m--i 01 -1Dm "ID I- -1 D z0zm -4m oi <4'-.1ZET -1 Dmm _v 0 to o n 1 ,/ g 1- r o M x0 rn 0 • / `` rn p to 11 / 1 Ell / o / s \ FC/r y / • I '�`,P �OAO� S -;lain 2 ,r \ \ \ \ r,1 OMDmr0 OU)rn D�0 x coil O 1<-�OT. c .�A-I-17cC w I a��1 vexx �I n �mNzln D Imo Ul NLnN 205 A 1� Ric) worn 1(nr� r II r tnm m u1 I 0� �2\�O �n J �� mm� 2 II N"0:73mor IICI II NII 1111p>D yI • 1a �< a� yc) �� O II 11 IIIIII wW IItlZvA0I \ rTt 0 O �� C ccO0 N.r � VIp�00)•NNO C) �pDC7c�Wk � nU010V ocTooOI ptn c)Otn . In k yen CTO NCTcT1ONNNNOt) -,<II < 1*t` aka < <n o porn wrnrn -9m-n-t'ncn-n om<- rn \ .I> fi0 \ 2�o �, ', � mtr/ \� mm m =No A rh \ � I / IW N � � Dom I .I> I I I 1 /I 11 / 1 O1 p) ae at to I �°� I 1 1 NO 8'W / 1 111 / I /./ '1 'I v -1 I 1 \ 21Z 5 l r4 If \/ I i f I I \ / I I 1 I :°s N mil I �°, ,, B_ 1 rl I SK T"�. „J 47 • • 0 0 •C � �-V O in xi oll __�- I -a I ZO•,• I I I // \ _ "/? r ^r :� j •.4g f o % / tl < 0071� x r 1 1 1 m�(* I i t J \./g - me ter..•; I�+ t • T c, n m -1A-I.<-- waoo 11 1 r�l� � C3° / I �� m 2.s r ms \'9.r / .r. O / �I II › *m Nwt '�I I I I1 ortillf I m x a I i/ o p r- m In \/" / .'.o - I /k/IT I i,llula 4,0 „��illi l tzo ,gEFI . —T I �CS�. ^7 �w. j Z 4oa En II e11 l� I I I I III r� IIIIIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z^t� ` "Tian N- ` `• N. 01;,, /L i62 ` O N NOp� O N011 /,'( '1> / I I i ,I:�,,u,;, —--I 4.0 1 _ om II`,\`,\� \ cn 2n m A N p ^) I , _ \'' /� I e I _ / Fri I I f !1�1 µr, u N Vs''' ? /�a '` 7� O 'n"'1�t-•t Z m o0 2 0 y 04' U �\ a. O< oil" . "PP j? \. ., I \ Of ,.. A N O o I 11 1 �__I I I n� n i �` > / N TI D ��-q/l'�y�'``",y I I--- L 149 1 11 III I �' \y N Of m 11 I I ' 2 I en / I i'� I I,/7� _`7N - Iy I�.IIII:I.!ilI!;I III _ "O\r / to II in -n rri N II Si� I / $I I m I P IF, �. m I a I . tt. to O 1 / co a c II/Iw TIt� I I,g !1� I z I 1 I� I wOvx_i w `/ ` / , �• m O \ I I ? # I 111 �° ��4 ° II `�; �-1 I o IN' / �\\I/" �v cn aoI J}��y ���� o / riI. m Jmp ry l , I , a �\ / — 'i a'• — -fit£'— --YF-- IIIA il I / » o- I - 11 10 I—�_' I I v t ;? ao \ ... `Tol I ra 0 / a l I 6 \4 w' 50 o, III I I / .��¢ L+.n e s _ Er _ 1I t•71 3R.6 _i —l_ _ f/ 1. rr-3c °IIpI - , - — 1 �t• I n { s " Aimff. , � y9�e \ ,r o m45 ;� I 1/�v I I L l_i_I a�� I N 10°08'00" W 282.2 /Za^Ai I' ��\/ g '\\o2\• SCo \ • 11- -1-i--/ -7- -_Ise_ .I --. 1 , 1. rr, / I I I I - -/ . I- ___ i O0^7 m II S � I / y0 // / m \�6?,\\ • '' \ rri- 1 i ( 1 n ...z. 1 8 \ \ I ` um • \ \ 9 \i \ I 11--SIm I \ .c\ \ \� • I II 3 A 1'0 \\ \\ / '19 \\ \\ II \ coxr i \ \\ II i \ la r• `� \ \ Is \ \ �°o \ \ 1 \\\ \ . \ \ C n < -cn ���� \ rn .< OmC \ Oti\`4.k\ o m Co _,_ Z -- ID r.nZ m f 0 0 O K_ DD 0 ..I Z { z m m /5/11 PA770 NC A 21/11 DECK,HC rn ^ 379/11 DRIVE11 TUBER PLANTER NOTE,GRADINGx ,/ HC 28/11 PROP DRIVE,ROH,1C,$BEE Q ?TEAT RO. BOOK }�� 0 �MAY 6, 2010 P" BUILDING''""' Ai n 1B0N$7/ 9/11 PROP. ADDTN,HC PERMIT SURVEY *� Land `T�•- �' to —: REST CERT T THAI 116 WAS PREPARED 'E R A gKAT __, ELMER iofo/' Fran&S Carderelle Surveyor RESIDENCE I EDENOUDEDEN PRAIRIE,MNEc NO.Bsoa 952-941-3031 • C m CI Et_ 4 3 A _.. O ( 4 CA 7r f-- D�� -� _ I — Ia . . E:::iEEi1 y Z . • Sm Px - I-- I1 j 1 i 1 1 ------ A i I.' • p 9 -� .� mg Ptg $ hkPZrBD iE< op x r. �o[v E-e ea a- 'i CHECK SET S+ (1 m DUfl !!i z x Cii cuENrREVIEwrti `M 3R E I O P 0 0 r-' X MEETING SET ' �. n ..`.N - o�� n r� m k ESTIMATE SET C:I )ii -i F. $ g Ai ' b Irri m x y 2 BPERMIT ID SET n4 2 i Mil o x .ig o �M id '> 'S ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET '� ^/g z CHANGE ORDER 6 C) ® --1 m = O M az O _� < n O nlimi 0 n Z 0 • • --I !—r1 a a ' a vet 1 ,........._.r s 6F a e j --- —..-! 1I ; U = I a N ': a v 1. __--i.,- t" ;, , 1 i a.Z. N ----- 11 • . r . . I to i • ti I I ; = _---_=-•-----r 1� I I , 1 1 .j s is - I o 1 i s-��- -1 J - Ali 1 i ! I I{ I , Ifi it O o l ��i i I • • .i5g tr, §�5i°> m gf L °=s oA n NMEEHI CI rri X ESTIMATE SET CR C7 2. 0 4g n [rf X REVISION 4p D� : s ; 1 g & . r3vu ' y IDSSEr SET 1 n ? i a el .m '. 4 Al""' .b z 11 i . ADDENDUM ,x +..,.a 1` s 11 ' CONSTRUCTION SEC 'rT1 k: P .N o , CHANGE ORDER S g • goo 0 ® - rn '0 ' M o - o ; m z v 0 . • I Ti I I I j 1 " i1• 1 I i i 11. ' I` x• ' 1 I i H ,, a• a I 11 1 z = i I 1 I ' 1 I • . + N: '1 - —------------- • o I • I• 1 • 1 ' A _-z- — j 3 Rc q. I` __ — -- i I tar C. j. e . I . • 1 II I j q r--�r -O , a X r--- 1 'K,_.1.:_,7. 7 • Nis — 1i i_I r_ - • • d Q I • In --- ! . IILi1JHHTffl . II• I 1 I ,, 1 i -- 1 I . 1 + I. II i . It 1 i I 1 1• 1 1 . , • i1 I i I II I 1 �' 1j . H. 1 I H- ii1 ' • r ,1 if !.1L . i: I . 1 I i U. i i i ` i1 • j 1 !1 0 �1_+ gD Pt ' & D & & t& l; n _i ran oo� A � � � � �` 9 fro� s H fltri = cHBcx ssr 9 T '$ - CLIENT REVIEW ; Ai!II `� 4 . x ESTIMATE SET C� D i.. -�f _ siy (� L ^_ X REVISION �I_ ' n a PERMIT SET .•Y A P $ HUHflg�g BID SET x a . i s K zS ADDENDUM aE-e., 'PP : a.Y S CONSTRUCTION SET r"� , `� CHANGE ORDER 8 0`° X z e o r. C) c' rn © 1 rn o I Z 7.1 _o 0 v z 0 m �' �! . 11 1 , ttil:„..71:(0/1 II . I i I -0s� , ( �': e��nM*'o ff . I II 1--- al Ill ii t i 1 1 ? 1—I i..®b f Ili I I ,, 4 I a. U p a 1 I _...f .{ — - __ 1 ; I •I (+1 I �.. iviiiirk 1 I? I I - 1 ; . Bk. , „ 1' • I, ; - .. .., .. .... • ? ....... tY�114 �, ... I Ur. 11 I '. _ , il rri 4— U._ �= I 4 I 1 ui , i II • , 1: —___.b_—_-_, , ., I 1 1 1:� ��� j -- f f � IJ i s ff 1: I j 1 �. _ I — ___. _ ,; I _ ___ ._._ 11 I � Di � , � 1 R - : ..., [ii---t----------------.-. .-3j1-.1-1 .1I it • 1 f if I. i 1 • I' , • , i .. 1 . • � = � 8 & k � �© m -'� R_` gD ni a � S = 'e5 ��iy N& cn a s �� rN �-�i _ CHECK SET on A E LI 6 �C A [" a � F m ' i ro w ya O?_ �4 C17 CLIENT REVIEW Cr7 x $ � R _ o _ Y6i O yyr �C MEETING SEC ;gyp m iS 7� 3d o n [IJ a X ESTIMATE SET REVISION C7 p S —{ zNN4g ; 4 _ a 0 P y X PERMIT SET o �n g rt�' ytU BID SEC HI A o o X P i . ADDENDUM O 333 Ap N !, i 's CONSTRUCTION SET 70 E o o '�"Z. CHANGE ORDER :,4 4 ';"8t `aro y 0 Xi ® --I I "T1 I rn ® C31 o oz 0 t • • • II ' • • 1 ! -.:�i® ,. ..=Iti :? airy o; e - ., i • ---—_ - - - '.- ._.._._ ...-.." 7` .._... ..e.• 3.' • • it ry.ar I: f I I - I rr E i•l ii ;!:s 3 ®ice ... .. ..... ............ .............. ......... ._..... .... • t.._ _ _ .. -... _... _ .... ... • i u 3 I I : mum._...u. .n.nr t_ it rai e _ ... �� �rrur��r�6tr 1 SUOMI a'i �. Lt is g 1 � ' . . 1,, • ..„ , , , 1, , • Af� :�. ' + • _.i — .,__.- — ter. -... I V,r I I n• � _ • 7' i t/��` . ®II r I - / �II\i PfI _� � "� _ I Isei t ; = W I — � • i / . ilt , d , _ tom .:' 6 ... _... ,... .._ ..... - I • Itit!i- ci r- •-- • 1 , . I • I • • • • m a ti5 d `" 7DI _ T ° g H w M =.—y G) r 30 WI ! -7 n Ego 9� gP no @@F a w t-t� _ c CHECK SET i R Y- - nc Z m p� 1� Z W Cr1 CLIENT REVIEW ' �- P - -1�11 O Q C~ X b>fiE7'ING SET CZ m _ ���µµ{ n 5( ESTIMATE SET C/ S --i $ a R q ,!i i5s n� � V I n ' _ X REVISION :p 1 r _ a g `S y'"• y /b BID SET tz7 .2 P g a ° a I' Q1: ,?;gl _ BID SET . g CNN s 1 c ADDENDUM ,. ' g g - CONSTRUCTION SET w a a ,', �. R �n CHANGE ORDER 6!w 4 0 m ® n m O (xi NEM X I-N.1 m 0 z — 0 vl , r r---I Fy r - 1 K 1'�K mot '- _' UgF1.a`r< of F--___"°'f' - 1 6�F,'n ,—fit �� op '$f,C,.B N, '�` JF a m "(�' v {n x " - -�,y�. • - ---- - ---- _ —yy--- • - Lp I �{-6 ,3.3' ; u on-1 of ----___ _--- - _— _...-- ! `` o . a� I 1 , ® Pa 2 a6 I I 1 .. E c -I- Iv I C&. _t �\ 0' 'Fi ��{ •�i.a ►� rTh e I awe; �� - w$rn v. \ SZ SAX eL Fm- q Z i ! 1 i - 3�3 -V t cr, , , ' , 'I On; ..N �^ In vl 41 'la. (�55 ,. Nt Om u : w 'ice .. - /"- - -_?-mom, ^ .T /t -�.� L p'" - , 1 1 k R _,_E I �p • - G1C I. fi I IB}`P .s. F -- --- --_ -- - __ f I 1 - I TD i I I I y i 1 �`` i - I 7� I i 1Iilk >s r I ...,..-_-_-,..-_-.1 0 1 .,: x1 Jam__-I___° j I I II � 1I wa 1 ° lA I II J -- ---- — I N 84 _.„. r eg l' • „ r' \ sv-ii • • 1 -1- i ,,,., ,71- tts 2cr¢ a i - +Tw m mI 'F Ili oW T i ; ; a 4 I- _. 4 . If \ I 1 I,t ;dirt 1 Ivl 1 `, p:[t".ktFwcajela77zttfota_ , i • off= I e„,�(La R , s� - �- ExlSf-44 047.•K I.at i'1DLI { tuc1 SU� 17YKt<.ilz \ F rr S• NP�� N'P ze-6,- ex1511149 nsze La:a+lal time l • gF� 4. Ittttk ..D ps4,g `hr7Yl-a �1n ill J ,.> �� 's� � a —, Rf _ ="se 3 x S - Q r� CLIENT REVIEW t[ _ b tii _ G �; O m t~ri k K MEETING ES CI P n - -P1 ; 44 4 6 AI - - �e WA m Fr tSj CT'J X X REVISION a F M ! Ng y "1 .,:i `�' /� PERMIT SET O p SFi 9 g m' BID SET ,:,m' ,• „, ADDENDUM 1116 o e, ,.CONSTRUCTION SET XI CHANGE ORDER !!SS °o°o o p� ;y4. ' �.�.. C) o rn o n 0 "I m ® m z v 0 t N u vR r _ \r^q� I. { li I 4. �l-L I I, ---� i t,,, --4=-Iga-- , III I Ct 1 1 I -1 / I _._fit_ - 1 N.bR' I I —: TY- x . -�+r i el ill 1 Te 4 Lq Z r 7r i I '$ I ,I I -- P m ---. • f I a .• m ,G —3 is —_ `-- = , -- 1 ----- ----- --- - --- [ 1F11 N . I ( jp 1 I ivw • I IN - e 1 t I . F u.PR i. I L O>- L a' _ ;I i 1 ' `�J Q I 11 ... i 70' N V1t h;. 11 I Zs _ •#„ III I flTT L I z�b° -1' . 1. PRL laap-✓�lILF ' • II I�ni --1 - r 1 I .... I 1 f tkEil - +aui- wR r- x cpi : :' 1?� _ - I 11 I� I1 T Y o I '�� I ' = 1 rya II - - �� m 0 ,1' 0 II 9' " I oII—_------ --L I. -. - ` i t le: -1 . ,.,It. ~ 1 ' 11 / -' ' _ A t Cs.. . _6 _ � o. 1�1 jL _ s I — 1 I - _ __ Mt I nL .. "F�I^ rt PI Fr . • - Q : ji ; 1 . , . ow .C�H mz 4ji11ki14 �v_O ;• Lf\ QS ItEk & f " x �U-0aP ,y CA m 1y> I e=y o fill ;Bry O . ��,� _ � mom o x o CHECK SET 8 A _(/j Ss� z /� FTy [7y "_ CLIENT REVIEWtrI z #R �j i ,e_to o Q C" k MEETING SET m '� �{ 66 o' PO ` ' E 6 tri 4 - �C ESTIMATE SEC C7 ,�_i -�1 Dj 4I ai? V .1 4_ V 55nn P� y 1� REVISION O i t y 8 Q �•,+ R e O Q s PERMIT SEC .i•1 Q 2 i ? ,� '.,�2,.. ADDENDUM iiiii ,._.r., „..,,. CONSTRUCTION SET P�� �' E. r-� -. CHANGE ORDER S E a g 5 0 o m ® 1 rrn o CTI — o vz 0 gD`In-F' 1---p;FGc--- --r " I ,. 1,....,._ter._. t e PR �N U r.. i ml" • I _ Z 'r I 1.1 PR -I VI g,. I _ 2 --4 / ". '4 I - 6 _ 1 k' ri f 1 —��6 I - 1 rt 44 ----) ; \ sr oK Il I \\ E/ �4 r ilI ' vc I No d- tR s I I pk^Ia I 7 r r - III L x --- a , r -1..". O as'$y-X m i. i I it/ ' I n .Corr,, 0 1F% lk_Fts I \ I IT ait t y3 z n x Ire ;\ R I =—T.==- £ . .. — ) ; I8-0" _1.th1v:yAk"Asvrhr#a—4. N. r ...--- -T^_" -- --- --_ .. • ��.: O N.o . if 2 , - • $ -i-� III _........_._. ... __._ _. _- I... D � -III f vL-+£ ''. Ir. x�•!fn .pupb. • '1'�,�II T 1 \ I� J ( i -r --k '!QL �F it, 111--------- -___... __ °vx .r. vx - - _ I t li f E I I Z r a _ .... I I. ram.... .. .... � II _ _ _ ___ Ii11M I 6-i / �i� I`R . ,Fk , t . . JI tnA'vI.I 11 r I, b " 1Lt r. , _T _- _., -- -I I' \ O 1401:- "Qkx' 1: U'" L 1 C o�AlA Mgr — Irpa • 4_ iii - . _ ® .I �I` _ 4 N x IStt Ny 4A1Z SQ p1 [SI ` _:p '{. .; T/$1 tl..1-1 - \-.. ... N. a ` ..:E.E14Ttl:1�1.DEC,-pfibJF rIG:1--- ...---- N rA ,- - Qj x G-_m m fffvPy g1 m ,85 ° a6 H aw 41 o �' -pp^ U r- 13 0 � Jy g w m�n z o, x CHECK SET C C1 to f- 3/' CLIENT x M66rINc rri jflHV IEW PERMITSET .,y 0 11� ''� `9 51 BID SET A 1/ M • CONSTRU11 i - UCIYON SET XI A`+- ti g1 rri _ CHANGE ORDER o o 0 o m ® C) 1 1'17 ® Cil — m® z v a, ` ( ' 1 +I 4 1 I I i f 1 u � i 1 V /I ' ' I , I 1- ' Olthft ;'.'"--..., ; • ,•la• f i-- �� - - 11�.'o 1 "I - /I, I Ill" it1 �'/' V:I^ ` )9PIihI F;1 # "� I ,© �°F 'I I\ . " il' .1 I �a i+ aE ®ilk I M II I ( ft ?khI#Y ., el. I 1rc i .e� 7 i l ICtriI * I note®, = Dial �'1 r-- to. ! r °;f , _ 0,,, 1 r �1ill. 1 . 1 _ i p....... o� I® , . usll®ne i 1 Q� �i 11I1II! ®` ' ® I',' .I_,."'��' , ,fit e - .;F 1lr I '. r rs 0 �n ! ! 1l113 loll 1 lk-' - I c � .11 _ a► I t�e- 1 . I b B r. o� li III ON _ masomo , • s_•''r II 1t =II R. �i vita. — ° o ri{ i _ { A F F I'f i e--- 'j IF!ik1 I - -1 o H I it IIG:�ill ! I' ,� • ill , I. i —---i1 - In . 1.711111 Ilr1 f®, . 7----7-_ ;. 111;000vioopropp... . . ,. i ti I :, . — E1E i. .,., IIli - Po" \'ill III r..11 I? = rs a1" . ' '? 1. I . , i \tli�' V - , r� i i ..-- 1. N t •I I . 1. _._..ip \ / 7-7'.- • :111_ ,' I" ' - 111111111h... : 11Mil ,: • . . . . . \ mi.— r.,,9, �pls ,.,.,-,----1, -t, . --.. .„..• ....,:am III ,== Min -.•9-1-kairbp.,,-~04 \ - 1 ' . : 21 I� • a 7 I , / 7 ' � 1 . : : ( — `ice ��. _. -,�.� y.. ;N1.,+,a: go, `' :.: -� i ._,.m .. R _ OrAi .J „.,,.„ U r—❑_ y.� � 7x� STIR �{ l � �i �� ►r - r }Pla 2 ex „„ rg X .-vx L., x Df .7! Et Dk i „/ g '/, ice- L� .ae.S. s 4 - -P -!7!. -A # W T.r (-. v{R = *: + L_ IIDRr � tk t- -�• * K +�'"�T. x- , t '4. 79 tr ` Lei'''.I� r in -.-E A F Y v xt 77�+ ;fir X a-c�P eax: D c� .K' * m+ {� C;'.N. }."R , L rt .V. \ fir " I .� c{_ -F.�RY �J f f p IC D• �J' Q� �� 'n a 0 ` !k. 'RQ _`g Y. u x .tin L� kL° 1�`5W Lam -c. kg 'ctF • i 4 ,roll. y L rs„ F U tr r1 , :, Da 7 Z ",, -q. T ,,_ m' } �.•44, y, 05 vGp m No '� �ar ,-f 1�; �D` 0.,, I,yF� I k �r RF 'II f�K t�' .ni �- vL rn Y �`2 �Q t F (`. m ;.5 .�Z .,� .Q� F,I• Y - fig` 4C FI. V Y C I ,- 1r, 4 N 1 T -V lP 0 4 $_ `; F• -C 3 3,1 F 8= .: I f. r.s�.•..L' N �,fiF� yik: H. c'W C` � . fi I J�F °' s u IV �� F a z vin �, o : : TtF f °_ - z • n _ ra G'oo a _ �o pi $l ^ y zw x = z CHECK SET [ � 91 & m b� , 1 i ° 0 0 x r>E�ErnvcsNT REEv�w �'� i?�1 m � " QA T NA m �rl�� n ° Q n C�7 �' xk�c ESDMREVIS TTPrsvr t7 b s 2 T D N g� 2 u — i 41 Z �.m y /`� PERMIT SET riy (p m IF a 8 a ' ' l�:® A vo X �� �I BID SET S: a ADDENDUM 4 a N a CONSTRUCTION SET "� � o ,d CHANGE ORDER / £p, `a a.go 0 CD XI C) m ' m o cD v m o -- ).::...; • 1.," 10 g 11 p is i 1 . , ." 4F417 ....4 Tin . f, ,,,< I \ -1. -Ttg:".- e -r, . , , il ,-; 2.0,,, ,, . , xl- . . I, i 1 111111 i ‘2,...':".,, ri 'Z'z r 114' ! I i 7). P'-'71 4 tE ' / 7PF 4' r V. . 74 t t i . 4 ''? E V : . I \ i • Alr- ie, '...,7%-i. rn 141 , 1 ..... I II" I \ 1 '''./ . . . . Ur 0.• - I FA . . ... MI .4, Q . , 1; I I-11 4.- I a 1 ._r_t_______ LI - . , t . , . . \ Pi ..„, . • -,- • . , , , • ..., . , , , i . , , ii- _:.,„,...„..,„.„,..„......:__,•.:,..„.„,„, . . i.... .1 .. 0 m : ii jil i 1 • ..gatif,', . 1 11. -1 91 ! i 1 i . .., 1 , 1 il . 'CIO ! . 1 1 i . !ro-- I I ' Vr - 'VI r / I i I I / -tr 7 I 1 4'''‘ : 1 • 7 . t ii . WI, • i..„1 , 1 ; .° _ :... .; _. ,ri‘7• /1 1 . ,ii 1 ' I Inv; 1,' — —t- 4 1 '• _,-- i.4 , ; 1...,_, ' -4.-; - ' ix- 1 . IN.1 - 11 -'1.2 ' 1 ' -I' -': '. I :I , , - ./. if . / '''. - *.-'i - F. • 1 1 • /. ' 'Ai 1 Ili I - - . ,• , - ,-, .. ;_i - -7, 1 1 '1T I I ) .-- .i7:,-, I II '17r.. - 111 II "1 TIMIM.17-.. . .,_. ' II' ''''-'.'", -j-..-- -N-, ' . :I 1 ;,,i 1 1.1 I-I ,. 1 . I i . _________ r',,,,!< ''' . . ,..h;4 - 1 .i,4 I li i 2 .1 I —7- ---1 1 ' I • •: - ! 1 i Q 1 ' ;q' id•:.1';"_it. , i 1 _-:--17. frl-1-1 I..' - 1 ri-.. . tt- 1 / -_ II 1.1 _ ...*-F ti --i- ", • _.,-7, 1_, . . , 1_2. , .1 x 'F., - ,r-- •• ,-- 1 , ' ' 1, - 1 . _ I 't I L ' AIIII- i-11' I- - i - v I ,i-i,1 :74_ ' ' -• 1 ri ' : ! , , • eN I C i i s_eigiwillid . .,_ ' I -- I • 7 1 - ; mosomegesseento. grimemissal .; ., ''' A 1 . , •. 1-r.: 7i ,.__ 1 , _ ,.. . III • 3 13113 t i I 1..........1 I N. I !sill. 'mm1 FIIIIII iht=11 ,-- f••• in ,.....m...., . ; • r n V magemi II . I .., k IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Z- 1 1 .....: vi •r•-• .1 =II In IN il. 1 ' • . 5 .i v, c t-- . : 1-1-' - I I simin .s,_f. = 7 - , - Ca pi I I -t-; 1 . - - i ',ME ilia ' ' ii \•!7 in 1 , • . . .. -... . - . • • • ...:„. , ippp . —.711 IIII it • 1 __. __.-- . ,I, i me -i.6....,./mil - , _,.......... .. . 4: . lik...: :111 • ' I '. LI'..--.,-;" j I- .• .1.4 ------------ •-,11t "' . t 1 ' 1 1 i ..I I ii....-1 ........ L_L] \ -. 1 •2 \ I \ \ \ 7_f.41 P- ', 1-1. 1-...1 • , -. , , - ; • 0:r o - r .,i---E , i-I ,. :.;.; Li • , ! ; 1 4X .. . „... . ,14.......: .„... .,.,:trr: L L._It. -31\:,:,;. 11:5,11117 146117,21;1 7......, .. EliT Te - ---. . • - 4.' \ . l• \ \., IA_ 2‘, ...y, ..1... _ . . , Hl gni ,',' 4,..v ,, -1_ni.'i?. %z .n_--11.... , , F 74 —... h ILIA.i ., \ . A ._. •, . 1 E ' --, ,'7 r4,i . ' E•E ,,-- 'ti, ' !--1 ' 1 ,-c:1 .-A7,. I.--T— ' v '. l lirt. i ' ' . - - raw,/ ...... I F' . ; • , .4 H 1 ' ; -t.47-, , . ; -la- r ,..............' . _____. III • . , . , „ • • II 1 . -,, ., t -..r IIIIIIIIMMIll L - . r e., , 41 '-'R . '. , -' ' - ; • ; , , 1 :: III I 1 . --: 01 0 i, ; , .t - TZ '1,-.. ' .-- ' l' ..- ,: M E. I. .- I 1 - 1 I 11 . I 1 i• , , •: , . ,, , • '; 1-i4, MI ... ° . ._, )1 ' i 1 ', 11; I ... 1L , ._. , _, _ ,, 1 .I.ii 7 t.. . , ,,z. , _ 1 \ . ,, , 1, 1 ni • \ \..., 1 .----Trti 1;, 1 Jr „1-- , .11 • El• a 1 1, I . , , \ \I 1, i . : li 1 1 a - ;" gig ., , 1111 . 1 :,-.;ariii i i .I ; -;.. . • y I ——16.: ).14 ,..; . Al .aatfliiii, - --- : -- . — 7 it i ',1• • ,' , •i , 's :\ , , . 1 1 mbeiloillfo : it; Alf/ . , .. lem.int I 1111 • ,\ , , / i ..,-.- .,,ail----,,,,,-1.1iy I ii /in! . .. , ' , '. (II 1 11111111,1011r• 1.111211hA , , ..t.: . ‘'L'".i '. , . \ I / '' / / / .--r-I illigirl ir 1111 irl/Ail 7 i I . 1 III III I 'll III Ili' A.4141 : . ' \ . . \. • , r , .' :.i ' '. . Id S'V 't_iF--,--- gE- ''.= I 1 ii 1 ii j i , . ,60150$ . :, :,,,•, ..-r -V-1- ' 47,_ 5--7:.. . . k 1:13 'si: .-11',4 0. ir. 7;n_, ins z,_.-rNr / III 14'. Of ',. . ' '. . . .. . __, - '''' , •:,;. ,-p 6 r xiLi "Il'c L',7 , ::°- x E..- ! :ro. i'r. ! §. ,.,‹ .tpq cr '2 - . 1'1! li f.=', •7 * . -7tE r:F ''' '-. n4- R F t' •.P 5 4 111 -AT 6 • : Zr r E -- T v I -. • : :r ; - "-/%r r ,1 •; d T • I ;fir." '! ig' 4,4 -4 .. * 7./. mi.-. • , E .- -,..,-,... N21't Or's I -rr I 1 z I 1 n -Z. -a.' i •P xig.-7, x4 '' r,i g ' x".• E ..,07:111911:: 11 F. • ' - -' . - 4 tAE .r• 4zr . 1- 1 ' 4 ..r , .,..., .c. . .,. •. .. . . .. • . i . . - T , . s tri ,--a - o c.,,,,..,, 3 > c..n cr) P 7.1 r a 9. E- 51i1ili; ! x 8.• 2 77 4.1 •:; _ CLIENT REVILIA' i g h31 § fl ' i' i q . z - . - .-‘,. MEETING SET tri 9 P §3 O ,x ESTIMATE SET 91 ? . F4 ;;t11111 6 E4 . , ... .. - : x. x. REVISION 1,- .•,. , — M .SIR• C) z p Q M 611 2 8 P PERMIT SET ;al lr 0 A X ::.'.s.§ . g 4 7 ... B2:1 SET ; 6 E ADDENDUM ...3.4 I:, •,.. : 7. 0 g ° CONSTRUCTION SET "r ;1 CHANGE ORDER r • 0 CD c-) m '71 1 ru 0 Cri Z. M "o ni (= z 0 0 • r 410! 0 Council X) 7 X J Exhibit D cn . II rn O II x MD o p -P —I rn O 0 > -ri p W NI -n 11 v CC, co 0 �q M 0 ° 0 C7 O -11 r --io -oo m _ 07ci > mi- oo —{,— O -vg = I v p -Li • , -_tc� � oC � � _1 - Dino x04 1 � � D rCTlp 1-1 c`) Drnw cnO_ rn )3 r II r cnm rn 0-1V` UNi II II O II � {{ IIv� IIDD D II II 11 11 II ww it II z orn C � O �''',Nco _ Ncfl p -i0 �o0NN0 0 � � D C) \......„,..,,,,.. (I10 oi � � C31pCJ1 v) � OOuOU -PC II 0 O O U, c) cncn � --rim -r, -,, � U, -T, U) M -., -71 m A)) � � V) O -`' / ' ` o 4) o ,x p -Ir77o X ! N.)rn -17J -I - wcoo o /f y 11 Drn Ai -1- oA -/ Z O II r itX II D in- 7J ���0,� //' II cou ryl 4. W 11 _, Z --P0 > � O ' /Cy /! /I.. .k) c3\7‘. \ C0 v Z7 nO D �n CO II U\- / n .."\- -/-„,.:\ ,,,Y) / q CO < / i / �Q..,. 01 c?;\,/eb/ • / 1\ 4„" s' AO / V) /�Y t + 110 Council Exhibit E Summary of Variance Application The goal of remodeling this property is to make qualitative changes in the character, structural viability, and livability of this lake home. There is inherent value to the neighboring homes, as well as the entire community for a property to be transformed from a peculiar design and rundown condition, into a home that meets the standards of quality of the surrounding neighborhood. In particular, the roof design of this home has not withstood the test of time for either form or function. The roof design, while innovative in 1977, is very unappealing by today's standards and is in need of a transformative change of its shape to appeal to current tastes. In addition, the skylights are not a desirable choice to bring in daylight, given their problems with water intrusion. There is practical difficulty in making any changes to the lakefront side of this home, due to its location on a point, with convex curvature to the lakeshore. The intent of the zoning code for line of sight setback is to maintain lake views as they exist for adjacent properties. This applies logically if the properties are on a relatively straight shoreline. However, on a point where the lakeshore has convex curvature, for every house along the curve, the line of sight drawn between neighboring adjacent properties is much further back relative to the subject property (see attached diagram). If all the homes are the same distance from the lakeshore, all homes along the curve are nonconforming to the line of sight setback requirement. If any home along the curved lakeshore is to be changed for improvement, it must be moved back further than existing from the lakeshore. Over time, as homes are improved, each would have to move back further and further, resulting in less and less buildable lot area. A property on a point should be, and generally is, considered desirable, and it is not the intent of the zoning code to require all point properties to successively move back in order to allow improvements. The end RECEIVED OCT - 5 2011 CITY OF ORONO • • result would be that all such homes would successively move back and lots on a curved point would become unbuildable over time. Many communities use an average lakeshore setback that parallels the curve of the lakeshore on a point. In this case, the homes are already located 150 feet back from the lakeshore, whereas both the Minnesota DNR and the Orono requirement is 75 feet minimum setback. It is reasonable and logical to use discretion in applying the average lakeshore setback along curved lakeshore. There is very real practical difficulty in applying this code strictly, and with the intent of the code, for all properties on a point. The proposed design for this house does include changes to the nonconforming area designated by the line of sight setback that was imposed after this home was built. The improvements resulting in the shape of the structure being different, but the degree of nonconformity is significantly less than existing, and there is improvement, (or no impact) on the views from adjacent homes. The legally nonconforming deck could be rebuilt as existing, and even fully enclosed beneath it, and comply with zoning codes. Instead, the proposed design reduces the decks by 3,048.5 cubic feet of structural mass from existing. Removing a large area of deck on the east side greatly improves the view from the adjacent neighbor's deck and home (see attached photos). The proposed triangular area of deck on the west side has been eliminated due to objections, and the deck will be rebuilt as existing on the west side. The bedroom deck will be rebuilt smaller as well. The existing nonconforming chimney will be removed (144 cubic feet) and roof dormers are proposed. The dormers are predominantly behind the line of sight setback, extending minimally into the nonconforming area (see drawings, the dormers total 1129 cubic feet in the nonconforming area). The overall impact of the design is to eliminate 2063.50 cubic feet of structural mass from the nonconforming area of the existing home, when considering changes to the decks, chimney and roof. Given the height and location of the dormers, there is no impact on the RECEIVED OCT - 5 2011 CITY OF ORONO views from neighboring homes. The design conforms with the 1995 approved hardcover for this property (4,955 square feet), and in addition, all areas of plastic lined landscape beds will be removed from the property (2,300 square feet total in all zones). Structural coverage conforms to zoning code at 29.9%, and is reduced by 8.2% from the design proposed previously. The deck design originally proposed was opposed and criticized due to proximity to, and noise potential for the neighbor on the west, and these concerns have been eliminated completely by removing this portion of the proposed deck. The revised deck and stair will be rebuilt exactly in the existing location on the west end. Both neighbors have stated written support for the roof dormer design by email (emails available). The revised design presented has significant improvement in the nonconforming aspect of the home, bringing it closer to meeting setback requirements, and offers greatly enhanced value to the neighborhood with no negative impact. It is reasonable and logical to request discretion in applying the line of sight setback zoning code to permit this variance application. Thank you for your consideration, Tami Helmer and Al Wahlin RECEIVED OCT - 5 ZO 1 CITY OF ORONO • S Council Exhibit F Melanie Curtis From: Tami Helmer[tamihelmer@me.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 8:27 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Fwd: Last night Begin forwarded message: From: Charles R Jones <crj333@aol.com> Date: September 27, 2011 9:54:15 AM CDT To: Tami Helmer<tamihelmer@me.com> Subject: Re: Last night Tami, Thanks for the heads up. Would like to see the plan before you approach the council again. If the only thing non-conforming is the height of the dormers, I won't object. Reason that I am adamant about the sight line has to do with the history of the property. A compromise was made originally to fit the house on the property with the least obstruction on my side. The yellow house guy was the one selling the property. Charlie On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:01 PM, Tami Helmer wrote: Charlie, Just thought to mention that we are not on the agenda for tonight's council meeting. We have been very busy and not able to accomplish revisions in time. Glad to hear you approve of dormers. We are bringing Baxter to dog daycare. Tami On Sep 13, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Jones <crj333@aol.com>wrote: Tami, I am sorry to have had to do what I did last night. The aim is to maintain the value of my property. Try to think of it in the reverse. Let's say that I wanted to build i something ten feetm your lot line and forward of the average setback line. Would you approve? The reason for my last email is that I wasn't interested in discussing the issue as if it were a done deal. The council makes these decisions. Not the planning commission and not the staff of Orono. What bothers me most is that you were led to believe that this project was "doable". Mike Sharrat knows, (or at least he should know) the building codes. The reason that I take issue with him is that he allowed you to draw up elaborate plans for a project that was never going to be issued a building permit. In his defense, Orono has been inconsistent in their enforcement/granting of easements in the past and perhaps he was under the impression that would be the case here. A plan for the "lipstick and rouge" portion of your project will meet with no objection from me. The dormers are attractive and hopefully a good solution to your leaky skylights. If you want to put a screened porch over your existing deck, that would probably work. And it would alleviate the need to take up valuable parking space by extending your garage. AND it would be considerably easier on the budget. I hope that over time, we can again be friendly. I hold no grudge. Al seemed rather angry at me. If I said something that personally offended either of you, I am truly sorry. Baxter has been much quieter. Thank you for that. 2 64isfyr • • 4 _� of �, .t �s �'ff,• * .(� r:. "..'` t yL . �' y - ..r'C, 8 , �17y� ,d a :1 •a �!, , Tip ,, ' ,-' '1 •- w•a 4.f. N ' it ! Council •� X J 't s� � �,:,> . . Exhibit G _ 1 �. r� ..raw • -, •— .. - ,i...,:w.„:....f\ :-:.I .\ . : :.,„:::: --,.; ,4 1, "ik.,:th;14 "(-4 4 —_..,. _.-- ' \ ' 1,:., .: 11s � W; AL fie_ .,,:; , r 1,' Y _: k "w' `�k � 1 •,h '`: • A...�} -''' yr ,>rpn+3 .. , ,.. i ...4. , ,s.4 •-)J,,,,:•,,""'•• ' 1 ' ' -.1...-y-,. '.• ... . ' ',„--''''..' • . .., . .I: '''''',',:. ; - '.4 ,„,•,•.,„7.". a:a......_: I* ::/_•,'r. :,, .-.: . 7....i', • '''.1.' :-.‘''' ' ':' —''',' ...-._,.1,. , . . .. .. .1 . . .''".'4 1,- :. !, F !..i't A �k _ ?,. j R q -` -, .. — wy i .j • `/� " .# — A,. .- • i- '4.7Z '. 'a 43{ } e dal• a • � i � •hs n . ,.h tr a —:^.sy `r t .. b :' . '-1'.. 1'.ii'l:::'1- "., a t �j� _ r i Tmo a m „r< �t 9 .. a o* £ q ... • B9 V.- .i S ; d1 c f\ " ("'"t t� A 1 i.��t. �1,• /t, 1. '('R' el j 1'4 • .� d§ -t, 4 8cq' p': h 4:- 7 s4 ,I..,.u t t r'$ t 'S\,tt F,,.;�j� _ \ta g[1- 1 t iv 1 Y ti. - `'t C3.: c=-'-74'` =:'mot"Yj<•„F 'I,' �+4 Y , .Yrr�.' ^'1'dl4•' �,::,I.71 I I 11:.I I t' +� 1ty t{ a :::1 lit;c:**-: A:,.4 171.:‘ 41 I:7:1' i�r ,i e -9. - 1ir ` PIA::: c. r -..:I'l.-' :,a:.-' ...':;: :..:1''.4'ki 1 ''' -.41111t4t " r. • Jp.� i, it c 5 ♦t'� �rc' :‘. a x� aFt , ;. '.Y - '' _i:1 • • I iNig -. •.• . • .,!'tip '1 �. v /'• ``,t '"[} , a.• { ''I ''-414644.1. , , l - ,- y •d - 1_ ` ' „ii .. . rles . ,.., ________„ 1.0,,,aalt . . f ' VA'. u$ �' • r b ali l imat. ftw �,a d 1 i )- 1 s I i]1 j 41 . LL t_ i i cwtFh %I - ,iI A ;+ ligat L Vim• _ I !- '-7 - .'lL ; }� k Y a it R) NZ k i� 1 t-- 1 1 ,,,,,efif. - ''-' il c '. r,v,„_,,..----°‘,.;-.1,.....,_,.4: 7,,-.,,--,,„‘i„...,,,.„,_,.....:__ ..- ''.—. :-...: „ .,,;,,,..,:.-----,., i �'_ i 'iJ Y3 �1"a,'' IIjij1i'(I::''1 r; ty 1 ,t_ t!F ;'.� k` i ! Iij 11111!It`!''!!!1'1,'il — c z .. .i .:t' . > t t . i1F Fi F �,{(1 f f 1 I Ii!i' Ivy . •' ' 3I �>5 c 4,�Vi .,I11�►I Ill/II1!II,f,,, i 1 ; ♦ , 4p1 F Lori F fi%1��1i III I!!!IIl) lI�i t if i A . _ k•x I - Ief / 4 4-_ s1 ce $1 -t ilrI !IIII11,1 l'!1" �- .� .', .w I • \ ' r j F t b I itlli I l I III'I( NI, 1 .�...,"y ii, 3 .1J I/ III C , F I ' '4 N 1 ,.. i iIt t FA? 9 ;'.° iI,I ,,Kr q i , ''y / j'a! i ! r !\♦ lI, is tF 2 Si:„ t1(, ' { SHs � 1 ,;„.'," ♦ $ F ht 1 a t A�,. -"q ,,-t..r!.. •,.,:',rilte.,F.� ,� 1, ; .. T i t s s. - i',71- ." t•i�L 1 ,. :, .��' F .y ;/a.Ga'y , 44. fl y !•, ' I i '" - �, - =•\ 1,� a .�a.k�i --F7 q � i s. ,,"�, 'j".514.:,i A? . x 'r tr ,-&: i111 .I,t�i - 1,5 ;y 4 Vic'.-$. to-,�i'0-4.� t44 g x 7 .' t1a d p 6,v . , ?s i;' 7 43 t}'i.-"eAt'?,:1}*N- 1 a `e.1i1�a t+,, .M.tM ''iiYQ '�'�i%X ; l `"`5 t• ?ii '. "�¢!Ty �'2:I!tL y'3 �:"x$i>� , 1 FS t1Aef P�f{ `"'s t ay •i, _.S� 1 i Y��t1' i ..! '!t#� 1{{ �t ,CIA 1 4`-'.LSD..+ !-y•<x - ''.,,:1 s, cppNL f F fh 'a,Y ,,a{'! R'd ,lam ,•ii4 y � " i 1 1.' • _ - R V. L ..ii fry . S t' I R S V.' • A I .111 1, • s »5:, Apt,- A, a as 4 4m !�. #dam j1 y ; .% 4 s # � • r 9 f i'c 'fi'',- a'4. .-el, I 1 a ► ,y, Aye $; ,�1s'" •--....it _ 1111 f fi. u t .,„ �") 4 _ "�,,Jr; T ] -++ ate. LyF r { 4- /// ! 0 00044 . ,, ki i i''' .,i.-...-,' 1 , 0.....k, 42 4, .,,, . . d ,p t t `k ...yam ..01.7. yf i Va , _ - _414fs- 411,010, * ,.:..,..,-,(4.,.t......=4". ,..' ...,...7........ .....--, 1- _ •_ p . �,��r� , .. a +J , 'I VS 0 - IIIII ,..9 e +. x +� :. i i)t 1 t �. f. 4 �, R i2 9 .ys S'b T !♦ _m �3 ' � mA o ? dit2 ` ti�" .Y . .Xj , may\ « � PfM1%re r S.if2sc g2t R 1 KK' y / q ". ti' 4 A� � g , 4. 1 • <, s -:* " s eta -`v� �: ># �" • 7 , ^4 -k 1-- '� '} ti. , .r •ifs` • �` T '. , i �K$,f'."¢,+ -� d • "+''yam 4..:T.4•41% ` 'lam -, . 1• Q". _ _ V , .. • Al. • iii ,. • - • .: • .,,c.,.. , . .. ,' rK yl , k s,J '_ 1 k tiJ_ I 4+• i q tip. i* . U �' .:, `�"'`: r _ a�a . , 11 ��1+t sir cam '2 4 r '. ay x ' a C . ',;f•.v,.:- + , � + - t li t y .,1 / vissoNNSIN 7-a,}yr }-'»a ,�-K. 'Y3' .a , ` ieAi r ~-,c F 1 ..k .Far w,ii ^`T z Y .b. - f" � +b. „ �}fx r ,-.Y,F�< w,,, ;e,+ t,'R� �r t +. + •' • 1~.s��-.f- ,a.Jk: �at _- "t ,". ?.,,1''' J�;- , f b� i,t; Y`_. -y'.may' _ } F , Ali S .+. r Y Y j\ '�T "f�"� `Y. `a3 •` �,,,E 1 l,.,.,�: • • O CIZ tli `, W � O�� re © 0 VJ W t� r'. }I ` .alit... \r v r i t s0 .tit ., �}.. d..., 3. ' ' /11 d Y\_j if,,, S , , C .icit:At, 0 ''; �'I r 4,4, ....,. . , pil!j'.,..‘ '4p,i... lip. ,,,, '1:5 le.: ...r .a y*4 ._ . -, ,. -. (...) `O J ) A • • z CIW o O C-... Cr W u O V 1 LL W 5 O re o C) ri ( ) CC1 W • 4 to , ♦ 0 !1� ,t ' L 0 g /'� r r, `t a. ai ...C)� .. M a) C * •1 O C) .., a 4 a) 5 ^A I a • • 0 p _ z W• N OL C.) U ad 0 (/' CZ tt a) : a) 0 k ail ' 0 ' '' ',. '-',,,::',.'tk:4:,fr-14,./41,:i.:...,.,..7.7 "= 0) x 5w .t I�\.$S it j MP. W i 1$ k, C yr w. w .....Y J f yOk X g aifMMto s . 3 y'"A, M1. 4 h ..yy 0 r a eaw A) 4 x 4e H'„k, + , .T ' O 4 , \ 1 • • • RECEIVED OCT - 52011 CITY OF ORONO � \ S 1, Y'. e" ay Ciy' _ .. I . , ,' . i,. - '.,V EXISTING y$ '' 1- aoP' - • f. «.5 y, yi. .'rat R t,°t 4 •� r :i, 310 5' ;1:. A�'3 Q 3 ��y{° ife'd>( :.:".--;A,ii'V A., , ' "-‘,•' . •'' . - ,', ...• k - ' - -- • ilk v, ,.•0 °A , . .2"1 .Y. a ,'1'r s5., :..i7 {, . ' - Jr kk; ' TING u 4 ._ - ,.oq'tit, EXISTING �. ® , rG 0 'll N 2 .m If {k �" w" 59 jiipt, \ ,...ela #°- iti.,-.* a,':;''•'' c'''' , •r!, • - ,.A',,,:7,f,.,',.k : :1: At,..."''''''': 7„ 1.1'.‘1-11 ' \-"W' ': may, r a .:a yySr ,I. N.(' * 3 b= 4 I Skit ii xm' ,..,rt ' xPa.N bwY ram. a� .,..y;;�� � rf �� y�• ,. S Y' {' 0 . 7rhY' ,4,, •tip ^._yam i �y e +�,� •9 t 1� �4r "'i x� t of ..:Y' 2,1.61. I - Y� F t S n a k r_ , ., ��„ "` ` I x lip a } ' . yr ' +sy . - o m t k rt r,.t 1. , ,443 �. t n".; 1' >V . h#� E SaA ' m� r� - r il'3q{ 7'1'rzicT + ` 4 ,.t'- �:rk Yro Y. wv_>,, ..,a:Y ,,.,1, J-. t ✓. .� Yr ?. `)'K k n = 0 CT .1, ili '.4 n Y. _ — • Selected Parcel ®��� Dat-' Printed: 10/4/2011 1:33:47 PM Her n p i7. Parc& 1ED: 20-1 11.7-23-34-0008 Current Parcel] Date: 9/6/2012. Owner Name: JSANNEE D JONES LTUSTEE Parccei Address: 311.29 C' SCO CD 9 a;-®Nt , MN 55391 ^ W � YYa5 ►I 1•3 � � � 5 h • ' • E. N t0 A N O G • RI A <V Cd0 - �] A: A+ A., 00"J "] to A7 to el) A� VI C Cn � � Ori, > n � A �C p .�i N c Cet c W W 0 N NLH \400000 � "'t VONANQ' O yO N O 1 ►. C. N .P . . , = ' �.• OOCOO O ' • O O O © O ► O A 0 0 . • �k 1-1Ic ..I.} k-00a-hoN I N C C C C k fp C C = = '^ ....,.. 1;20 "I{.olrES "i UQ fpet C • p �+ O O fi • • <D —H p• er„' `� r� H i.�j y I ;4 ,�• w�. -.. --.—_—_-- —s---- "� w o O = q >r 1I I I PIHHñTL E JI . L : • I I • , ft � I 1 .I I 1 I IQ ; v I 1 i 1 ,11 I •I : • ! ' i t • • I \- •• • _...-. p . .Iivi.= • ,1.• 'b • 1t zCa I jz • • • i. I . I + I . , i.. ..I Hi Gi A ,I• 'I I. '1 I •.. �. ....L: . . 1Ii II -. I. \ 1 I. 1.. I•I I L� 1.. • 6 l L I III I III 1 IlI ! - 1' I l l Ij lllilil (j1i � ii li lllllllll. • ! •. • II - j� I I 1111 11�Liij1! I J ; IIi�_�_I_' I II �. . .1 .I . ... . �. I ' , .IT I \ 1� 4 I A III ! I I 1 1 '1 I' • i! I • 7 �� I I I , ill 1 I •'o I •I I' • �.L • 1 • o. , Ili 11 II 1 1 I1 II �` I •• I i ' I i I I I N � .I �fi- ---i D � I I I • 1i I :_. . ... , il II _ ... r I Illlli. :.....-... �.ir I 1 Hill 1 • ' 1 ; III • II • s ill. I1111'11 I\ I I I ' ; HI \� • fi III '. .I�j I�.I. .. ... 1 I^L� i'I. �.. .. i; I II 1 N‘ I ° ' —P .•. . 1 ____ ____________. _ . I P )> . -4, •.\-, \-, \ ,-,„‘ ,',..,..,-..1 r 1 , 1 : • • . \\\\ \\\ 0. 1 • I 1 • \��, I_ _ • • t., • . . . • . . • Pr • t rl rI.zoe 1r 1401>5: : I In ten . ��> °P P z � �" A to d a rnpi e F H rD 1 3 o n y ro c agE _ CHECK SET CLIENT REVIEW [ 0 �nm 'i R ti fi m ��� B N I. g 0 MEETING SET -' Ig , -f e ' trl °ESTIMATE SET C P S 2 �' ��9 i REVISION U �F q 73 PERMIT SET .,y0 M I"o' 6� YU10-' ^ 6 o BID SET x n �'' m n 9 1 ADDENDUM d H '4y,`� k 0 Rg ' CONSTRUCTION SET it it ',a��t�, _= C CHANGE ORDER S o o Q 7) N i ' • e • e� ^s_ 0 -o DTI • • z v 0 • • Council Exhibit J Sec.78-71. Nonconforming structures and uses. (a) General provisions. (1) Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses, and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained.The Zoning Code establishes zoning districts and specific uses which are permitted within each district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. (2) Effective date. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this section shall not be,enlarged, expanded, extended, or altered in any manner which increases its nonconformity, but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or,subsequently amended.Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a nonconforming use on January 1, 1975,and which were thereafter specifically allowed to continue said nonconforming use under the terms of a conditional use permit issued by the city council,shall be allowed to continue under the terms of said conditional use permit. (3) Safety repairs. Nothing in the Zoning Code shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the building official. (b) Nonconforming uses. (1) Change to conforming use. When any lawful nonconforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use. (2) Change to new nonconforming use. An existing nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use. (3) Relocation of nonconforming use. a. No nonconforming use shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of this section's adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of this section. b. Nonconforming non-structural hardcover may be relocated, including full replacement, to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of this section's adoption, provided that: 1. The hardcover is nonconforming only by reason of the percentage of land devoted to the use or the square footage of the use. 2. The relocation does not physically enlarge the size of the nonconforming use. 3. The relocation does not substantially change the character of the nonconforming use. • 111 4. The relocation does not create a new nonconformity with respect to size or placement by relocating to a different hardcover zone as such zones are defined in section 78-1288. 5. The relocation complies with all applicable setback requirements for the district in which it is located. 6. No relocation, in whole or part, is made within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary. (4) Decrease in nonconforming use. A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to decrease the nonconformity of use. Once the nonconforming use of such structure or parcel of land has been so changed,said use shall not thereafter be altered to so as to increase the nonconformity from its decreased state. (5) Discontinuation of nonconforming use. Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code. (6) Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use is permitted, including incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the nonconforming use. (7) Alterations to lawful nonconforming units. Alterations may be made to a conforming building containing lawful nonconforming units, provided they will not increase the number of units or the nonconformity. (8) Expansion of nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses may not be expanded or enlarged. However, a lawful nonconforming gun club may apply to the city council to modify its hours of operation or to expand its operations within the existing defined parameters of the property. (c) Nonconforming structures. (1) Involuntary damage or destruction. Whenever a lawful nonconforming structure shall have been damaged by fire,flood, explosion, earthquake,war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if within 12 months after such calamity the property owner applies for a building permit to replace the structure. If no permit is applied for within the time period then the whole structure shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be in full compliance and accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code. (2) Remodeling and reconstruction. This subsection is intended to apply to the voluntary and intentional removal of all or portions of a lawful nonconforming structure. Whenever a lawful nonconforming structure shall be destroyed by means other than fire,flood,explosion, earthquake,war, riot, or act of God,to any extent then such structure may be restored only if a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the commencement of the destruction. If no permit is applied for in the 180 days then the structure shall be built in full compliance and accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code. • • (3) Expansion of nonconforming structures. No expansion of nonconforming structures shall be permitted except as specifically listed and allowed herein: a. Expansion of nonconforming single family residence structures. Lawful, nonconforming single family residential structures may be expanded, provided: 1. That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity, and complies with all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 2. That if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located,the expansion shall meet all height,setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 3. That in cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50 percent of the required setback for that zoning district,the city will require at a minimum that applicant shall make up the discrepancy by enlarging the opposite required yard depth to result in an aggregate yard depth equivalent to the combined required yard. b. Expansion of residential accessory structures. Lawful, nonconforming residential accessory buildings may be expanded provided: 1. That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the accessory building, and complies with all height, setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 2. That if the accessory structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height,setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. 3. That in cases where an accessory structure encroaches upon the lot line setback,the city will require at a minimum that the existing accessory structure shall be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. (4) Relocation. No nonconforming structure shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed at the time of this section's adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. (5) Prior permit. Any proposed structure which will, under this section, become nonconforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six months prior to the effective date of this section, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within six months of the effective date of this section, and continues to completion within two years. Such structure shall thereafter be a legally existing nonconforming structure. (Ord. No. 33 3rd series, §1,2-27-2006;Ord. No. 85 3rd series, §1, 2-14-2011) Editors Note: Ord. No. 33 3rd series, §1, adopted Feb. 27, 2006, repealed the former§ 78-71, and enacted a new§ 78-71 as set out herein. The former§ 78-71 pertained to nonconforming uses and derived from Code 1984, §10.03(5). Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further,the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries.The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, §1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, §1, 5-24-2004) Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) Hardcover allotment. The following hardcover restrictions apply to all properties in the Shoreland Overlay District: (1) Hardcover zones. a. Within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, no hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed, except for driveways, stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. b. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL,there shall be no greater than 25 percent hardcover. c. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. d. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. (2) Zone to zone credit/debit. a. The allowed allotment of hardcover for the 250 feet to 500 feet zone or the 500 feet to 1,000 feet zone may be increased up to an unused square footage of allowable hardcover of a zone closer to the OHWL. b. Unused hardcover cannot be transferred to a zone closer to the OHWL. • c. If hardcover is credited from one zone to another, additional hardcover may not be later added to the zone closer to the OHWL if the presence of such hardcover would have prevented the crediting. d. The allowed hardcover in any zone shall be decreased by the amount of legal non- conforming hardcover in the zone next closer to the OHWL. (b) Additional hardcover provisions. (1) Overhangs: a. Where an overhang is supported by a post,the area under the overhang to the outer edge of the post shall be considered as hardcover. b. All but the outer two feet of an unsupported overhang ten feet or more off the ground shall be considered hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 1]. (2) Decks: Hardcover may be added under a deck attached to a principal structure if the deck is conforming or legal nonconforming and the added hardcover is otherwise permitted. (3) Driveway easements:The following principles apply where one or more properties (secondary property)gain its driveway access from an adjacent property(primary property) by virtue of a driveway easement: a. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves both the primary and secondary property is considered hardcover for the primary property. b. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property is not considered hardcover for either the primary or secondary property. c. The area of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property shall not be included in the lot area of the primary property for purposes of calculating hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 2]. (c) Future improvements. The following items shall be included in hardcover calculations regardless of whether they are proposed to be construction at the time of building permit application: (1) Proof of a two-car garage (detached or attached). (2) For all garages a driveway,subject to the standards in paragraph (d) of this section. (3) A 24 inch wide sidewalk from the front door to the driveway. (4) The minimum stairway or landing at all exterior doors as required by the building code. • • (d) Driveways. All driveways shall comply with the following minimum dimensional standards: (1) Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a driveway apron with minimum width equal to the width of the overhead door(s). For purposes of this section, a driveway apron is that portion of a driveway that extends 15 feet from the garage door(s) on an end loading garage. (2) Driveways serving side loading garages shall provide a minimum turn around or back up depth of 20 feet, as measured from the garage door(s). (3) Minimum driveway taper ratio shall be 2:1. (4) Driveways shall be at least eight feet in width at the street or private road. (5) A turnaround shall be provided for a driveway with direct access to an arterial or collector roadway, or for a side load garage as determined necessary by the city planner.The minimum dimensions of the turnaround shall be eight feet in width by 12 feet in depth. (6) "Wheel strip" driveways are allowed, but the entire width of the driveway(from outside to outside of the strips)will be considered hardcover. The following drawing is included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 3]. (e) Compliance. (1) It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. (2) Nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except: a. A roofline may be changed but the roof may not be extended over unroofed portions of the structure. b. An additional story may be added over roofed portions of a structure. c. An open or screened porch may be converted into a two or three season porch or year round living space (including replacing a post foundation with a perimeter foundation) provided hardcover is not increased. (3) This section is independent of lot coverage regulations in the city Code. Accordingly, a property must conform to both hardcover and lot coverage regulations. 0 . Council O Exhibit K "ivCITY of ORONO 4,. 0 r' ,_ O Municipal Offices A \ ��J L; Street Address: Mailing Address: "� ✓ :; '1 ti 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66 '44 SHE 4G Orono,MN 55356 Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 20 September 2011 Tami Helmer 3131 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 SUBJECT: Zoning Application#11-3521 On July 29, 2011,the City of Orono considered your application for variances for your property at 1313 Casco Circle complete. Your application was heard by the Orono Planning Commission on Monday, August 15th and was tabled by the City Council on Monday,August 22, 2011. This letter is your notification that the City is extending the time period for City action on application 11- 3521 under Minn.Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The time period for action on this application is extended until November 26, 2011. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us if you have questions on this matter. Sincerely, City of Orono gall Melanie Curtis Planning and Zoning Coordinator c: Mike Sharratt via Email Telephone(952) 249-4600 • Fax(952)249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us • • Council Exhibit L Date Application Received: 07/20/11 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/29/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/27/11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6 September 2011 Item No. /d Department Approval: r Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: 1" Name: Melanie Curtis ` Title: Planning&Zoning Coordinator Item Description: #11-3521,Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle—Variances—Resolution Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, Y acre/100' Lot Area: 25,800 sf(0.59 acre) Lot Width: 95' List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Proposed Plans Exhibit B. Revised Survey Exhibit C. Revised Hardcover Calculations Exhibit D. Proposed Screening Plan Exhibit E. Draft Resolution Exhibit F. PC Packet 08/10/11 Exhibit G. Draft PC Minutes 08/15/11 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake-side deck, driveway and a garage addition are also proposed. The dormers and deck changes are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The garage addition involves changing non-structural hardcover to structural hardcover. No overall increase in hardcover is proposed. The proposed garage addition will meet the side and rear yard setback requirements and is outside the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal is within the 15% structural coverage limitation. There is a summary of the history of the hardcover on the property within the Planning Commission packet beginning on page 2 (exhibit E). Following the Planning Commission meeting staff and the applicant conducted additional hardcover analysis on the property. The result is a revised actual 1995 approved hardcover level of 4,955 square feet of hardcover (29.9%). The applicant's proposed hardcover plan includes removal of the existing "illegal plastic" within landscape areas within the 75' to 250' zone and results in no net increase in hardcover above the existing (1995 approved) level. The property owner to the west, Charlie Jones, expressed concern at the planning commission meeting regarding screening for the new deck area on the west side of the house. The applicant met with Mr.Jones to discuss the potential screening and should be asked if and how those concerns were resolved. • 0 #11-3521 6 September 2011 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Recommendation On August 15, 2011, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variance as requested. The applicant was directed to add evergreen trees to the existing deciduous trees along the west lot line to enhance the screening year-round. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance including the screening enhancement, consistent with the planning commission recommendation. As part of this approval staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property—including the 0-75', 75'- 250' and 250'-500' zones—in order to further reduce hardcover. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should consider adopting or amending the draft approval resolution. oi,iikett., • -h.. . �� Q • . . . . . . . .. . • • .. . . . . • . . . . _. . . , .. \....____:_. 1, „.,,,,.. • . . • Oo 1. • c i • i' ! r Z. . • • • i a r- m . 'r N m O o 171 o m z v 0 • • .e�1 • .. .-FRS �C t&ei3teteez8 j� 11 °t C) - co, b o im iV t ig, u1111 t€ x .N n .! aas gq �re C. .„.D " 2dllli l g i ia Ii - . a ... Lil o 0 o O LLl CV U. LLJ = Qr w _ : os .b — --- --- - i w � - • • F ' I • . . . . , . • , , .%''".1 ,.—. iil 0 8,.11° I : C‘i 4 1 i 21 6 IIIIII g h i 1 E t 2 lillili u g ii =x 2 g 11 INI.p_msa,.] 1)i 1 .i i illiillliii f r, 1 . 21E1 IZ 11 ICN. 1 1 '' i 23 .qa411R8StW '''.11t . --..' ., ii • ,' tr7T-711 i , 0 Lli o 0 . ir I 1 • 4, > c...1 re ' 11 1 1 1 • .- !,=1 0 ,1 1.13 csi u..,0 ---, 0 I,I,I 1 = • •• •, , • • Ce -- . ,. ?..3 , . . _ .. .. . , 1 , 1 1 ! rj 1[ 1 1 1 i . _ ! __ 1 . I . . . 11 1 • II . . 1 4. I . 1 • .. I 1 _ g.- - _co iIi-- H . .. 1,----.__. L--(2>ir), X . _ 1:1 il --. I • . ---I _I ..:'1 I ,I" I 1-"- -5,' I I__ 15 i 7 - ., _ -1 I-- _ , . , 11 , .t__. -1 _ LI- . .. ..,. . . 1 ..,r . . . . -,.1-'7 ! , '' , . . . a_ - , .: 21- - 1 ' 1 ... . 11--- •1 . .1: i — . . i . 1 4 . . . -....... I 1111 2. . --4f.1 - . . pi ,p • i• --.L—Li ik .' ! !I ,..... . . . .. • • ii, • p • ',1' ><IH . . ' . _ . r _ • , - . . . - - . _ . , . . '- . 1 i 1 _,...:,,, :,..; It 11! (7N .] O Wit' �� w § G ,"_rji x� H 0 Ili L�• y 33 o d 'I aaaaaaaaia " �'� " !a 1 • .. -. . - i C f 1.�11 0 > N W N LL •• ri • I . r I j_ =®, I it 1=0®.Q _ j 1 1 II - 1I i r { ®R®E- r _ v 1 I—�DDD® ®I= _ ''1 1 -1 .I. -1 I1I 111 I; .��� ,I 1_ _ � rLL 1—DI - : - --1-,74,-ib. ,i ' '. .I- :!y� 1 111 C 1 ❑n r� . i- , . . 11 . . I 11 I lj _ ' it%. 1 - - 1 • I i ISo I to!,„i..! .I1.., §hi I1i4gi1i1§i/lii i R i 1 eel pill cgI) Iv w w __ Ltd _ H g . .la[ • Q 5 l il a3j aaaiaa:as§a /Etl 1 ate h !! 3 9 0 a ' ' O > '- L N O O IliU i I i- 7 -1 �1:---- i id 1 21 _. / u r \I. 1 I - _ ne ti:�/; I I 4� I:` P '-, \ I r gawk y' r_ '.. I If 1 I' 1 1 ' 11 'y I 1.: 11 1 Il i1;1111iI 4 �l� t 1 , _ 1i� �; I I I. /," ril 1E �i 1 II / I1 s �uhi�1„ T 1 �II t -L7 r ti , N I WI a i g' .1 a i v �: '¢'ter: •^er N • I . • n • .-... _ a • I... I • Y I n f rl _ jl � I I, 5 ._ / d �e , I L _ 4 1 Q0: . , • i ` �a>- Ill I L &I i.,,_ ii: r �_ 3y�: ,Yr r _ir p I I .I 3 ;_ e I _. C ,I • 3 • .\ 11 Ig I 4p.U-L ]` I ,, :I y 9 I'll' ::.. • w III i 1g s I ` 4. ly f If 1' -_.n 1_- '_- O -- 1 a ,1= I 8 ... .._. -- :r. -- ( �.' ... — `. I. —\ � ...�ii � SrIL.. - _..... 1. r lsaa .§ s � W a r CI .ems 4 pp • --� rr a • � e a r i g I e. p 0 F.. 11 , c\.] I i i o L� 4 o 9 ttRlli i P. -Wr.. o o 1.-C‘ ; N • .13 a — _osE ... • , .. • _ Z 0 _ OI o , CI 1 4434 ' : I, ^ I if Wit- I I•I t 1, itIII I , ' I. l 1!; 1 1. 1 - - - - a'•rir I I ' I - - 4,aw-■0■-E'mI i� _ - 'I _ r i I- e4lIthli n •1 i I f s • 1 ' a . I e l aaI �. i 1 - 1��, _: !� 1 I '; bail I 1 I 1 ° ., , , I,I ,m • 1,, w_I __ I � � lig i • I 1 1 aen r r I iei 1 a �1� r—, '; ! 4 MM _ VIM —' ' I. ' , _ 1 ek. • II , I . j I • G a ■ S i NO ° Ogii9 1 1 1 Nam,=�—, K a ° e cei �' f—" LC t aaassaeas.a `. -_:'Ma}vdnro.Neb.5nloodp1.2' -=nu1a at.'man=0*._..•T i I i J .� r p �, = o . IN- 9 g. II1a . II I J '. t 11 1 I Qit 1ir 11 I. ,; 4 . ' <I I1 ,.i, ii tr r[' _,. _,____L_ ( r4. 6 - I I 1I '.. .- 111 I . I I • 'I 1 I. I , I. I . If. '7 ,I I y • I I. 4 1 s dI sa I 3 l �s •Zr I _ 1'. 4'a = ens ! • I_ z g . 11 . I . 1 IU (-- — ,„.__ s...,0 _ „,., ___ 77.,„. ,._ •„,t .. , _ , -%, _ , , : ,. :><.. ...., •iii , • i , ______ • • , _ , „ � W; 0 . • _ > I 111 ;rimrttua6wiL11 Z !, .03 CD 0 i'l 11111 A i21 6 . 5 IA N 4 o ...E.-.,-"--151 immimmuu II z 1 0J, 2 t lillhiiil .6 I 1 a 11 ..iiiiiii52 , lk 1: IniNfi 111 g . /Iilglii ,,, ._,-.*... ..rd mrammaa n ........x.mi,• • 0 0 IZK a -:-'V gq (-3isrN. i Inkilliii t Rh . - 1 . lArlr z 11 1. il . :q1Z84:1S53 § •• .. • . , . . . , '.. .• , . • . . , 1 22 ',Iv •TZ-- , - N 1 1'1 T,.. 1 - .,, I I' .‘ g u di , 2 ; '''r ... I :._ t 1; vz nit- ill. F 1 :. ,4 -4 4 T t , - g ,_.1.4 .,...,...-1. • :,.;fI .,_ .,1-.., t . riIP.:1 Ott.-!"-,Iirt- h!5i i lir 3'' ird,, , fiy ).,A... ,,,,. -A,.34. 2.5 N,'5_, 4.- ti ul ,,_. 'f,- „ ,, ?it;E be, li. ...;...1...'W_, %. 74,3 l'',,,t 1÷`fr.11 tj'.: -77.. .,' -...ti t' -. '2 P f',.4.4.1 -?-t-IP.-.-;1 ni-sa si le-;s- 11- . , -it 71-‘1?:11-1 Z.1,11 ' t,A .".Zi - 4 6. A::.'i i 11 lit ' 1 i41: ,ti:*44:aizZra t'll-Igi ".I h . ,,l- ,i , , y i / i 7 ii . .1. ii :._ . , , %LI , . ,,,,..41--,00,r;----v,i .„11_,_,-11-, , 4 pi_g-.1..1„,, 1,__ r_ ,. _\,_ 7,--1,1 IA_ , ; ._,„,' 010-earr.0.0 „„,, i__,:, .. ,... 1 1 1 . . . __ ;-I _ _ • :-_-_-_-1„_,;_. - ...,,,..- — , 1 . ...,„ 1 i . 1 117 - , , , ., -N-•-7-, 1 11 . i4, • - [ ... -_' . 1 • 1 . 1 -i. — , 1 ,: __ I; .\ :i . -11 _ , • I 1 --•,. , 1 ; ;I .. - - • ' 11 !I - I+ - U. • , • I !gin --='---= 1.1 '-- 1 0 z 11111 r' 1 , ,gr, '... • I 'is-----z 1 I ...* ...,. ii. I:i pc - -- - I - ! I. ' l',10s. , . •••=f1=11.6,IE, ,- , I- -,-1-,.. _a, , • . ..-1. 1:1.0 - , ..1 ai:::=E-1-.=-_-_-_ •1 \ --.■• - I:::, 1 • i '' ' ffr-H- -I -I• °....0•000. 41°°°..M.I....1.1 M. E 1 11111 i I • mai - ' "11111L•2 1 ___. ._i im_ _..... ., 1...:.. . 1 im,,,... 11.44 I 1 • 4 -. 7..,14 _ . . . Ann I :: if.:1' 1 ._ _rwu , ---- ---c-.......,,agni ' . if : um.1nm, .1 ! it -. MN ! !J 4- . 1 _, ; ..5 I.E.1:,,__ '''' -•1; i ji--•,_ -______ f 1 .. '-,,= -1 k____ I -'- -.' , . . . 1,71,11 I - .11F5 - .i- i I -41 M , l•;',rs ri:" __ I 51,Si-I. -v--••1 IEEE. , I Eli ,__ I iv_ ..111 •• ••=.0 ilir 1 I =NM • I 0:1 0 - '' .ql g---- ---- ,•f,, + .1 ...- . • • 1- 1 4•.- , i. ,.,, ___,,,, in.1.1! a 5• _ , - - I TiliiIN I r, ' I ME 1 1.1 ; 'Ill .1-1.g _! 1 -,: h 1..il 1 -rmi - - 4 ziaL ,1-11 la ' "' 1 v *, :-.7 is,'rpg ,I.,, il IL§ olt__ ___--- 1 ,, ..Tin: as i_L-Li .. , , , ... , t 4 - =,••I I.II " -ki 0 . ' I'_ .• moo • r. ,,,, . . @ .1.1 E-- - I' '''''illil to „tr,.. me ffttil-of... .t , it _„,. . _Pounpui- ., : io . , - 1 I..r_ . . ,Iiitilr 1 ii....,- .1111! Iv11 . ' . - •,•• 4, I!d! ii . - 4-1 - :11. .. ,...==. is. ,, 41 • , 11111. °Ill Bill rrivi-r-[-...I S I' I II:.• .•••• t. - i. . ,i 11.rill. 1141101 I" ti.1.- , ' „I,,,,.;.1L, I-,. ..flilr.0111 ,.1 1 • • _. --r=1-.kil.il 1 ilr ...... :, 01: II 1, ,. ,. . ... ,lc _ , • 4=11 111___I$ I 0— ° I Ili i '.'' , ......1=In'I' T ;,i HR.i.- I -"'",... .--- r._„.._ -1 = - ti - --ir, , -., . • -"iticil1/4_4414 • ! ____=*--osiiii"------... .. , -....1.1111,9111 __ LI- 1 f . . • " ' •;...Ht‘I.NIPM*".11 --J-li . ..' •- - .'1- ''. Arillifill ,1 f 1 : t''IM" '., , :A...,r LI : :, . ... i -,e,-,041,.-....,.. __. ;1,,_.,„ : al • ,' ,..... -z--_,-_--- ..1,..,.-_,,, 1, . : - I- -- - - - !'t i • 1 ' • 1 la - a . ' .4•, ' , wor ,;---•!',-, - --— .,.— I iipavi,10.1-, \ t k;t , . ,-.., IN 1 ,•, _ ..... ., rmw,;'-'-,:, i t .....,„„... T-11110 _--- .!.: . ••..I I - .. lil - 1 " • ' ..-',M,..W2M, M-'M 11 - RINNOMMEMMINI., ' ri li.. , . onilil dill lIkt 1 .,. 1 •3" ' '''' I .'• 'I 4 ''' '11 .111111 ' ' . /-. Ilk! • . I I 11 1 1 i - 1 1 ,..._...,....,11. ?. , \ __•.....,, , , • . 1 i , A , ", i 2. II=.'. I. 91 IV... 2' .L.tv.-.2.L'I it'- .. 4li SI4I- !A.,-I J'" II atk.1114 115 i-t,.-;.IP.- i- ..4 i& .2!I It; 1I'.7;"'2 71 VI_ 41:81'-:-: r. -• -ht., t i; 'ti-T_-ft 8.5 - . , -. . -• 0 M a > 4*4 CC • •• !II ,!;.i'• molma ,, LL, .R g .._ ,',. , ....4 1.1 1411V1!iii '6 1 0.L.--?-1";_s -M01 1 - pIllpIli I, ';'' '-' 1,1•J7. . i.) i\C** s R iii t _r; 1 '' 5111.1 i' . 11 t! Ili naggalqgggg 11 1 — • 127•I -• • • • I . . , t 3, g. ..1 -5 K • 1 1 IL j PI ' n • , t % gi•/ 4 E.43 ,I. f. It _i. . . q- i: f, '4' 4 l• . . 3 I n* t; ,I i. Ni.,-,.. . .. .1. .. _ --' .1 -. kfta , - , -. _ 13- . 11. IV., _. a. - .•-• ..r.,.. . -1,, .2,to ;,.. .11 , a. fg g: /§g, 1113 t',:. , g u r,. A 1 . -,J- I ! 6 4 0 0, h . pfil. .It r II-'15'.k .! 1 11 . t... t. Eh• : .'.,, b .- .:: q a 1:: 14 Al a o.I ' i,.If' 4111-4 iik .1• 1 •f' ''':' ml- itj.1141.1 .; 1.1--t - I t 21 '11 -. , . 14.1§4i• g,:',1.1t1 P,IltZ '1../11,` liirgi 1J I ' -1 _ f 7 li. . .4.1iti_,:24it,;2.. . ;.41',.,•'_nk ,41,,,. iiil - b : .. • ! . -,11 .... ,,.k,..4:t -,-,t-z ,,T,.4f. ._• -s,_. iii 1 - i - • A0A. .= - •.., 11 1 : / li il-1: .A-4,,,,,t,4-:41.. .4%11 Itz 4.-- - ', • - • - . ', Iriri .. _, -_- I '__,-,' // , ' / i 1 i ' • , -,,....- Ilk ' .0.---.4411.-* I , - „, ., : 1_,..L.ameri • ... ....... ....,... 1 • 111 . i i \ - .,..,,,, ,„•,, --_-_- ;.., - .1.- -r\i ,..11 _,./.__,,,,-,-., __,,,L__ .11 MM._ '11: :.-ALI----- -F1 \ Iiiihi i• , . ', !ill • _ __ . 4, I : : ' , 3' • :. 7MF1' .' j'nn. il ti• '1 1-- -----1-- ---,..- --"' -1'2.A-h.- • Ai --------- 1 -, l .- !..i , _=, , . -er n! i : 1•P' I ,.":11,_ 1-!::,,.. .1 II 1 . ' . V . ,l!'• 1 \ — ' ' : • ' 11 lejlq. FI'''. .. 1 I I 1 Ili , I .I ' III: :It al. '• . - I \ \ ..,/i p 1 , ., ,aamminemil,. ilk.: ,..,„ , -10 , \ ,-,,,, ',' .,.. lb.,..., a-I W1 .4- 2 t . ' 1 \/ • r['kg&11,-7 *ilris/nerfl 1 ii• •t-:.''- --- to ; c' , ,-L! 1I_. 71T- \1,._.,:,, --\----; - -IN.-_== ii,ley-.. -- , .4 1 . : I , , , _it! : . • -------.- I /, I -4. , , I./ - -t'.I 1-- 43' - i , / ': . t nu II,: , . NI* 1, .. , 1,, •1 io 1 2 1 IIIII ;— -0,=-.I 1 il 11 ° ' -1t: - \ ':, • I[ :1 1-Ivil.-'i- ' i ° ,,,,,,, , .- t• .-„- ,,,_ . . ., ,.. , , . _ .._,.._ i . g.}. !, ! , •...!• . 1 f L ! : u_l I n i ' V( -:''1„1 : . ...1 .1.h i ''''.-' '"- . _,,P.• .- „. 1\ • H,--114---i'• I.:-h. 1.- . owqiy , ;fr y'\ , - _I ., i• r . li_. . 1.11.F1, - 114 h. - ‘ :,,....i,.., : 1.1 . :, . tc! la , ...!: • , i. ' 1.11 II- / 1 -J2 .. I rl'r-0111-r ,,'-! r-,_i____:,„;,/,-, , li, '• 1 MI id 1 I ' ,1_ t_rr 1, _. . ;_ i i ,;,..,. 1 drno i .., .ti. ri E.rlr '7'L'''' - - . ..1'-'-iilt: F-4-----/,ix- , .11111=E 1, , /N,g.. 1 ////01:---,--......=„7___r; 4_ , !- :lir, / arig„ 1' pRf- 11- JI. ,1014i441 giro, 0;,,,/,',. •:,,n -1- '-, 111,_191 l' -_ I. " lifii; 0 i ,4 '.• P-1 11-1111I . • ' I It , . ,,. ----....----_-:-\ iiirnp --.1;-. ,.,/ . . - I I ' ,, iv E...,1 ',- -1 i - .. • ...... -`---`,.. •-I ":",[. • r ___ ______ .. . F=-_-7-_-__ i . 1 . n . . ---ii-- \ ` I. •\. q I. H _ . . . ..- C.,%,--. I III-II- ill ' . . _ I:1 i 11111 I-I il 1111111 II\ ..2 \: i ilii-: i.• . .ii --ii., lit 'If Ir 1 El • x 46/t aili i" P2 -•-'', Si . .. $ -1*i : ' AA!.,1, . . • , . • . , . . . .... SF / 9% ROOFOH = 210 SF REDUCTION = 300 SF,t116.5X WLK SIPS = 175 SF '� _ _ _ ._ , DECK = 615 SF ` / �`'t � � - • DRIVE = 1000 SF I` No / wPx ; — - - TOTAL = 4955 SF / 29.9%` �`�. g6�? e\-c °R�v��\ %� / / REDUCTION = 136&NSF/ 8.2 \ --n,_ J�lA • � ROCK RET. � O / TOTAL SITE REDUC TION = 1660 5 \` \._ C g6\ ° �' ��/ :::\' - `,,t , 3Q 52 �.�` — — es, / \. o''2w° �!� ADJ CENT �-DRIVES • \�o,;"°-' /1 " I- 25 O-W � � I \ Op g• ,d% L � — \,/ \ N \,9`S6 ,LD i \ , N . ti 1 0 0 d : \ >PRO OSED- ._.;a2 � ,, i REMOVE EXISTING �T.6 DIVE x - i WALK-AND STEPS.. 4 i �Pi / - - —I l AND—LANDSCAPING+ 5 g4 1 \ ,* g$ I p 2. \ y117L �1, _ I -,- huh — \ / / !`I: _ �g5 952.3 g f s li VE EXISTII�fG- - _ _ - q,, I-.� PROPOSES s� +� • AND,.-WOOD STEP �,' a cARAIGE 5tiI `�.. /� .11 gb 2ADD/TION g__. g5`-h / , �� -__ `tom trEX 1►.s:� g�ti ��;{1_ 9 it N I X • �E FLOOR S/TE �/ ''I i.� GFE=952.5 g -,`Cry(- _t - �' ,,. (63 NI TION ('VERIFY `S i�L � I FFE=954.3 49.0g" ifc-ff N g.,.. LO `M� N II , ' XISTING _ _ — � _ _ — `: "ER BOXES � �;IT I - ��- - �•~5 ,+ �' EXISTING �._� ,4 .= ! 23.71 EXISTING f o~---______-- / HOUSE ANDSCAPING — ` '�a HOUSE • i, o #3133 MCO 4VG--AiJ~ SBL irk__,-...,.. ..! f--d -c Ii9S I o F it 12.7 \8�' �� `2 - `� I; �� CON- tlW •\g \\,C5 `1vO L I I / • 1 .C3 \. �o 1 , 49.6 LFE=9414.4 L �CK f N I �1.14 \s�,' { ° - �;2D � � QN P T2 jjl _ 28.6 / EXISTING __ - ! I -_ -_-— =:,i i! , ' g I 1 AND DECK !, - ' - -`g T- - - _ - -g �� 1 - -Y'< REMOVE EXISTING 11 I 1 g�� `,_ - '`, RETAINING v ALLS I I f: ` 1 , — — — — � I r I I ��� 1, AND LANDSCAPING I I 1 !+, �, I \\,g 1 t '\ / g� ! \ I Q i+` I 11 q�')- SILT FENCE1 - - _ _ _- _i -- -.4;I `, I N UTILITY EASEMENT7 L a g°� N I II +� ,,,a -�NPER DOG 0 6363 2 094 — �`� _ '-I, I I g�1 o _ — BENCHMA ____ — N I \ TR=92.6 I' - - - - - - TR SAN �,- \ — — — i cp.' I I I`.'.- ELEV = \ ' A I A 7 C. N\, I A I / I E N L L_I / E ` h I i _ ,,` - I _ N ,_ I I_ .+. 1 I _ J y _ F I `� I -- =T�.,- 75BL OHW �gg� -I f I - - - -CI-- - - I1 — , — — ==r \ ,� \2,Q�4' \\`%I \ I1 ��Iv o , 2� O g��5 I ` O G�€ 'n I `` -.._ _ " i I N. ,f I \, I t� rf /.\ fi•g I ,,\ {9"5$6 \ N I �<P° �I- Z % .SG,? �'� / \ • I `-_. �I `- rr '' 87 1 p e1 "1�1 ,ram 770 _ -- _S� --.N 54'3s„ I _ \. I 934--I; V �_E. '_�.. _ - _ _ - •" Ir -'.....+-'.--- -- I I -_�.- �\ `` •'}`--'�:. I ..-__ -�`C--'�`,.. -- -`` .. g,��5 I / g32_,-1 • �'O- 40 60 - --"R+P RAp L930n� --- — --_ — -5 R�--,..ap 4---- __�_.._ PESCRIPTION: - — — — — -- ---- - -- ==T—1—=-—.:.�L—, — ,LOT 44 AND THAT PART OF LC -- 90� SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / 41- - LYING WEST OF LINE AND ITS IN FEET g� ITH EAST I OHW 929.4 - ' / H AT ANDF PARALLEL OF L LOT W45 LYING E STING SPOT ELEVATION. FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL )POSED SPOT ELEVATION / A L/C A //A /A/I-Tf )A IV A OF LOT 44, AND THAT PART 01 • • QoL- icrc O xl U) w rn O c0„ (7 D II It —I xi m a) a) 0 D -P -P 0 0 II O ,AM -1l .kii IT- / ri --iOO 23I -ir70o '•0 = x ' nl O O2Jmr- 00 Ocnm77Dr- O wI i C 0 XOU v) m vw 0'-f S) c- DmT > mp x c cn 0 • s',, r n r �Om r II 11 wm ( Amo = o �' O Z 11 ill It it N U -vlt 0 II o73 > • 09, cO / II II -1 II _A ii � 't- a II W -P 00 j pD nr W 1 o; _ II 0 p\ k or ' ornvN� 0O00Cy' 0 - II � ) 1 ,.1 tC (001Q0 O O � ( � � "I (n -� .. X F •— `. , s O /cn m-r) - I -rim 7j I ---, 0 / \ / \ •\ONi II 0 � c i ` / 00 %NN i 1� \(9 o Am A p � -/-., / p =� 0cnm2u m ii! Jf ( rD i , 0-cpNi II (r) r- 2 (n / A \I Ao �� ��,� j � A II It Gl II m D P v- % Il oo {, w II , D rrrn o D ppONp) -Pc._ �o1 / i I /o ' (4 ulOOCn p II 1)/ ( /5' /�RiI O �l U) � U) V) U1 :UN _ A_• t �l "Tl --ri O - • °j ^ p 1 \/ i •(,),\ ,�\ s� '.. cn A Coo< o0 F!y ` `.- A\ o \ \ o Cn 'L-I 0 \ 7 \ \ \ '• z I / \ \crk . . I n r m \ fS G , rig m P. �/� Ili EA HI IS.IT & § t F $� gsrc�n:ia c 5i 1, Po n)ai b EIV' " t° l i i�l l i SKr I i' F gp� I,. I i 9 yi aaaxaisaa:a 9 G 8 I n amykn ��v1 1ei■ ai11=ii,IiilIlrig 1l1 - ®. � lhl . l Z - I. I 1 E 19 xn Tt a pal %s� I iiIII 4pi■yil, :-ill 1■I 'LAIyU\ • f I v Q 1® Iii ®i gyp ; �li 1 wi . �`— 7 d 1' II ill® I,r" J ®I®EH 1�1I-gi Zu Aoria-mihmar-I VI in ' [) .4., ,. , , ,.r Il . k t■ NO �® waft at all I - r , +x 1�- ���1 ice' --� _- ' o� i°` �1 �' .r Ali I — � ' --DI ' 1®1rrt __ 9 rl t 5 �q� I�IE �I �A `h ' a i li 1 e. i '-_Imo,i ■li.r'�i1 !Ili .. '*, `.. II ' Ir 11 , �i Ili! limmel=__ ail„1 k ii jj , t q �e■■I j II q �- n, ®Iiiq� , n �� 1r i 1D J �I I® i�i®■ � e q 1 log ®I� ,Ilr ..I. -I 'I' _ II r it ; ■I o /, / g ! ii-I° -° Ili 1. 1 ill■ i A ilis ir , ,t,_ „,_ . __III , r �I II i111410.111111'1131E11•1— „ ,,,r=___ 710 �;"�/ - -4 li�ile. c 1 �Mini ��`\ 11 9tti�11®I� I ts�-11 i-I'ii i Ji°ie _•n■r► = —' —=f OP ii�E�,i¢ j 11ivii �®;Ills, 'ri110011,1i11 idlill! i--,,J`'1 , i0.! I '!I i tea still + .a€ o°i �' � .,!� �,,-4 s � �� � Oil � 11l 11111111111 CAL-1 Al An d g DECK = 615 SE ...--- DRIVE y% = 1000 SFQ. ( aR� w � RECEIVED TOTAL = 4955 SF / 29.9'lo a6� e�S s` v ` m SEP 0 8 Lull REDUCTION = 136 SF/ 82 �\ . ROCK !'6-% Ewe - CITYOFORONo TOTAL `,ITE REDUCTION = 1660 5 OS•o ' BALL\�6`' \e ry, \ P-5a0 0,..-- • \ 301z a — \�Py e$ � wo \lam ADJI CENT `Df�fi�E 039, S6 ofz, / .. \ 9 1�w1 -- I .2 SBL OHW I 'I. / # \ EXISTING.., �} ► 1 / Re .. ... .�.\ l g 956' `\ HOUSE >PROROSEDc ,2 yr\ s6 : II Z 1 2O 1_ / I `\ �•" REMOVF YICTINF.:` tt \L 31.sI e U �P /X% 1 t\ I ��-. W4Ll�-AND STE�S p 5�. �� 4 AND-LANDSCAPING 0�`9•� �. \ .50 ii� 4�� Il l I i/ J �T 956� II e I / tih y2. \A l Y REMOVE EXISTIIr -•-`= _._ PROPIDSEP \,SR I / et,8)1 `--q;-�RIVE AND„-WOOD STE \ I 2PARAIGE .5ti, 'q ,\ yI \if MA4-C EXISTING !1'5t r a5 ADDIT ON ,52 C. t-'�_E t. _. 9`'I !,1 N ''GARAG&FLOOR�SIrF L/ \ �I 24.3 0 �i:� �Y.,;/ I i I III N 1 _ ' /,!GFE=952.5 v ' -1 ' i...... ......4 .. I CO ELEVATION.(VERIFY)/�' �I• ,�; N I FFE=95'.3 49.0 '�l�,!I N REMO,VC�,X TING - - - 11\ -----`' 9.1 I �, ,til �s RE-TAINING WALLS 237 EXISTING _� i cl NANO LANDSCAPING HOUSE 10, III 0 i— 11 185 AVG 6,i SBL—� ��7 ayI.-o d '; d o r_'— meµ. �o �9 ��\, I u;I - 4.1-a✓ I 1 IttA�"/ e, O I 49.6 LFE=94,4.4 _.1• fiCK a e 0^ I \'.\s\";, - ' 7.2. h't _t2C1. ' 12.71I 28.�� . , I1 �•f' ^N,, DECK OVER •g.l' - -.z.a ONC PATIO I I 91x1 I MO"1 EXISTING ---_ - - -, ' \ -e'-.- --=I_`, „--PATIO AND DECK - -4•.= _ �9 I s - I -REMOVE EXt TING _ - - I- - y I.5R WALLS i c ;t' i ^1 it ' "-1- '' I,I RETAINING ALL S ———-� �� �� \I I'VI AND LANDSCAPING ili I ` ` 1 7,I, I -- I''I \ I \^1 . I\ II II' 1 u I I + I -r-'7 ll i -- — -- \ UTILITY BASEMENT I sP� I I // 1\ NI \PER DO�IVb62 M� - _ odt 9� �y --- N.\ 1 TR=91.32.E _ 1 - - - - 9a0.1_ o I og 1 N \/ " 1 1, A r r L \� I A I�I c\\, a �� c I c I �s'ep - I 11 I. 1 75 SBL OHW --. 1 - _---'\ I 1 ,tip 6 1 1 I I e��C' s \ C.° N I / QF9 I \ ea1i I 1/ \ I/ .. \ .55- \‘,._...i,„.,?,6 \\ 11,9,0+I. , / .la'S6 / // \ 936 I �'` _ I �='-. // T I / `\��7'0 �e�.'` _.__- I `"� _`_ /��/ / \SR 93 S R 77-S4=3$r, w I --- - - I I j '- ----I 5 9. - 1 _I �I1 1' h22 lI• �C 0 I 20 40 60�` II RP p L 930__ —RIP RAP I - ._. DESCRIPTION: -— - •'•--�- -�="_ ----1:_-- — LOT 44 AND TI- '9 SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / 9ti9°r LYING WEST 0 SCALE IN FEET. sti. �' OF AND PARALL �g925 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. OHW 929.4 - THAT PART OF FEET WEST OF X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION OF LOT 44, AN = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE LAKE MlIVNL I l yr LAKE SHORE A\ \1TO c-„ror„ AVENUE AND L, • CitIONL A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279(6) and 78-1288 FILE NO. 11-3521 WHEREAS, Tami R. Helmer, a single person (hereinafter"the Applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3131 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 44 and that part of Lots 43 and 64 lying west of a line and its extension 100 feet west of and parallel with the east line of Lot 42 and that part of Lot 45 lying east of a line 75 feet west of and parallel with the east line of Lot 44, and that part of adjacent vacated Lake Shore Avenue and tract of land between said avenue and Lake Minnetonka lying between the extensions of the east and west lines of above, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (PIN 20-117-23-34- 0007), (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow reorientation and construction of the lakeside deck on the existing home ahead of the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow rearrangement of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot zone resulting in no net increase to allow 29.9% (4,955 square feet) hardcover where 25% is normally allowed and 29.9% was previously approved in conjunction with a garage addition, reorientation of the driveway and lakeside deck; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 15, 2011 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS Page 1 of 5 • 1110 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 11-3521. 2. The property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 100'. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 15, 2011 and recommended approval of the variance based on the following findings: a. The property contains 25,800 square feet in area and has 95±-feet in width. b. The Applicant's request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. c. The proposed deck will not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback than the existing deck. The Applicant's proposed addition will not adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties. d. Resolution No. 3571 granted a hardcover variance to the Property to allow the equivalent of 4,955 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot setback zone. e. The Property has an existing lake access stair accounting for approximately 40 square feet which will remain. f. The proposed deck will be screened by existing deciduous vegetation to be supplemented with evergreen vegetation and will result in minimal negative impact on adjacent properties. g. The proposed garage addition is proposed to be constructed over existing driveway hardcover and will not cause in increase from the existing hardcover level on the Property. h. The Applicant's request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Page 2 of 5 • i. The Applicant has demonstrated that enforcing the average lakeshore setback provision of the Zoning Ordinance deprives the Applicant of the reasonable use of their property. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(6) to allow construction of a lakeside deck on the existing home ahead of the average lakeshore setback; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288 to allow rearrangement of hardcover within the 75-foot to 250-foot zone resulting in no net increase to allow 29.9% (4,955 square feet) hardcover where 25% is normally allowed and 29.9% was previously approved, in conjunction with a garage addition, reorientation of the driveway and lakeside deck, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 3. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not increase above the level of 40 s.f. or 0.5%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall be limited to 4,955 s.f. or 29.9% per the proposed Page 3 of 5 • plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 4. The home plans submitted are for the purpose of hardcover and setback review. The construction plans and survey submitted for building permit will be reviewed for conformance with Orono's building height and number of stories calculation. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (September 12, 2012). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned Applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicant and the Applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 12th day of September, 2011. Page 4 of 5 • • ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA \\ COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2011, by Tami R. Helmer, a single person. Notary Public • Page 5 of 5 3F / 9% R H = -210 SF REDUCTION = 300 Fxi16.5z- \ // \N .•��F�P` W TPS = 175 SF 7 F-� AA '' DE = 615 SF / /LD',/�T1 0 I-' DRIVE = 1000 SF \ 1. II,,�° p1\vE1"� ' ^ j' TOTAL = 4955 SF /`29.9%`\ NO- _aidoi` a\� ��� / �`� eV' REDUCTION = 136�SF/ 8.`2 � _-—-Roc` zimm-� r, , ot�40.1 \ /T TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = 166> 0 �F (PS• ' `\ALL 96'' ° `/ - \ i v CP �'\ 0152 ►' , O. 4P� g .p0 \�� 1 3 � �- ,� , 6 ;0Ph ADJA�CENT -�DRNfES 09 eR\ • ,240391 Fti� — 5\W0�a 4 -i' sm. OHW ' \ I � / I9Ike's '. �� ‘�56 120" I - " N. 100 1!IA ° >PRO OSEDv •/ ;2 _ REMOVE EXY TING \ D It jE x n 1 I \ /WALK 4ND STEPS- 4 9a�\\ais r,ci �9� 9• �,4,P ,1//\ I �' 4 AND-LANDSCAPING . , 'S ID) 0�< I / 5 1 i / 9 2� \ i h," (,.:. -4- _L \ / / 4.02 /E EXIST/ '---'�_- d •t;,' PROPOSE' \,Sa 1 R/ AND�W 00 D STEP '`: • v3 2QARAIGE .52, 1 i ,'- hl J// f EX STING,_ $l r I,$'.5 a 05 ADDi! _ .3TII ONo C kAL'Una'h2-I /- I�9h51 N`_'`---__ E FLOOR E. LA1 .' j• GFE=952.5 .r E • �} -9 ni II N TION (VERIFY) is), . .- In I FFE=95,.3 49.0 ij-rF N 'E EXISTING _ - - - --IT N`—+ --f_ ;e f s- 3 EXISTING ER BOXES �,.f•r.'!�I 237 EXISTING o HOUSE 4NDSCAPING ;1..' ��HOUSE I . °: o #3133 i- �III�k'i- 1�Q.I1 3 I M 1 11 O ,V J SBL 3 -` 'oo q 1,95.9 o —- 03 N_..1� • Va. \ Ir 49.6 LFE=94I4.4 L ofci< �\'rf tt e I W I ::::‘!": ,IN 12 q 28.6 ,✓ / �� ��'�r- �� oEcl< ov:To s� - - - I'y 1�'_- LAN::: 7:79°� 1 I I E-EXISTING =_177": - -I'- • . �_/ I AND DECK I� - e'� - -REMOVE EXISTING TING I a�5 \_,,s/7.1±.....: I RETAINING FALLS I II___--- 1\ i I I ,o AND LANDSFAP/NG I 1 __— I' I 1 .� I I \ r-� I I/ a 1- i/,I \� I \ 1 q5 9 C \ I sL T FENCE 1- A I ri, // — __� -_. -4--_ _— = JAY -� I // --- -J- I —�— _ I' // uTlurY \ - 0°I sr ',. I I 1 // _��ER DO pMENT I 6� --_ _ \ 9 I ' ^�=szs - \ ! I9 _ - - - TR SAN I \ 2dg -- \ • A j tl A 7 C Ft I A I<I C• L_I r) r� \C \ ' i E I\'`TI C. \ 1. I I 1k,p\C\ 1�,Q\C\F- 949I , I _ \\\ i 2a 0 9S6 I \ ws 1 N ---� / I \ \ I ` I / 5y9 I \ �95$6 N I 9A0® 1 t -- _- -"-- I _ N /' 'i�9710 55' -- - _� -- _ / \SR - -. 934 , S�UR� 35" w I 1 tiNE _5_-�' -- =--- : DM %Pt — I - 1 ' \a T�= 5 c —I--- `-- "I ' 1 1 932-1-� 521. I �` 40 60 -�I-- = 30 —I=— __ RIP RAP DESCRIPTION: Pop RAP --. __ _ I I -�__ -_- T r--''L'- - OT 44 AND THAT PART OF L -90* SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / q19 LYING WEST OF LINE AND ITS IN FEET 42 OF N PARALLEL OHW 929.4 - ' HATPARTOF WITH LOT LY ING G TING SPOT ELEVATION. FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL POSED SPOT ELEVATION I A LlC- A I/A/A 1C-Tn A/V A OF LOT 44, AND THAT PART 0 )000 tv-T?NU -9(11-1&T-• S .. ., . i 1 1 IA- -K. 0 1 - i tS1-= - -'' _t•r i FL- - - V,T TF 4 c;i I , .,--=. -I .= . :'L=_______„__A__-,_ -E---1. - ..). - _ a 2F• ••• 00 ---• 00 F , _ _,........,_ ______1 1 1 T....._, 1 _l_ 1 11 ,r,r - ji- --I i -- , . i 4 ___ I 0 c_ ;a = rn o — 0 m NI m 0 (=, -- 73 1"--, 0 `=' 171 0 :-'-* Itsstrxbek 41 a i 1 ,T, of '4' .• -n 5 i i5 ' i Hi :pi gi -low t I LI- ith ;, 1 I. iti bl ® i1 -0,= I, ig t.742E i ....a ,,,,,mt. 1 '- liOliMil - ITIE ° li 5 1iiiiii 6. I IV I li 111 1g Q'" Gmrimmi..71 :,....: .0 s ill Hill f•q Ig; 11.•=1. . . I n - • 0 1 II I fl n o r ni O c - O O Z _ CJ 0 t 66t26ttt 2 OO .11 • EN) PumFamimmi, ( 0 4 1111, t� , •c"—^1 . . • , - .... • . • I :4 CNJ oil! ........ . is\ =1 2 lailli0 u 4 P Mill44.4V• ' .inW. X K il ti- :' .i• 011111110 i til; L,,, ,m-'=1-''-;,1E1.4)1 _.-. .,,., ii i t.1 -- 1 • 0 trt: CI •— Z I/I 3. 0 C....t Ce I > 0 0 • iir 1 I . 1, • • LU c-.1 ti. , ‘ 'I I ! 1 U: LLI -_-_-, • . ! I C.5 I , -. . 1' , .-,, 11 • • r-.7---__ II . . 1 - -- I .._ • I . 1 ! I' • , ;I I I I ;! t I • 11.. . ... 1 . - !..t.,[..-.4 . - . , .._ , _ .• . ; I. -a I' •----1----7-- - h , . •,-.1:-.' ' _ . - ' i 1 '4 .... I-• 1 I i IF ril - _I - • 1 , , ,1 . .. __. . , b ;1 --r L[ i — —. II - 1111*. ,1 i _..... . - b 1 1 .. I -tri. i . , - . A. ., .11 . , -- I . ... .. . — 4d- •' lVVI i Ilik 1 1 .II I " r' I S . • I. i• II • II I I: I . .. • iI1--11-17 1'I -...,,,1•,',,., .i '.I 1.P„;1'! 71iI.1, iI • .___-:--.:. ' 11 Il _ _ :. -• : - .., .,_ • . . . . , . .• 1(!!! h ("\.1 ti!; l'i ; Iiiii 111 fl" PflG 1 ___c n� 1@ N II i:� 1a1744:7741 b' 1p • ... _ _ I I . \ C 0 O C Ell N a EEE o N LL } i • ' U 1 ; Ii - I I I11 11 I• MOO 11 a . = — _ e t i --- i --1k'-'S- 1 �' . - -. �' 1 g°LID° - 1, t • �DE10o {0DEEI I I ail III:17H1 •II 1s�' i e — ie.lock' ��►°� wiQ7Q❑ I „, • .a. _ 1 I * : II I I _❑❑Qo , . li 1 .. i x , tp.,...b;i1,11_ _. . ...,11. . .,, ,. . . . '...1,..1 1,—,•_:— . 1 ...,,....._— 1 _. : _ .1H; ; i *- ,I' ' t 11 0 1.111fliIIHM 1-1 1- [ I 1 it 1 I_ H I oorao ' , Bann , ii! I II I r 1 ... c i a7...ei I :-. r:i tt 1 • I !1• I I — - I I te ~ ' Wei II + a 1I I I I 11 ' i1 I E 1 , . . , , 1 , ! lox , ...:„.„.. -1 i =_.- is,: . , _. . , ,.............„..___ : ___. 11„. il _._ .. . 1 .I ' -I . c...1 1,11 ; toi4 ii!I 11111 a a f 4 , .. ..:,, :;.... 11 ..1„,.. V1= $ VHkVIII G 9d w= ten_ ,,1', C.) Jr e : '1 G _ Q. H ``6 ar e'E 91 - - 0 s-' v C'FI 0 011 5 O V _� -. _. _ _. _ \ _- _ yl 9. I d + a.. _il _r�-1 'ICI:- II i C7 f 1 I J 1 = n'•�l�J I ('; _ I 1 i _ / II_ -1 1 II i I'.I n II I ter'_ I �II�II , \ , I. �y ill 1 IE i ( I 1 gk` t' 11 i• . / i we .to.. \ r 1! 1 I 11 — I I ff r I 4 / ' 1 I ' -p did . J 4— 4 1 i O 'rl . _ 11111 b.„. N 0' � s.i W p g i $$ 'w Seca 1 LSJ oN O ! @,1gil!I iiii G 8° "o� on9 EEC' ppgi k �D �l! LLI a 11. i' W 1� ` y a nim 0R2 3i . .1 s Y 3 U I= ....,,, is:,,, 19 �y..E.E s Ili .- • Ili • y, i {. r 9 T • s $ r I a�¶ I v v;{ i, • .. . ,, ....,. . .. j 1=3 , YI - .16 i 3v3 :recr -{_ .i I 3 tl I VI fr. r • ' r 34. A r � i s • . .. : _: .- . : ;-. . . ... . .N, 1.• ,__Lim,-----: .: L.,...,,i.. .Lilit k. — . ., 4 , ._. , •, ,, , . , , .4,, b +gII g6 I I i j _ II 3 i 1 I g I.jrI d y I ..� _'' $R � ,y il i �/_q_ ',,, i ' i,� . el , ,r. i - gq ft • ar� shy';I 9t. - "___-I --- ® '� aoa 4 Ry1 II -- I• __ . e is 3?... L j 33i fluiiuii III GiQ ■� 1 (1)"$ $ Nam '; x a 1`1!!� 8s� G eg il — � G�l x 1,I i 1 - o w. ?ad aaaaaa.v:9a 0 — Z V m: I- ,LU Ncp :: Y 4-I I w.. • .. _.�c- g• xv i 1 jai` 1 .i Loi it H All i p 9 .. :. - I -1 - 11 :. • _.. errs.' R 11 I. :. ,I rr...- d� 1 .d � -.-1...; 1 •.. ; 1- 1 1 I �� I - S 1 I� 1( is t I @i`�i. I 1-: i 1 • 1 .1 Ili, i l f . 8B 9i 11 I L°°G • I b i I lit = R • 1 . — fSil — 3,1_ _._ i — - : _ I E r I1 ' --- _—_y -—'--_ d -- ' i .—__ a a,. T i - et. 1 1 . A lif dill : , 0„... .i...,,, . 1 11,1111 o iii I ... ,. ,..,. cr.-)., II 1 ; 4, --,..., 11• 111110.1.1.MIEJ 3 , c'i oo g• ih ej, t.L. K 4 Ft.i 4!1 :11 i '2 1,1P1 . '-)''. ,..1 .I3 aql3Q1:442q it''1 r .., . . ''' 1. Nr4 .a .- 7147 . , - -0,-L, 5, leµerinn.21,b bnlysi...c+.1.2 - ' • ...- ... _..k: i OA I e= 6. 1 , .. , ti.,•g: pi..i. • pil ihe . '.- - 0 •-,,1 1,-- i -----------'"—{?- N 1 .1rhh'.11- . •.. . , D 1'21 -',- r • ! . .. . • . f - • i /,- i 1 1p,i 45 I 1 . . -. ' • - : . .. / k ----.-------,_:1 I- i. 1 1 1,..r1 N- li I 3 4e' 14; • ilf ' $., f I I Lim IN:4 1 I . - . ; I -. ii: • „.„ ., , ,, , ,,... t.,,,,,, ., , ,.. • ,t. . _.,..- ,•\r,, _.,-b)Hi r-.y .1 I. . it ;Or 1/ . . ___..___. ! • .-1" d'?' T17'11 1 T — T I • 1 - _1e.L.L_L • t_ f ..____I- j- .,.' - _ .1 -.L.._......._ _ . . _ .d [I .• ' . , , / ,1 _.- .. ---1 iz ...„. . -54 ei .1 I . . . I . /1 11 • / • • .t. :, • / INFIAINI: 1 if 1 1 ' 4 I , IL_-__,r. --- 11_4!.L , -.,R- : I . ,,..j 4 i I I I 11: 1— ' . 1 • - . --- , ''' i It II.I 1 f l',41- -4.,•. ' ——------ I ic.- tio ' ED pi .. .. • . •., - Ili-,\_ .• 11 ti.:, ...1 11,, - .,..... „. • ..I. 3 .._1 --7.,------____' -.------73. r - : .''-'4,rf - ' 44 — , - - • • . .. .,_. Az:. ,T, ( • •------1-.--*" - T. .--not.i.161v-.11,60n..0;91 • I I '.1 7 - , i • ,-: 1 ti. - • , _., 5. 4 4 ., :__. • •• , ,, g 64: , , ,_ . .. 1 :,. „1.4.,,. g :•,. • ' 4 rit ---1111:• 'it::,''14%1'. ''I21 Ill . '-'-, •' i ,ink, ±.. ---.,- , ,e..• :if i I •-•_. .1 :.,4,1 . . 1 _ 2. . • 1 74, i ' ,t_ -711, i. • . 1 x.- :1- I i i ,1 ,,,f- .".i l'•• ti : , . . - 1 I 1 : . t • ii .->-' -• I-----—-—.------ . 1. 1 .1 , • , • 411:11 9.1f• !II>11 t-t1lt..- • • - r 0 al za• Sr..' . .. ... . _ . • 1 11 ...fg 8°C\j ill , iiiii Mi 5 g 10 a , - '-; 2 iiiiiPlil 15 1 1 ,111.11K Z ME Eff...j, 1 IL...Z- a a I• .. N 1 ;114;1, w 1 . .....,.,,,., 1' mK .1 -11 riN( t. .! - r1,[1r . I 1;t . .. , ,_... . .. . , .. . . ,1 •. s - g• . 4 t's I. h-5- i b.i. I 0- ;,,,f 1. . . I ill. ,LE i tr:gib.,,,d'"21.101 .! ' ' tl- ,., .. .1,. Li*9-1..‘i- rar tr,... 11:L14 ?,:.... :el" N ;',.-;', f f-•41-1-: ..-, 1_;•••Pi;:fl-'4 7- L,:te-, if -4 -it----..,q*'-. '° 5,1----t .--::• F'li -...,- t3:-.,:443;:...rzi.:•It1;2•4,-i.,, 144-1-.•it'r -,1 -21'..-t - .,-. ul.: ... 1, --1 i ... , ' T \ I -r ) •,1 - / I . / / It. __ _,,.• -I II ,,..- l- -_„ •i- Ili.II. I , ,. -.,1 . ,. 1 _ ....„...._. ei ,7,„„, ._„. L. ,,,. . ,, 4. 1 . ;.gili...... .L., J•ki. . f.--:;..4,.1' ........00..._..aa1[.111.• N '1 . ' I I • '.1..._\ In ' - mu le I --1-- "___.,mit t.1 " 1 El IP .I • JAM -[ - III. ' ' -,, •..4 III I .i.i !, i • , '. I 1 glE== I 1 • -- ii 1 I ml , num 1 , .., i. „...„.,,,.......A1 ..S ION' - 'A au---.- 1,- _,,,, ,-,,c49,1_-•-,,.: . • ,. • -- -, •• ,.,_, , • ,--_,..---,,../am I ,.i[ _l•i44--_-t- 1.. . . -."'''' 1 ri- I I . F/..... Iii- .-11.-9-1'- I-! SI A I I a ...,11-1 .1.6,111.11 . } _ - I., a. I -- 4---h--I i • , ...,„....-r.Rem .4 I 1 fll_ . • , , ., 1:10 - , .1 to M, I i. ., \ --arm!•._ism _, as-= .1-I • ma " . .- -.11 .. .. ,i." 1 ri 11,- , .. I 1 • ' - ,-• _Awe. pli IEN ; ti 11 ' -4 -1 Liiiiik:;1,1 1111.1011•, • • - - " IMMO NE I,' .i -,a II • ' .....--....'5' Ifil la - . , g m 1' - . hi 1 --,: if i__-- ___ ,pi. I _II 4 i, - ini 1 i ,,t, L ___, . . • - -. -". :': -1 5I--- --' BM - I • ,7 li ' 211 re? IV '''' -1:11 ., Ir.' . . ; — , , 1 1 l--_=_... . • : , -- Wl iill r , ._.• . ....._. r-in. ±i, ... 41,,,,fai -4A- 0 'ffil , i m- -- . . , .-iii . .. I h, I_ .._.____-_-_ 4,. . -._.......e.1 ....r„._ , 11041.1.1 -11‘-- 1 - lat .., - , - - ..,- vt ,.„.1....77-iri.. : ,,, . . 1 F--,_ . 4..1 . 1.. li.! R-1-1 tl. g. _./....... . lot -•-,- .1 -41.1iis: E---41 it 11; -..11.. or 1. M - ' il ,.........,--- 1;;. .....lifi_. MI ! li.' •-. . 413 '0` -811 I- tj. 0 . " - '''' - -.' -"nil.'• • ligrilil_ In" AO- • •t _ELI Is ,,, . _ Annual , i H i II' • . .-7-11,14 ;. . it • ;Irit. LIM,-,-= a. .111 ,1 0 . . i ; I 1 ill'''• I.--:--.' Pit . 7 : -1- ! %1 LSI — 4,1 11 . .II° ' !Oil giiir74111=1,111 II::- tliA14114-- 11 ' . 21.. -. 111111:1h . 4 lt=41617,41 'i,I I ik . -.0.0 -._ ,-- &mu 1 c,----_.,-- Nop: • 11 . _ Lill IE.._t, 7- • • ' Mini . E.I..-,-L-I I: -------_,„........ . . • MMI.k 1 -----r *'- - • 1 i • ..". = . r ;iiiiTzii..../ ___.i, , • r. k, ,1..._ 7--, ... ..... ...'' . 1""'N-r1"461 1 - 41 1=-._ 1 ; , . +,—Nrs.„,,i, 1, . 1 .. •• .L. ... 1 .... i -,,i7w4 14,Mrs% -,,\1,1 ii,,: - Eil •- i- .,.....,__ ,____ , , II ,. • .5„. , , . , .i.41+1, ii g,,,,,ti ..4! — —,--a, I -7-7- W-•---T-----= ' I I 1. , , • ._, ,, _....- , _---- :. , =721 . _ . •-- i.: II ; ' -k- krawa, ri---\---• -•., • E. 1 i_ - li ' •. -11°1 1 r g•q, Vt. , .- mmwEbritib 1 \ _- .=:, , 0 1 „ 1HR a , h.:,_, \ . 1,.. il — i,A 1:. H •-.1 I 1 a , ,.2 i.!., i I I'. - ' . isi 1, -,-. ..,=, .•11:' ..- 0, •LI . • , , , , , 14.1 ,,„_-_. ,, ,, 1 i -"8,1■11 k ° -2 • 1 ' -' . U -\--- ----- - a '. I I,.,- 1- •--r------ 1-. - ---1 j ** ...:4,4ti, , i i / i .. , i 1 I l 1 11 \ -1-li • I • I I ! 1 1 1' 1 , I 11 1 \ t., -of li i ii. i ' i i' : .li ! •L ts ! . / ff. / 11111111 ,. .,. ik. ,r. : :1-:, d-,, r."illi ItI. ' : e,a 'i 21. t: •. ._ I- ,. ,r -1,,, . ., ,, ,`'i i It it 10-., 31.41).-4 4--a t., fa 1. I 31 i c,!.._t gi -7 4 1.L.0-,,t_.-,.. 4.3 ?.-?•••••g,r 11 .,,st. a,l_ ..1:4 n-_,!..;-',1-...•,T t Jit '2,..:-.,A::.-4-p,'y . • 0 Q MI ; l'j.. Nce2..a,s1Eika 11 li LTJ cz) ° C\J EN 111 ! 0 IMMIra.G.La`..y.,1 1 i 101 1 ® lir UJ p. 121 2 1111hi! ii qr , ,Y, 011i§.10; 'I J.' L?,ENINFIx.16-1' ..• C.)-- 1%4. i lii•giiii i g it:{)i ' l• i Il . 5iiii T • 11 1 FtI'l N 1 " in A/2:44,120; • 4C ! . ' .., I . 1 Yi2; 1 I 1..._ 7,2 Eli', g: 11 i i ! v ._ ,rr..1 lir 11 2,i' '11 i ;'•• , v Is ii. Al.,12i 11 Li i :4r.11 v 114;1-ii. ,1:1: I. t,' i'''' it 1.,:itil i •fr 1111 III..•'-: IIll I ;I:: Tril7 1/, : !,ii Ic.,1 )-:i'0..!-. i.iitt id Iiii. ! Li . , .-\ : t h •,- Ill.,: It ..,_ . ,,,J, 0 llt .4, g• I I:1 - , Ur, :.#hit.•-v tl., ,....,Li,-.I',- It?-.1 ,;ii 1. t a_ ii d',,1 svt,',1,,rg oi-- j,1'.1 IiIi-7- ;.; '''' . '-' - 1 -.4 .•!--. __n : 1 / \/1.I I I • ' , ' i._•.--, lir' Ai ..itiliktia I' . , 1 ! A, ,, , rif--:-.--- , --2-:-"-- 'INfi, A i •r''''.. ---• --,- Ile-2-11 i ' , ' :, L=M-4:, , , ,, '-', s ,. ..-1--——F2,-.-:::,4,,,I1P11""7 p 1,...—, 1— ,p, ,,„1 • ,,:.,-', IA - --7--,-7--' . .1. r 1_1_,-T,' '1'_-_,i_ • 1 '' II .: A :,-Iii-L--- 4-1 1 = -•., ...:11 , . : -,- \ 1 I \ ,_1 14.,1,r ,,. i 1 ', '''' .,: ---- ,- si .1.L. 4 •i Iti- ' 4 1''. •4'-'111i!- 4 I i ‘ \ ( I •I ____ 111 "- li-': : • . = U • - -,-,•,, Irlz. . :•-, , i- 5-- \ ',. .'• ' -* ' 7a! ' ,- •-•____J-i t'. 2',1 - .1 li p. .,.411 _ , \ ' \ i ,..p.... , __..! -- 41: II, . •11,11- \...L \ V- . . hod • -----.___! 411M....s a .1. 1,1.1.: : - -'. ,1,-:;a. 11' , ' L:,--;",'• _,,,-,i iri : -"\i /. , ' ..• ... „ i ,, .0- 1 . I'' ' - -': .:. :....1 i . li . f.. , P''---'I [ ii 1 I --C . IL• '23' . Emil - '''''''''.1 -1 '4"," I I 1 1 -N.1 : a „., .!,___[., _, 1, , 1 - I I I . ' a6. . ...••• - . - :''"" • ••- 2 113 . -1 '' ' 13::! 1:\ .', :_i PgillniliN 10111.lir , I I i, V\ 31. Id \ . IIIII1 "'I! e' r- / 1 Z'.'" '‹ •''''' .:' I ..- liE 11_1 i_71),c. I I it ,Z • i --4\ - 7111.:11 111111 l'J fi.-H rI r 1- i „ I I : ' L rI ll r ..1--• Li t7-11----(1, • •••m - -- - • 11 IP '/.. 1 I • 'dr, -4,i,-- ., . ,,,_ . - r VI , ' I.. .- 1 II i- * •: I--- --1 Si 4-: . ' tit I ,. ; ' 1 4, '•I I . : IL ;1-CH 116 1 . - !--4-----74 !itt• ,, • , ill.g: ' 0 it,lit---..---: ; .. fr.1.4 ._ ... ,! Ikg.t II , i, ; i';..i til• lir - 11, -• ' '. ji :- - tili) ' / .h- -:-E-'''' • ilr'.:.- ;•-1--:._---'. / h:1,-*/ I I IA, ,' •- -Ii-(.. / .2-3.h - .'/-: • tiS I I - I 1/,' ' : • I I l• =.'. ,.,' ' ' - . • I I ' • (,-,--,-:---:--,.----------'-:., _____ -`,----\.-. . i -.--,1-• II' r :------77--' • • -- - -- : - F1,_---.? -- ..._ .1 .i.--- ._------u- it t I -, ,,... ,-,-_ N , .,......\ 1 .....%., il ! i 1 5,..: . . ',E ft r\ / ,,... , 0 4 \:\ 1. lillidi / D ti 41; g-,f rix IL§gg , V \ I i 1-1111 -- ; - I-II 1 1-1-111 \ 1 I I 11 \ 4.1 1 is i ;.t ,/ , . i §_ it I !i g 3 151.-i- 1:t 1 j. . 1 ..3,... 4--k. -- - --- - • . .. cov idw- tri &-ir P Date Application Received: 07/20/11 oc µ Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/29/11 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/27/11 To: Chair Schoenzeit and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planning &ZoningCoordinator / 0 V Date: 10 August 2011 Subject: 11-3521,Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle, Hardcover&Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, Y2 acre/100' Lot Area: 25,800 sf(0.59 acre) Lot Width: 95' Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to remove and replace portions of the lake-side deck, add dormers to the lake side of the home, and construct a garage addition. No increase in hardcover is proposed. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Resolution No. 3571 Exhibit G. Staff Hardcover Analysis Exhibit H. Site Photos—taken by Staff Exhibit I. Aerial Photo Exhibit J. City Code Sections Exhibit K. City Engineer Memo Exhibit L. Property Owners List Exhibit M. Plat Map Background The applicant would like to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake-side deck, driveway and a garage addition are also proposed. • FILE#11-3521 10 August 2011 Page 2 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100' Actual 25,800 s.f. (0.59 acre) 95' Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 30' 52' 38' West Side 10' 10.4' 12.5' East Side 10' 9.8' No Change Lakeshore 75' 149' 149' The deck is currently 32' ahead of the average lakeshore Average Lakeshore setback which runs through approximately a third of the home on the lake side. No improvements are proposed more lakeward than existing. Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 25,800 s.f. (0.59 acre) Allowed: 3,870 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,780 s.f. (14.6%) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0—75 7,100 s.f. 0 s.f 0 s.f.* 0 s.f. (0%) (0%) (0%) 75—250 16,700 s.f. 4,175 s.f. 5,095 s.f.* 5,095 s.f. (25%) (30.5%) (30.5%) 250—500 2,000 s.f. 600 s.f. 1,370 s.f.* 1,370 s.f. (30%) (68.5%) (68.5%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance In 1995, a previous owner was granted hardcover variances in order to rearrange hardcover on the property; hardcover calculations were based on a 1991 survey. The property was granted, at that time, a variance allowing 42.9% (7,515 s.f.) hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone. The hardcover calculations for that variance application appear to have been calculated by the applicant and after a recent staff analysis were determined to be very inaccurate. Additionally, the lot area within the 75'- 250' zone was inaccurately calculated as 17,500 square feet where today's calculation reflects an area of only 16,700 square feet. The entire existing driveway hardcover within the 250'- 500' zone was included in the existing 75'- 250' zone calculations; • • FILE#11-3521 10 August 2011 Page 3 of 4 also included was driveway hardcover which does not exist on the subject property. In short, the hardcover calculations were inaccurate and neither the percentage nor the square footage should be used as a reference. Staff recently conducted a comparison of the 1991 survey and the as-built survey submitted by the applicant in order to resolve the inconsistency with the numbers (Exhibit G). It appears little on the property has changed since the 1991 survey. Thus the current survey and hardcover calculations, minus the landscape areas lined with plastic and/or fabric, reflect the actual 1995 approved hardcover level. Staff believes 5,095 square feet or 30.5%to be the actual level of hardcover approved with the 1995 resolution (Resolution No. 3571). This number will be used as the basis for staff's hardcover analysis. The applicant is proposing to remove a 32' x 12' portion of the upper level, lake-side deck, construct a new smaller portion of deck to fill in the corner behind the garage and construct a 555 square foot garage addition on the street side of the home. Due to the change in the nature of the existing, approved hardcover (as adjusted from the 1995 variance) from non-structural to structural hardcover a variance is required. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The existing home is situated partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The shoreline curves in this area of Casco Point and while the applicant's property is nearly in line with the home to the east, it sits ahead of the home on the west. The applicant is proposing to construct roof dormers on the lake side of the home in the place of existing skylights in order to improve the appearance. No additional living space is proposed in this area. The dormers would not extend closer to the lake than the existing roof, however the dormers would be considered an upward expansion of the existing non-conforming roof and variance is required. The applicant would also like to remove portions of the deck from within the average lakeshore setback on the east side of the property and relocate it partially in the notch at the rear of the garage. The new portions of the deck would continue to be ahead of the average lakeshore setback, yet would not encroach further than the existing deck. As illustrated by the attached photos taken by staff, there is a considerable amount of vegetation along the west side of the applicant's property line. This vegetation screens the applicant's property from the neighbor to the west. The applicant should be asked to address whether or not the vegetation will be maintained or enhanced as part of the discussion. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis In considering 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 • • FILE#11-3521 10 August 2011 Page 4 of 4 approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The applicant's home is generally in line with the home to the east. Staff finds practical difficulty exists with respect to the curving shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line cutting through the applicant's home. The applicant is not proposing to increase hardcover above the existing, approved level and is not proposing to encroach further into the average lakeshore setback with the improvements. Staff does not find that the dormers or the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by adjacent properties. Staff recently met with the son of the property owner to the west, Charlie Jones, who resides at the property. Mr. Jones made statements regarding his concern about the type of impacts the applicant's proposal will have on the value of his mother's property and the impact on his view of the lake. He also expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal to move the outdoor living space from the east side of the lot to the west side of the lot closer to his property, resulting in a negative impact to his sense of privacy. Mr. Jones was advised to provide staff with written statements to be included within the packet and/or to appear at the public hearing. As of the drafting of this report staff has not received Mr.Jones' written comments. 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 variances, 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 average setback variance such as vegetative screening or impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested hardcover variance? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation As the applicant is not proposing an increase in the hardcover level, Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance as requested. Staff also recommends approval of average e g lakeshore setback variance for the deck rearrangement and roof dormers. The existing vegetative screening should be maintained and/or enhanced. Plastic or fabric liners should be required to be removed from all landscape areas, including the area within the 75-foot setback from the lake, as part of any approval. The plans should be revised to reflect the city engineer's recommendation prior to placement on a City Council agenda. • • A City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: Application# ! 35 2s-1 2750 Kelley Parkway Date Received: 1 f Z0 / / Orono, MN 55356 Staff iV1el4 11 11 e Main: 952-249-4600 Fee: $700 fax: 952-249-4616 Renewal: $350 Mailing Address: After-the-fact: $1,400 Double Fee ��kEsso�� P.Oy. Bl Bay, MN 55323 0066 ox 66 Escrow Fee: $600/$2,500 This application form must be completed in full. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: j I-3 I CP _C- 7 G t— Property Identification Number(PIN): -� — 1 I"� ' i 0 001 Date Property Acquired (month/year): C?" Il o ❑ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Zoning District: APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: TP-'N'\) N -Y1 )Ni& Le_ Phone (home): Le ( ate ► Gj J Phone (work): �_5� D.D- —)C�oc Complete Address: 3)'3 l C_Pc -U G ►�-�� t_ City, State &ZIP C7 jr l0 rv\i\j 6<`/.,Gi I Email: ��O X'\\ \€.1 rn-Qir'6 vv (k(� , C„ice Fax: t1 /-Pr GP eye' `'v OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and marital status required for each interested party) Name: Phone (home): Phone (work): Complete Address: City, State & ZIP Email: Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED aui 2 0 2011 CITY OF ORONO - 12 - • • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. =Encloeed ❑ IV Escrow Agreement signed 42-A1 ❑ Pre-Application Form ❑ Practical Difficulties Documentation 0 Ce ifled Property O tters is F R r a a ❑ Survey (meeting ALL requirements shown on pages 5- 6) EL< .Proposed Plar s Et 0 Hardcover Calculation(s) ❑ Septtc System Site valuation Report.°. ❑ Al Wetland Delineation ❑ - -Wetland Buffer Evaluation ❑ Buffer Improvement Plan ❑ ❑ APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on this application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information is to annually update our records and records of other governmental agencies required by law. If you refuse to supply the information, the application may not be issued. Applicant's Signature: , Date: i rj jl Applicant's Signature: Date: Owner's Signature: ��-� Date: <� (/ Owner's Signature: Date: RECEIVED - 13- JUI 202011 CITY OF ORONO 4t 3 5 2 1 • • etc rgrr a Description of Request: The request is for revisions of the existing home, roof and deck in an area that does not conform with the line of sight setback for adjacent properties, due to the subject property existing on a lakeshore point. The changes include replacing skylights with dormers on the existing roof and rebuilding the existing deck, smaller in size and in a location that is less nonconforming. Practical Difficulties Points 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning chapter: The property is in need of remodeling given the age and condition of the structure, including both the roof and deck. The proposed plan would ensure safe and functional use of the property, reduce the degree of nonconformity of the property, and enhance or not obstruct the views from the neighboring homes. 2. There are circumstances unique to this property that were not created by the landowner: The property is subject to additional restrictions established after the construction of the home. At the time of purchase and presently, the deck is in poor condition, with rotting wood and sunken post footings. In addition, the deck framing is atypical, raising concern for structural integrity. The existing roof skylights leak/drip in certain weather conditions, and in general it is difficult to completely eliminate leakage/condensation issues with skylights. 3. The proposed variance will not alter the essential RECEIVED character of the locality: The proposed remodeling plan ,1I1I 20 2011 would result in the house being of more similar characterCg-,OF ORONO • with the predominantly traditional historic character of the neighboring homes. The plan would also improve the degree of nonconformity with the line of sight setback requirement. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties: Rebuilding the deck is required to ensure structural integrity. Replacement of skylights with dormers would alleviate water intrusion issues. 5. N/A 6. N/A 7. N/A 8. Special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to this property or immediately adjoining property: There is practical difficulty conforming with the line of sight setback requirement because the property and neighboring properties are on a point with convex curvature to the lakeshore. The curve of the lakeshore results in the line between the adjacent properties being much further back relative to the applicant's property than if the properties were on a straight shoreline. The property is set back approximately 150 feet from the shoreline, and the lakeside yard along with the adjacent yards create a park-like setting. The arrangement of the house and the adjacent homes allows for panoramic views from all properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district: The setback, adjacent home locations, and view conditions are unique to these properties on the lakeshore point with curved lakeshore. RECEIVED # 3 52 Jul 20201 ! CITY OF ORONO 10. The variance is necessary to preserve and enjoy a substantial property right: The deck is in poor condition and requires rebuilding for continued safe use. It is within the property rights of the applicant to rebuild the deck in the existing size and location. However, the applicant wishes to rebuild a deck that is smaller, positioned to improve or not obstruct neighbor's views, limit the visibility to neighbors, and afford greater privacy between the properties. The replacement of the roof skylights with dormers is required to avoid recurrent water intrusion as well as maintaining the existing natural daylight provided by the existing skylights. 11. The proposal is not contrary to the intent of the zoning code: The intent of the line of sight setback is to give consideration for the adjacent property owners' views. Rather than rebuilding the deck in the existing location and size, the proposal sets the deck further back from the lakeshore and locates it to reduce the structure visible to adjacent properties, thereby improving or not impairing adjacent neighbors views and privacy, for all parties. 12. The variance is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty: The proposed remodeling is necessary to ensure continued safe use of the property, alleviate water intrusion, and maintain the existing assets of the home, including a large lakeside deck and ample natural light. 13. Addendum: The proposal complies with the approved hardcover for the property. This was reviewed at the pre- application meeting, with reference to the approved hardcover variance dated June 26, 1995, resolution 3571. RECEIVED JUI 2 0 2011 CITY OF ORONO # 3 5 2 • ONOd0 AO AlIO aaA1303b • t� 1 D 6 6 0V 6S•0 /AS 008SZ V321V 101 • 03MOTIV N3A0002iVH = VOH ma �. )100d 3cIVOSONV1 = 2IS1 ' K � LOGO-t£-£Z-LLL-OZ #01d • NOLLVA313 2IO0ld IS3M0-1 = 3..11 Ark--'`.v- o $ 310810. OOSVO L£L - SS32IOOV A1.10 RUM S>I0V813S 11V A.I2a3A NOI1VA313 NOILVONn0d 40 dal. 1.3. �i� o n o NOLLVA313 21001d 30V2iVO = 340 sX: • M 'NW '00 NId3NN3H 'N21Vd ONlidS N0t1VW2104NI 1N3W3SV3.210 31111 3Nn Aintln 0V3H213A0 = 1H0 `3A08V 3O S3NI1 1S3M ONV 1SV3 AO SNOISN31X3 213d 3ONVHO 01 133'OfS SI A3n21f1S o A ?o N33M138.ON1A1 V?1N013NNIW 3)1V1. ONV 3f1N3AV ONdH213Ao o32I3A3111NV0 HOO N ? albs N33M138 {1NV1 d0 10V81 ONV 3f1N3nV 32iOHS 3NV1 VA/ / p `��1�/'7 30VNIVNO 3oVdans Nou.o ata = sl't= . 031VOVA 1N33V dV .AO:121Vd 1\IH1 GNV '17-17 101 JO ///V Ol�I.VNIW J// V / NOIiVA313 S0dS 03S0d021d = (0'966)X z2 �, 3NI1 1SV3 3H1 HUIM 1311V21Vd ONV JO 1S3M 133A S. ° SL 3N1 V 3O 1SV3 ONIA1 St' 101 40 ..L Vd 1YHl 'N011VA313 10dS ONIISIX3 = . °� �-�'6z6 MHO • 0NV Zt 101 .3NI1 1SV3 .H11M 1311V21Vd 0NV 30 _oe '' ;o'szs oLoz/4/5 3M 13210HS 0�6 133d NI 3'!'d3S -I 1S3M 13 00L '1X3•S11 ONV 3NI1 d0 1S3M. ONIA1 ti6 / t9 ONV £t 5101 JO 121Vd LVHI ONV tt 101 = _1- _._- _-- r1 N011d1213S - ti� I 6 09' Ot OZ i 0 I Tl _ _�- —_ ��� : z �� I z6 1 5 CI�+r 1 , 0 0-- ` ------ I I M ,.S y e�N t6 Il . .6y.\ i j • 90n6x 1\N 9gC64' I c,S.\ .. IY I I ` I I I I .�p6 \� : I I • /•�+ I I Oa. I gC6*0 y1 I °�n° 19�vo \ I y --0 1 • . Qt., ` I 1 , I ors ,j�a N�°q I.ZO I . ... .Ir.-•- �j66 MHO 19 51 — .. rDr-ps, - I \{+ I .`-�� _ 1 - '0d$` , 1 pm.� 1 I^ V ] ,!\ �.. 3 I J' Ii . 11n �\�, Iit V I tFl 3 L V ,..1 V ,!\ N I -, zr-g.a. 9'Zt6 =.n313 �� - � _ -- s�'--- boa---_ _ �„. �_J I w vy WI NVS 211 --.�6 I -- -�`I stiLe 6-au' I.. s N. � - 1N 9.0 t,.1,'a >1> VWH3N38 ' J )p 1 I "---• I SON •5 . a3 ` IN 31 m /� I I Nd i. - 1N3M3S Ainun 'T'-- - -- I I I ' I I- i 37N3d 1 \\ J� •�6ab Y �- wF i I ra -- \. I I ) _— 1 1 9NIdVJSONV7 ONV le s 'I I 1 -- I I I S771/ ONINlV13d ' --.-,, • II S . I 1 ON/1S/X3 34O/Y3d-- • " I 6.. _ _ I' . - - - __ N030 .ONV Oil b' 1-1 I. �6L. ouvd �.,_ .. - ONl1S/X3 38 .81\0N Q IN jt7 \ /' III Z I X >13 ci�f z .,' 4'1).46=341 9-6y i 1,D9 \\ , N„ -��-I I c''N 6 lbI --—J o °96(1: 1 — N ' I "E-�°f e yes r n'�'d sB L i i-0rz�' e£L2# o 11 !la: ll P`° 3Sl0H . '�. - ONidVOSONV7 ONV > 3Sn0H --''--�_. , ONIISIX3 I rz_ I� ., •S77VM ONIIVIV13 I ONIISIX3 1, GA -{----._-_ L��.N 4 ON/1SIX bfN3d I • I i -I--_,; I u� •`1 1N., '-a o 6r £4S6=ad I � (�3/2/3A) NO1VA373l,6�: _. ... Egr-� r a �zs6=X3d0' s l d0 Z1 3OY2bON • --- sri . 1/S�N-SIX3 cyJ I.�6. NO /OOVby6 „q I I I i ./ r� `' 3 V/V _ d31S GOD, ©NY AlC I •4,N /x I '65-\ ,3SOIdOdd I P tt1 . I.LSIX3 3A0113d ¢ i t� '�\ �\sb' i s1 • —F S6 . cl 2y6 i' -. I - . 1 ,/rwav;/ IJ,VV V uivV _ . i e 61- 'n 1` v -Sd,31S ONV- v v , A o g't l 9NL[5J3 3�lOW3d _ J \5 N �`i� ,0350 02/d�- 3SnOH �gy . . ;.. .....).--.0.i• ONi1SIX3. I 00 L I— 1.� oZl ys \\ i �-- -C� �• I r� � ��p/ I...V� y(� MHO l94 Z y I 11 0 S3t�121 1N35 0V " • I I 0- ��o-0 0 .\.9t3a Ilya / SO 3S 559 N0110fJ0321 311S 1V101 { �iI y/-d�3r- cgy�' -`_ '. "•�;'G£'L/3 ZL = NO110f10321. I 1< $ 1 I / / ,. � '3 1\. .. 2g6\ �%5> / 3S 5605. 1V101 I { - - - -.' -- �,41,13 , ti AS. .SL:L L = 3n180 , 11 i .- . - 3S S49 = >1030 ' I ---/ y �,- AS OOZ = Sd15 >iiM r - .-' .,- i ..� •— \ :ZO'Si ,35 00C = N011011438 AS OLZ - H0300a %6 ! as G}t5 = 8S1 �� I GS'B9 / 3S OL£L AS 5S6Z • = 3SrIOH / —�I' C.; L6 a kNk, •`' 03S0d021d i �� %/A/ ASiS A = 1V101 3S 09£1. 8S1 . 00 i �'� �� ON. �� \'� % S'£8 / 35 0L91 = 1d101 �-c `e,S ......-- \ 9 (3AOW3a)' 3S 00£ = 21S1 AS 004 I = 3n180 i -- 0 AS OZ 11VM1321 3S S = OI1Vd r- J ;' AS OS = N8O.0V 3S 00Z = d1S >11M o\ , i 3S 00£L 3n1210 %6 / AS Ot9 = 2IS1 k �5 OOtZ = 3Sf10H �\ i ONIISIX3 O , i J/ ' ' VOH AS 009 = %0£ X .. VOH 3S SZZt %GZ.X' %0 X v v �' � 3S 000Z = V38V + OSZ 3S 00L9 L = V38V OSZ-9L AS OO L L = V321V SL-0 2:13no0a8VH -,„ - . PROPOSED ' - \ \ -- S HOUSE = 2955 SF 1370 SF / 68.5% I . - __ . \ .?, _..,_R = fl 4(.) .'-70- / _.,-A 77),-,..n.r-rs., , ....._ el /4-‘, c,r-- rsr-1-.! !.,,-.-r•r- ,.! ..._ -7!-N r‘ ,77.7'\/1 m nor-, _- •, ,...-79, N fv‘.,LI( •Q ri -- Z. I Li :-:.n I\L Li‘...)-_, i i Lir'', - ,..)v 0 .JI A II...). ‘0 v-7•0 \ ...-- WLK STPS = 200 SF \ i -- --- V" ,., _ DECK = 615 SF I\ o ostP , .--- -{2--- DRIVE = 1115 SF \„ I wRoAcu_K liEjc;0..\ i':1: : \:::*----.--1:7(:7\ ----\\ --\ '(' TOTAL = 5095 SF /,--,,,0•5:::\\ \\::: ,...,. . REDUCTION = 12‘2{), SF/7.3%-- . • . ----_-.--- _---- .._-- .,1 ''• N, \ TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = '1655 SF ,-1 • \ z ...,--i--,-,„ \ . Ofr o... ''''N 9,.s. --` A,- 60 • ,679,. \ .153/ ', .. 4..9 'No sb- s.----q),,-)--- \ .., 10 0 • ;>--, 0,..---' • : , \ ---''' n---____ ADJir E NT ---DRAi \ ,..y., ... ,. • ,-_,_ ___, ,,-.:, .....,. ___ --, L,.,, , - \\ 64* c\ ri: ,--77- \ \ -- • \- ,c> /.... / •,,i,:k \ - \ „„, . / ,c\I\ •,.., () .....=,- .J \IA ,.„..5:,, _ ____>. ------ 0.01.3___ --, --„,>,--- -------N. - \ \'‘,96, 17-(3‘ ' .;,--- N. , ------ 10C • •'•' --1;' , VD i>,:lb , 4° -1-- 4 - I 2 SBL 0.17 TAT.,,,,N ,,,,,:, ,ii , ...--1'>, *11. 4 - I \ i 1 ••••-„ / n EXISTING ,0 --- ‘,... / - o --.... --, . • co: - 0. '-s, HOUSE '..01, -- - 7PRDO I0VSEED\--•4 7.--,\I ,co• -..„ i''N;---N, 1*.) - REMOVE EXISTING #3129 \ NS\-----\/ N \ - ___ - N, Os).;1 L'il -k. 4 4 \ I I, - 7 WALK-4ND srE-ps- 3 1.6 1 _ . \\'P a ''',, / r\ --- 7 \ \ :.. AA I/17 I ._A A in cr,A 0/Air' )P1q`Dr. cz.s-'' / ' \\ \ \ I 4- - ,..x.,IN f-I/V L./ _L../-I I V .,I-,/-11 II V LI \ .-„ PC1f)5 it,1 I / \ ‘ I 1 I / 7---._ / b------• --ciff.,.. \ - ._____ 1 ,439--' \ < I / ., >----,_4_, .; . --,.5- ---17-r------_.- 4/7„, iNnj --- --- -.--•.--_---,-.- sf'10. Y .3: -• • •- •. .. -'9. / H; / '9,/ ' II • REMOVE i EXISTING 2 ----4----'-- ,,- . --------, qi) PROPbSEP DRIVE AND .,:j -- it ' - : : r I - ,..-W6OD STEP cARAIGE 0,:\ '2 c) 7 z 4 (DI i'L st.5:------- • 1 --,.____:.„-• A '' c ''AUDIT/ON- _ -. .3 ---- . ,°k' ac•l_p.f._._P_. •,;., 1--0-1-_±___'.,_-1-L:--1 a-M-----. MA-7g EX7STNGSi 1 X 243 -- -----. ............_, -- GARAGE FLOOR " Al - 1\ rGFE952. ELEVATION (VERIFY) -'---- --------„Sik,:ii i; . I FFE=954.3 49.0 . ri__ . ,•.,- i _,--- ir..., • - C\I ---- "--- \ •' I'i I REMOVE-EXISTING -.,-. _ - --- 1;li !rlit7.4 ------___ j ______- - ---- - -----___ ___ 1 i ,73-2. _ .-. - EXIS 1 .,....._RETAINING WALLS , ,, ....„_iit 011 23.7 I EXISTING A; ilr --- ------------------__ z ._.... .- 1---- AND LANDSCAPING ---- --______. 1 , 0 HC N .i.1 4 MI.• - •----___HOUSE (0 I__4"/i 1! sc # _.,--- .,1, , , t -.111:.I' I cd . , -,3--C.0- 1 16 'Po 1 : 3-1-3-1 po . 1 hf_ 03 r ' i 1 85 AV --An SBL ------- 11........._ i -*0 -cI9 • '1 -_________ , : ii950,1• a-' lel 12.7, - `.6*---•\G? (c) --I--- ../- --Tii, o k) Lcr\i,.____ 1r t,, ..,(P Nezp'• < 41: 1 - *. ii: I , 'z I ...------ S:3------ 141() •, (7\ -\• I I, 49.6 LFE=944.4 i :tp0a 1.-:4.---__.---- ---. k t: CK ... 11- k•12 7•!' ---- __.. -- Cl. (\i‘•-• !i„..-i-1\\I, \‹,,:;;,. />4 ,L-pzr,;---i, c,,..-2.1) -...c..r.•. I•_____,-...._t.fi. •••___, 'zlvc_sitiH• t..,-1:46_, i_iii ii-3-6,-j ... I - - I ---- li ••••• I\ ;.• ck C4_ (Nil DEer,• ,-,=F- .---- ili \ \ ..i ^• re--(‘' ;-,:•):'..:r-• li I :il 1-1/ q'qr 1 „..„..,_ .,1„, __ ,\ \ 1-\,_, ..„... ,)1,1,, . A :0 / 0.4 -,.i N4 REMOVE EXISTING - _ -It -- \ .\. ......_,1,--:-. .,e!;..„:..,--...__ ' , wi: ii---„ --- --1&----1- .--,-f4'.I, I f',\ 's, ,,.."•-/- q I I I ‘,. * 1--- •--•-- _ - 1"- ----- •-•-.- __..___ ._ , 1 :;g,1-• - Il Ns------- I IA-TIO AND DECK - - 4,-- - - _.. _-`,.:\„q...:1-' - - - V. - • ••'-' .-.1----- - 11 I 4''',..1-51•'' I -= t- - -'1 REMOVE EXISTING I 1 I cD,, \\__ _7 \ I 1! RE TA/Ai/NG WA L L S I 1 \I \ \ I I I\ i 1 i Ilk I \ '''il AND LANDSCAPING \, i 1 I -- _.- ----- N.- clil .1 I T !II 1 / i • 1 --- , _-- I I / / ..\,,,. I I -593, hl SILT FENCE i '-,,, .li: \ ; I I ,,,,,,i.:-..-.,---,,.. .,-,--.7x., \i \ 1 // ____ ____ ____ _______ _____ __. _, I. NoE. s____3_6_2.MENT To____,_9\4\ _IQ . 11 .SIT''‘'\s- .. '''' 1 - \_______,_, N.pUEDTIL,IT Y6S6§.---Tci - -----'7-------i- -- I . R I li /---- -- -,. / ----_____ I 1.1 / I I \sl‘Nk .-N.J I \ c-\•)-I r‘\1_- i _‘,.. TR=9••2.611. I - - -,--\y•-•--,.,_ ...____ _ _ N95.„ I - .'-' - ix'it• ! I I ,,,- ----.__ ______,,g3 c;)-I P •C-j- - - _____ r,,_ , - -1-c 1 I , ' C5\,,, 0P-- - - -4'-- •- . .__I i I N,.,. I N , •.• '-, 1 i • . i I o \ ' A --` A 7 E ni ''"--,,, I A I / 1 E .--..,' LI 1 ) 17: ; C . A_ \ ' C- NN N--1-1 E I cs1 - ( - \ . . ,_ . .--\ 1 I_ ,4- • J I ____ . 4 / „ / . • . _ ',,,,. ,-, , - i ' I \ 00i „ I .., I 1 ,: 1. I 1 \ 0 0 .N 1____!_i 04,11, ___,_:_ 1, I \ • - •'----- 75- ------' -- S L OHW „3.c .-, --__ 1.1 . _1 41)-. . \ • ____ „q - \•?0' 1 \ -1-1 • --t t •\N‘ a \c9' I ‘1\. I 1 '\'1-0 \ it \ I I \ f 4- .1\ .\IA';31"\ f 0S) cp ,C_;\ s\ : 0-3I --......_. . . ....„---• I r 1,' 0 1P. C3 • 1 \ 1 1 Ni° g 1 \ . \ I 1 1 1 \ \ 11 \ • N \ (IP I I , \ \ , ...‘ .. -N , , , \ \ / ....., , I , -5b. N ,4.45 \ 1 / • 2 ..- / , --. •-5& • " - \ '-'-' 9..36 I " .. ._._ -I-- , 1 .,-...._...._. 1\ 1 / / / \ ---„, j 95 ..,_ _....L.,,--__ -- "1 / z.: / ----- 1- ----..,. -----„,. - - .„,-' . ----' --7- ----- ---, \ -r-----....,.-----___----7-1 I ' ------. i .„----- --- \7--- _.............. . .......- ./ -----_, . - „.......„... \ .,, , ,,c .. ..._ \.. ___...._ _....... __---,------------ _,..- --/- 4., (i-,.....„..,___ • ____. ___ .....- .....„_,.. ......„... -•*(-5 1 i 9-V------ --1-- •-.. -5(0- 20 40 60 -- ...----- - RIP RA p_ 9 _--_-I- -- -_ -----• - -4I---- DESCRIPTION: • - - , , -=.---r!-='.--- ----- - •-•7---. ""::--7.7..z-.- :=7:.1.-:::, - LOT 44 AND THAT P --.:--._. .r...-:-. .... _--.--. •..•._•._. ...__ - --(31-- - c)---0- SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / 9'1.c. LYING WEST OF LINI CALE IN FEET <)'-i- / OF AND PARALLEL W „,,_, OHW 929.4 - ' TU A T 0 A DT nc- I Evr i \1 - \—..__ _... ;; / ,i ) Do •E � E .... •�c .. Y _ .�----�— m z• PG I '---� 'f 1 1 L 1. - I f ' c O " I O 1.1 1 t. 0 I I, i Z. • fj st. .x. . 'L l .-- . . J ;I t�3 rn 0 r 0 m r° ez aa —� MM _� CI) Son !r 5 (p .." tsE o b(s�}s "x ka O` W _ CHECK SET [ (� ;m~ ''fE� .- P n� i! ' L gi 4 t; , A a�� - CLIENTREVIEW � m FI'i �i 4 '" �c O O C' X MEETING SEC ° pA_ g i�y 0 1 Z (\�/{J e Z [SJ ' ',�' x REESTIMATEREVISION SET CI] 1 ton Y g v Cep V R9' "— ,,, tii [yy X REVISION t) �� -1 fl n �•ng Q r Nit) o e ��- PERMIT SETBID SET O P. III G O o X M1 u n r . a ADDENDUM z §i i€ g j e CONSTRUCTION SEC `�" i °° Ea W _ CHANGE ORDER FA • • • • •. ... . ,.,. • . . , ,... ; . , - •-L .. •I-', •\ .;1 . . _ . • • _r • • ... O __ - --_. :.. .:.... _.... ... .. . _ _ — --_,_1 -- • • • ___ _ I a _— --. ::.... ._. ...: - �X 1 . = . , - ..,. I _- - a. - G G- -. - • C, . --- —Ci-.r—±— --_ . • . I • • IJ ,:_ i �_ f _,k • • I1 • • 0 O �I .. .. . . A r IV Q ® rn .. fir[i1 �,y`�9 mcn �U x I .. z� x CHECK SET r IN y A � �A .m , rt•`yam O CLIENT REVIEW $$ �" $ R m 14411131 y$m O O r k MEETING SET t� D 9 ^'-, % .1—1 Y '[(Iy�] ESTIMATE SET C7 O —I �n A E ram' .6 17 'ill 7, h BID SET O A G I €$ X z�, a U� a 6 ADDENDUM € ? A# IC� i _ .._ _ a CONSTRUCTION SET g w - CHANGE ORDER 1 a� .., . • , •Ifi. - . . ' . — 4.45.- • ..„ . ... _ ... :. • • ' . • . ______ _ . 1 • . • • . . i _ , 1 . ... --.1 ' i • - ..,:, ,,, . r ... cz . , • . - - --- ,..............L. _ i i , . .z ....t. , ..., • - . . • • I; 1 i__ --: .. . 1... I , ' i j 4 rt- ,: 1 . I I, ... -1 I 1 i '. I . _ .1111 . . . : \I\- , ;• _ —14 • , , ••••!-, . . 3,g A !. -._ ---- --„, A m.....- -.- h 1 . r L-Lk•-• . . ,• • .. . . . . . ,. • . • I 1 • I -4,lc . ' 1 • 1 • . , . , ! , . . ., ' _ • MR' I ' 1; i ;___,, ! • . _ ._ , •W I I tsik , ......, ..._ , 11 i 0 1 ti . .. , . . . . !i • • —.X -. I . •. ... . ........;:i ..... . •<.. • !:: ---...f • • Tz‘ — I i:, .c!C oil ' 7 • . ,- 7 • i LI I I' - • !I !! ! i .. _ • . . .... \ 1 !! , L.:.-.22:1 • !..__- r ; ,. —• • :-; ;,),,...\., -- \ I i- --r- lA 1 • ' . -6-- 1 1 1 1 , . i ! i I - • • _ ..... __. _ . .• __ .. — _ I • . I! .. i . . , _ I' !• ;I _ • . . .:_t_ . , . • = m , c ,; , -- o ,, 71 IN) I11 .0 M • . • 1 .1 III ca . , x r.a < . • .1! 0 cp Mrs 1 . Z - ,.... • ,. ; . : -- I I 0 ., i,•• • I! L 1 ' ....G".4...- AgggItAtgi!!- ?, i 11 ,•,, A iI,p ..... u., •o r g a, ,.; ,, F.,- 12.. CHECK SET z rt, 41 > 6 E tri 0 0 r4 - . z CLIENT REVIEW t.,,., X MEETING SET 2 I i fri 'i - N 'ii5,1 m N.. 0 I --, 71 A A -A _ F ,4 IP,Ig ..—, -K 8 x ESTIMATE SET C) g 1 91 !'-7-',TP3> killii 6 :.: - 1 , i .. 1/43.1 5,1 g .1 E IR (J..) z 0 tri r) tri ,,tri . . X REVISION 8 F', M),.. 1 g ,,, o m hl ;•, i 1•1 §'E'' H e. K o e PERMIT SET BID SET .2-i :;;•- ) rp a iiiii X ,.i ' ADDENDUM rill 41/4.0) •;,A§ CONSTRUCTION SET It t•II ,' ', .., 53 F` t-,i CHANGE ORDER n'2 ' D , 1"."1111 ..., . • . • . - • • • . . ....... I . . p' •i • — + ' �� l' • I I I` 1 I -i .-�._J r, ,,, ; fit It`. f r ��j,♦� j ��` i ! I I L r L u, I' �ifirip , I L; f !�N1 r IIi • �� 1I , • ; Ill= 11 � i' , 11 .1 1[11 1 tifilioujillil I :1:1 . --. -I .: - - I. I - I __-,-- - s1 _ _ ,. ° - - -- • I HT !I (I 11. r —_ -- � -I_ �_ a•I . . .LI _II-,. I e' ' -I n aI !a : -' ���Q �I_ �I • o 1 Li F - I I I -.__ �� I• II • L 'I I 1 i11 1 i • .-.. ' . . 1 II ' eery `t ` -. . . • , T I OI , t{,- H I t_ t ' 1 II'I a1 . it-1-I it -, • --- I it .r� --- �= P - III i -- , . - i i ; 1 . _ ,, , .. 1. ; . it ......_ _. . , i I ' t ..........___ - - = - I �,, f---- 1' i, . __________, — I f I J! - r r:. I C 'I 1 1 I ...i __........._ .____._.„ I I I� I• r DO 1 I �_. i. _ • j II.' I _ -- 1 I IJ__'II�I • _ I • . I I 1 ,1. 1 • • H • .. .. .. C O r O1 : . , A N C PTI I Z CD • ' o 1 , • • i in 0 3. g `�' p w =9_=M Cn gm(ml �11 6� ii`i E§1 1 L. I'1 ii gyp- y e w H CHECK SET fl AT-I ` c � —" r g �'�,� fib 1?.` f++ C=](✓/ Q Q t"'i[TJ 4 ,f7 [ri Cs] X REVISION 1� {{ n g e v rfi; PA^+ 17;O y PERMIT SET by O P °°° 8° Pil I�� 9 F BID SET O A € ° XAq ADDENDUM g g d CcP CONSTRUCTION SET 7y Y° �" w'�� -,1 ^ � CHANGE ORDER lye . . . • J • ; • . I • .._. .t • _ • • r i •/P.1!141101.11 ; 't It'IIV.I'8ii , H • • I t .I„Fx, . I I I I { .. .ram �m ;I� - of ;' I-- >. 1 _ i . . I /I I ! --- I I, I ' t 1� 111'1 I I �wwww rjfl_11 I /, � wr�l >I \.. ��i� � of � , I \ ., fl LI � /• • . roI 1( =:I 1. • li r .. I ;11 I IG _I biiill N I ::, ' - _.__ I'\- _ ee -v ® III ii 'I �.,���rr II ikC H. -J .-..s dL ION i—: � I morseme III • (, II • I • ___ II . . i • • C7 m on • a ® . < ; X N I . o n o • �. ' o i Ln �� .. '=ems o & : > .> g O ten, gl '� op ,�, =Q— CO son 6� � � r b a 114 p g ro CHECK SET �+ (7 m -i a F • A '� m C R �r�r^^� Ex ;CZ) C1y _ CLIENT REVIEW tz Z �'i �- "��' P m �W`m y s �O Q L~ X MEETING SET pq, QQ ¢A iAA,A$ A _ ... a oR Z I/ K X� REVISION ESTIMATE SET CAS �"n P L 9 e .. Y • g p lx7 /""J o . PERMIT SET 'xi �O f� 9 o o X ° _. .. _.. ggg 7z5, ika BID SET ffi 1 m H - "• z g S ADDENDUM Q ' rt& CONSTRUCTION SET a o o ,_. I ^ CHANGE ORDER o 3$ • • • w• • 5YP b L, " •Q,.' . . -' •'; . . . . I : 71-1135;:; ' ' -'••'•••••-•'''- : { I ( rr- 1 • ' • 1 1 # I=a gjjflJ L k 11 opt I r � :,t' y"•. ; m{ L.c+s ;t a Yt6ficce., eFy ._zI', X .7,�^ Q [ • ' � . ;146 �3 r I � _V -- tt± Rat oC 3 , -.°� po, i _ 7I V 1 I • . .I, R0 J717i0 ! I �tl ;' 11? J I QN i i ,t F- rp p ./,!- -'i'. IT ElW`M• i 1 �tlm :l. I v�. = 1 �I .p z ll1 • _ I -`_' L- <"" mom' I _s - 1 _ A-.-•, 1"-kit'ry. • F Pr n, � • 1�-' r .- - -.. ..__ ...:..__. _- _I _ l _ T1. _ 1 9 .— .—_... ---_. ... .... -11777.1. • 'y f _L I m: 1 Z .I. 1 _ r —. k� — l ` `I"''' '/I ... i I.. T2 I 'I A +i1 •- • •• • • •• T J - • Q'1� 12' I • - • • • •• • • I, • .-. .. I /� -^_ i _ _ • . E..• I .1-t. -1? III t.�.l`-,E n g !.ct , . I -. r O • t. 1 '_i • _� ty t 42 1 1 3t :I. I m :a E L y •�' I . I .. i ---i'oI . , . — 1 U , - j--1.1--1, III " ,.., 1 1 , I' 1. , O ; A ': /, -• 1...:_ I I fi I c• IFr,. • —FFy x (j I 4zC e� -1 • • 1 •.va. .. _ it m 1 . s �,' I I .11 i i _ L 1 f l 'I °gT'r V, • • •I 7.j W .I —1 - - I ‘0:b I . ''r- ! __ .i r 1—. I11 "y1'1�� - ' i I 11 : ' T : I ' • ! _ --. 46LG-W-+94�GWa1'I'I�1�_= :t. 1 'L I 1 I it 1. i • I . • z _y io• `11 r • • XI H O t�-I C- _ CHECK SET (1 it "'5 P P o m t P C ni O r CLIENT REVIEW y Y n. "..-' P m :�"w �-y x MEsrwcsEr �gl.. y _ Igli Cl7 ,' 4 • k ESTIMATE SET G_ D S8 -9,.., �'MUfl p: `Q tzi Cr1 X k REVISIOS P �"! 7 , PERMITrn ADDENDUM O X n » O C.ONSTRUCHON SET '�, $ E•14 o a ,p CHANGE ORDER 8> : /Z'� -- V 1 • . i _ L . .... _._,... —1..... — ._.. ; • • • • 1. d 1 ITn • k • ['FS uPR r F I I n' ° • I — -� r p • T -I • • e y • i. 1 ti • I. Z•1 • •• I I I I i'} � c i I I I III r — 1 1 _ 1 I • ., I I ,,,vs Mom. r 1— �3 1' 0 13s r`r C • 1`:. .i.... �.. -I--'rs'nl'- JI� .;' nl I! ,_ IIjt;C' � - ,�Iu,gr. I { N, .. .. C �.:I I. .. ' ;.. .; • I -� fR • 4 - L J _I I - pInPrn 1 F t ,, 1- 1 I xc 1 1 I • 11 IvQ I'd — r, 1 I I ,.I - iI IIII f .. I 1_I • I I 1 I 'II ; 1. 1 / III I i t I I • ; • i 1 1 w 3 6fa1 I 118• L I n '. L � l..li sz +en R.l�" c ' u '.... ; ..I—. -r . i•i • . I+ lil-.I _.--1 I _.. ._ -._. _ ._. _ ..__.... . ... ...... _ L —(x -.; L I • Lr r!'3L -'l'1 .. J I .j d 1---- ...i.. - {,-.I I ... 11' W6�77t1 .1 -h - ._._1 �' -'-- (- _.._ -._____' _..._ ___.... • :_.._... • _..._ ..... 11 '.I . V '' II ,,.j -, I: to,C--'HI E I�- 1 - ' ,Dls, _- •.. l . . '.:\ - .. , ;- ! ( n �11 .. .. . .. 1 . 1 1 • ���"�T�'�� . N .. I I !I ./I I iz a6°j _1_I • -I - �I I � 1 1.•.• II - w ,;I, .1 ;1'7 ��II r �� �I • i . . I. . 99 t • 1 1 IC` I: i I 1 I I 4 � IF _.. I • • I 'j' �F, I i�Z -1 ---r --- • I ._1 _ .._. .... 1 _ _.... - - _.. .....: _ _.. _ ..._ :: F o ' : 1IYTIa1H1RT11 I (, •i { J _ -�k * • �n • m P c O '_m ° $ •1 IwM , * • :. r � I • \ • II _• F � i.6 tVI I I! I' � �T1I � I I L n- G I lT i 'g • N , I`c j-y . I. • I_-. .. $ • : ".. I I .. • 1 • i. z — Q ; 0 I -.a Sr 4' p p �'08>P�$ ' ayN N ZmZ, 5�y A : n p '-'��c7 y -11 �j p ,i gygy pp I) • PI v R rr�� ` I ! I.51 o ' Q �EN REVIEW [[i'1 Z m 1 10 i m •<-`m 0 F 0 MEEDNG SET 9U9UU Y ,... __.,. .. .._` y a . V ° O x ESTIMATE SET Cy S -nt �" ni ..... g ill PERMIT SET •-11 9, z§ 4 Y - ADDENDUMC€ X 7b t � ' CONSTRUCTION SET `�' m .. CHANGE ORDER 0 S o F., I i 1 . . .1 1 L . • • • • m G • 'R U , ,_ I Jr`�, �. I I . 1 y • Q _.. R • '17 , y.. • y , • .. C.s ,I I_ �' .PSI - d4 .. I ip - - + • I E I € 6 m110 • aR. = . • • -do-— II I • am n c g1 .oR , o • • ar a "� y-�g C rp _ , ';:-.1 7 •.- I . '" err i0 6 m 111 f 4 (--- _ , v � �. ....Q . III .. r> _ / �V A IIj .:1':.:..1•...: p m r � _ 10 ...,.y 1: ; z. I e • • If• -- .• .. . . • a I'• II i n . ...•.:•,,,: . CA : f !I 'N�o. Ino x •I �i I fi I"r•: •I Y .... • %/// f rs+' •ritn€I I G ..`y. �`I'a it • %,.. 2:n c-zi D Al c , •m1 a t // I P I I —__— �,, Z i I 1j G t II .. •4 j i • I'<n"X ) = •• r i I 1. S QL 1 • t • PfrO, 1\ I � � � e ; ` 4sF _ C . • UL .:,ai •m Q • t 8 rt ry o • . . . . .. . JnA .!5 ..-'wr CIEW_:47 ti�.4vor9D1:Y.___ T • 24.c?rxi5'1_I t'4Atz-FoLNP?-11- .. ,isl, �.,o,... . • ___.. 36Loll • • • z.*c:.max .1/4)4041 • °1IY, 7.97�,0pPh1 777III (1 -/� m �.�Yi' p� 1.71I �u� a§ y �i - CHECKSET �+ (1 N y lQGll Q �,im A r9 m C •N q , Z CT1 _ CLIENT REVIEW g ' m £F �' 3i A�f m �G n a = .m .1g ›. p O p r x MEETING SET �I n n �pp P.1 p i: — 9.O n k ESTIMATE SET C1 D "O M G n $ 1 i 1 6 e N ,� ° y k REVISION ,-1BID .,y A �n o 0 0 0 o X r. '.'���fu m e a ® a£ ADD ET O ill/I ADDENDUM $ Ft t o t� C `• a coNsrRucr�oNser a o .m F CHANGEORDER .. "`°e Z v # „• as 0 . . . • tp' p-P:(-S-S O\ \ 4ts to*• r T � . 6or •oe n • o .p tstn rr::„„ o %E r n N N it+. i+ R ca n- '• 36 1 16 _erv�. P 1i 'A r.4 Ptl.� f 3s ,+ 'Qs 3f.. P tl FS I 'Vy Y: 'L IL i��T'�" r,Q_YET :,1 sF mN N v=+- n } uM \SR' a ` ` o- '71' k i . cN 11 i tt h$ ,D I 4et •d C c x' ^' _II l9 f' x '4 :? P i r .1 .d<. • ^ii T' a T p .:-� �sr j •N• "aS , .r -q' ,a.,r{;a; >_ v -• a a p_A . sgat^ P 'R.` . Av 'C-F, : 1 �69 {-.,, 'v z5 . •+Q . B m q : T ---.off 'F o cK.71 M F G :L 'I'R ""V F tyT '� { x'I:r E <fp ZCr! I -Pj L "F ry 4xm - 'rt F I. 'o 'L i 7 x 'kJ m It thuU 41 •v `: i x / ' /I •' R 'GG 41 me u} — .. . . .. ./...._'.1 . -tr .• i \^ 1 . . i 1- /i /1 .. / ' 1 Ill A .-g I.,.•\ ,• • L_. 1I. I I. i / I G it% . ' I • .. If • 1 1 ' 1 1 g i Hill 0- -- 1_1. ii_ iiii .. 1,...t . __,...„...., .!, , , . i 1 .!,.., , ,t, Nil rilit- . .( , . , • _ . ... I' i-I I '-I . _ __. mots _- I I 4.rl r ,+I.r • u14MIT .._ '0 • ®I® I I .. R- .., _.- _ .,j - 1 11111 • • ,,11-1.] ' 1 - ®10,. 11 �! ._ .... .tom M.. 1-1L-1 1-.\-/- ',ICI iiliiiii.41-1 , i,:' ,,': , i • ' : ! • • . ppII I n I 1�.A.I®) I ill-I._' iw - -� r—_ ®1��� 'v 11 ::�- _, --.-- �' I � I / : :>--,,,:,____ I ",-- -N------- ' IT 'ink._ • . ,1, 1 ,. id -k _ Ala MEM : m Imams'I' 6,,04,,, -,,,...,. • : •Iy—, III.II. �" . � —mil I1I —® ® . upu 4 n"t te'l i rty 1, 1 ' . • :I ®��pp " • �I i t11; .II a• . 1I �' �1 I fw • � • .IsI — Ilgs ia Li,, • - ■ _ _ lam CI` • I I - - . '' ni Fir; .- 110[7". 1 _ ,F " s ®®I lig.r�� ... P. g . cr • -.,,, ;= ji• i - les :. -•..iffp,..-. it-•••• ,i . PPP �`' II , - ow . . / .. - • . ....1, , •: . ., 1 _£ a Z � I . ,,,I - I _t411 { I • IW' I• 1 !I1 III ®II In !! .I �--I1 • I j rl r^I o. -- • ;_ I ego R • yIts I 1 • P/ 1 1' • . =--- -r- if ll4g i ]I • — ri , .1 . . .,. : _of ,iiiFig:T I& , • •• 1 , • ,-:-,- ' 137.1p0-og. .04 . ';. \ . I, 1,41 so 1.�" • IIr._ I 1 • Is • �I I II `� I °i® 6 Lmireilliilirr9 ® _. �. �I® •I iniEgiiiiinEepIlla I. i. I ' 1 — I I .. ' ! ' //.1: ' . . I it7 • ; - .f i _ • , . • ':* ; • • . ' . :6'-.'\.\ •.1 \ . V /:.",•:. -ia m7 'n -\. 1,"^pA•r'�•r.c�m m pr % % ppm : PI: :;:hit!' 'S 1 ,(.I`++ ,• •Qxn+ u�- L^ R— >s{ E . • •,r • Ql, Ip a +.(A> It" Qk • LDS is 4 LP )tJ Ik 'NX'� .'-Q �'X 1'�5+ -LYE:- L2,- .A Z'� :N .• -c't` Z,.. r °y� TI Gr-c i > -�m� .r �.:* ID a k '-� Rw -i PA I: rUa_' i�a �s�4- p, not LYE 7 t+'? -rrt -nz o C 4: rhi r4�m�t v 4 n.P m i- g'E E 'Q r �� E:.I rf u m � r-� > .hr' 4 Pr IP-;... rn m rT., .'m f.it c tTi- „, - srm r rc F4 �y D 'G 1 N' IF'" I F £ `,D.pp� "W� �3• i', o'kf nI�- /l �n , �klii • ''(. •'flii ;N 0 '.r -Qk f = 4 ry 1'o •'F�p,1 1 'GP T L L 11 1`� DP ,tp, 1' `I`, 1`Ir .31 c�' 3,M1t' \F , .A TLLF .4 ,�+E_ yy £�, •N la. '"A Sf�'. Q I 0 mF �. FL L 1 p 4.,1.E < 44 (. -E .N :n 3 ;:- 'vv N\ F'• ,- ,-,,,, V y� 9 7n 7E 0 '`CyZ '., Iu M E5 -q .: .0, `.t ; • F i ':L - .Im p "',; t� ,-6I i �� .'Z�� I � N C �+'. I RN l.. n`T.T. c, P L :4. , FS'S`` G g j`7P -g�` '� '}* ('i -r�., !�F - P @$ ,"F� *_' ry 3 • b P •;7 U' '!rs 14 P ..4 ` -' Z;= L I0 7rF �i,'^,`p 7 ' L� '• '. .YIB 4.. •7- .r� z • -+fir - t "I Ley F r. .a . H- Iu. E u. •• 0 R rtl . � 'I y z m I , Ir . , • 6 n Jari 3�?r3 g A =p o u$1& ,. 8 n 'r_'g n • Iv N v Z °" o o cn m &I E �j p 3iltly, � ..pgpg H o� -� w (n 3�Um E� fndCn oy ''d 7•1 ('' i - Z(� x [ - CHECK SET Al2 y 6 6A . 0•u?A ut3 m g p�� o S k MEENNGS SET y i in m r ?r t.a m y ]r/i ya O Cy x MELTING ssr m m �Q -t '4.4 w ' ip CSJ p1- IS ESTIMATE SET CJ �i -1j � ,� �'o$ z v 1R7 I k n tiJ 4 'r REVISION • �r 8.y a� 8 I,1gg p` H /� PERAMITSET .i o F m pva goo fol m v...i.) ^� 5F a ADDENDUM Q ,M to CONSTRUCTION SET '" O ..r F0 ,��y, CHANGE ORDER X N < 3so . . • • . . . . . .„. .... -. , ' • . . , . •• • . . , . .. • ... .. . ' • • •, ..,, . • • - ,"%Li_ ...-0 4 • "-0,411S, -4: •. ..-,r_Lni _, ,1/4 , • ,.,., .r ' . • , 14,4/ .1.1.,. , • . • !:'s-14 .17'.5,- : ,1 n -t• ,y •i ! rs'ill. .!r, . .. ! • - lk. '1,. 7 "Fitsv, . '' . . . .:N 4. ..i.at.4 li • : . . ; :L'... n 4••-iisi, . • I". • . . •• • • i-, pi • . . . • ; t , 4T • . . ... • . . . . . . . • •••• - , I.- r _ , :,,,, . ., \ , . . • ,,,... „ ..,, ,, _ • IK 41"a_- - • • R ,4. ,,.. :4,,..„ • r . . • _,,,- '..'! •1,,, .-t- 171- fil. . I•; • •E lit.,,i1 Ao ' 1,1s. kit ' • . , 1/5 111111-:' ill' \ ! • • • P 7':L. -.,,,1*$g - • 'Li, -7:P1 . . • 49 ' - • : .414 •-E. r'' . • . . ' _ • : I ....,.. 11.4 I , ! --41t8-. :r.kr,) I. ii- - 1 • I „ -::: : '..,\\:., . . . , • ,14-P• 0 ';t''V 1 i P-R t'.I I ... • 14 "1,1117& ; A/ • IF 1:a ":' 11 . -- t, ''\. \\ • , -ii-2 t : ;• • a 7.41 ' '''11.;f I , • -• - . -5 :"'N . 'if I .- i •. . . i • •, . --- --- - - - '.,... , • . .(1. 0..•... . -..,t.:':-,.,_.,,•.1,i;4I..[-',.-'.111.i1'.d---1'..,[-.-.:.'L..•-i'.,..--.-t,1.-iI,-HI..I1 It1,4-• =.I,-•LI-.J r...,.i..irLi,,,:-.,T.-,,J_-;-...1L1.• 1.-,.•,•I.=, .••••.r..-.-.,.---._-....4;,;:- •'..••.., -. ._--.__..,••• . •. ."•...\___•—'.••-. -• •.•..7 -.•..,•,'• ..! • 1 • I'-1•A •i1 'tI''1' •Z r', -I k11-.r-_-..."1.--_-_\.:.-._7...\-.•-„\-•::•_- 7--\4n-,----:•-.-7•7•= tn _ _2 ± -•t...•.•-.= -.2 /./•..,/.•,%//,.it /':)'C/-•,/L'•:/,-/,-_,'/'-._,'..,2/'.,7':_4 7/.,/-....-.• .,,•i,103,iIAJ,„i01-lI oI1,, i11l'Ii,. , ...-.'' 7•:•'I1,•:,, "..• ',7.• •; . •,.: . 1,i , :,,,, , -- III ., • •. --''' ..- ' - I i -- 1 I - ' t I -._.-: •:t;et , ;,... -----.- -yr 1 } r il - I... •-'.•'..! •..' •-•• ‘•;. 1.-:•••. ....,.,.-.-\ • 0 4r, F., PI : IR '-• ',A--- ,J. k Lit i 1.1t: --11 Li 1 i,_-_, .. • 1 : - rnIrr / 'I 2 t. "iq I, ••• 1 : I'....::,----:‘,-'. 1\% . • : !h Id- Lk! 1-:- I '- • 1-2 1, : • I M - / 1 ' i i : i :',-, : ' •. , ,. '. •‘..,..,-..-.----4,-. , , .MI ,, ‘.*i " . t-;1..!-4 1-i 1 - _i j - L.. • ••§4 i':',$:. .1 -: / 'i I • 1: • '-- 11,- . - . .... :1 ,,. : : • • ', , -1 -I I.!.I;.-.•-.1 7--- rt.- -",, : •.. k 'Ilt l'i ...b.), . / : g PI •• :::.= r . • :',.,1 ' • i• , "i I.: ---.I-7 '' •:I v II`, ,,14Lt4 'A :4'-' I I_ / :1. --qr * I.' ::- -'4F•I :Y.:..1 t - •,, ,, •-,,,: !--:: .•r: -: .1--,__ 1 !r \ ,2,. IT., , , i I • ' 11-' ... i :- ---A ,...ri;--,'.•••': °I0J. .. 1 g.4 : . n., ,4:• , . • ----- • • ..-- -...,..: ... - • ;n„ t. ... i .:.,, ,,,:-.,1 •,.I .•,. i_l,,,,..•. , f- - •• -- - .-.. \ ,•_.3; - , •., . . ..:, ,1, • --,4-, ' I ..• . • itg : . •,.. ........ . , • .— 1 I rtt .. '.:,I I- ' =-7 - .:_.4 :4 =:: .:I ,..! 1 ; . . :a: : : t-- • I L- .,.1 - M --I-Y I' - :!...• ..7,..fr.,,T1 .• ;.,,..._L. . .. ,< I:1 . :: ',.. !: I-1•_1-.- -: .., _' I 7.: . • . •c ... .,..../.. ' 7 • • 1 fr• a. :: „ _,___ ,, --Z": ' ---.: \• :i!, ''; •> ,-- . t , 1• \\ ''''',.,,v,t, , ./›... .,1 9-1:1 1 Ary• ,..___11.• • .. ,Itre- .i. '' I -._. • . ':' I ''' i h 1-1:' !' I I ' 1 - ; . ...,_ . - . ./.1g : • '''-- ""\-- • I I 12.tc, , , ,,, ! • '0 i I- i/ \ M •-it.. .1, •I 1 - ' \ ' 1. r--:: ', " . .--: •!1'. • • :.,. i .- 1,k ' ' C) I i Pi Ill .,, , . • • 13- '. '"'' E. Pi - 11111 1 • F!' 'i 1 . 0. I HI-: :- ' .i - I, 7,1- .p.‘,77f. ..-'-7-• Si -- I • - • 1:'- .._..,.. `F,-.-2?.: I \ :' II - '' : cs` • • 'I ,i.,,E I II I`,, -;/''' . ' ;:: ,-- ;:- ---7'—' —11-1::—--T \ .: ::- ..: Is -I, !--, 4 i . -•1[ . • \,._ ..., --7 1 \ 'I ',I'''43 :-, , .— ,, 1 ir, : . , , ._1- . ".1 .: • , .:: g.7: --Ai ,. •: . 7 ' 70 1-m-r- ' i : . i i I .... "" ': \0 .V. irre'I PtE ' 7TC • ;1 ..•...1'./.. \t-1.-\ : .‘ 0 _ I; 1-." :d -, , L , •i-- :. 1 -: -! - , r\ • : . \ .-,.-gr.. : . _ , : —, -. ,, . , tsc.g.. : . •...,_.... . : ,_0. •gg 1 , , ;.:,;;";. I .- gli I :: i !"T.--F. • '• - ; -: .,,...; ; _.; -_-1. ;-; . ; . , ; -woo 4.1 gi , .‘ ______...., . 'IL-liT ...::::i._ r7.:::—:: II- .!':'.: - . 7 :1 11:: . I : ; 4 . '.' \ ! i1 7,. ,P,. . :: . 0-2 ,Emt . -I ! --; 1 ...= '17.,-1 -I -[I-I ': -pn ,• \ -18. , r. ; • ' • -; . -'t ri • ... • ' .g:LI ' ar2ti-• I' : ' • ' . .."0 1' • ' : ..--, 1 • -4- V 'r t th 17:- ni:-. ..- . . tE ",r, IL 2 .;' _ /- I • . .::',.' \ * 1 ' . . . 1 :1 5,4 I, • . • 77 • —7—h=--t ' I I.F.: :' ... , -,- ti --- • :. i'f;-- 'il -"'• :. :.: 17-1 , •...',1 '... • '-'. \ , \• , .1 • ,, , I . - ,-- i,i;,-! •,---„- -L-• ' i al, l• '• • • . ,1.1.71. - - - , •'. k , . ..1, . , s iFT ' t ' . .. ..• t,,. ,•. \ '1 • ' • 1 . `". \ 1 1 . . • . • .11''" I li• 1' • " 1IlL_ ....,... :,,. . • .:_-_„, • , ,i !it' . t . 0„ ' - • ' ' 'f '.... . \ : I- : :: :' n.-.,T:L -: ;-• ,..... ' ,,'. ' , • --' • : ''4:-.7.-7-'--f-i•-•'----.1.- -r•-"'"17"'''''_-=-_r, .i '.: . . . . . . .. . ,In,Z.4.7 :..• 1 1 . ii_i-L--:--:TT ; ,,,,: :, 1:''' - 1 I , ,t:,' •: ,, ,„,g; \„. .,i 1 ',, - , . :I .•' ' :; \. 1 1 ., ,,,,.-, . _ _ ,, ,,==. .- = //:.,•_ . ... .:'.i.v__:::_:.:02,,..___ ;: - . ; I I ,• ____ _,,, • / -- '',,,,,-,:::::::--_.= ':-. 1-_,0:. . I, , -or -.7-7._..... : __,,,-1-d! : . ,, - \ I. - 1 - / • -, : , 1 I '464.41ris i 000-,. !''I / , . . . --- --,' L ..7,7-t-1 , ,:, ' .. ' - ' " . \ *\NI: " 1\ \ /• / I...--i • .: , '. ... • 1.1 ,. *104 11.1,L.::,.•-:-:'1Faii'/. t. r „ --1 • -r''.4 I''...1-' ' : I :\ • , 1 1 . , •Atigo • '- roA ,,,, , • • . , . 1 / : \ / . • i 1_,--• .7.- ....7 p •+/ . . .. ., .„\,1 • . - •-• - . 1 lid , -...-It,„- lz.•-i‘-,.. ••,,,... I -4 :.-,471 .„ 1 1 \i• .\ . , .. y •••••• •. • -• -• ..• -,1,! : .'1 I.,:i -4,7.6,,-k• k.tt oz..,..-‘,prk, ?..*- ••••;:t,r,7,. ,,,,,, :-...,,,,gg ,,17g ,,. • .• zs,i,..L... ,,,,.,,v „,.ts,.,: kr tV - 1 • .' / . I I''' "r• -I _1 .• , ....., . :. I t , . . . . r._ 4 7,• „.. ,c„.,...„.„,., .,-.-, .,.._....Ar 1',„,..T' I -:.-:4. • -6;-,'= - 4-. .:1 ,- q - 1,;1;1 '.f.N. -'' a -‘•41,•' Ig '''4' . '1 r '14..: 4 11'1' P .. " . 4741 W .., , ,... %c'-g' ,s,g,, • Itret t., th,' -..:F r.g„, P''' 'I 4 •,4 1..Ids, 1.tt t .Po_., 24-e4 i 4 q 1 --ir P ,, - t lk , I t -IT, . :i •,...„ A.. sr ,Q..-.3.1, • I '. I ':: zi Ilk'. •• 7 " • ''..11. -,r !ti,•7;ilt''''i' • -W.* •.,:0;-•'.'!•j...'. ' , ,, , .0 21-'7,:Z.-14,,,"•F-it4,7 ‘4Ii's Til i 'XT. ti il. -litp,-,,,‘`F-- '1-1 .:1'5' 0,....0 4F' ., 1: . „ , cLAnx 1 1-,„ .g8.,n .* ..fi, . i .::. - • +.• Ptc: ..w.,....,.--ici - ' :,-;.. rig I I . i'" '''''44'ilif i.P • U :rC 1. , :. 4 .1:•,.. :Y „g iff st-0.-.; '1,-...z.:„ ','ir . —... •;..;;4 r• ;',. r", °- . . t•;.,to ;;" ' .. 5 _ : , 'e. g• .4.6 , ,Fq Pi , Lt. ''' II' V P' fli... ..xf-'IE A I '....!-.e.L.L..R• :•,. _ g :. 1- ',;„ -' 72 'r'l -4 : 1 I . ';4. 4 6 .tse. it, . . .. 7,.,, , . -_,F; :I :111,-p , 4. p, . c • • -'' ' 1 ' 'Z ,,,,.R,. ;• : - P t It • •q4 - '. ' t =iv ---7- -- 1- -v frIT .,17-1; -Fmr fl '# -, l' T -c v't r, ' ..E eP.'-'' -sr •. ., . . 1 '77? Fa: " 1 i: 1,4-g...A ..,,,.. 71 :,',4t !,11" -'. \, li .' '4' 'F'' '. v1111, .•Ei; wi-I, 7,, . • . • , .1- • 1 - • - 1 0-!! . 74._ .„ ic, pi! : , •, • . -.1 • - u ,,,„ ii cif, 1,;, a : is 4 . c • ' . . i X•kil,;,• •. - if!. 4. . . • s z •: - . 1,* i!.• ' 7 . -I -4• ,k. - - - • tFP .v, ot• •t v i t L .V. • d : ' • .• a s IT 4..- ,..,, r- , - .. z -I • . .n. . : - •" ' " " " •. ; :;•• : .: ! . . • • • •• • . ., : ... . .. . .. • , • • . : 1• . • - • . . ,. • 1 :I „ •• : .1• ; i - • . . ... ... . • 1 I! '-: ' 71,..•.•-•7, '-,tigtht :.44 k ,r4'F,E n .. , Ln :i •_:tc,:::-.44:g 1 r : -::;;;I; ;g :•,4,h •, E 0 cn 1/4)4 0 ,i'"il tz ° tr) P• irs1 21.71 "0. •-3 >- C CK ST HEE CLIENT REVIEW tt mi c._ ,-,.1 70 ,. 0 ' n ' ,, Q trl t-li 0 . . - k MEETING SET X ESTIMATE SET X X REVISION PERMIT SET BID SET 0 .71 8 P 4 A, .,,, -._ . ..,._. ... . $,i1 o g X : LIT. .,.., g F.t. 1 i 1 ''' •' Iri\in) "n iv irri ;2 a E ' . ADDENDUM CONSTRUCTION SET 0 c) . :.:2 Li 11 0 ,.. CHANCE ORDER CC. ..1 ;CI r^,3 < ' " tx1 o 0 c.., m !2.' g o - . 11.1.1111 2 1-:-`-' r, • . . . 0 . .. . • . . .. . .. ... .. .. . L r 0 —I J) (n x 1 O a;i A7 J m > II II cA U' = x r w o v> 3-, > -=c --+ cn ;:. -P rn rno F1 ' 0 D G) m u) II m o \ J 0 'I.) (0C O O / O o`1 c-lam) J z 'I II W / d) CP ,' �7 -I00 JI —if rn0 � = J ', u) - ip --I < � 7 0 � D mpm I - i nDm 11 ( CD0,- 'a r— u) 0mOS.o - it II_ II it x (0 = -L-. : o- CA O H11 II 0c, '3'b \;t)O ` ' zit ( ) 1iff - 11 II N —i 11 > 73 • i 1 0 m 7\t � ? 0 I1 1 � � O ...4 IN) JpNo .pDC 0 I i� � u) -, � N ►�ac0 _ moo0c ► oo wp O \ \9'j'�,c) c i V) U) c=) � m —' �l h-�-� — \-- i �l � `'1 'T'I \ O ..-Ill 6 \0 v\ / "w D � �4 .- \o \ AA) � � ,% s6, , II r . / 4 (n r II DZ o + d. \ -• _ �- i � 0 D�Ol _/ . • / o C � NO / D O C) o 1-7L `l _0 o4) � m C„� T1T1 T1T1 � � U) N ks'\ 1 \ - --- --:`- Milk K 0 k ' )j 6� �, .AFL N I \j \,-) 0.)!\ \cp O ':) cri -ri as I / Izi A ' \� ;A '.11/4 • I Wtr F 4O \4 O , CITY of ORONO Gti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4-ESH04 NO. j, - s A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #2023 WHEREAS, John P. Sumner and Betty K. Sumner (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3131 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Refer to Exhibit A attached, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the installation of approximately 750.5 s.f. of paving improvements within the lakeshore yard of the property where 42.9`7 hardcover improvements exist and 25% is allowed. Applicant proposes no change in the 42.9',%% hardcover. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FINDINGS l . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2023. 2. The property is located in the LR-1C, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 21,780 s.f. or 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of 24,625 s.f. or .57 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19, 1995, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The property consists of 42.9% hardcover improvements consisting of the residence structure, a walkway to residence and driveway. Page 1 of 5 • S 4g,, 0.4, CITY of ORONO ti Gti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kES1104 NO. o B. The property is accessed via a private driveway located on steep slopes. Portions of neighboring property owners drive is located within the subject property. C. Applicants have an extensive lakeshore yard where no hardcover improvements exist. D. 612 s.f. or 3.4% of the total paving improvement is l already located beneath a deck and will not extend beyond that pp E. 138 s.f. of the remaining paving improvements will be located adjacent to a garage door that provides storage for either boats or lawn equipment. F. There will be no increase in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area as a result of these paving improvements. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the installation of 750.5 s.f. of paving improvements he 75 250'within setback areashore yard and approves subject to the following hardcover at 7,515 s.f. or 4 conditions: Page 2 of 5 0 0 7g. 0 4i. 1 tpit4or. CITYofORONO 1 �� ,,,ri - sy/ VA l y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �'4ESTI.° NO. 3 5 7 1 1. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and the above requested improvements must be installed by June 26, 1996 or this variance will expire on that date. 2. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of June, 1995. EST: )ril),Zg.-1.1.4:-.:-. Dorothy llin, City Clerk Edward J. Ca han, Jr., Mayo K j c---- _--, ----- d.ti, < 0/7-77'7" ( ) Properq wner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 6' •., NGTARY NPUDBALCS soTA • r3 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY J � a— My Commission Expires!an.31,2000 Notary Public Page 3 of 5 • • i.i, 0.ili £... _ ORONO CITY of ... Alm ti 't' Mit�ll. -1,6%' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL -4kESH04 NO. r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this rc-( day of J u I. , 199 S , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared 1Pj K. �c�n,n e�j rn,c r r r� known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ti - CAROLE A.HASEMAN eat.,-6_./ C. `� .rem n.,� NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA Notary Public HENNEPIN COUNTY \,l 'Mr;• My Commission Expires Jan.31,21100 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 2 2- day of i cc_j , 199,.5'_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, pers nally/appeared ([:4.,, A', L4.77,74.:.ee., 1,i7,L ,Z C known to me to be the person(s) described in arid who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. 4 J z/ •"•• LINDAS.VEE Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNE C ..•• My Commission ExPIN pires JaOUNTYn.31,2000 Page 4 of 5 • • ®\ (iv O CITY of ORONO -k . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL t :i.,,.,.;',,V.. .i... 7:`>71'4 EXHIBIT A Mat ,.Pr- .,f the f::llowi n!-: iesr"'. -'n i trot,ert• _n ::eh er_ , of - lire ::::...awn parallel with and Ira: lee: .Yeste of th., ..1-terly line of Lot 42 ant its ext=nsions thereof: Lots 4,, 4', end 44 ; That part of Lot 45 lying East of a line drawn nar?_l"l .,i n 7`. feet West, measured at right an=_es from the East line of Lot 44; That part of Lot 64 described as beginning :at the .most Northerly corner of Lot 64, thence Southwesterly to the most W'este corner of Lot 64; thence East along the South line of Lot 64 to the Northeast corner of Lot 42; thence Northerly, a distance of 51.35 feet, more or less to a point which is on a line drawn parallel with and 24.00 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles from the Northwesterly line of Lot 64 and distant 4.0 feet So':thwesterly along said parallel line from- its intersection with the extension North of the East line of Lot 42; thence Northeasterly alone- said parallel line and its extension, a distance of 68.94 feet, more or less to the Northeasterly line of Lot 64; thence Northwesterly to the point of bei-in-in;?. That part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue an'd that pa'-t of the _ _ tract of land between said avenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, all described as beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot =-2; `—__ thence West along the South line of Lots 42, 43, 44 and 4f to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet Wes:, measured at right an=-les from the East line of Lot 44; thence South alone the extension of said parallel line to the s::or? of Lake Minnetonka: thence East along said shore to its intersec:l s„ with the extension South of the East line of Lot 42; thence North to the point of beginning. all in Spring Park. \ Page 5 of 5 Form 5005 Disk 0ra HOUSE = 2955 SF I i v �r r�o.oio I \\ LSR = 640 SF / 9% WLK STP 185 SF REDUCTION = 300 SF` 59% i, - DECK = = 615 SF _j DRIVE 22,15 SF i Pc �__ ADJDR = 130 "' \ \� 9b ••°e�� oR\�I`�•N `v TOTAL = 6100 SF / ..36.5% �`�\-_______, .6'5$ �•�..- . -.� / REDUCTION = 355`�,SF/2.2% -�- \ `---�-- - ,sThE9 .�- -• � �P - \ ..?0,..`�� ROCK REF., ._� \/ \� ���j/ `� TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = \\1655 SF ���,,\ p,S• \,, \WALL a61� /° ��� 0 3p e — g��% b$ �- \moo''-. %; ADJ/kCENT --DR \6 2 - ,,F1. I -11,.. �O I250 SBL OH ,• 1• -I ' \ J y EXISTING >t } — I / 0���. % \ 056� \\ HOUSES . , ` `� I ,2'O _� •56 nrA ,.., -,,,e.T,� I29 \ , a\`71A I - ------'PROpQ5ED DRIVE — — I �\ I �cwivV C.AI) IIfVC, ir 31.6 I ' ( 23 � III\p , / REMOVE EXISTIAIG- -=='`.-----, c;1/ PROPOSEA' � W _ : / t �$ DRIVE ANQ- OD STEP , QARA GE g �_MA-TCH EXISTING '. 1 5;',-.. x Y We all �_ I ,I N GARAGE FLOOR I ' GFE=952.� `_ �� I �5R 2l. ;,I 00 ELEVATION (VERIFY),---------------, ! ,� FFE=954.3 49�0 a ,'hl N REMOVE`-EXISTING --; _ - - 11'T -�w:: N -- -jr- -.-� I I Is " s' EXISTING I "'ai1. RETAINING WALLS __ , �•4j!' 23,7 I HOUSE �' ;I O �``--- - -_ -- AND LANDSCAPING II . O �1. I ��. 1. � #3131 ,I N 9 ai r �- II' l ��o s I o UL9CO f ll $ I. ,��..� ���. I � \O d � 49.6LFE=944.4 `��12 7'Il Z ____:- -�- (�CK ---- N !1,L1- \ \s',3 z'AVI- <<` , 0 ,,, - ''r/f A•TIC / �14: ,'� cal R.F T/F FXl r/N. __ - - - -ili� ' -- \. ". . -- _.J. }i.` ' "-' 9N1 • S _ _ I(, -PATIO AND DECK _ - ` - - - - - �\ --y- - Jrf -_ -_ _ -_ , �,� I - iI \`_-._"- a o L..,, -REMOVE EXISTING I. RETAINING WALLS — — it \''� I I \ I 1 \9 ;(1: AND LANDSCAPING i ?li I rn I ��� I `` IIi. r/ ~�`., I}1 \ \ ^1 I `\ I Il �`\ / --� �, I{ SILT FENCE �` - I -o - - __\___ - - =�,� _ _ — \ - - - -,- - - C=2 �bU6 — 2 d —___ _-- \ PUT�LITY_EMENT \\ o a , .S�� `•.�\I �ti 5 _ �� — \R DOU. N0. 3g - I' - t; gad• o Watt 1442/4stt-P'ME 2.1771)(2.1tetiitet)- / — I ,.VTR=9�F2.60 - _ - • - I 0 er-- ---- - --\\---- --1 1 \.. . p o an PA--r 0 —`/'0z/ ", . • A T C h '\� I A 1/ 1 C N LI / 1 I \ I i C f C J *., I III!- I �" '_- 1 --"*"""."""....."';N, 75 ,BL OHW 99 �,�5 h -(3(3,\0 — �� � ` 9� 1� P o NT •`��I \ 11'I ��\ • /,, ) j 2° ° 0' 5 I ,� �o,,\ I \` �D y I — NGeeisYhKi-6- k...s &XI 577 .q..9- / / \ '`"--,.93 � -I - K no- 30. /_ ` . _ _ > - - -- 9j �� _- - - _ _ i \-S� 93� Su ---__... ----t_ ,,)-5.) . - 35-- W ./ 535 j P-1---r--I `l,� 0 20 40 60 31=� --- 93o RIP RAp +- --____. _ DESCRIPTION: Rip RA? ,.L. - LOT 44 AND o SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / 429° LYING WEST SCALE IN FEET 929 OF AND PAR/ .1.01-`) = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. OHW 929.4 THAT PART ( FEET WEST ( X(991i.n1 = PRCPnCFR CPC1T FI FVATIANI I A I Ir^ I •IA IA rr— Y A II i e nF I OT 44 0 • ratti;y1/1. t-i. ..„ . \ it . 4 i r; Y dr v 3 w tr pM , b� 'ifz L ,,,••• zy r r ,,,,, 44, ,, "`x d � ,....,,..,,, ,.... ...,..„. ... _.. . $<+ ~ S .ate F� a t 7...,,,. .,..,....y.: , ..„ 14 , ---4,44,A4C-4!.;;;:p. ''''41",, " 't -- ' . ,., .' , ' ,-- •'' . .411— ,c.r,; ,.. '. .*"...- , ,....::. .. .�, 0 d xa*4i ip,T ��� N�. •.„ 0 f 4 S eliD _. 191/Ue 07/27/2011 2 N. iK • M" .*:'.77:::."' • - . "" " . Cs, ' f LOD k-r` EA-St ei3^^ -36-Y\ clt et ((bows w 6 rift bv1) • • w JR- . 4.4 r ` '' 4 4. J MF'-+l' a.V4. 4 T V V -1✓ ^v r K.wa • }{[ f� •' ik � r cy` *- ,"ww., ...,. 07/27/2011 - , u 0 ,,,,, •s7.. . ' r '?Cr C F'" it, J ' fi:"r ti '',,, , ' ' r''rt"Imo'4460,,, ''' .. . ...--Ii•• lit::." • y•:},� . �e:s. '.,. xz • .41401101 07/27/2011 , ..,:tt.,,i-t.-,0 F1454AJDIes • . a = , . �. • • •a� • ] . \ 4k!x . "terry J ...... { H . ., " tea. • ' tck- ♦k t -F wk J'T�eS pa_ i 1111 ,,1rtc( ' f "W- tl *, .: J " r • a s • ktili ••••••,..„.....,,, . L .. 4fe. ,,,,, ', . 'mf .: yam' } H *Y.: "f : " : �i� ` rt 1 .. { + 1, litY ' It d" ,e i • APR i ?diet • bid- J_ Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004) Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) Hardcover allotment. The following hardcover restrictions apply to all properties in the Shoreland Overlay District: (1) Hardcover zones. a. Within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, no hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed, except for driveways, stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. b. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hardcover. c. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. d. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. (2) Zone to zone credit/debit. a. The allowed allotment of hardcover for the 250 feet to 500 feet zone or the 500 feet to 1,000 feet zone may be increased up to an unused square footage of allowable hardcover of a zone closer to the OHWL. b. Unused hardcover cannot be transferred to a zone closer to the OHWL. c. If hardcover is credited from one zone to another, additional hardcover may not be later added to the zone closer to the OHWL if the presence of such hardcover would have prevented the crediting. d. The allowed hardcover in any zone shall be decreased by the amount of legal non- conforming hardcover in the zone next closer to the OHWL. (b) Additional hardcover provisions. • (1) Overhangs: a. Where an overhang is supported by a post, the area under the overhang to the outer edge of the post shall be considered as hardcover. b. All but the outer two feet of an unsupported overhang ten feet or more off the ground shall be considered hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 1]. (2) Decks: Hardcover may be added under a deck attached to a principal structure if the deck is conforming or legal nonconforming and the added hardcover is otherwise permitted. (3) Driveway easements:The following principles apply where one or more properties (secondary property) gain its driveway access from an adjacent property (primary property) by virtue of a driveway easement: a. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves both the primary and secondary property is considered hardcover for the primary property. b. That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property is not considered hardcover for either the primary or secondary property. c. The area of the driveway on the primary property that serves only the secondary property shall not be included in the lot area of the primary property for purposes of calculating hardcover. The following drawings are included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 2]. (c) Future improvements. The following items shall be included in hardcover calculations regardless of whether they are proposed to be construction at the time of building permit application: (1) Proof of a two-car garage (detached or attached). (2) For all garages a driveway, subject to the standards in paragraph (d) of this section. (3) A 24 inch wide sidewalk from the front door to the driveway. (4) The minimum stairway or landing at all exterior doors as required by the building code. (d) Driveways. All driveways shall comply with the following minimum dimensional standards: (1) Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a driveway apron with minimum width equal to the width of the overhead door(s). For purposes of this section, a driveway apron is that portion of a driveway that extends 15 feet from the garage door(s) on an end loading garage. (2) Driveways serving side loading garages shall provide a minimum turn around or back up depth of 20 feet, as measured from the garage door(s). (3) Minimum driveway taper ratio shall be 2:1. (4) Driveways shall be at least eight feet in width at the street or private road. S • (5) A turnaround shall be provided for a driveway with direct access to an arterial or collector roadway, or for a side load garage as determined necessary by the city planner. The minimum dimensions of the turnaround shall be eight feet in width by 12 feet in depth. (6) "Wheel strip" driveways are allowed, but the entire width of the driveway (from outside to outside of the strips) will be considered hardcover. The following drawing is included for illustrative purposes: [Drawing 3]. (e) Compliance. (1) It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. (2) Nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except: a. A roofline may be changed but the roof may not be extended over unroofed portions of the structure. b. An additional story may be added over roofed portions of a structure. c. An open or screened porch may be converted into a two or three season porch or year round living space (including replacing a post foundation with a perimeter foundation) provided hardcover is not increased. (3) This section is independent of lot coverage regulations in the city Code. Accordingly, a property must conform to both hardcover and lot coverage regulations. ik • ac 2335 Highway 36 W St. Paul, MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com August 9, 2011 Bonestroo Ms. Melanie Curtis Planning &Zoning Coordinator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 3131 Casco Circle File No. 000139-11000-1 Building Permit No. 11-3521 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the plan for the proposed home addition at 3131 Casco Circle. The plan is dated July 19, 2011. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The plan shows several areas of landscaping and retaining walls that will be removed. The plan should provide grater detail for the proposed grading in these areas. • This project will disturb more than 25 CY, but less than 100 CY of material. Sediment and erosion control information meeting the requirements of Orono's City Code 79- 7(c)(1) must be submitted. The minimum $2000 sediment and erosion control financial security should be required of the owner for this permit. If you have any questions, please call me at (651) 604-4894. Sincerely, BONESTROO Darren Amundsen Cc: Tom Kellogg , aiii6..wii, (........ RUN DATE: 7/13/2011 HENNEPIN aTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY 0 S LIST) PAGE: I 38 20-117-23 34 0007 38 20-117-23 34 0008 38 20-117-23 34 0022 TAMI R HELMER JOANNE D JONES TRUSTEE FREDERICK C PETERS 3131 CASCO CIR 3129 CASCO CIR 3127 CASCO CIR TAMI R HELMER JOANNE D JONES FREDERICK C PETERS 3131 CASCO CIR 5100 FRANCE AVE S#I04 3127 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 EDINA MN 55410 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0029 38 20-117-23 43 0030 K A SHEEHAN&N A SHEEHAN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 3135 CASCO CIR 3133 CASCO CIR KEVIN A&NOELLE A SHEEHAN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 18479 SCHROERS FARM RD 3133 CASCO CIR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 ORONO MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESE ARE ANACCU AND-TR REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORD Q HE H>% CO .D AXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. • DATE: J U L 1 3 71111 B F i RECEIVED JUI 20 tua ; CITY OF ORONO a • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we)/-eSSc Gat4.114(1c.I,t! i of 5 I ) s e,SC() �:rC,�t ( CJG.yu�l�-, .S.5I14/ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at -I(LCL.Ealso referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans a d that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. / 67 opertOwner Date GI`c e„. s Oak cJ t- ) �-c) rn vuri- cuur L t c,p" - r ,/- Property wner Date I (we) of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. RECEIVED - 14- IlII 20 2011 # 3 52 I CITY OF ORONO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (we t^.>IA A.,') V3 : 0 cs of I 'a Q Q.„ . s f Q.. M`r"" s-- [print name(s)] [print address] twe reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ) 3 I Q .SC a r also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) u ertand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disappro I of ;'property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the • ve ent s and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 7 1 1T g (1. ) 1 Property ner Date Property Owner Date I (we) of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. RECEIVED ,II II 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO - 14- • aX LJO M Hennepin County Mailing Label Map 1 Provided By: Taxpayer Services Department ....."''' ,,,.......\ '1'ci-;,44,'Ar''.= '''',i',""Aie,'` k",,Y1T,T,Tr" =,.. ,°'.{',..,'' • a x n � i20-117-23-43 wz,s.. ,)0—q 1-' y'3' `,, li S, , , i i29.117.23-1229-117-23-21 s For more information contact: Print Date: 7/13/2011 MapLegend Hennepin County GIS Division 300 South 6th Street Map Scale: 1" = 143' Minneapolis,MN 55487 Buffer Size: 150 feet gis.info@co.hennepin.mn.us Water Major Roads Park Minor Roads I li Map Comments: Parcel 3131 CASCO CIR ( Buffer Region \�/ Selected Parcels ,IN ORONO, MN soil NENNEPIN RECEIVEDVIII I [------ ,ill20Z011 CITY OF ORONO3 52 1 ,, cfs,f1& MINUTES OF THE 64' V 13rui- G ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. (Recess taken from 8:44 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.) 6. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES,8:43 P.M.—9:30 P.M. Tami Helmer,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshori setback variance and hardcover variance in order to remove and replace portions of the lakeside deck, add dormers to the lakeside of the home,and construct a garage addition. No increase in hardcover is proposed In 1995 a previous property owner was granted hardcover variances in order to rearrangehardcover on the property. Hardcover calculations for that application were based on a 1991 survey. The property was granted at that time a variance allowing 42.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The hardcover calculations for that variance application appear to have been calculated by the applicant. Following a review by Staff, it was determined they were inaccurate. Staff conducted a comparison of the 1991 survey and an as-built survey submitted by the applicant in order to resolve the inconsistency. The current survey and hardcover numbers, minus the landscape areas lined with plastic and/or fabric, reflect the actual 1995 approved hardcover level. Staff believes 5,095 square feet or 30.5 percent is the actual level of hardcover approved with the 1995 resolution. This number was the basis for Staff's hardcover analysis. The existing home is situated partially ahead of the average Lakeshore setback line. The shoreline curves in this area of Casco Point,and while the applicant's property is nearly in line with the home to the east, it sits ahead of the home to the"It = The applicant is proposing to construct roof dormers on the lake side of the home in the place of the existing skylights in order to improve the appearance. No additional living space is proposed in this area. The dormers would not extend closer to the lake than the existing roof. However,the dormers would be considered an upward expansion of the existing nonconforming roof and a variance is required. The applicant would also like to a portions of the deck from within the average lakeshore setback 0 the east side of the propertyrelocate it partially in the notch at the rear of the garage. The new •+ �,ns of the deck would continue to.be ahead of the average lakeshore setback but would not encroach further;than the existing deck. There a considerable amount of vegetation along the west side of the applicant's property line which hel 6 b screen the applicant's property from the neighbor to the west and construct a 555square foot addition on the side of the home. Staff finds practical diiculty' xists with respect to the curving shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line cutting through the applicant's home. The applicant is not proposing to increase hardcover above the existing, approved level,and is not proposing to encroach further into the average lakeshore setback with the improvements. Staff does not find that the dormers or the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties. Staff recently met with the son of the property owner to the west, Charlie Jones,who resides at the property. Mr.Jones made statements regarding his concern about the type of impacts the applicant's proposal will have on the value of his mother's property and the impact on his view of the lake. He also expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal to move the outdoor living space from the east side Page 24 • MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. of the lot to the west side of the lot closer to his property,resulting in a negative impact to his sense of privacy. Mr.Jones was advised to provide Staff with written statements to be included within the packet and/or to appear at the public hearing. Issues for consideration include the following: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an Oficial control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted,will not; es al 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 average setback variance such as vegetative screening or impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested hardcover variance? As the applicant is not proposing an increase in the hardcover.level,Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance as requested. Staff also recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance for the deck rearrangement and roof dormers. The existing vegetative screening should be maintained and/or enhanced. Plastic or fabric liners should be required to be removed from all landscape areas, including the area within the 75-foot setback from the lake as part of any approval. The plans should be revised to reflect the City Engineer's recommendation prior to placement on the City Council agenda. Tami Helmer,3131 Casco Circle, indicated she is here with Al Amin and that they are planning to be long-term residents at the home'. The property was purchased a little over a year ago. Helmer indicated when she first looked at the property, she felt it was a fabulous site and a wonderful neighborhood. Helmer stated she did not want to purchase the property unless she could remodel it. Helmer stated she had a survey completed and met with City Staff on more than one occasion before she decided to go ahead and purchase the property. Helmer stated during the process of living there,the process of redesigning and improving the home were started and that she has been working with Mike Sharratt. The plan would enhance my property as well as the neighborhood. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated Staff has done a good job summarizing what they have done in order to make responsible changes to the property. They have eliminated almost 400 square feet of nonconforming structure and relocated a portion of it 16 feet further back,which makes the deck on the rear seem smaller in scale. From what was approved in 1995 for hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone,they at 5,095 square feet, with a voluntary agreement to remove the plastic, fabric and rock. The end result is a project that is significantly better than what exists today just from an environmental prospective and there have been significant aesthetic improvements from both sides of the house. Sharratt stated they have also provided adequate garage space. The property owner originally was going to propose a screen porch,which would have been located on top of the existing deck. The applicant would have been permitted to do because of the existing structure in that location but they then started looking at a screen porch located underneath the deck. Since they did not want to increase the building Page 25 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. mass appearance,they are proposing to push the screen porch back from the lake and into the structure. Sharratt stated in his view everything that is being proposed is a positive step forward. Landgraver asked Mr. Sharratt to elaborate on the screen porch. Sharratt stated the deck exists all across the house and that they originally talked about putting a screen porch on top of the deck and then under the deck. They decided to put the screen porch further back and making the screen porch part of the garage space. The door side of the garage would be pushed out to allow for 24 feet of garage. Landgraver asked if there is space above the porch. Sharratt indicated that would be the master bedroom. The dotted line depicts where the screen porch will be located on the back side of the garage. Landgraver asked if there would be any changes to the left side of the garage. Sharratt stated the only change on the left side would be the addition of a one-story garage that would meet the existing two-story wall. Sharratt indicated the deck exists to approximately this area and will be adding the little triangular area,which is less than what is being removed. Levang asked if underneath the screen porch would be the garage doors. Sharratt stated there would be a single garage door. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Charlie Jones, 3129 Casco Circle, stated he has a dining room and porch and another porch that look southeast. The proposed deck, even though it is less than what is existing,obstructs the lake view of the current house. Jones noted the adjoining'lot will probably be developed some day and that he would like to preserve the view of the lake. Jones displayed a picture showing no hardcover in that area. Jones indicated he has been looking at the documents and that the hardcover currently is 30 percent,which is over what is allowed in that area. City Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformanceThe property does not meet the exemptions. Jones stated the applicant is requesting the changes for reasons of privacy but that she is getting her privacy at his expense. Jones indicated he is in agreement that the proposed structure is attractive but that this lot consists of.57 acre and is already overbuilt by 20 percent. Jones stated he does not see a hardship. The applicant bought this property one year ago. If she needed a larger home,there were other homes that would have met her criteria. Jones requested the Planning Commission deny or table the application. Schoenzeit asked if Mr.Jones'concern is the fact that the main use of the deck is going from the rear of the deck to the triangular area. Page 26 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jones indicated that is not all of his concern. Jones pointed out there is also a window that looks west which is in full view of his dining room and deck. Jones indicated those two items are essentially the crux of his concern. Schoenzeit asked whether all of the setbacks are met. Curtis indicated they are. Greg Becker,3133 Casco Circle, indicated he resides in a house that was built in 1901 and that it has the same footprint today. Becker stated he has a couple of issues with the application. To his knowledge the rear deck was never approved by the City. As it relates to Drawing A6, it basically looks like there is 14 feet coming out from the garage for the screen porch. Becker indicated he liked Mr. Sharratt's original concept of building the screen porch over the deck,which would not protrude so much out the front. Becker asked what the need is for the third garage stall. Becker stated in his view it is because of the design element of the screen porch. Becker stated he does not know exactly what it will be used for since the distance between his deck and the existing home is about 10 feet, Becker stated he does not know how the site will be accessed to construct the screen porch since there is not enough room. Becker commented he would like to say that no one should question Mike Sharratt's ability to design a beautiful home but that you can question the amount of hardcover that it takes to build that beautiful home. Becker stated in his opinion Mr. Sharratt can design a beautiful home without the additional hardcover. Suzanna Pastock indicated she is Charlie Jones'finance', and that usually a variance is granted due to a hardship for the current homeowner. Pastock stated the Planning Commission needs to be careful about granting variances when there is not a hardship. Schoenzeit stated the new term that the Planning Commission is operating under is practical difficulty given the recent Supreme Court case. Schoenzeit closed the public homing at 9:17 p.m. Schoenzeit asked whether the proposal meets the 10-foot setback. Curtis indicated it does. Schoenzeit stated part of Staffs presentation was that the reconfiguration reflects a zero net increase in hardcover. Curtis indicated that is correct provided the landscape plastic/fabric is removed. Schoenzeit asked Mr. Sharratt to speak to how this plan was decided Thiesse noted they are not here to redesign the plan. Page 27 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is looking to see whether this is an optimal design. Landgraver stated to his understanding the garage needs to be extended because of the screen porch. Sharratt stated a number of factors go into designing a house, such as client's needs, finances, City codes, and coming up with an optimal plan. The primary reason that tlt , was pushed forward was not because of the screen porch. The applicant looked at other locations '. 'the screen porch on the lake side, which would have created a roof and created more of an obstruction to view. Pushing it into the garage was an attempt to meet the requirements of the City. Sharratt indicated they have tried to do everything they could to get out of the nonconforming area. Sharratt stated as to whether the deck is legal nonconforming,to his understanding itis depicted on the 1995 survey. Sharratt reiterated they looked at a number of different solutions and not just one in coming up with the current proposal. During that process we felt that we would have an advantage by pushing it back into the structure and making it less of an imposition on the lake side, Iti;s 149 feet from the deck to the lake,which is twice the 75-foot setback,but it is not adequate for the line of:;sight because the lot is located on a point. Sharratt indicated the real reason the garage was pushed out is because there was a desire for two and a half stalls,with the added space being used for storage. Sharratt noted they are below structural coverage requirements at 14.6 percent. Curtis indicated the deck is shown on the 1995 survey and there is no indication in the file that the deck is not legal. Schoenzeit noted in 1995 the variances Were added. Levang commented she is impressed by the efforts of the applicants to remove hardcover. Levang asked if the applicant would be ducive to adding more trees if they would help mitigate the Jones'view. Helmer indicated she Would be ing to put in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees. Schoenzeit pointed out the inc r the hardcover is on the street side. Schoenzeit stated in his view it looks like a worthwhile project the negatives to the neighbors are quite minimal for the benefits that they are getting. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with Chair Schoenzeit. Leskinen stated to her recollection there was quite a bit of screening already on the property Jones noted the screening does not exist in the winter. Helmer pointed out that in the winter no one would be out there. Thiesse noted the deck depicted in the picture is existing and that the new deck would be virtually the same. The rim board will be noticeable in the same location. Page 28 410 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sharratt pointed out the location of the rim board and stated the deck would be angled back. Sharratt indicated they located the deck at an angle because they were trying to respect the furthest most projection to the lake. Landgraver noted the window is enlarged. • Levang requested Mr. Sharratt point out the new window► Sharratt pointed out the location of the window. yti Helmer noted there is a second existing window in the garage which will be eliminated. Schoenzeit stated the lakeside rail will be at a diagonal. Sharratt stated the garage is being added over existing driveway and is conforming to all the setbacks. Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3521,3131 Casco Circle,granting of hardcover and average: bore setback variances,subject to the condition that the screening and vegetation be preservednhanced,'and subject to the recommendations of Staff. Sharratt asked whether the landscaping should be brit back the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit recommended the applicant bring vegetation and elevation views to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. -3522 STEINER& KOPPELMAN ON BEHALF OF NANCY B 'OS,3350 FOX STREET, ' ANCE,9:31 P.M.—9:40 P.M. David Steingas, App nt,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is a uesting an average lakeshore Setback variance to construct an addition to the existing home. The average .eshore setback cuts t •ugh the middle of the existing home. Any improvement on the lakeward portio of the home wo. d require a variance. The subject property is large and there is ample vegetative screening .-tween t - ome and the property to the east. Because the addition will be on the east side of the horn-, it , ill not be visible from the property to the west. Staff finds practical difficulty exists whi support e granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant's request is i• armony with t : character of the neighborhood and does not result in excessive massing on t : •roperty. The applicant • .roposing to remove the existing pool which is situated approximately 164 eet ahead of the average lakesh. - setback line and approximately 135 feet from the lake. Further, it t oes not appear the proposed addition w negatively impact views of the lake enjoyed by the adjace. properties. Staff recomme a.s approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. — — Page 29 • Council Exhibit M MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. #11-3520 HAROLD&SANDRA WINGERD, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD, Continued) • when he and his wife were out of the country and their children were having a party at their resi..•ce. Mr. Puzak currently resides in Florida during the wintertime. In addition .• the area in front of the garage,there was a turnaround to the left that became urnaround because there .s no other place to turn around. In the wintertime there used to be a hi, .ost with a chain from one of the b. lders to the post. Occasionally Mr. Puzak's coworkers would to • t down to check on his house. Winger. 'dicated they no longer have a way to access that area to to - .round. Subsequent to the Plannin• ommission meeting,three of the boulders hav- .een relocated to what used to be the turnaround. The po• 's in the middle of that and there is also . our inch steel pipe that in all likelihood was going to be used string his chain fence from the pip: o the 6 x 6 post. Wingerd indicated his wife called the City a . omeone came out to stop th; ' ork. In addition to those changes, there have been 22 sections of Mr. Pu . 's dock that have been .ced near their property. Wingerd stated there does not appear to be any rea . . to place the do sections there except for retribution. Wingerd indicated they have invested in excess _ six _ res in the litigation. Wingerd stated they would be happy to allow him to use his access and that th• ould like to create a new access for their property. Wingerd stated one of the recommendations was . . - both ends of the driveway,which he does not see in the report. Curtis indicated the turnaround would = inate the need for t' ared end. Wingerd indicated they are will',_to comply with Staff's recomme ,tions and noted there is a portion of the easement where the h. over would not be removed. McMillan commented ' er view this is a good solution and that she is in agr- . ent with the resolution. Rahn and Bre indicated they are also in agreement with it. Rahn m s •d,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6074,a Resolution Gran • a Varia e to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288,for the Property Located at 1376 Ba . Park Ro- .. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES Tami Helmer,Applicant,and Mike Sharratt, Designer,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake side deck, driveway,and a garage addition are also proposed. The dormers and deck changes are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The garage addition involves changing nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover. No overall increase in hardcover is proposed. The proposed garage addition will meet the side and rear yard setback requirements and is outside the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal is within the 15 percent structural coverage limitation. Page 13 of 28 • S MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff and the applicant conducted additional hardcover analysis on the property. The result is a revised actual 1995 approved hardcover level of 4,955 square feet of hardcover. The applicant's proposed hardcover plan includes removal of the existing"illegal plastic"within landscape areas within the 75-250 foot zone and results in no net increase in hardcover above the existing 1995 approved level. The property owner to the west,Charlie Jones,expressed concern at the Planning Commission meeting regarding screening for the new deck. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variance as requested. The applicant was directed to add evergreen trees to the existing deciduous trees along the west lot line to enhance the screening year-round. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance including the screening enhancement, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. As part of this approval, Staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property in order to further reduce hardcover. Rahn asked if the underlying plastic is being traded in exchange for the additional hardcover. Curtis indicated it is not being traded and it was not removed as required in 1995. McMillan asked whether it is still part of City Code to allow structural coverage on top of hardcover. Curtis stated that is one of the issues the Council will need to discuss. Staff does not have the ability to approve that portion of the application since the hardcover exceeds 25%within that zone. Tami Helmer,Applicant, indicated she purchased the property approximately one year ago. At the time she was considering purchasing the property, she researched whether she could conduct some remodeling on the property and met with Orono Staff several times to learn about the restrictions on hardcover and the different ordinances. Since that time they have purchased the property and have been designing those improvements since they are looking to make this their long-term residence. Mike Sharratt,Designer,indicated they initially received some direction from Staff that was different from where they ended up. Sharratt noted there was some confusion over what the exact hardcover numbers were for the property. After some lengthy discussions,they arrived at a number of 6,315 square feet for existing,which has been reduced to 4,955 square feet of hardcover after removal of the landscape plastic. Sharratt indicated during the design phase they looked at a number of options to achieve all the desired amenities that the property owner designed as well as comply with City regulations. One option was to take the back part of the garage and convert it into a screen porch. They also eliminated the 30 x 12 foot structural deck. Sharratt stated their end goal was to address all those issues and make the property more aesthetically pleasing. (Recess taken from 9:01 p.m.to 9:08 p.m.) (Cynthia Bremer is no longer present) Page 14 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Charlie Jones,3129 Casco Circle, stated this property has been in his family for 54 years now. It was originally purchased in 1957. In 1977,the lot became part of the adjacent lot on the other side and was subsequently sold off. A variance was granted at that time for the hardcover and for the average setback line. Jones pointed out the view of the property from his house on the overhead. The hardcover issue relates to replacement of deck hardcover. The original as-built survey indicates that the deck was 8'x 32'and there is no evidence that it was ever approved to be 12'x 32'. Jones pointed out the hardcover the applicant is proposing to place over existing blacktop. Jones stated the portion that is being removed does not cover the 14-foot addition to the garage or the other area. A portion of the proposed deck juts out further to the lake and also impacts his sightline. According to the building code, it says that it is unlawful to convert,enlarge or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. Jones indicated he has documents that indicate this property is at 42.9 percent hardcover. He was made aware by Staff that Melanie Curtis is not a surveyor,but somehow new hardcover calculations have come out showing there is 30 percent hardcover. Some of that decrease is from removal of four inch crushed limestone to mitigate a drainage problem that still exists. City Building Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be located or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except a roofline may be changed, an additional story may be added over the roofed portions of a structure, or an open or screen porch may be converted into a two or three-season porch. Jones pointed out that this property does not meet any of those exceptions. Jones noted the deck hardcover is being moved over existing hardcover but it is becoming structural coverage and would be totally impervious hardcover consisting of concrete and footings The setback line was established prior to the house being constructed,which was by agreement between the City of Orono,his grandfather,and the adjoining neighbor. The property is currently nonconforming in three ways. The width of the lot is only 95 feet and it is over on total hardcover. The property is allowed 25 percent but they are at 30 or 31 percent with the present proposal. The proposed screen porch is also located in front of the average setback line. The deck is four feet wider than was originally approved. Four feet of that 32 x 12 foot section that is being used to trade hardcover actually was never approved. As of 1995,the existing calculations on that hardcover were 42.9 percent. Jones displayed a picture of the current deck and the area of the proposed screen porch. Jones stated the house is 31 feet from the edge of his house,and that according to City Code,this project is not allowed and that he does not see how the Council can go against the rules that they have set up. Jones illustrated the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis indicated that is not the correct setback line. Rahn noted the average setback line is depicted in their packet. Jones stated the proposed screen porch is unacceptable. The applicant purchased the property last August but there is no hardship since she could have purchased another property that would have met her needs better. Jones requested the Council follow the rules that are currently in place which states that Page 15 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. Franchot asked where he is taking the sight line from on his house. Jones stated the sight line depends on where you are standing and that he is talking about anywhere on his lot. Jones stated if he builds another house on the property,the setback line is back further and he would be required to construct it further back. Franchot indicated he was attempting to figure out where the sight line is that Mr. Jones was speaking of. Jones stated he is allowed to be anywhere on his lot and not have his view impacted. Jones indicated he has not discussed screening with the applicant. The current vegetation is approximately ten years old and is half dead. McMillan asked as it relates to the nonstructural hardcover,whether property owners are allowed to trade that for structural coverage. Curtis indicated Staff does not have the ability to trade when the hardcover exceeds the regulations and was approved by a variance. McMillan asked whether the City has been pretty strict in enforcing hardcover regulations. Gaffron stated there have been dozens of variances granted over the years to address a situation that is not in compliance with City Code. Franchot stated part of Mr. Jones'claim is that a portion of what is being removed was approved by a variance and part of it apparently wasn't. Curtis indicated the deck that exists today is the deck that is reflected on the survey and was approved by a variance. Franchot asked if the City considers the entire deck to have been approved. Curtis stated that City records indicate it was approved by a variance. Rahn stated the new structure is not an issue since the property owner is under the 15 percent structural coverage limit. If the current deck is considered nonconforming,then that would be an issue since nonconforming hardcover cannot be relocated or expanded. Franchot asked if there was a variance granted, if it does not become conforming. Mattick stated basically structural versus nonstructural hardcover functions the same from a hardcover perspective but that the regulations generally do not make sense to someone when they come in and remove a different piece of hardcover in exchange for constructing new hardcover which results in no net gain. Council has given Staff the ability to administratively approve the type of application where there is no net increase in the hardcover when the lot is conforming. In this particular case,not every aspect of Page 16 of 28 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) the lot is conforming so Staff does not have the ability to approve the application. Mattick commented it basically is the same as a swap since there is no net gain in the amount of hardcover,but because the lot is nonconforming, Staff does not have the ability to grant approval. Rahn commented in his view the applicant has done their due diligence in researching the City rules prior to purchasing the property. Rahn stated in his view everything looks great except there is a neighbor who feels he will be negatively impacted by the changes. McMillan stated they are intensifying the average lake setback variance since the new deck will impact the neighbor more than the old deck does. The new deck is more intrusive to the neighbor since it is located closer to the lot line. Franchot asked if Mayor McMillan has visited the site. McMillan indicated she has. Franchot stated he visited the property and that the concern being expressed by the neighbor in his view is not really an issue given the amount of vegetation between these two properties. Franchot stated based on his tour of the property,it does not appear to be as much of an imposition as what has been implied and that there is a huge arc to the right that provides a good view of the lake. McMillan commented that vegetation can come and go and that planting evergreens will also block someone's sight line. Franchot commented that his point is that there is no change in the sight lines with the proposal. McMillan commented screening is not always a good solution and that the Council should address the issue of whether the deck should be there or not. The average lakeshore setback is never perfect and there are many situations where it does not work because of existing conditions prior to enactment of the ordinance. The City has granted variances in the past to the average lakeshore setback but in those situations it did not have a negative impact on the neighbor's sight lines. McMillan stated in her view there will be a negative impact to the neighbor in this case. Franchot stated that was why he questioned where the sight line was being taken from on the neighboring lot. If you stand on the property line, almost everything would get in the way. Mr.Jones'house is located far away from any setback. Rahn commented it also becomes an issue of noise since it would be located closer to the property line. Rahn asked if the applicant is still proposing a screen porch when it appears to be a four-season porch on the plans. Sharratt indicated it is a screen porch. Sharratt pointed out the back portion of the garage,which is being converted into the screen porch. Sharratt indicated they established the sight line by taking the corner of the deck as it is in its present location. If that line is drawn further back to the dining room, it is not any more intrusive than what currently exists,which is why they located it in that area. The new line is no further forward than what the existing line is. Page 17 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated another aspect taken into consideration for removing that portion of the deck is that it is located closer to Mr. Jones'house than what they are proposing. They are proposing to take this area and put it over existing hardcover,which is why the hardcover is being reduced. Jones pointed out Helmer's lot line and stated that he is asking the Council to not take away his view across their property by allowing them to construct the screen porch. Jones commented it is not just the sight line that is an issue but it also becomes a noise issue by having them move their garage,deck, umbrella, and other items closer to the property line. Jones stated it was never intended to be that way and that his property was intended to have that sight line. Jones indicated his house is situated so it looks southeast across their property. Rahn stated he is not aware of a variance request that the Council has approved where the neighbors were not in agreement with what is being proposed. McMillan commented that even though the houses are far apart,when you have something that could impact a sight line, it becomes an issue. Rahn asked Mr. Jones to clarify what he was speaking about with regards to the location of the deck. Jones stated there is no screen porch currently but that it would look directly into his porch,his dining room, and bedroom. The proposed garage addition is so they can have a screen porch. The problem is that it is a 14-foot addition, one and a half stories tall,and a screen porch. Jones indicated the property could be sold tomorrow and that the new neighbors may not be as nice as Ms. Helmer. Jones indicated he does not want the screen porch and reiterated that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way. There has been no attempt to bring the property into conformance. Franchot stated they do not have to cover the garage since it is being put over existing hardcover. Jones commented there is more hardcover in this area. Franchot noted the deck has to offset the proposed screen porch. Rahn noted the garage is extending over existing driveway hardcover. Franchot stated what Mr. Jones is saying is that the screen porch should not be added to the garage since it is over existing hardcover. McMillan pointed out that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Sharratt stated they are taking something this is more nonconforming and making it less nonconforming, which is a quantitative improvement. Sharratt stated they are not changing his sight line,which will still exist after this project. Jones stated he also has a patio that he uses from where he will be viewing the lake and that they cannot say he can only view the lake from one location on this property. Page 18 of 28 s MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated due to the vegetation, it is not possible to see through that area in the summertime. McMillan reiterated that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Franchot asked if the situation is being made worse. McMillan indicated in her view it is. Franchot asked if the Council can get a picture of where the actual average lakeshore setback line is located. Franchot stated in his view it is a sight line issue only. Curtis displayed the average lakeshore setback line and pointed out that it cuts back into the existing garage and is ahead of it. The corner of the deck does not extend further into the average setback and they are maintaining the sight line from the home to the lake. McMillan stated because they are locating the proposed garage addition over existing driveway,they are able to gain additional hardcover versus swapping hardcover for structural coverage. Rahn stated in his view that is what Mr. Jones is saying. They are talking about a building that is already sitting too far forward,and even though they did not extend it closer to the lake,there is more structure being proposed. Rahn noted the draft resolution says the deck will result in minimal negative impact to adjacent property owners, but that in his view there should be no impact. The sight line is one issue but that he personally would be more concerned with the noise since the area of entertainment has moved closer to the lot line. Rahn stated he has a hard time approving something where an adjacent neighbor was opposed to it,which is one of the main reasons why the City has an average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view of the lake. The noise or activity could be there anyway without the deck but that it is an issue to consider as part of the variance request. Al Wahlin,3131 Casco Circle,stated in regards to the proposed deck,they have carefully considered the current rules and regulations and they were also considerate of the neighbor to not come out past the existing visual footprint that is currently in place. Wahlin commented they are not proposing anything that is different than what he can currently see from his perspective. Wahlin stated they have worked very hard to follow the rules and regulations that the City has set up as well as the rules of the DNR and the State of Minnesota. They have gotten professional help from Mr. Sharratt. Wahlin commented he is not sure how much one person can have control of their property but that he understands and respects his neighbors and will continue to do that. Wahlin stated he also has a right to be comfortable in his own home and that unfortunately the system is set up to pit one neighbor against another and cause conflict. Wahlin stated he attempts to do what is right within the rules that are set up and that they have tried to follow the rules and do what is required of them. The deck is within the existing sight footprint. Wahlin noted they also agreed to meet with Mr.Jones but that he did not want to meet with them. Page 19 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Franchot stated when he walked the property, it was apparent that there may be an open door to oppose the application but that the reason for the opposition in his view is that the neighbor does not want any change to the neighborhood. Franchot stated for the neighbor to imply that he will in any meaningful way be impacted on his sight lines is not true and that there is a huge arc to the right of lake view. Jones stated he is not pitting neighbor against neighbor and that if they want to do something within the footprint of the house,he would be fine with that. Adding a story and a half ten feet from the lot line is a change. Jones states his sight line is affected and that the applicant does not have a right to affect his sight line one inch. Jones indicated he is not asking for special treatment and that justice is treating everyone the same. Jones requested the City Council follow the rules. Franchot commented he understands Mr. Jones'position but that the variance procedure allows some flexibility to accommodate different situations. Jones noted the City's Building Code states that existing nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded and asked where the gray area is in that language. Mattick stated the rule does say that but that the variance procedure allows for some flexibility to that rule. If there is a practical difficulty that is determined to exist,the Council can grant the variance. Jones asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Jones stated he does not see a practical difficulty. McMillan stated the issue is making changes to nonconforming items without bringing the entire property into conformance. The property is still nonconforming, which is part of the difficulty with this application. Franchot stated the City has granted a number of variances in the past which has not required the entire property be brought into conformity. McMillan commented that all parties have their concerns and that the City Council has the difficult decision to decide how to best deal with the situation. When dealing with nonconforming properties, it does have impacts when you change things around. Franchot stated he is in agreement that it does have some impact but that in his view it is a reasonable request. Rahn asked whether the structural coverage will change. Curtis indicated it will be increased. There is 2,400 square feet of house currently,which is 9 percent, and that the deck and patio would increase the structural coverage. Sharratt stated there is also additional overhang. Page 20 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAM'HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Curtis stated if you add the entire existing deck and patio to the house footprint,there is 3,225 square feet of structural coverage. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing why the Planning Commission was unanimous in approving the application. Schoenzeit indicated one of the key points was that this sight point exists now and is not changing. The thought of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the visual arc that sweeps the property,which is not changing. The building is happening away from the lake and will preserve the existing viewing arc on the neighboring property. The applicant does not need the screening and they are moving things further away from the lake, which is why the Planning Commission approved it. Curtis noted the structural coverage will increase from 11.3 to 14.6 percent. Lizz Levang stated the Planning Commission also looked favorably at the removal of all the hardcover under the deck as well as in other spots. Jones stated the hardcover under the existing patio is counted the same hardcover as the deck but they are adding a screen porch,making a two-car garage into a three-car garage,and adding a deck in return for removing a small strip of the deck. Rahn stated they are going to relocate the deck. Rahn asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Printup stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting and then later toured the property. This has become less of a hardcover issue and is turning into a sight line and privacy issue. The structure is going to be expanded and go up with the dormers, and even if there is a line of trees that currently provides screening, in his view the Planning Commission lost focus of what the neighbor was concerned about, which was preservation of the sight line. Planting additional pine trees is not going to stop the noise or the activity that will go on in that area. Schoenzeit stated in his view sight line is the wrong word and that it is what the view is of the neighbor. The property owner has relocated some items near the lake to in front of the garage. The neighbor cannot now see through the house and he won't after the project is completed. The sightline of the lake remains the same even if you can see more house. Jones pointed out there is 14 feet more house. Schoenzeit stated the applicant is allowed to build there. McMillan stated the proposed deck is being put in front of the average lakeshore setback. The property is nonconforming now and the applicant is proposing to relocate some items. The Council is dealing with a nonconformity piece with the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated in her view you cannot move it around without bringing the property into conformity. Rahn asked if the neighbor on the other side has issues with it. Page 21 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Helmer indicated since the Planning Commission meeting they have called them and they have indicated they are in support of the project. They were asked to provide a written statement of support,which was not done,but that they did receive a verbal statement of support. Rahn stated in his view it is a matter of moving a nonconformity. Rahn stated they have the rule so that it does not cause an impact to the neighbors even if it is minimal. Sharratt stated instead of making this less nonconforming,they are faced with the decision to leave the deck that is currently there and putting a screen porch underneath that portion. Suzann Passet stated the issue comes back to practical difficulty and that they have not addressed whether there is a practical difficulty. Rahn asked whether screening on the underside of the deck would be allowed. Curtis indicated that would be allowed since it is already considered structure. Rahn asked if that would be allowed even though it is in front of the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated they can add the screen porch underneath the deck but not above. Rahn asked if the applicants would like to table the application. Helmer stated she would like some clarification and asked whether the entire application would be denied or whether the different aspects of the application could be considered separately. McMillan commented it may be best to table the application since it does not appear it will be approved. Sharratt asked whether the Council is against all the issues or simply the screen porch. Sharratt stated he would like direction from the Council. Rahn stated it is an average lakeshore setback issue and that any alterations in front of the average lakeshore setback would be an issue. Franchot asked how that would impact the dormers. Sharratt stated to his belief they would be okay. Sharratt requested that they be given some time to discuss their options. (This application was adjourned from 10:10 to 10:38 p.m.) Sharratt requested the existing first floor plan be displayed on the overhead. Sharratt stated if they describe a change as it relates to the deck,whether that could be approved at this meeting or whether they would have to resubmit it. Rahn stated the Council should really act on the plan before them. Page 22 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Mattick stated he would encourage the City Council to review the revised plans before to voting on them. Sharratt asked whether the modification to create dormers on the lake side would be something they would be allowed or whether it would need to be changed. Curtis displayed a drawing of the dormers looking east. Sharratt pointed out the dormers on the overhead. The dormer that is visible goes across and would include some skylights. Rahn stated from a side view it appears to be up near the ridge of the house. Sharratt indicated that is correct. Rahn stated in his view there should be no encroachment in front of the average lakeshore setback except for maybe a very minor encroachment. McMillan commented she is not sure whether the dormers would have as much impact as the deck on the sight line. Printup asked whether the guidance is needed to redraw the plans. Franchot noted it would cost the applicant money to redraw the plans. Franchot indicated the dormers are not a problem for him. McMillan commented it is difficult to visualize a change without a drawing. Curtis pointed out the line for the chimney. Sharratt stated that chimney would be removed. Franchot asked whether the applicant would like to table the application. Sharratt indicated he would. Franchot asked whether Council Members Rahn and Printup could give the applicant some sense on whether there is zero tolerance or whether they would allow some minor encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Franchot stated the next question would then be what would be considered minor. Rahn stated if the applicant is going to encroach,they will need to show practical difficulty. Rahn stated they could have a dormer up to the average lakeshore setback line without a variance. Sharratt stated the practical difficulty is that the existing skylight is within the existing timber frame of the house and that it is already beyond that line. They are attempting to match the roof pitches that exist on the house. Page 23 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Rahn commented it is a design issue and making the exterior more aesthetically pleasing,which is not a practical difficulty. Franchot moved,McMillan seconded,to table Application #11-3521, Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 1. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD UPDATED COST ESTIMATES Am. dsen noted he has been the project manager on the Old Crystal Bay Road proj-- from the begin 'ng. At the last meeting the Council requested some cost estimates for a mi and overlay as close to the e • ting road footprint as possible and whether the mill and overlay woul• equire the City to meet some min ' urn state aid standards. Amundsen commented that it would be • ficult to qualify for state aid funding sr the mill and overlay project. Amundsen indicated he will - empt to obtain state aid funding but th. it is his belief it will not be approved due to the poor s . base of the road. Amundsen indica •d reconstruction of the road would result in th- oad looking very similar to what exists today but the •ain difference would be that the shoulder ' ould be paved. Amundsen noted he ha •rovided some estimates for the s-' er and water replacement and pointed out that the City would likely ' cur substantial additional co. to do those at some point in the future. As with most projects,the sewer an. water infrastructure be :.th the road tends to last longer than the road but that the reconstruction of eac impacts the other. is a common decision to replace the existing sewer and water under the road even ,ough there is s• e life left in them. Amundsen stated the mill and over : pro'• t would cost approximately $151,000. The road reconstruction would be $1.75 millio' ether the utilities are included are not. The water utilities would add$317,000 and$342,000 for the s. ary sewer if they are done in conjunction with the road reconstruction. Amundsen noted there are also some other o. ions outlined in the memo. McMillan stated a fourt option would be to divi,- the road in half and reconstruct the north half and mill and overlay the south - d with a reconstruct of the •uth end being done at some point down the road. The biggest issue the reconstruction for the enti - road is that it does make sense to do the utilities but that it may no be as important as some other water • d sewer projects that should be completed throughout th, est of the city. McMillan commented th- ity could perhaps buy some additional time on that road w' the mill and overlay. McMil n noted she requested the City Engineer provide some ,st estimates to reconstruct the north end and 11 and overlay the southern half,which would allow the sch►*Ito still run their summer school. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing what other sewer an. water projects would take precedence over Old Crystal Bay Road. Page 24 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 10, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. P C COMMENTS None PLA G DEPARTMEN PORT *4. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,313 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES-RESOLUTION NO. 6081 Franchot moved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6081, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(6) and 78-1288,for the property located at 3131 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. . #11-3524 ROGER AND MEGAN REMARK, 141 CHEVY CHASE DRIVE-VARIAN, - ' OLUTION NO. 6082 Francho oved,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6082, a Resolution anting a Variance to k unicipal Zoning Code Section 78-1608(2) for the property located at 1• Chevy Chase Drive. OTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. *6. #11-3525 B 1,INC., ON BEHALF OF STEVE AND SARA ZAW S 'SKI, 724 TONKAWA ROAD- • ' ANCES-RESOLUTION NO. 6083 Franchot moved,Printup s onded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6I 3, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zonin= Code Sections 78-330, 78-1288, a i i 78-1435,for the property located at 724 Tonkawa Road. I TE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. #11-3526 3515 CAPITAL P• 'TNERS,LLC, 15•: MAPLE PLACE-PRELIMINARY PLAT Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to comb e a • plat the existing six individual vacant lots south of 1545 Maple Place into three lots. Each of the exis g six lots is 50 feet wide and has 9,000 square feet in area where 21,780 square feet and 100 feet of W:th i equired within the LR-1C zoning district. The applicant is requesting to combine lots to ere. e three to with 100 feet in width and 18,000 square feet in area. The remaining 1545 Maple Place to 's 50 feet in wi. and 9,000 square feet in area. The remaining home and buildings are prop. ed to be removed an hat lot is also proposed to be redeveloped. \\ The applicant's property is locat:: at the lowest point in the neighborhob drainage area,resulting in a need for the applicant to addr- s not only the storm water from their develo ent,but additionally the storm water from the adjac- t 11 plus acre drainage area. The applicant's curr'ent proposal includes the creation of a grassed sw. - across all three of their lots which will provide storm ter storage and a mechanism to move t , water over the ground and off the property to the east. This lution would also require installation • a new system of underground pipes to move the water from the su .ect property north where it wo. d discharge near the right-of-way upon which Sandy Beach is located. Staff views is application as an opportunity to proactively address an existing unsolved storm w tqr issue. A orm water pond is identified in the Surface Water Management Plan. The City will collect`, Page 6of13 • Council 09/12/11 Item Description: #11-3521,Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle—Variances—Resolution Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to improve the aesthetics of her existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake-side deck, driveway and a garage addition are also proposed. The dormers and deck changes are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The garage addition involves changing non-structural hardcover to structural hardcover. No increase above the hardcover variances as granted in 1995 is proposed. The proposed garage addition will meet the side and rear yard setback requirements and is outside the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal is within the 15% structural coverage limitation. Following the Planning Commission meeting staff and the applicant conducted additional hardcover analysis on the property. The result is a revised actual 1995 approved hardcover level of 4,955 square feet of hardcover (29.9%). The applicant's proposed hardcover plan includes removal of the existing "illegal plastic" within landscape areas within the 75' to 250' zone and results in no net increase in hardcover above the existing (1995 approved) level. The property owner to the west, Charlie Jones, expressed concern at the planning commission meeting regarding screening for the new deck area on the west side of the house. The applicant met with Mr.Jones to discuss the potential screening and should be asked if and how those concerns were resolved. At their August meeting, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variances as requested. The applicant was directed to add evergreen trees to the existing deciduous trees along the west lot line to enhance the screening year-round. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance including the screening enhancement, consistent with the planning commission recommendation. As part of this approval staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property—including the 0-75', 75'-250' and 250'- 500' zones—in order to further reduce hardcover. e Council should consider adopting or amending the draft approval resolution. 1-1,841-v itit( 711/2k, 02. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. ('. #11-3520 HAROLD & SANDRA WINGERD, 1376 BALD UR PARK ROAD, Conti, 'ed) Eve wh- ' he and his wife were out of the country and their children were having a pa '•t their residence. r.Puzak currently resides in Florida during the wintertime. In addition to the . ea in front of the garage, there was a turnaround to the left at became a turnaround because there was n. ether place to turn around. In the wintertime there us- to be a big post with a chain from one of the boulde to the post. Occasionally Mr.Puzak's coworker ould take it down to check on his house. Wingerd indicated they no longer have a way to access that ea to turn around. Subsequent to the Planning Co ission meeting,three of the bo :•ers have been relocated to what used to be the turnaround. The post is i e middle of that and ther-, s also a four inch steel pipe that in all likelihood was going to be used to stri his chain fence fro f, e pipe to the 6 x 6 post. Wingerd indicated his wife called the City and so -ene came out t• top the work. In addition to those changes, there have been 22 sections of Mr. Puzak's •• k that ha been placed near their property. Wingerd stated there does not appear to be any reason to ce, ° e dock sections there except for retribution. Wingerd indicated they have invested in excess six t res in the litigation. Wingerd stated they would be happy to allow him to use his access and .t they wo • like to create a new access for their property. Wingerd stated one of the recommendati.,- was to flare bo .ends of the driveway, which he does not see in the report. Curtis indicated the turnaround w ld eliminate the need for the flares end. Wingerd indicated they are lling to comply with Staff's recommendation .nd noted there is a portion of the easement where the ardcover would not be removed. McMillan comment,• in her view this is a good solution and that she is in agreeme with the resolution. Rahn and Bre -r indicated they are also in agreement with it. Rahn m f t ed,Printup seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6074, a Resolution Gran i g a Vari. ce to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1288, for the Property Located at 1376 Ba •ur Park Ro . VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES Tami Helmer,Applicant, and Mike Sharratt,Designer,were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake side deck, driveway, and a garage addition are also proposed. The dormers and deck changes are ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The garage addition involves changing nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover. No overall increase in hardcover is proposed. The proposed garage addition will meet the side and rear yard setback requirements and is outside the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal is within the 15 percent structural coverage limitation. Page 13 of 28 • � r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Following the Planning Commission meeting, Staff and the applicant conducted additional hardcover analysis on the property. The result is a revised actual 1995 approved hardcover level of 4,955 square feet of hardcover. The applicant's proposed hardcover plan includes removal of the existing"illegal plastic"within landscape areas within the 75-250 foot zone and results in no net increase in hardcover above the existing 1995 approved level. The property owner to the west, Charlie Jones, expressed concern at the Planning Commission meeting regarding screening for the new deck. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the variance as requested. The applicant was directed to add evergreen trees to the existing deciduous trees along the west lot line to enhance the screening year-round. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance including the screening enhancement, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. As part of this approval, Staff also recommends the fabric or plastic underlayment be removed from all landscape areas on the property in order to further reduce hardcover. Rahn asked if the underlying plastic is being traded in exchange for the additional hardcover. Curtis indicated it is not being traded and it was not removed as required in 1995. McMillan asked whether it is still part of City Code to allow structural coverage on top of hardcover. Curtis stated that is one of the issues the Council will need to discuss. Staff does not have the ability to approve that portion of the application since the hardcover exceeds 25%within that zone. Tami Helmer, Applicant, indicated she purchased the property approximately one year ago. At the time she was considering purchasing the property, she researched whether she could conduct some remodeling on the property and met with Orono Staff several times to learn about the restrictions on hardcover and the different ordinances. Since that time they have purchased the property and have been designing those improvements since they are looking to make this their long-term residence. Mike Sharratt,Designer, indicated they initially received some direction from Staff that was different from where they ended up. Sharratt noted there was some confusion over what the exact hardcover numbers were for the property. After some lengthy discussions,they arrived at a number of 6,315 square feet for existing, which has been reduced to 4,955 square feet of hardcover after removal of the landscape plastic. Sharratt indicated during the design phase they looked at a number of options to achieve all the desired amenities that the property owner designed as well as cornply with City regulations. One option was to take the back part of the garage and convert it into a screen porch. They also eliminated the 30 x 12 foot structural deck. Sharratt stated their end goal was to address all those issues and make the property more aesthetically pleasing. (Recess taken from 9:01 p.m. to 9:08 p.m.) (Cynthia Bremer is no longer present) Page 14 of 28 11110 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Charlie Jones, 3129 Casco Circle, stated this property has been in his family for 54 years now. It was originally purchased in 1957. In 1977, the lot became part of the adjacent lot on the other side and was subsequently sold off. A variance was granted at that time for the hardcover and for the average setback line. Jones pointed out the view of the property from his house on the overhead. The hardcover issue relates to replacement of deck hardcover. The original as-built survey indicates that the deck was 8'x 32' and there is no evidence that it was ever approved to be 12'x 32'. Jones pointed out the hardcover the applicant is proposing to place over existing blacktop. Jones stated the portion that is being removed does not cover the 14-foot addition to the garage or the other area. A portion of the proposed deck juts out further to the lake and also impacts his sightline. According to the building code, it says that it is unlawful to convert,enlarge or alter any structure or use any structure in a manner that violates the hardcover limitations. Jones indicated he has documents that indicate this property is at 42.9 percent hardcover. He was made aware by Staff that Melanie Curtis is not a surveyor,but somehow new hardcover calculations have come out showing there is 30 percent hardcover. Some of that decrease is from removal of four inch crushed limestone to mitigate a drainage problem that still exists. City Building Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be located or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance except a roofline may be changed, an additional story may be added over the roofed portions of a structure, or an open or screen porch may be converted into a two or three-season porch. Jones pointed out that this property does not meet any of those exceptions. Jones noted the deck hardcover is being moved over existing hardcover but it is becoming structural coverage and would be totally impervious hardcover consisting of concrete and footings The setback line was established prior to the house being constructed, which was by agreement between the City of Orono,his grandfather, and the adjoining neighbor. The property is currently nonconforming in three ways. The width of the lot is only 95 feet and it is over on total hardcover. The property is allowed 25 percent but they are at 30 or 31 percent with the present proposal. The proposed screen porch is also located in front of the average setback line. The deck is four feet wider than was originally approved. Four feet of that 32 x 12 foot section that is being used to trade hardcover actually was never approved. As of 1995, the existing calculations on that hardcover were 42.9 percent. Jones displayed a picture of the current deck and the area of the proposed screen porch. Jones stated the house is 31 feet from the edge of his house, and that according to City Code, this project is not allowed and that he does not see how the Council can go against the rules that they have set up. Jones illustrated the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis indicated that is not the correct setback line. Rahn noted the average setback line is depicted in their packet. g P Jones stated the proposed screen porch is unacceptable. The applicant purchased the property last August but there is no hardship since she could have purchased another property that would have met her needs better. Jones requested the Council follow the rules that are currently in place which states that Page 15 of 28 I • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. Franchot asked where he is taking the sight line from on his house. Jones stated the sight line depends on where you are standing and that he is talking about anywhere on his lot. Jones stated if he builds another house on the property,the setback line is back further and he would be required to construct it further back. Franchot indicated he was attempting to figure out where the sight line is that Mr.Jones was speaking of. Jones stated he is allowed to be anywhere on his lot and not have his view impacted. Jones indicated he has not discussed screening with the applicant. The current vegetation is approximately ten years old and is half dead. McMillan asked as it relates to the nonstructural hardcover, whether property owners are allowed to trade that for structural coverage. Curtis indicated Staff does not have the ability to trade when the hardcover exceeds the regulations and' was approved by a variance. McMillan asked whether the City has been pretty strict in enforcing hardcover regulations. Gaffron stated there have been dozens of variances granted over the years to address a situation that is not in compliance with City Code. Franchot stated part of Mr. Jones' claim is that a portion of what is being removed was approved by a variance and part of it apparently wasn't. Curtis indicated the deck that exists today is the deck that is reflected on the survey and was approved by a variance. Franchot asked if the City considers the entire deck to have been approved. Curtis stated that City records indicate it was approved by a variance. Rahn stated the new structure is not an issue since the property owner is under the 15 percent structural coverage limit. If the current deck is considered nonconforming, then that would be an issue since nonconforming hardcover cannot be relocated or expanded. Franchot asked if there was a variance granted, if it does not become conforming. Mattick stated basically structural versus nonstructural hardcover functions the same from a hardcover perspective but that the regulations generally do not make sense to someone when they come in and remove a different piece of hardcover in exchange for constructing new hardcover which results in no net gain. Council has given Staff the ability to administratively approve the type of application where there is no net increase in the hardcover when the lot is conforming. In this particular case,not every aspect of Page 16 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) the lot is conforming so Staff does not have the ability to approve the application. Mattick commented it basically is the same as a swap since there is no net gain in the amount of hardcover,but because the lot is nonconforming, Staff does not have the ability to grant approval. Rahn commented in his view the applicant has done their due diligence in researching the City rules prior to purchasing the property. Rahn stated in his view everything looks great except there is a neighbor who feels he will be negatively impacted by the changes. McMillan stated they are intensifying the average lake setback variance since the new deck will impact the neighbor more than the old deck does. The new deck is more intrusive to the neighbor since it is located closer to the lot line. Franchot asked if Mayor McMillan has visited the site. McMillan indicated she has. Franchot stated he visited the property and that the concern being expressed by the neighbor in his view is not really an issue given the amount of vegetation between these two properties. Franchot stated based on his tour of the property, it does not appear to be as much of an imposition as what has been implied and that there is a huge arc to the right that provides a good view of the lake. McMillan commented that vegetation can come and go and that planting evergreens will also block someone's sight line. Franchot commented that his point is that there is no change in the sight lines with the proposal. McMillan commented screening is not always a good solution and that the Council should address the issue of whether the deck should be there or not. The average lakeshore setback is never perfect and there are many situations where it does not work because of existing conditions prior to enactment of the ordinance. The City has granted variances in the past to the average lakeshore setback but in those situations it did not have a negative impact on the neighbor's sight lines. McMillan stated in her view there will be a negative impact to the neighbor in this case. Franchot stated that was why he questioned where the sight line was being taken from on the neighboring lot. If you stand on the property line, almost everything would get in the way. Mr. Jones'house is located far away from any setback. Rahn commented it also becomes an issue of noise since it would be located closer to the property line. Rahn asked if the applicant is still proposing a screen porch when it appears to be a four-season porch on the plans. Sharratt indicated it is a screen porch. Sharratt pointed out the back portion of the garage,which is being converted into the screen porch. Sharratt indicated they established the sight line by taking the corner of the deck as it is in its present location. If that line is drawn further back to the dining room, it is not any more intrusive than what currently exists, which is why they located it in that area. The new line is no further forward than what the existing line is. Page 17 of 28 • ' MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated another aspect taken into consideration for removing that portion of the deck is that it is located closer to Mr. Jones'house than what they are proposing. They are proposing to take this area and put it over existing hardcover,which is why the hardcover is being reduced. Jones pointed out Helmer's lot line and stated that he is asking the Council to not take away his view across their property by allowing them to construct the screen porch. Jones commented it is not just the sight line that is an issue but it also becomes a noise issue by having them move their garage, deck, umbrella, and other items closer to the property line. Jones stated it was never intended to be that way and that his property was intended to have that sight line. Jones indicated his house is situated so it looks southeast across their property. Rahn stated he is not aware of a variance request that the Council has approved where the neighbors were not in agreement with what is being proposed. McMillan commented that even though the houses are far apart, when you have something that could impact a sight line, it becomes an issue. Rahn asked Mr. Jones to clarify what he was speaking about with regards to the location of the deck. Jones stated there is no screen porch currently but that it would look directly into his porch,his dining room, and bedroom. The proposed garage addition is so they can have a screen porch. The problem is that it is a 14-foot addition, one and a half stories tall, and a screen porch. Jones indicated the property could be sold tomorrow and that the new neighbors may not be as nice as Ms. Helmer. Jones indicated he does not want the screen porch and reiterated that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way. There has been no attempt to bring the property into conformance. Franchot stated they do not have to cover the garage since it is being put over existing hardcover. Jones commented there is more hardcover in this area. Franchot noted the deck has to offset the proposed screen porch. Rahn noted the garage is extending over existing driveway hardcover. Franchot stated what Mr. Jones is saying is that the screen porch should not be added to the garage since it is over existing hardcover. McMillan pointed out that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Sharratt stated they are taking something this is more nonconforming and making it less nonconforming, which is a quantitative improvement. Sharratt stated they are not changing his sight line, which will still exist after this project. Jones stated he also has a patio that he uses from where he will be viewing the lake and that they cannot say he can only view the lake from one location on this property. Page 18 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMIHELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Sharratt stated due to the vegetation, it is not possible to see through that area in the summertime. McMillan reiterated that it is an average lakeshore setback issue. Franchot asked if the situation is being made worse. McMillan indicated in her view it is. Franchot asked if the Council can get a picture of where the actual average lakeshore setback line is located. Franchot stated in his view it is a sight line issue only. Curtis displayed the average lakeshore setback line and pointed out that it cuts back into the existing garage and is ahead of it. The corner of the deck does not extend further into the average setback and they are maintaining the sight line from the home to the lake. McMillan stated because they are locating the proposed garage addition over existing driveway, they are able to gain additional hardcover versus swapping hardcover for structural coverage. Rahn stated in his view that is what Mr. Jones is saying. They are talking about a building that is already sitting too far forward,and even though they did not extend it closer to the lake, there is more structure being proposed. Rahn noted the draft resolution says the deck will result in minimal negative impact to adjacent property owners,but that in his view there should be no impact. The sight line is one issue but that he personally would be more concerned with the noise since the area of entertainment has moved closer to the lot line. Rahn stated he has a hard time approving something where an adjacent neighbor was opposed to it,which is one of the main reasons why the City has an average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the view of the lake. The noise or activity could be there anyway without the deck but that it is an issue to consider as part of the variance request. Al Wahlin, 3131 Casco Circle, stated in regards to the proposed deck, they have carefully considered the current rules and regulations and they were also considerate of the neighbor to not come out past the existing visual footprint that is currently in place. Wahlin commented they are not proposing anything that is different than what he can currently see from his perspective. Wahlin stated they have worked very hard to follow the rules and regulations that the City has set up as well as the rules of the DNR and the State of Minnesota. They have gotten professional help from Mr. Sharratt. Wahlin commented he is not sure how much one person can have control of their property but that he understands and respects his neighbors and will continue to do that. Wahlin stated he also has a right to be comfortable in his own home and that unfortunately the system is set up to pit one neighbor against another and cause conflict. Wahlin stated he attempts to do what is right within the rules that are set up and that they have tried to follow the rules and do what is required of them. The deck is within the existing sight footprint. Wahlin noted they also agreed to meet with Mr. Jones but that he did not want to meet with them. Page 19 of 28 • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Franchot stated when he walked the property, it was apparent that there may be an open door to oppose the application but that the reason for the opposition in his view is that the neighbor does not want any change to the neighborhood. Franchot stated for the neighbor to imply that he will in any meaningful way be impacted on his sight lines is not true and that there is a huge arc to the right of lake view. Jones stated he is not pitting neighbor against neighbor and that if they want to do something within the footprint of the house,he would be fine with that. Adding a story and a half ten feet from the lot line is a change. Jones states his sight line is affected and that the applicant does not have a right to affect his sight line one inch. Jones indicated he is not asking for special treatment and that justice is treating everyone the same. Jones requested the City Council follow the rules. Franchot commented he understands Mr. Jones'position but that the variance procedure allows some flexibility to accommodate different situations. Jones noted the City's Building Code states that existing nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded and asked where the gray area is in that language. Mattick stated the rule does say that but that the variance procedure allows for some flexibility to that rule. If there is a practical difficulty that is determined to exist, the Council can grant the variance. Jones asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Jones stated he does not see a practical difficulty. McMillan stated the issue is making changes to nonconforming items without bringing the entire property into conformance. The property is still nonconforming, which is part of the difficulty with this application. Franchot stated the City has granted a number of variances in the past which has not required the entire property be brought into conformity. McMillan commented that all parties have their concerns and that the City Council has the difficult decision to decide how to best deal with the situation. When dealing with nonconforming properties, it does have impacts when you change things around. Franchot stated he is in agreement that it does have some impact but that in his view it is a reasonable request. Rahn asked whether the structural coverage will change. Curtis indicated it will be increased. There is 2,400 square feet of house currently, which is 9 percent, and that the deck and patio would increase the structural coverage. Sharratt stated there is also additional overhang. Page 20 of 28 • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Curtis stated if you add the entire existing deck and patio to the house footprint,there is 3,225 square feet of structural coverage. Franchot stated he would be interested in knowing why the Planning Commission was unanimous in approving the application. Schoenzeit indicated one of the key points was that this sight point exists now and is not changing. The thought of the average lakeshore setback is to preserve the visual arc that sweeps the property,which is not changing. The building is happening away from the lake and will preserve the existing viewing arc on the neighboring property. The applicant does not need the screening and they are moving things further away from the lake, which is why the Planning Commission approved it. Curtis noted the structural coverage will increase from 11.3 to 14.6 percent. Lizz Levang stated the Planning Commission also looked favorably at the removal of all the hardcover under the deck as well as in other spots. Jones stated the hardcover under the existing patio is counted the same hardcover as the deck but they are adding a screen porch,making a two-car garage into a three-car garage, and adding a deck in return for removing a small strip of the deck. Rahn stated they are going to relocate the deck. Rahn asked what the practical difficulty is for the variance. Printup stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting and then later toured the property. This has become less of a hardcover issue and is turning into a sight line and privacy issue. The structure is going to be expanded and go up with the dormers, and even if there is a line of trees that currently provides screening, in his view the Planning Commission lost focus of what the neighbor was concerned about, which was preservation of the sight line. Planting additional pine trees is not going to stop the noise or the activity that will go on in that area. Schoenzeit stated in his view sight line is the wrong word and that it is what the view is of the neighbor. The property owner has relocated some items near the lake to in front of the garage. The neighbor cannot now see through the house and he won't after the project is completed. The sightline of the lake remains the same even if you can see more house. Jones pointed out there is 14 feet more house. Schoenzeit stated the applicant is allowed to build there. McMillan stated the proposed deck is being put in front of the average lakeshore setback. The property is nonconforming now and the applicant is proposing to relocate some items. The Council is dealing with a nonconformity piece with the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated in her view you cannot move it around without bringing the property into conformity. Rahn asked if the neighbor on the other side has issues with it. Page 21 of 28 r I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12,2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Helmer indicated since the Planning Commission meeting they have called them and they have indicated they are in support of the project. They were asked to provide a written statement of support,which was not done,but that they did receive a verbal statement of support. Rahn stated in his view it is a matter of moving a nonconformity. Rahn stated they have the rule so that it does not cause an impact to the neighbors even if it is minimal. Sharratt stated instead of making this less nonconforming, they are faced with the decision to leave the deck that is currently there and putting a screen porch underneath that portion. Suzann Passet stated the issue comes back to practical difficulty and that they have not addressed whether there is a practical difficulty. Rahn asked whether screening on the underside of the deck would be allowed. Curtis indicated that would be allowed since it is already considered structure. Rahn asked if that would be allowed even though it is in front of the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated they can add the screen porch underneath the deck but not above. Rahn asked if the applicants would like to table the application. Helmer stated she would like some clarification and asked whether the entire application would be denied or whether the different aspects of the application could be considered separately. McMillan commented it may be best to table the application since it does not appear it will be approved. Sharratt asked whether the Council is against all the issues or simply the screen porch. Sharratt stated he would like direction from the Council. Rahn stated it is an average lakeshore setback issue and that any alterations in front of the average lakeshore setback would be an issue. Franchot asked how that would impact the dormers. Sharratt stated to his belief they would be okay. Sharratt requested that they be given some time to discuss their options. (This application was adjourned from 10:10 to 10:38 p.m.) Sharratt requested the existing first floor plan be displayed on the overhead. Sharratt stated if they describe a change as it relates to the deck, whether that could be approved at this meeting or whether they would have to resubmit it. Rahn stated the Council should really act on the plan before them. Page 22 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Mattick stated he would encourage the City Council to review the revised plans before to voting on them. Sharratt asked whether the modification to create dormers on the lake side would be something they would be allowed or whether it would need to be changed. Curtis displayed a drawing of the dormers looking east. Sharratt pointed out the dormers on the overhead. The dormer that is visible goes across and would include some skylights. Rahn stated from a side view it appears to be up near the ridge of the house. Sharratt indicated that is correct. Rahn stated in his view there should be no encroachment in front of the average lakeshore setback except for maybe a very minor encroachment. McMillan commented she is not sure whether the dormers would have as much impact as the deck on the sight line. Printup asked whether the guidance is needed to redraw the plans. Franchot noted it would cost the applicant money to redraw the plans. Franchot indicated the dormers are not a problem for him. McMillan commented it is difficult to visualize a change without a drawing. Curtis pointed out the line for the chimney. Sharratt stated that chimney would be removed. Franchot asked whether the applicant would like to table the application. Sharratt indicated he would. Franchot asked whether Council Members Rahn and Printup could give the applicant some sense on whether there is zero tolerance or whether they would allow some minor encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Franchot stated the next question would then be what would be considered minor. Rahn stated if the applicant is going to encroach,they will need to show practical difficulty. Rahn stated they could have a dormer up to the average lakeshore setback line without a variance. Sharratt stated the practical difficulty is that the existing skylight is within the existing timber frame of the house and that it is already beyond that line. They are attempting to match the roof pitches that exist on the house. Page 23 of 28 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2011 7:00 o'clock p.m. (10. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER, 3131 CASCO CIRCLE, Continued) Rahn commented it is a design issue and making the exterior more aesthetically pleasing, which is not a practical difficulty. Franchot moved,McMillan seconded,to table Application#11-3521,Tami Helmer,3131 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. ITY ENGINEER'S REPORT 11. OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD UPDATED COST ESTIMATES Amunds- , noted he has been the project manager on the Old Crystal Bay Road project from th- beginning. :t the last meeting the Council requested some cost estimates for a mill and over as close to the existin. oad footprint as possible and whether the mill and overlay would require t City to meet some minimum .to aid standards. Amundsen commented that it would be difficult to . •alify for state aid funding for the 'sill and overlay project. Amundsen indicated he will attempt to . ain state aid funding but that it is ' belief it will not be approved due to the poor sub base of t'` road. Amundsen indicated recon-• ction of the road would result in the road loo very similar to what exists today but the main dif - -nce would be that the shoulders would be ved. Amundsen noted he has provided s•• e estimates for the sewer and er replacement and pointed out that the City would likely incur substa ial additional cost to do t R e at some point in the future. As with most projects,the sewer and water infras • cture beneath the ro.• tends to last longer than the road but that the reconstruction of each impacts the o •er. It is a co • on decision to replace the existing sewer and water under the road even though there is e life le in them. Amundsen stated the mill and overlay project woul. •.•st approximately$151,000. The road reconstruction would be $1.75 million whether th- •tih -s are included are not. The water utilities would add$317,000 and$342,000 for the sanitary sew- if they . e done in conjunction with the road reconstruction. Amundsen noted there are also some of ; options outlined in the 'emo. McMillan stated a fourth option wo- d be to divide the road in half and -construct the north half and mill and overlay the south end with a construct of the south end being done at .me point down the road. The biggest issue with the reco., truction for the entire road is that it does ma'; sense to do the utilities but that it may not be as im.,- ant as some other water and sewer projects that s' •uld be completed throughout the rest of the ty. McMillan commented the City could perhaps buy s•• e additional time on that road with the mill d overlay. McMillan noted - requested the City Engineer provide some cost estimates to reconstru the north end and mill and o lay the southern half,which would allow the school to still run their summ- school. Franchot ated he would be interested in knowing what other sewer and water projects would to precedh ce over Old Crystal Bay Road. Page 24 of 28 • I NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway ZONING FILE: 11-3521 PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: August 16, 2011 TO: Tami Helmer COPIES: Mike Sharratt—via Email 3131 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: August 15, 2011 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as proposed. The applicant was directed to enhance existing vegetation along the west, side lot line by adding evergreens to the existing deciduous screening. An elevation view reflecting the proposed screening enhancements along the west lot line and a revised survey reflecting the requested information from the City engineer, and the revised hardcover (i.e. removal of the encroaching driveway areas & hardcover as discussed with Staff) should be submitted at least two weeks prior to placement on the City Council agenda. Two full sized copies of the survey (and one reduction) as well as one 11"x17" or 8.5"x11' of the elevation view will suffice. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, September 12, 2011 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning & Zoning Coordinator, Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. (Recess taken from 8:44 p.m. to 8:50 p.m.) 6. #11-3521 TAMI HELMER,3131 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCES,8:43 P.M.—9:30 P.M. Tami Helmer, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in order to remove and replace portions of the lakeside deck, add dormers to the lakeside of the home, and construct a garage addition. No increase in hardcover is proposed. In 1995 a previous property owner was granted hardcover variances in order to rearrange hardcover on the property. Hardcover calculations for that application were based on a 1991 survey. The property was granted at that time a variance allowing 42.9 percent hardcover within the 75-250 foot zone. The hardcover calculations for that variance application appear to have been calculated by the applicant. Following a review by Staff, it was determined they were inaccurate. Staff conducted a comparison of the 1991 survey and an as-built survey submitted by the applicant in order to resolve the inconsistency. The current survey and hardcover numbers,minus the landscape areas lined with plastic and/or fabric, reflect the actual 1995 approved hardcover level. Staff believes 5,095 square feet or 30.5 percent is the actual level of hardcover approved with the 1995 resolution. This number was the basis for Staff s hardcover analysis. The existing home is situated partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The shoreline curves in this area of Casco Point,and while the applicant's property is nearly in line with the home to the east,it sits ahead of the home to the west. The applicant is proposing to construct roof dormers on the lake side of the home in the place of the existing skylights in order to improve the appearance. No additional living space is proposed in this area. The dormers would not extend closer to the lake than the existing roof However,the dormers would be considered an upward expansion of the existing nonconforming roof and a variance is required. The applicant would also like to remove portions of the deck from within the average lakeshore setback on the east side of the property and relocate it partially in the notch at the rear of the garage. The new portions of the deck would continue to be ahead of the average lakeshore setback but would not encroach further than the existing deck. There is a considerable amount of vegetation along the west side of the applicant's property line which helps to screen the applicant's property from the neighbor to the west and construct a 555 square foot addition on the side of the home. Staff finds practical difficulty exists with respect to the curving shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line cutting through the applicant's home. The applicant is not proposing to increase hardcover above the existing, approved level, and is not proposing to encroach further into the average lakeshore setback with the improvements. Staff does not find that the dormers or the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent properties. Staff recently met with the son of the property owner to the west, Charlie Jones,who resides at the property. Mr. Jones made statements regarding his concern about the type of impacts the applicant's proposal will have on the value of his mother's property and the impact on his view of the lake. He also expressed concern regarding the applicant's proposal to move the outdoor living space from the east side Page 24 • r. a MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. of the lot to the west side of the lot closer to his property, resulting in a negative impact to his sense of privacy. Mr.Jones was advised to provide Staff with written statements to be included within the packet and/or to appear at the public hearing. Issues for consideration include the following: 1. Does the Planning Commission find 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 variances, 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 average setback variance such as vegetative screening or impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested hardcover variance? As the applicant is not proposing an increase in the hardcover level,Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance as requested. Staff also recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance for the deck rearrangement and roof dormers. The existing vegetative screening should be maintained and/or enhanced. Plastic or fabric liners should be required to be removed from all landscape areas, including the area within the 75-foot setback from the lake as part of any approval. The plans should be revised to reflect the City Engineer's recommendation prior to placement on the City Council agenda. Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle, indicated she is here with Al Amin and that they are planning to be long-term residents at the home. The property was purchased a little over a year ago. Helmer indicated when she first looked at the property, she felt it was a fabulous site and a wonderful neighborhood. Helmer stated she did not want to purchase the property unless she could remodel it. Helmer stated she had a survey completed and met with City Staff on more than one occasion before she decided to go ahead and purchase the property. Helmer stated during the process of living there,the process of redesigning and improving the home were started and that she has been working with Mike Sharratt. The plan would enhance my property as well as the neighborhood. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated Staff has done a good job summarizing what they have done in order to make responsible changes to the property. They have eliminated almost 400 square feet of nonconforming structure and relocated a portion of it 16 feet further back,which makes the deck on the rear seem smaller in scale. From what was approved in 1995 for hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone,they at 5,095 square feet,with a voluntary agreement to remove the plastic, fabric and rock. The end result is a project that is significantly better than what exists today just from an environmental prospective and there have been significant aesthetic improvements from both sides of the house. Sharratt stated they have also provided adequate garage space. The property owner originally was going to propose a screen porch,which would have been located on top of the existing deck. The applicant would have been permitted to do because of the existing structure in that location but they then started looking at a screen porch located underneath the deck. Since they did not want to increase the building Page 25 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. mass appearance,they are proposing to push the screen porch back from the lake and into the structure. Sharratt stated in his view everything that is being proposed is a positive step forward. Landgraver asked Mr. Sharratt to elaborate on the screen porch. Sharratt stated the deck exists all across the house and that they originally talked about putting a screen porch on top of the deck and then under the deck. They decided to put the screen porch further back and making the screen porch part of the garage space. The door side of the garage would be pushed out to allow for 24 feet of garage. Landgraver asked if there is space above the porch. Sharratt indicated that would be the master bedroom. The dotted line depicts where the screen porch will be located on the back side of the garage. Landgraver asked if there would be any changes to the left side of the garage. Sharratt stated the only change on the left side would be the addition of a one-story garage that would meet the existing two-story wall. Sharratt indicated the deck exists to approximately this area and will be adding the little triangular area, which is less than what is being removed. Levang asked if underneath the screen porch would be the garage doors. Sharratt stated there would be a single garage door. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Charlie Jones, 3129 Casco Circle, stated he has a dining room and porch and another porch that look southeast. The proposed deck, even though it is less than what is existing, obstructs the lake view of the current house. Jones noted the adjoining lot will probably be developed some day and that he would like to preserve the view of the lake. Jones displayed a picture showing no hardcover in that area. Jones indicated he has been looking at the documents and that the hardcover currently is 30 percent, which is over what is allowed in that area. City Code states that nonconforming hardcover may not be relocated or expanded in any way unless the property is brought into conformance. The property does not meet the exemptions. Jones stated the applicant is requesting the changes for reasons of privacy but that she is getting her privacy at his expense. Jones indicated he is in agreement that the proposed structure is attractive but that this lot consists of.57 acre and is already overbuilt by 20 percent. Jones stated he does not see a hardship. The applicant bought this property one year ago. If she needed a larger home,there were other homes that would have met her criteria. Jones requested the Planning Commission deny or table the application. Schoenzeit asked if Mr. Jones'concern is the fact that the main use of the deck is going from the rear of the deck to the triangular area. Page 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jones indicated that is not all of his concern. Jones pointed out there is also a window that looks west which is in full view of his dining room and deck. Jones indicated those two items are essentially the crux of his concern. Schoenzeit asked whether all of the setbacks are met. Curtis indicated they are. Greg Becker, 3133 Casco Circle,indicated he resides in a house that was built in 1901 and that it has the same footprint today. Becker stated he has a couple of issues with the application. To his knowledge the rear deck was never approved by the City. As it relates to Drawing A6, it basically looks like there is 14 feet coming out from the garage for the screen porch. Becker indicated he liked Mr. Sharratt's original concept of building the screen porch over the deck,which would not protrude so much out the front. Becker asked what the need is for the third garage stall. Becker stated in his view it is because of the design element of the screen porch. Becker stated he does not know exactly what it will be used for since the distance between his deck and the existing home is about 10 feet. Becker stated he does not know how the site will be accessed to construct the screen porch since there is not enough room. Becker commented he would like to say that no one should question Mike Sharratt's ability to design a beautiful home but that you can question the amount of hardcover that it takes to build that beautiful home. Becker stated in his opinion Mr. Sharratt can design a beautiful home without the additional hardcover. Suzanna Pastock indicated she is Charlie Jones' finance', and that usually a variance is granted due to a hardship for the current homeowner. Pastock stated the Planning Commission needs to be careful about granting variances when there is not a hardship. Schoenzeit stated the new term that the Planning Commission is operating under is practical difficulty given the recent Supreme Court case. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Schoenzeit asked whether the proposal meets the 10-foot setback. Curtis indicated it does. Schoenzeit stated part of Staffs presentation was that the reconfiguration reflects a zero net increase in hardcover. Curtis indicated that is correct provided the landscape plastic/fabric is removed. Schoenzeit asked Mr. Sharratt to speak to how this plan was decided Thiesse noted they are not here to redesign the plan. Page 27 . • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is looking to see whether this is an optimal design. Landgraver stated to his understanding the garage needs to be extended because of the screen porch. Sharratt stated a number of factors go into designing a house, such as client's needs,finances, City codes, and coming up with an optimal plan. The primary reason that the garage was pushed forward was not because of the screen porch. The applicant looked at other locations for the screen porch on the lake side, which would have created a roof and created more of an obstruction to view. Pushing it into the garage was an attempt to meet the requirements of the City. Sharratt indicated they have tried to do everything they could to get out of the nonconforming area. Sharratt stated as to whether the deck is legal nonconforming,to his understanding it is depicted on the 1995 survey. Sharratt reiterated they looked at a number of different solutions and not just one in coming up with the current proposal. During that process we felt that we would have an advantage by pushing it back into the structure and making it less of an imposition on the lake side. It is 149 feet from the deck to the lake, which is twice the 75-foot setback,but it is not adequate for the line of sight because the lot is located on a point. Sharratt indicated the real reason the garage was pushed out is because there was a desire for two and a half stalls,with the added space being used for storage. Sharratt noted they are below structural coverage requirements at 14.6 percent. Curtis indicated the deck is shown on the 1995 survey and there is no indication in the file that the deck is not legal. Schoenzeit noted in 1995 the variances were added. Levang commented she is impressed by the efforts of the applicants to remove hardcover. Levang asked if the applicant would be conducive to adding more trees if they would help mitigate the Jones'view. Helmer indicated she would be willing to put in evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees. Schoenzeit pointed out the increase in the hardcover is on the street side. Schoenzeit stated in his view it looks like a worthwhile project and that the negatives to the neighbors are quite minimal for the benefits that they are getting. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with Chair Schoenzeit. Leskinen stated to her recollection there was quite a bit of screening already on the property Jones noted the screening does not exist in the winter. Helmer pointed out that in the winter no one would be out there. Thiesse noted the deck depicted in the picture is existing and that the new deck would be virtually the same. The rim board will be noticeable in the same location. Page 28 110 MINUTES OF THE - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 15,2011 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sharratt pointed out the location of the rim board and stated the deck would be angled back. Sharratt indicated they located the deck at an angle because they were trying to respect the furthest most projection to the lake. Landgraver noted the window is enlarged. Levang requested Mr. Sharratt point out the new window. Sharratt pointed out the location of the window. Helmer noted there is a second existing window in the garage which will be eliminated. Schoenzeit stated the lakeside rail will be at a diagonal. Sharratt stated the garage is being added over existing driveway and is conforming to all the setbacks. Levang moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#11-3521,3131 Casco Circle, granting of hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances,subject to the condition that the screening and vegetation be preserved or enhanced, and subject to the recommendations of Staff. Sharratt asked whether the landscaping should be brought back to the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit recommended the applicant bring vegetation and elevation views to the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. #11-3522 STEINER&KOPPELMAN ON BEHALF OF NANCY BIGOS,3351 •X ST' VARIANCE,9:31 P.M.—9:40 P.M. David Steingas, - •.licant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant equesting an average lakeshore setback v. ce to construct an addition to the existing home. The average ^ eshore setback cuts through the ddle of the existing home. Any improvement on the lakeward portioi • the home would requ; , a variance. The subject property is large and there is ample vegetative screening b- een the home . the property to the east. Because the addition will be on the east side of the home, i 'lino .e visible from the property to the west. Staff finds practical difficulty exists which sit. arts the _ < ting of an average lakeshore setback variance. The applicant's request is in h. r•.. y with the chard er of the neighborhood and does not result in excessive massing on the pro..- y. The applicant is prop. 'ng to remove the existing pool which is situated approximately 164 feet < `ead of the average lakeshore setb.• line and approximately 135 feet from the lake. Further, it doe . t appear the proposed addition will negate•_ impact views of the lake enjoyed by the adjacent p ,•.erties. Staff recommend . proval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Page 29 • • Subject: 11-3521,Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle, Hardcover&Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Public Hearing The applicant would like to improve the aesthetics of the existing home with proposed cosmetic changes to the exterior including new siding and exterior finish materials and changes to the existing roof by replacing existing skylights with dormers on the lake side of the home. Reorientation of the existing lake-side deck, driveway and a garage addition are also proposed. In 1995, a previous owner was granted hardcover variances in order to rearrange hardcover on the property; hardcover calculations were based on a 1991 survey. The property was granted, at that time, a variance allowing 42.9% (7,515 s.f.) hardcover within the 75' to 250' zone. The hardcover calculations for that variance application appear to have been calculated by the applicant and after a recent staff analysis were determined to be very inaccurate. To summarize, the hardcover calculations were inaccurate and neither the percentage nor the square footage should be used as a reference. Staff conducted a comparison of the 1991 survey and the as- built survey submitted by the applicant in order to resolve the inconsistency with the numbers. It appears little on the property has changed since the 1991 survey. Thus the current survey and hardcover calculations, minus the landscape areas lined with plastic and/or fabric, reflect the actual 1995 approved hardcover level. Staff believes 5,095 square feet or 30.5% to be the actual level of hardcover approved with the 1995 resolution (Resolution No. 3571). This number was used as the basis for staff's hardcover analysis. The applicant is proposing to remove a 32' x 12' portion of the upper level, lake-side deck, construct a new smaller portion of deck to fill in the corner behind the garage and construct a 555 square foot garage addition on the street side of the home. Due to the change in location and nature of the existing, approved hardcover from non-structural to structural hardcover a variance is required. The existing home is situated partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The shoreline curves in this area of Casco Point and while the applicant's property is nearly in line with the home to the east, it sits ahead of the home on the west. The applicant is proposing to construct roof dormers on the lake side of the home in the place of existing skylights in order to improve the appearance. No additional living space is proposed in this area.The dormers would not extend closer to the lake than the existing roof. The applicant would also like to remove portions of the deck from within the average lakeshore setback on the east side of the property and relocate it partially in the notch at the rear of the garage farther from the lake. The new portions of the deck would continue to be ahead of the average lakeshore setback, yet would not encroach further than the existing deck. There is a considerable amount of existing vegetation along the west side of the applicant's property line. This vegetation screens the applicant's property from the neighbor to the west. The applicant should be asked to address whether or not the vegetation will be maintained or enhanced as part of the discussion. Staff finds practical difficulty exists with respect to the curving shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line cutting through the applicant's home. The applicant is not proposing to • FILE#11-3521 10 August 2011 Page 2 of 2 increase hardcover above the existing, approved level and is not proposing to encroach further into the average lakeshore setback with the improvements. Staff does not find that the dormers or the deck will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by adjacent properties. Staff recently met with Charlie Jones, the neighbor on the west. Mr. Jones provided an email to the planning commission outlining his concerns. Staff Recommendation As the applicant is not proposing an increase in the hardcover level, Planning Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance as requested. Staff also recommends approval of average lakeshore setback variance for the deck rearrangement and roof dormers. The existing vegetative screening should be maintained and/or enhanced. Plastic or fabric liners should be required to be removed from all landscape areas, including the area within the 75-foot setback from the lake, as part of any approval. The plans should be revised to reflect the city engineer's recommendations prior to placement on a City Council agenda. T,r A a �/`���� -ro V� s' ra lea�i�� ? M - va t,v14 y q1 q/W1 G plaahii ei 6e(-k-ei) 'isW5 (a))-Lc) C - kow goa(A4 be At(/6p-ek) ___ &v.04z? apck, iev-2 ie'Cc - . - � G��G� ��7l� G * a 2. /M-1 ibivc-Ne niu&o` ra (--e-e) to-t 1 w- aotA vvuov'e a out to as el LIA&Lc Lam. souLak-t- lAt ivah aoe ov-e12 frec v (� a Ad to( ` b�' (.e- 0 Ayr fi- get-attachment.aspx(JPEG Image,2592x1944 pixels)- Scaled(47%) http://mail.aol.com/34007-31 1/aol-1/en-us/mail/get-attac.hment.aspx?... • III ,., Is R4 43 1 $"fir. � �1� . ,-�• - I. k �' / i o9tjjF1.,i'I.�AK4r.., vi'£4a... ■ _ � ' 1._ . 1/' v gig. S •F7ggg 4. A a ", 4.. 11 t _ :" .'. r ,k .., ---, _ . ,. • _ , . • ,_; s . ��'1 t. v fd4F \ --_ ` y ' , 4 r 1 } �,, 'fr`, • 4"4 , a V` ,, 4 ti3 ., f. r . 0� Yti 0 0 HARDCOVER 00 SF 75-250 AREA = 16700 SF 250 + AREA = 2000 SF -135 SFADJ DRIVES=16565 SF -185 SF ADJ DRIVES =1815 SF X 25% = 4141 SF HCA X 30% = 544 SF HCA EXISTING EXISTING / 9% HOUSE = 2400 SF DRIVE = 1165 SF WLK STP = 200 SF RETWALL = 20 SF PATIO = 825 SF LSR = 300 SF (REMOVE) DRIVE = 1460 SF TOTAL = 1485 SF / 81.8 % RETWLLS = 70 SF LSR = 1360 SF (REMOVE) TOTAL = 6315 SF / 37.8% PROPOSED PROPOSED HOUSE = 2955 SF DRIVE 1185 SF / 651.3% , f / 9% ROOOH = 210 SF REDUCTION = 300SF2t116.. X- WLK STPS = 175 SF A ' DECK = 615 SF �-'' DRIVE = 1 100 SF ' o-'• ��040' TOTAL = 5055 SF /. 30.55% \ g6�� ' � �\-� °R ,. REDUCTION = 1266 SF/ 7.6 -, ,`--........_ M -`b�$--- •. , ROCeem--~ D / ©R� TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = 1560 S S. `,. \WALL g61A o <0 i ' OE- o ' 4D--1 ‘N"1/4 .--,4" r° 0.6°. \ -y- \ 039, 30 - 49 • AkPi.�/� 4-'14° ' ADJ C.. N O `\ 6: `-.. a - 7PROf OSED c N //\71 N� �. �65 gF, � � I � ��' REMOVE D 31.6 ��s` I. D 1 PE / ‘� \� 3 WALK AND a� o ' 1 g 3' / / ` I AND 'AND. gig' r O� I \., I i I N- g56 '1 `` r 5 W � C `_'9 3 E<g--„ , , AI / Ill EXISTING - -"= ' 1` PROP7SE' .S, I - I ` II! VD.,..-WOOD STEP )1f-`; GARA.�{G. E 5r:` !1 3 5 i �--, ;I.gS'ADDI nION ' n - ' ' g5ti I 1 5 c ....XSFIi S .5 , X 24 3 .5 t. :' iRl.. !�.�: i �- __ .�° , tV ------- FLOOR E Ow, III \ I ' GFE=952.5 `.... �� ---\- - Iii >N (VERIF9)... "'�-`SQ,; ifix I i;,- �, FFE=95 4 .3 49.0 `75 �L III N -zi... I 1 ri,91 ---- __ _,_ , '_EXISTING -, _ - _. - I I ' ' I 'I _____ - ____I_ _ s i WALLS , -- . T-- &:4 " —�_ I FXISTIN , I I I? ,:' - �-- _.. PROPOSED 0 . , • , . ,.\,\, \ HOUSE = 2955 SF 1370 SF / 68.5% \<. = 640 :)i- / ,,,1-x, ROOT01-1 -,-,- 210 ST RED'UCTN 3--- :;00 :31-'4.', 11 5) .' . ', ...„--...,-- \ ---- V WLK SIPS = 200 SF - - - -, ...---,.,, DECK = 615 SF DRIVE = 1 1 15 SF \ k.N> 1P ------------- ---- \ 12 --- TOTAL = 5095 SF /...,30.5%-' \ - ,, ,-->-: --.,...._ \ ..ddill __ , ,--\ REDUCTION = 12‘2Q SF/7.3%-- ,. co -,-,..-_, - 5'..-- , ---- ' -,,,----. -----@ `--. -------. ----- ....____:- y , ,.\14), , . , -, \ ... - ROCK RET -- ---) / 'OC.2--;- \\\ , TOTAL SITE SITE REDUCTION = '1655 SF , 5. \ ,tiALL cp s> ca z ,,1_, 1 • \ „•,, 0 .,,,..,.•-• ,, 9 .,. - •6,0 \ z,.)_ ',, 6,-1,.. \ 5 . -9. ...- \\ -r- ... '\-00 0,---- ,), fr ‘. k •'C) / n---- 30c ADJCEN-___ DRIVES 0 01•,,,,- \\- ''' / „lc?\ \ ---- ....„..0 A I ,_,: '' -)\‘'''.'-. ..-%-- -- .' - 25'0 SBL OHY,1 <2.2_/1, ,,., • • 'C-5` / -0- ,' -- -5_____:-__.--- ---------\- - \'/ \ N-,,9 TS- :• - ,,. , ---- 10 • .., .1 N JO T , -- I \ •cp N -...„ I / EXISTING 0 , N - / 0 --( HOUSE -,•,.c\-- .01 --- 7.PRO OSEDv -;---2. Ns , 1-N - 1,.• #3129 N REMOVE 'EXISTING IVE x ' N I r\\ / WALK-41ND STEPS-- /'Ai 0 1 --1 /I /1 \ /NO' / t\ 7 7 \ A A/r1-7/\-A Ancy,A 0/Air' - I Y,Y-3\1,94• ,sx•I' t ' \\ \,‘, I 4 --,),,,..k. ,---,, -o: .,:t.-/-1 1 V ./•-.1 L.•/-11 I I 1 f t-/ \ I I /I ,,,•AII...-- \. . ---- ---,±-7.- ----(40' 9 / / ,., ,5 • / 11' .. - REMOVE EXISTING-----';'--- ---1-----::::----, q) [ PROPbSEP vs'C A 1 / , 11' • ,„,ii . : ,1 / ‘- i cARAIGE ,,,T:\ ;4, ' 4I ' I -DR/YE AND -WO-OD STEP • 1 ,i,.. ADDITION '----1,—-L.' ' 9b111 '------N- (2.. c, r: -7--;.----,-------_, --- MATCH' EX757ING 1,11C511 X 24.3 aj-__ - 4_11,:ln_ alrm t- -- :0: Ill 1 .._ sir_ 0 _ satam , (.4 ----- GARAGE FLOOR ' ---__' E. 1 i.A.c l!ii\ ri GFE-----952. '4' .• INME t- ELEVATION (VERIFY) .-----------:-__-"S&k, icr, •i, • I FFE=954.3 49.0 1 -,-,4 _ ..4.. . , r \ .ii9-,„ 1 _ \ -. REMOYE--EXISTING — _ _ _ - la t,- .1 --------- —_ _ -- - --_____ _ 1 f's ri,..____, EXI_ 1 ...j?ErAINING WALLS , _...... Iitoill 23.7 I EXISTING tr -----4-------, ill b- Q..) ----------. _ _:' HI ----.- AND LANDSCAPING 1 -- _ „ ,i oi c.:,,, # -...._ },t w O1 . HOUSE_ (0 1.--4! fi. . , 9 , frpR. . -1.CLI 31-3-1 ca 1 ., -• to . ,i ill oo 1 _ - , 1\N t0)9 143; -130 1 1 185 A V --A10-J SBL ------ , ,-..,,........_ --\ *I..,..-3n,-\n 2 Ii950tIl Lo 1412.7 - . -\ 2 - ---------- 'i 11,-- 0 7 I LFE=9•414.4 0?) -it-----_ ---- 1_, eCK ' -- ----- C.7-. NI-- 'IiIllitell--(1111\\\,,,\I -;.'Pl\l lk- ).r-r'-‘...-11—KciC".)5--1,213 -7-c\141D'...,9(*E.L36.Cf.-717PD.,'1ETRI'Cl2NO C---74-/ 74:11 Z.1-7-11\ 144.1.---- - -2 -6 1---77:77,;-.11D'i __. ....• _ \ .........7...„_._„..,,.„...:...._...,_ ."„ ,.,„ .,,, ._ , REMO-VE EXISTING - N \ - ---I' -z----. ----,t4y, t IC.N., - , 1 1 -1 cA TIO AND DECK -1-1- I--- - --—-----'1- i ._1---- - ri — ',to-- - - - - - ---- -- •--91-'<.1-313 _....i-'-'ttr' ' - REMOVE EXISTING ,a\ 11 , II: 1 1 ,: tt-5• \\___ _ ., ., . \ III f?ETAINI,A/G Wr A L L S ! 1 \ i N , I — — 1IN i I 1\0 ill AND LANDSCAPING t 1 _ I — $ \ I .-- cY)I I \°, 11 .--------, .„ ...!; ..-- II 1 _- ---- •1 I . ,..1 .. I N \ I \,,,, , 4. . I i / / -.;,, \ryii III \ I //1 -5'6• 1,1 1 a T FENCE 1 -,,, . \ \ \' \ I 7/ l_______.- --- 17--2-----U------T---t:l: Y_E,3§EmENT ' --c) 9'III .5\,1,P7:), '. ''N-N1 7-----`--094\ ---- 0 I 1 r 1 - ________ N ,P-E-R—DOCI. NOT 3- \ I tt / I IN I \ oil i to• c:7,11 N... \ „ 7 __----__ ---- ----- __,551.„ Ni_ IN , '5) \ ,:r—K — -- —4-z-, - .-_i I 1 -•,,,,,. - \ ' A -\ A 7 Erl ''-- I A 1 / 1 L '• .,-' LI l ) r • C A \ , E N i----/-, r I N - t , - ,_ i . . .- 1 1_ ,f, / I _ . I • k N. _ ,--. \ _ i i ; I I \ '00f I \N _ ,_i_ - ------- - ---- -------'''' ---75 Tht-31—, 0._± Hisi ----(,,, ..___ - --___11:1 „ 0 0 I.I 'N \ 0 \\I tl 1 \ I \ -- 00 b I\ \ „Or\ ,0 1 \\, 1 N •-,.., 1 `1)" 0 1.P. --0 • I \ No' .. --_____---- I `--, I t I \ \ Q- i \ \ `)N i N -...,„/ 1 \ N i ,, i \ \ ,, ... , ....•_... , b 1 . ,„ I 4 _._,__ 03 . 1 , i \II /, , ________ 1 _ 1 - 1 ,i.-5--- , \ %.36 \ ........,_ , 95 --------_. __ —• ,/ - - -I - -I- -- .z ...._., —--,_,I .,. ..,- ---i'• — ---_ \ -1----. . — C) , --_______________ I- - - 9 10 1_15b:C- ., ---- \--- -_Z• / .--- \ ---- rz_____Ai 77.54, .,„.... , 4,- I ...............______ __ __..,...— .. 915___ suFev ------ -45" W --... / 1_____--- ii. .-- ------ - _-.-_-__. --t-itv - --,....--- ..__ ---- 1- __ ___ -- ___ _ , --1- --------_- ---- — — — -----___ ---- -57• I ..------ -"------,„4 -1---„.I 20 40 60 --------- ----..---....--------._ R-ip--------pt,,-------p •17_9-75-3 --I--- --_------ -_, __RAp-4----- ________ DESCRIPTION: — LOT 44 AND THAT I 41-;S3* LYING WEST OF LH' - (P-N---- SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / CALE IN FEET g9- 7 , OF AND PARALLEL t ..•,› OHW 929.4 - TL-1 AT 0 A DT nr I rvr a • • Melanie Curtis From: Charles R Jones [crj333@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:59 AM To: Loren Schoenzeit(lorens@att.net); Denise Leskinen (denise@wlwd.com); Hue Alexander (huealexander@gmail.com); Linda Feuss (lufeuss@feusslaw.com); Lizz Levang (clevang@aol.com); Jon Schwingler(jonschwing@aol.com); jtheisse@srfconsulting.com; Kevin Landgraver; Melanie Curtis Subject: Fwd: 3131 Casco Circle proposed upgrades Begin forwarded message: From: Charles R Jones <crj333@aol.com> Date: August 12, 2011 10:49:45 AM CDT To: crj333@aol.com Subject: 3131 Casco Circle proposed upgrades Dear Planning Commission, I live adjacent to the property at 3131 Casco Circle belonging to Tami Helmer. I have objections to the proposed plan for reasons of privacy and hardcover issues. The proposed deck reconfiguration moves existing deck from the East side of the structure to the west. It also juts out a few more feet than the existing deck affecting my sightline slightly. Ms Helmers request to afford herself a more private deck results in a less private porch for my mother's property. The addition of an additional garage, without the addition of additional driveway is puzzling. The proposed addition of ten feet of garage area in order to add the screen porch again affects my view from the West. The tradeoff of deck on the southeast side of the house for garage on the northeast indeed changes the character of the setting for my home. I would be looking at a much larger looking home with the addition of the garage and the deck on the West end of the house. I will try to attend the meeting on Monday. In the meantime, I can be contacted at crj333@aol.com, or 952-471- 9788 home or 612-701-9838. I apologize for not having this written correspondence available in your packet for this meeting. Charles R. Jones 3129 Casco Circle i • • Melanie Curtis From: Charles R Jones [crj333@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 10:59 AM To: Loren Schoenzeit(lorens@att.net); Denise Leskinen (denise@wlwd.com); Hue Alexander (huealexander@gmail.com); Linda Feuss (lufeuss@feusslaw.com); Lizz Levang (clevang@aol.com); Jon Schwingler(jonschwing@aol.com);jtheisse@srfconsulting.com; Kevin Landgraver; Melanie Curtis Subject: Fwd: 3131 Casco Circle proposed upgrades Begin forwarded message: From: Charles R Jones <cr1333@aol.com> Date: August 12, 2011 10:49:45 AM CDT To: crj333@aol.com Subject: 3131 Casco Circle proposed upgrades Dear Planning Commission, I live adjacent to the property at 3131 Casco Circle belonging to Tami Helmer. I have objections to the proposed plan for reasons of privacy and hardcover issues. The proposed deck reconfiguration moves existing deck from the East side of the structure to the west. It also juts out a few more feet than the existing deck affecting my sightline slightly. Ms Helmers request to afford herself a more private deck results in a less private porch for my mother's property. The addition of an additional garage, without the addition of additional driveway is puzzling. The proposed addition of ten feet of garage area in order to add the screen porch again affects my view from the West. The tradeoff of deck on the southeast side of the house for garage on the northeast indeed changes the character of the setting for my home. I would be looking at a much larger looking home with the addition of the garage and the deck on the West end of the house. I will try to attend the meeting on Monday. In the meantime, I can be contacted at crj333@aol.com, or 952-471- 9788 home or 612-701-9838. I apologize for not having this written correspondence available in your packet for this meeting. Charles R. Jones 3129 Casco Circle i • • • CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OF ORONO I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of#11-3521 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of August, 2011. V74HyrZet, Monica A. Fadness • • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on August 15, 2011, beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications and vacation request: 11-3517 Patti Hylen, 1299 Wildhurst Trail, LR-1B zoning district, requests a side street setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the rear portion of the home 11.7-feet from the street side lot line where a 35-foot setback is required and a 9.4- foot setback currently exists. 11-3518 William H. Koch, 3251 Casco Circle, LR-1C zoning district, requests a conditional use permit for grading in excess of 10 cubic yards within the 0-75 foot zone in order to reconstruct the lake access stair and remove existing, failing, retaining walls; a hardcover variance to allow 6.1% hardcover where 5.9% currently exists within the 0-75' zone to reorient the stairs; and a hardcover variance within the 75'-250' zone in order to conduct landscaping activities including new retaining walls, a new patio and repair and reconstruction of the existing driveway in more efficient configuration resulting in 38.9% hardcover where 32.8% currently exists. 11-3519 Bauer Design Build LLC on behalf of JEM Technical Marketing Co, Inc., 550 Old Crystal Bay Road N, Industrial zoning district, requests a commercial site plan review in order to construct an addition to the existing building; vacation of the existing water main utility easement is also proposed. The water main will be relocated and a new easement will be granted over the water main in the new location. 11-3520 Harold & Sandra Wingerd, 1376 Baldur Park Road, LR-1C zoning district, request hardcover variances in order to reorient the garage doors and driveway access to the property. The applicants request a variance to allow 40.24% hardcover within the northeast 0-75' zone where 40.83% currently exists; a variance to allow 13.25% hardcover within the southwest 0-75' zone where 9.21% currently exists; and a variance to allow 46.5% hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 37.23% currently exists in order to realign the driveway completely within the subject property. 11-3521 Tami Helmer, 3131 Casco Circle, LR-1C zoning district, requests variances in order to reorient and reduce the existing lakeside decks, reorient the driveway, add dormers on the lake side of the home, and construct a garage addition on the street side of the home. An average lakeshore setback variance and a variance within the 75'- 250' zone is required to allow 30.5% hardcover where 30.5% currently exists are requested in order to change the location of structural hardcover. 11-3522 Steiner & Koppelman on behalf of Nancy Bigos, 3350 Fox Street, LR-1A zoning district, requests an average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the existing home partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. • • All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by, August 9, 2011 if possible. Interested persons may review the application at City offices. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By: Planning Commissio Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator To be published in The Laker& The Pioneer Newspapers on July 30, 2011. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office 7 • RUN DATE: 7/13/2011 HENNEPIN C•Y PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY 04 LIST) PAGE: 1 38 20-117-23 34 0007 38 20-117-23 34 0008 38 20-117-23 34 0022 TAMI R HELMER JOANNE D JONES TRUSTEE FREDERICK C PETERS 3131 CASCO CIR 3129 CASCO CIR 3127 CASCO CIR TAMI R HELMER JOANNE D JONES FREDERICK C PETERS 3131 CASCO CIR 5100 FRANCE AVE S#104 3127 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 EDINA MN 55410 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0029 38 20-117-23 43 0030 K A SHEEHAN&N A SHEEHAN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 3135 CASCO CIR 3133 CASCO CIR KEVIN A&NOELLE A SHEEHAN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 18479 SCHROERS FARM RD 3133 CASCO CIR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 ORONO MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRES ARE ,:AC AND TR REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION fr AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORD HE CO UA 'Y AXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. DATE: JUL 3 7n1i RECEWED JUL 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO Affidavit of Public an 9 State of Minnesota, County of Hennenpin. Keith P. Anderson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.)The newspaper has complied with all the require- ments constituting qualifieation> o o *'m F.o o=o o c m m °o a m • w Z ro newspaper, as provided by Mir aa2 �� ,D- mcpF �� t F, = �3a5�0-1 ca0 o° s ° -Do 331 A.02, 33IA.07, and other ° c d° ° `-' a s io 5 w 7'N Q al° ° o r n o app co ofm -8o� m <° :,3-E, .- al 0 . zm 0s� T m � m.a_.<p m ° No� F3 1 m ��oom m `° m Smo Zm X7 , Enr amended. Co x, 2i ° O .<-<m � °' u1 �fD � �Nm y `� m �+ amm?°' mm, i -o.< '-."Oo.�o � Z�1 � � « an,wc'-,<"cDu, m * a� .c m .mow-' 3Co<oD -cw 0� vNm 11O> l h\J y (II S N (O O"_ -7 N r— w * t/, r 7) * `0 = A C N`G co co -n B.) Theprinted ��1ICC_ /`/. �wowoo ' o Jew cocwi ° w " o:7DF wc, " R Opp ro.. rnx0z • a arc" o 9 co o-m > 5 6 3 a ° m _^ N co m.< 3 a-co g r -P.m- m 33 0 3c° CD � ° -7 * w ° ° axo,N ° °cD ° 2coNN.< Eao= mw0 -= jAN Zn o - Famco? 3 .3= o '. r7 °o °o°m ° m a -c >wco3 cci'm ._ �Om w Q ° m o ° ° < o 0,a a D g N 0 c(-:--kak..-CLAC — 4-Cf. L3 � °° w �'�o d m c �w w.�� �Q� �.� S w ° :� O 77 �w co 7 x NN x. ° aN N 7-N N aN co o. x U wmommNaa7.0000 'm - xv mm0R-(t' CO 7coCDDN mo which is attached was cut from the W m 5 A-5'-1 a 5 °-r CC • o E.8 J°< E.y .-m E r • w 3 ° • A, <p C7 • �.(D v�, 7 O O �. fD p, G • o a 7 _.CD a N CD W r • N tp O m newspaper, and war printed and ,o a m ; �N?o y m w co m m m < ° a ; 0 ° a m a _ ,< -c�, _ c each week for 3uccc aspm °° w ° � o° o 82?ooa . � oC>5W 5c . =vm >> � a0°.ge, o ° jw am 0 ON CD C) 5° 2 s__° ?��s< _- N CO- 5-� m o 0I2 COa CT( `~ o5) 0 0 • o(D ° fmii n 1 CD CD <D w CD * w C w 0 A, C) 7 ° C)O m m 2 o`L z CD (p N P, 1 C a I o 5 V O =q N m 2'N° ° CD N j - I 5 P, 3 N 3 ° ' O W 1 o ° It was first published Saturday N N "'I <D a.,Cn*`< o^ o to N,D N(o m N •°+N m 7 5 Co C7 r N =.w'3J 3 ;N ry c m X O N ' -2 N W n a co N -` N 5 to.x_N..CD N n O_ _°N N.N O.- CD m _ � 0.m � om �x-,,VA �0,m_cn0 -(.72mco0yFflo w °_mom o0 -, 0., Nao25a) the day of • � N 0m m w N a N ° N 0-.-� � .corn 5i 3 0K0 0 m ^^7 N ° O w o o 0 ° w <D a° ^T Qp - *<O o m N 0 w -a° and was thereafter print d and o m ' .3 o iv a m m < m° 2 <-o °o o p m m o m CT 2.a ° m a x <o -° a. d I' ocnaa w =-°-88E.355c-)0 * - 2 - Saturday, to arid including Saturc m a m a C m( m° D<, m§E.? m co' ° m o°, a m m 2 w a N W m () mCD<oo� � �ocp..,. mOm <ao�° m • •.. m _ a m 3 • the 30 day of �.�1^/' Ivy K zrC�� wC� -° C�m2ow �-6;3m ) v"oog2c'no • omwogv, o<oo a o < o 0 o m ua ° F m d ° - a o m n - 74 O m Q =.a - N co'- N -o° N o to s N"0O j. N 0 m 7 N° <(D a N W 2 °O=N<CD N N n, o cD =3- Co -I m o w ^ �- 7,cn °° x= f, N ? (Q N CD x Cp w 7 0 o O a,.-"0 Q.CD n ? O N`< CL N D'-n N C a-°° * N< OW �, / . •�` a tt•� 0 D.< ?o D=' m�0 <w Fa° m m :> j M° I m -' m ocii m a° �r Z m � N.. °o v0 coo n' < N °a§° ° f. cm o m � Zm ga wino m o Ow° 0 cnmmcT ° oo ° z wm „,CD mo.< a Nnm° v»� o �o f ,m 0s� m ° ao o a?m m w o w mm <o 0 �0° 3 N�� . .7 .,2 s.•2, 'cos°,,EN,< <'^n o ? .sow " ° ° A m m o min B. . w -0- •o� m ao m m f w P.m Q, :-, M w ao aa, sa <n 2 ° N'< p, m w.'M N N s U N Cr x..O x co 01.°° m N m ° a 0 O _N 73 L(D .Co N CD CD co O m.CO co 7 T N < - w 7 Cs m ° c •o,.o-D c m o m cc; � ot.m° C0 7 w"0 m m < a, m W _c w a) P.9, CDgC amour, <co oao-° o2 2w_ mc°c < a ° m gg N3a+ ow3a moc°. m �.ocD ,ow,c *a.w �vp. °.. Subscribed and sworn to me an this = , ° w ^'�a iD m a CD m m 7 ..X > 7 P.CD a N CD CD Cll ?- day of � 4g —., 20 11 By: r �, Notary Pub is 4t.1jco.„ : " NOTARY Alin,ie-MMESOTA Rate information (1)Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for com- parable space:$15.50 par inch. (2)Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter:$15.50. (3)Rate actually charged for above matter:$7.80 per inch. Each additional successive week:$5.40. Affidavit of Pubition 1 State of Minnesota, County of Hennt npin. Keith P. Anderson, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authotzed agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE PIO- NEER, Long Lake, Minnesota, and has full knowl- edge of the facts which are stated below; LEGAL NOTICE the garage doors and driveway CITY OF ORONO access to the property. The appli- 2750 Kelley Parkway,P.O.Box 66 cants request a variance to allow A.}The newspaper has complied with all the require- Crystal Bay,MN 55323 40.24%hardcover within the north- ntentS Constituting qualifications as a qualified Phone(952)249-4600 east 0-75'zone where 40.83%cur- Fax(952)249-4616 rently exists; a variance to allow newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 13.25%hardcover within the south- 331 A.0 $ 1�i.07, snd other appiiolble lEtWrfi, B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING west 0-75'zone where 9.21%cur- PLANNING COMMISSION rently exists; and a variance to amended. allow 46.5% hardcover within the 1 < The Orono Planning Commission 75'-250' zone where 37.23% cur- will;f � hold a public hearing in the rently exists in order to realign the B.) The printed Orono Council Chambers at driveway completely within the sub- 2780 Kelley Parkway on August 15, ject property. 1 2011,beginning at 6:30 p.m.on the // �� �[ J 0 C iV n O matter of reviewing the following • 11-3521 - Tami Helmer, 3131 land use applications and vacation Casco Circle,LR-1 C zoning district, request: requests variances in order to reori- ent and reduce the existing lake- Which is attached was cut from the columns of said • 11-3517 - Patti Hylen, 1299 side decks, reorient the driveway, Wildhurst Trail, LR-1 B zoning dis- add dormers on the lake side of the newspaper, and was printed and published once trict,requests a side street setback home,and construct a garage addi- each week for ( successive weeks: , variance to allow construction of an tion on the street side of the home. addition to the rear portion of the An average lakeshore setback vari- home 11.7-feet from the street side ance and a variance within the 75'- It was first published Saturday, f lot line where a 35-foot setback is 250' zone is required to allow - required and a 9.4-foot setback cur- 30.5%hardcover where 30.5%cur- -, \ ("- rently exists. rently exists are requested in order the 0G clay of A 2011 to change the location of structural and was thereafterprinted and blished every •Cas11-co Circle,18- LA-1 H.zoning district, 3251 hardcover. Casco LR-1 C zoning district, Saturday, to and including Saturday, requests a conditional use permit • 11-3522-Steiner& Koppelman for grading in excess of 10 cubic on behalf of Nancy Bigos,3350 Fox yards within the 0-75 foot zone in Street, LR-1A zoning district, 1 the `�(_) day of 20 11 order to reconstruct the lake access requests an average lakeshore set- 7 stair and remove existing, failing, back variance to allow construction retaining walls; a hardcover vari- of an addition to the existing home f ance to allow 6.1% hardcover partially ahead of the average r e' z where 5.9% currently exists within lakeshore setback line. the 0-75'zone to reorient the stairs; t j y+ and a hardcover variance within the All persons wishing to.be heard are ,, re ..441i574.4. 75'-250' zone in order to conduct encouraged to attend these meet- Authorized Agent landscaping activities including new ings. This is not a final agenda and retaining walls, a new patio and is subject to change prior to the repair and reconstruction of the hearings. Written comments are existing driveway in more efficient accepted and should be submitted configuration resulting in 38.9% to the City of Orono by, August 9, Subscribed and swo to me on this hardcover where 32.8% currently 2011 if possible. Interested per- exists. sons may review the application at day Of / t'!�� City offices. For an appointment, o • 11,3519 - Bauer Design Build please call(952)249-4620. /� LLC on behalf of JEM Technical // Marketing Co,Inc.,550 Old Crystal City of Orono r� 1 Bay Road N, Industrial zoning dis- By: Planning Commission C9� Mot, requests a commercial site plan review in order to construct an Posted at Orono City Offices Notary Public addition to the existing building; Crystal Bay Post Office vacation of the existing water main Long Lake Post Office • utility easement is also proposed. Navarre Post Office �, The water main will be relocated iNOF4MA R. C AApSTENSEIV y � a and a new easement will be grant- Melanie Curtis NOTARYi�UE3LIC-MINNESOTA ed over the water main in the new Planning&Zoning Coordinator c a My Comm Exp,Jan.31,2014 location: , F,ua 040, z ang,w ve•ttlfa.,, �.4,44v7,4„r+A (Published in The Laker and The , • 11-3520 - Harold & Sandra Pioneer newspapers, July 30, Wingero, 1376 Baldur Park Road, 2011.) �t� Information cover zoning district,request hard- cover variances in order to reorient (1)Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for com- parable apace:$15.50 per inch. (2)Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter:$15.50. (9)Rata actuali'anarchic,for above matter:ST.itO per inch. t soh additional a jcca;aius, 5:$5.40. • • Melanie Curtis From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 10:55 AM To: 'rmsterns@comcast.net' Cc: Mike Sharratt; Stever Lemke (slemke@sharrattdesign.com) Subject: RE: Helmer Hardcover Whatever the adjustments are, the"proposed"still must not the exceed"existing"minus landscape areas. Melanie Gut 152.2'}11-621 mcuvtiscci.ovono.mn.us From: rmsternsCacomcast.net f mailto:rmsterns@comcast.neti Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 9:58 AM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Mike Sharratt; Stever Lemke (slemkeCa�sharrattdesign.com) Subject: Re: Helmer Hardcover Melanie- more existing HC is being removed than the landscape (LS) marked walk stp = 200 SF patio = 825 SF 450 SF of existing drive is being removed / replaced by proposed garage addition I only showed the LS as additional removed HC because it would not have to be removed for the proposed construction. will this info change the allowed proposed HC ? thanks Randy Stern From: "Melanie Curtis" <MCurtis(a�ci.orono.mn.us> To: "Stever Lemke (slemkeCa�sharrattdesicin.com)" <slemkesharrattdesign.com> Cc: "Mike Sharratt" <MSharratt(c�sharrattdesign.com>, "Randy Sterns" <rmsterns(c�comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:08:03 AM Subject: Helmer Hardcover Steve i • Please see the attached. It appears to me, according to the new adjusted "existing" hardcover, 100 square feet must be removed from the "proposed" in order to balance. Call me to discuss if you have questions. Melanie Melanie Curtis Planning & Zoning Coordinator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Direct Dial: 952.249.4627 Fax: 952.249.4616 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 Email: mcurtisa,ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us Summer Office Hours (Monday, May 23rd to Friday, September 2nd) Monday - Thursday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm Friday 7:30 am to 11:30 am 2 he'Bonestroo litilatrilicti-o6-00:i :a. 1 , , : : t.. 1..:(00.....'fri.%X........iitti.: ....L,.40H,......12r-4.r*:,* ..w. t a. ::.... . a a b ' .. : b.. i ; 1::::4.4.4-'51---J!!!!!4.----X14-44±„.!1, Ill ' ii ! ,!-, xI ... . s . l WHIM c .... .'' a ,. :. tom_. :.__. r1 mmn�ex... x i i , 41-1. i••••;• I 1 i......! :' 1 .i i.iiii,ziik ,a1 jell j. 1 1 ! 1 I A'../L±. g '. a it ; i i e i i e i ^fig �.. ; LMJ : o- j... iiiiiiiii r riiiitiiii s 3 ... ..xxxa�' i ' 1—WHIIII i.11HIWI t .vx w.rA.a...:,..„.L....w....L.wx......1.... . w._..::...L..+_.........A„,,.1„-L xmwrmo.....,,...,e..L....,_,i—..o..e.e ...a • • HARDCOVER 00 SF 75-250 AREA = 16700 SF 250 + AREA = 2000 SF -135 SFADJ DRIVES=16565 SF -185 SF ADJ DRIVES =1815 SF X 25% = 4141 SF HCA X 30% = 544 SF HCA . 00 EXISTING EXISTING e'640/e0 / 9% HOUSE = 2400 SF DRIVE = 1165 SF 1120° WLK STP = 200 SF RETWALL = 20 SF 177D (� PATIO = 825 SF LSR = 300 SF (REMOVE) ° DRIVE = 1460 SF TOTAL = 1485 SF / 81.8 %--� — - „ aa'o RIjRWLLS 13600 SFF REMOVE - `p,0 16� 2 s ( ) fib- I3 If 4. TOTAL = 6315 SF / 37.8% v r nG� PROPOSED PROPOSED J HOUSE = 2955 SF DRIVE = 1185 SF / 651.3% :\, / 9% ROOF OH = 210 SF REDUCTION = 300 SF,X 1 5Z � i � WLK SIPS = 175 SF .r<, �� DECK 615 SF Lia> DRIVE 1 100 SF ; . off ` D SF OVY TOTAL = = 50 5. SF / 30.55 �.• g622 g\- 01., REDUCTION = 126b,\SF/ 7.6 -�_� _`---0.� „� :6 ♦ ROCK RET. 7` ORS TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = 1560 SF\ PS• `.'. WALL g61' : o �� e�i .� 95 " O / �`9 - 60 \4°� 1, ., -1�s 0IL21g5 aF -- _ P��/ 0o �.` c 9� 3 Q�� .� �' 6$f a� Ss, ADJ10E ,ec 00 5���� 4 :: !2 SBA OHW ���� . I. 1. / S :11,..., _a„ - ;PROPPOSED / \2 ' REMO VE ; 11 D1/VE 31.6 ;i P� / \ !, , i \� WALf��1ND I... —975 3 . +-` '..9SA / III -- EXISTING------'-'-:---- - n PROPOSE, . . I � ICI VD„-WOOD STEP )41-', GARAGE s2� i �.. is; ( �s�ADDILION ..t..��. gs2�I / 5 f� --1• _��/ 9 .5 _ .s - .-1- b1�Rf..� _ e_ _w. p 1;! tV _., "l sp. 1,, I .+ X 24.3 0 ,,T-,,- -`(- t I0• `I "7_ , FLOOR \ Lb . ... III �, , ' GFE=952. -tr._. �� - \sR - °�t Iil N }N {VERIFY) -..'�S(91 IN i i;- FFE=95 4 .3 49.0 g Ii} N �_. --_- II F 4' _.,_ I I 1,9. _XISTING -, _ _ _ - ;I it I "I --• _ - - -___ l_ - 5 `{' WALLS -- . - 0:4 .�` �I- FXISTIN(, I ' 1? ;; - _ ,„ HOUSE = 2955 SF . 1 D/u r / 00.07o I ' LSR = 640 SF / 9% WLK\STP = 185. SF REDUCTION = 300 SF/159% .... / DECK 6,15 SF 2L - - DRIVE z215 SF I �o i ��P��� '_ ADJDR -`''130 .• TOTAL = 6100 SF ` .�36.5%::\s. \ ``\ g6`�� $\� °R\ v /REDUCTION = 355�,SF/2:2% ` \ `y-- R- �P\ �` �• `�- ROCKRET. 2 ' ORS%/ \\TOTAL SITE REDUCTION = \\1655 SF \�.� � \WALL g61'\ o ���� /�,A1 \� 9 5\�L'. o 9s �60 of '\ .1.gi QQ• �g i. P.• •cP \ \ P� ��•o o, � \ / \_ti �JQ''�2 G`G g� �' 9 � �P� ' • 6$ o,,•, �y0 %�ADJ CENT ��IIR S\6 2� ,,, \ / ,c \ �g5�1� �/1 = I -.250 SBL OHW, j • • I..;, 4_\ 1•' / ��� \�\ ,. ` ts • EXISTING I�j' -� / I // oN�� / .\..L\ . . .��5' g56� \',„ a�R — I 1`Z / ` _\_ .ifa_ • nr""A in t it'-!it.//!",T/A I/1 #3'129 \ \jgr' I ` — — ----'PROPOS`ED DRIVE — -- .�1 : 1 rtcIvIvvc cx4? Iav , \N 31.6 ` I J\ �1 \ �- .\ % WALK--AND STEPS-- 0' ,\g •�• - \ '' 4 AND-LANDSCAPING I 2 a ill �(.) (9523) �g� III \f . : / REMOVE EXISTING- --:- = _�-._ c PROPOSE" �S� ' I 4; �(6. DRIVE A NO--WOOD STEP ' �d1:i� QA RA IGE �2� i I ,1! g _-- \ gh2ADDITION ,g.4...,,Nw.. .t , ,.'- Cr?' cjID? N MATCH EXISTING lI 1 .5(" 24.3 0 .52� c.vr tit ,, .�_ }gig l `� N • • r GARAGE FLOOR _ ' \ GFE=952.� `'``. NUN� I �sR 2� ,,I op ELEVATION (VERIFY),----------, I 1 y FFE=954.3 49.0 e ;�ii1 N , 9. RED aVC-EXISTING _ - dI T <<�Y; ir,_at EXISTING I III„ .__-RETAINING WALLS : +41!.1..` '� _. _._,... _ AND LANDSCAPING _.•---�` - t4 123 7 , HOUSE 0 ,1 o r 11 g�-5d 12,1.0 #3131 „I o0 �r -` �Z. I II, �" I' �� 9 cl o rr �p N I I 5 oI'/ i, ! W 4 .,. `v • 6 ,,i, LFE=944. 2 ''; DECK O ` l'i '-N.� \ `s\ I o Q 12.0 Q 49. ��2.7 j' Z 28.6 --- N i}iF� \ � jk f NI �Ec�1K ovE'_h' �I ,� 1 — — —...=- ..r' =tom \/ r- rLl�if: A'�'i(; f H. \��4 1 i b•I. REMOfiE EXISTING _-_- - - \ .. ` —' - ° _.�. _ Y` 7' g° ,-----PATIO AND DECK _ _ - - - _ _ _ - -.- -._.-- lit _ _(Id - �� g `4SR I , \-REMOVE EXISTING iI} '�, I I5. I I. RETAINING WALLS — — — — — ,i` \'�', I �\ I 11 \ III AND LANDSCAPING — ';;I\ I I \\`'\ 0)1 `{, I I �, III �/'�~`, i 11 ,� I I I II '` G _ /�l sl N g��g� ill I SILT FENCE - . I \ , \C= 4fou — 2 o _____ —N UTILITY LASEMENT \' 0 g�, .SP�` I }, . . ... • N P E DOU b 36 �--- - . 0�� -,f, i o� Gt4tl4srEp- �c R •up.. I . . � - _ - - - -- N 0 � 1 — girP/2-11VC44-/&00,6./Crei-:-Itt>1412,1 &Jo c;'D • ‘NN P/k�0 --- ',9 2 . C f I A L I .E I �I C A C IN j.-__. " " IW .mo - ;---N " 75SB g5 hAA4544P6 AC*. �( I \ 2 '04 '1)` ag56 'I \ 0c6\ o'o ` Dv nIN.� N. __. � I\ g ,\I ` I \.q. - / - \ '. \ I gNo• ,, G2 &)VS77 • `- . /� / \ - 93 I T��- '``_ - //f / 6 I 95 C° ? t--1‘191 °°;-- 30,c-/ °X,------- s'----; — , \ .----t---- /�,. / ' -`F--lam..N /7b ~i"`�--- y�"_._._- •�...L I 0, --. 0,4j:b.--- ~ ___. f✓-- =•RIP A +--- __ DESCRIPTION: 0 20 40 60I�'=�aiP RAP 930 — -�... ._.."_ =1==' ' _�` LOT 44 AND o SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / �ti,;. _• — LYING WEST SCALE IN FEET g2g OF AND PAR/ THAT PART ( *905 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. OHW 929 ' FEET WEST ( XlA9R.n1 = PR(1PCICF11 CPnT Ft FV ATION I A I .r— I J I A IA /f� -r-d 1 A II . A nF I nT 44. j .*,5 • e?</S7--74J 71-/-c-A c. ti-gte___ \s\k„,,t. ., - k I 1---yy 6 „D . i /� iRtift ,T, v /.-.:, 0,-) s---c-. , ,,,- ,. , , ...7.,) ..._ , , /5' /'9 ° . �.� 3 s.a w�•arr,t a r.wa.,,++,,,--- y.... ..•?nrt"#ra :.,,N .Rr... _ I )4. c3t c C_E. e • (4car 7 2- D ' _A(700 c.k . eraeck 6 -S'r eD ' 2, 1 S'a , :L- *X/S 71A' C c 17 1- = o9"se- s I'. = 30. 57 fa.°Po 5 cs-. . v — 6too s . = 3‘ 's-`3 co t ��gc- c. 2023 qsc. 17,..SZ�0 s-e, p ti r mow f vf. ) u 5 t% cfi(l J rI 1 /L t - ' A-S L-/0 x110 = f6'd0 > •R ‘, ors /00 K = 20c'. `774-fs o T- i Sva`v t - r 44c, gt-t7--- A-PpepiLs T lovc-kJ v tuAty irk) 7-7=1- 2sa - v' o_oti �s 1. " 75-1..5 s,C. 42._.9 : /v14Meeas t,cse,, /A-) T? V P Lf (t ^-) av sOC.c t_rt oAi ,AL No T /4--c Is • - -• - - VVLN J I t'' = 10U Jr .... _. I. _J - =6.. - DECK = 615 SF ' - 7 DRIVE = 2215 SF i _.. i ADJDR _ 130 \ \ g622 (7,•°e`� oR``I��P �� Imo• '! TOTAL -- 6100 SF / 3.6` \ a .. �t ti. REDUCTION = 35N,SF/2.2% `- \ --4-_,._ _ ' - ~ \ • I ROCK RET.-� r� ` / 00,7/ \\ N, PC,, ��� •• WALL g61� \�0 0�/ dL SITE REDUCTION = `\1655 SFNN E 301152\G g ° -0'— — �� �P .. a$ \ 0 '1 `o \>>q ADJkCENT—`t?RIVES S\�6 of 2 ��- — �, ... 1 ion _ ft ,\I0 t-2' /4 . I -250 SBL OHW . �1' �g ��� _ / o,, , I� 100 •,� - Ike \ N. I ,tea '' _ EXISTING �� / 1 / °N�-c /\ \ g5 G HOUSE r.,A I /,2' r r• _N .1• , nr1 1 /r -�%/Ie,"I-IA 1 #3129 I\ t�I ` - --'PROPOSED DRIVE - --- - '- ' I =. • rcuviv VG CA4? i iivv 31.6 I - / 4 4 \ } \. 4-7 WALK- ND S7 EPS °I;�' ga19 \��' \ '� .- � AND L NDSCAPING (�!' • 2.3 t�ll ► / 111 _,_.� REMOVE EX/ST//V =; _ dI I PROPOSE" S� I 41' DRIVE ANQ-GOOD STEP JI� ARA1IGE g5�1 1 , ' S1 / i!} 1 ,ga2ADDITION w..TY_- ,I._. . _ ..-C / �11 N AM-TCH EXISTING •a2 �' '� .`"`BLS g 'I` cV � 1 .s r ` 1 • 1 1, X 24.3 0 ,- 4 _ l GARAGE FLOOR I \, /j, FE=952.5 'a' ' �( } .sR g . -J 1fI 00 ELEVA TION (VERIFY)...- —'`~�., I i 1 FFE=954.3 49.0 1L1- N REM..O-VE^ 9.0 ^EXISTING .w - - - �11'T �`�` ssi- "'=� EXISTING I �111 ;�.-- EXISTING R TA/NING WALLS � !:._. 23.7 �; I; - _- HOUSE AND LANDSCAPING ----`-\ Y- ' HOUSE 0 ;;I p #3133 `ICI g 2� o21.0 1 #3131 III CO �..� o � i � scl 0 ..--- . Lc) ..._jii' 12:7,1 1, .`). \ ,L - j il ---..c:k. ! / 1 �+!;v 9 `2� 49.5LFE=944.4 fIl �CK '- �' ili j \ \ '.. ..;.._. .. CO(�- 1I.ATio // II~ '� �4�1 - �;.' g� RE, VE EXISTING _-_- - - -II- . ' \�, \ I-_ _.', _-- �_. r.:;�`.�;J..�_ ;I i ,I,\ ;.' 9° 1 -PATIO AND DECK - - - t - - `id 9 1 1_ _-- -- -1 ..,_.-_._.__ f,�� 1 - P - ' N-A REMOVE EXISTING . ` 11' \, 1 I 1- I. RETAINING WALLS I I -- — — — 10 ) �. I �.� I 1 I \Q Ili AND LANDSCAPING I I N.� 1 1;1 \ `, '"i I .\`� I III 1 g"5U. 1;1 I SILT FENCE 1 N,_ _ .. _-,i -: ..-___ �' \ / F/2_0PoS> --- =-. UTILITY BASEMENT �`\ i sP� �'�, I 1 p, \ PER DOO.N0. 36 \ --. M0 _ `f., o BE „ u 4 Z"! — I _ _ _ \ \ 9R I \ VTR--90.2.6 y - -. - -j _ - - - TF tr ,�,,��,; K ' 'ram=1PD g a — �01 _ ���- ----`_fig I Decce. A fI CO 7 C f ""\ I A I / I E ,N; LI / l .f I }C \ ' C f� 1 C r1 �S_2►v aM 2 ( ,,Q , I ' }° . 1� �,Q�� � '\, ` Gaya ., �,,..--- '�'fL�pOS ti 0��56 I No 9 I Ns. i i 1 \ \ I \ / / g I i ``� I 95 • - - �- - - �. -I - , , " � ice.N�77654,3 I __._. �_� w-T _____.1-_______--------- .___. ------ \- j ._. 93 SUIT�FY > � ^ _,L, -, _�� _�- — ==— �..� 5 1 932 I-�1� F" ~ T�- "�9� 20 40 60 --Imo'=R P_�930 �� — RIP RAP- -I•-..__ DESCRIPTION: RIP RA � ---- - _ _. _.-`—— -- -- r " —-L;, — LOT 44 AND THAT PART 92go SHORELINE 5/4/2010 929.0 ' / �tig°� LYING WEST OF LINE ANI __E 1N FEET OF AND PARALLEL WITH E = ExtSTING SPOT ELEVATION. OHW 929.4 - ' THAT PART OF LOT 45 L = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION OF FEET WEST OF AND PARR T 44, AND THAT Pi = o�REC�koN SURFACE DRAINAGE LAKE MINNETONKA LAKE OSHORE AVENUE AND 0- FgoparN. 4-1-0u.s,liLid' . L. x 3 ( , 23t7X3g 7;13z . 2 k w 7 2 x3C) AIL = 21 ( 0 (A-41-1 l'`f s' !70 3x- = Y 12-- / S = 21 as` G 7 Ez J Z 2 - _ ie. ? 2- = l ? ,/ • 0 g. 0.74,\., O O \ CITY of ORONO ,, Municipal Offices ,Ntyvk,A es, Street Address: Mailing Address: S� �1 ' + L , �& 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 G Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 ESHO Tami Helmer 3131 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUBJECT: Zoning Application# 11-3521 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the status of your application for variances for property located at 3131 Casco Circle. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: V Two (2) original scaled copies of the revised certificate of survey, and a reduced copy (11'x17' or smaller), indicating the following: o setback zones from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, o the existing and proposed structures, o all existing and proposed hardcover, o the average lakeshore setback, o existing topographic contours extending 50' past the property boundaries, and o proposed stormwater drainage and proposed site grading (please indicate total cubic yards of proposed earth movement on/off site). ✓ All proposed hardcover shall be calculated by the appropriate zone on the hardcover worksheets that are enclosed. The hardcover calculations must be completed by your surveyor. Application #11-3521 is incomplete. If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by Friday, July 29th at 10 AM in order to remain on the August 15, 2011 Planning Commission agenda. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or email at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us should you have any questions. Sincerely, City of Orono • Melanie Curtis Planning&Zoning Coordinator c: Tami Helmer -Via Email Mike Sharratt—Via Email Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax (952)249-4616 www.ci.orono.mn.us I • O 53s x„ - •.ea.�.u�uMMMMM .' .. . . .n = z i ,:sllill r a _ � I ..9..n......9 X � Ns i ii sea segma rominirigni ' g Eib a,. IC) Ili,- N tLF s gpp�q s-' .—ca@;.u.�iu.uu. .m01 ■ p� .-' Pit! O A1 m ! i'-u H-wave i:i x _c 4L1 rt ' } aWe 'a-x LEI$€ li G - e=q� • p-• `�o . ;!f v,` V �.• '•3 .s-a-a 7a i:aa3- < - '•.1 I I i m 9 - I 3:a 1 1 • i • • ., otil .,-I. • I ' • iL I •L �. .��._ [ .. i i i e1 I T f34 I Z. • ' i s I?._� �f i. - ; ,,� 4, •_1II):,!! - i :.li� --'--iI` -' i 'Ai II�11 L I ! i L' ii �I -41 .., ki! • • ^.4-1';...7:77_49;.., ;i f .- ..-li... -..._1'1 .. ;:I : ' --:, ';:_!.-).!..11_11.2.,:.-2: ,., :2! �_ i ° I, � • i l + ° _ I i •2 •4 r . _ .1 i ii 1 i Y .' I s� _ i- - --•-•----:--2.•••--.:. -I. - [tig------g.,5-11111 rd - 11,111.11/!!lig: ! -:..-- ..4-..,!- i-- .,.•:1 '!: .•. . : _2 • p yihIiiFJrTft — Ir — • T t4 i .I .F- � ; j d#- � i � t M $„'SLR r ' d i • �p idlE i {i ;e, -r'E I' 1 ' i Q y ii' ,I r/ I 1 _� t ';_. . Sri: i 3 . . . .. 1 L• i + • i . —.. • • • t.. y ' • • LAND USE APPLICATION ESCROW AGREEMENT Application# i( - 3$0.2( • AGREEMENT made this �,� day of -v r.--� 20 I ) _by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") and — -4 m JY\ [a corporation—optional] ("Owners"). Recitals 1. Owners have filed Zonin Ap�plicatjon# /( - 3 J`—o7---/ formally requesting the City to review plans for VA-6-4-1 Pc C OV I AQ DEu,)ram]C� located at the"Subject Property") as more fully shown and described on Exhibit"A"attached hereto. 2. Owners request %�P-3� equest the City to review said plans which requires City approval including ���tSi 3. The City is willing to commence its review of the application and incur costs associated with said review only if the Owners establish an escrow to ensure reimbursement to the City of its costs. NOW THEREFORE,THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEPOSIT OF ESCROW FUNDS. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement, the Owners shall deposit $ ""1 0 e' with the City. All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the escrow account. 2. PURPOSE OF ESCROW. The purpose of the escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred (including planning, engineering, or legal consultant review) or will incur in meeting with the Owners, reviewing the plans, and preparing agenda packet material for City Council review of application # 1/ - 3 5 A ( . Eligible expenses shall be consistent with expenses the Owners would be responsible for under a zoning and subdivision application. 3. MONTHLY BILLING. As the City receives consultant bills for incurred costs, the City will in turn send a bill to the Owners. Owners shall be responsible for payment to the City within 30 days of the Owners' receipt of bill. 4. DISBURSEMENT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT. In the event that the Owners do not make payment to the City within the timeframe outlined in #3 above, shall cease all reviews until the Owners pay all expenses invoiced pursuant to #3. The City may draw from the escrow account without further approval of the Owners to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. 5. CLOSING ESCROW. The Balance on deposit in the escrow, if any, shall be returned to the Owners when the review has been completed. 6. CERTIFY UNPAID CHARGES. If the project is abandoned by Owners, or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance to the subject property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§415.01 and 366.012. CITY: CITY OF ORONO OWNERS: l r By: eGit • � By: Its: r(c ,r • By: Its: 1 ���# � e��� �� ��:�` �?��na �® ��t�mi®ll��... , .... ✓+ �t�� +�'�� ;C�Co..P.��#o Stkree�,F�ie • CITY OF ORONO • PERMIT NO.: 2011-00689 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356- DATE ISSUED: 07/20/2011 (952)249-4600 FAX: (952)249-4616 ADDRESS : 3131 CASCO CIR PIN : 20-117-23-34-0007 LEGAL DESC : SPRING PARK : LOT 044 BLOCK 000 PERMIT TYPE : ESCROW FEE-APPLICANT PROPERTY TYPE : RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : ESCROW FEE-APPLICANT NOTE: THIS$700 ESCROW IS TIED TO VARIANCE APPLICATION#11-3521-LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT ESCROW FEE-DEVELOPER 700.00 HELMER,TAMI TOTAL 700.00 3131 CASCO CIR WAYZATA,MN 55391- OWNER HELMER,TAMI 3131 CASCO CIR WAYZATA,MN 55391- AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications,applicable City approvals,and the State Building Code. This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be compied with whether or not specified herein.This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance,or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code.This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. Applicant Permitee Signature Date Issued By Signature Date SEPARATE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR WORK OTHER THAN DESCRIBED ABOVE. • • EXHIBIT"A" Legal Description File No. 10-09248 Lot 44; That part of Lot 45 lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet West, measured at right angles from the East line of 44; All of the following described tract: Lot 43; That part of Lot 64 described as beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 64; thence Southwesterly to the most Westerly corner of Lot 64; thence East along the South line of Lot 64 to the Northeast corner of Lot 42; thence Northerly, a distance of 51.35 feet, more or less to a point which is on a line drawn parallel with and 24.00 feet Southeasterly measured at right angles from the Northwesterly line of Lot 64 a distance of 4.00 feet Southwesterly along said parallel line from its intersection with the extension North of the East line of Lot 42; thence Northeasterly along said parallel line and its extension, a distance of 68.94 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly line of Lot 64; thence Northwesterly to the point of beginning; That part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue and that part of the tract of land between said avenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, all described as beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 42; thence West along the South line of Lots 42, 43,44 and 45 to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet West, measured at right angles from the East line of Lot 44; thence South along the extension of said parallel line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence East along said shore to its intersection with the extension South of the East line of Lot 42; thence North to the point of beginning; Which lies Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet Westerly of the Easterly line of Lot 42 and its extensions, all in Spring Park. RECEWED JUL 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO # 3521r • O ro n o • • • Parks Recreation Fa... Golf Course Conservancy ... Commercial M... School Facilities Future Acquisi... Park/Open Sp... 1 9F Lakesa Aerial Photos April 2009 I . f ,, l 3 m Parcels Lines pp Parcels --. t - 1 '._ ❑ City Border `` a to y N SCALE 1 : 505 NHIh 1-1 20 0 20 40 60 FEET http://www.bonestroo.net/infraseek_asp/Orono/mwf/Zoning.mwf Friday, July 22, 2011 8:13 AM • City of Orono ° a Pre-Application Meeting Form 4)G~ (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.) For Office Use Only: City Planner: Meeting Date/Time: PC Date: What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: -)1.'3 I CI)r jC__C) GI {ZG L-�,- Property Identification Number(PIN): ">(` - `314 O(DO ) _ Zoning District: Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: ❑ Average Setback 0 Side Yard Setback ❑ Rear Yard Setback ,U Lake/Front Yard Setback O Hardcover 0'-75' 0 Hardcover 75'-250' ❑ Hardcover 250'-500' 0 Hardcover 500'-1000' ❑ Lot Coverage 0 Lot Area ❑ Lot Width O Other: Applicant's PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Applicant and/or Owner has received the Practical Initials: _Li. Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, Owner's and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their Initials: 7 formal variance application. Applicant's BILLS AND ESCROW: Applicant and/or Owner shall pay for consultant expenses Initials: incurred in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in Owner's initial. application fee, as well as provide an escrow in the amount of Initials: $- 1(:L- to guarantee payment of the above. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. _ Applicant Signature: tyr Date: / I/ `) /// Owner Signature: r 5i Date: 'l // 9 /11 RECEIVED -9- JUL 202011 CITY OF ORONO3 52 1 • • EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION RECEIVED JUL 20 201 CITY OF ORONO - 11 - # 3521 • • PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter."2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3. "The varian a if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the toms of the Zoning Chapter." 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)11166J.06, Subd. 2,when in harmony with this Chapter." 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." N 1A RECEIVED - 15- ,IIII 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO ft 35 • • 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." J#� 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." A-r--r' 14 9. "The conditions dq not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be co,ntra{ry to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficult .' %- 3, Practical Difficulties Statement A,-4 Sal. Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEVED - 16- J(u 2 0 2Ufl # 3 CITY OF ORONO 52 1 • • 1 II Hennepin County Mailing Label Receipt Provided By: Taxpayer Services Department Print Date: 7/13/2011 9:20:10 AM Company or Homeowner Name: Tami R. Helmer i> Contact Person: 09=) TOTAL COST: $25.00 Contact Address: 3131 CASCO CIR Orono, MN 38 Contact Phone: 819-1928 Comments: Buffer Distance: 150ft Mail Label Count: 5 PID LIST: 38 20-117-23 34 0007, 38 20-117-23 34 0008, 38 20-117-23 34 0022, 38 20-117-23 43 0029, 38 20-117-23 43 0030, Ii RECEIVED Mn 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO _. _ J tasy reel 'wows I A 111110101011 Bend along line to I V AVERY®5160® Use Avery®Template 5160® 1 iieed Paper expose Pop-up Edg&" 1 0 V 1 38 20-117-23 34 0007 38 20-117-23 34 0008 38 20-117-23 34 0022 TAMI R HELMER JOANNE D JONES FREDERICK C PETERS 3131 CASCO CIR 5100 FRANCE AVE S#104 3127 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 EDINA MN 55410 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0029 38 20-117-23 43 0030 KEVIN A&NOELLE A SHEEHAN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 18479 SCHROERS FARM RD 3133 CASCO CIR EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 ORONO MN 55391 RECEIVED J11l 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO #. 3 52 1 Etiquettes fadles a peter I A Repliez h la hachure afin del www.avery.com I Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160® Sens de reveler le rebord Po u TM 1-800-GO-AVERY j chargement p' p j I EXHIBIT"A" Legal Description File No. 10-09248 Lot 44; That part of Lot 45 lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet West, measured at right angles from the East line of 44; All of the following described tract: Lot 43; That part of Lot 64 described as beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 64; thence Southwesterly to the most Westerly corner of Lot 64; thence East along the South line of Lot 64 to the Northeast corner of Lot 42; thence Northerly, a distance of 51.35 feet, more or less to a point which is on a line drawn parallel with and 24.00 feet Southeasterly measured at right angles from the Northwesterly line of Lot 64 a distance of 4.00 feet Southwesterly along said parallel line from its intersection with the extension North of the East line of Lot 42; thence Northeasterly along said parallel line and its extension, a distance of 68.94 feet, more or less, to the Northeasterly line of Lot 64; thence Northwesterly to the point of beginning; That part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue and that part of the tract of land between said avenue and the shore of Lake Minnetonka, all described as beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 42; thence West along the South line of Lots 42, 43, 44 and 45 to an intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet West, measured at right angles from the East line of Lot 44; thence South along the extension of said parallel line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence East along said shore to its intersection with the extension South of the East line of Lot 42; thence North to the point of beginning; Which lies Westerly of a line drawn parallel with and 100 feet Westerly of the Easterly line of Lot 42 and its extensions, all in Spring Park. RECEWED ,I(JI 20 2011 CITY OF ORONO $ 3521