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 P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Richard and Janet Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 06/10/96 COUNCIL ACTION -MOTION: APPLICATION NO. #2112 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: June 12, 1996 COPIES: VOTE: 2 FOR 1 AGAINST To approve per the findings and conditions of the resolution previously mailed to you. Please arrange to sign the 3 original resolution copies at the City Offices (Monday through Friday, 8:00 to 4:30). All persons with an interest in the property must sign the resolutions. You must apply for and obtain a building permit. (The building permit application is a separate application from the zoning variance or conditional use application.) Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved plan and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year after date of approval. A building permit application must be submitted no later than June 10, 1997. 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. lsv :MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 ZONING ADl\'IINISTRA TOR'S REPORT (#3) #2112 RICHARD AND JANET PUTNAM, 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE-RESOLUTION #3730 Richard Putnam was present. Gaffron reported that the application was for an after-the-fact hardcover variance for the reconstruction of a lakeside deck located out of the 0-75' zone . Gaffron said the memo states the reasons why the applicant rebuilt the deck without obtaining a permit. The Planning Commission recommended approval, and the Staff concurs with that recommendation. Putnam said the City Staff received the necessary information to iss_ue a building pennit well before he began replacement of the joists and boards of the deck. When he stopped to pick up the building permit, Putnam said he found staff was unable to issue the permit. Putnam said the deck existed in 1989 when the replacement deck was approved with other remodeling . When it became of a deteriorating state, Putnam said he thought it was already approved . Because of an upcoming party, Putnam went ahead with the rebuilding , was then tagged, but finished the railing on the deck anyways . Putnam said he spoke with Staff and told them it did not make any sense that the deck was not to be rebuilt without obtaining a variance . He added that he did not have to go through this same process with his bedroom remodeling . Putnam said it has cost him $900 for the review on a $1500 deck project . Putnam said the inspector was helpful in the bedroom remodeling, which made him upset that he was unable to obtain the same assistance with the deck reconstruction . It is Putnam's opinion that the application process is a waste of time . He said many other people go ahead with projects without obtaining the required permits . He does not feel the people are being well served by the cumbersome process . Putnam feels the City would generate more revenue by eliminating the variance process and obtaining building permits only. He asks the Council to review the process as he did with the Planning Commission to make it easier for others in the future. Goetten responded to Putnam by informing him that she was involved in the 1988 review, noting it was a number of variances that were approved . Goetten reminded Putnam that there is a time limit to the variance approvals, and the costs generated by the deck reconstruction included costs which were brought on Putnam by rebuilding without the required pennits. She also noted that in reviewing the minutes from when he received variances in 1988, she saw no mention of the deck . Goetten commented that the Putnam property was substandard and overused in relation to its size which is a concern to the City . 2 lWJNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL l\'IEETING HELD ON JUNE 10, 1996 ( #3 -#2112 Richard and Janet Putnam -Continued) Goetten informed Putnam that she has heard his comments, and the Council is looking into where the process may be speeded up, noting there are places where it cannot. ·while there may be possible areas for improvement, Goetten said the City tries to be fair and not single out any one property. Goetten says she does not care for after-the-fact variances, but reiterated that Putnam's comments will be considered in their review of the process for possible changes. Kelley moved, Callahan seconded, to adopt Resolution #3730, granting an after-the-fact hardcover variance to Richard and Janet Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road for replacement in-kind of the existing deck. Vote: Ayes 2, Nays 1, Goetten, noting she did not vote in favor of the variance in 1988 and is not changing her mind at this time. > (*#4) #2133 JOHN AND KARLA SPOONER, 1385 ORONO LANE -VARIANCE -RESOLUTION #3731 Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Resolution #3731. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (*#5) #2134 ROBERT ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD -AFTER-THE FACT VARIANCES-REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BACK TO JUNE 17 PLANNING COI\'Il\HSSION Goetten moved, Kelley seconded, to refer the revised proposal of Zoning File #2134 to the Planning Commision for review on June 17th. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#6) #2136 GREENFIELD CORPORATION, 180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST -PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Mark Gronberg and Laurie Lundeen were present. Mabusth reported that the 17.2 acre site received preliminary approval for a 2-lot subdivision in 1986 for a single residential lot with a larger outlot for future development, but it was never finalized. The applicant proposes a 6 lot residential division with 3 lots served from North Shore Drive and 3 lots at the north from a private road with a cul-de sac. The northeast access at Bayside Road was selected as the best access in 1986 review. This access was to serve the subject property and property to east (Bayside Farms 2nd Addition). The extension road, Outlet B, will serve as access to future development within Outlot C, Bayside Farms 2nd Addition. The developer v.,ill be asked to grade and seed the roadbed, as current owner of property to east has no immediate plans to build residence or subdivide. 3 { REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Name Michael P. Gaffron Title Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: June 6, 1996 ITEM NO.: Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -After-the Fact Variance -Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, ½ Acre Application: After-the-fact hardcover variance for reconstruction of existing deck. List of Exhibits A -Resolution B -Notice of Planning Commission Action C -Memo and Exhibits of May 15, 1996 D -Minutes from Variance Approval #1176 (1987) Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of May 15. Briefly, applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application, lead one to conclude that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. Applicant obtained a permit for construction of the screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant constructed a screen porch, added railings to the existing deck, as well as a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989 at which time the building permit would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found the applicant replacing major portions of the deck. Staff concluded that this additional work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. Please recall that by Council directive, since the mid-l 980's staff has not had the ability to negotiate hardcover revisions w4en a property exceeds the 25% hardcover limit. In this case, and in a significant number of other properties in Orono, "in-kind" deck replacement where hardcover is excessive has been dealt with via the variance process. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 June 6, 1996 Zoning File #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road Staff reviewed the hardcover on the property (see May 15 memo) and concluded that the hardcover both before and after replacement of the deck meets the intent of Resolution No. 2254. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Applicant has paid the after the-fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission at their May 20 meeting recommended approval per the staff recommendation on a vote of 5-0. Options for Action 1. Approve per staff and Planning Commission recommendation. 2. Approve subject to other conditions. 3. Table. 4. Denial. 5. Other. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve after-the-fact hardcover variance per staff and Planning Commission recommendation. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by _ _, seconded by __ , to adopt Resolution No. ___ , granting an after-the-fact hardcover variance to Richard and Janet Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road for replacement in-kind of the existing deck. Vote: __ ayes, ~-nays. lsv A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIAN CE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE NO. 2112 WHEREAS, Richard and Janet Putnam (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2765 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the recorded plat thereof, that part of Lakeshore A venue dedicated on the recorded plat of Spring Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the reconstruction and replacement of an existing deck, such deck constituting hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2112. 2. The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 20, 1996 and recommended approval of the proposed after-the-fact variance based upon the following findings: Page 1 of 6 A. Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application can be interpreted that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time. B. Applicant obtained a building permit (#1140) for construction of proposed screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant then constructed a screen porch, added railings to the pre-existing deck, and a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The work covered under permit #1140 was subject to a final inspection on June 26, 1989 after which time permit #1140 was considered as no longer valid for further work. C. In 1994 the applicant replaced major portions of the deck, which work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted a replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. D. In-kind replacement of the deck as proposed and as completed has not increased hardcover on the property above that which pre-existed. Further, although hardcover based on applicants' 1996 survey appears to be 384 s.f. in excess of the hardcover amount approved in 1987, it appears that the hardcover excesses are due partly to survey discrepancies and partly to interpretation of square footage of hardcover associated with rock walls and walkways on the property. E. The pre-existing deck was in a state of disrepair and was unsafe. Upon application for a building permit, the applicant was advised of the need for a variance. Applicant chose to replace the deck without waiting for variance approval. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable . hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow the replacement in-kind of the pre-existing deck on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' setback zone shall be limited to those items shown on the survey and hardcover calculation worksheet attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Total hardcover in the 75-250' zone is limited to 4,789 s.f. or 44.7%. Applicant is advised that future proposals that result in additional hardcover on the property will not be approved, but might be approved only if concurrent hardcover removals result in no net increase in hardcover. 2. Applicant shall obtain an after-the-fact permit for the deck, and the deck shall be inspected by the City to confirm its compliance with the Building Code. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by issuance of a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 10, 1997). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 3 of 6 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owner ( s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of June, 1996 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 TO: Richard & Janet Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 ZONING FILE #2112 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28, 1996 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance (After-the-Fact) DATE OF MEETING: 5/20/96 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Approval as submitted. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council Monday, June 10, 1996; 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. ch -, TO: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE: May 15, 1996 SUBJECT: #2112 Richard and Janet Putnam, 2765 Casco Point Road -After the Fact Variance -Public Hearing Application: After the fact hardcover variance for reconstruction of existing deck. Zoning District: LR-IC, single family lakeshore residential, 1/2 acre. List of Exhibits A -Application B -Plat Map C -Property Owners List D -1996 Survey E -1996 Hardcover Calculations F -1987 Hardcover Calculations and Sketch G -Resolution No. 2254 H -Inspection Slip 8/17 /94 I -Miscellaneous Exhibits Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd . 2; Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) -75-250' zone hardcover limited to 25%. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 4 -"Prohibition. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the zoning chapter." Summary Applicant was granted a variance for additions and remodeling of his residence in 1987 via Resolution No. 2254. The wording of the variance resolution and the plans and sketches submitted with that application, lead one to conclude that some expansion of the subject deck was proposed and approved at that time . Applicant obtained a permit (#1140) for construction of the screen porch and deck work in 1988. Applicant constructed ·a screen porch, added railings to the existing deck, as well as a stairway at the south end of the deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. The final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989 at which time permit # 1140 would Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page2 have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994 the building inspectors found the applicant replacing major portions of the deck. Staff concluded that this additional work required a building permit as well as additional variance approval because it constituted replacement of existing structure/hardcover when the property is in excess of the standard hardcover limits. Please recall that by Council directive, since the mid-l 980s staff has not had the ability to "negotiate" hardcover revisions when a property exceeds the 25% hardcover limit. In this case, and in a significant number of other properties in Orono, "in-kind" deck replacement where hardcover is excessive has been dealt with via the variance process. Hardcover Resolution No. 2254 allowed the property 4,405 s.f. (40.2%) hardcover in the 75-250' zone. A comparison of the 1987 hardcover approval and applicant's surveyor's current calculations indicate the 7 5-250' zone is about 217 s.f. smaller than the area used in 1987, and the hardcover is currently at 4,789 s.f., or 384 s.f. more than was approved, per the following chart: 1987 SUBMITTAL/APPROVAL (75-250' area= 10,937 s.f.) House Garage & House Addition Existing Garage Driveway Deck Not Over Patio Patio Rock Walls Sidewalk Added Deck N. of Patio (= Screen Porch) 1,432 s.f. 1,100 s.f. 400 s.f. 238 s.f. 85 s.f. 576 s.f. 194 s.f. 260 s.f. 120 s.f. 4,405 s.f. 1996SURVEY (75-250' area= 10,720 s.f.) House 2;270 s.f Garage 778 s.£ Driveway Decks Patio (not under deck) Rock Walls Sidewalk Steps 425 s.£ 244s.£ 220s.£ 330s.f 492s.£ ~s.f. 4,789 s.£ There appear to be a number of factors related to this discrepancy including: 1987 survey by Schoell & Madson and 1996 survey by Gronberg do not match: Location of street lot line in relation to the pre-existing portions of garage is different. Location of250' hardcover setback line is significantly different between the two surveys. Applicant cut back his original remodeling plans after variance approval but prior to Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 3 construction of remodeling/additions, and ended up with a detached rather than attached garage. Staff reviewed hardcover prior to issuance of the remodeling permit and found it would be within the limits of the approved hardcover numbers. (See Exhibits F-4 and F-5.) The square footage attributed to rock walls is significantly higher than what was originally approved, but this may be related to how they were calculated. Rock walls were to be reduced from 442 s.f. to 194 s.f., but still remain at 330 s.f. The area of sidewalks includes a revised configuration reflecting the detached garage, as well as the addition of a number of stepping stone walkways at various locations around the house. It is staffs opinion that half of the 384 s.f. "overage" is attributable to survey discrepancies, was originally approved in concept, and should not be at issue. The other half of the discrepancy appears to be attributable to the rock walls and other walkways. Given the nature of improvements on the property, the need to access various parts of the property via walkways, and the arguable hardcover nature of the rock walls, staff would recommend the City accept the current hardcover calculations as meeting the intent of Resolution No. 2254 and would not penalize applicant for the numerical discrepancies. Replacement of the 19.2'x9.4' deck "in-kind" does not change the percentage of hardcover on the property. That deck is not encroaching on any required setbacks, and is an integral part of the scheme of this property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of the subject deck, and further recommends that the applicant obtain an after-the-fact permit for said deck, and that the inspections department complete the appropriate inspections. Note that applicant has paid the after the fact fee for what staff considered a renewal variance application (i.e. paid $120 renewal fee and $120 after the fact fee). During the nearly two years it has taken to get this application in front of the Planning Commission, the applicant has expressed frustration with the policy that makes this application necessary. It can be argued that "in-kind" replacement of decayed and dangerous decks should not be subject to variance approval under certain circumstances, such as past approval as part of a variance request, lack of encroachment of any setbacks, no changes to footprint or bulk of structure, etc. The opposite argument, adopted by Council as policy many years ago, is that replacement of such a structure is often an opportunity for the City to require improvements to the hardcover situation. Additionally, Zoning File #2112 May 15, 1996 Page 4 Council's policy was clearly intended to eliminate staffs ability to negotiate hardcover "trades" when a property exceeds the hardcover limits, the Council preferring to maintain direct control over that function. Options for Action 1. Approve per staffs recommendation. 2. Approve subject to conditions (specify). 3. Table for further information/discussion (specify). 4. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 5. Other. ch 0_~,:S-/) ~~~;;.1, G~ ,f-° •. -~ • £~, 1• , 'J r. ,) ..ri•,,,v_:1~!-:1• . -~h.,· . .'/ .>,>-..;, . _'; (/~~: .. ,, .. § CITY OF ORONO -V ARlANCKAl'l'LICA't'iUN 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 Site Address CA4t:,O Application # ....l / / J. Date Received I / 31 / '1 lo . Amount Paid 1 q.. C{O .. v O 'JAN .3 1 1996 t •• - J ~ Property Identification Number (P .I.D.)_~--'-L.-::.=+--=-1--:..:..--,,.+-J!:..-=.;="------- Attach legal description to application if not included on re uired survey. Date Pro er. Acquired l j':Jt;;; ,<2\::: 1b (month/year) I ( do ( do not also own the agjacent parcels of land. Presen of property: _~_ressidential __ other (specify) _________ _ Zoning District: f'z ,.... /f-C-tt:.--: APPLICANT Phone (home) '17 1-'16~Z Name tz-\C.BA.}2..P £ JA'fv E:f" PU--TNA,f1 Ph::work)-~-,7~/-,----~--7-°?'-- Address: Z-7bc;; CA%b PCUJT /21>41? City: WtfkJ~~ Zip: f.3f;3 CJ / OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) -------- Name ~£: Phone (work) -------- Address: ------------City: ________ Zip: ___ _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQillRED Lot Area Lot Width --:1-fardcover __ Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore V-Other (specify) u.ylca? pYCJ.titJ'j 41''fr!2/L,,}? ?~~ Jc,J,__ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITT ALS All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: I. 7 Completed Application Form 2. ___!.,_.,/Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from HeJ¥1?P}.i:;t Co ~ty p ~rtment of . fi nance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). lqt;U}~ }\I) ~fl.LY 3. -~-C Ciertificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and mclude hardcover calculations as requirgi . {) {n ad~tion, rrvo vide one (1) copy 8½" x 11" for reproduction. ~/~ / IA it-J/Y l% 4. /..1./.~ 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. 5. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8½" x 11 "). 6 . V--List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in ~ /4 the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. ~ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. 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 incup-ed in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct t st of his/her knowledge. Date /-~$ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investi ation and · fie ion of this request. Date /-~v~ 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 -"" I ---~---------------·-·---···-····--···--···-~·- RUN DATE 04/30/96 BATCH 507 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AD OR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 20-117-23 23 0006 02745 CASCO POINT RD SR PETERSON & KA PETERSON STEVEN R PETERSON 2745 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 · 20-117-23 23 0010 .. 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117~23 23 0017 02795 CASCO POINT RD JD HURD/J L ZEHRINGER-HURD JD HURD/J L ZEHRINGER-HURD 2795 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0018 02794 CASCO POINT RD LAURIE F QUINN LAURIE QUINN 2794 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY·PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 01-lNERS LIST 38 .20-117-23'23 0007 02755 CASCO.POINT RD D S & J BREITNER DAVIDS & JANA BREITNER 2755 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391. 38 20-117-23 23 0011 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED, LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38 20-117-23 23 0.018 02773 CASCO POINT RD ELAINE E OLSON ELAINE ELLEN ERICKSON 2773 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 507 00010 REPORT NO. PI435401 . PAGE 39 38 20-111~23 23 0009 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/13/79 ST DEED 156754 38. 20-117-23 23 0012 02776 CASCO POINT RD KELLEM DOWNEY ET AL BC DOl'lNEV & KM DOl'lNEY· 2776 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117~23 2? 0019 02765 CASCO POINT RD R & J PUTNAM RICHARD A PUTNAM 2765 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PRO~TA~TION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDG.E AND BELIEF. . . . • . DATE ~ BY . 1q'tYW'0¥f[r;... \ (\ MI NU1'RS OF TIJR REGUI.J\R ORONO COUNCIi, MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 14, 1987 + 11,b HI CHJ\JW PUTNJ\M ?.765 CI\SCO POIHT V MU 1\NCP.S PIHJ\I, RESOLUTION ROJ\D 12254 City Administrntor nernhnr~r~n explained the reque~t for vc1riances to permit the (·c:,struction of room, garage, deck and enclosed porch ndditions to the existing house. on July 20, 1987, Planning Commission recommended denial of the request (4-1) bn~cd on insufficient facts. On August 10, 1987, Council conceptually approved the r~quest (4-1). On Auyust 24, 1987, Council referred the npp~icntion bnck to Plnnning Commission for further review of the proposal in light of the staff's revised conception of the street lot line location which ! esu 1 ted in lower 250-500' hardcover percentages, but also the t.echnica 1 need for a street setback variance. On September 8, 1987, Plnnning Commission recommended denial of the request (5-0) based on "overambitiousness" of the pro j e c t a n d e x cc !, s i v e v a r i an c e s in tot a 1 • Ci t y Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the actual status of Casco Point Road right-of-way. Richard Putnam was present for this matter and addressed the reasons ~or Planning Commission denial as follows: 1. "Overambitiousnc;stt of project -he did not feel tho current propo~:a 1 is overambitious based on the extent of work he has already done to the house since he purchased the property as a seasonal cottage. 2. Regarding the variances requested, he noted that all vari~nccs either currently exist or are an improvement from whnt currently exists. Councilmember Goetten r,otcd that "overambitiousness" refers to the p;oject being too large for the lot, in which applicant's lot ls only a 60' substandard lot. She felt the project should be scaled down ns done in previous applications that were considered overambitiou3. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Councilmembor Sime, to aclopt Resolution 12254 granting tho variances as proposed in considerntion that many of the requested vnriances currently cxii:;t and that the project is consistent with the neighbohood. Motion, 1\yes 4, Nays 1. Councilmember Goetten voted nay. Motion carried. Richard Putnam commented that the Cnsco Point r~sidents were pleased with the City staff's handling and operation of the Parade Ho:r-e in their area. 3 MINUTJ-:r, OF THE PI.ANNING COMMIS~,10N MF.E'l'ING JlET,D SP.PTEMDER 8, 11187 tl 171:i RICHARD PU'J'NJ\M 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIJ\NCES RF.FERRRD llACK FROM COUNCJ~ Mr. Richard Putnnm was pr0scnt for this matter. Acting Ch,:lirman Del lows explained that she was the representative nt the Council meeting when this wa" presentPd. 'I'hc Planninq Commission originally denied thi:. application 4-1 bccuusc the Comr.;ission had a lot of questio,\s and rcsP.rvat:ion .1bout this application, and Mr. Putnam wished t O n O t b C t <l b 1 Cc] ( O r .., rn C' n t h b U t be Sent on t O CO Un Ci l • 'I' lw general conccnsus from the Council was there was no stronn feeling about how t:hc PL1nr.ing Commission felt on this issut. As it was brought before the Council, the need for an additional variance wns determined by staff and at that poin; i t w n s r cc om men cl c d t h n t i t be bro n g ht b a ck to the P 1 :rn f" i n ,, Commission for further review. Asst Planning & 7.onino 1i(binistratc,r Gaffron explained thnt the original review of this application presumed that tlw oJge of the dedicjtcd road came to a point further east, but in fact the dedicated rondway cuts into the property morr than expected which docR change the street setback £or thr garage from 38' to 20'. The property to the south has thr same portion of dedicated roadway over their prop~rly and to the north it is questionnble. The road is actually off-1,0t from the corridor quite~ bit. The major change resulting i~ the 250-500' zone is uctually smaller. In caleulatino hardcover for the property within the dedicated right-of-way, which yields a hardcover percentage reduction from ASi down to 48%: or, if applicant's property for hardcover purpo/;t•~ does not include the dedicated right-of-way the hnrdcovt"r reduction pcrc~ntagcs arc from __ i down to _i. Mr. Putnam notcl1 thnt nothing has changed but thr interpretatio~ of the plat. Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator Gaffron explained if the garage faces the street, it requires a 30' setback. The attachment cf it to the house also means the antire 20' from the right-of-way where Jn' is required. He noted thnt prr the drafted resolution, pnqc 3, 4 variances are req,.drcd (':. if the 250-500' c1ret'.l is sc•p,,rate). Johnson felt that the Commi~Aion had denied th~ epplicatio~ once and he feels that the application should not have bc~n brought back to the Commission. 3 \. MINUTES OP Tl!F. PJJ\NNING COHMJSSION MRETING RRLD SEPTRHRRR 8, 1987 f 1176 RICHARD PU'l'NJ\M 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD It was moved by J\cl.i ng Chai rmnn Bel lows, seconded by Cohen Ln deny i'lpplication #1 l 7G for Richard Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road, b~scd uron the number of variances required for thi~ project, all of which when combined together constitute ,tn ,1. overly ambitious usr of the land. Motion, Ayes S, Nays 0. • Coh~n noted that he seconded the motion because he feely that if this t1pplica':ion is approved it would be setting ,, negative precedent. 11184 GRRALD T~ MCCOURTNEY 1055 FERNDALE ROAO WEST VARIANCES CONTINUATION OP' A PUBI,IC IJEJ\RING 1~os -7:07 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. Gerald Mccourtney and James Cradit, his architect, were present. Building & Zoning Administrator Mabusth c.<plained the applicant is seeking a hardcover variance for a bathroom, laundrette and dfnette addition in the lakeshore yard. Thi~ :is al.!::% incre,rne in h,irdcover in the 75-250' setback area. They also will rnquire a 15' side setback variance; 30' side setback is required. The house currently does encroach into this setback and they will not be encroaching any more. There is no increase of deck space and the additions arc actually over the existing deck area. Mr. Mccourtney noted that the house is older ~nd while they are doing these additions nnd r,:,modeling they will also b" replacing inadequate windows. This project should bring their home up to a closer valuation as others in th" neighborhood. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Staff has received no negative comments from any of the surrounding neighbors. rt was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson to npprovc the side setback and hardcover variance~ as proposed. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays O. 11186 DOUG BUMGARDNER 3800 WAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USR PERMIT/COMMERCIAi, SITE PTJ\N REVIEW WITHDRAWN PRR APPLICANT'S REQUEST 4 Ml NUTP.S OP TUE RRGUl.AR ORONO COUNC I I. MF.F.Tl NG AI.UJ) AUGUST l O, 198 7 11 D 3 DAVID MIO TRF.SJ\ GJ\RDRI,I.J\ 12.30 OROMO 01\JCS DRIVE VARIANCE ~P-<iOI.UTlON f2242 David and T~,,,,.1 G,1nlr 11,1 were present for this matter. City Administ.i.1tor Dcr11h,1rdson explained the reqv· t for a front yard setback v~riancP to construct a detached 2 4 ' x 3 6 ' 3 -s t d 1 .1 q a r,1 q c • He noted th a t a s i cl e set back variance would be n•!'~d,...d if garage WE-re att11ched to existing house. In ~J<lition, major land alt~ration would be requir~d if qaraga were placed on north 8nd east s:i.de, the •,:e 11 i r:: located on the enst side of house, and septic syst0m located in backyard. The garage would not be visible from the neighboring property if constructed in the proposed location. Zoning Administrator M~husth noted that there is an ex i s t i n g 3 s u:i l 1 a t t a· ch e cl g a rage. The p u r po s e C o r the additional 3 stall qarage is for storage of collector automobiles. It was moved by Counci lmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Sime, to adopt Resolution 12242 approving the front yard setback variance to construct a detached /,,,,~-garage as pres 1 rnted. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays O. (~117,6 RICHARD POTRJ\M 2'76'5 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCES City Administrator nernhardson e~plained the request for hardcover, side s""tb,,ck, and averaqe sl'>tback varinncf'.'s to construct additions to the exist~ng house. Planninq Commission reviewed this request and came to th!'.' following conclu~ions: 1. M~jority (4-1 I ~pproved the hardcover vnriancl'>A; 2. Majority (4-1) denied the sidf'.1 s<'tback variance for garage feeling that if garage foundation muAt be replaced, garaae should be moved to conform with setback. 3. Regarding a vcr.,qe 1 akeshore setbnck -consrnsus was that 2nd house north (2745) should be shown on survey since it ultimately determines how fnr forward the ill"!llelli.,tl'.'ly adjacent house (2755) wi 11 be rebuilt tow,,r,l the lake when ex.stirq se41nonnl (no plumbing) structure is torn down. Upon applicant's request to avoid time-consuming tabling, Planning Commission voted 4-1 to deny the variances, noting that additional facts would be needed to fairly consider the average setback issue. • MINUTES OP' THE R&GUJJ\R ORONO COUNCT L MF.ETING HELD AUGUST 10, 1987 fll76 PUTNAM CONTINUED Richard Putnt!rr, ...,-,11; p:r•sPnt for this matter. ltC' rC>viewed drawinqn of his µrnposAl to construct nn addition to connect the c:cist1nci hnuse to the enlarged garage, l\nd ,, porch addit1on. 1: .. 0 :<1il,,ined the reasons for placement of gar,1ge and porch d11e to the effort to save mllt.Ui-<' tree(s). He noted th0 li:?tter presented to Council thi~ evening from :,,-.iohb0r Kenneth Erickson stating no objection to the pl~n. · Planning Commission ChAirman Kelley noted that Planning Commission discusseJ the lack of hardship involved and also the fact that th~ house may be for sale. Mr. Putnam stated th~t the house is not currently for sale, but if his n:-qu,..st is not approved he would sell the house becaus0 thr existing house currently does not meet his needs. Planning Commission Chairman Kelley noted that Planning Commission felt the project as a whole was ambitious. Councilmember Sime felt that the proposed screen porch would obstruct the sightline even given the most generous average lakeshore setback line, and also felt the proposal was too ambitious. Cou~cilmembcr Goetten felt the plan should be scaled down in ,order for her to approve. She felt a 3 cttr garage wa~ not appropriate for this area. Councilmember Callahan felt that the attaching addition eeemed appropriate in conjuction with necessary rPpair of the existing garagP. He did not feel the porch would affect views and would enhanc~ the lakefront. CouncilMembe: Go~ttPn reiterat~~ her feeling that a 3 car garage wa5 not arrropriate for this are~. She felt an average 'akeshore variance for an open deck area would be apr ropr iate but not: for the proposed enc 1 otrncl screen porch. Councilmember SiMe concurred with Councilmember Goetten. It was moved by Counci }member Cal lahnn, seconded by Co~ncilmember Peter~on, to approve the variances and proposal as submitted. Motion, Ayeg 4, Nays l. Counc1lmember Goetten voted nay. 5 -MINUTES OP TBB PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BBIJ> JULY 20, 1987 '11173 GARDELLA CONTINUED Tresa Garde 1} a w,1 s pres-ent for this matter and stat<"cl the hardship wns the need to house Mr. Gardclla's sports cars. She felt th~t a 5 or 6 car garage was n legitimate need fnr" 5 bedroom large home. It was noted that the proposed garage was less than 1,000 s.f. in area. There were·~o comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Johnson, to recommend approval per staff recommendation finding topograph1• a hardship and the need for enclosed storage space for more than three cars. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays O. 11175 NALTBR AND IIAIICY BRIC~SON 335 BOLLANDBR ROAD PUBLIC RBARIIIG _____..._ Application Withdrawn at Applicants Request CHARD PUTIIAM SCO POINT ROAD V ANCBS PUBLIC IIBARING 9:38-9:38 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing was noeed. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Assistant Zoriing Administrator Gaffron explained the request for the following variances to ~onstruct an addition to_the existing residence: Hardcover: 75-250~ -Existing= 36.41 ~ Allowed· = 25\ -Proposed• 40.21 250-500' ~Existing• 85.7\ ;_ Allowed "" 30\ -Proposed= 48.51 Average Setback Encroachment: -Existing a 6' -Allow~d a O' -Proposed• 25' Side Setback-Detached Garage (changed to ~ttached): -Existing• 2' -Requin?d =_lo• -Proposed= 2' 10 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HKI..O JULY 20, 1987 fll.76 PUTNAM CONTINUED Applicant proposes to attach his existing house and detached garage. The garage is currently 2' from thr lot line. The applicant notes that the garagc foundation may have to be replaced, but he does not want to move the garage further from the lot line because that would force the removal of a large maple next to the proposed 3rd garage stall. Applicant has noted that the trend in the nei9hborhood is for garages to a 11 be at the edge of the lot, so visual spacing is mAintained. Richard Putnam was present for this matter and showed renderings of the proposal. Cohen, Bellows, and Johnson felt that hardcover was not a problem in light of the slight increase in the 75-250' and the proposed reduction in the 250-500'. Planning Commission majority felt that the side s~tback of 10' should be adhered to if the garage foundation is to be replaced. Johnson felt that the existing/proposed location of garage was acceptable. Mr. Putnam stated that the hardship was the need for more storage space for cars and outdoor recreational equipment. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the adjacent house at 2755 Casco Point Road currently has no plumbing and is intended to eventually be removed and a new house built, which likely will be placed forward to conform with the rest of the neighborhood. Because or this fact, Planning Commission felt that the average lakeshore setback should take into consideration the house location north of 2755 Casco Point Road. Planning Commission felt this more accurate average lakeshore sethack information was needed to act on the proposed porch addition. Planning Commission member Hanson's written comments as fol lows: "I have reviewed the applicant's proposed project and generally feel the design is appropriate for that neighborhood. In genera 1, I fee 1 the 1 nck of hardcover at 0-75' weighs favorably against the change at 75-250'. A third stall, in>:.egrated in the design a~ it is, is acceptable but trndable. Side setback at garage is O.K." Mr. Putnam did not wish to del~y the application pending additional information, ttc,.-!"c>fore, asked Planning Commission to make a recofflfflendl'tion. 11 lj MIIIUTES OF THE PLAJfNING COMMI~~:;IoN MRETING RRLD JOLY 20. 19R7 f 1176 PU'T'IICAM cotrrl JIUED 11178 MICHAEL PLAJlifl 414!> WAT'DTOWII ROAD sttrrca PLAJI axv 1 a, I 't w ,1 " ir c ,., •:-d r y l' ~, :1 : r m zt n Ji:£' 1 1 e y , second c-d recof!"rr.r, c~en1,, 1 ,,! tht" proposal based on fact~ reaarJ1na ~v~raqe lakeshore setback. 4, Nay~ l. John~~n vot~d nay. by Cohc-n, ~ •.• insuffic•··,~ Mot ion, AYt'S Assistant 7on1no A~ministrator Gaffron explained the d:etch pl<1n t1.~ <livlne off second dwelling from mnin house th,u 1s t•f".ing required as a condition of Rl:.'sol ut icm • 2 l 2 7. Arr licant has been a 1 lowed to use th< easterly access rc-nding this subdivision request. Applicant is submitting two preliminary proposals revic-w for: 11 Conceptual rrview of the proposed driveway acce~~ corr Hior: and 2) ConcC'ptual review of the proposed lot linf" revi~1cn w1th the applicants westerly property. Ths boundary chanqc-is intended to gi Vt-applicant mor(' land in the f:asterly parcel by dropping the westerly parcel to the rr.i11imum of S.O acres dry buildable. Arplicant pref.,.rs Proposal r, leaving S.O dry acrer in Lots 1 and 2 and 14.4 total acres in Lot 3, .1 flag lot with~ 30' access corridor to serve that h~use over the driveway that is in place (acce~s point to he mc,ved so it is within the .30' corridor). Sta!! has no problem with this access location on Watertown Road from a safety standpoint. I'roposll l II is e~sential ly the same but leaves a 50' acces~ corridor. St~ft prefers Proposal II. The wetland in the we~terly parcel (Lot 1) has what staff would call an •1nd~f1n1te• boundary. Chairman ielJey felt it important to define the wetlanrl prior to ,ny approv~J. Mr. , Mrs. ,-. i c-l,at> l r lank were present fr:,r this matter. Michael Plank stated that alter the wetland is defined, Lot 2 wi 11 be adjusted to meet the minimum of 5.0 acrer; dry bui ldable. Assistant ZoninQ ~d~j~iR' ,ator Gaffron noted that th~ adjacent neighbor, Joe Saw huk, ,UOS Watertown Roctd, hl'i:: concerns with the ltccess ~~cause it is so close to hi~ houst-. Mrs. Plank stated tt~t i• i~ their intention to heavily screen the access from t~~ c~wchuk property to protect th@ privacy for both pro{'----· owners. 12 '! I f )?t,tf,t,IIJM . . ~ETBACK ZONE, (CIR~N~?VE~CULA~~~~tORK~!~s~::: EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House · · soo.:1000° :;. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Width = = TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT AL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A O + B / ~ 6 ') 0 x I 00 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN .ZONE A. House ______ x B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length 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 A ------+ B Width = = "a, _____ xlOO • 14 ____ S.F. § ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ___ ...;_;_ __ ·S.F .... ______ S.F. ______ SY. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. 0 S.F. 1y l/ 9 0 S.F. 0 % ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. _____ ;...,:_S.F .. ______ S.F. -'-------'-· S .. F. ______ ,S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.P. ______ S.F. A __ _.... ___ .'S,P:· B _,;,,._ ____ o/g,., I f ./qTA/4M ·. · HARDCOVERCALCULA~OR.KSHEET . SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCf:,E ONE) . 0-75' . 5-250' 250-500' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE · A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway l"TlltVf W,1<-1< D. Sidewalk Ct!_t.N. tt,,/1 t I( COi.A, CUA.(j E. Patio/Deck /J ,tr;' 0 ------ P~<:k 9. '1 l~(k F. Landscape A ~ (' I( t,.v A Ll...J Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric rr~l's G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 1/7 J"C) + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN .ZONE A. House ______ x B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOT AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ------+ B Width 19. 2. - 10.,2 O X 100 Width = = = X 100 • ----- 14 Y-2c~?( 500-1000' •·,, 22 7g_ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 77? S:f."' '/25 S.F. 79 ·s.F .... 1/(IC:) S.F. /'3 S.F. 220 S.F. I flo S.F. . ' 6~- ''f ?'Q S.F. S.F. S.F. Yo S.F. o/789 S.F. A /0, 720 S.F. 13 $1~ 6'7 __ % S.F. S.F. 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.i:·. S.F. A ,S.P: B oie .. , l ~#~MM · HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET •.111,,, i., •. . SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCf:,~ ONE) 0-75' 75-250' ~ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000' ,, A. House ______ x B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length 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 A O + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other Length 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 A ------+ B Width = X 100 = Width = = ,,. = = _____ xlOO = 14 ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. --"-'-----L--'-S.F. ---·---S,F. ______ S.F. ___ _.;.. __ S.F .... ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ~---'---,---S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ___ O ___ S.F. A __ ...,,,2=....:::::C~_ S.F. B £~ ,:t.t#/.IJNC. .• ----'-..;:;;0_~_% · ~ (). ,h' (J 1<1 T. i.?t<. (',AJ'rO ,HI(;. ,'t,, G ____ S.f. ,, ____ S.F. ____ S.F. ___ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. _____ ....:,_.S.F,, ______ S.F. -'------~· s..i~:. v,,. ·----S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.F. ______ S.P. ______ S.F. A -'-------·S.F:· B ______ % o~ ~j f; ;. i;;J , .. '! , ... ~.c ~~..:,--~~~-. -,_So) ~ p ,,A . -·,) ,,. ' ···1 Setback :one : (c i=cle o ne) 0 -7 5 ' e 25 0 -5 0 0' bitt i ng Hardcove r i n Zone ~00-l CC O ' •• ffouse X -JC-! ~-z._. s. (. length -,id t~ ll -s.!. X -s .f. X -s . f. X -s .f. b. Garage X -l.Joo s .f . -'..d1.r> / c. Drive-.a y X s . f . X -s. f . d . Sidewal k X -Ltco s . f . X -s .f . --- dcJ:_ ~.J dvC.-,,.__ @:hb 4 ~r;:; s . f. P ati o / Deck t . Un d scape &re as underlain by plast ic ahe~tin g I L . , f . Other H:..i'->1 ~ X X X X X X X ,~ LA I L..-L L C X - ,c - '2_7(.,, s . f . ~¾ f ,/ s •• ~ ...... ~ / ,·):) / 1f>D~~ 72. i I I • I ., -, (' s.f . 6 .!. g .!. 8.f. / 8. ! . 9 . f . ~ -t • 4 ]7J ? IL f. ( i ) COVER 1N 1.()~;E 7 'I;~ r\_ •CTAL £XI ST1"C ff A,D ,t' /"'"7 1</{'' ~. ., 1,/ to' le }"" ....-; '""" )~ 151~ {7a~ws ye-v~~w½ Ex 1st1 r9 11.:irc co \·e r \ • 0ta l r:~i :st in g Ha r dc-n v c r ll :.~, Lo t A:ea ~at hin :or.c l.jJt:;J5 5 !'. f I l'/1:-n '1 s . f. X }OQ D 't~.e;: \ ·-4 i ~ ~ C¾---- Ad6it•o~u : E .:i r dc-o vr r to b e a ~jci ir. :o n e: Iter, tO'J-! cal~ I . oYJL,~-·-" J ~ ~lt-- Len a t h I l..h X Wi dth X X X -- I X 1~1 [) TO7 AL S .F . TO 3E Ar~c.0 - Existing Ha r dco v e r tote Remov e d , if any : !terr. Leng t r. m:.¥-~\b .-~t; VL-v/.J ~ t I~ f t:k v.al k- X X 'h'id th r-1 .'"::> X 1;:..,. 7 ';t) X w~L-t/ Lv;1 '1 _____ x c:) T OT AL S. F . TC B E RE/'1 0 \"::D Final F.~rd co ve r Propos al : [Line (1) ♦ Lir.e (2) -Li ne (3 )) ,. '!PlJttz .e; • /{.;S r) I f-1./f TC-:";..~ s . f. I/DO s. f . '- L1D 5. (. ' l Z-D s. f . , , l.di2__ s .f.' U£:; (: l :o-r,;r s . f . --1' s .. ~. /1 0 s . f . ~QQ s . ! .. s . ! . ( 3 J I ' ,..-:f:: --:'--{f-! ;> I , s. ! . (.; l Existing Tc be Ad ded To be Removed f i r..1 l Pr o.-os~d ~a r dcov er I • .!_!...ns _J_il X 1 00 • 'lt./04 5' Ii nr ( l l Ii. f . //?1~/S' 5 .f. X t ,~::,., t '1 ,_,·1 ~ ----~-~ i -~ J)\ -. , • /I(... -... . .... _ -------. \~ t~-:r- ·y ~ ~---- '\) ~ !,- ~ t ~ ~q ~~ ~ ~,.) ~ q~ ~ -~"',.,.. ·:Z!: ;.~·· • II I • • • -'-' I ,- l.i • 1;_.; \~ 9 \" ~)I"\, l ' --\j . f 2~ I~ ,\ iz ~ ~ ~' \ -...) , -. \ I (' \ .·'- f~-c:· ._ G-f / c:_,~-·ri C, Uo . /'J 7 c -.. .,,,_;;,,--/ ~) (_ I' t "'i'" ·. ;, . r .... t·, \ _, __ . --·-·· ) .... , . .::F . -:±~~<r.-· ~ /(o ,,.· ,-,1 _,.ji;:; i a ·,!. ,_.,....,. C c;so .41 ti Uo. 71?? cJI I}" ,1 I I 8 Cf cy .A ~ c, .... , /!1 AS {?<rs {? r"} L--- C ~ ~ ~ C::t ~ CJ tr) ~ I !Jri~~ )'"' ,._o Gar. £,cf-ftBIT A ~EsoL.ft)o. I __.) --t ' Ex, sr ,Ne.a f-1,q 12 f) co" e ~ -·1. -.. -·---· ____ ;..:._ . I a _ ~~-2W+-1EC~-..2?_ · :~-ssc-~,-'""iAt±rwRt:il!!··~M?e+&¥¥fuf-S:f##MA&Si¥f:t-,-4ftt:4K;;;z;.;;;.@¢!iifttYR#$J.g;;;;~¼fil~~ ,, I(_! I .1/ l/)'/ I • 1 y1 01 l(y7 ) 2._)< ) I ·-·•-·· .. ••--• I : ~ '. \' ,1, . '• . ' •, ~I' •: l:'_ •'• ' j' ~''-' i • :I~ •y '•~ / .. ' . ' ','.·,•, '.'. ' ' ~ '' .'f.:t.ts,iut,.. • • I 'J ! •',' .. /1 r1 , I l-t ,;.. .f/;t ' l'·t, l ., :·,·, ,. , .... , .. ,· . ·.::. ·:1 ... I I . ' ~~.-,, .:(};t : r, t' ~ . . { ... . . •'• .' ·l~i: . ·:}}/< :' {:{:: .. •· ... ,\~!_:; : .. 1 :-. L, I ,{1 ('-) \ (f ) ' ,'•, ,I . ~; '· /,, '/ '·, .I, . ,, :1 I • (_ __ : City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B) AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 FILE 11176 G- WHEREAS, Richard Putnam (hereinafter "the app 1 icant") is the owner of the property located at 2765 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, that part of Lake Shore Avenue dedicated on the the recorded plat of Spring Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat (hereinafter "the property); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detached garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required for an attached garage; and a variance.to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit co~struction of a deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure that will encroach 25' past the existing average lakeshore setback line and 9' past the potential future average lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% existing to 40.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 48.5% hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover exists but only 30% is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a street setback of 20' where 30' street setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1176. 2~ The property is located in the LR-lC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 6 ( __ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __ 2_2_5_4 ___ _ 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 14-, 1987 and recommended denial of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a) Four of five Planning Commissio~ers present indicated approval of the hardcover variances, finding that the proposal results in a net overall decrease of hardcover square footage on the property and in the dedicated right of-way of 224 square feet. b) Four of Five Planning Commissioners present indicated disapproval of the side setback variance for the garage, based on the knowledge that the garage will likely require a new foundation and the opportunity to move it to a conforming location would then exist. c) The Planning Commission generally felt that the average lakeshore setback should be reviewed under the assumption that the seasonal residence immediately to the north wil 1 eventually be removed and replaced with a house closer to the lake, thus revising applicants average setback line. 4. The City Council finds that the increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zone is adequately counterbalanced by the proposed decreases in the 250-500' setback zone. 5. The City Council finds that the magnitude of actual reduction of potentia 1 or existing lakeshore views from neighboring properties will be such that it does not create a significant view encroachment. 6. The Council finds that the location of an existing mature tree is a hardship to moving the proposed garage to the south, and the locations of garages in the immediate neighborhood generally located nearer the northerly lot line then the required 10' setback, will not create a safety hazard nor a visual crowding effect if the proposed 2' side setback for the garage is retained. 7. The Council finds that as a result of the attachment of the house and existing garage, the house setback will technically be 20' from the dedicated right-of-way where a 30' street setback is normally required, but will still maintain a 40' separation from the edge of the actual paved and traveled roadway. 8. On August 10, 1987 the City Council voted 4-1 to conceptually approve the requested variance and directed staff to draft a formal resolution for approval. Page 2 of 6 ( ' . ..:__,, City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254 9. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 10. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantia 1 property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detached garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10' side setback is normally required for an attached garage; and grants a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit construciton of a deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure that will encroach 25' past the existing average lakeshore setback line and 9' past the potential future average lakeshore setback line, where no encroachment is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone from 36.4% existing to 40.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and to allow 48.5% hardcover in the 250-500' lakeshore setback zone where 85.7% hardcover exists but only 30% is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a 20' street yard setback where a 30' street yard setback is normally required, subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 Cityof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254 1. Hardcover on the property in the 75-250' setback zone limited to the following items: (Area of 75-250' zone s.f.) Existing Home Garage & Home Addition Existing Garage Driveway Deck not over patio Patio Rock Walls Sidewalk Added Deck N. of patio 1432 1100 400 238 85 576 194 260 120 4405 (Refer to Exhibits A & B Attached) s.f s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. s.f. or 40.2% shal 1 be = 10,937 Hardcover iri the 250-500' zone shall be as follows: (Area within 250-500' zone is 1950 s.f. total, of which 1200 s.f. is in the right-of-way for Casco Point Road as dedicated on the Plat of "Spring Park", and 750 s.f. is within the property boundaries westerly of the dedicated right-of-way) Driveway Driveway Sidewalk (west of right-of-way) (within right-of-way) (included i~ 75-250' zone calculations) 270 s.f. 580 s.f. TOTAL 850 s.f. or 48.5% Note: For percentage calculation purposes, because applicant is removing unnecessary hardcover within the dedicated right-of-way, the 250-500' hardcover percentages allowed are based on using the "combined area of property and right-of-way less the paved roadway", or 1750 s.f., as the denominator. 2. Applicant is advised that future proposals that result in addi tiona 1 hardcover on the property wi 11 not be approved, but might be approved only if concurrent hardcover removals result in no net increase in hardcover. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 24, 1988 ). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the t•rms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 6 ( ( City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __ 2_2_5_4 ___ _ 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of-the property. Adopted by the Orono City Counci 1 on this 14th day of ( September, 198 7. I ATT~ST: I -~,'/ Dorothy p~ Page 5 of 6 ( '· City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2254 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 20th day of October , 19 87- before me a Notary Public within and for said ·county, personally appeared Richard A. & Janet L. Putnam 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 9/8/92 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN). On this ________ day of----,--,,--------' 198, 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 foregoinginstrurnent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 6 of 6 ( \_ - ( ,.....,.)\i'~;·~-', I • , ~------~ . ., "...) j \ I .),I \ '\ ' .,> ' ' \ ~-j V\'· <t_ ~~ 0 V' ~t '-~ ~ .' . ~ -~-- •o.,,,<;., 3 ..... c~ t,, I / ··-- ,--- ·~ OJStiJ ·-·-00·09-••·· ·••, · .. . " . ,0"\,'. ~ .. V. . -. . ... II~·-· :11: '": X) ~ -t1 • C ~ ~ • ~ ..I > 0 0 V, V ------i 0. ~ "' ct. ~,-:t I...'. .... J CJ C!1 -( al -b; ---~ 1 ~ --o> X ~ /'J,I . I DATE TIME CITY OF ORONO CALLED IN 9-17-94 I/ INSPECTION NOTICE 11! SCHEDULE □ PERMIT NO. w COMPLETED ADDRESS J. 7~ LA SU) 'Y±~ i(d, OWNER --Bl-,--Uolll.._,tf._,V\.~C\,._.W...L\__,____ __ CONTR. --------- TELEPHONE NO. ~ DESCRIPTION 1--. ~ 01 FOOTING 11 MECHANICAL RI 16 WELL TEST PUMP 02 FRAMING 11 MECHANICAL FINAL 18 EXCAV/GRADING/FILLING ~ 03 INSULATION 24/25 WOOD BURNER/FIREPLACE 19 LAKESHORE/WETLANDS Cl <! 04 WALL BD. 12 WATER HOOK-UP 34 TREE REMOVAL ":( 05 FINAL 13 METER SET/TURN ON ~ INSPECTION ~ 07 DEMO-SITE 14 SEWER HOOK-UP R GRESS ...J 07 DEMO-FINAL 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 21 COMPLAINT ~ 09 PLUMBING RI 15 SEPTIC INSTALL. 22 FOLLOW-UP ::i:: 10 PLUMBING FINAL 23 SEPTIC FINAL ...J ~ OWNER/CONTRACTOR TO MEET YOU:_ YES_ NO ~ COMMENTS: , ~ . . . ~ ~ ~~~d-. d~ ~ ullt ~i¼ 11°02~('.t;!i: ~ -0 ed,e: STrJ 0~1)£;2 o~ . .-t 0 )... a:: S: ~ a:: ":( ~ i a:: s ~ ,rwoRK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED a:: D CORRECT WORK & PROCEED ~ Cl D CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR REINSPECTION 8 BEFORE COVERING D CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN __ HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN D STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR D INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. D PROJECT COMPLETE C ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ___ TEMPORARY ___ PERMANENT C PHOTO TAKEN C CITATION ISSUED Call for the next inspection 24 hours in advance. 4 73-735 7 Owner/Contrac~on site: Inspector. ~:<:1,Ace.,, White Copy/Inspector's File Canary Copy/Site Notice CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 January 29, 1996 Dick Putnam 2765 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Deck Reconstruction Dear Mr. Putnam: This letter is intended as a review of the 1987 variance approval for additions to your residence, as well as to provide you a formal statement regarding Orono's hardcover and structure replacement policies. I received your fox including copies of Resolution No. 2254 (which is the correct resolution) and its exhibits. I also reviewed our variance and permit files, which lead me to a number of conclusions regarding what was approved: The Council approved the proposed screen porch/patio/deck configuration and its associated hardcover as shown in Exhibit B of the resolution. It is unclear from the file whether Council had seen the "octagonal" version of the deck plans, which version was submitted for the building permit but which was not built. Also, it might be concluded from either version that some expansion of the existing deck was proposed. The resolution wording could be construed as assuming the deck might be rebuilt. (Ultimately, we view this as inconsequential, because the variance and permit expired long before the existing deck was finally replaced). The porch/deck plans submitted for the building pem1it showed an octagonal configuration, apparently proposing to slightly revise the footprint of the existing deck and add a stairway at the south end. Those plans were approved by Tom Jacobs on 8/23/88, and permit #1140 for "deck extension/screen porch addition" was issued on 8/31/88. I don't know why we approved a deck plan different from what was approved in the resolution exhibit. Telephone (612) 47'3-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Dick Putnam January 29, 1996 Page2 You apparently constructed the screen porch as well as a stairway at the south end of the pre-existing deck in 1988 or 1989, added new railings to the existing deck, but at that time did not rebuild the deck. A final inspection on the deck/screen porch construction was completed on June 26, 1989, at which time permit# 1140 would have been considered as no longer valid for further work. In 1994, the Building Inspectors found that you were in the process of replacing the portions of the pre-existing rectangular deck which had not been rebuilt in 1989. They consequently placed a Stop Work Order, and you proceeded to complete the replacement of that deck without the authority of a building permit. It is our recollection that you were advised by various members of the Zoning staff that a hardcover variance was required before we could issue a building permit, and you never proceeded to make such an application, hence a building permit has never been issued for this work. No City staff person ever authorized you to complete the work absent a building permit, although I do recall your .stating to me that at this stage it was imperative for you to complete the deck to make it safe. There are two specific issues involved which I hope to clarify for you: 1. Any work on the existing deck after permit #1140 was "finaled" in 1989, would require a new building permit. Once a project has been considered as final, any further work, whether five months or five years later, requires a new building permit. 2. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 4, makes it unlawful to "convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter". The City has consistently interpreted this to mean that any building or portion of a building which is intended to be removed and replaced, is not permitted if the replacement construction is non-conforming. Replacement of your pre-existing deck is non conforming because it constitutes hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250' zone. Note that since Dave Breitner built at 2755 next door, your deck conforms to the average setback. Further, the City has interpreted that whether a structure to be replaced exists legally via a past variance approval or is "legal non-conforming" because it existed before the pertinent codes went into effect, replacement of the structure is subject to the current codes. Past variance approval does not grant a permanent right to later rebuild a non-conforming structure. And, because the existing deck presumably had to be substantially removed in order to construct the new one, for some period of time in 1994 the deck did not exist and therefore its replacement is considered as new construction. Dick Putnam January 29, 1996 Page 3 In conclusion, it is the City staffs position that had you replaced the pre-existing deck under the permit issued in 1988 and as part of your home remodeling/additions at that time, such deck reconstruction would have been covered under that variance and that deck permit. However, replacement of the deck five years later after the original permit was finaled, is considered a new project that requires a new permit as well as hardcover variance approval before that permit can be issued. Staff does not have the authority to deal with hardcover trade-offs when the property is over the hardcover limits. Such trade-offs, even for mere replacement of existing structures, require that the variance procedure be followed. Because the deck you built in 1994 appears to match that which was approved in 1987, we could reasonably consider taking in the variance application as a renewal. Part of your submittal would have to be an updated hardcover survey by a certified surveyor. My recommendation is that you file the appropriate after-the-fact variance application for replacement of the deck. If you have further questions, please contact me or Jeanne Mabusth at 473- 7357. Sincerely, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator MPG/lsv cc: Jeanne Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Field Inspector Encl. a) b) c) d) Exhibit B, Resolution #2254 as approved by Council Plans submitted for "Deck Extension and Screen Porch Addition", 1988 Survey showing pre-existing deck Final inspection slip 6/26/89 ( (. ) ·- ~- --------sT ii,~s~· --7 · a" MAX. r.rsrn · . 9'' :.,.i:~. rs:/.C> / . . lr:: __ --J ~_-!!.?,A_ ~-" \, 1..1 -~ 6'-6" //,Ill. HE/,D,;OO,'.\ · • :..,~"1fj' ~.' P:~.lh '. 1-.r LEAST oi:E li.!.1,c~1t r.£::.; ~:a:1 l ~~:::;,: e,...J~:..-~ . \ ~ .• GU~?~~~~~ -'\- _:,,/ . "~ . ! ; , , ;>--0._ l •-•. / .' . , ,,~, . . . . . ---~ ORfl.lLS • .. .,(__ , ,,_ >~ \1UAP.. ·· · · -c.rr· . · · ...__.,,/ ',~ / . / ',.,._ -:-:-:-:..-.. ::··~, ,. ,,. .• 'l\lt~. Hf:'.1 "r\Gc . ' '· , ·, "' ,' • ' '1 .., I , : Ni • .., ' '-', . '\. /. .. . . I . . ,;, •AX c..,P~--• ' . ' .. t·, , , ~, . '•,' . ' ' . . b . __ .....-·-"M I . '·..'· • r -~-• , , \ I . -----'-y-· -· ~-· '--t<\ t · . -------... ----,A I ' . ,,, .:. . _:__ J.--,' ;:,:~ ?;c,_/ i -'1 -------r ----- \, ~--a'.;,: I I I ' .. .i . . -t-. . : . . . . ,. , . ' . l .. . . 1.-----· =~-= .:-· ----··---~ ......... -r ''., ,. ·i. I. '. ,," .. ;:• .. '' .,i: .. J f 1i I I I I I \ \ j . ) ,:~ ... ····--· ... ·~ rt-_J~NOTEl\~\i.: _ ..... ~✓.-\A\-. -· -vt=eT . 1, srr-v J.-:"0 !::,, • .. , ·,-= 1 ·n AC\;;_ -----c i. • .:. ,.;.-.,,;: c.~ ---·--t •·r"; t ;. on .:.J::::'.:-~~u ff. £.t.•.s -~--:.A J . coP~~-------1 ... __ u_,.__~---~• .. -· 1· . . ---t i .· '\' ·r---._ 'i r i·. _/, ··-., .... s,. ', . i ' -· •-· --.< ', ~j . . ! -------i • ' · r~~-. _ _._i __ ::_---~--.:~-~~.~~--A·---r.---, W(:-:-~. ·-,, "-, i.-~I T .lJ • • . ; i ' ' I I I ' I ·- I : I • ' • ; j • f I I . -:•l . ,,; ___ :~·. '!) '-. ," I . 1 ·i . ' ... -; : . ; : \ "''. ' l\.. '··~ / ·, :,: 1'•t, •'I.,. I • . ' ' . . . °\ : . \ ·'J -I··---····· r,.. I ·, · .... :i . -: . ; ' . : \.' . ;'-. . . . . '/ f/ • • .. I ;: ' :\ ' .. ; ·-...,~.... • I \ ; I ' ' . I '·-/ • . ,_, ' ' . '' : l rl ----=--l:_·_-=: -=----c::-J L _ ;,_ . -- ~ ·-1•:· ·,-.'11 .f_,)~···\ I ➔ LI ._ · · . .-:I s, · -, I C,,• . • • . , (,. . ' ' ·:·1 \ .. : <· .: ~ ,\ I I I .... i ···-··-·----- I • • j,1 '.) I " J • 1 j : : • • • • I : 'l ·, _ .. ---~ -~: . ! / . I ./,t;,·:: ·•· ... --~· ;',, t; .. · · · ¢ · '-·• ,1~ •· ' ".. .' . I .t .,/ :·:. I I 1; ,, i• :; ' l, ), I' 1: q ' ;...:.;. ' / . ,r. "'-'-<,---....... . ·-·-,-, ~ l ', ' .... 1) • ~ ,. ...., , . . ' ., ? . l ~,. •, .. _ -----··-----:·. . ., /'..~:._ ··. . .,.__. ' ,, "' • I . ✓/ .••• ...__ .~ • '• •• / ·' i ·.. " .. ._ ____ k;/ _;../' ... ,. .... , I '· '· l;:r. • . ••·-. , f , I,' ~· ' . ,( .-:,,1 . -~--) ·· --, .. ,,,, y ' / \, I t '+ • ... . :( .. ?: ..... -. . \, ..... ~- i .. , . I ,,. iJ'ly t;xl-enst"on of -I-he !lorfh 1/ne of Lof 18:2 "Oak Z.5 0 A,,JJ;· ·---//Z.50---· • .z4''Naple 934.4 o.r>}/!J --·-I 13. / 6-···-· J'Jy exfens.ion of he Soulh i/,ne of Lof 132 · I I I -·~ ·•-.\ ••. ;4 o..'>J"'f' ·····-26S.l6-··-·· ~1 (' ·. -<.I .:-.. \.-,... ........ j.4--Basswood 947.9 o!P-° ~ I / Sl-e1;j ,,-Overhang "\ -" e,."\· •---I'--, c.. J-lo. :.: ! o;,.'1-~ i-r-:-. --.:t- ~ ~, ~= -~ ltJ·- oP ' . • ,'I I qt,i . . -,.,,.. "' . ,. C ~ • r?o-t~: ...,_, i ~~ ':./ N r. elev. , q4-9.s "! .1. ,-J ~ c:9 · ~ Base111C,1rr .,..,i t: \JJ ' . . ~ L :::i-~ . ·.. --. I -~ ct \l) rP ~ 7., ~:eockJ~fal/ ~, ,._c,-• u, . ,-. ,··r. 1:: Mqp/e . , ... ·.: ~ ,,,cr'f:qP ~, ! ,_ . .: • qso.4' -·· -'-.t!. 'o t\ 'I 0 ~,, __ .,, c-, /. \ "\· y ~ ,(\ 0 L -.-4 ~ -1-"'°'ll-9'- -···-265 ~, . le>-···· tlo. ;j ('I{ t 16.S -q- 8<,"0ak.. ~I 953.2 • .,. .. -109.J.O-·- %2-3 ,~ /· -:f ,.o Z-0 ~ qar: 1-· °'? J IJ, 't ! ... - ~ i;.· A '!{~~:re: ::;t,::f~--t:r· s, ·:-';'.:¥.,1.:SS;·:, -'.;~1[~k .---.~,-:~~~ .. ~ op\-:\ .7 24"Map!e jt: 95~.0 · .·-" ~ '-C ,e,"J.{aple • qs8.b a_t:;,'1,~ i:iE>':7 o:? "'-1.-'=' ,1 ~- (dor. ".:)-' CJ-~/ nf\cr C,· y (~_p<,,: 0 -:•i ... O!IL _ c.9 TIME CITY OF ORONO CALLED 1N._.. l ___ .,.,'--,j __ o . INSPECTION NOTtCo/. J 1../ ti SCHEDULED ~ -,? 4 1f4' _ f,. n) .PERMIT NO. ____ , ____ /<_ COMP\.ETED ~--.. (. ...... , . 'll.' c, ADDRESS~ ~:7 r.,<, Ca,,,~ r&,j? cl OWNER £~~ CONTR.J:D.--:/~ ·•.:\.~:,.TELEPHONE N0.1 l/ 71-8: 3? 0 ~ _· . t;'!l·-1).\:t • .,., . i .! ~;1,' .. 1·• ·, .. ;'· ·•"f ... . , ,.,··· •• J ?iQ FOOTING !t,,'I' "li~---£/1i) ,fi PlUMBING RI. '' .. t _ . ~/~ ,--;._ _:1 ··•.:·•r 0:i ,:• ~:,,,l_C P\.UMBING FINA CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 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, May 20, 1996, the meeting commences at 7:00 p.m., on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 1. #2112 Richard Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road seeks approval of an after-the-fact variance for reconstruction of a deck to the lake side of the residence located within the 75-250' setback area where excesses of hardcover exit over the allowed 25 % . 2. #2133 John and Karla Spooner, the owners of 1385 Orono Lane, seek approval of hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to permit the removal of a lake side deck and replacement with a grade level patio. The improvement will result in a reduction of hardcover within the lakeshore protected area. 3. #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht of 1810 Shadywood Road seeks approval of hardcover (75- 250' setback area) and average lakeshore setback variances to permit construction of a grade level deck to the lake side of the residence. 4. #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund seek approval of hardcover (0-75'), lakeshore setback, street setback and side setback variances for construction of a two story addition and attached garage for the property located at 1575 Long Lake Blvd. 5. #2137 William and Susan Dunkley of 2709 Walters Port Lane seek approval of an average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, hardcover (0-75' setback area), lot coverage and side setback variances that would allow conversion of an existing deck at southeast side of the residence to a room addition. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting. Written comments are solicited. Plans are available in the City Offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning Commission nne A. Mabusth C ---by 4 . Building & Zoning Administrator To be published the week of May 6, 1996. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 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, May 20, 1996, the meeting commences at 7:00 p.m., on the matter of rev iewing the following land use applications.: 1. #2112 Rich ard Putnam of 2765 Casco Point Road seeks approval of an after-the fact variance for reconstruction of a deck to the lake side of the res idence located within the 75-250' setback area where excesses of hardcover exit over the allowed 25%. 2. #2133 John and Karla Spooner, the owners of 1385 Orono Lane, seek approval of hardcover and lakeshore setback variances to permit the removal of a lake side deck and rep lacement with a grade l!lvel patio . The improvement will result in a reductior-i--of .hardcover within the lakeshore protected area :· · · 3. #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht of 1810 Shadywood Road seeks approval of hardcover (75-250' setback area) and average lakeshore selback variances to permit construction of a grade level deck to the lake side of the residence . . 4. #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund seek approval of hardcover (0-75'), lakeshore setback , street setback and side setback variances for construction of a two story addition and attached garage for the property located at 1575 Long Lake Blvd . 5. #2137 William and Susan Dunkley of 2709 Walters Port Lane seek approval of an average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, hardcover, (0-75 ' setback area). lot coverage and side setback variances that would allow conversion of an existing deck at southeast side of the residence to a room addition . All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this meeting . Written comments are solicited ., Plans are available in the City Offices for review, by appointment. City of Orono By: Planning .Commission ··.~.. ' Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator l h -' (Publ ished in The Laker and Pioneer May 4, 1996) Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. 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 compl i ed 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 __ k.=-=-</J'-----"/j)_"""''-tj)"'--';~oq:...' 7+"-.Jt,L,L.,.~Yi ..... · ::nca,,,, ._.... . ., :d~) which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and w_as printed and published once each week for / successive weeks : It was first published Monday, J.j !/2 fl the ___ day of_..,_(.:..µ,/;~--- and was thereafter print and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the ___ day~-19 __ , Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this By: KRISTI HOLM NOTARY PUBUC•MNacrfA MY COMM. EXPIIU t4t«IOO (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $12 .20 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter : $12 .20 . (3) Rate actually charged for above matter : $7.00 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.05 . . CITY of ORONO Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Municipal Offices DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY Malling 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 depaiiments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. 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 Last ~~ Pt= Pd I Address City State Zip I understand ~ta~ Signature Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 10 Phone 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 01/31/1995 08:32 473-4435 Ci t_y of Oron,-, 2 7 5 0 K. c L L f." \ l ',:'! ::· kw ,:'l '/ 01·ono, MN ", ', ·, :; ( Attn: M.ik 1:·· ~-:.-.1 :·· fr(:;n CCIFFIH 8, (iF'CIHBEF\3 COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. ev .. Ve"YIHG, IINOIM ■■~MO ... NO LAND Pt.ANNINO ot•••A TAM.a.l'IACI'. AVINVJ' LONQ LAK ■, MINN. 00:110. 1-31-()(; F'A(iE 02 ()j r.k Putn,'.l'P ,?rty in c..-1 :0• . =i.:; the \.vf•:1 • - '•,'.!', :"i3k.ed us to do a hardcovc~r survey on his prop Poi n+: f:<::ir his work in rep.lacing his deck. As soon P· i··rnit:'.::; in the spring, we will do the work . Sincer•~~J.·/, COFFIN /:, ,:::;J,'l°!Nl',\':HC I INC. ~./?~ Mark S. C1:·•:!·,h,.r··q, P,F.;. & L,S. 01/31/1996 08:32 473-4435 .. TO: Phone Fax Phone / _./ -, . ·:, -; / ) .•. -~--,.-,,...,.... ··-----·-·. ·- ·-;,_s_:o _I CC_: _____ ·-·-· . ··-·-·····•---- CCIFF I 11 .S, 1::,F C)l lBEF"t3 Loate I Number Df. page.s including cover .sheet 2 FROM: Phone Fax Phone Collin & Gronberg, Inc. #JZ Tt1morack Av. · . . Long Lake, MN 55356 473.-4141 473-4435 REMARKS: C.1 Urpent © Foryour review O Reply ASAP 0 Please Comment ••• ,. j • . ' CiTY OF OPONO ··.·\•,Yr.'.","~ ~1:-· l..~~::. :•1. ;·, --, Crv:i.i;.11 F :1 ~.L•'\1-t,_··. )!~t ,-,:·, :. -~ -2 .1 ·'"_) .• , ... ., 7 l ' .! ! . l • . --~, -(,, '. SITE ADDRESS: . . . ... : :_.;:, DESCRIPTION: r)F(:I( FxT. /S(,R(:TN F·(,l-i 3u1ld1nq Permit Ty~e SF-AOO/REMOOEL 1\.1lcl1n9 W,:irk lYF-•t> F'C,RC:H ,.1:.::t:: Oc cupa1,,: y :3S (:,:,nst.ruc t.1c,n Tn-·e VN z,,n t11•:; . LR-·1C ···So:iLJi~r~FN•t. :-\ 2€.0:: PER C.ONOtTIONS OF m::SOLUTION tf22S4 ·---· ·-·-, --~-·-. ~ . FEE SUMMARY: t::a..;~ r:-~t1 f·' l ;,11 f•;i•VH1~ ~;ur ch~ ,•qt-1 T,:,t.a l F~~1 $:~o . .so is;:·. ~:8 ··-----· ·--· --~it:, ... QQ ·li t:37. :3:3 $ i (l, (l(h) , i: I 'tt't,")f'\/\ ··. ''--'!'"'"' ... ,.\!\IV ~·1 t.f.V Tl ... ' . 4 I• f ', o ;; f:. ;_:El,~ T -T/1~\•:•\. : .:: .. CONTRACTOR: .•;1)ELOf' S jt.SO WAYZATA ,4C.•~-d l (' ~II t. -- C0NS TRtJc-r roN rNC 1d71:;:3':)0 f,HAOYWC1(1(> f,;i) NN .S.S:3'.) t r-·•·-·-------·-.... __ -· -------------· -·· -·-·-··-· ;; \:,~Y..;;:• av1 RO,' -· .:.: ':,: •:: ... .-, ·~·-·--.. ----•--•->• ----- OWNER: l='lJTNAi'l RrCHARO 276, C.ASC:O POIN1' HD CRYSri:tL 8AY MN S.S3~1 (f,l2.l47j-9~82 -~------~.,.,. ------· ......... _______ . ___ ~--."' ------ Al>DRBSS TYPB OP WORK: CBBCK OPP LIST FOR ISSOANCB OP PERMITS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY .. ;., .. '; ~: ... ; ":,.. •.•,. T"'-' • ~-• IOHING RBVIBW BY: ___ .,.... _____ _ DATB APPROVBD: ____ B_-_rl_-_B ___ 8_. _ Zoning District: L ,e -IC Fire Dept.: /11ou1 ... lD Lot Area:_O_,_t...j __ A-_c __ i __ _ Width:~' Depth: 2..--x:>' :! BLDG SIIB: H. SAC CDARGB RIIQOIJUID1 Sq. Footage: 1st Floor 2nd Floor Garage TOTAL Inapectiona Requireda Site Footing _Framing Insulation -wall Board -Final =Fireplace L. Yea ---;~~---w. ___ _ _ Nox X Bat1aat:4 construction Value _ _,,.1.,C~f .... )0 ...... 0 .... -. __ _ X ---------------X ---------------X ---------------X - X - ·t Requiring Separate Pend.ta 1 Plumbing Grading/Pilling -Mechanical -Fire -well -water Connection -Septic -Sewer Connection _Fireplace Other _________ _ RBVIBW BY OfllBRS1 ·._,. DATB1 __________ _ Access: Existing_y ·New __ _ Acc~ss Approval: ;&rte ________ _ By: ----------RBIIARKS 'fO BB lt10'1'BD ON PDNI!'1 ______________________ _ CITY OF ORONO -BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Total Fee: $ _ ___,,;,/_~_7_._?._'3 __ _ Date Received:~.gjl.f-'lju.Y~/811.1S"'---- Date Approved: e--:iJ c/-f-f' Building Permit Application Requirements: Permit i: )/1()_ Projectt: __ _ l. Building permit application -to be filled out completely and signed 2. 2 sets of construction plans to include the following: a) Floor plans: b) Footing and foundation plan: c) Elevations (of all sides); d) Wall sections and cross sections: e) Details -stairs and any special connections. 3. Certificate of survey with location of existing and proposed ",: structures including hardcover calculations and grading and ,,drainage . ": plans as· required. ' ,~ti, .4. Energy calculations -form provided. i · <'. -'5. · Septic report 1 and design if required. . . . ;; . ,ABOVB ;IRPORKA1'IOH.:_NOS'l' :BB'SOBHIT!'lm IR PULL BEPORB PLAN REVIEW WILL BB,.S'l'ARTED :;•.-~ .. 7-------..... ---~:---~f':~-------:''7,.------:~-::-;-.. ------~~-----_ ................ -~;:----------------~~------- ... ,~l~p~~,,1..~i~/~~,-;~;~f r~.;.ff>,~.7). )';·:{ ~~~i/~;(CO~~-CTO~:'t . \.:jf~'/: :-:.zoa:'sxn"-ADoRBSs:··,_?~')~;':-;-·· ,?.5;,,;~,,.;;·,y;;;,,.J~'./~. · ;~ · .. , : · :'. ZIP: ~ .. ;-3?1'''•' . ' ;,; ··';' :::...i.~;.,~r~•:;r· '; . ·: . ..:~/?-: '~.. .'. \ ~·: .7:\ : ,-.-·. : • ;~ ;:~':"' :: . 'PROPBRH-, IDBNTIPICA'l'IOH. NO. : . ·•·. , ~"'. ,,:·:yt~·'·' k'··,, ,:c •:(}' ,,~:·./i'../-' ?; : :<::...:.....,.----.-i:_-i __ --.-1 __________ _,(_w_o_r"'"k...,)-~";'!""'.,,,-,.-,-.• ,.~,-,.-- HAlllf;·op~'OlililBR1, ''::$< ... ,cp ..,,. .... , ... ,/4i.., l . ,, .~ ~11---'-~••1 PBO'Nlh (home >::<.1:~:,,:-:;:1-:t..:•-.. :, :: I ·I NAILIIIG ADDRBSS: l ')l' 5 C,,-..c,' /~,.,..,r ,r;...,, Ciffl UL.:"'-•:; CON1l'RAC'1'0Rz . ..,..... ' PHONE• :..;>-: 1 ·f •~ ... , ...,) ( J.>-<.-• ______ (._. ___ _ ZIP: ~·;;<;_, tCBI'l'BC'l'1. _____________________ _ PHONE1 ________ _ MAILING ADDRESS: ____________ CI'l'Yz ______ _ ZIP: _____ _ ft'PB OP WOU: Demo -New Addition ~--· Accessory Structure ~ Move Remodel/Alteration..=-Renovate_ Land iitiration - PROPOSBD OSB (describe in detail): .,.........., nr~n _.,,,,.,,,""\ ~ .--,.. GA-BSI. ____ SQ. PBft OP BACB ~..,__a_ ... •...;--=-;..;: .. •l;;._'_ .• r_._ ... _____________ _ 110. OP BB'DROONSI --GARAGB STALLSa A'l"l'._ DE'l'._ ...... $ ? (CO ---'"'--;...;.. _______ _ I I hereby apply for a building permit and I acknowledge that the information ! abovo ia complete and accurate, that the wort will be in conforaance with the ordinance• and codes of the City and with the State Building Code, that I I underetand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permitJ and 1 that the work will be in accordance with ~pproved plan. i --•8 ---· ,• ~ . l>A'illh ?,<(@r' I · '. . .• (Please~~~~. of tlira foml -l ~ : ~~.,(:-,.~ l . •., ·-,_,,,) § 10. 0 3 SEC. 10.03. GENERAL PROVISIONS. Subd. 1. Minimum Requirements. In their interpretation and application, the provisions of the Zoning Chapter shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and welfare. Subd. 2. More Restrictive Provisions To Apply. Where the conditions imposed by any provision of the Zoning Chapter are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law, City Code provision, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the · regulations which are more restrictive, or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail. Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 Subd .. 3. All Permits Compatible With Agency Requirements. A building permit, conditional or special use permit, or other permit or necessary permission of the Council, wherever or whenever required by the City Code may be denied if the proposed action or permit is not compatible with the intent and provisions of the Surface Water Management Plan, the Storm Water r_---. Run-Off and Shoreland Guidelines Policy Statement promulgated by ·--· -the Lake Minne tonk a Conservation Dis tr ic t, and any other val id governmental regulations, plans and policies adopted by the City. Three copies of the Policy Statement, other applicable governmental regulations, plans and policies adopted by the City shall be marked as official copies and filed for use and examination by the public in the City Hall. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 Subd. 4. Prohibitions. It is unlawful to convert, enlarge, reconstruct or alter any structure or use any structure or land for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the Zoning Chapter. Subd. 5. Non-Conforming Uses. Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a non-conforming use on January 1, 1975, may be continued in said non-conforming use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as hereinafter specified. A. The non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. B. Nothing in this Zoning Chapter shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Inspector, providing the necessary ORONO CC 251 (4-1-84) o, g, ., 'l ' '· ··~ I ~ -('() -- 0 ,,,. I ~ - \.() ~ 0 J't ... ·a· ... \;.,,',··::x.· ,.,,,. ',';-,•.· •• ·, I, . . . •I, li r-- --QI I ~ -U) ~ I .-W\ ...._ \ N. Q) (:'{) I ~. ·~ ; <S I: I• ~ Q_ ~~ . '•~ I C) ~ 0,: 0 -I ,, Ii I ~ -('() 0. ~ I 'LI . I ~ -\I) ~ 0'/Z (\{ ~ -~ ---\.--._ ,..... '-,.I - "' ~ ~~ -,. --I.·. ~ cc -~ (i) ---·-.. -.. ~ G'· \) - l\) I 1 ?5-··-~-. ' i I . l ' s( l ·-l I +~ ~· ;:,. -~ -~ · ··~· ("' r,-,c D ; '-.)) \' , : ,,Ir• I ~,... --?._... I ,..... t: .. ,,.e I -~ (S\ I u, . ..... (S\ I l'1. I --a.i.i ,e -- a--~=,,; ... \ I r 1' t \ ...; R. A Putnam and Associates Inc. D 2765 Case p · -' o.. 0 omt Road, Wayz:a::a, Min::ies.o:a ::-5391 • Off. & Fz.::.: (612) 471-0573 ;f, FAXCORAESPONDENCE . ·. I .zWL? ~? 11~ , Ir. ·J,ltrf ~ ~ \)Z.Vi = -< Ta: l'i' (;; *~ ; FROL> =_;ft t:::: 'o/r~ • f : ClJ. TI· j,.. 2.b ---q'(:;/ , . ~ : k.A,))U2 / T,momtt.o o~u~at r u,~ t;Ju ~~d4 ~ ~-. ~ J-· ~ ~Jio /\v,rny(A ~ ~ ~ ,,,,~ . >Al JA f,.,_. t•J ..:;.r...,v l Jv V \ 1s1 ...; C•.J ~ ' l -... , ' --'C. -• ---- S Cu~ It.\ h~ ~ f117f-~b~ ts; et~ Ai~-l.lW;. £ . 1 \. i'=>. t~ '{-Lu covvW ~~ ~ tk, 2te4-'o/.~ ~ ~). ;.(' -;j ,e,.,, 1f~~lh -le~ fbr vz~ it-1 ~i~ '-~ J/d. ~ l '1 ~~!A Ult~ ~Uc# !J10 j-k, ,t,!!wi:,.i~j" ~ V.!,!Jl~ 4~ 1--1u-t-"tt.,..F-1 ;;::;R ;.r fhe.. u~ ,ov&t dl . ~ ~t;, , Wiµ ~')..~ Iv-tkt. ~~ &>Y' !Lt::.l-7 iA" Ntf,! ~ J'lMQMl~)1, m~ y1wld2~ . () _ j__ ,, -1 I •• -1-Jr ~ ~ ~~11 ~, ~ yl!,IJ~ 1J ttf~ 1WC1 ~ Juk-(k:Y ,b~. /J.ltl?,, I ~). .1f ~I +I.J +!M ~ 1e-+k ~A_~-rJA ~--a 1 •r-~Y °' Mra f¼ ~Wllh ~ 1~ -t-k . w~~~ - 2 t"1tf$ ~ 1 t/1:VA v~r ,9f-u.t/l;J) 1 til_JOJ..~ ~ · ~ i+ Vi w~~ t1~ v~w~~ M¾~~~ From F:. A. F'UTt·lAM8H:;::::;CIC/TAtlDEM CCIRF'. F'HDHE tb. FROM: DA~E: SUBJ: Mayor Gr.abek Or.nno Co~ncil MembRrR Planning CommiRR1on Chairman Kelley P1Bnn1ng Commission MGmbero City Administrator Dernh~rdcon Miah~~] P. Gaffran, AA~istant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 17, 1987 #1176 Richard Putnam, 2765 Caaco Point Road - Variance -Publjo Hearing Zoning District LR-lC, 1/2 acre o¢wored Application Hardaover, side setbaok, ~verage l~kesho~e seLb~~k VarianoG~ to oon~truct an add~tion to existing ~esidence. ~ist of B;xhibits - ]\ - B - C ... D - F! - )7' G - ),j - l .... ,1' - Application Plat Map Prqperty owners List Conceptual sk~tch of proposed site plan Survey of exi£ting ~evelopmont Letter of non-objection from C.W. Peterson, owner o! property nt ~755 Casco Point Road Har.dcover calculations by npplio~nt, verif!e<l by ~t~ff Con0~ptu~l slslvation skctcho~ Floor plan Code Saction '10.08 Subd. 3(A} Pertinent Facts - Allowed or Exi.i:;t:lng RE?quir~d Proposad Variance 0 0% 0 -Hardcover 0-75' 75-250 1 2so-soo 1 36.4% 25t 40.2% 15. :ll 85.7% 30% 48.5% 18.5% -Av~rage ~etback Encroachment -Side Cet.b~ck Det(3.ched Garago (chunged to attached) Discu.aaion 6 I 2' 01 25 1 10' 2' ApplicanL p~opueeH to attach his existing house ~nd detached garage. The garage is currently 2' from the lot line. He notes h~ might have to replace the garage foundation, but does not want l:o move the garage further from _the lot lino because that would force the removal of a large ~aple next to the proposed 3rd gnr~ga at.all.. He ti. 1 so not.es lhat the t;r;end in the neighborhood is £or g&rages Lo all be aL Lhe e<lge of the lot, so visual spacing .:ts mainlalned. The requl.1;-ed setback for either . a det~ched oi:-citto.ched <;1i:u.·t1.~ei ii;; 10' !.x:um t:ne Sloe lot l1ne 1n this zone. ,,.. . .._, ' 25' 8' F'HDtlE tli:J. D'32E:,21221C1 2427212[13 Jan. 2E:, 1'3'3E:. 12: D[:lF'l'l F'C13 I _.,.ning File #1176 ~~_.:l"·-~,-+~.~-~I July 1 7, .l SI 8 7 ____.,..-w .... A' \.I r _ p~,.. _ ~----)~' A . \ 1 ~..., _ Pa.go 2 ,..----· ---V (!,, ,tJ ~ \ f 1 _. Ill~- 'lY' ''f'l!.>J\.eW t1t?Cl dt~ -I .~~,:! l:~'?~~P.d_decJ.; ~rnd sr.;:n,1ftn .~rr'lh...., <;.:1 thw_J ake i:-idG of J.,J~ j wJ.TI c«usc an encroachment or-;s muc:fi' as 25' t·.o the average I lakeshore setbaok. Bowever, t.he hOU£f": U1at i£ l ocaL~d to th~ .r.ua.1.· of the 0U1ers in 1..-h4!.! neighborhooo, 2 75 5 C.:isco Polnt Roa ct, .is ~ unique building in thAt jt has ha~ all plumbing ~emov~d and is lr1tendcd uverd::u~l ly by Mr. Peterson to be :r:urnoved ,,u)d a new house h u i. 1 t. ; w hi oh 1 i k e 1 y w i l l he p l aced for, W a 1· c'l to o o ti f c.,:, r rn w i U1 the r~st of tha neighborhood. Peterson haR Htated he has no oLjectionH to the proposal. The hardoovor variance is a result of the addition after hardcove.r removal and general revamping of the site. The wide parking access area will be limited, which will be a plus in the traffic's perception of road width in this area, perhaps slowing j_t down f.t bit. 'l'hQ hardcover involved with the house addition results in a 3.8% increase in the 75-250' zone. The hardcove~ removed in the 250-500' zone is significant. Net result is no net increase in h~rdcover on the property, but major t~ade-off of non-structural hardcover for structural hardcover. lJil..rd5hipa:. Side setback -A 1 though the house add it ions all wi 11 meet side setbacks I the existing garage won It. The hard sh.i p i $ that it exists and is prasurned to have met whatever cocle was in effect when it was built. If the garage foundation does need to be totally replaced, the hardship is the location of the tree in re l.ation to the third garage stal 1. ls the need for a third stall legitimate? ~~.£~=. ~~!:!.£E.~ setba~ -Perhaps t.he on,ly hardship is that the neighboring house that forces the 1ssue is not in line with the rest of the neighboring houses. Is this a reasonable hardship? Does neighbor's non-objection and the potential future relocation of the neighboring house create a justiftcation for granting this variance? Hartluover -8taff notes that without the variances, applicant-cannot accomplish his proposed home addition. Is this a hardship? Is the lot size a hardship? The lot is only 60' wide but is 300' deep for a lot area of J.8,000 s.f. or 0.41 acre in a half-acre zone. There is virtually no hardcover in the 0-75' setback area. This is typical of Casco Point. Js this a unique situation, or is it the norm? ls 25% in the 75-250• zone reasonable for this property (and others like it} ~r is a variance appropriate? caff Rccommen~ation -. :aff requests th~~ Pltlnning Commission review the application in 3rms of the provisions of Section 10.08 Subd. 3(A) and determine ,ether the conditions for granting of variances to side setback, :1.rdcover,. and average lakeshore setb~ck a.re present. If so, a acommendation for approval would be appropriate. i, ' I, Ii 11: ii: ll-- 1,. I' i r;·; I: • I F reorn F.'.. H. F'UTt·lHM8H::i::;1]C.-'THHDEM CCIF.P. F'HDtlE Heo. l]':l2r::,2122HJ 24272121]3 Jar,. 2f::, 1'3'36 12: l]lF'f·l F'C14 Ci1~y of ORONO RESOLUTION Of 1'HE CITY COUNCIL NO, -··---- A llBSOLUTION GR.l\N'l'J:NG VMlIMCBS TO MUNICl~AL ZONJNG COOR SECTION 10.25, SUBOlV1SlON G{B) AND SECTION 10.22, SODDXVISXONS l AND 2 11':.tt.E 11176 WHBltEPi.S, ~ichai;d Putnt'lm (,hercinaft.er 11 the rtpplicant") is the owner of the property located ~t ~765 Cagco Point ~oad wjthin the City ot Orono (herein~fte~ ~cityh) and l~gally de~cribea BS fol lows: Lot 132, Spring Park, Hennepin county, Minnesota, according to the ~eco~ded plat thereof, that pa~t of LakA Shore Avenue dadicated on the the recorded plat of Spr~ng Park and now vacated and that part of a tract of land on the opposite side of said avenue all lying between the westerly extension of the north and south lines of Lot 132 in said plat (he.rein~ft,e:t' 11 the prope:i:ty) I and WHEREAS, the applicant has appl1ed to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit the construction of room and garage additions to attach the existing residence to the existing detach~d garage which is only 2 feet from the side lot line where a 10 1 side setback i~ normally required for an attached garage; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 to permit construction of A deck and enclosed porch (gazebo) structure that will encroach 25 1 nast the existing average lakeshore setback line and 9' past the 0otentinl future average lakeshore setback line, where no encroachm0~t is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to allow an increase in hardcover in the 75-250' lakashore setback zone from 36.41 existing to 40.2% where only 25% hardcovor is normally .,::llowed, and to allow 46.5% hardcover in the 250-500' lake~hore setback cone where 85.71 haracover exists but only 30't. is normally allowed; ,.1:·1d a. variance to Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to allow a stree~ ~etbaok of 20 1 where 30' street setback is normally r~quirod. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED L~:-f •i:'1.e City Council of O:i:-ono, MinnoGota: l'l'TNDI.NGS l. This applicat:i.on was r.·~viewed ao ?.:-c,~ ·1 •• ·,g Pi lo # 1176. 2. The property is located in the LR· .. · .·1ingle Fmnily LukeGhorc Res ideittl.ei. l Zon:i.n9 D.L~t,:.· :t<.it.. P,~ge ) of 6 From F.:. H. F'UTt·lHt·18,H'.::Sl]C./THt·lDEt--l CCIF.P. F'HCIHE Ho. City of ORON() 4t. RESOLUTION or THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1. Hardcover on ~ho property in the 75-250' satback zone shall bg limited to the following itemoi (Arcn of 75-250' zone e:e l0,9.'.37 s • f • ) . . ' , ... ay -t1µ)-u> __ _ Exi6tJ.ng Home 1432 e.f ~('.{,·IV ~t:":",·~ -/'.'-----,. / ·,, Geirage lit. Home Addition 110 0 :ii. f. ~'-.t,p .r7 L' / \ Pi:xiF'it.ing G.onige 400 1:i.f.~c},o> ; '/R-flO I~ j Jiitke~Q{-~v;;;;: P~tio ·· ------2 ~ 0 --::{ ·_" ~~-....,;.J ~- . p i:l t I ;s-~-~----A-•'"'·'•··· ,,..~•·--"-•'-•-~·d·~:a . .LZ§;" ~l Rock Walls 194 s.£. 1· sidew~lk 260 s.f. ~vv'?(, Added beck N. of patio 120 a.f. r 4405 s.f. or 40.2i (R~(er Lo ExhibiLs A & B Attached) Hardcover in the 250~500 1 ¼one ahttll. be as follows: (Area within 2so-soo 1 zone is 1950 s.f. total, of which 1200 s.£. ls ;Ln thc-:: ;i;ight-of-wa.y for Casco Point Road as decHcatcd on the Plat of "Spring Park", and 750 s.f. is within the property boundari~:r, w€ste:. ly 0£ th(;! cleciictd:.ecl r ight:.-or-way) Driveway nriveway Side\-Jalk (west of right-of-way) (within ~ight-of-wny) (included i~ 75-250' 20nm calculationg) 270 e.f. 500 s.f. TOTAL 050 s.f. or 4S.5i Note: li'o:i::· p1;;!ri(::l!Ht.ug1ei calculation purpose!;;, bCC,'IJ.U!::e applicant. iG removing unneceosary lia.r:<lcover within Lhe dedicated right-of-way, the 250-500• hardcover percentages allowed are based on using the "combinec, area of property and right-or-way lesa th~ ptived .r:uudway 1'r or 17~0 s.f., as the den6min~~or. 2. Applj.oant is advised that future proposa1s Lhat result in adclitionnl hardcuver:· on t.he propert.y wilJ.. not be approved, but might be npproved only if: uunuur:.:i;·eut harc1c::over ;i;emovals result in no net inc~oaso in hordcove~. 3. Auth,;i.i.J.ti~s granted by t.h;l.s vax::la.nce run with the property not v..•ith \:·.he applicant, but are perm:lsi;;;i.Vt;? unly f.lnd rnugl: bf) exercise(~ by application f o:,; a building permit wi th.i.r1 one Y(:.'HU'.' of the date~~ Council approval, or this variance will expire on that dab:i U'..11gust 24, 1988). 4. viul~t~0n of o~ non-complionco with ony of the torms and conditic.)r·J.; e:.:: thi~ va:r:iance shall consLit.uLe a viole.t.ion of the zon.i.ng cc1d:·,, shall auLomaLically L~i:H,inaLe any authority gr.:1ntod herein, l:tl"IC, . .!1u 11 be punishable o.a n misdemeanor. Pago 4 of 6 Fr,::im : R.H. F'UTt-lHl'••i;;.tH'.::.'.30:.,,-THt-l[IEM CDRP. F'HDHE tb. : D'32t:,2122H:1 2427212[13 .J,3.n. 26 1"3'36 12: D2F'l··1 F'Dt:, ___ _.,,. ... -· .. ...--• _.-, :,_-----· ' -. ~ L • -'l • I t -·--· ··•-~·-,. --•. , . r---.--._.__-.JU. ---.. ~1"1)'-i ~~ ~ F rc,n1 R. H. PUTt·lHM8,H'.::,l::,CIC . ....-THtmEM CCIRP. PHIJtlE Ho. ~ .. er· • -g ♦ 17. I l ~ " -~ -t (\ .... ~-) ".• 1./, C'•. () ~,~·· ~=;• r•. 6;·- C!lsco 1•-· . .. ---- I (", '·-' ,. ' ··' \ ·;,,, ~-----·---. rJ ,. . /987 ~ ~ ✓Pf ~~ t------) q(o s~-:: [1 ~-µc)' AR..eA.-~q '?/) ~~) < S'·l'!t>' ~r--)0 1 7W s.-R:. J - )-/otA ~~ _ __ / 3/ 3 '2.. ;_ f, _ _ffou J !' _ 2-"2-t (_!_ I _ --~0-Ar<-. ~ H~, ~~\ ; o-o r:...f._ ___ '-""-_ _fAn_o ~v{L_ -~ ._~ . ~o o __.s_ r 2-36 , -- 85" r 57Co l fl \li Qfj Lf 2---<_.c be..._..r---.... __ ~ . f. - DV3''~~ {A N'f;> (' .p_ ·t;i 'C' ~c./4:'.::.-v-JA-lL.t :2-'20 5~, ~30 sQ.. 2~ 0 _!; ___ -S-1 ~ (J-t., ?/12 Sg ,_ 30 .s.P~ -A ®~~ , (y I 7-0 ;___ - f 0 s ~~ Po . j_ ___ __ ~----------41:...j.........L.7-=6_,_1_.s:~. r_._. -1 -------------------------------1 .... + -----~~~---