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 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 16, 1998 TO: Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: #2290, Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit Mr. and Mrs. Steve Silus have formally requested that their conditional use permit application for grading within 5' of the property line be withdrawn per their letter dated April 10, 1998. ,• April 10, 1998 Liz Van Zomeren City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Liz, APR 4 \998 C l I Y Uf URONO I am requesting that the City of Orono withdraw our application for a Conditional Use Permit, #2290. Please regard this letter as notification of this request. Thank You, Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone# 471-9781 Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 phone 471 7152 March 16, 1998 Dear Orono City Council members and City Administrators: This letter is to reemphasize our opposition to the Silus request for a conditional use permit or any variance in regard to the property at 3235 Casco Circle, Wayzata. Our next door neighbors, Steve and Elaine Silus, are requesting a conditional use permit to erect a retaining wall within the 5' setback established by Orono City ordinances. As property owners at 3233 Casco Circle, next to the property in question, we feel that the 5' setback is an important ordinance providing neighbors better esthetics, protection from runoff and possible flooding, snow removal and other maintenance infringements, and accessibility to the lake . Therefore, we strongly urge the observance of existing property ordinances that Orono has established to protect individual properties . This ordinance is supported by countless Casco Circle property owners' calls and letters of protest to the Orono City Offices. We want this letter to be placed in the city file urging Orono administrators to make sure that drainage from the new Silus construction will not go onto our property. We are concerned about flooding and erosion. Mayor Gabe Jabbour and the Orono Council had the Silus request tabled at the February 23 council meeting in order to give Siluses an opportunity to talk with their neighbors, the Spilseths, about a satisfactory, mutually-agreed solution to this problem. The Siluses have not contacted us regarding this or any other adjoining property questions at any point. We feel the S'setback should be upheld as written in Orono City Ordinances protecting individual properties . Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~;-tlv f4-.-~ David and atricia Spilseth MAR 1 9 1998 Cl Y OF OFlONO March 13 , 1998 Steve and Elaine Silus 3 23 5 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 55391 David and Pat Spilseth 3 23 3 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 55391 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Please find enclosed the section of the Municipal Code that regulates driveways and curb cuts , Section 6.06 of the Municipal Code. I have also enclosed the section that lists what are considered non-encroachment in side yards . If you have questions about this information, please call me at 473-7357 . Sincerely, ~(A~ Liz Van Zomeren Zoning Administrator LVZ/jlg Enclosure Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY of ORONO March 6, 1998 Steve and Elaine Silus 3520 Casco Circle Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Conditional Use Application #2290 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Silus: Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Malllna Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed please find a Notice of Council Action and draft minutes from the February 23, 1998 City Council meeting. Application #2290 will be rescheduled when the City is notified that you have met with the Spilseths and have resolved issues with your application. For the record, the City considers previous requests to table #2290 as de facto agreement to extend the review period. At the February 23, 1998 meeting, you agreed to an extension. The City is requesting official confirmation of your agreement to an extension. Please sign below and return this letter. I am recommending a 60"day extension, from February 23rd to April 24, 1998. Please meet with your neighbors and notify me when there is new information regarding a resolution for the City Council to consider. The City C01mcil will meet March 23, April 13 and April 24, 1998. Submittal deadlines for additional information is two weeks prior to the City Council meetings. Telephone (612) 47'3-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Please contact me at 4 73-7357 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~ Elizabeth Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator EVA/ch Enc. I hereby agree to a 60-day extension for Application #2290, to expire on April 24, 1998. Steve Silus Date Elaine Silus Date CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Steve and Elaine Silus 3 23 5 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 APPLICATION NO. #2290 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: March 6, 1998 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ------------------------------------------------------------------ DATE OF MEETING: 2/23/98 VOTE: 4 FOR O AGAINST ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: To table the application. The City is to provide a letter for your signature agreeing to tabling the application. 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. (Draft minutes are enclosed). ch ,. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#2 -Advance Refunding of City Facilities Bonds -Continued) Jabbour noted the bond is an HRA Bond . He asked if there would be any savings fc,r the City if they accumulate this bond with others, such as those used for sewering projects. Drude said the financing needs to be separated but if done within a short period of time, . . there would _be savings on some fees as some information would remain the sanie. In response to a question from Kelley, Drude explained how the process works. The $2.4 million in cash would be placed in escrow . She recommended the escrow be invested in SLGS and issued to coincide with the payment date and carrying the maximum interest rates available at that time. Kelley was informed that the money in escrow would be invested with an interest rate similar to that of the bonds. Drude reviewed the process taken for making this decision. Bids are taken and rates are calculated and reviewed by a CPA and Bond Counsel. The escrow agent used is the City's decision but would be a major bank. Drude indicated the rates are locked in when · the award is made. Moorse indicated the HRA has to take action on March 23 along . . with the Council. Jabbour asked Drude if she felt this action was appropriate. Drude said she would inform the Council if any changes occur in interest rates prior to the bid date. If so, the matter can be placed on hold . Drude indicated that if the sale was held and bids were rejected, the only cost incurred would be that from Moody Investors Service of 60% of the cost or about $2500 . Drude said she would not recommend the refunding if the present value savings were barely over 3% but feels the 4% savings is respectable. She noted that it is impossible to determine what will occur to the interest rates in the future . Council agreed to move forward with the advance refunding of the City facilities' bond sale . Jabbour asked Staff to review what other bonds are being considered for possible savings . Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4032 calling for an advance refunding bond sale of the HRA City facilities' bonds on March 23, 1998. Vote : Ayes 4, Nays 0. ZONING ADJ\tIINISTRA TOR'S REPORT (#4} #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SIL US, 3225 CASCO CIRCLE -. CONDITIONAL USE PERl\tIIT TO GRADE WITHIN 5' OF THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW A DRIVE\VAY AND RETAINING \VALL The Applicants were present. 4 l\'IINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Gappa reported that the application for conditional use permit is for grading within 5' of the property line for placement of a retaining wall 2' from the property line. Photographs taken during construction were distributed. Vehicles would have a 23' approach to the side loading garage at the 5' setback; 26' would be available if the retaining wall was allowed. Gappa reviewed the background of the application. A variance were granted in March, 1997 for lot width. The approved plans showed the driveway within 2' of the property line but with no grading being required or retaining wall. Gappa indicated that the City's topographical :tnaps were used in producing the elevation drawings instead of a survey. A plan including a boulder retaining wall was later approved by the building official. This plan was not checked against the original approved plan, and the building official was not informed of the change in the plans. Work began and, during the footing inspection, the building inspector noted the 5' elevation change between the ground and garage. The garage was subsequently lowered 2' by the contractor. The contractor was informed that retaining walls must be 5' from any property line. In September, the Planning Commission reviewed the application for conditional use permit for the retaining wall. The Commission asked that the boulder wall be changed to a modular block wall and recommended the wall be moved from 2' to 5' from the property line. The application was tabled at the November meeting for further review. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of the CUP in January indicating that other design options were available to the applicant and the wall would have an adverse effect on the neighboring property. The draft resolution was prepared based on this recommendation. Gappa reviewed the standards, # 1 through 3 in the packet, for a conditional use permit. The denial resolution is based on the adverse impact to the neighbor and non-conformity with zoning code. Steve Silus said the builder indicated he was not notified that the retaining wall had to be 5' from the property line. Silus noted that this information is secondhand as he was not involved in the conversation. Sil us said the builder did admit that he was unaware of the ordinance. Silus, in noting his attempt to be honest, presented options available. He questioned why there were no complaints heard during the time period from October, 1996, to June, 1997. He referenced his letter sent to the City included in the packet. Silus said the retaining wall is 24-26" high at the garage and 32 11 at its highest. Silus said he is willing to remove the wall but indicated his only other option would be to maintain the driveway to the property line. He would like to satisfy the Council and neighbors, the Spilseth's, and allow either option. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Jabbour reported that during his visit to the site, he asked the applicant to have another alternative available to the retaining wall. Jabbour said the neighbors are being affected. Silus responded that when the original plan was designed, it was shown to the neighbors, who did not voice any objection at that time. Gaffron commented that the neighbors signed an acknowledgment letter, which does not indicate their agreement to the plan. Sil us countered that if there was an objection, it should have been voiced at that time. Silus felt with the error in the topographical map and 2' change in elevation, the issues should have been brought forward sooner. · Jabbour confirmed with Silus that the plan design approved by the Council and Planning Commission did not include a retaining wall. The plan with the retaining wall was signed by the building inspector. Jabbour clarified that the applicant is able to have his driveway up to the property line. Silus said he would leave the decision to the neighbors on what option to follow, the retaining wall or driveway to the property line. Kelley asked if Silus has spoken with the Spilseths. · Silus said the neighbors did not wish to communicate with him. Kelley referenced the comment by the Spilseths in their letter regarding concern with snow removal. Kelley felt this issue could be resolved. Silus said there has been no problem in the past with snow removal and was not presented as an issue until the retaining wall objection arose. He noted this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission. Jabbour questioned where the City's position currently lays. He noted that Lyle Oman signed the site plan with changes that had not received approval. Vang confirmed that Oman missed the detail of the boulder retaining wall in the plan. Vang noted no distance was shown for the retaining wall from the property line either. Silus said it was not shown as he was unaware of the 5' setback requirement. Vang said the builder was informed of the 5' setback at the time the footings were laid. Jabbour asked that such information be presented in writing in the future. This would enable an applicant to be placed on notice immediately. Goetten suggested information should be given to applicants notifying them that any changes to plans would trigger further review. Vang indicated that their department is considering the need for plans to be signed by all involved staff. 6 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Situs -Continued) Peterson asked if the garage was built up higher from the original plans. Vang said the change in elevation occurred because of the use of the aerial, topographical maps instead of being done by a surveyor on site. Vang said discussions were held on site regarding the problems. The builder was informed that retaining walls higher than 4' are not allowed and cannot be nearer than 5' to the property line. The applicant then took action to drop the garage elevation so any retaining wall would be less than 4' high. Vang said the builder does not remember the remainder of the conversation regarding the 5' setback. Vang said it was suggested at the time of framing that the garage be changed to a front load. He was informed at that time the applicant preferred the side-loading garage. Silus said he was not personally informed of the 5' setback requirement for the retaining wall. He said he is not in the position to change the entry into the garage at this time, adding that the opportunity to make that change has passed. Vang informed the Council that the Planning Department has incorporated the policy of requiring both the homeowner and builder be on site to discuss any conflicts that arise. Jabbour said it should also be in writing. Pat Spilseth reported that the applicant was told from the beginning of the application process that the garage should be front loading. She indicated this would be similar to other homes on Casco Circle. Spilseth noted the small lot sizes in the area. Spilseth said she had never seen the elevation drawings before. She also noted that letters of concern were sent in by rp.any of the neighbors. Jabbour said it would help if the applicant and neighbors met to discuss the alternatives. He felt the decision should not be made by the Council. It was noted that a front loading garage door would require the removal of a large tree. Jabbour confirmed with Barrett that the approval or denied of the application must be completed within a 60-day time period. Jabbour said the applicant would not be able to bring the issue forward again for six months if the application was now denied. Spilseth said she was unaware that the option existed for front loading doors with the removal of a tree. Silus said that was not an option that he would explore. Jabbour noted the two options available. Silus indicated the retaining wall tapers from 0" at the garage to 2-1/2' at its highest elevation. Jabbour asked if the driveway can be elevated without requiring retaining walls. Vang said no. Peterson asked what the slope of the driveway would be without a retaining wall. Vang said the maximum slope would be at 12% where 10% is normally allowed. 7 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 23, 1998 (#4 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Kelley indicated he would be concerned with water flowage off the slope to the south. Vang indicated that a swale would be required. Kelley indicated the water flow would run quickly through the swale onto the property. Kelley suggested to Spilseth that it may not be to her best interest to have a sloping driveway neighboring her property as it may not catch all the water. He suggested that plantings could be used to screen the retaining wall if the neighbor does not like the look ofit. Kelley said the neighbor and applicant need to work through the problem. Spilseth said the properties have always been at the same elevation. She does not feel she should have been placed in this position. Jabbour acknowledged her concern but said the City would like her input. Problems with delaying any action were noted if the application was denied. Jabbour asked Silus for permission to table the application in order to allow the applicant and neighbors to meet to resolve the issues. Silus gave his consent. Jabbour said Staff would be willing to review the options with the Spilseths. Barrett indicated that since Silus has given his oral agreement to tabling the application, the City can prepare a letter for Silus' signature indicating this agreement. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application 2290. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#5) #2312 CLAUS WEILER AND RENEE MEERKINS, 1135 NORTH ARM DRIVE -VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERIVIIT -RESOLUTION NO. 4033 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4033. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#6) #2316 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE -CLASS ID FINAL SUBDIVISION -RESOLUTION NO. 4034 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4034. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (*#7) #2320 MITCHELL AND ASTA GERSOVITZ, 3650 CASCO A VENUE - VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 4035 Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4035. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Agenda items #8 and 9 follow item #12 as agreed to by Applicant, John O'Sullivan.) (#12) #2342 MARK L. CASEY, 255 LANDMARK DRIVE -CONDITIONAL USE PERMITN ARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 4038 The Applicant was present. 8 KENT E. SWANSON February 17, 1998. To -Orono Council Members Regarding -Ordinance question at 3235 Casco Circle 1 . Orono has created ordinances to protect the property of its residents . 2. No property owner (i.e. Spilseths, at 3233 Casco Circle) should be injured by the actions of their neighbor. 3. Therefore, Orono should enforce its ordinances. Thank you all for your attention to this problem . cerely/ · Zl G,~,ll{ML 4~. Kent E. Swanson 3229-B CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA , MINNESOTA 55391 TO: Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members FROM: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone# 471-9781 DATE: February 17, 1998 SUBJECT: #2290 Conditional Use Permit I am writing in response to the Planning Commissions vote on 20, 1998 to deny the above mentioned Conditional Use Permit. attached a copy of their reasons for denial and would like to those reasons. 1) Options for design January I have address Yes there were options for design when the project started. The time to make changes is when the design is on paper. Any negative situations on the proposed plan could have been addressed at that time. However, both adjacent neighbors were shown the proposed design, which has been built, and the proper acknowledgement forms 'were signed on October 15, 1996. The Orono Planning Commission Approved the building plans in their meeting of February 18, 1997. There were NO public comments. The Orono City Council then Approved the building plans in their March 10, 1997 meeting. In the filed Resolution #3851, page 2 of 5, item 3.F., it states that The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. Between the time of The City Councils approval of the project to the existent building demolition on June 11, 1997, I have to believe that the City Building Inspectors reviewed the plans before the issuing of the building permit and the signing of the Site Plan. I know we, as the people paying the bill for this construction, along with being citizens and paying taxes in The City of Orono, feel we should get a professional review of building plans by the City Inspectors and Staff prior to construction. We, as well as the Planning Commission and City Council, have to rely on these peoples input. It was felt that anyone who saw something wrong would have suggested options or evidently there was nothing wrong. This was the time, PRIOR TO JUNE 11, 1997, for someone on the City Staff to inform us that The City likes to see at least thirty (30) feet for access to a garage. I have heard this distance mentioned by City page 2. Staff in more than one Planning Commission meeting. We were aware that we had but twenty-six (26) feet to the lot line and felt that would be adequate for access to our garage. To find out during construction in the last part of August 1997 that we had to be at least five (5) feet off the lot line, meaning twenty-one (21) feet access, gave us virtually no choice but to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Since our application for a Conditional Use Permit, we have done everything asked of us by the City Staff. There have been plans submitted that compromise a wall that will be two (2) feet from the lot line for a distance just in front of the garage openings. The rest of the wall, which tapers from a height of 3 1/2 feet at the house to nothing half way up the yard, would be 5 feet from the lot line. This is not a six foot wall. This would at least allow us twenty-four (24) feet of access to our garage. It was also brought up in the Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1998 that the drainage situation was much improved over what had existed prior. I am only bringing this up because the drainage issue seemed to be of utmost concern by different groups of people. This improvement was attested to by City Engineer Greg Gappa. At the same meeting, a member of the Commission asked building inspector Bruce Vang if he or anyone else at the city had come up with a reasonable alternative plan for access to the garage. His response was NO. Well, we have a plan. 2) Situation not created by neighborhood that feels adversely impacted. We have not solicited comments or letters from any of the neighbors with regard to this situation. Why drag people into this when it totally does not affect them. However, there are neighbors who feel that the new house is a positive addition to the neighborhood and that this minimal request should be granted. If letters are what this is all about, let me know and we will get some for the records. For a statement to be made that this situation impacts any members of our neighborhood except minimally the Spilseth's is not analyzing the facts. The Spilseth's objections have centered around a side loading garage. However, the Spilseth's have been aware of a side loading garage since October 15, 1996. page 3. To date, we do not feel that this application has been looked at properly. The project file at the city office has much more detailed information than is included in this letter. I also welcome your looking at the property if you have not done so recently. If you have any questions of me, feel free to call at any reasonable time. We thank you for your review of this matter. Respectively, Steve and Elaine Silus CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2290 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 21, 1998 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Steve & Elaine Silus 3225 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DATE OF MEETING: January 20, 1998 VOTE: 4 FOR O AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Options for design 2. Situation not created by neighborhood that feels adversely impacted Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council January 26, 1998; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. 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. Jg MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#1 -#2289 Jon Pendleton -Continued) There were no public comments. Smith confirmed that the horse would be housed elsewhere over the winter months . Lindquist asked the applicant if he was satisfied with the staff recommendations. Pendleton asked if pasture #2 would require fencing if only used as a secondary alternative . Lindquist said it could be fenced if it is needed for use. Bressler indicated the use of pasture #2 primarily to provide relief for vegetation growth in pasture #I. Pendleton said he would wait and see if pasture #2 would be used. Hawn noted the letter referencing best management practices is not specific as to handling of manure. Pendleton said he will speak with Mr. Geske regarding this issue and will comply with requirements. Smith said Pendleton would most likely be required to compost the manure . Lindquist asked that clarification on this issue be resolved by time of Council review on February 9. · Hawn asked that the compost pile be located away from any wetlands. Pendleton agreed noting the terrain is higher in the pasture area. Lindquist moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Application #2289 per staff recommendation with letter from Mr. Geske referencing proper program procedures. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#2) #2290 STEVEN AND ELAINE SILUS, 3225 CASCO CffiCLE -Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall -6:44-7:02 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted . The Applicants were present . Van Zomeren distributed pictures of the construction site from last summer and current pictures with the garage removed . She showed the plans and survey of the property with elevations highlighted and including the landscaping plan. The driveway plan was reviewed. The driveway is located 2' from the property line with a retaining wall and curb to prevent runoff Runoff will be directed into the south side yard. The driveway had previously been blacktopped and was shared with the neighboring property . A drainage swale with steel edging and rock mulch is proposed in the side yard . No fabric underlayment is proposed because it would increase hardcover. Hawn asked about the height of the retaining wall. Silus said the wall would be at a 3-1/2' maximum height by the house and be lower closer to the street. The curb is 8" in height. 2 \ :MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#2 -#2290 Steven and Elaine Silus -Continued) The space for backing out of the driveway is proposed at 24', where 21' would be allowed without the conditional use permit. Typically, 30' is recommended for a side-loading garage. Van Zomeren clarified that the application is not for a variance but for a conditional use permit, which has different standards. The use is authorized in the zoning code with performance standards. Grading within 5' of a lot line is allowed as a CUP. The Planning Commissioners are to decide whether this grading should be allowed. Van Zomeren reviewed the analysis presented in the packet. It was noted that the neighbors object to the retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. Van Zomeren noted the need for proper turning radius. Variances were granted in March, 1997, for the property. The structure meets the 10' side setback. Typically, normal grading for a new home and driveway does not require a CUP. The building inspector determined that grading within 5' of the property line is not normal or customary. One concern is whether the grading will impact the amount of drainage on adjacent property. Van Zomeren reviewed StafPs recommendation asking for consideration of issues as laid out in the packet. If the Planning Commissioners vote in the negative, findings are required. Van Zomeren said the neighbors, the.Spilseth's are out of town and ask that consideration be given to their comments made in their letter, which was included in the packet. Silus had no additional comments at this time. Joan Fitzpatrick, a friend of the Spilseth's, said the Spilseth's were against the driveway being 2' from the property line. She indicated exhaust fumes would gather from this location. The Spilseths object to losing the combined driveway, increasing the elevation, and potentially increasing runoff. Jay Richards, 3243 Casco Circle, asked why the application was not considered a variance request. Van Zomeren said the application has always been for a CUP and no hardship substantiation is then required. McMillan asked if a driveway can be located at the property lot line. Van Zomeren replied that this could occur, but in this case, the grade was being changed and was not considered normal or customary. She indicated the problem was created by the surveyor's use of topographical maps, which can var 2', which on a narrow lot such as the subject property can be unreliable. Van Zomeren noted that conditions can be placed on the CUP. If the conditions cannot be met, the CUP can be denied. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#2 -#2290 Steven and Elaine Silus -Continued) Smith asked if the inspector had any alternatives such as lowering the height of the wall. Bmce Vang, Building Inspector, said he did not have any alternatives given location of the garage doors. Smith asked if the garage doors faced the street front, whether it would have any effect on runoff and if there would be a need for the retaining walls. Vang said front loading doors were suggested at the beginning of construction when it was determined that grading was required. The applicant had told him that he would be unable to have three stalls if that change were made. Smith asked if front loading doors would allow for lower retaining walls. Vang said the retaining walls would not be needed along the south property line. He said that a wall would be needed along the north property line to allow the driveway to be lower. McMillan questioned whether the City Engineer had reviewed the drainage plan. Van Zomeren said City Engineer Kellogg reviewed the drainage. It was detennined that the drainage would run into the side yard. Lindquist was informed by the applicant that he understood the problem with the plan as it exists. Silus said the elevation of the garage dropped during construction and would be lower yet if the footings were moved. Hawn said she could not support the plan as there were design options available to the applicant at the time the construction began that would have eliminated the problems. She noted the situation was not created by the neighborhood, the plan was opposed by the neighbors, and would have an adverse effect on the neighbors as well. Smith, Lindquist, and McMillan agreed. Hawn moved, Smith seconded, to deny Application #2290 for a conditional use permit to change the grade within 5' of the property line. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The application will be reviewed by the Council on January 26, 1998. NEW BUSINESS Preliminary Plats (#3) #2316 MIKE HILBELINK, HAVING AN INTEREST IN 120 GOLDEN VIEW DRIVE -Preliminary plat for a 3-lot Class ill Subdivision -7:02-7:04 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The Applicant was present. 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Liz Van Zomeren Title City Planner Item Description: #2290 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit---Public Hearing DATE: January 21, 1998 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Zoning District: LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) sewered Lot Area: 22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow the driveway and retaining wall to be located 2' from the property line opposite of the garage doors to provide more paved area to enter and exit the 3-car side-loaded garage. Back2round: The subject property received variances in March 1997 for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setbacks, and structural coverage, See Resolution #3851 in packet. The architectural and building plans for the new residence were based on the City's topographical maps that can vary by 2' . During construction it became apparent that there would not be sufficient room to maneuver in and out of the garage. The standard area for driving in and out of a side-loaded garage is 30'. If the driveway and retaining wall are located 5' from the property line, the area between the garage doors and the curb of the driveway on top of the wall would be approximately 23' ; a deficiency of 7' . If the driveway and retaining wall are constructed 2' off of the property line as proposed, the area increases to approximately 26'; a deficiency of 4'. Conditional Use Permit A conditional use is used to authorize and regulate a specific use in a specific district as indicated by the Zoning Code. Grading within 5' of the property line is a conditional use. Criteria used to determine whether a conditional use permit should be granted is based on whether the proposed use is appropriate in the proposed location and is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission voted 4-0 to deny the request for a conditional use permit finding that there were other options available for the garage design that would not require grading within 5' of the property line. Further, the Planning Commission indicated that the situation was not created by the neighborhood residents who felt that they would be adversely impacted by the grading and subsequent driveway and retaining wall being located 2' from the property line. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To approve or amend the enclosed resolution for denial. Attachments A Resolution B Survey C Proposed Landscaping Plan D Staff report to PC on 1/20/98 E Packet from applicant A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21.3 FILE #2290 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Steve and Elaine Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") property owners of 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract ofland lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lie between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lying of said Lot 19; and (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21.3, to permit grading within 5' of the southerly property line to allow for a driveway and retaining wall to be located 2' from the property line; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission after due public notice held a public hearing on January 20, 1998, to review the application, at which time the applicant, and all other interested members of the public were allowed to comment on the proposed application; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the reports of the City staff, the comments of the Planning Commission, and of the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, hereby denies the conditional use permit application as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property and application: FINDINGS 1. This property is located in the LR-1 C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District and consist of 22,420 s.f. or .51 acres where a minimum of (1/2) one-half acre is required. 2. The subject property received multiple variances on March 10, 1997, for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setback and structural coverage as set forth in Resolution #3851. 3. The subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirements for the LR-IC Zoning District. The minimum lot width requirement is 100' measured at the 30' street yard setback. The subject property lot width at the 30' setback is approximately 57'. 4. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application as proposed on the following findings: A There are alternative design options for locating the garage and driveway that do not require a conditional use permit. B. The commission has heard testimony from adjacent property owners and the neighborhood regarding adverse impact. 5. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the property line is not in accordance with the objective of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Page 2 of3 6. The City Council finds that the proposed location of the grading for the purposes of installing a driveway and retaining wall would have an adverse impact of the adjacent property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 26th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S . Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour, & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of3 : • 0 ,_r ....-. C J ~ -C ,r (t J -.--.... -::.. ~ ,;. ~ ~-( C. . .-.-- • --r ~ :. --'-:_ £ J~ <.-~ -: .--- C. C. -·.f J -,;:. I i I I .---- ;..: I .. ", .. ' 1'-/ ·-; I I '() ~ I ~-- / _:..; .... '~. ... . .. ,. ...... .. , ..... .. ........ · 1· .. ... >.: . .:-,. .. .:. . " :· .. ..,_ I I I : -to I I I I I I ~ 11 I I I I I I <&. A kt 1"'-\ IV\ .(b %\ .,, ("\ ~\ \ ~ ,, £.th.\ k::1 t \ \ V' \ C. 13 '\.. \ .,_ \ \, \ >\ / , ..... 0 \:o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ i j -~ ~ £ ,__ q-' . \J'\ q- I \• ' -·""Tt)f'o,,-~~ _:_~~ . -~ ~ ~·tii. ·-\1\ ... j E::-l--e.V~-i-(oN '· ---. ~ / '\; ~ !! '\. '/ "- rn ,---[ -,--- ., / ::, ~ I ~ ; '\.._ I 11 ---tJ,..ttf. --- , II h I! -=========;---;:· __.l JUL_ . . f?iNINc& LJL i' -' ~- ~~·f' e. N , ~ r 'NH- . ~N ~ ~~et, ~ 11r' "'' -"iMt-..rr~~ ~•et, ~;,t;·e,c, ~~ v1·ei. ~o • ~t, a.. 'th· c. TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: January 2, 1998 SUBJECT: #2290 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Zoning District: Lot Size: Background: NOTE: Application: Conditional Use Permit--Continuation of Public Hearing LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre), Sewered 22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) This applicant has been tabled or postponed several times. The applicant has requested that this item be placed back on the January 20th agenda. A large packet was delivered to you in December regarding this item. Please bring it to the January 20th meeting. If you need another copy, please contact staff before the meeting. The application is for a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow the driveway and retaining wall to extend into the side yard to provide more space to get in and out of the garage. ANALYSIS A conditional use permit is used to authorize and regulate a specific use in a specific district as indicated by the Zoning Code. Grading within 5' of the property line in a residential district is a conditional use. Uses that are classified as a conditional use are reviewed on a case by case basis to determine if the use is appropriate in the proposed location and are consistent with the stated purpose of the zoning district. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page--! 1. Is the proposed location of the conditional use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which it is located and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan? The subject lot meets the minimum lot area requirement for the zoning district. It does not meet the minimum lot width requirement which contributes to the problem of siting a three car side loading garage with an adequate driveway. The subject lot was granted previous variances for structural coverage, average lakeshore setback and hardcover. The principal structure meets the required 1 O' side yard setback. The Zoning Code provides for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission. One of the guidelines to determine if a grading plan should be referred to the Planning Commission is whether grading or alterations would propose any changes in elevations within 5 ft. of the adjacent residential lot lines, except for drainage swales and ditches. (Section 10.03, Subd. 21 (3)). The comprehensive plan does not specifically address grading within 5' of a property line for the installation of a driveway and retaining wall. In the Land Use chapter of the plan, statement #15 states: "All physical improvements must conform to city standards. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans." Grading within 5' of the property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall may be considered a physical improvement to the subject property. However, staff believes that this plan statement refers to new development. There is no clear policy direction in the plan that relates to rebuilding on a site and locating driveways. In the Environment chapter, statement #13, the plan states that on-site water retention facilities will be required for development projects whenever necessary to maintain or improve the existing storm water runoff patterns. The policy also states that no development will be permitted to adversely impact it's neighbors, or the City, by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting storm water drainage. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page--2 The proposed driveway and retaining wall plan includes a curb that will intercept water flowing from the north to the east and south across the property from the road. Runoff would follow the curb and drain along the side yard. Previously there was a shared driveway between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. Please compare the two topographical maps from before and after the construction of the new residence to understand the drainage pattern. 2. Does the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity? The adjacent property owners have written a letter objecting to a retaining wall and driveway being located 2' from their property line. The Planning Commission needs to discuss whether the grading to accomplish the proposed driveway and retaining wall would be materially injurious to the properties in the vicinity. A conditional use permit may be revokable, may be granted for limited time, or may be granted subject to such conditions that the Council may prescribe. The conditional use permit may remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and consider the following issues: 1. Should the 5' setback for grading be reduced to 2' to provide a driveway and retaining wall? What are the consequences of reducing this standard for other lakeshore lots that do not meet the minimum lot width requirements? 2. Does the proposed grading improve drainage? What impact, if any, does it have on other properties? 3. Would the grading within 2' of the property line negatively impact the adjacent property? What conditions could be placed on the conditional use permit to negate or eliminate any negative impacts? If the Planning Commission finds in the affirmative to the above three questions, then the conditional use permit should be approved. If the Planning Commission finds that the application should not be approved, then staff should be directed to work with the City Attorney to prepare in detail written reasons for the denial. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle CUP 1/20/98 page--3 Dear Planning Commission, Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 Dec 31, 1997 ~6-1998 We are the next door neighbor to the North of the Silas property. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend tonight's meeting since we made travel plans over this date several months ago. We realize we have voiced the following points in prior meetings, however since some time has elapsed since this issue was last tabled, we would appreciate it if you could read these points again in lieu of our absence. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) for construction of an 80' long , 4' high retaining wall within 2' of our property line . We ask that the planning commission uphold the Orono city code which states that the wall must be 5' from our property line . Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and po s sibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us . ** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes. With the now 4' elevated driveway our house looks very crowded in. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction . ** Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ** If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? ** Orono has not normally allowed "90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A "straight drive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood. A "straight drive in" garage would create less hardcover. ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. City of Orono Planning Commission October 21, 1997 Dear Commissioners, 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Sil us' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions --fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: December 1, 1997 SUBJECT: #2290, Steve and Elaine Silus, 3235 Casco Circle On Wednesday, November 26, 1997, Mr. Silus came to the City offices wi~h the enclosed information. This item was tabled at the November meeting at the request of the applicant. Mr. Silus asked that this information be sent to you. It is being sent separate from the regular packet to give you time to review it. 1 November 21, 1997 City of Orono Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 E I am writing in response to a 44 page packet of material sent to me on November 13, 1997 by Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Commission. I believe that all of you have received the same information. This is the first time I have seen all of the meeting minutes along with prior applications and neighbors letters all put into one packet. For that reason, I would like to clarify some of the issues brought up. I have numbered the pages in the lower right hand corner for ease of reference. I have also highlighted the items to be addressed. Page 2. Note a) In abiding by the Building Inspectors recommendations to lower the footings of the garage, it appears that access to the garage would not be a problem. Otherwise why redo the footings in the first place? Page 2. Note b} Prior to demolition, the Silus' had a fence on their property along the lot line that restricted utility access in a worse manner than is proposed. In other words, the new proposal is an improvement. Page 28. Note a) The structure is a one (1) story with walkout residence and we feel is aesthetically pleasing. The Hackberry tree was saved and is currently in good condition. The floor levels of the structure are at the approximate height of both the residence to the north and the residence to the south. The roof line coincides with the two adjoining residences to the north and to the residence two (2) lots to the south. The obvious visual difference is that the Spilseth residence is constructed with a flat roof. Thus the low profile to the surrounding structures. Paqe 28. Note b) Residences to our north and south were shown plans of the new structure and acknowledged same. The side entry garage was shown at that time. Page 2. Paae 31. This shows the original findings of the Planning Commission as presented to and passed by the City Council. Noted Findings: A. Conforms to height requirements. B. Hackberry tree was preserved. C. Reduced hardcover. D. The residence conforms more closely to the average lakeshore setback than the former structure. E. One story design used. F. No negative comments were received from the adjacent property owners. I must emphasis, adjacent property owners were aware of the side entry garage at this time with no objections. This was the time to express their concern, not after construction was started. Page 36. Note a) The Site Plan which is stamped, approved, and signed by Lyle Oman on The City of Orono clearly shows a boulder wall within the five (5) foot area in question. Mr. Oman stated to me in the city offices that this was an oversight on his part. I truly take him at his word. However, so was our oversight as to the five (5) foot setback ordinance. Page 36. Note b) We have agreed to go to a block constructed wall within the five (5) foot area. This wall does not need to be engineered for it is only 42" high at the highest point. Page 36. Note c) The third line should read: The approval on the site building plans show the wall two (2) feet off the lot line. The grade of the garage was lowered per recommendations of the building inspector. Page 37. Note a} None of the properties opposing construction of the retaining wall have ever asked questions of us as to where the wall would run. The current drawings show its position. I was not aware of the ordinance in issue. This ordinance was an oversight on my part, my builders part, Lyle Oman's part, and the surveyors part. Our oversight was driven by our neighbors to the north being allowed access to the five (5) foot area of question (this poses no problems to anyone), by Lyle Oman's approval of the site plans, by no knowledge of the ordinance by the surveying company, and total non acknowledgement of the ordinance. Even though we had thought that a boulder wall would be more natural to the area, we have agreed to go to the interlocking wall system if used within the five (5) foot area. Page 3. Page 37. Note b) The new drawing contained show the proposal. Page 37. Note c) There has never been a problem with snow removal in any prior year. I can only hope that the Spilseth's, with a new circular driveway blacktopped to our mutual lot line, will conduct their snow removal in the same respectful manner as we have. Page 37. Noted) Jay Richards was not aware that the wall he saw was temporary. He never asked anyone who knew the correct facts pertaining to the situation. His comments were made to the planning commission being totally uninformed or misinformed of the situation. Page 37. Note e) After being informed prior by Pat Spilseth that she wanted to only coexist with us, our Builder, Bruce Bren, tried to speak with the Spilseth's. They were totally against any communications. Page 38. Note a) The drainage situation has been improved from the prior situation. All runoff has been addressed in the proposal. Page 38. Note b) From conversation with the Orono building inspector, Diane Carlson's problem eight (8) years ago was caused by different circumstances. We feel it is irresponsible for her to make negative statements to the Orono Planning Commission without knowing the true facts of the construction project. Page 38. Note c} Pat Spilseth has viewed cars for the past four (4) years on our property. Cars have been parked next to the lot line with no prior complaints from anyone. Pat Spilseth was informed as to what was going on as stated prior. She only needed to "Ask Questions" as to what was further going on with the project. We were more than happy to answer any reasonable questions. This scenario was expressed to Dave and Pat Spilseth in mid to late June. No questions were ever asked of us. Page 39. Note a} This was one of the causes of the ensuing problem. Page 40. Note a) This has been a construction site with all proper runoff barriers present. When there was a problem with barriers, which happened very little, the problems were corrected within 24 hours. Water that would have come within inches of the Spilseth's door would have been from their own driveway, sidewalk, and property. All accommodations to runoff from the construction site have always been addressed. We can not be held responsible for their own property Page 4. runoff. Page 41. Note a) Bruce Vang had never discussed this problem with the applicant, Steve and Elaine Silus. Page 41. Note b} As previously stated, this was a different situation and a irresponsible comment to be made by Pat Spilseth. Page 41. Note c} This was one of the reasons for the ordinance oversight. Page 41. Noted) We are asking for a CUP in the garage area only. As far as anyone knows, the Hackberry tree is alive and well, contrary to Pat Spilseth's unsubstantiated allegation. Page 41 Note e) Drainage has been addressed per the proposal. With regard to letters submitted to the Planning Commission, I would like to respond to some of the issues brought up by the writers. From Dave and Pat Spilseth: Page 42. Note a} The spelling of our last name is Silus. The wall would not be eighty (80) feet long, nor four (4) feet high, and we are requesting two (2) feet from the lot line. Page 42. Note b} There is no basis for the Spilseth's stating that hardcover would go up. Notes to the contrary have been presented prior. The shared fence was our fence as explained to us when we purchased the property, as shown by the survey, and acknowledged to Elaine when she was asked by Pat Spilseth if we were going to remove 11 our 11 fence. The fence had to be removed to reduce hardcover. The driveway was being relocated as to better suit the new house and yard. Compensation, as used in their letter, usually refers to monetary compensation. We do not feel that the Spilseth' s should receive compensation to remove our fence or relocate our driveway on our property. Page 42. Note c} This is unfounded, drainage has been addressed. Page 42. Note d} We have never infringed on our neighbors property and would never do so. Unfortunately, I feel that they can not state the same situation with regard to their infringement on our property. Page 5. Page 42. Note e} No more than their children playing in our yard and getting hurt. Page 42. Note f} They knew of this design from the start. Where were they then. From Susan Smith Swanson Page 43. Note a} I feel that we have addressed the thorny problems alluded to in this letter. There are also residence of Casco Circle who are very happy with the new construction. We have received numerous compliments from residence and non residence alike. Page 43. Note b} I will give Ms. Swanson the benefit of the doubt on her comment with regard to the garage doors facing the wrong way. Obviously, she was not aware that a drawing of the house was shown to the adjacent home owners prior to any building permits being issued. Also, any change in water. runoff is minimal, would be improved, and has been addressed. If Ms. Swanson had concerns for these supposed problems, being the neighbor that she states, you would have thought she would have brought these concerns to our attention in the first place. Page 43. Note c} Nothing has ever been hidden from the neighbors. I would welcome Ms. Swanson's basis for her comment. Page 43. Noted} When the construction project is done, and they do take time, there will be no damage to anyone's lawns, gardens, their own driveways usability, or their views. How Ms. Swanson or other neighbors not mentioned by Ms. Swanson are affected by the above puzzles me. From Judith Boyum With reference to Ms. Boyum's letter, when she was asked of the basis of content in her letter by Bruce Bren, she stated that she felt embarrassed about sending same. She knew none of the pertinent facts and was given incomplete information by others. She apologized for writing the letter at all. It seems strange that she also spelled our last name Silas. Page 6. To date I have not addressed any of the comments presented to your committee. I feel many issues have been blown out of proportion with false information and people speaking without knowing all information. Let's put this in perspective. Everything we have done with regard to this project was done in good faith. There have been oversights by many involved. We are asking the right to use a minimal amount of our own property to enter and exit our garage. The orientation of the garage will not be changed even if the CUP is not granted. It would not be practical. Therefore, please look at the pros and cons. I believe that the facts with regard to the pros far outweigh the cons. Thank You, Steve and Elaine Silus TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: November 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use--Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre) Sewered 22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Lot Size: Application: Applicants are seeking a conditional use permit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway which would allow the driveway fo be approximately 24'-25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of 21' where 3 O' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 3. To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) of hardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq . .ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. 4. To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--1 (7) ·••> . The house construction proceeded following approval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city topo maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site . fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate the site to provide for a lakeside walk-out. During the footings inspection it was determined that there would not be adequate room to back ouf of the three car side-loading garage . The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line. It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage .. The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3' grade change is an improvement over the 5' change that was originally planned due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the size of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2' of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5' to 3' in height. Grading within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicants chose to build a retaining wall 5' from the property line and less than 42' in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary .. As proposed, the retaining wall 2' from the property line provides approximately 24' of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5' from the property line, the driveway would be 21' in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30' is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and indicated that 1 O' is usually recommended along side yards for drainage. City subdivision regulations require a 5' drainage and utility easement along each internal lot line . This provides for a 1 O' wide drainage and utility easement between all lots. The recommended 5' distance is in accordance with City policy. Grass is also recommended in the drainage swale rather than rock mulch. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.25, LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District • Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd . 19. Prohibitions and Subd . 21. Exceptions #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--2 Subd. 19. Prohibition.· It is unlawful for any person to: a. remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; b. to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c. or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: a. the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or b. the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c. to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance to this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--3 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses, Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit Lot Area and Yards LR-lC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre 100' 30' 10' 75' and average (21,780 sq. ft.) lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .517 acres 55' 55' to new 1 0' on each side 170'+ (22,420 sq. ft.) garage of new house, 2' proposed for wall The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width requirements. A conditional use permit is required because of the grading within 5' of the property line. A 55' wide lot does not provide adequate width to meet the 1 0' side yard requirements and a 30' driveway pad in front of the garage. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--4 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage % of Total Lot 22,420 sq. ft. 3,435 sq. ft. 15.32 A variance was granted in February 1997 for 72 sq. ft. of structural coverage. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance Total Area in Allowed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover from Setback Hardcover with former proposed proposed Shoreline residence with new with construction retaining wall 0'-75' 6,117 sq. ft. None 13 sq.ft. None None (.21%) 75'-250' 12,436 sq. ft. 3,109 sq. ft. 3,562 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. (25%) (28.64%) (29.6%) (29.6%) 250'-500' 3,867 sq. ft. 1,160 sq. ft. 1,429 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. (30%) (36.95%) (31.2%) (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difficult to consider as a "use". Nonetheless, the Planning Commission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit Jl/17/97 page--5 CV not have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent property. The proposed retaining wall will collect water that from the driveway and channel it into the side yard where a concrete spilllway previously was located. The applicants have indicated that the concrete spillway was old and in disrepair. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent property. The 2' strip and the south side yard is shown as rip/rap or rock mulch. The City Engineer has advised that the slope could be planted with sod to have less impact on the adjacent property. His recommendation to remain 5' off the property line has not changed. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve the application, the Planning Commisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning requirements. Considerations 1. If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wall 5' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a three car side #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11117/97 page--6 loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. 2. The grade of the garage floor is 3' higher than the south property line. Reducing the grade 3' so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modification to the garage. Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2' from the property line would provide a 24' driveway where 30' is usually needed and recommended. The City Engineer has recommended that the wall remain 5' from the property line and the side yard be landscaped with sod and planting to screen the driveway from the adjacent property. The proposed wall location only provides for a 2' drainage swale at the base of the wall. This is not in compliance with standard city policy for subdivisions for new construction which requires a 5' easement for drainage purposes along lot lines. The plan as submitted does not comply with the Planning Commission's previous directives to keep the wall 5' from the property line which would eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. Attachments New plans follow staff report 1-5 A Application Applicant's hardship statement B Plat map C Topo map of previous situation D Permit record E Adjacent Owner's Acknowledgement Form F Zoning Code excerpt regarding non-encroachments G Hardcover calculations H 2/18/97 minutes for previous variances I Resolution 3851 J Minutes from September 1997 meeting K Minutes from October 1997 meeting L Letters from neighbors #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--7 • -~ --# 2,2qc, Ela.iV\e.. O.'f\cJ ~,Jc:, Silvt.s r I I --3Z'3S ~ C-lJU-1-e c; I ·- 751 1 " 2 ·'iJ& 3 I 4 I 5 175 ~ RD .a-o-..sr:...11 ~ I ~ --·.ra.. ~ ~ C ~ I ~ #UnH'IUMSl:M ■ .. "' "'~ -=--~3 C m I A I ••M GAME FARM RD E ~z I ---C I -- ~:; -A~~----) ~\ 0 C --g Crystal I --- C ~ I --.. ~~ -i l c:; I --· .. ~ ·-C I ·--- ~ Bl 2400 g WOOOEOGE Ro~.f ~ 0 -2~• ~ M r•I~ C I "' g MAYW~OD RD:NCO .. ■ •a5!~ <:\~ -? i A arrllML._ ?! 8~. C I ---v r-- 0.. c:;; ----I .,. <{ ~ 1-RUBYU.' 2-CHANNEL RO w 3-GLENDALE RO c; I -w j Cl) ' Cooks Bay MOUND c; I -~ e ....... Cl B\~1-ft~\\@~ __,....~Hards~fr-;~\~320~}~~•:,• I E::BJ:W{~ ~)"'"',,/// ~1:)J..f\NlJ f.~---~p••~~ \ C C: I --- e /! ..... ,-•• -~ 'r-f-~/-1 I ....... l,GU.SGOW llD •' SHADY k£l J-CAKTEABUl'IYJID ~ \, ~ ~i.~ N{in.rietori H.ENARltllll • e '-..._ nt..oJoS~ Ntr.:w1.um I .... c:::-I .... Lake Minnetonka e· .................. &J.., I . '1 ISLAND ) ~ lil EDGEWOOD ao ~I~ D r:icco J~ ,'\. I I \ ~q,"'4GCC i e. RO f ... l o I I . -a /_ e: .... co fl 8l 0 .. ::;; "' e. -- z ::c " [I @) I 1 c:1 ,, \~ \o. I. ,.,1~~ ,. I" ,,,,,,.. -,,-...._, -.... ~\ c:-11 • . lL . "" z. $'. N-ewe.s+ (_ J tro~a.\ 1 b.AbW\ i-tkJ ·1 1\\ • i~" ~ . l~ l0·l2·9'1 :·~ ~,L ,n~. I:. . -~: I ~ ..... 1 ; I '::,J I\~ .. J r ~~ ~ ./ 1. (,. ~ ll ,Y " ~\ t ~ ~ ,l ~\ \> I. r.i \· ~ 111 {1 I. ,sci '··1111 ·r. ~ ,:i -~ ;,: ., {I ~ -~ s,. i I I . I • l. ' ; I I I. I • • \ CJ . ~--·--□-I Ile:] D B CJ a 2 ~ ;i;, "(\ i 3 . ((y ~' ~ :x::. . . \_: j?. .. t~ ?;:·r -~: "Z. ---r [-~\ \ lU r 1'-. i :i: ~ ~~ -~ _1 1 !- 4 . /11) .. (1/ s ru i ~ ~ ~\\) z } ~ ~ ·~ ~ I • li -'cl_ ~ -~ t t ~ t r ·- i \\j -~ z ~ ·-t chol,,\,l d be__ ~ C.Df\d;-h.B"hc.J) ~, \. ~~rh Application # =-,;:z_ '? O '-'---'------ Date Received ...::i~.)o .crv Amount Paid g: /:i. ;;i_/.::; 2 Initial Application Fee $220.00 ~ n ~ CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION 0 ($50.00. pe_r_ each additional variance) ' # 2· t, ~ ~~~,/;) ~ Renewal Vanance Fee_ ~120.00. . _,, ~ t,;,):__._d/ 8 . (~o change from ongm~ apphcat10n) . · . · ~ Vanance for non-conformmg structures $220.00 · >- After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ~ I;; PROPERTY INFOR.l\tIATION . SiteAddress .J L 3.S-Cci..,_s-~ G.,,..'--/'9-, Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Lo+ 19 , S ,-,......cN<:., Po...,,,_ k.,_ Attach legal description to application if not included' on ~equiriii survey. ...... ~ ~ Date Pr~cquired ___________________ (month/year) I (do) ~ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Kresidential __ other (specify) _________ _ \ I, i ·, ZoningDistrict: ,( I<... -Jc__ J;-,, __ :c/q fu_/)-\.·,1-~P ... :S~J~I ¾,>:c:4½v<,, 'a Acr<Z. J O J J' ...-I ~"<V...z_Q APPLICANT ' Phone (home) o/2/·-9"? 3 i ·/ . .., ' ( / Name ,<':!>o.__n.µ_,~ <'L-ie\/c> ,;J 1 t. .• ~5"' Phone (work) 7' 7 2-8 7 -/~/ Address: 3 z_ -3 .;-Ce......S,;'...,,c> G:-JQ_, City: Ora 6 ,-,4 Zip: .•:r~;" 3 2; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) _______ _ ----------------Phone (work) _______ _ Address: -------------City: ________ Zip: ___ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost$ ------- Describe request in detail: 5-:?e -~4~ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover __ Lot Coverage ~ Setback: Front 1S,._ Side Rear Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) ______________________ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ;r:gg__ ~.,, ..y__.Q (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1.. ✓ 2. ✓ ... ✓ ., . 4. / 5. I - 6. ✓ - 7. ... I 8. ti Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ½" x 11 "). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred iri review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trne and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signatur~ .4,/4s ,Ja, ~'_) Date & /2 2-I "z 7 7 I O\VNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signatur~ ,;2, -~ Date ~/?-7--,/7 / Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ~t.G.L\..~\\ ~(::;--\0 \ ~~u_, ·-A-~ w~ . -~~6-~~ \.--Q)T' UI() ~ ~UG-~~ . :~ -~ l¾.-LLD~ E~tl.JQJ2: -AfRJO ~ u c:R -~ll..~\Y..'bc--\ ~~. WN.L ~'-~' -'° \:)€ A~XlM~SL~· .. )..,} -Pt-. ~ ':S~\..tt\ ~T ~ t w\ ·tc:, ~ €i2__ ~ --~~~ -~~ p I 'D~VD.C)U o;:-\.JJJL\5lV1L ~___:__~~ ~t::icnbU~~-- ~~~ ~ '0~~ u~~ UaT w l DW+--. -~~ \.3 06T 6L~~\Q...\.~~ ~u°C::.)H -~~ .-=?~~L o~ SA~ t\-~V--JQJg: / EX·rr ·--u-JTb --~ Q:,~~ stA.~ Wt~v=:r EcLLL\t)t'-JG- ~ ~~\ 'U \ 'J-Je:r wA.:..LL w \.~ iJ ·-n,~ -5"' ~T $.D'<!:)~ O~\l)A~~ \U E-l.£VAT\O\--J C¾--WIJb-l:: A LOT 150 SPRING PARK .···. ····· ('31) · .... c. ID ( . . -°' • r., ;)I c:,, !. <) fi. + Ji.. M J s VJ Permit No. IO JS .... I\. .... ., • Jooo 3o5 7 ADDRESS ,3 ~3-~ ~C-<) Cui. PERMIT RECORD ........ ·, \·. . .. Date I I -1.,~? · 9-la ~9o · ~-11-91 fe ~10 ~c:;7 "' .· ~~ :&/YI() 17;/} } fi \ ·'··\. :/~~~, ,ri~•·; <. .~ ... :.,./ _.. _ : 1 '~\ ijl e- . .--zJ if ~ ~;..~ -,~., V Adja~ent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) })th.t-Spl c. SE-"'-fb-\-of ·:s /' 5·7 C/':;i y·o cl~ [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. r!J-2-1-9 7 Property Owner 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. ~ IP~Owner Date 7 I Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Bu"ilding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. · 9 (_g § 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, f shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front -30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear -30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pila_sters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, Frovided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. c. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops. or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, fences and walls not to exceed a hei ht of 6 feet above original rade and open off~ s reet arking exce t for lakeshore lots, no fence or wa over 42 inches but not in excess of inc es in ei a ove origina grade may be located closer o e shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. ORONO CC 256-1 Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 (4-1-84) § 10.03 E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or :'."al 1 constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles,.and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1, 1975 with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a condi tiona 1 use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) . ·-'-t-_. § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. }'.ny unusual earth filling, removal or gradin sed b a builder shall be referred by the u1 1ng nspector to e Plann' ornrnissio a e nci r sction in accordance with this Chapter. The Bui ing Inspect shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: .3 . .,, . k tnc\.s--thcl+ ~-r..5 1 Mplie.d Y\-e..e.d Q.u • .p. 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any addi tiona 1 f i 11 brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lines except for drainage swales and ditches. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakes e to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary rip-rap of lakeshore property~ It is unlawful for any person to rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits of the City without a permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing showing the location of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City Engineer may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount prescribed by the current City fee schedule payable to the City. ORONO CC 258-1 Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 (4-1-84) ·;1; I-WillCOY~CULATlON WUt<.1\..'.::>tilir,, .. 0 '{),'· SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 25-500' /-('I.I, 10-)-97 ·.:~ 500-1000' · 'i ~ ·:; E:\'1STING HARDCOVER TN ZONE .. {, A. House X = S.F. Gr :,I ~~ Length Width X = S.F. r X = S.F. ,. X = S.F. :: I' B. Garage X ,. ,. = S.F. r 11t,: ... :, C. Dnvc~vay X = S.F. ;} X -. S. f. ;.( D. Sidewalk X -~ = S.F. X = $. r-. f: ... . ,ii E. Patio/Deck ij( X = S.F. I' X = S.F. I . . F. Landscape X = S.F . ',' -'.t,· Underlain• . x. = SiF . :.t:; ,l1l· By Plastic. X = S.F .. -·~ !'•j :i Or Fabric• ... O<.DRou~ -1~: G. Other S'Tf P5 X = 1, S.F. !I• TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 13. .,ff S.F. A :,:: TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ,·. 6llZ S.F. B ·, . ;1, A 13 B {117 X 100 = 0 .. 21 Ul 10 :i !' PROPOSED HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House X = S.F. ~tl, Length Width l X = S.F. t{, X = S.F. -r~ .. x = s.r . ·~ :11: B. Garage X S.F. ·:, = J C. Drive\vay X = S.F. r 1;. X = S.F. :): ··:. ,, I· D. Sidewalk X = S.F. .I X = S.F. ~i ( ' E. Patio'/Deck" . X S.F. . :( = :!l X = S. F. ~[ ·< F. Landscape S.F. ·1 X = :! Underlain X = ·s.r◄• .:!- .J By Plastic X = S.F. ,. ·,1. Or Fabric. , ... · l .. • .1; G. Other X -a S.F. .(, ,,;, .. ·O S.F. A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE .. 6..U7 S.F . 8 ~-TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ./ A 0 + B 6/17 X 100 -0 % >, ;'t ;·J 'i) ·i 1• .. . .. ...... . .. .. (!/~ .,. 14 :-~ -;~ ., ~ ., HARDCOVER CALCULA'flON WUl<.1\ . .'.).t-llit 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CffiCLE ONE) 0-75' @~ 25-500' .... rf'v~ 10-J-c; 7 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House = Hou5£-l {341-S.F. length )C 22. )C )C B. Garage )C C. DriveWa)' . :c )C Sp, u.w1ty D. -oidc~td-k )C . ; t-c.oN~, t VA~•ouS (· ·-x··· . ·t . '•• .... E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape . Underlain By Plastic. Or Fabric• PAr2T i3, · G. Other (£,.JC [ ------ X X X X X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width 3 A. J 56"2 + B /2 1 4]& • I O .. ,~,. ,_.,, .. , ..... I • _,.,, ·•-• ., .. •• PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length X )C X . . .... x. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk P~ £>I' of r rJ f .ri'f __ ,o __ s ___ -''2_,_0 ____ E. Patio/Deck X )C X X )C Width s = = = = = = = = = = = = = = X 100 = = = = = = = = = = "(-""(,Z-= X ;( ------f';M l'/1· = F. Landscape ;( = Underlain X = By Plastic X = Or Fabric G. Other /(.f T. l-VA l L X - TOT A.L HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3 t K 5 + B / 2., 43 6 X 100 = . 14. 80 S.F. 66 S.F. ''> S.F. S.F. 1157 S.F . S.F. /q§ S.F. $3 S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 19 S.F. 356'2-S.F. A 12.436 S.F. B ze ~61:: % 2 702 S.F. S.F. S.F. s·.F . S.F. 300 S.F. S.F. [JO S.F. /00 S.F. 3to S.F. Jl. 5 S.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. 18 S.P. 3('[{5, s.F. A /2 t 4 3 6 S.F. B 2,9. 63 % /~ ··, (1,,?. -...," ...... ' .i HARDCOVER CA.LCULAT!01"l YVu1~~~ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ~ ,1.J rev 1 ,., v-]~97 500-1000 1 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Ga.rag~ D. Sidewalk X X X X X X X X X = Width = = = 4 / -· OYf1-.. 22. -_) i..11, (= = = ' '•• ..... , .. ~ ...... _. .. .... ..... -.• ........ ·~~ .... . ,.,.,,.. ·•~-,., V ' ..... ...,. E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain .... By. Plastic. Or Fabric• G. Other X X X X . -~ ... X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL .PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A. /42.9 ..,.. B ]867 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House (CAllAC-0 x. Length . ·B. Garrige C. Driveway./ /46T, WA us D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X ,c . • JC X X JC ,c ,c X X JC X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width A 1205" + B 3.J>o7 ' '•• .. lo• I • ••-• ,,.~, ... ,,_ • _, ..... , _,_ • ,,., • •• ·.: .. : . 14 ... : =·l = = = X 100 = = = = = =· •' = = = = = = = = = = X 100 ,.. ______ S.F. _____ ::_ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. {C6 ----"~-=----S.F. _ ____.7c...Jl...l:O~_S.F. __ ..:::5_,3:!..__S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ------S.F. ______ ,S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F . ______ S.F. J 4 2 9 S.F. A 3867 S.F. B J6'~ ?5 % 2 48 S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ s·.F . ___ -=...:..; __ S.F. __ 9~{-=-0-S.F. S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------______ s.F. S.F. ------'S.F. ------S.F. S.P. ------ / 20¥' · S.F. A 3p 0 7 S.F. B 3/,24 % :MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMJSSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ( # 1 -#2211 Zoning Amendment -Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended. Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Hawn. McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEl\-1 (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-1 C Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0.28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width requirement is 100'. The property in question is 55' wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f. increase of hardcover in the 75-250' setback and a 221 s.f reduction in the 250-500' setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line of the two adjoining properties. · Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackbeny tree located on the property. 4 (-f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO:MNilSSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 -#2206 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure . They also are attempting to save the hackberry tree . He noted the proposed deck does not extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house . The proposed house would be farther back on the property . Situs said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered . He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back fi.trther on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to build a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so . • Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property . She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the fiiture . Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible . He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its changes from the existing structure . There were no public comments . Mdvlillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors . Schroeder asked if the 3-car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate . 5 /'.'.''~ -~ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 51 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO lVIUNICIP AL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 WHEREAS, Elaine Silus and Steve Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore A venue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lies between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section I 0.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), to permit removal of the existing residence and construction of a new residence. Per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), the deck for the proposed residence shall be located 8' f9rward of the average lakeshore setback where no such encroachment is allowed. Per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed at 3,685 s.f. (29.64%) where 3,562 s.f. (28.64%) is existing and where 3,109 s.f. (25%) is allowed. In the 250-500' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 1,208 s.f. (31.23%) where 1,429 s.f. (36.95%) is existing and where 1,160 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), structural coverage is proposed at 3,435 s.f. where 2,510 s.f. is existing and 3,363 s.f. (15%) is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2206. Page 1 of 5 I .·. CITY of ORONO - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 ;'1, 1 2. The property _ is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The total lot area is 22,420 s.f. (.51 acres) in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 18, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The proposed residence conforms to side yard setbacks and height requirements. B. The proposed residence seeks to preserve a mature hackberry tree located at the street side of the property. C. The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f. existing; 4,893 s.f. proposed). D. The proposed residence more closely conforms to the average lakeshore setback than the existing residence . E. The proposed design (one-story) will mm1m1ze the visual impact of structure on a lot that is substandard in lot width. F. The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. 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 variances 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 applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 51 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 variances 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sectism 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), to permit removal of an existing structure and construction of a new residence to be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area of 576 s.f. or 4.64% and a 48 s.f. or 1.23% variance in the 250-500' setback area, and structural coverage variance of 72 s.f. or .32%. Approval was subject to the following conditions:. 1. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed as shown on the approved survey and shall be completed prior to the footing inspection · for new construction, except that the storage area in the existing garage may be used during construction. The existing garage/storage area shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 10, 1998). 3. 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. 4. 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. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .3 8 5 1 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. ~~~ Gabriel :fabbour, Ma~'---. Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of March, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTARY PU8UC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Canmlsslcn b;>lres Jan. 31, 2t"JOO . Notary Public Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 51 On this .:z<t./.+-fi day of /:f cd'eh , 1992_, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared [(cz,'nt' 5:(;,., d. st~ir". 2:lt..b ~:~..t"c> 4.. bu-:':,htuirl 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. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _____ day of __________ , 199 __ , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _______________ _ 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. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#10 -#2288 Jason Theis -Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Bressler indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for hardcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 1 O' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 1 O' driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 29 OR.ONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was revlewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. Staff recommends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5' from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 1 O' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required . The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the wall 2' off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Sil us that the builder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only . Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. 30 j •• .. I, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ....... MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Sil us said lie was not requesti,ng to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be . closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. ( Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the •9> landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line . He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Sil us indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. 31 b; ORONO PLANNING COMMiSSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gappa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5' from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and is concerned with a change in drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem . Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. (/ . Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to tum the garage. She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted the prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of what was occurring. Schroeder noted it was not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor · Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls . The wall was not part of the calculations. 32 > • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH AR1"1 LANE -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. • The Applicant had to leave the meeting ~arly due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments . Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant's absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3' from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining \Y'all must be located 5' from the property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21 '. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. 22 I • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to \ · this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home. The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the driveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the work was never stopped . Spilseth said the garage should be .changed from a side-loading garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood . Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. Schroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not reviewed them either. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous boulder wall. Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until now to address them . Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan . Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. ·Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan . would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application would require tabling. Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. 23 I l I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bruce Vang said he informed the b~ilder that the topography and garage were different from the plans .submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining -wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls.· Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit. He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information . He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0 . .. 24 C . Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms . Berg, Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 This letter is regarding our opposition to item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda . We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80' long , 4' high retaining wall 5' which would put it up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 ~ square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already ~ at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. -- ** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes . With the..!lQW 4' elevated driveway our house looks very crowded in . Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction. * Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance . This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ~ If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? -'€) ;,; Orono has not normally allowed "90 degree turn in" garage in our area . A "straight /.Jcirive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the · J) neighborhood . ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors . We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono . Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, L City of Orono Planning Commission October 21, 1997 Dear Commissioners, 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Sil us residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection . It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Sil us' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions --fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors . Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability , views, nor expenses . We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson CJ~;S-41 :luclii.h :JJo_yfan lPJedd/n.7 %usic Gonsuflanl Vocalisl 'Ji,' iuHv)~ R0.· tJ~ ~~ a)~ ~ )M,u 5S39/ ✓ ama -~ 1 Jt4/4_ ~ '1k ~w~ )'/4,, ~(/~ hJ Yfv_xifuJ e Ailf . , ~ fl ~ ~ ~ ~ tu VVl/'--f~ .. . ~ /4G¼-zl ~)1ltU/I e~¼Hhu a?/~~ rti/~ ~~r ~ 0~~~, Jl-1u~ . '-.'M, ~~LG ~ ~ 'yAu . '(t.~: l) ,J ~ ~✓ :V:uz~ ~w~~>&~~~ 129 71/exander 7/unnue, c'inowma,i, Colorado & I 6.54 970,927,9136 * -&00-944-704& * 970-92 7-91'7 (( =) (_ . (, l\tllNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 1\rIARCH 10, 1997 (#7 -#2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction -Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the potential concerns with granting conditional approval prior to EA W completion, Radio informed Jabbour that there might be no bene~ t in distinguishing between public and. private projects as a · private resident would say there is no difference. It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination from the comment reporting end ofMarch 1_2. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gaffron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EAW would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives \.vill verify and repott to Gaffron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EAW approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SIL US, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIAN CE - RESOLUTION NO. 3851 Situs asked for clarification of#l in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Silus asked that the temporary storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3 851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 KENT E. AND SUSAN S\VANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE~ VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGERt 3625 SIXTH A VENUE NORTH -VARIANCES/CUP-RECOMlvIENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. 14 A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21 (2) (C) FILE #2290 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Steve and Elaine Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") are the property owners of3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore Avenue and of the tract ofland lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lie between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19; and (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 21 (2) (C) to permit grading within 5' of the southerly property line to allow for a driveway and retaining wall to be located 2' from the property line; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission after due public notice held a public hearing on January 20, 1998, to review the application, at which time the applicant, and all other interested members of the public were allowed to comment on the proposed application; and Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the reports of the City staff, the comments of the Planning Commission, and comments and written statements submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota, hereby denies the conditional use permit application as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property and application: FINDINGS 1. This property is located in the LR-1 C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District and consists of 22,420 s.f. or .51 acres where a minimum of (1/2) one-half acre is required. 2. The subject property received multiple variances on March 10, 1997, for average lakeshore setback, hardcover in the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setback and structural coverage as set forth in Resolution #3851. 3. The subject lot does not meet the minimum lot width requirements for the LR-lC Zoning District. The minimum lot width requirement is 100' measured at the 30' street yard setback. The subject property lot width at the 30' setback is approximately 57'. 4. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application as proposed based on the following findings: A. There are alternative design options for locating the garage and driveway that do not require a conditional use permit. B. The Commission has heard testimony from adjacent property owners and the neighborhood regarding adverse impact. 5. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the property line is not in accordance with the objective of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Page 2 of3 6. The City Council finds that the proposed location of the grading for the purposes of installing a driveway and retaining wall would have an adverse impact on the adjacent property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 26th day of January, 1998. ATTEST: Linda S . Vee, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of January, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour, & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of3 A\\ l-e,,t4e/5 ~~ Y\£l~OY') Wa"I 6-eys, [ V\ fo C5h C (l_sc 6 Cl~ c LL /// 3 22£ l)'.) t U,\'"\ ~ 1-/ U) \?'-1 o C a_ dt _) . ~ 'P C3W AA\ C{J2.[__ fu-V\, (0 TciJo \.e. tAvvh l Rh 23 'i CITY of ORONO TIME: L;"'. lcS P To: To"" 1:o.rrett Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 FAX COVER SHEET PHONE: FAX: FROM: LIZ VAN ZOMEREN Municipal Offices CITY PLANNER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF ORONO PHONE: 473-7357 FAX: 473-0510 Number of Pages Following Cover Sheet: 4 NOTES: Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 TO: Mayor Jabbour and City Council Members FROM: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone# 471-9781 DATE: February 17, 1998 SUBJECT: #2290 Conditional Use Permit I am writing in response to the Planning Commissions vote on 20, 1998 to deny the above mentioned Conditional Use Permit. attached a copy of their reasons for denial and would like to those reasons. 1) Options for design January I have address Yes there were options for design when the project started. The time to make changes is when the design is on paper. Any negative situations on the proposed plan could have been addressed at that time. However, both adjacent neighbors were shown the proposed design, which has been built, and the proper acknowledgement forms · were signed on October 15, 1996. The Orono Planning Commission Approved the building plans in their meeting of February 18, 1997. There were NO public comments. The Orono City Council then Approved the building plans in their March 10, 1997 meeting. In the filed Resolution #3851, page 2 of 5, item 3.F., it states that The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. Between the time of The City Councils approval of the project to the existent building demolition on June 11, 1997, I have to believe that the City Building Inspectors reviewed the plans before the issuing of the building permit and the signing of the Site Plan. I know we, as the people paying the bill for this construction, along with being citizens and paying taxes in The City of Orono, feel we should get a professional review of building plans by the City Inspectors and Staff prior to construction. We, as well as the Planning Commission and City Council, have to rely on these peoples input. It was felt that anyone who saw something wrong would have suggested options or evidently there was nothing wrong. This was the time, PRIOR TO JUNE 11, 1997, for someone on the City Staff to inform us that The City likes to see at least thirty (30) feet for access to a garage. I have heard this distance mentioned by City page 2. Staff in more than one Planning Commission meeting. We were aware that we had but twenty-six (26) feet to the lot line and felt that would be adequate for access to our garage. To find out during construction in the last part of August 1997 that we had to be at least five (5) feet off the lot line, meaning twenty-one (21) feet access, gave us virtually no choice but to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Since our application for a Conditional Use Permit, we have done everything asked of us by the City Staff. There have been plans submitted that compromise a wall that will be two (2) feet from the lot line for a distance just in front of the garage openings. The rest of the wall, which tapers from a height of 3 1/2 feet at the house to nothing half way up the yard, would be 5 feet from the lot line. This is not a six foot wall. This would at least allow us twenty-four (24) feet of access to our garage. It was also brought up in the Planning Commission meeting of January 20, 1998 that the drainage situation was much improved over what had existed prior. I am only bringing this up because the drainage issue seemed to be of utmost concern by different groups of people. This improvement was attested to by City Engineer Greg Gappa. At the same meeting, a member of the Commission asked building inspector Bruce Vang if he or anyone else at the city had come up with a reasonable alternative plan for access to the garage. His response was NO. Well, we have a plan. 2) Situation not created by neighborhood that feels adversely impacted. We have not solicited comments or letters from any of the neighbors with regard to this situation. Why drag people into this when it totally does not affect them. However, there are neighbors who feel that the new house is a positive addition to the neighborhood and that this minimal request should be granted. If letters are what this is all about, let me know and we will get some for the records. For a statement to be made that this situation impacts any members of our neighborhood except minimally the Spilseth's is not analyzing the facts. The Spilseth's objections have centered around a side loading garage. However, the Spilseth's have been aware of a side loading garage since October 15, 1996. page 3. To date, we do not feel that this application has been looked at properly. The project file at the city office has much more detailed information than is included in this letter. I also welcome your looking at the property if you have not done so recently. If you have any questions of me, feel free to call at any reasonable time. We thank you for your review of this matter. Respectively, Steve and Elaine Silus February 5, 1998 Tom Barrett Hinshaw & Culbertson Piper Jaffrey Tower, Suite 3200 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Tom: CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed please find a packet of information regarding the conditional use permit variance for Steve and Elaine Silus, 3235 Casco Circle. They have requested a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the property line to allow their driveway to be located 2' from the property line with a retaining wall. Normal and customary grading for a new residence would be considered permitted. The building inspectors consider this request to be beyond normal and customary grading requiring a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the conditional use permit at their January 20, 1998 meeting. The applicants have requested postponement until February 23, 1998. I am requesting that you review the application so that you can advise the Council regarding drafting a resolution to deny the conditional use permit. I expect that they might sue the City if they do not obtain a conditional use permit. I anticipate that the neighbors, Dave and Pat Spilseth, would sue the City if the permit was granted. This whole process has been very difficult for both parties. Please review and call me if you have questions. I'll be on vacation February 18 through February 24th. Sincerely, ~~~"-~ Elizabeth Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator Enc. EVZ/ch Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2290 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: January 21, 1998 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Steve & Elaine Silus 3225 Casco Circle Wayzata MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DATE OF MEETING: January 20, 1998 VOTE: 4 FOR O AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Denial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Options for design 2. Situation not created by neighborhood that feels adversely impacted Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council January 26, 1998; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. 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. Jg 1. 2. 3 ... · Tha: the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zorung Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. I 11 1 111 §j' ~_: ... _ . ~ c~·~.-:,\\) ~~~'~ ..... _, ,-~.) _., -- .:::i .;._J >- ..J..J -~ C,~F.!iftlllrlliCAiw E Oilr SilJ.llliW 1EY !r,QF.I E lL AINE Sllll.JS tliN 11!.Q ili i119 , S11?1~llNi8 1PAt~h< HJ8 NjNjElPl~N C O l!JiN if Y, F;,1i liN/NJESiO ifA 1...9 1!>' -'51'.)(!l' ?>,<lGo'"il '· ......... :·•·I 0 >-'(j;~P --"I "-,,-'-., "~ "~-,,✓ ..... -•• ,,, '·· I (,; l,;,,:-.... •I -~:l•~,t:,f .:·~--:• .. ....,..; h .•.•:i~ / I I ·• .. , --.. .. I I ·;1 ), ~ le La.);re c_p.u., tr_ ~ t,.!-•DC.f)~ 'lb: rL l[I N 2!.~, -5°(Do•J G~~F¥:,e ~ 11D(Q!U\J1~ Ar-"f -= @) ~ S 0 ,) ,;H •;f :; "l r 'i. t) l} ,.,,. ,,., ;,_, . ., z 'if?. J )~.,.,,_,_, t '/$.:>.:; --11:. _ J·= •·•···•--.: r.•~ --li 'l]}--: -'•;•.-:,,, ,,,·., ~ 3 ~"11.'? 1[iilfc; .1~ ----11\1:>3<;. 2~ ~-•t l•J . -,,•~·::,,, r:.~•. ,: ·,• t!: ::•.J' ;•,I' • ,' , ,, ,, .. • •) ' ,I\ ,,,:,.,1 •• -~, ,•/1 1,,• •' ' ' 1; I" : f ,1• I • • : 1,• • i , I lo : : ,, • ~J; •! • I ; I I'd .: l• I .. J,• 1,• ; : I • •• \;;' :,., "•••·•• ' Ht· ~·J , : , • • 1 •.' • ' , ,, •,, r, ·, ,:1,.,.,' • ,,::,-,, l • : 'I••••, I ',J I': ',,• ;•, U ,J, ;,~• • I I t•• •• 1• • '.'I ,< • .J ••I+: '• , ' I'• ••I :1,-.,,11.,•, :• ... · ,. ':,1 , ·.:,·,·· 1 ,•,•,• ,. 1', . ~ .: . 1:-.... ':•,: : ~ •.••. ·" -': .: : . . .. , ... : •/G I J l :•. ,,,: ;'!••• , .,:: :: .... ,...... ,·,····. ,, . . . '. . . .. ~ ,.... : . . .. ..,, .. ,: .. •• ~•lo • 1 • ,t : ,1.,••1 • T~, • .,,_.,.,," •.1••• r,,i .,. , ,1 -•-'• ;·.••'•····,·.••.,•··· .,,., ... ,. •• , .• ,: 1:, .· 1 , ,, , .I ., •• ~••·• ·, ,• 1 lh 1_.,,., I H•, ••••• ,•• \: "• .,.•. .,,':·, "• •' ,.·~!•• "· .!-:,,• •u;,, . '•·.: ...... ,,.1 .. ~.:,,.,,,-,.,' ..... .!,, .,7.r..-,.~" _/ /4,, ~~.,. \I ,.\~ 1.1o.,.l ••,:\I,••,, .. ,,: ....... • ...... ~:·~. l I~ ' i I 11 Ill I 11 1 I I I l I Ii \_. -:·•" f:°r:·:-..... : tf ·:);;:; _-;.-_· ... • i . . 11 ii JI J .. ! ~· . 4'1 j; • ' ! '."J_ 'SI';. j I ··~ -~ ~. i ' 7t _., JL:, I I I ~'O .I> i( ~ -- I .. ,, 'I/' JO 4 :, .• < .z N --0 0 ~-Tf:)(.istin9 / ~ Vl __....,,.. -. - ... ~arage. ( ra a'F ,< e,"-1 ovf'L>) J()q \ I I I \ °''o ll 55.0 I f' ~ E1-i!itin9 I / :~ / •V\ / : -✓ ,/ /: ___ .. , / I ~OU~€ ·"" N 12 .0 I I £,xi$t,·n,g 13 9 " !" 10.0 ====:c.--0 " -.J " /' /l el I° 0 f f )') /../ <' t-tJ' t -1 1."" ... I \ PRO [SI DS€l?-. :·:, .. · ·, •• , I '--. __ r~ .. ,... .... :,,. 11 0 .2 •11e, I .._, I 4" ... -I ... t • ~ r ....... _. ~~ .3. • , • • • • l··· 9 q. .... ..,. __ D N l7 /...J¾ f--) .... · EX I 5 t ln_9 J-IOUSll ~i5\' I l§V-Jf&\) et-J roJq1 l I I I ~ ~\ _, > ~ \ 1 \ I <) "' 0-.. , • •• ♦• .,. . ' I \ \ \ \ D.rr Q;.· ,,·,I. ~' ~. -..... :11 •-4 I ll'llt'' ........... ·--... \ \ . • .. /;tc,,11"!.f~a Cl (V./r~t:tiVf I) ~✓,.u;, = "'JS?. o 2) ;,'d,' •" ,,.,.,drN = 9S•}. J J) ,u,,_-,., r.v-r -: 9 so. S --'/fL --: e°K✓fr✓PC: ('trv. ---luJl--; ~""""/'4 ~,rv. !Lull l!l!J . ~ll'llillN(, P,\IJllK. ui! ~u ull l(l llhdll.. polr l 01 llf Jlk ;:s l1111 ,, f1vL•11u1• ,,111,l ,,II lh<' lt d1C I. olt I dttdl ~111 d 'Iii'. o1 !t ,:ti ,1 fvt:11ut· ,,lr ,tJ ll.1J\k1· Mh 11:1t~l~u,,k,1 wll twit """''' '!,,: t 'd '',11.elr II y 1:x lL•1_,1~(Jl 111,1•, ult l fll• 11u, \,,u ll li•:1 1 y ill I Ill~~ 11lr S111 1(!1 I.ult. jly _ o : d 1,•tt •.tli ,.,, 11 or, th.ilr ~-t:• ~,•1l •· <J ll'11uh "'• 1 ; ,,r1 1!1.Jl1·k 1 •r ! 11111111 He ,1lr I li ~JI\ ... ht•w:i rtlr t: lt,t11~l·tl 1111u11 ,1 :1 ,11.., •,1t1ll t-d 11 ll h h •,. \'tr'r v,•y 111il.1•1nll~ Jr.,, \h"~' t.1,,, l1Juu1,.J,1i1· tie ~ tll!'>t.• 11l !it'1I 11-, lq:f•,: ._ .. 11 'Lt: ! ,1, ult 111111 uh ull e 1.1 lj11h ,icp : •. 11t ·I !l1t .. il11t .,1ll.tlur1 \I: •• 111 11 l·•.:·~1.1l11u ,. Lh•·f '-'(,I :. 11: .~:,•••, 111 .I I 1·1,,q ,,,1 ! I.I • ·.l,,1y,1 1111\y '-· Ill '::'11\.I 1 .',I !. l •lltt .. 1111 •) • '• •.• ,,H~-.. ,1:t t! .. 1!1h ~ ii 1, •lll\1 ·, ,\ , .. i'r,l r,11 , . 1,1"'' .i ii dlt\!i rl: ,1 1\• .: ,I I. 11 ·,!1,hl r,· llt n 11 I ,1 \,. ''""' ,,f 11\, ... , 1!1 ,\1 ~l.111 \ ... ,,fl , '\ \ \ . . . -. '~~ i~' /~ ' ........... :...., .. •::: ······"' "-"' .... *'- ,. . -- , I' : .. _: ...... ' J ,f ;." .. I) d 2) ;r. 3) J 11:. C:J t l ~. S f!'I ! d k e s lil1r, r •~ J ~ J ! i1! V J · ... j t t DEC 15 ''37 Cll: 5C1F'r·1 OIL RIR F'RODUCT:::; 61247::::::::747 DATE: l.2/15/.97 TO: Bruce Vang Orono City Office FROM: Steve Silus Total Number of Pages (1) FAX TRANSMISSION F'. 1 This letter is to notify you that the detached garage at 3235 C~soo Circle will be empty fox-removal by 1/1/98. Removal is being arranged by the builder. Steve Silus 1 November 21, 1997 City of Orono Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 I am writing in response to a 44 page packet of material sent to me on November 13, 1997 by Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Commission. I believe that all of you have received the same information. This is the first time I have seen all of the meeting minutes along with prior applications and neighbors letters all put into one packet. For that reason, I would like to clarify some of the issues brought up. I have numbered the pages in the lower right hand corner for ease of reference. I have also highlighted the items to be addressed. Page 2. Note a) In abiding by the Building Inspectors recommendations to lower the footings of the garage, it appears that access to the garage would not be a problem. Otherwise why redo the footings in the first place? Page 2. Note b) Prior to demolition, the Silus' had a fence on their property along the lot line that restricted utility access in a worse manner than is proposed. In other words, the new proposal is an improvement. Page 28. Note a} The structure is a one (1) story with walkout residence and we feel is aesthetically pleasing. The Hackberry tree was saved and is currently in good condition. The floor levels of the structure are at the approximate height of both the residence to the north and the residence to the south. The roof line coincides with the two adjoining residences to the north and to the residence two (2) lots to the south. The obvious visual difference is that the Spilseth residence is constructed with a flat roof. Thus the low profile to the surrounding structures. Page 28. Note b} Residences to our north and south were shown plans of the new structure and acknowledged same. The side entry garage was shown at that time. Page 2. Paqe 31. This shows the original findings of the Planning Commission as presented to and passed by the City Council. Noted Findings: A. Conforms to height requirements. B. Hackberry tree was preserved. C. Reduced hardcover. D. The residence conforms more closely to the average lakeshore setback than the former structure. E. One story design used. F. No negative comments were received from the adjacent property owners. I must emphasis, adjacent property owners were aware of the side entry garage at this time with no objections. This was the time to express their concern, not after construction was started. Page 36. Note a) The Site Plan which is stamped, approved, and signed by Lyle Oman on The City of Orono clearly shows a boulder wall within the five (5} foot area in question. Mr. Oman stated to me in the city offices that this was an oversight on his part. I truly take him at his word. However, so was our oversight as to the five (S} foot setback ordinance. Page 36. Note b) We have agreed to go to a block constructed wall within the five (5} foot area. This wall does not need to be engineered for it is only 42" high at the highest point. Page 36. Note c) The third line should read: The approval on the site building plans show the wall two (2} feet off the lot line. The grade of the garage was lowered per recommendations of the building inspector. Page 37. Note a) None of the properties opposing construction of the retaining wall have ever asked questions of us as to where the wall would run. The current drawings show its position. I was not aware of the ordinance in issue. This ordinance was an oversight on my part, my builders part, Lyle Oman's part, and the surveyors part. Our oversight was driven by our neighbors to the north being allowed access to the five (5) foot area of question (this poses no problems to anyone}, by Lyle Oman's approval of the site plans, by no knowledge of the ordinance by the surveying company, and total non acknowledgement of the ordinance. Even though we had thought that a boulder wall would be more natural to the area, we have agreed to go to the interlocking wall system if used within the five (5) foot area. Page 3. Page 37. Note b) The new drawing contained show the proposal. Page 37. Note c) There has never been a problem with snow removal in any prior year. I can only hope that the Spilseth's, with a new circular driveway blacktopped to our mutual lot line, will conduct their snow removal in the same respectful manner as we have. Page 37. Noted) Jay Richards was not aware that the wall he saw was temporary. He never asked anyone who knew the correct facts pertaining to the situation. His comments were made to the planning commission being totally uninformed or misinformed of the situation. Page 37. Note e) After being informed prior by Pat Spilseth that she wanted to only coexist with us, our Builder, Bruce Bren, tried to speak with the Spilseth's. They were totally against any communications. Page 38. Note a) The drainage situation has been improved from the prior situation. All runoff has been addressed in the proposal. Page 38. Note b) From conversation with the Orono building inspector, Diane Carlson's problem eight (8) years ago was caused by different circumstances. We feel it is irresponsible for her to make negative statements to the Orono Planning Commission without knowing the true facts of the construction project. Page 38. Note c) Pat Spilseth has viewed cars for the past four (4) years on our property. Cars have been parked next to the lot line with no prior complaints from anyon.e. Pat Spilseth was informed as to what was going on as stated prior. She only needed to "Ask Questions" as to what was further going on with the project. We were more than happy to answer any reasonable questions. This scenario was expressed to Dave and Pat Spilseth in mid to late June. No questions were ever asked of us. Page 39. Note a) This was one of the causes of the ensuing problem. Page 40. Note a) This has been a construction site with all proper runoff barriers present. When there was a problem with barriers, which happened very little, the problems were corrected within 24 hours. Water that would have come within inches of the Spilseth's door would have been from their own driveway, sidewalk, and property. All accommodations to runoff from the construction site have always been addressed. We can not be held responsible for their own property Page 4. runoff. Page 41. Note a) Bruce Vang had never discussed this problem with the applicant, Steve and Elaine Silus. Page 41. Note b) As previously stated, this was a different situation and a irresponsible comment to be made by Pat Spilseth. Page 41. Note c) This was one of the reasons for the ordinance oversight. Page 41. Noted) We are asking for a CUP in the garage area only. As far as anyone knows, the Hackberry tree is alive and well, contrary to Pat Spilseth's unsubstantiated allegation. Page 41 Note e) Drainage has been addressed per the proposal. With regard to letters submitted to the Planning Commission, I would like to respond to some of the issues brought up by the writers. From Dave and Pat Spilseth: Page 42. Note a) The spelling of our last name is Silus. The wall would not be eighty (80) feet long, nor four (4) feet high, and we are requesting two (2) feet from the lot line. Page 42. Note b) There is no basis for the Spilseth's stating that hardcover would go up. Notes to the contrary have been presented prior. The shared fence was our fence as explained to us when we purchased the property, as shown by the survey, and acknowledged to Elaine when she was asked by Pat Spilseth if we were going to remove 11 our 11 fence. The fence had to be removed to reduce hardcover. The driveway was being relocated as to better suit the new house and yard. Compensation, as used in their letter, usually refers to monetary compensation. We do not feel that the Spilseth' s should receive compensation to remove our fence or relocate our driveway on our property. Page 42. Note c) This is unfounded, drainage has been addressed. Page 42. Noted) We have never infringed on our neighbors property and would never do so. Unfortunately, I feel that they can not state the same situation with regard to their infringement on our property. Page 5. Page 42. Note e) No more than their children playing in our yard and getting hurt. Page 42. Note f) They knew of this design from the start. Where were they then. From Susan Smith Swanson Page 43. Note a) I feel that we have addressed the thorny problems alluded to in this letter. There are also residence of Casco Circle who are very happy with the new construction. We have received numerous compliments from residence and non residence alike. Page 43. Note b) I will give Ms. Swanson the benefit of the doubt on her comment with regard to the garage doors facing the wrong way. Obviously, she was not aware that a drawing of the house was shown to the adjacent home owners prior to any building permits being issued. Also, any change in water runoff is minimal, would be improved, and has been addressed. If Ms. Swanson had concerns for these supposed problems, being the neighbor that she states, you would have thought she would have brought these concerns to our attention in the first place. Page 43. Note c) Nothing has ever been hidden from the neighbors. I would welcome Ms. Swanson's basis for her comment. Page 43. Noted} When the construction project is done, and they do take time, there will be no damage to anyone's lawns, gardens, their own driveways usability, or their views. How Ms. Swanson or other neighbors not mentioned by Ms. Swanson are affected by the above puzzles me. From Judith Boyum With reference to Ms. Boyum's letter, when she was asked of the basis of content in her letter by Bruce Bren, she stated that she felt embarrassed about sending same. She knew none of the pertinent facts and was given incomplete information by others. She apologized for writing the letter at all. It seems strange that she also spelled our last name Silas. Page 6. To date I have not addressed any of the comments presented to your committee. I feel many issues have been blown out of proportion with false information and people speaking without knowing all information. Let's put this in perspective. Everything we have done with regard to this project was done in good faith. There have been oversights by many involved. We are asking the right to use a minimal amount of our own property to enter and exit our garage. The orientation of the garage will not be changed even if the CUP is not granted. It would not be practical. Therefore, please look at the pros and cons. I believe that the facts with regard to the pros far outweigh the cons. Thank You, Steve and Elaine Silus CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2290 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 18, 1997 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 11/17 /97 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled at the request of the applicant. Additional information is requested, as follows: Mr. Bren needs to provide drainage plan with elevations as promised at November 12 meeting. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the January 20 meeting is January 5, 1998. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Tuesday, January 20, 1998; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. X:\APPS\WPWIN60\ WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2290 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 17; 1997 (#1 -Navarre Housing Study -Continued) Van Zomeren stated Lake Minnetonka area cities have met over the summer to discuss · gathering information on housing in the revision of each community's Comprehensive Plan . Some of the cities lack affordable housing. The cities are attempting to work together on this issue and intend to hire a consultant to assist in this research. The Met Council has provided $17,000 towards the hiring of the consultant. The groundwork has been laid out in respect to review of affordable housing . Berg asked if a HRA block grant would be required, and if so, who would administer it. Van Zomeren said she did not know if this was necessary but noted that the programs use the same contact person· and will investigate the matter. Lindquist asked Staff to keep the Planning Commission updated noting additional work is required . Bressler said additional work will be performed as review of the Comprehensive Plan continues. OLD BUSINESS -CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS (#2) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:45-6:47 P.M. The Applicants were unable to attend the meeting. Hawn moved , McMillan seconded, to table Application #2290. Lindquist reported that the application would not be reviewed again until the January meeting of the Planning Commission. However, if the applicant agrees with the 5' minimum location of structure from the property line, the application will not require further review by the Planning Commission . Van Zomeren said she has spoken with Building Inspector Lyle Oman, who will issue a temporary certificate of occupancy for the applicants. Gravel will be placed on the driveway over the winter months. Van Zomeren wiU notify the neighbors of this situation . Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 2 @ TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: November 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use--Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre) Sewered Lot Size: 22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application: Applicants are seeking a conditional use permit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway which would allow the driveway to be approximately 24'-25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of21' where 30' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 3. To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) ofhardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. 4. To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit l/117/97 page--! (T) The house construction proceeded following approval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city topo maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site. fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate the site to provide for a lakeside walk-out. During the footings inspection it was determined that there would not be adequate room to back ouf of the three car side-loading garage. The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line . It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage ." The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3' grade change is an improvement over the 5' change that was originally planned due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the size of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2' of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5' to 3' in height. Grading within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicants chose to build a retaining wall 5' from the property line and less than 42' in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary .. As proposed, the retaining wall 2' from the property line provides approximately 24' of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5' from the property line, the driveway would be 21' in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30' is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and indicated that 1 O' is usually recommended along side yards for drainage. City subdivision regulations require a 5' drainage and utility easement along each internal lot line . This provides for a 1 O' wide drainage and utility easement between all lots . The recommended 5' distance is in accordance with City policy .', Grass is also recommended in the drainage swale rather than rock mulch. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.25, LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District • Section 10 .03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Prohibitions and Subd. 21. Exceptions #2290 Elaine and Steve Situs 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--2 . ' . I Subd. 19. Prohibition.· It is unlawful for any person to: a. remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; b. to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c. or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: a. the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or b. the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c. to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance to this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--3 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses, Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit Lot Area and Yards LR-lC District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre 100' 30' 10' 75' and average (21,780 sq. ft.) lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard .517 acres 55' ' 55' to new 1 0' on each side 170'+ (22,420 sq. ft.) garage of new house, 2' proposed for wall The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width requirements. A conditional use permit is required because of the grading within 5' of the property line. A 55' wide lot does not provide adequate width to meet the 10' side yard requirements and a 30' driveway pad in front of the garage. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--4 Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage % of Total Lot 22,420 sq. ft. 3,435 sq. ft. 15.32 A variance was granted in February 1997 for 72 sq. ft. of structural coverage. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance Total Area in Allowed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover from Setback Hardcover with former proposed proposed Shoreline residence with new with construction retaining wall 0'-75' 6,117 sq. ft. None 13 sq.ft. None None (.21%) 75'-250' 12,436 sq. ft. 3,109 sq. ft. 3,562 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. (25%) (28.64%) (29.6%) (29.6%) 250'-500' 3,867 sq. ft. 1,160 sq. ft. 1,429 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. (30%) (36.95%) (31.2%) (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difficult to consider as a "use". Nonetheless, the Planning Commission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--5 co not have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent property. The proposed retaining wall will collect water that from the driveway and channel it into the side yard where a concrete spilllway previously was located. The applicants have indicated that the concrete spillway was old and in disrepair. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent prope1iy. The 2' strip and the south side yard is shown as rip/rap or rock mulch. The City Engineer has advised that the slope could be planted with sod to have less impact on the adjacent property. His recommendation to remain 5' off the property line has not changed. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve the application, the Planning Commisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning requirements. Considerations 1. If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wall 5' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a three car side #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11117/97 page~-6 loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. 2. The grade of the garage floor is 3' higher than the south property line. Reducing the grade 3' so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modification to the garage. Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2' from the property line would provide a 24' driveway where 30' is usually needed and recommended. The City Engineer has recommended that the wall remain 5' from the property line and the side yard be landscaped with sod and planting to screen the driveway from the adjacent property. The proposed wall location only provides for a 2' drainage swale at the base of the wall. This is not in compliance with standard city policy for subdivisions for new construction which requires a 5' easement for drainage purposes along lot lines. The plan as submitted does not comply with the Planning Commission's previous directives to keep the wall 5' from the property line which would eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. Attachments New plans follow staff report 1-5 A Application Applicant's hardship statement B Plat map C Topo map of previous situation D Permit record E Adjacent Owner's Acknowledgement Form F Zoning Code excerpt regarding non-encroachments G Hardcover calculations H 2/18/97 minutes for previous variances I Resolution 3851 J Minutes from September 1997 meeting K Minutes from October 1997 meeting L Letters from neighbors #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 11/17/97 page--7 • ..... ,. -=t:4:2.2.qD E"lo.,V\e, O.'/\d Sl-ev1c:. Silt..ts ~ I I -3Z3S ~ C-1.tz-'-l.e C: I ·- 751 1 ;.. 2 . ·ai.. 3 I 4 I 5 175 ~ RD -••.nr~. ~ I ! ---~ ! ~ C I 0 #UJ'Ofl'll,DISOI ■ ::,~ ·::a. Ji 3 C m I Al .OM GAME FAAM RD E "' I ---;a;,. C I -- ~:; C ·-Arm -I ~- '-C: I ~ ~~ -i \ c:. I --· .. g ~ . .._ C I ·--- --., B I 2400 0 WOODEOGE RoY..f ~ )5 J./J:m' '"" " r ., \jl C I ·----0 g ~ 0MArw~oo eo 2~~•:aB?~ (\ -I -..._ -& S, c; I ---s:t _J~~ I'-lit.VO~ ( 0.. • J c;. ......_ I ,. <( ! ~ ' 1·RU81' LA' 2..CHANNEL RO ; J.-GLENOALE RD c; I --w w I (/) ~ Cqoks Bay MOUND c; I -~ e ...... Cl B\~ .. _;P;~~~ __....,..~Hard~te··~:\~320~)~•~• I i'2H{i! ~~?~~:/fr ~ 1:!)LANLJ '-•~ ~r••~~ I C J"-~--- C I ....... ~ /f::;~~~;.-;f i'f!f-~/--·-i-I ...... SHADY kll 3-cAlfTERIIUAT RD tj; " :i ~LAN_!l M.inneton (..tfNARKRO t e: '-....._ ni. ol ns r Nlt:WI .111n I ... c:: I ·• ay JI I Lake Minnetonka e· ....,_ .... ,-w., ..... .., i I .... ISLAND j ~ ~ EDGEWOOD ~· ~,~ I I OACJU.RD D "4cco rn ,"-. I / \ ~q, ""'4CCC e_ RO ;• ID ll -~ /_ e I Q ... I 'f I NOBLE <O 1-:··· i[ --,,,::,. 8l ll fl WAWATOSA 0 "' 0 -1LAfID ::i: . e % <O ...... :I: ;; !I @) I I ~l" \~~ lc..\fi~n•u"" t L.:::,,..., .... :,:., ,~ I~• ..... -,,,.......... -11 '"-tS\ C: • ~ lL "" , rj _,-:cl I··· 11\,~Jl ~ -~ .?: li:> "L s (_ j \\\ . ~-.. i -~ N-ewes+ i1'0fX=f,aJ l 6-Abmi-tW ·1 jl.'> •il'f lO·f2 ·9'1 ~,L ~~; r:-\\ .. t.-i I i I I . I • I ! I_ I • • CJ }~JD ll B CJ l 2 ~ 3; I ·,11 ~ 3 _... . i · t ~ .... ·-·-. ·-· ~ ... l • ..... • • t m !TY.II'~- •u_ -~ .. -.Q~N/1 fJ .. :~~o,Jd .. ,-~~"'" -~ ·g ~ i · zi!l ! -~ ~ ----✓~--~~ . ~ ~ :\l\ l ' ~~ ~ :c. . . \_:" _l~ f.~ ~t 'z.\---:r: ~-~ \ \U _r jl_ . i r ~~ -· ~ -1 ~ i- 4 . /--;;;~ . . (_.L,1/ s 2Y)OtA-ld be, Application # cJ< ::i. , o -'---___;_ ___ _ fl't; tond;-htrh& ~, Date Received ..::i~.:20 .(Jc) \. ~t"M..r h Amount Paid R' J;;z. ;J...jt:; 7 CITY OF ORONO -VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress :7 z_ 3S-<,~r:-.~ C;.,,--c) Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /,.:rt l 9 . S pr:n..;,4 Po..A /,,;__ Attach legal description to application if not included on requirtfil survey. Date Pr~ Acquired ___________________ (month/year) I (do)~ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ~residential __ other (specify) _________ _ Zoning District: /.[ K-~ j C , ,r,A.:c./4, ~~?'.':::; /,. L:,;,_/4,:,:,s /4.cn; (1"'2,JC+4?2',,,,.-r.> 'a A,-)-'!:? l ,, ,y J _,~ .,,-. ,,_,n ~'-'---1""'-Y.~ APPLICANT _ ' Phone (home) 5" z1--9"? s ,f Name E /c_J ~~ii ,J:/,:z,t/(~_ S1 L~sc; Phone (work) y} 8·-3 7 1:/7' Add · /. -, ., ,-r ------' i c1·ty.· ,.,--, z· --ress. __ .., £-'.) ., c:.P.-d ~,c c:o,;,,--{rc-,-LG-t__.,eo,.._.,,.._,,~ 1p: :5 < .-3 7) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) _______ _ ----------------Phone (work) _______ _ Address: ------------City: ________ Zip: ___ _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ------- Describe request in detail: ,5-q...o ~d ~ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover _K,_ Setback: Front _2£ Side Rear __ Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore __ Other (specify) _______________________ _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ~ ,~..,--W (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 1. ✓ 2. / ~ 3. . ✓ 4. / 5. I l 6. ✓ - 7. ... I 8. l/ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271) . Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 ½" x 11 "). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature 4,;c:S ,ta -£.ii~) Date 6 /z 2 / '1 ? ~ 7 1 OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signatur~ ~ ;[}, --~~ Date 23/l-'Z-/':r / ~ f 1 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 ~L~~ __ ::;.t\ ~1~ -\0 \ \Yo\~LL, -,A-~~ \J.)~ ~~6-~~ ~r ulJJ ~ ~~uC::r ~~ ~ ·\C> f',;;LLC.:it>-J E~Q3E -A<DD ~ u ~ --k~u:::.,KuS-\, ~~. vJ~ ~\G:AA-\° -'° \3€ ~x'~~l~l_)r ,L_/ -P-T . ~ ~LA.l_\itA~T ~\'--TT"° '\C) ~€~ ~ ~~~ -~~ P / D~ ?"nC) 0 ~ VJ,Jt,B_~ ~~ Cs::ciJ ~\-nbU ~~- ~~~ ~ '0~~ UA-~ UoT W'-D~ I -~ ,:s o e:5t""' Sl-\..:~\~~~ ~u-c::.:.\}--,t -~~ ~~cAL O S A~ €_.\-.:.,~V00..S&: / ~xrr '-u-JTD ·-n-+G: <c#-\~ :s:~~~ tJJ t~v:=r 2 c.9-l~l ~G- -A ~~\J\'DG-W~LL W\.~ \J -n~ -5"' .~, ~ ~~ 0~ \ lJA~C \ u E..LevA-n o ~ C:z,-\-f¼U 6---t . -® LOT I 50 ~PR ING PARK :· ·: ·-:--\.31) ' -----~---- 10 : -7 : ✓J- ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -----------------~---. ~ ~ ~/ .. '° .. . r -°' • l"'I .::ir QI -l 0 ft + !)_ M J .J II:) Permit No. IO I':::> ....... ,, , . 305 7 PERMIT RECORD •,.' Date II -;-~1 · ?-la -90 9-CJ-&1 /c; -11-q7 & -lo ;'c;7 Type of Permit 2-~4fu/a~ ~~ &/no ;J;/J . . I (we) })l\d'.:·-SPL L Sf-";t1* [print name(s)]. of ~-;;-'3? CA.Seo c\~ [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 ****************************************************************************** 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. ·~/-zr/7'7 Date 7 I Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Bu1lding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 9 § 10.03 EXCEPTION. Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. D. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 s.f. footprint area, f shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: Front -30' minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property Side 30' minimum and not within the required side yard area Rear -30' minimum and not within the required rear yard area Source: Ordinance 72, 2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 15. Non-Encroachments. The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: A. Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pila.sters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-street parking except as hereinafter regulated. B. Name plate signs for one family dwellings1 lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property may be located to within five feet of the front lot line. c. Fences which do not exceed 3-1/2 feet in height, fences not over 6 feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, if fill is required, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed 6 feet above the height of the crown of the road, terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops. or similar structures, which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than 2 feet from any lot line. D. In side or rear yards only, bays not to exceed a depth of 2 feet nor to contain an area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of 3 feet, ~ences and walls not to exceed a hei ht of 6 feet above original rade and open off~ s reet arking exce t for lakeshore lots, no fence or wa over 42 inches but not in excess of inc es in e1 a ove or1gina grade may be located closer o e shoreline than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, such fences shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the shoreline. ORONO CC 256-1 Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 (4-1-84) § 10.03 E. Rear yard only; balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters and recreational equipment except as regulated hereinafter; no accessory structure shall be closer than 5 feet from a rear lot line nor shal 1 a fence or wal 1 constructed within a rear yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. F. Side yards only; no accessory structure shall be closer than 10 feet from any side lot line nor shall a fence or :"al 1 constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade. Source: Ordinance 9, 2nd Series Adopted: 1-28-85 Subd. 16. Traffic Visibility. No fences, structures or planting more than three feet high in the "R" District on corner lots shall be permitted to obstruct traffic visibility within a triangular area defined as follows: "Beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence thirty feet along one curb line thence diagonally to a point thirty feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd. 17. Essential Services. This Zoning Chapter shall require a permit for all structures including utility poles, and right-of-ways which are an integral part of a system for public transportation, as for transmitting power, water, heat, communica tions, gas or sewage by any public utility. The Council shall grant a conditional use ~ermit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Subd. 18. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975 shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: A. No new "stock farms" shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than twenty-five percent (25%) over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1, 1975 with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the Council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed and the Council shall find that the proposed or existing "stock farm" will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. ORONO CC 257 (4-1-84) § 10.03 Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building, nor to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. }',.ny unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to e Plann· ommission and the Council fdr .action in accordance with this Chapter. The Bui ing Inspect shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: .3 . . , , k < ni::ls-+ha.+ ~-t..s I MP lte.d Y\-e..e..d 0.u. ,.p. 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lines except for drainage swales and ditches. e.ond i hcno.. \ w~ fl£YYY\ i ~ Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 22. Rip-rap Defined. Rock placed at water level of lakeshore to prevent erosion of shoreline by water action. Subd. 23. Permit Required. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern the normal and customary rip-rap of lakeshore property~ It is unlawful for any person to rip-rap lakeshore property within the limits of the City without a permit issued by the City Engineer. Any unusual rip-rap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance with this Chapter. Source: Ordinance No. 167 Effective Date: 6-25-74 Subd. 24. Application for Permit. An application for such permit shall be accompanied by a drawing showing the location of the proposed rip-rap and such other information as the City Engineer may require from time to time. Applications shall be filed with the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount prescribed by the current City fee schedule payable to the City. ORONO CC 258-1 Source: Ordinance No. 196 Effective Date: 8-22-77 (4-1-84) r . _:1_ :r I' . ;• ., ~- .:i J '•.I :•,, :·\ ·:; ~ ··• HARDCOV~CULATlU1~ WU1<.h..::,i-ili~, l'r-v. 10-1-9 7 500-1000' , v SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ~ 75-250' 25-500' E:\'1STING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ~ B. Garage D. Sidewalk ... .. E. Pacio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain • By Plastic. Or Fabric• OLORouc Length G. Other STf P5 __ ~--- X X X X X X X X X X X X . x X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width A /3 B tf' I 17 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ x Length 8. Garage C. DriVe\vay D. Sidewalk E. Patio'/Oeck" • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fnbric. G. Other ------ X X ·,X X X X X X X X X X X lt TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O + B '•• ....... Width €117 14 = = = = = = = = = = X 100 = = = = = = = = = = = = = x. 100 - S.F. Gr _____ ..:__ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. _____ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ~-----s.r-. ______ S.F. S. F. ______ S.F. ______ s:'F . ______ S.F .. __ I].:___ S.F. __ 1_3_. __ S.F. A _ _.6'-'-"lf--'1-4'7--s. F. B __ O~, -='2:....:1 __ % SF. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ---~--S.F. S.F. ----,---- ______ S.F. i ______ S.F. S.F. ------ ------S.F. S.F. ------'-'--S. F. ------ S.F. ------·s.F. ------S.F. ------ 0 S.F. ------ ·0 S.F. A ---6-11:c..7--S. F. B ___ ....,a ___ % HARDCOVER CALCULA'flON WUl<.h..~tilit i SETBACK ZONE: (CIB.CLE ONE) 0-75' @~ 25-500' .., rt>v~ 10-J _9 7 500-1000' EX1STING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X = Hou5£-l t34-'r S.F. Length i" 13LOlll. WALJ<.-1iJ 8A(.J<.. X n t-6-rf.P ~ -I #.I BALJ<. 2-z... X (0 R.OCJ( c; rf P$ X ;-! :'·;· B. Ga.rage X I' :• .... C. Drivewar . x_ ,r. X \:. SPILl..vJAY I, r· D. -oidc" ft:!.k X ': t C..ON~, t VA~IOUS -X•" - (. . ~;. , .. . )': E. Patio/Deck : ; X ~. ~· X .F F. Landscape •. f, ,'( ;'t Underlain X . i: By Plastic. X -r Or Fabric• ~Al2T BY· G. Other (£,-.IC[ X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width 3 A. ']5b2. "<" B /2 1 436 = - = = = = = = = = = = = = X 100 = • I I ... ,...,., .......... _ I • ~•• ••-• ,, .. • ,o '~ . ·•. . ' ..... , ··•-"' ". PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Ga.rage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk I'.-< t:>,; of r rJ r r.f'-' l'....::'.5'-----''2=--=-0 E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other /<. f T. lA/A l I.. X )C )C • ·•_X_ X X X X X X X X X X )C TOT A.L HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width .s A 363'5 + B /2., 4"36 . '·• .... . . . 14 . = = = = = = = = = "r:·o: = f';,J,1 f ,,. = = = = = X 100 == 80 S.F. 66 S.F. I I ;> S.F. S.F. ) I S7 S.F . S.F. /q§ S.F. f3 3 S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 19 S.F. '356'2... S.F. A 12.436 S.F. B ze ~64: % 2 702. S.F. S.F. S.F. s·.F . S.F. 300 S.F. S.F. r;o S.F. loo S.F. 3to S.F. 11,.s S.F. S.F. 'S.F. S.F. 18 S.P. . "J('i5 · S.F. A /2, 43 6 S.F. B 29, 6:3 % ·(v!) ; ·j,~ i. r i'i . .,, !,• ,:,. ·.t ;,f ,;t. -'.r ,,. ' .f ,, ,. -~ } ,, HARDCOVER CALCULATION WU!~ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ~ 'L> rev lt>-J ... 97 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______ x u:ngth B. Garag~ :,0.4- D. Sidewalk. X X X X X X X X = Width = = = 4 / .. ovf1-. 22. -) <./,I,,,•= = = = ,.. ... •.-, ................ .,._, ...... ,. '·-~ ..... . . ~···· . . ..... " . ~-I • • ,,.,,~, E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain ... By. Plastic. Or Fabric• G. Other X X X X .. ~ X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL .PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A. /42-9 -:-B 3867 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House (CAfl.AC,-f) x Length ·B. Garage C. Driveway.,/ /46T, WA u.s D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X ... X X X X X X X X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE Width A 12 05" + B 3.J>C 7 ,., ... "'' .. I•.,,_, ,,-~,,. .. , .. ," ""'' ..,_ • ••,o•o• ·.: ... :. 14 ... : =·i = = = X 100 = = = = = =· .. = = = = = = = = = = X 100 ,.. -'-------S.F. -----~ S.F. ______ S.F. ____ __,:~ S.F. ---=-{_(__;_6 __ S.F. _ ___.7'-'l:-la:D::____ S.F. --=5__.3,!____S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ------S.F. ______ ,S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F . ______ S.F. J 4 2 9 S.F. A 3867 S.F. B .Jo,9,5 % 2 48 S.F. S.F. ------______ S.F. s·.F. ------ ---.....:...;.;'-----S.F. __ _._9-'b=--0=---S.F. S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------·s.F. ------S.F. ------ S.P. ----~- I 20f' · S.F. A 3Po7 S.F. B 3/, 24 % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#1 -#2211 Zoning Amendment-: Continued) Van Zomeren said when the policy comes back to the March meeting, there may be language guiding the location of antennas within the City. Council Member Goetten said the Council has many of the same concerns expressed and felt the need for more information. She indicated an applicant is not prohibited from making an application for an antenna, but it is the wish of the Council that they are not located all throughout the City. The schedule regarding the moratorium and amendment was discussed. The moratorium could be extended . Van Zomeren also indicated a land use moratorium under State law could run as long as 30 months, but that is too prohibitive for this issue. Lindquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to recommend approval of Ordinance No. , 2nd Series. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays I, Hawn . McMillan noted the motion was allowing for the start of the process. ACTION ITEM (#5) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:35-7:52 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants were present. Van Zomeren reported the application is a request for variances to hardcover, lakeshore setback, and structural coverage for a lakeshore residence in the LR-1 C Zoning District requiring 1/2 acres. The structural coverage variance is a 0 .28% increase over the 15% allowable. The lot width re ,quirement is 100'. The property in question is 55' wide. The applicant proposes to remove the existing structure and replace with a new structure. A new deck would be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback. The proposal would result in a 123 s.f increase of hardcover in the 75-250' setback and a 221 s.f reduction in the 250-500' setback. The structure would be located beyond the average lakeshore setback line -of the two adjoining properties. · Van Zomeren indicated the issues include the narrow lot, which is consistent with the neighboring properties, a reduction in hardcover, increase in structural coverage, and an attempt to prohibit any negative impact to a Hackberry tree located on the property. 4 1-f MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM1v1ISSION :tvfEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 -#2206 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure . They also are . attempting to save the hackberry tree . He noted the proposed deck does not · extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house . The proposed house would be farther back on the property . Silus said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered . He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the strncture. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the strncture moved back further on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ordinances require that new constrnction meet the zoning requirements . Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to bt1ild a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so. Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property . She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future . Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in strnctural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the strncture with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250 1 setback and an increase in strnctural coverage . She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its changes from the existing strncture. There were no public comments. Mdvlillan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors . Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors . Schroeder asked if the 3-car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I'v1EETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 (#5 -#2206 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to recommend approval of the requested variances with the additional finding that the structural coverage is excessive and no more improvements should be allowed in the future. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Schroeder. Schroeder indicated while appreciating the reduction in hardcover, the structural coverage should be maintained at 15%. (#6) #2207 JONA THAN AND THERESA HOFER, 3339 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - VARIANCES -PUBLIC HEARING 7:53-8:05 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren reported that the applicant is requesting variances to lakeshore setback, hardcover, and average lakeshore setback for the construction of an additional of a great room above the garage. The residence is located in the LR-IC Zoning District which requires 1/2 acres and is sewered. The subject property is 6,500 s.f in size or 29% of the minimum lot size. Since there is no dedicated right-of-way but a prescriptive easement only, Van Zomeren said a street setback variance is generally not required. Hillside Place, a 25' utility easement, is located to the west of the property and cannot be built upon. The house located east of the subject property is located on the property line as well as on Dakota Rail easement. The proposed addition will not extend beyond the existing foundation. The existing structure is located 45' from the lakeshore. The garage is located forward of the average lakeshore setback. Hardcover in the 75-250' setback exists at 43.27% which includes the roadway and garage. A 22.67% variance is requested in the 75-250' setback. The structure is located 15' in front of the lakeshore setback. Van Zomeren noted the hardships to include the lot size, the proximity of the structure to the lake, the Dakota Rail and Hillside Place easements, and the substantial portion of blacktopping for Crystal Bay Road. Van Zomeren reported that Staff recommends approval noting there is no other alternative without incurring additional variances. Mrs. Hofer indicmed they have not resided in the residence and have just purchased the property. It is their intent to make the necessary improvements and add some additional living space over the garage. The deck was eliminated from the plan. Smith inquired if they purchased the property with the intent of adding onto the residence. Mr. Hofer said their intention was to improve the property. They were not aware of the need for any variances as they did not intend to build outside of the footprint. 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 18, 1997 ( #5 -#2206 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Steve Silus said they wished to maintain a one-story residence with basement in order to keep the height of the structure low and present an aesthetically pleasing structure. They also are attempting to save the hackberry tree. He noted the proposed deck does not extend any further forward towards the lake than the existing house. The proposed house would be farther back on the property. Situs said the garage by the street will be removed and the driveway will become more centered. He informed Stoddard that the deck will be cantilevered and have a railing. Hawn expressed concern about whether the tree could be saved. She suggested a tree expert review the plan. It was noted that there is presently no basement under the structure. If the tree cannot be saved, Hawn would like to see the structure moved back forther on the lot. Hawn informed the applicant of the series of requests being made in the area by owners of substandard lots. The ordinances require that new construction meet the zoning requirements. Hawn is concerned with the proposed overage in structural coverage. Silus said their only other alternative is to build a two-story house, and they would prefer not to do so. Smith said she agreeds with Hawn but sees the proposal as an improvement to the property. She requested that no additional improvements be allowed in the future. Hawn said she was concerned with setting a precedent. Schroeder asked the applicant if the structure would be reduced to maintain the 15% allowable in structural coverage. Silus said it was not feasible. He indicated that they attempted to reduce the hardcover and reviewed the structure with an architect. McMillan noted that while there is some improvement in hardcover, there is additional hardcover in the 75-250' setback and an increase in structural coverage. She felt the proposal did not present a major improvement to the property but was more neutral in its changes from the existing structure. There were no public comments. Mc1-1illan asked if the proposal was reviewed with the neighbors. Silus said he discussed the plans with his neighbors. Van Zomeren said she was in receipt of acknowledgment letters from the neighbors. Schroeder asked if the 3-car garage and driveway could be reduced. Silus felt the plan was proportionate. 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 51 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C-6) AND SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C) FILE NO. 2206 WHEREAS, Elaine Silus and Steve Silus (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 3235 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 19, Spring Park, also all that part of vacated Lakeshore A venue and of the tract of land lying between said vacated avenue and Lake Minnetonka which lies between the easterly extensions of the northerly and southerly lines of said Lot 19 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), and Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), to permit removal of the existing residence and construction of a new residence. Per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), the deck for the proposed residence shall be located 8' fc;:>rward of the average lakeshore setback where no such encroachment is allowed. Per Section I 0.22, Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is proposed at 3,685 s.f. (29.64%) where 3,562 s.f. (28.64%) is existing and where 3,109 s.f. (25%) is allowed. In the 250-500' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 1,208 s.f. (31.23%) where 1,429 s.f. (36.95%) is existing and where 1,160 s.f. (30%) is allowed. Per Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), structural coverage is proposed at 3,435 s.f. where 2,510 s.f. is existing and 3,363 s.f. (15%) is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2206. Page 1 of 5 I CITY of ORONO . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 [1. 1 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one-half acre in area. The total lot area is 22,420 s.f. (. 51 acres) in area. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 18, 1997 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A . The proposed residence conforms to side yard setbacks and height requirements. B. The proposed residence seeks to preserve a mature hackberry tree located at the street side of the property. C. The proposed residence reduces overall hardcover (5,004 s.f. existing; 4,893 s.f. proposed). D. The proposed residence more closely conforms to the average lakeshore setback than the existing residence. E . The proposed design (one-story) will mm1m1ze the visual impact of structure on a lot that is substandard in lot width . F. The City has not received any negative comments from the adjacent property owners notified of this application. 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 variances 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 applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 8 5 .1 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 variances 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sectism 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-6), to permit removal of an existing structure and construction of a new residence to be located 8' in front of the average lakeshore setback line, hardcover variance in the 75-250' setback area of 576 s.f. or 4.64% and a 48 s.f. or 1.23% variance in the 250-500' setback area, and structural coverage variance of 72 s.f. or .32%. Approval was subject to the following conditions:. 1. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal shall be completed as shown on the approved survey and shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction, except that the storage area in the existing garage may be used during construction. The existing garage/storage area shall be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (March 10, 1998). 3. Violation of or non-compliance vvith 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. 4. 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. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .3 8 51 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of March, 1997. ~~~ Gabriel Jabbour, Mayo( ~'---. Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of March, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTARY PU8t.JC.MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Canmlsslon E,:plres Jail. 31. 2flOO Notary Public Page 4 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3851 NO.----,------ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this . .gtj.t-?\ day of /---{c1._t·eh , 199~, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared [(q,'nt" 5:/;is cl Stc-t'e J:i<.h ~:;·l:"c> d.. bu-::iha 1 rl 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. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _____ day of __________ , 199 __ , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared _______________ _ 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. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#10 -#2288 JasonTheis -Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Bressler indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. Theis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed. With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. Stoddard moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for hardcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 1 0' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 1 O' driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING 11:22-11:57 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 29 ~~ ·QY OR.ONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. Staff recommends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5' from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 1 O' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required. The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the wall 2' off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Sil us that the builder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only. Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. 30 I, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ... ••. MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Sil us said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be . closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Silus said he was unaware of the ordinance . He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system . ( . Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the fot line. Silus said the ·?) landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Sil us said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located . Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given . Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guideli_nes authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lin9quist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive not ification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. 31 b; ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) · Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gappa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5' from the property line . Sil us was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and is concerned with a change in drainage . She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property . Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. (/ . Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to tum the garage. She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars . She noted the prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of what was occurring . Schroeder noted it w as not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors . He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor · Jabbour answered on behalf of the City . He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls . The wall was not part of the calculations. 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COtv!MISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARl'VI LANE -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. · The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments. Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations . Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant's absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SILUS, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3' from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining wall must be located 5' from the property line. Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. 22 ,/, . I Iv \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home. The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the driveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be .changed from a side-loading garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. S_chroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Sil us said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not reviewed them either.. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous boulder wall. Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until now to address them. Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zorrteren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan . would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application would require tabling. Sil us indicated that snow removal will not change. Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. 23 I \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bruce Vang said he informed the bu,ilder that the topography and garage were different · from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining • wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls. · Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit. He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. .. 24 .@ Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg, Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 ( This letter is regarding our opposition to item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80' long , 4' high retaining wall 5' which would put it up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 ~ square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already ~ at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared drivewaY'th~at we have used for the last 17 years __ had to come out, which we rulowed with no compensation offered or given to us. *.* TF1e Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes . With the,.D_Qw 4' elevated driveway our house looks very crowded in. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more . ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction. * Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn. ~ If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? .d) ~ Orono has not normally allowed "90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A "straight /Jdrive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the • J) neighborhood .. ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono . Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, L City of Orono Planning Commission October 21, 1997 Dear Commissioners, 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Sil us residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Sil us' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at 113233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions --fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson q~;S-~7 ;/urfilb 23oyfan 72Jec/cliny 21(usic Gonsuflanl Vocalisl M·~~ /(8,' 1/~ ~~ w(,'U,, d,;_,, }M,u o-S:39/ ✓ fflna -~ I ~k_. ~ J4 (!,~£tu/~ )'/4,, ~v¼w~ M11/iv_~(A . , ~ft~~ YtCttr _£;;G ~~ . 3 etvJ. , ,~,f..-.;'A a/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ /4G¼-# ~I e~~ a?/~~ ~d! dLv~r ~ J ~ 2 1--'r~A.-efA ~' J Iv~ • •;{_ ~~L/~ ~~ ~ . ~~: lJ t) ~ ~✓ :VtUL~ ~~~>&~~~ 129 :Jlfe:xander :Jluenue, c'Snowmass, Colorado <S/6.54 970-927-9/:36 * -<100-944-704<1 * 970-927-9/:37 (fax) t .... _{,, l\lllNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON l\tIARCH 10, 1997 (#7 -#2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction -Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the potential concerns \vith granting conditional approval prior to EA W completion, Radio informed Jabbour that there might be no benefi_t in distinguishing between public and. private projects as a · private resident would say there is no difference. · It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination from the comment reporting end of March 1~. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gaffron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EAW would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives will verify and repo11 to Gaffron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EAW approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SIL US, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIAN CE - RESOLUTION NO. 3851 Silus asked for clarification of#l in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Silus asked that the temporary storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3 851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 KENT E. AND SUSAN S\V ANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE~ VARIANCE -RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, }:'eterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SIXTH A VENUE NORTH -VARIANCES/CUP-RECOlvThIENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. ;J 14 /:'"~) -~ DATE: TIME: TO: AT: CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 FAX COVER SHEET Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 PHONE: FAX: 11"13-i5 OJ- FROM: LIZ VAN ZOMEREN CITY PLANNER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF ORONO PHONE: 473-7357 FAX: 473-0510 Number of Pages Following Cover Sheet:-6- NOTES: C..Oo--O•--llSl-JT..S flZ--Ort G ~ -+-M l l(Q_ Does j + w Of kl i2a )"r\) ft to.A1. <h--1; ~ '(' har d Covet' ..J.-ty-e-eJ l Y\ cho.tV\A5e.. oseP... 1-k ~ w i lJ i-f-he bu i Ir uY1 J... W\41 )1\-k I n~d- ho.t\ J.. l,J o d:} f\k.e,J. side V\-e..w aLons cinJe.'t-Ja.~ • aY\J a.~1 he.igUY of:. vekiY\tvi) wttu DJ2Al~~ S.tt.)D'-/ .. Lf. .f:4 p e,.t t~CPAJ bl ~ Oh ~IJ-IVl,L. ~sun-, . Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 ******************************************* * TRANSMIT MESSAGE CONFIRMATION REPORT * ******************************************* NAME:CITY OF ORONO TEL :6124730510 DATE:11/05/97 15:26 TRANSMIT:612 473 8502 DURATION PAGE SESS RESULT TYPE: MEMORY TX I MODE I E-96 00'38 01 618 OK CITY of ORONO DATE: 11-eo-q, TlME: Street AddrHll: 2750 Kelley Parkw~y Orono, MN 55356 FAX COVER S'HEET Munldplll omcelSI M•llln1 AddriH: P.O. aox 66 Crystal Bey, MN 55323-0066 PHONE: FAX: tf13-~·S-Q;L-- FROM: LIZ VAN ZOMEREN CITY PLANNER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF ORONO PHONE: 473-7357 FAX: 473-0510 Number of Pages Followinll Cover Sheet?"-6 - D~ i·+ wo1Li~ t24~;ftc..o..h~ -Pov }--\a,yd cove..r--+· lv..e~ in ct,. o.i Mf> ..e.-o..,.. M . ~ .... ~ ; u i -+ .b-.e 1.::..u i I r a. r'\ J... ~ ·1 )'\.+.it. o" ~ ....... ho.n .J. \.J () r-~1 ~J. sid~ v1-tt.w Cl.LDn s d..,v\.Je.1,...1a.~ • a'f'\J aclu.A• h~[31A.Y of y,ek ,·n l ·.,-,'} W4 lA 1) J2A l~" S. t0 D '-/., 4 -At p &' ~tt::,._e,,:sy..c:l Cl" ~ C)-,.. o-t-kl-w v..iV':l,.,t.. ~ s Lan , Telephone (612) 4'73-1357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY of ORONO November 7, 1997 Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Orono, MN 55391 RE: File No. 2290 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Silus: Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O . Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Enclosed is a copy of the landscape plan that Peter Bren brought to the City offices to submit for your conditional use permit application. I do not believe that this plan addresses the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. It also raised questions from our Building staff and Public Services Director, as noted on the plan. The Planning Commission directive was to provide adequate information regarding drainage and to resolve the matter with your neighbors. Staff comments are as follows: 1. The drainage swale is not dimensioned along the south property line. 2. The elevations are not shown. 3. Landscape fabric is considered hardcover; no new hardcover calculations were provided. 4. A side view elevation with actual height along the retaining wall should be provided. 5. Why was the concrete spillway removed? 6. Is rock mulch proposed along the driveway where there is no wall? 7. How will the area between the wall and property line be installed and maintained? There are a lot of questions here. I am concerned that the Planning Commission will find that this new plan does not meet their concerns. The last meeting of the year is November 17th, therefore, all of these issues should be addressed in advance of that meeting. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Steve and Elaine Silus November 7, 1997 Page 2 I am reluctant to place this item back on the November 17th agenda because of the questions that have been raised. I think that both of you and Pete and/or Bruce Bren should come in · as soon as possible, early next week, and meet with staff. Please call me at 4 73-7357 to discuss your response to these issues. Sincerely, ~VoJ ---- Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator LVZ/lsv Enc. cc: Pete and Bruce Bren, Bruce Bren Homes, Inc., 106 Broadway Avenue South, Wayzata, MN 55391 ·• ~i.;.r~~ ~ I ro-;-:, \~·• t,v, \S ,ms f{tDPoS5b 1D 66 ~ ~ ( fAAIZ-lC.,? A 'Sg::notJ \fJN..L . --·,.s s,tbvJN'- ~ ,o ~ 9)01\\-E\£\J ~Tl 0\-J \tJ \1l~ · H€\b~" M-ON ~\N~ tSm\ret~. l)\()16 \Jle,vJ ~ f'<.X0~ ~\Gtt"f) --·· ------. . -• I 7' ~'vJ ~lLL -rt-n~ ---~ fCf-Cl~~~~~~ ~ 6 c.aJ s-··nz LAL~ + \-1.AlNTA-lNeID 1.' Dff-Of-P\2-0f'a-r'l UtJ~ ,>~" -·y , ....--a~~ ~~Y / J,,'' C,,ff ~ /'>"~ ( \ ~r -~ ;"c.;1\ . _-_ . : . . J : :. =-=---~---=-~=--=-cw==-==··_!=-::===-=·=·=·===-a=~~=-':::===.-_:c=:!:· ~--=--~---· -·. ~-) •. · 1' -~. -JV¢'!'?1ct-1i w;,-u.- ;\ ---------------------------. -----.. \\ ~icN e, -:;f,(l--l-Wr"-< -- ~ --- ·"-...._?J ? e-N \ v '. N ~~ ~. et c.. ...-j,' "' (/, -;,w) ~ ~ ~t-'N ~~ '/[ ~,;~U;v\ -:::,o· ~a.~!,.~~. -' l1 7- --' •• ©CO , This f AssO<- of sar -I herel was pr and th . under 1 /-----' - Date : -Scale -Drawn Job No Date Revisio ' ? f I SE City of Orono Planning Commission October 21, 1997 Dear Commissioners, 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Silus' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions --fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson C/-/6-97 #:· J/ucht.h 23oyfan Wedd/n-7 'JJ(usic Consuflanl Vaca.h's/ Rs: ti ;vu!Ut~ ~ ~ )Ji;v oss r I ' I ~t--- ~ )"-;lc (!,~au/~ /~~M-- . . ~,~ f A~' ~ ~ U:~1 ~~ '/kr ,VA.·~. ~. :J Wu~ 1 .½W··~~ ~A- '2112,¼vU_fJ!&/2{ -~ I J;-lu~LL/ ~~~ ~ J) ~~ (}~d. ·cf~ 3195 Casco :?oin/ cI+y,w{yz~~eso/a 55391 612~47( ':322 * 612~471~892<5 (fax) 129 7/fexander 7/uenue, c5nowmass, Colorado 81654 970~927~9136 * 1 ~800~944~7048 * 970~927~9137 (fax) Ms. Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Ms. Berg, Dave and Pat Spilseth 3233 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 612 471 7152 September 8, 1997 This letter is regarding our opposition to item #7 (#2290) of the September 15 planning commission agenda. We wish to oppose the variance request of Steve and Elaine Silas (3235 Casco Circle) to move an 80' long , 4' high retaining wall 5' which would put it up to our property line. Our reasons for opposition are as follows: ** Moving the wall will add at least 175 square feet and possibly up to 400 square feet of hardcover. Elaine Silas has indicated to me that they are already at the edge of the hardcover limitation. She said excess hardcover is the reason that the shared fence and the shared driveway that we have used for the last 17 years had to come out, which we allowed with no compensation offered or given to us. ** The Silas house is quite large for the lot size, with the roof line well above the adjoining homes . With the now 4' elevated driveway our house looks very crowded in. Moving the retaining wall even closer would accentuate that effect even more. ** Rain run off and the mud,sand and salt that comes with it would go on our property as it has during the construction. ** Snow removal would be difficult to do without pushing the snow off the retaining wall onto our property. ** Eventually the wall will need maintenance. This could necessitate bringing a fork lift or other equipment in on our lawn . ** If a vehicle or person falls off the wall into our property, would we be liable? ** Orono has not normally allowed "90 degree turn in" garage in our area. A "straight drive in" garage would be more consistent with the Orono and the neighborhood . ** We appreciate the Silas access problem; however, we feel that an experienced builder should have known the driveway was much too narrow before building it not after building it and then trying to place the burden on the neighbors. We commend you for volunteering your time for the benefit and betterment of Orono. Thank you for your attention in this manner and we look forward to meeting you at the planning commission meeting on Monday night. Sincerely, L City of Orono Planning Commission October 21, 1997 Dear Commissioners, 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Thank you for your notification of tonight's consideration of the construction at the Silus residence at 3235 Casco Circle. Like many other residents around Casco Circle - some nearer the construction, some farther away from it, we feel that it presents some thorny problems. That the garage entry was designed with its opening the wrong way for the width of the lot, and that the deliberately raised elevation of the land has an impact on both the water run-off and local esthetics are both known facts. This is why the construction is on your agenda this evening. As a lifelong resident of Casco Point, I know that neighbors here treat neighbors with respect and affection. It makes Casco Point unique, and a delightful place to live and raise families. We therefore give the Sil us' the benefit of the doubt, and choose to blame the Bruce Bren Construction Company for having: a.) created these problems through poor design, OR b.) hidden from the neighbors intentions to raise the level of the lot above the level of the pre-existing home, OR c.) constructed the structure on a foundation which was not excavated and poured as per the plans, (OR a combination of these possibilities.) There is also a question of culpability in the office of the Orono Building Inspector, as construction has neither halted nor slowed as these problems appeared and took permanent shape. The question now is what can be done to correct the problems and to protect the long-time next door residents in the impacted property at #3233, Dave and Pat Spilseth. As an enthusiastic sidewalk superintendent I can draw several solutions --fewer, no doubt, than could be created by a professional on the Bren design staff or the Orono Building Inspection Office. They require a spirit of consideration, a willingness to correct mistakes, teamwork, and, unfortunately, probably more than a little cash. What is clear, however, is that the Spilseths and other nearby residents should not be made to pay for the mistakes of their neighbors. Neither in damage to their lawns, gardens, driveway usability, views, nor expenses. We will all be very interested in your resolution of this situation. Thank you, Susan Smith Swanson CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ------------------------ TO: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2290 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 22, 1997 COPIES TO: Bruce Bren Fax to: 473-8502 ----------~------------------------- TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit ___________________ , ____ , _____ _ DATE OF MEETING: 10/20/97 VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Proposed retaining wall design needs to be reviewed by City Engineer. Any new plans, letters, etc. need to be submitted before November 7, 1997. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the Planning Commission meeting is November 7, 1997 for the November 17, 1997 meeting. 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. X:\APPS\ WPWIN60\ WPDOCS\CAROLE\PCACTION\2290.WPD " MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 . (#7) #2289 JON PENDLETON, 350 NORTH ARM LANE -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PUBLIC HEARING 9:58-10:00 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant had to leave the meeting early due to a conflict scheduling a babysitter on a school night. There were no public comments . Lindquist indicated a survey is required to verify calculations. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2289 due to the applicant's absence and lack of survey. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #2290 ELAINE AND STEVE SIL US, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED 10:00-10:23 P.M. The Applicant was present. Van Zomeren distributed information recently received regarding the . application. She reported that the application is for a conditional use permit to allow grading within 5' of the south lot line. No variances are required. A retaining wall is proposed to be located 2' from the property line. Grading will increase the driveway width to 3' from the property line. If this is not approved, the retaining 'Yall must be located 5' from the - property line . Incorrect aerial photographs were used in determining the grading plans and resulted in the current situation. Van Zomeren said the three-car garage has a severe turning problem; typically, 30' is required. The plan proposes 24-25' instead of the original 21'. The purpose of the grading is to increase the distance for ingress/egress into the garage. Issues of concern regard drainage, snow removal, car emissions, and problems with cars driving over the proposed wall. Along with the conditional use permit required for grading, the Commission is asked to consider where the wall should be located and how it affects the flow of drainage. The Builder, Bruce Bren, was present. He indicated he was not creating a problem but was attempting to solve a problem. Bren said he was attempting to accomplish what was submitted in the plans to the City while retaining drainage on the Silus property. 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) During public comments, Pat Spilseth, the next-door neighbor, said she receives the runoff on her property. During a heavy rainstorm this summer, the water came within inches of her door. She indicated that the applicant has offered no accommodations to this problem which had never existed before the construction began. Lindquist asked Spilseth if she has seen the present proposal. Spilseth said she has not. Spilseth said the new grading has created difficulties by raising the level of the home. The old house was on the same elevation level as her home. She reported that the driveway was found inadequate for access immediately after construction began but the work was never stopped. Spilseth said the garage should be changed from a side-loading garage to a double car straight-in garage from Casco Pt. Rd., like other garages in the neighborhood. Van Zomeren reported that neither Gappa nor the City Engineer have reviewed the plans. Schroeder said it was critical to solve the problems. He asked why the plan was just submitted at the beginning of the meeting. Silus said he had been out of town and only received the plans himself. He has not reviewed them either. The plan includes an engineered wall instead of the previous boulder wall. Lindquist noted the applicant was aware of these problems a month ago yet waited until now to address them. Schroeder read letters into the record from Judith Boylan, 3195 Casco Point, and Susan Smith Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle, both in opposition to the plan. Van Zomeren noted Bruce Vang, City Inspector, was present to answer any questions. Lindquist said the information provided would have to be reviewed. He noted the plan would have to satisfy both the City Engineer and neighbors. He said the application would require tabling. Silus indicated that snow removal will not change. Schroeder suggested the applicant change the garage and access it from the street side. Silus said that would be costly. He feels the drainage problem will improve with the newly submitted plan. He noted the problem will exist until construction is completed. 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1997 (#8 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) McMillan said the change in grade was a surprise to many people. Silus disagreed. Bruce Vang said he informed the builder that the topography and garage were different from the plans submitted at the time of the footing inspection, which occurred several months ago. He said the requirement to stay 5' from the property line with the retaining wall was discussed at that time. It was noted that grades were a problem then and the garage was lowered 16" to lessen the impact. Vang said he asked the builder and applicant to consider having the garage open to the street side. Vang said he had this conversation with Peter Bren on site as well. Vang said they insisted the situation could work without creating any problem. Vang said he allowed the construction to continue with the understanding they would adhere to the retaining wall being located 5' from the property line. Spilseth asked if the 5' requirement from the property line pertained to all retaining walls. Lindquist said the ordinance calls for conditional use permits within 5' of the property line where grading is involved. Spilseth said she did not understand how a variance could be granted when larger properties in the neighborhood have been denied variances. She said a neighboring property requested a similar access to their garage and was denied. She noted the builder said access could be changed. Bren said when application was made for the building permit, a plan showing a retaining wall 2' from the property line was submitted to the City and approved. Lindquist said the Planning Commission is reviewing the conditional use permit only. Any other matter would have to be taken up with Staff. Silus said he was attempting to save a tree and understood the design would be a tight fit. He said he was unaware of the need to stay 5' from the property line. Silus said he had preferred the boulder wall but changed it to an engineered wall as requested. He noted the wall is located near the property line in only the area near the garage itself. Spilseth questioned whether the tree that was attempted to be saved was still alive. Schroeder reported that the drainage problem must be addressed as well. Schroeder moved, Smith seconded, to table application #2290 for lack of adequate information. He encouraged the applicant to work with his neighbors. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 24 TO: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: October 13, 1997 -t-zz.,qo SUBJECT: Steve and Elaine Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use--Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-lC, One-Family Lakeshore Residential District, (1/2 Acre) Sewered Lot Size: 22,420 sq. ft. (.51 acres) Application: Applicants are seeking a conditional use permit in order to grade within 5' of the southerly property line to install 25' of retaining wall along the edge of the driveway which would allow the driveway to be approximately 24'-25' wide in front of the garage doors instead of21' where 30' is typically needed for a 3 car side-loading garage. Background: The applicants applied for variances (#2206) in March 1997 to allow removal of a residence and construction of a new residence. Resolution #3 851 granted approval for the following variances: 1. To allow the deck to be located 8' forward of the average lakeshore setback. 2. To allow 3,685 sq. ft. (29.64%) of hardcover in the 75'-250' setback where 3,562 sq. ft. (28.64%) was existing and 3,109 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed. 3. To allow 1,208 sq. ft. (31.23%) of hardcover in the 250'-500' setback where 1,429 sq. ft. (36.95%) was existing and where 1,160 sq. ft. (30%) is allowed. 4. To allow 3,435 sq. ft. (15.32%) of structural coverage where 2,510 sq. ft. was existing and 3,363 sq. ft. (15%) is allowed. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page--] The house construction proceeded following approval for the variances. The topo information that was used to obtain the variances was based on city topo maps which are drawn from aerial photos. These topo maps can be off on an individual zoning lot by 2'. It was discovered during construction that the topo maps did not reflect the actual elevations on site. Fill from the excavated basement was used to elevate the site to provide for a lakeside walk-out. During the footings inspection it was determined that there would not be adequate room to back out of the three car side-loading garage. The Building Inspector instructed the builder to reduce the elevation of the garage floor because there was a 5 foot difference between the grade at the floor level and the southerly property line. It was apparent that a 5 ft. difference in grade over approximately 25 ft. of driveway would cause access problems for the garage. The garage floor is currently proposed at the 959 elevation and the southerly property line is proposed at a 956 elevation. A 3' grade change is an improvement over the 5' change that was originally planned due to inaccurage topo maps. In order to increase the size of the driveway, the applicants are asking for a conditional use permit to grade within 2' of the southerly property line to construct a retaining wall approximately 2.5' to 3' in height. Grading within 5' of the property line requires a conditional use permit. If the applicants chose to build a retaining wall 5' from the property line and less than 42' in height it would not require a conditional use permit for grading nor a side yard setback as the retaining wall would be considered a non-encroachment and grading would be considered normal and customary .. As proposed, the retaining wall 2' from the property line provides approximately 24' of driveway between the garage doors and wall. If the retaining wall was constructed 5' from the property line, the driveway would be 21' in width from the garage doors to the retaining wall. Turning of vehicles will be difficult at either length as 30' is recommended for driveways serving a side-loading garage. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and indicated that 1 O' is usually recommended along side yards for drainage. A minimum of 5' should be available to direct water from the driveway to the lakeside yard. As proposed 2' is not adequate to direct drainage away from the adjacent property. Pertinent Ordinances • Section 10.25, LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District • Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 19. Prohibitions and Subd. 21. Exceptions #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page--2 Subd. 19. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to: a. remove, fill, or use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar material within the limits of the City; b. to fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land so as to elevate or alter the existing natural grade; c. or to build, alter, or repair any seawall, retaining wall, or to otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. All of the above referenced land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only "clean fill" as defined in Section 10.02. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of the City Code, and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. Subd. 21. Exception. The requirements of Subdivision 19 are not intended to govern: a. the normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or b. the grading of a driveway serving such building, nor c. to any movement under 100 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. Such grading and earth moving shall be approved by the Building Inspector at the time of issuance of the building permit, providing that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Any unusual earth filling, removal or grading proposed by a builder shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Planning Commission and the Council for action in accordance to this Chapter. The Building Inspector shall adhere to the following guidelines in the determination of unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 100 cubic yards except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footings protection. #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use.Permit 10/20/97 page--3 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. • Section 10.09 Conditional Uses, Subd. 6. Conditional Uses: Granting of Permit HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS Distance Total Area in Allowed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover from Setback Hardcover with former proposed proposed Shoreline residence with new with construction retaining wall 0'-75' 6,117 sq. ft. None 13 sq.ft. None None (.21 %) 75'-250' 12,436 sq. ft. 3,109 sq. ft. 3,562 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. (25%) (28.64%) (29.6%) (29.6%) 250'-500' 3,867 sq. ft. 1,160 sq. ft. 1,429 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. (30%) (36.95%) (31.2%) (31.2%) The applicant has redesigned the driveway so that previous variances for hardcover can be met with the proposed retaining wall. Findings: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; Land alteration or grading is difficult to consider as a "use". Nonetheless, the Planning Commission shall consider whether allowing the grade to be changed within 2' of the property line along the retaining wall for the driveway is consistent with the intent of both the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Code requires that grading changes be reviewed and not have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission would have to find that the application meets the objectives of the zoning code and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page--4 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. In order to meet this condition the grading plan needs to demonstrate that it will be maintained in a manner that does not impact the adjacent property. The retaining wall needs to be constructed in a manner that water does not run over the top of the wall but is collected and directed away from the lot line. The survey show a 12" PVC directed toward the side yard, however, no design was provided to explain how it would function. The new house is also farther from the southerly property line than the previous residence which will provide a larger side yard for drainage. However, 2' is a limited amount of area to channel driveway runoff. Other issues relating to how the grade would be maintained involve snow removal, screening, vehicle emissions, and vehicle safety. Snow removal would need to be done in a manner that does not place snow on the adjacent property. The 2' strip is not wide enough to allow for any landscaping/screening other than sod or ground cover to be installed on the subject property. As the vehicles back out of the garage, the rear of the vehicle will encroach into the adjacent property if the rear wheels stop at the edge of the proposed retaining wall. This will result in vehicle exhaust emitting across the adjacent property. There is also concern that the vehicles could back over the 3' retaining wall as no railing or wheel stop is noted on the survey. In order to approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the location of the conditional use is not detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. · The conditional use permit would have to be in compliance with all other regulations, including previous resolutions regarding hardcover. In order to approve the application, the Planning Commisson must find that the application complies with all other zoning requirements. Considerations 1. If the conditional use permit is denied, the applicant can install a retaining wall 5' from the property line and have a 21' driveway from the garage. This will result in the driveway being 9' shorter than what is recommended. A 5' separation between the retaining wall and the property line would provide more room for drainage. If the applicant finds that a 21' driveway is not suitable, the applicant can change the #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page--5 orientation of the garage to have a street facing double door instead of a 3 car side loading garage. This would provide better access but may increase the amount of hardcover depending on the width of the driveway. 2. If the conditional use permit is granted for any distance between 2' and 5', Planning Commission should direct applicant to provide scaled drawings for an engineered wall and a plan to mitigate drainage by collecting driveway runoff and redirecting it into the 1 O' sideyard adjacent to the residence so that is does not undermine the retaining wall. 3. The grade of the garage floor is 3' higher than the south property line. Reducing the grade 3' so that no conditional use permit is needed would require substantial modification to the garage. 4. The Planning Commission may want to consider comprimising somewhere between the required 5' and the 2' request. The drainage would still be inadequate, however, the wall would be farther from the adjacent property and may provide more room for landscaping or screenmg. Staff Recommendation The retaining wall proposal 2' from the property line would provide a 24' driveway where 30' is usually needed and recommended. The proposal does not provide adequate drainage according to the City Engineer. Without the conditional use permit the driveway is limited to either a 21' as a side-loading garage or reorientation from a 3-car side loading garage to a double street-facing garage, subject to hardcover modifications. Staff finds that proposal is consistent with previous variances granted for hardcover but does not adequately address drainage and safety issues. Attachments AA Platmap BB Applicant's notes CC Property Owner's list DD Previous motion by Planning Commission EE New Hardcover Calculations FF Letter from Neighbor GG New Survey with Retaining wall #2290 Elaine and Steve Si/us 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit 10/20/97 page--6 TO: Adjacent Property Owners within 150' of 3235 Casco Circle II • FROM: Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator Y~ DATE: October 10, 1997 Re: File #2290 Elaine & Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle At the September 15, 1997 Orono Planning Commission, the applicants were directed to: 1. Provide a current certified property owner's list with mailing labels. 2. Provide correct hardcover calculation. 3. Provide a plan for an engineered wall no closer than 5' from the property line to be reviewed by the City Engineer. The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the property line. The proposed base of the boulder wall is 2' from the property line. The Planning Commission will reconsider this application on October 20, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. A draft agenda, along with the proposed survey and a map of the persons notified is enclosed for your review. If you have questions, please call Liz Van Zomeren at 4 73-7357. ch _ ... "' / I I I ~'O ~----~..J· :· 0 ,, -. 0.11 I I I I o.,'O ,a ,J r . __,, ✓ °'" / \ / ... ·"" 12 O I .. I ~ ---~ 0. I /;"//', A f ,,,,,,, " () J' /'~~!°Oft: ,1) cr·e. t #! -I -I I• CITY of ORONO DATE: 9-SD-9, TIME: 9-: "=>o /A...M TO: eruc~ or-en AT: Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 FAX COVER SHEET Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 PHONE: FAX: 4'13-iSO:}.. FROM: LIZ VAN ZOMEREN CITY PLANNER/ZONING ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF ORONO PHONE: 473-7357 FAX: 473-0510 Number of Pages Following Cover Sheet: l -- NOTES: tlere ts +h-t... l2../C{(o r 1st of p~ ~ ~iiV\M 19:J ot +ne. S\LLA5 fropev-l-y. ~ l')e.Q.J 't'O ~td,..e_ o-... n~ I~ 1-if -ft\½ 11)½ lead--fu P letlYl~)° CoYv\ MVa:J lJ:5r) . ~~II), I\ YUQ.J °' (:fa'\~ we.-~~ iaY ~ a ctJ.N\) ~\IV) s &{--~ ~~ ¾ ~ Ctr-Jb\l\~ l.>-)•aJ.Q. Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2290 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: September 16, 1997 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance/Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: 09/15/97 VOTE: 6 FOR O AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. Must provide current certified property owner's list and labels from Hennepin County for public notification. 2. Correct hardcover calculations on certified survey. 3. Plan locating engineered wall no closer than 5' from the property line to be reviewed by the City Engineer. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the October 20, 1997 meeting is September 26, 1997. lsv ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#10,. #2288 Jason Theis -Continued) Stoddard asked Theis his opinion of the Staff recommendation. Theis said he was satisfied with the recommendation. He is willing to scale back the driveway and working on correcting the slope. Theis told Lindquist he would provide a grading plan. Bressler indicated that engineering of the plan has not occurred. Berg asked that this be done. iheis reported there is a 5' drop from the top of the existing driveway to the garage. He did not feel that span was a problem with a 30' area. McMillan indicated there is a runoff problem existing along the retaining wall on the west side. Theis said the problem exists by the stairs which need to be reconstructed . With the grade of the driveway and flooding possibilities, Lindquist recommended a 8% slope instead of 10%. Stoddard m0ved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2288 for an attached 697 s.f. tuck under garage with living space above for hardcover and front setback variances subject to Staff recommendation. The 1 0' side setback is to be met and a revised plan submitted showing a 1 O' driveway meeting the hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The grading plan is to be provided prior to Council review. Staff is to review flooding requirements. Berg asked why the particular size as proposed. She was informed that there was only 372 s.f. above grade and no bathroom on the main level. The second bedroom is only 6'x9', and the applicant would like a larger master bedroom. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2290 ELAINE AND . STEVE SILUS,. 3235 CASCO CIRCLE VARIANCE/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -PUBLIC HEARING 11 :22-11 :57 P .M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present. 29 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the application was reviewed earlier in 1997. Pictures of the property were distributed. The applicants received variances for average lakeshore setback for construction of a deck, hardcover, and structural coverage. There was concern for saving trees at that time. The 3-car garage is a side load with a driveway about 5' from the lot line. The plan was submitted to the Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, in June of 1997 with the addition of a boulder wall along the driveway that had not been previously reviewed. The proposal is to allow grading within 5' of the property line for a boulder wall for the house under construction. Staff is concerned with the hardcover calculations being incorrect and affected in the 75-250' setback and 250'-500' setback. Van Zomeren said Greg Gappa has recommended that boulders not be used as engineering is difficult. Staff recommends denial of a boulder wall for replacement with an engineered wall to be located 5' from the property line. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 1 O' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be required. The City Engineer's approval is also required. Silus said he received the information packet on Saturday. He reported that he knew prior to construction that access would be difficult. The builder had approved on-site the building of the wall 2' off the lot line. The builder had told Silus that he did not need a variance. Silus said the grade of the garage was lowered per instructions from the building inspector and new footings were poured. Schroeder told Silus that the builder must know that a variance was required. He also indicated that the public was improperly notified, which would require tabling of the application to allow for proper notification. Van Zomeren indicated that the public notification list was from December, 1996, and she originally thought only a side yard variance was required. It was determined that a CUP would be required for grading and the legal notice did not specify this requirement. Silus said he originally submitted the application with Gaffron and had a conversation with Hawn regarding hardcover. He indicated he is not requesting approval of additional hardcover and had originally reduced it. He said he is attempting to extend out the garage portion only. Lindquist read a letter from Mr. & Mrs. Spilseth in opposition to the hardcover and proximity to their property line being requested in the application. 30 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Silus said he was not requesting to run the wall down to the roadway but only about 75' down. It would end at the point where he could gain access. Silus said he did assume that the wall could be , closer than 5'. He indicated other neighbors have walls closer than 5'. Sil us said he was unaware of the ordinance. He said he thought the boulder wall would present a natural look but would be satisfied with an interlocking wall system. Lindquist asked if the wall would be at 2-1/2' from the property line or on the lot line. Silus said the landscaper put the wall on the lot line but would be 5' off the lot line. He would like to move part of the wall to maintain a contour. Hawn questioned how plowing would occur. Silus indicated that he has not infringed on the neighboring property in the past. Hawn felt this could create a problem for the neighbor. Silus said he blows the snow up to where the existing garage is currently located. Lindquist noted the need for new notification and updated hardcover with changes for the wall and back-out area. He asked that the location be provided along with who would make the determination. Van Zomeren said she would like Greg Gappa to review the application. Schroeder suggested tabling the application, and Lindquist asked that direction be given. Silus said he would like the opportunity to work with Staff within the hardcover guidelines authorized in February, 1997. Dave Spilseth said the 60' wide lot is too narrow to provide for a side loading garage. He suggested a straight-in approach. Lindquist indicated the City Engineer would have to be consulted. Jay Richards, who lives two homes away to the north, said he did not receive notification. He reported that the problem with dividing the lots arose four years ago and the problems created should have been foreseen. He noted the wall is straight and has no arch to it. Silus indicated that the site plan was approved by Lyle Oman in June. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 to allow for proper public notification and hardcover calculations. The applicant is directed to speak with neighbors regarding the proposal. 31 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 (#11 -#2290 Elaine and Steve Silus -Continued) Direction for grading is unknown at this time and requires review by the City Engineer. Gappa indicated that the engineered wall should be no closer than 5' from the property line. Silus was informed that it is unknown how the changes would affect the approved site plan. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Lindquist reopened the public hearing to allow for comments from the neighbors. Susie Swanson, who lives four homes to the south, asked what ordinances apply to water runoff. She saw the problem as being the garage built on a new grade from the previously existing grade and is concerned with a change in drainage. She felt the side setback variance was a problem. Silus noted the difficulty in turning around on the property. Berg noted the builder has an obligation to correct the problems. Diane Carlson said she had requested side facing doors about 8 years ago and had to turn the garage. She felt the garage could be built without the type of entrance as proposed. She felt the property owners caused their own problems. Pat Spilseth indicated the change in grade has caused her to view the wall and cars. She noted the prescriptive easement. She voiced concern that as the next-door neighbor she was not informed of what was occurring. Schroeder noted it was not the job of the Planning Commission to inform the neighbors. He asked if there was a grading plan and elevations with respect to the driveway at the time of original application. Mayor Jabbour answered on behalf of the City. He asked that applicant provide hardcover calculations that not reflect the boulder walls. The wall was not part of the calculations. 32 C/-;S-LJJ ;/uchth !7Jo_yfan Weddin_1 !Jl(usic Consul/an/ Vocalrsl /41·~~ /(e,: ti~~~ jutU, 4 )?wt,/ <JS3CJ/ ~ ama ~ 1 ~~ ~ M ~!!&/-~ X ~v%tH~ M?~xi~(A/lo , ~~~~~ ~~A,,~~. 3 ew~ ar ~ ~~~tu . ~~»-zJ .~JNU!I e~~ a?/~~ ~di ~~r ~ >!; ~~ ~, 'dr1t/"Jf-£LL/ . ' . 15- ~~u:__, fet ~~/<../II ~ ~~i~_L/J~ 129 :J/lexancfer?luenue, c5nowmass, Colorado J/654 970-927-9136 * -J00-944-704,S * 970-927-9137 (fax) ' I \\ \,. ' - I I ., ~ .. •. "',• I I TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Lindquist and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator August 11, 1997 I l We:.Vl(X.lj s+a.-tP Ye:p'.)Y\-1YO'Y\ 9/ l'S/ 9'1 meeh:n5 SUBJECT: #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus 3235 Casco Circle Conditional Use Permit--Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Application: Note: LR-lC 22,420 One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 Acre) square feet (.51 acres) The applicants were before the Planning Commission and City Council earlier this year (February 1997) requesting average lakeshore setback, hardcover, and structural coverage variances to allow removal of their residence to allow construction of a new residence . The previous residence has been removed and a new house is under construction. During the construction process the owners determined that the access into the garage will be difficult. The applicants are now requesting approval to construct a boulder wall in the required sideyard at the south property line. A conditional use permit is required to change the grade of the side yard. A variance for hardcover may also be required for more driveway and the retaining wall. The application that was completed was for a variance. Staff has determined that a conditional use permit is also required. The legal notice indicated only a variance, not a conditional use permit. Also, the applicant reused the property owner's list from 12/96. This list may not be valid if any property within 150' of the subject property has changed ownership since December. Pertinent Ordinances: • Section 10.25, LR-lC One Family Lakeshore Residential District • Section 10.03, General Provisions, Subd. 21. Exceptions #2290 Steve and Eliane Situs 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---! "grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within 5 feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches ... require a conditional use permit" • Section 10.03 General Provisions, Subd. 15, Non-Encroachments, D. and F. "In side or rear yards only .... fences and walls not to exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade and open off-street parking" • "side yards only; ... nor shall a fence or wall constructed within a side yard exceed a height of 6 feet above original grade." • Section 10.22, Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations, and Subd. 2, Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---2 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards LR-1 C District Standards Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Lakeside Yard 1/2 acre 100' 30' 10' 75'and (21,780 sq. ft.) average lakeshore setback Subject Property Lot Area and Yards Lot Area Lot Width Street Yard Side Yard Lakeside 22,420 sq. ft. 55' 55' to new garage 1 0' on each side 170'+ (.517 acres) of new house; 0 proposed for driveway and wall The subject property meets the lot area requirements. The property does not meet the lot width requirements. The proposed wall is considered a non-encroachment in the side yard if the grade is not altered and the height is less than 6'. A conditional use permit is required because the grade would be changed within 5' of the property line. Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,420 sq. ft. 3,435 sq. ft. A variance for 72 sq. ft. was granted in February 1997. #2290 Steve and Eliane Si/us 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---3 % of Total Lot 15.32 Hardcover Distance Total Area in Approved Allowed Proposed Variance from Setback 2/97 Hardcover Hardcover Requested Shoreline Hardcover 0'-75' 6,117 sq. ft. 13 sq. ft. None None None 75'-250' 12,436 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. 3,562 sq. ft. 3,685.78 51 sq. ft. (29.6317%) (25%) sq.ft. (.53%) (29.637%) 250'-500' 3,867 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. 1,160 sq. ft. 1,335.25 sq. 175 sq. ft. (31.23%) (30%) ft. (34.52%) (4.52%) or OR 162 sq. ft. 1,322 sq. ft. (4.18%) (34.18%) The proposal to build a boulder retaining wall and revise the driveway increases hardcover in both the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setbacks. There is a discrepancy between what was submitted and what staff estimates to be the hardcover amount in the 250'-500' setback area. STATEMENT OF HARDSHIP See Exhibit D . Criteria for Determining Undue Hardship 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property can be used for residential purposes. The request for hardcover variances and a conditional use permit for grading within 5' of the property line are to make ingress and egress from the garage safer and easier. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The situation is created by the narrow lot width and the location and placement of the new garage. The problem was discovered at the time the footings were being installed #2290 Steve and Eliane Si/us 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---4 for the new garage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance for more hardcover will not impact the character of the neighborhood. However, a conditional use permit to change the grade will change the appearance of the lot along the lot line and may have a negative impact on the adjacent property regarding snow removal. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms ofthis chapter. Economic factors are not a consideration with this application. 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Solar access is not a consideration. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance for any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for the property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Driveways are permitted in residential districts. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure of land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Properties in this area do not meet lot width requirements. The circumstances are based on the design and location of the garage. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---5 The Zoning Code does not allow grading within 5' of the lot line and limits hardcover in all lakeshore zoning districts. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variance for hardcover is needed to increase the size of the driveway to improve turnaround area. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. The Public Services Director, a registered civil engineer, has reviewed the proposed boulder wall and does not recommend it due to safety concerns. He suggests that an engineered wall be installed instead of a boulder wall. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. The variance will be a convenience to the applicants. 1. The zoning lot does not meet lot area requirements. Previous variances were granted for average lakeshore setback, structural coverage and hardcover. 2. The garage and house were designed to preserve several mature trees on site. 3. There is a change in grade between the subject property and the adjacent property to the south. 5. The Public Services Director recommends that an engineered wall be installed approximately 5' from the property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a boulder wall not be installed along the property line. A boulder wall consumes too much space and is not deemed reliable for the proposed driveway. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to submit a proposal for an #2290 Steve and Eliane Si/us 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---6 engineered wall to be installed 5' from the property line which may eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. A retaining wall would be allowed in the 1 O' required side yard if it does not exceed 6' in height. Hardcover variances may still be needed. Attachments A Application B Plat Map C Topographical Map D Hardship Statement E Survey--Proposed Boulder Wall F Previously approved hardcover variances G Hardcover calculations H Original Floor Plan #2290 Steve and Eliane Silus 3235 Casco Circle PC 9/15/97 page---7 I Plan submitted 6/97 J Entry Elevation K Permit Record L Acknowledgements M Minutes N Minutes 0 Code Excerpts p Resolution CITY OF ORONO ~ setback to construct a 24'x32' detached 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 garage. Affidavit of Publication Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (612) 473-7357 Fax 473· 0510 The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 15, 1997, beginning at 7:00 p.m. · on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 1. #2283 Gary and Bonnie Birnhaum, 2695 Kelly Avenue; request a renewal variance for lot area and lot width for the vacant lot adjacent to their residence. 2. #2284 James Slechta, having an interest in 3700 Northern Avenue, requests a variance to construct a 42'x96' storage building. 3. #2285 John Latterelle, 3505 Livingston Avenue, requests variances for lot coverage and side yard setback adjacent to a street to construct a 26'x 12' deck. 4. #2287 Brad and Traci Peterson, 1770 Shadywood Road, request variances for hardcover, side and lakeshore setbacks to rebuild a lake side deck. 5. #2288 Jason Theis, 4108 Highwood Road, requests a side yard setback variance and conditional use permit to allow construction of a 654 sq. ft. attached garage on a through lot. 6. #2289 Jon Pendleton, 350 North Arm Lane, requests a conditional use permit to allow one horse to be kept on the property seasonally. 7. #2290 Elaine and S.teve Silus, 3235 Casco Circle, request a variance for a side yard setback to allow construction of a 4' boulder retaining wall along the driveway to improve access to the garage. 8. #2291 Steven Sigel, having an interest in 1399 Park Drive, requests variances for hardcover and side yard 9. #2292 Tom Okerstrom, 770 Tonkawa Road, requests variances for hardcover, front yard setback to allow an accessory structure t t f M" c· f H · (detached garage) to be located in front of ' a e O tnnesota, OUnty O enneptn. the principal structure. 10. #2295 Conly Brooks of 980 West lill Holm being duly sworn on oath says that he is Ferndale Road requests a front or street ' ' setback variance, a wetland setback .n authorized agent and employee of the publisher variance, and a variance for construction of an accessory structure located nearer the 1f the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, front lot line than the principal structure; such . variances required for placement of the tlrnnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts existing garage on the property formerly h' h t d b I . known as 1045 West Ferndale Road which is V IC are S ate e OW. being legally combined with 980 West Ferndale Road. This application also involves a request for replacement of the~ ) The newspaper has compI·1ed w·1th all the existing fence within the southerly right-of-· way of West Ferndale Road adjacent to theequirements constituting qualifications as a former 1045 West Ferndale Road parcel, requiring a variance to the required 75' 1ualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota lakeshore setback and City approval per , . Municipal Code section 6.07. ,tatute 331 A.02, 331 A.O7, and other applicable 11. #2296 Daryl Hanson for Mrs. Robert iWS, as amended. Keith, 1045 Edgewood Hills Road, requests a variance to allow an addition to an existing ~~~ence to locate the addition within 10' of a I.) The printed Land Use Applications All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available---------------------- in the City Offices for review, by appointment. rhich is attached was cut from the columns of said For an appointment, call 473-7357. ewspaper, and was printed and published once City of Orono By: Planning Commission Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office (Published in The Laker and Pioneer Aug. 30, 1997) ach week for ~--successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the 30 dayof August 191.L, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the. ___ day of _______ 19 __ ; M~ f'Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkwar, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, l.\1N 55323 Phone (612)473-7357 Fax 473-0510 NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 15, 1997, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 1. #2283 Gary and Boncie Birnhaum, 2695 Kelly A venue, request a renewal variance for lot area and lot width for the vacant lot adjacent to their residence. 2. #2284 James Slechta, having an interest in 3700 Northern Avenue, requests a variance to construct a 42'x96' storage building. 3. #2285 John Latterelle, 3505 Livingston Avenue, requests variances for lot coverage and side yard setback adjacent to a street to construct a 26'x12' deck. 4. #2287 Brad and Traci Peterson, 1770 Shadywood Road, request variances for hardcover, side and lakeshore setbacks to rebuild a lake side deck. 5. #2288 Jason Theis, 4108 Highwood Road, requests a side yard setback variance and conditional use permit to allow construction of a 654 sq. ft. attached garage on a through lot. 6. #2289 Jon Pendleton, 350 North Arm La.n,e, requests a conditional use permit to allow one horse to be kept on the property seasonally. 7. #2290 Elaine and Steve Silus, 3235 Casco Circle, request a variance for a side yard setback to allow construction of a 4' boulder retaining wall along the driveway to improve access to the garage. 8. #2291 Steven Sigel, having an interest in 1399 Park Drive, requests variances for hardcover · and side yard setback to construct a 24'x32' detached garage. 9. #2292 Tom Okerstrom, 770 Tonkawa Road, requests variances for hardcover, front yard setback to allow an accessory structure ( detached garage) to be located in front of the principal structure. 10. #2295 Conley Brooks of980 West Ferndale Road requests a front or street setback variance, a wetland setback variance, and a variance for construction of an accessory structure located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure; such variances required for replacement of the existing garage on the property formerly known as 1045 West Ferndale Road which is being legally combined with 980 West Ferndale Road. This application also involves a request for replacement of the existing fence within the southerly right-of-way of West Ferndale Road adjacent to the former 1045 West Ferndale Road parcel, requiring a variance to the required 75' lakeshore setback and City approval per Municipal Code Section 6.07. 11. #2296 Daryl Hanson for Mrs. Robert Keith, 1045 Edgewod Hills Road, requests a variance to allow an addition to an existing residence to locate the addition within 1 O' of a pool. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City Offices for review, by appointment. For an appointment, call 473-7357. City of Orono By: Planning Co~rsion £ ~&tlva~, Elizabeth Van Zomeren Planner/Zoning Administrator To be published the week of August 30, 1997. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Navarre Post Office CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ss. CITY OF ORONO I, Jamie Gemar, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #2290, was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd day of September, 1997. Jamie (D futvc.::no~ I , ., / ~ I f'.. A :.. 8-;-•-•A _ (-4" W crv lL· Va VV\., rl U)...AA...A.7V~ V\_Ql_cf~ -t'\r-U_? ~ ~LJJ <.J-7 r\l\~-Lk V\CtAA.~ l( Lu-t....u_[ h~ 0""\1-°"" M' . ® _,,u_ GOYn ~ I ~ci} ~ -a.,_ h"j .. (ka.9, I i'-b ~h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J--81~ C Vl 5,t_,.to...,t 'r--~ ~ V\...L,\_ ~IA~ i-, I t I I l \ --t ~~~ ~-~YV\JW Lo~"'-A. . S l ()e O leJr J-°' ~ -0.t t ~ ~a)yu ft ~ s:-I fl(JA__ ~\~s L6\N~Y ~ · ---~ ltA-t _ Ll;Y'\~ 5?<llw~ I -61.;) bui b,i__ /J;n c. J;.J cw:.. Yt'f ·YOf -.Y~ ]-~ ~0/'\ voc/c_ 5~ . I Mq~ agCj11-~ l(--& 1' IJ1_ ,cj_ hPY1ion-/-J ht~ Sftii ts --~ crul-o I J ~blf2JM l,vhe_~ Gu~1 ~-5u.rvl»e_ Vv--eJJ-w{Q woh,._ bu.aA-uf 25l ~ {~ __.--I,<'-- Application #2290 Motion at Planning Commission meeting Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2290 for public notification of application and hardcover calculations. The engineered wall can be no closer than 5' from the property line and will require review by the City Engineer. Vote: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Silus asked how the approved site plan would be affected. Van Zomeren responded that the effect was not known at this time. X:\APPS\ WPWIN60\ WPDOCS\LIN\LIZ\2290NOTE 9/26/97 Zoning File #2290 Tabled 9/15/97 Response to Notes and Special Conditions 1) Provided as Requested. BB 2) Provided as Requested. Hardcover figures have not increased from previous approval. 3) A new plan is provided showing a engineered wall as recommended by the City Engineer. The wall is located 2' from the lot line only in front of the garage doors as illustrated in the approved site plan. Answers to additional concerns: 4) With regard to the concern of snow removal, snow removal at this property, as in prior years, is not done by plowing. Snow removal is done by shovel and snow blower. There is adequate space to the west of the garage for excessive snow condition placement. There has never been any concern or problem in prior years. 5) With regard to possible drainage problems, this plan will improve same. With elimination of the previously combined driveway, there is now an area along the upper lot line that will have grass planted on it. This area is approximately 60'long and should be very helpful with absorption of water. The balance of the lot along the lot line will be graded down to level with the adjacent property. This will allow any runoff to go down the middle of the lot line. This area will also have grass planted on it. PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20 117 23 43 0004 3229 CASCO CIR GR TRIPP & SK TRIPP GREGORY R & SHARON K TRIPP 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0014 3235 CASCO CIR SD SILUS & EC SILUS STEPHEN SILUS & ELAINE SILUS 3235 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0031 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO COMPANY ROBERTO MACNIE 313 5 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST CONDMN # CONDMN # CONDMN # 38 20 117 23 43 0005 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY SUSAN SWANSON MARY SUSAN SWANSON 3229 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0015 3233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSETH & PD SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0050 3241 CASCO CIR KT & PA KENNEFICK KEVIN T/PATRICIA A KENNEFICK 3241 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN # CONDMN # CONDMN # 38 20 117 23 43 0013 3237 CASCO CIR G NASIEDLAK & M NASIEDLAK G NASIEDLAK & M NASIEDLAK 3237 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 43 0016 3231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER & J E COOPER J E COOPER & J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF ✓ r a -/ il I/ II J ) ) /)," ljL tQ-. DATE 9 i )-/ q 1 1 BY fut✓ r ~cJ L~ CONDMN # CONDMN # p () ITEM #8 List of Exhibits (cont.) I. Floor Plans J. Resolution Pertinent Ordinances: HARDCOVER ANALYSIS J. Section 10. 22, Subd. 2, Lakes ho re Hardcover and Land Alteration Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. Distance Total Area in Hardcover Existing Proposed Variance from Setback Allowed Hardcover Hard.cover· Request shoreline 0-75' 27.28% 0 13 sq. ft. 0 None 6,117 sq. ft. 75'-250' 55.46% 25% 28.64% 29.64% 4.64% 12,436 sq.ft. 3,109 sq. ft. 3,562 sq. ft. 3,685 sq. ft. 576 sq. ft. 250'-500' 17.25% 30% 36.95% 31.23% 1.23% 3,867 sq. ft. 1,160 sq. ft. 1,429 sq. ft. 1,208 sq. ft. 48 sq. ft. TOTAL: 100% 19.04% 22.32% 21.82% .0278% 22,420 sq. ft. 4,269 sq. ft. 5,004 sq. ft. 4,893 sq. ft. 624 sq.ft. Overall, the proposed design reduces hardcover by 111 sq. ft. However, the proposed design exceeds the hardcover requirements in both the 75'-250' and 250'-500' setback areas. The proposed design requires a 4.64% (576 sq.-ft.) in the 75'~250' setback and a 1.23% (48 sq. ft.) in the 250'-500' setback area. #2206, Elaine and Steve Si/us· 3235 Casco Circle--Variances cc 3/10/97 Page 2 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ~ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' e 250-500' 500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 17 X I f /_37 S.F. Length Width ?//. 5' X 5'!5 = 2LBZ,:£ S.F. '5 X Z..o = /O"t:> S.F. I 7 X I, gJ = z.1_,tof S.F. "t....1/,:> Z..v~~ G5i 17 B. Garage ;J_Z..,_ X z._ 2-= ~8"1 S.F. C. Driveway X = S.F. X = S.F. D. Sidewalk X = S.F. X = S.F. E. Patio/Deck (._1/ X ~ = -:;"Cc, S.F. /,5'" X 5 = 7-S-S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Other X = S.F. TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A }2-'?Z..,l.'a B / z ~/} <a X 100 = LG~ 3 f % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House f i X II = I '6 "? S.F. Length Width 'VI.,~ X ~5 = z..z.,,~7, / Q> ~ ! , S.F. ~ X J..o = ! 0-0 S.F. ,!.'7 X /4 .13 = 1. z. br S.F. t..'-/',? J... "'"' ~5:{ 1 B. Garage Lt... X l,"L-= '-/ ~..,,,.· S.F. T'il=\J C. Driveway /~ X Lr = :3 .::f' f S.F. :::::::: X = S.F. D. Sidewalk i 5 '? = 2-2. .-5" S.F. X ? 9 X ,S-= ~<.) S.F. E. Patio/Deck /Y X ~ = '!:;"'(-,::, S.F. ,rf" X -5': = '7 5" S.F. F. Landscape X = S.F. Underlain X = S.F. By Plastic X = S.F. G. Other X = S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE S.F. B A Jc;,. ~ S::. Vts B / z '-I' 3 t.., X 100 = --Z.9.~'-;) % 13 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Length JI ----·--· X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ! ,, 75-250' I Width .. . 2. "Z,; TOT AL HARDC0VER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 8 500-1000' S.F. ------ S.F. ------= S.F. ------= S.F. ------ = S.F. ------ = S. ---'----'-''-----= S .F. ------ = ----'-·.I;__ __ S.F. = S.F. ------ = S.F. ------= S.F. ------ = S.F. ------= S.F. ------= = S.F. ------ S.F. ------S.F. A _ _:bt.f ~ B 3 8 <b 7 X 100 = ===<6=-=z.::::(,.~~~~-% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN./ ONE A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Length 55 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Width Ir:,. = S.F. ------ S.F. ------= S.F. ------S.F. ------ S.F. ------ ___,5......,3""'-0=---S.F. -~s-~_o ___ s.F. = S.F. ------= S.F. ------ = S.F. ------= S.F. ------ = S.F. ------= S.F. ------= S.F. ------ = S.F. ------ A B ,/· J t ! ; ' \ ·' I I r , I I I I I I I I ' ! i I! i ! I I I I I ,, ' I 1J Qi n. hl ~ ~ J\l I I I i~ rui I : 11 I Ii I l\1INUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING W.a:LD ON l\'1ARCH 10, 1997 (#7 -#2202 County Road 15 Reconstruction -Continued) Jabbour said he did not see the need to require the mitigation in Orono as the sites in Excelsior and Independence would benefit Orono. In regards to the potential concerns . with granting conditional approval prior to EAW completion, Radio informed Jabbour that there might be no benefit in distinguishing between public arid private projects as a · private resident would say there is no difference. · · · · · It was recognized that the County will have 3-30 days, or between March 15 and April 15, to make their determination from the comment reporting end of March 1~. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to continue the agenda item to a Special Council Meeting to be held on April 1, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Settles asked Gaffron to check for the information required by the Council. Kelley asked if an EA W would be required on CoRd 6 reconstruction project. The County representatives will verify and repo11 to Gaffron. Radio said the County is put on notice that the EA \V approval would be required to obtain the permit. (#8) #2206 ELAINE AND STEVE SIL US, 3235 CASCO CIRCLE -VARIAN CE :-. RESOLUTION NO. 3851 Silus asked for clarification of#l in the conclusions of the resolution. He questioned the timing of the hardcover removals. Silus asked that the temporary storage facility and unattached garage be allowed to remain during construction. He said he would remove those structures when the project is completed. The Council agreed with the request. Jabbour informed Silus that he would not obtain the occupancy permit until the structures were removed. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3851. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2210 KENT E. MTJ> SUSAN S\VANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE:. VARIA.t~CE -RESOLUTION NO. 3852 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3852. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#10) #2187 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3625 SIXTH A VENUE NORTH -VARIANCES/CUP -RECOlvllvIENDATION FOR DENIAL Neil Heupel represented the applicants. 14 CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You ate notified that: I. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First 1 Address . O_,A.-:::, ,V V City Middle /'-1;,.J State Last I understand my rights as stated above. ¢~~0:.~~ ·-7 Signature Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 10 Sec.13.04 RIGHTS OF SUBJECTS OF DATA Subdivision 1. Type of data. The rights of individual on whom the data is stored or to be stored shall be as set forth in this section. Subd. 2. Information required to be given individual. An individual asked to supply private or confidential data concerning himself shall be informed of: (a) the purpose and intended use of the requested data within the collecting state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system; (b) whether he may refuse or is legally required to supply the requested data; ( c) any known consequence arising from his supplying or refusing to supply private or confidential data; and ( d) the identity of other persons or entities authorized by state or federal law to receive the data. This requirement shall not apply when an individual is asked to supply investigative data, pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 5, to a law enforcement officer. The commissioner of revenue may place the notice required under this subdivision in the individual income tax or property tax refund instructions instead of on those forms. Subd. 3. Access to data by individual. Upon request to a responsible authority, an individual shall be informed whether he is the subject of stored data on individuals, and whether it is classified as public, private or confidential. Upon his further request, an individual who is the subject of stored private or public data on individuals shall be shown the data without any charge to him and, if he desires, shall be informed of the content and meaning of that data. After an individual has been shown the private data and informed of its meaning, the data need not be disclosed to him for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action pursuant to this section is pending or additional data on the individual has been collected or created. The responsible authority shall provide copies of the private or public data upon request by the individual subject of the data. The responsible authority may require the requesting person to pay the actual costs of making, certifying, and compiling the copies. The responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, with any request made pursuant to this subdivision, or within five days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. If he cannot comply with the request within that time, he shall so inform the individual, and may have an additional five days within which to comply with the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Subd. 4. Procedure when data is not accurate or complete. An individual may contest the accuracy or completeness of public or private data concerning himself. To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (a) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (b) notify the individual that he believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. The determination of the responsible authority may be appealed pursuant to the provisions of the administrative procedure act relating to contested cases. 11 - ,..., - RUN DATE 12/12/96 BATCH 501 PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP-ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-111~23 43 0004 03229 CASCO CIR GR TRIPP & SK TRIPP GREGORY R & SHARON K TRIPP 3229. CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0014 03235 CASCO CIR SD SILUS & EC SILUS STEPHEN SILUS & ELAINE SILUS_ 3235 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0031 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED THE CASCO CO THE CASCO cm1PANY ROBERTO MACNIE 3135 CASCO CIR WAYZATA t1N 55391 ~,,--='."'-,_. l® j'.)~!F'~~0 \ 11 i,I ~,J{k;:;:,\.:_ Al ~r }•;,~ ·. ~-:- f \;t,,.;,,' '"'i1.1;,·,:::1 if?;. ~t ,''i ''~t: .. ~,. f';:t:::,,-,-D ~ ,,,\ ,,,. ·J~'.\2) '•,f,~{ f J :;, ~~:~;~~ 8~. ~-, \( ·1l'~;..~ ''•l~,,~ .. · HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 38 20-117-23 43 0005 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MARY SUSAN-SWANSON MARY SUSAN SHANSON 3229 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0015 03233 CASCO CIR D M SPILSETH & PD SPILSETH DAVID M SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23,43 0050 03241 CASCO CIR SA BULLOCK & EL BULLOCK SANORA A & ERWIN LED BULLOCK 3241 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT NO. PI435401 38 20-117-23 43 0013 03237 CASCO CIR PAGE 1 G NASIEDLAK & M NASIEDLAK G NASIEDLAK & 11 NASIEDLAK 3237 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0016 03231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER & J E COOPER J E COOPER & J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 501 00008 I C~RTIFY THAT THE _FACTS REPRESENTED ARE, AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REP!l.ESENTATION OF INFORMATIOl1 AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUl~TY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TD THE BEST Of HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, • _c c;"', !), DATE 12 133b BY L-<k., '1ama-r---. 0 -~ - +-- .,,-_:;:;:;,:::;.,.. 1-.r ' \ f ,, I , I /.;:-::-.:,':-. ,, Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) (iarv L , /Ue6Je..d I.re l< 7 [print name( s)] of /}J t:? n/ Jo ,J/4 s,·e cl l~v( [p£t address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __________ also referred to as Land Use Application No. ___ _ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement , I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Property O.,~e·r Date ********************~********************************************************* of 3.)-3:3 Gg cv C; "rL_ [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. /P-1r-1<= 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 Bu1lding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date . 9 \ ---\ \ 1n ~ ~ r l i ,. .. ,..., . .-- ......................... l)f'-,lt.'~H• Ii'! OHA\,'\. t\~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ELAINE SILUS IN LOT 19, SPRING PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA \ ., ' \ \ . c:,°'i , ..... . <-, 4.t~ -~, ,'' ,t. .?9 .. ~ 1,y , '/ ~ "s-ii--11t'"\.A $> ------------------- ··-. La.ke s13•pJ5'.5-----:r 5,;r~•'I ,,~. .............. ....... ______ ______ 'PJ,?.........._ -...... :· l·.\,:·;~::;.;r, .... ·, ..•. , ... J> ....________ /,fo,POJf"o Et (t/,1r_,p,f./.) ljtr,AACf = 'J$'9.0 2) TN q;' F..--dr,v = 959. 3 3) ,Y,ff~!" (A/7' = ? 50. S --?52.-J. -----liZfl----; i;')(/f.,,./,VC: €'t.. ti/. ,".f t:1t10/Ft1 fi't. ;"//. ------------- '- 1_1.0__!9- ------------- C'\?I) I //; C ;,, 1-,; ... q I . I ............... ✓ ' LLGAL Ut\LklPI IU~ Uf PREMl~f~ ~UMVtYtU: ~ I RF\ l'-ll )'\, CD @) I Q) @ {l,\l'I· 9·14-9S /o-zr-1( 11.~,M'N' f --.....J' I -<fv \?176. \? ( ,j ~ Lut 19. SPRING PARK . .il,u di! Lilat µart uf v,lCctleJ !.dkt:!Shor1:' Avenue <1n11 ut <ttit·· tr·dct ut I dnd ly 1ny tJelween '.;, d ! d Y J '-,j t e d d Vt· I I U t' d I! tJ 'L d k ~J M I fl: I~ f. U I J k d W ri l C r1 J I t: S t;r>1 weer1 ! lie l:'ct-:.terly t.1 Xlt:11\Jur1'.-:. ut tl1e 11u1 lher !y u11d <-iuuttit-:r If I inc~-1.,t ~did Lu~ iY. o: J~·/l',ilt''i l!UI! !!lJ11\t:1 ~1L'1 e. dt•riul t.''-> i; ._!fi t!1d1·k•·r : uur111 Be<H 1rI~J'> ',t1l1w:1 dre bC.1\e•J Uf1t1r1 J:1 ,1\':iIF1eu d<.1Lur11. rt:1 ·:, '",ur y;._;-y 1111.1.:'110·, LLi ':,t1•1'r1 L~i,· l;uulldur It'::> ur tt11:-: dLuve d~'=>'-' 1!:t''1 ~1ui,1•: · y. !_'Lt" :11, ,1L1:,:1 •l ,..:11 exi'.:::>l1r1y !iuu')t' ,1110 tjctl·a~j':-.: ,111:l :..tit.= !ucuLJui1 t.1'. .11: !'X.! '.·/t1r1y "tldtdlUVt:r" Llit•1eor1. it d:_)t-_'':, Ill,!, 1,urp 1'J; t t{, )l1,!W ,;r1y ull1er l!111JIGVf:'IIJ!:lflt~ or f::'r1crUr1Lt:n1e11t~. f"r""" ,it-y ,.,a,ps [1!.._1 RJl'!!(l'\, loc.a.♦,J o.d,jo:,.;,.!I !».tier, ._,.J 6 tl'I~$ .,,,,.,,,,,,Jr,,,( /14Wft: r;(~U/.., _llf:.._ f~~"2"~-q~~~~R~, ~~: I ht·rt·h 1 ,·rt1!\ th.l! th:.., ,un t·\ I\ ,1-. ~,rq,,m·d h rill' l'f undn m~ d1rl'fl -.u~wr· \ 1-.111n .rnd th,11 1.1111 ,1 dul·. rl'\.'..l"ll'rl·d ( I\ ii I nl!,nw,.:r .ind L.rnd Sun·t•\'l'r undt•r thl· l,n\-. Pl t!w '-1,Jtl' 11! \linn~•-.,11,1 · ~_/ ~ .fh/✓f,,lf' #~,,...,.,,<',n.✓l!'r-.tAo,,..,N1 ,:/'7/97 1{,.-1,',,ai propq""'4 hovS<: ~ ~.-.~ f,1111.lr,\cl-. .\1t'llll\' • L,11:~ I ,1!..,· ~1\. ;;-;;,, 11!~-F\ Ill! ~ J t i ! t t r l r l 1 t i l ! I l I I l \ i I t I 5(.-AI E 1"•20' llAll-5.1, . .,.._,_,. • ..,., l4.1J•tS~,..,..,. IOR' 97216 I I I I I I I / f II I 1 1 I ~! I~ I / /.·. .,,, /: .......... I ,·-. / · .. • ..... , / --~ . . ....... , / ... .. . , ~ .... ,,. ....... : -~ ....... ., . I ·,: ··-I .··,-I ·, / o.r,."' / I I I -------,-~ '>.' ~·... , " " J ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ )' 1~ ~ ~ I.I) I;) n') ~ ~ ~ 0.: ~~ \,. "' ~ ~ ~ 0--<t-- I) \I ~ 11 ~ '; 1 1~ v' 'I:) s:. 'I. ..... ~ \) \!, l \ '( ,.., .., "< <:, ~ "' '-~ . .%: \.!, ~ ~ ~~i ~~ ~ jl ~ C 8 ' :•: •. t' I "' .,. ::::; I.: :-; " \,. I,, ~ ~ ~ ~ .,.., ~ ~ ~ <:, 4)~ f' ::::i ..LI >- ..J..J > X ::) J) J) ..J..J .J) ~ ..J..J X l .... :) 2 ::-:i :::l... .x ...) f'. ..LI c::i _J < _::) ...J _J )... -..:x. 1) 'tl -~ ~-•-:) -1 ........J '1J .,._ 'tl _; :::: ::) ..::: u:::: ---'"-/' -~ =:Tl -_; ~ ·- ::),.J....; 1,_; ./' _; -~-"":JX-:::; .-;:, >,V: ~L-.l., W::C::::)- < = :; =' 0...1.:lJ~ :J > ,"'\ ./"l ~-""·i; z l; :_; - >-::: ez:::<:.i.lJ- .:::... - , -~ ::r,, ..c > J' -' J' = -..., ::., -~ J'. -0 • 1J :::::::. ~<u G ~ ~ ,~· . 0-I ~ ,JJ.J.f:' I I I I ./"J_ --=) 1J >( 1> :::n >.., -= -::: --,._, ::) -- ~ -· ·, " J"' -~-._.. _: -=.:' 1 - -.r .:::.. J.; u --...... / I I , "' \l ,/ ~ '-I .... I --0 "' l " .. ,; ' \ ~ =-'\I L, =-~ I -i " -.,, ..., i:>, ~ I ! { :::-t I ., I )' )' I .. -.., .., I ~ ~ ~ ... d ~ " -5: ~ ~ -~ -st ':, < cl-~ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone 612-473-7357 Fax473-051 O LEGAL NOTICE JANUARY 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA The Planning Commission will hold public hearings to consider the following ·land use. applications on : . Tuesday, January 20, 1998 6:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 1. #2289. Jon Pendleton, 350 North Arm Lane. Conditional use permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-1A Zoning District. 2. #2290, Ste ven and Elaine Silus , 3225 Casco C ircl e. Conditional use permit to grade within 5 ' of the south property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall. · 3. #2296, Robert Bredeson , 1395 Rest Point Road . Variances for structural coverage, lot area, lot width. rear yard setback , and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback. · 4 . #2312, Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive . Variances for an oversized accessory structure and side yard setback . A conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure in front of the principal residence on a through lot. 5. #2315, C . Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue . Lot line rearrangement , and variances for lot area and lot width . 6 . #2316, Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View . Preliminary plat for a 3 lot Class Ill subdivision . 7. #2318, C.N . Ostrom & Sons , for Jeanne Mithun, 755 Ferndale Road North . Conditional use permit for guest apartment in the basement. _8 . #2319 , Ron Lauer, 1040 Tonkawa Road. Variances for hardcover to remove an Affidavit of Publication existing residence and construct a new residence. ., State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. i '~~ ···.·•g_ #2320, Christopher and Mary Smith, having an interest in 3650 Casco ·Avenue. Varfances for an average lakeshore setback 1~:·add a bay window over an .existing dec_k. . -~: 10. #2322, Steven N . Fillps ; 2570 Thoroughbred Lane. Variance for a fence wii hin 50' of a rear lot line on a through lot: 11 . • #2323, lim Nelson on· behalf of David Pomije, .3120 North -Shore Drive. Bill Holm, 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: Variances for hardcover to build .an addition ' • . to .an existing residence. . , • ·. I c · · : A.) The newspaper has complied with all the ;· -12 . #2325, Lake Country Builders on , behalf of John and Cindy Olson, 950 North ' requirements constituting qualifications as a Arm Drive . Variance for bluff setback to add • • . . a'porch and replace an existing deck to an qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota existing residence . Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable ,_. ~3. #2326, Orono Development, LLC, laws, as amended. ~380 Shadywood Road . Variances for 1-@rdcover and front yard parking setback and ~ commercial site plan review to construct an l 1J,OOO sq . ft. retail/service center building. • ' B.) The printed Planning Commission Agenda ,•_. 14. #2328, Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shadywood Road . Conditional use p'ermit amendment to update current tenant ~!~~if 1!~~n:9 allow a corporate research , which is attached was cut from the columns of said ::·· 15 . #2330, Robert Beutler, 1331 North -Oiim Drive . Renewal variance for lot width to construct a new residence . 16. #XXXX, Mark Gillett having an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boul~vard . R,equest for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cart business to locate in the Orono Mall. I All persons having an interest in these items are invited to attend the public meeting . Any written comments shall be sent to the City Planner before January 13, 1998 . Please I call Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator at 4 73-7357 for further I infprmation . City of Orono By : Planning Commission Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator (Published in The La~er and Pioneer Jan. 10, 1998) _J newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for ---±--successive weeks: It was first published Saturday the JO day of ,Ia 011 a ry 19.9..8-, and was thereafter printed and published every . Saturday, to and including Saturday, the 1 O day of~J~~a=n~·--{-~ __ 19 9...8.._; 'ti,. - Subscribed and sworn to me on this , a By: NOTA P·c PUBLIC • MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JANU[\RY 31 , 2000 f rmat1on (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12.90 per inch . (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.90. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.19 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.14. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O . Box 66 Orono, 1VIN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 LEGAL NOTICE JANUARY 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA The Planning Commission will hold public hearings to consider the following land use applications on: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 6:30 p.m . City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 1. #2289, Jon Pendleton , 350 North Arm Lane. Conditional use permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-lA Zoning District .. 2 . #2290, Steven and Elaine Silus, 3225 Casco Circle. Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall. 3 . #2296, Robert Bredeson , 1395 Rest Point Road. Variances for structural coverage , lot area, lot width, rear yard setback, and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback. 4 . #2312, Claus Weiler & Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive. Variances for an oversized accessory structure and side yard setback. A conditional use permit to construct an accessory structure in front of the principal residence on a through lot. 5. #2315, C . Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue. Lot line rearrangement, and variances for lot area and lot width. 6. #2316, Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View . Preliminary plat for a 3 lot Class ID subdivision. 7 #2318, C .N. Ostrom & Sons, for Jeanne Mithun, 755 Ferndale Road North. Conditional use permit for a guest apartment in the basement. 8. #2319, Ron Lauer, 1040 Tonkawa Road. Variances for hardcover to remove an existing residence and construct a new residence. 9. #2320, Christopher & Mary Smith, having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue. Variances for an average lakeshore setback to add a bay window over an existing deck. 10. #2322, Steven N. Filips, 2570 Thoroughbred Lane. Variance for a fence within 50' of a rear lot line on a through lot. 11. #2323, Tim Nelson on behalf of David Pomije, 3120 North Shore Drive. Variances for hardcover to build an addition to an existing residence. 12. #2325, Lake Country Builders on behalf of John & Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive. Variance for bluff setback to add a porch and replace an existing deck to an existing residence. 13. #2326, Orono Development, LLC, 2380 Shadywood Road. Variances for hardcover and front yard parking setback and a commercial site plan review to construct an 11,000 sq. ft. retail/ service center building. 14. #2328, Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shadywood Road. Conditional use permit amendment to update current tenant listing and to allow a corporate research center tenant. 15. #2330, Robert Beutler, 1331 North Arm Drive. Renewal variance for lot width to construct a new residence. 16. #XXXX, Mark Gillett having an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boulevard. Request for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cart business to locate in the Orono Mall. All persons having an interest in these items are invited to attend the public meeting. Any written comments shall be sent to the City Planner before January 13, 1998. Please call Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/ Zoning Administrator at 473-7357 for further information. City of Orono By: Planning Commission 'ti~ . VCu.-.~ Elizabeth A. Van Zmn 7n City Planner/Zoning Administrator To be published January 10, 1998. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone 612-473-7357 Fax473-051 O LEGAL NOTICE JANUARY 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA The Planning Comm i ssion will hold public hearings to consider the following ·Iand use applications on : Tuesday, January 20, 1998 6:30 p.m . City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 1. #2289 . Jon Pendleton, 350 North Arm Lane . Conditional use permit to seasonally allow a horse in the LR-1A Zoning District. 2. #2290, Steven and Elaine Silus, 3225 Casco Ci rcle . Conditional use permit to grade within 5' of the south property line to allow a driveway and retaining wall. 3 . #2296 , Robert Bredeson , 1395 Rest Point Road . Variances for structural coverage, lot area , lot width , rear yard setback , and hardcover to construct a new residence on a vacant lot and a fence forward of the lakeshore setback . 4 . #2312, Claus Weiler and Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive . Variances for an oversized accessory structure and side yard setback . A condit ional use permit to construct an accessory structure in front of the principal res idence on a through lot. 5. #2315, C . Douglas and Marilyn Holcombe, 1040 and 1056 Loma Linda Avenue . Lot line rearrangement, and variances for lot area and lotw 1dth. . 6 . #2316, Mike Hilbelink, having an interest in 120 Golden View . Prel iminary plat for a 3 lot Class Ill subdivision . 7. #2318 , C .N . Ostrom & Sons for Jeanne Mithun, 755 Ferndale R 0 oad North . Conditional use permit for guest apartment in the basement. _8 . #2319, Ron Lauer, 1040 Tonkawa Road. Variances for hardcover to remove an Affidavit of Publication existing residence and construct a new . r~~idence . · · . . 1 State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin . I :~ • • J ~--9 . #2320, Christopher and Mary Smith ,· having an interest in 3650 Casco Avenue . Vai_i ances for an average lakeshore setback to:add a bay window over an -existing deck . ,,. ·S.• 10 . #2322 , Steven N . Filips, 2570 T~oroughbred Lane . Variance for a fence within 50' of a rear lot line on a through lot. - 11. #2323, lim Nelson · on behalf of David Pomije, 3120 North Shore Drive. Variances for hardcover to build an addition to .an existing residence . r : . 12 . #2325, Lake Country Builders on behalf of John and Cindy Olson, 950 North Arm Drive . Variance for bluff setback to add a ·porch and replace an existing deck to an existing residence. '-· 13 , #2326, Orono Development, LLC, ~380 Shadywood Road. Variances for ~dcover and front yard parking setback and <! commercial site plan review to construct an l 1J ,000 sq . ft. retail /service center building . . :•; 14 . #2328, Freshwater Foundation, 2500 Shadywood Road . Condit ional use permit amendment to update current tenant lis _ting and t(? allow a corporate research center tenant. i Bill Holm, 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 requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331 A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Planning Commission Agend c which is attached was cut from the columns of said . 15. #2330, Robert Beutler, 1331 North newspaper, and was printed and published once A~m Drive. Renewal variance for lot w idth to each week for . k cb~struct a new residence . . --+--successive wee s: 16 . #XXXX , Mark Gillett havi ng an interest in 2160 Wayzata Boulevard . Request for finding of substantially similar use to allow a go-cart business to locate in ' the Orono Mall . :· All persons having an interest in these I items are invited to attend the public meeting . Any written comments shall be sent to the City Planner before January 13, 1998 . Please call Liz Van Zomeren , City Planner/Zoning Administrator at 4 73 -7357 for further information . City of Orono By : Plann ing Commission Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren City Planner/Zoning Administrator (Published in The Laker and Pioneer Jan . 10, 1998) It was first published Saturday the J O day of ,Ia o u a ry 19.9...8...-, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the 1 0 Subscribed and sworn to me on this , a By: KRISTI HOLM f>4QT;,p ·..-PUBLIC · MINNESOTA MY C OM MISSION EXPIRES f JANU[\RY 31, 2000 rmat1on (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12.90 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $12.90. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.19 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5 .14. TRACKING SHEET FILE NO. JJ._q() Staff: Lt2 V /\N :ID~ Applicant: Sfeve and E lai Y\e-51LlA5 Address: Zip: □ Meeting with Staff: □ Date Application Completed: 60Day: □ Incomplete Notice Sent: □ Date Property Owners Notified: □ Date Legal Notice Published: □ PC Meeting(s): Vote: Vote: 1-20-q <? Vote: lf-0 "g[ Notice of PC Action: 32¥\ ct I U::\li <l , □ City Council Meeting(s): Vote: Vote: Vote: D Resolution X:\APPS\ WPWIN60\ WPDOCS\CAROLE\FORMS\TRKNG.SI-IT Tu ®'t~