The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#667 Project PacketLAND USE PLANNING EXHIBIT 1 ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION � � r�Rnr-r, a f l V L_`�� , CITY OF ORONO V P.O. Box 66, Crystal Ray, Minnesota 55323 473-73 _ INSTRUCTIONS: Please first read the attached lnfnrn+ation Sheet. Complete Items i A. 3 (Type or Print). If needed, attach letter or other informatintn to be [17T{ V O F describe your request. Incomplete applications will not be accepted, � f 1. PROPERTY ADDRESS 3229-a Casco Circle arnnr Legal deecripticm shall be shown on attached Survey, Exhibit 3 2. APPLICANT Name Kent Swanson------- P1,nne Mailing Addrers If Applicant is not owner, explain 3. OWNER Naue Phnne Meiling Address ------_----- --_—_ __--- Date Property Acquired l.wy=�r•fuLt� �`';�, (Month/Year) I (do) (do not) also own other adjacent parcels of land 4e AGENT aoe Mark NPccet _— PhOtie 474--_124Il_____ Ft,. Mark Nesset/Architects and PIannprs Meiling Addreu 5205 Greenwood Circle. Excel — _ 5. NOTICES Should be sent to 7. X Applicn.t -X— owner X Agent ---J,ST OF EXHIBITS Description Initial Application oust inc ode: 1 _ Application Fors 22 -k-1 Property Owners Lis, /) ' Certificate of Surv, Fee Receipt ��e+ !late Received By Ste ff I�oration 4 _� Plat Kap 5V/ Inventory 6 Vstaff Comments Ocher info—tton 7 L B ✓ 9 -- — 10 11 PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT PRESENT USE Residential X (other) _. _� 6.' A Vacant Land Vacant Building(s) (kcupied Building(@) DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 80,000.00 _ establish new we _X continue or expand extatIng tier _ bu.ld new 4 add on X- resodel _ replace Describe request in detail: The Owner request a variance in the _setback and hardcover requirements as indicated on the accompanying drawinqs. 5. NOTICES Should be sent to: _ X Appllcn t 6. PRESENT ZONING USE DISTRICT 7. PRESENT USE Residential X (other) Vacant Land Vacant Building(s) _X_ owner X Agent v 11 occupied euilding(O _X 8. DESCRIBE REQUEST ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 80,000.00 establish new use _X continue or expand existing use _ bu.ld new _X add on y remodel _ replace Describe request in detail: The Owner requests a variance in the sethack and hardcover requirements as indicated on the accompanying drawings. 9. VARIANCE(S) REQUIRED to do the requested Work __ lot Are. lot Width X "•-.dcover _ X Setback (_)L Front __ Side _ — Rear) Other _ _ — 10. Describe UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS preventing compliance with Zoning code requirements Because the lot is pie shaped towards the lake and is Part fa nnint of land, '.he setbacks take in most of the land area. The existing house was built under the 50' lake setback. 11. Describe UNDUE HARDSHIP or PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY fesulting from strut enforcea.ent of toning regulations The setbacks reduce the buildable land on the property making a reasonable addition to a comparatively small house unfeasible 12. Describe EFFECT OF PROPOSED WORK on neighboring properties and on the neighborhood In general - The addition would increase the aesthetic and economic value of the existing — hnu..eand neighborhood. Sight lines to the lake would not be affected, The APPLICANT and the PROPERTY OWNER must sign and date this application. The A MICANT hereby agrees to provide all Information The (WHER hereby ecknwledges and agrees to this applicatt, required or requested by the Lming Administrator, agrees and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property to pay all fees and/or unusual expenses fncurred in review by City staff, consultants, agents, commission arebers, of this application, and certifies that the information and C.,uncll am 'ere for pinpomes of investigation and supplied is true and correct to the beat of his knowledge verification of this request: 1 [LK�l - J c?�� dam. '�—� D' Ap li ant's Sigriatu-:e Date ( an 's Signature Date / T'T'T 1 f TT(N 1)'1 I11 TNF T"! (1 O) DAYS T;FT npr. PIANNTNC, C0M1.1TSSTnN MEETING PROPER-TY c YNERS LIST — � iC04/0 OEPARTMtNT OF FINANCE- 1 CERTIFY INAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ON THIS 'A-603 GOVERNMENT CENTER CERTIFICATE ARE AN ACCURATE AMC) TRUE REPRE- SENTATION r NFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55487 DATE ON TII1 , ECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY FINANCE. DIVISION, TO THE SEST OF MY KNOMLEOGE AND or I. IF HENNEPIN CO FINANC DIVISION 1 LIST SIZE / �-/ DATE SY--y FEE OWNER TAX PAYER/ PROPERTY ADDRESS ID MAILING ADDRESS K.ALLItIZ tostq� -_ - -r-//,Vti�ib�'- 276CASCD �f' tA. -uj//; c/sc=a4'_ :Mti,S ;.;�r _ -S R/nE — 0� Af cd i i' // %iI — Ivwr ll-SSxgivi. - 05 S� i /!Ei✓ � i/l7i'lN1ii �z:'r eras cn c_.�c� ��ti �. _1 S , i CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT S LAND USE PLANNING ZONING VARIANCE INVENTORY • VARIANCES REQUIRED Zoning Use District — I P DENSITY M1N)MUM M[1UIkED A�CT�UAL_/_/ VAR)ANCZ-- COD[ SECTION Lot Ar.. Lot Width /`_ � Y�SG�-_-- `'_•-�--Z�/-- — x C00[_SF.CT109 SETBACKS r..1Nlnu!! Ar.QUTAIID CXIST)NG _ -PROPOSLa VARIANCE_-_ _- _ Street ('rant) --- ----- - - - --- - ---------- -- - --- -- -- fide - --- - -- ---------- - ---- -- --- --- Sear -- --- -- -- - - - --� -- - 1169. to fldq. ---- --- — - — - - — -- 75 rt. -� — -- - -- -- Wt].nd. 26 Ft. - _ ---- - — --� ------ P E7tISTING PROPOSED TOTAL 1.OT AREA HAADCOVLR HAADCOVE]t HAX,DCOVEA HARDCOVER 1.�, ..f. ----- �- � •,f_,—_-Or L� a.f. .S� X VAX IANCL r t'---� Coor SEC ICM 31.831 Mt1d O - 26 rt. 0% - --- Lake O - 7S rt. o% 177 oaD _�S�/6 D•—s -! ` -- 36. 202 ]Z Lek. 75 - 250 rt. 25s- 34.202 34.202 Lake 2SO - 500 rt. )OIL -- _-- -- -- — — 34.202 Lake 300 - 1000 rt. 35% - -- OTHER SECTIONS Rr. OIAID---_ m1ST ERG IRO►asm _— VARIANCE _ c'ooc sm-rip" mallding Deight (man.) ---- _ ----- --- farklrf Mn.) -- -- - Imo. ►TI �: DIV LSION: plat V/ Pas unplatted 0 lo-ts`parcels per application AVAILABILITY: adjacent lots/parcels ( • ) T vaunt t/ occupied sari.. c.vnership separate 0.,nersh'.P January 1 19/5 (•.:Warship ✓ •ingle swr HY ate cor.bined wlth other parcels not in this application TO►OGRAPincludes sh lakeore wetlands high ground _ level ground rolling hills steep slope* _ open area waded areas GEOGRAPHY affecting applic tionr unusual lot shape __ unusual building location lot size/shaper consistent inconsistent with neighborhood development ACCZSSr new existing cIS,y county/state V private VTILITILS: City sewer 0 available connected; City voter available V/ connected septic system i new proposed _ existing conforming _ existing substandard ____ existim non -conforming LAND USE Subject lot 1• vacant __A_ occupied QISTING LAND USE 7red to zoning use district:conforming use conditi-nal use non-confomi nq use PROPOSAL affectsprincipal accessory building or use STRUCTURES I EXISTL*G BUILDINGS _ do __ Z do not coo ly with zoning performance standards Deficiencies: PROPOSAL TYPE: entirely NEW building or use -Jpoview as 1CM building or use (cost exceeds SCM r►tv) :•view as EXPANSION of existing (cost less than SOX rW) Dristing building rAIR HARKL? VALUL (yr) __ _ PROPOSAL will will not reduce an existing substandard yard dimension TAXES & ASSESSMENTS PROPERTY ID. late/►arceI owned in coesson ar• DELIare not legally combined for tax purposes. TA1LLSr are PAID current are N'QUINT Lo year _ Assessments Levied: __ Sewer (no) �_ units water (no) units CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT 6 Page 1 LAND USE PIANNING STAFF COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS PREPAkho FOR: P1.—IIT, q a,-:mimui"n M-etiny (t).,t..) _-- Ci.uncl I !4-et rng (Lat e) BY: (Staff) ____ —.. .6,_ (Staff) _- APPLICATION REVIEWED BY: __ City Al^inintintcr - __ City Attornry City F.nyinerr Village Planner ZZuninq Administrator _— Planning Cortr.ission ____ Park Commission SPECIAL COMMENTS Public works Coordinator Public Safety Director __ Finance Director ___ Building Inspector __ _ Septic Inspector (dates) (dates) Hennepin Cty. DOT Minn. State DOT —_ Minn. DHR MCr. D -- LMCD - - 1-41 '`-'"u----..fit r-►•A.c _ A. A r.-aso1-- `? STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPROVE application as eubmitted APPROVE application sub]ect W following conditions TABLE application for additional information DENY application for reason■ noted above CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT 6 Page 2 IAND USE PANNING STAFF CU-i'MENTS & RECOMENDATInNS SUGGESTED FINDINGS The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to mutt, property or immediately surrounding property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located: OP 71ie conditions applying to the structure or land In question are not 1— ruliar to such property of immediately surrounding property but do apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 2. The granting of the application is _ is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of thr applicant. 1. ___ The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair t1-r public health, safety, comfort. morals or general welfare; OR The granting of the proposed var7ance may impair the prhlic health. safety, tomfort, rc,rals or general welfare. 4. The granting of the proposed variance will not be ccntrary to the intent of the comprehensive land Use Plan or the Zoning Code; OR The granting of the proposed variance would be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive land Use Plan or the Zoning code. S. __ The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a r•unvenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrated Rardships ur difficulties: OR The applicant has demonstrated no recognized hardship or difficulty and therefore the granting of such variance would merely serve as a convenience to such applicant. 6. ✓ _- -- 17. -- n�.Xtdlod, _.,.,,.L- -fir AAA /%�- s„s /7,- kae-� -y .� MA-1 A ' SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Aft 3. 1. S. 6. EX!41BIT .._. Nov ILA) \98 l zo u+X\aPA m MAA Coact-gK :X- t1AvE 2 F V%.4WtD ENE (�QC-tk %T t cT `1 -MN W\A.► 6 TI H Mt- MINRK N E tS E N OV oR itt E: p o n on TO TEE SWANSoK HOHE P►-r 3 2 2 Ci C t 2 C- E 1 OV-o Ro . lJV H p+vE h 0 04 J f cT t om TO NE VLFNtIL1 PN pP-oao%FZ, �1TY OF ORONO 3 Z2°t c Cf%c o C t R f-. L-1 e jJ j �Al Air, LIU C-Le-d-2. aAj CAI�cJJ TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator FROM: Alan P. Olson, City Planner DATE: December 8, 1981 SUBJECT: Architectural Design Parameters You have again raised the question about the accep`ability of using design arguments as the basis for granting of zoning variances: ie: does the existing design of a hou!;e impose a demonstrable hardship limiting expansion options; or is a parti,--ular plan for a new house or for an addition the only acceptable way to accomplish a goal. Let me answer you from my perspective as a registered Arcr:ite7t who has struggled with designs in the past. Design is a subjective thing. Almost any problem has an eno.-:rous number of possible solutions. The task of a designer or an Architect is to satisfy his client's needs and desires within his means. Almost without exception, the final product is a result of compromise by both the designer and the client. T'.is is because each problem has so many variable constraints, including: 1) Design program (what spaces are desired, how are they to be used, what size should they be). 2) Budget (almost always conflicts with W . 3) Physical limitations (lot size, existing structure size and location, etc). 4) Legal limitations (zoning requirements, building code requirements, private contractural relationships). 5) Design limitations (types of maLerials�structural characteristics, availability, etc.) 6) Design ability (the skill of the designer). 7) Time constraints including delaying factors. Note that all of these limitations must be dealt with on every project. The nature of the beast is that the limitation that is most fixed will prevail. The others will be manipulated. The intelligent Architect starts by gathering all of his facts ,ncluding -zoning req irements before he even lets himself toy with possible solutions. fie will usually design to meet the zoning requirement, because to ignore them means delay, and in most cases a disappointed, mad or disillusioned client. Sometimes a decision is consciously made to try and obtain a zoning variance, or to try and slip sometime past. This is because the zoning limitation is seen as less important, or easier to manipulate, than some other limitation. Architectural Design Page 2 -•December 8, 1981 Sometimes, regrettably, a variance is sought because the designer failed to learn the requirements, or failed to get sufficient survey or other information before he hardlined an idea. He sold his client and now its easier to change the City's mind than the client's. (The City doesn't pay his fee) Being an egotist, the designer doesn't want to admit he made an error, forgot to check the zoning, or isn't skilled enough to work within zoning limits. What the City staff .:nd City officials must understand is that building design is not magical, and its certainly not limited "to only this one way". There are always other solutions. Some may mean a different aesthetic, some less space or different use of space, some more time for the designer to be creative. I'm not saying that there are no demonstrable hardships in the world. Certainly some situations do require zoning flexibility, just like flexibility in budget or building size or anything else. what I am saying is that the City mast evaluate the claimed hardships from our point of view, not because the designer or owner says a particular house size or design aesthetic is the only possible solution; its not. �w tir TO: Kent Swanson FROM: Jeanne Mabusth DATE: December 8, 1981 SUBJECT: Kent Swanson - Variance Planning Commission voted to approve the lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance application of Kent Swanson as follows: Lakeshore setback required 75' proposed 72' variance 3' or 4% 0-75' hardcover variance allowed = 0 existing = 521.5 sf proposed = 499 sf 75' - 250' hardcover variance allowed = 3250 sf 25% allowed hardcover existing = 6646 sf proposed = 7112 sf - 54.7% total hardcover variance = 3862 sf or 29.7% based on the following hardships: 1 - Shape of lot - pie shape 2 - The lakeshore setback requirements has placed severe restrictions on the building envelope - over -� of the lot area is unbuildable (total area = 30,000 sf, unbuildable lakeshore setback area = 17,000 sf) 3 - House located on the site prior to lakeshore setback requirement. 4 - Only feasible location for the addition i5 the "front lakeside" of the house. such approval is based on the following findings: 1 - No additional land available. 2 - Neighbors have all approved the proposed improvements. 3 - 3,500 sf of existing hardcover is the shared driveway for abutting properties. Control No. 667 IT of ORO 11( (Mica Boa 66aCrystal Bay. Minnesota 55323eMunicipal Offices Telephone 473.7:1.57 Kent Swanson 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 cc: Mark Nesset NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Date of Meeting 12-7-81 Votes: 6 For Against Planning Commission recommends the following: X Variance Conditional Use Perms _ Subdivision, Prelimin, Date of Notice 12-8-81 Approval: As submitted X Approval: Subject to conditions noted Approval: Additional information required before Council meeting Denial: For reasons noted Tabled: Pending receipt of additional information from applicant Tabled: Pending review by others, or further Planning Commission study No action required NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS See attached memo for complete Planning Commission recommendation. Please be adv.,; that this is mPrAly a recommendation to Council. ® Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission Council January 11, 1982 Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the _ meeting is ; or for the meeting. In all cases, the application must be continued with the submittal of requested information within or .he City will consider the application as formally withdrawn. If the applicant has trouble ohtainin3 additional information, please contact the Zoning Administratc,r. If you desire certified copir,•: of the official ?lanniny Cor•-m.is ,ion Minutes they are available frorn ti.•.- B'ui lliril and Zoning Se:retary upor► ind appro•.:rl h} the Plarl..m . C tnri. To Whom It Aia;r Concern, s Xl11VT Re, Kent and Susan Sw.nson, residing at 3229-B Casco Circle, have planned an aidition to our home, conforming as much as possible to local build.irg renuirements, and now seek Village permission to got our project underway. To put the project in some historical nerspective, our home was built in 1972 on land owned by J."/. Smith and then R.W. Smith, Susan's gr ndfather and f•-ther, makinir us tYe third and fourth generations to live on Casco Point. Since that time our family has Frown to 1, "shrinkinr" our arproximately 3.0O0 ^.,uare foot living snaoe and necessitating the addition of a family room and enlargement of tr9 rresert dining room. When the house was built in 1972 it conformed to the then set- back req,iirement of 50' from the lake. That set -back now being 751 eliminated the enlargement of th- hiving room from oonsideration. The desired old-fashioned wrap -around scroen porch for the southeast corner of the house was eliminated. The a.driition would, have to be on the East. As we i-ot into tho design phase with our architect, Nark ?:essett, we attempted to stay entirely behind the 75' set -back Ind still ?a.in the desired snaos a.lonpivitr access to the new room through existing doorways. The corners of the room were "cut off" ::,s they would have intruded into the set --back. ',there slight intri:sion does occour, it is over existing hardcover (a brick ?Atio,) at the point where the new room moots the exiating '!-)une n.ni ire vital to the arohitecture: it conforms rrecisely to the nlnoenent of doors both upstairs and down, which will onen into the added space. And it will allow a larger dining room table to he i.ieed in the dir.ins* room. The net -back must be violated At thin point ben^use the old ntr:.:cture is already into it where the needed eonRtruotion must start. TUT the nlr:n calls for the wall to angle iuickly into that "safet;r" .f tl,e : et -brick. To our architactes credit, V,ie set back lire w-t:; a ,,a jor fzctor in the dear of the addition. To be !>recise, tho- bull Ung insrfvntor was consulted before the desir*n work aotually bar -an. As lifelonj! residents of Late Minnetonka, we annlaud Orono'n ntt-ints to rroter•,t the lake. Te have Hurpnrted the T-'renhwater -ee 2 Biolor'ioi;l Itsuti tute from its inception .1.nd the efforts of the LMCD. For reasons of freshw^ter, the rra.fsn is a bit FTeener on our neir-hbui -I side of the fence because we feel the use of liquid chemioal fertilizers is encournrinp to the •-rowth of al:-ae. We would not ask for a variance of the set—baok prov4psions if we did not think this incursion minor, -nd of no possible detrimert to the lake. We feel that this -Adition can only enhance ti-e beauty, function and value of our ',ome. It does not intrude on our nei-hbors' siMit— lines ao it will face out over the point. Indeed, our neiirhbors Join in enoour.--ink? us in our efforts and have written letter.: of :-upport. The Nultp�rens, next door, feel that arty imporvemer.t of our property ultimately incre�.ses the value of' their own home. Me hope the Vill ^pie of Orono f,!elr V Ott wry, too. Sincerely. Z r' (S- ,T;wauW041 ?r. •',. ent E. Swanson, and r•,.-Aly TO: Walter R. Benson FROM: Jeanne A. Mabusth DATE: January 7, 1982 SUBJECT: #667 Kent Swanson, j229-B Casco Circle - Variance Zoning District - LR-lC Area - Total 30,000 square feet (17,000 sauare feet of total area excluded from buildinq envelope by 0-75' lakeshore setback area.) Application - Variances - Hardcover 34.202 Lakeshore setback 34.201 a) Lakeshore Setback Required - 75' Setback at location of addition - 76.5' Closest existing lakeshore setback - 57' Variance - 2.5' or 3% b) 0-75' Hardcover Variance (Area 17,000 s(-iare feet) Allowed = 0 Existing = 460 square feet Proposed = 442 square feet or 2.6% (reduction results from removal of remaininq brick patio area in restricted area) Breakdown of existing hardcover 1- spaced wooden deck on 158 sauare feet second story 2- portion of house 268 sauare feet 3- portion of brick patio 34 sauare feet 460 sauare feet c) 75' - 250' Hardcover Variance (Area 13,000 square feet) Allowed = 3251 square feet or 25% Existing = 6,646 square feet or 51% - 26% variance Proposed = 7065 square feet or 54`0 - 29% variance (increase includes proposed patio area of 400 square feet (see plan) and 19 sauare feet of addition that extends beyond brick patio area) #667 Kent Swanson, 3229-B Casco Circle - Variance page 2 Breakdown of existing hardcover 1- walks + patio 1200 square feet 2- house 1946 square feet 3- driveway (portion of 3500 square f`et driveway shared use 6 446 square feet with abutting houses) List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Applicatic , Property caners list Swansor j letter 1-5-82 Plat --q, Survey presented at meeting 12-7-81 Interior - building Hultgren letter Paropsky letter Revised survey Planning Commission plans The Swanson's propose a 2 story lakeside addition of ap- proximately 448 square feet of hardcover that as presently proposed requires a variance for a 2.5 feet encroachment into the lakeshore setback area and hardcover variances. The applicants originally proposed closinq in a spaced wooden deck and extending a deck alonq the lakeshore of the house but staff advised against this once the 75' setback line was determined. The enclosing of the existing deck would encourage an increase or expansion of a structure within the 75' setback area and the additional 3' decking along the front of house would permit new construction within the protected area. Since the Planning Commission acted on the variance application at their 12-7-81 meeting, the Swansons have submitted a second or revised survey. A review of exhibits 5 and 9 will show that the changes were minimal and did not warrant a second review of the Planning Commission. The above findings were based on the revised survey received this office January 5, 1982. The encroachment by the addition into the lakeshore setback area has been reduced from 3 feet to a 2.5 feet. In addition, 1/3 of the addition originally located within the 0-75' setback area is now relocated within the 75-250' setback area. Major portions of the addition will be placed over alreadv existing hard- cover. The Swanson's letter to the Council (exhibit 3) revie•4s the background of their request. The house was indeed #667 Kent Swanson, 3229-B Casco Circle - Variance page 3 placed on the lot prior to the 75' setback requirement. The existing structure does meet the 50' lakeshore setback line requirement of the previous ordinance. The interior layout of the house does require that the addition be placed to the lakeside. The applicant, applicant's architect and the Planning Commission were all made aware of the need to maintain the 75 lakeshore setback line. Staff has advised that this is a design problem to be solved by the architect. The applicant's architect, Mark Nesset contends that it is impossible to meet the setback standard and also satisfy his client's needs. The Planner will respond to this concern. Please review the Planning Commission meeting of December 7, 1981, for background discusion and their anproving recomm-ndation. I could recommend that the original Planning Commission recommendation be amended zs follows: To approve the hardcover variance application of Kent Swanson and to deny the 2.5' setback encroachment into the lakeshore setback area finding that there was insufficient hardshin d?monstrated by the applicant, such approval will permit the construction of an addition of approximately 448 square feet and a patio area of approximately 400 square feet based on the following findings and hardships: a) hardships 1- shape of lot - pie shape 2- the lakeshore setback requirements has placed severe restrictions on the building envelope - over � of the lot area is unbuildable (total area = 30,000 square feet, unbuildable lakeshore setback area = 17,000 square feet) 3- house located on site prior to lakeshore setback requirement 4- only feasible location for the addition is to the "front lakeside" of the house b) findings 1- no additional land available 2- neighbors have all approved the proposed improvements 3- 3,500 square feet of existinq hardcover is the shared driveway for abutting properties and subject to the following conditions 1- All new construction (patio + addition) must not encroach the 7-1' lakeshore setback line. 2- Brick raatio area within the 0-75' setback area is #667 Kent Swanson, 3229-B Casco Circle - Variance page 4 to be removed prior to footing inspection for new addition. 3- Applicant is to review all plans for patio area with the City staff prior to any construction. TO: Jeanne A. Mabusth Walter R. Benson FROM: Alan P. Olson DATE: January 8, 1982 SUBJECT: #667 Kent Swanson, 3219-B Casco Circle - Variance After this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1981, you asked for my comments on the use of "design limitations" as a reason for requesting or approving zoning variances. The attached memo responded in general terms. To summarize my opinion, the design process should be used to solve problems including conformance with zoning requirements; a particular design solution shculd dotbe used as an excuse for "requiring" a zoning variances. Design problems are not legally defined hardships such as natural topographical limitations. In this particular application, the Swansons and their architect have stated that they tried to meet the 75' setback requirement but that a small compromise encroachment is still required because this is the only design that allows them to expand the house in the manner they desire. I have several comments: 1) When the house was built in 1972 it was clearly designed to meet the then -current 50' setback requirement. There is room on the lot to build additions which meet the current (since 1974) 75' setback. After all, the 472 sf addition only encroaches 2-3' (about 25 sf). 2) Hardcover encroachments can be mitigated by plantings, redirection of drainage patterns, etc. Setback encroachments are absolute; there are no mitigating factors, even if encroachment is slight. 3) This design was aF)arently determined without full knowledge of zoning facts and requirements. The architect came to the zoning administrator with these same plans requesting a zoning review. Ile then discovered hardcover and avera-e setback requirements. The zoning adminstrator asked for a survey and on]y then did the actual 75' setback line become known. This knowledge resulted in abandonment of encroaching screenporch and walkway plans, but not change in the fa•'ly room design. Final construction plans have not been prepared awaiting Council acceptance or rejection of the setback variance, so I would consider the design still in a schematic or flexible stage. #667 Kent Swanson Page 2 January 8, 1982 4) The original survey dated November 25, 1981, as used for the Planning Commission review indicated the 75' setback line well into the faimly room. Despite Planning Commission approval, staff again advised the applicant's architect that Council would likely deny any encroachment into the 75' setback. We were later advised that a new survey was underway. On January 5, 1982, we receivod a "revised" survey dated January 4, 1982. The only apparent change was a shift in the shoreline location affecting the family room setback. The 75' setback line magically moved as much as 2' lakeward showing less encroachment with the same building design and location. I'm not saying the new survey isn't correct, but I am curious as to how there could be such a discrepancy, and I wonder why the changes occurred in only this one area. 5) The floor plan as shown "works" nicely and I do know that extending the existing roofline is easier than shifting things around. I can appreciate why the architect and owner favor this solution to their design problem. But does their convenience consistute a hardship sufficient to justify a lakeshore setback variance? My final comment is this: The encroachment is quite slight. If the addition were moved back 2' or so to meet the setback, there would likely be no different visual effect and no measurable difference in storm water filtration. On the other hand, redesign would require more time to develop and more skill or ingenuity to resolve rooflines or symetry. The adverse effects of approving the requested setback variance are physically slight, but they are of major significance in terms of precedent. This is because, in my opinion, I do not see a really valid hardship. The only possible justification that I can see would be the claim that relocation would make it impossible to integrat` use of the new spaces with areas in the �xisting house. Ye: this argument is weak for the same reason that encroachment is slight: namely; meeting the setback requires only a small shift in location. And the shear size of the addition, coupled with concurrent remodelling of the kitchen and other existing spaces, makes me certain that other design options could be developed. Based on the sequence of events and the facts of the situation, I feel that the City is being asked to approve this variance because other conforming design options have not been explored. CITY of ORONO Control No. 667 I Post Office Has 66•CrystaI Hay, Minnesota 5)3236 Municipal Offices Telephone 473-7357 TO: Kent Swanson 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Copies to: Mark Nesset Meeting Date 1-11-82 Notice Date 1-12-82 X Variance Conditional Subdivision, Subdivision, Use Permit Prel iwinary Final COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 4 For 1 Against Abstention MOTION to conceptually approve your varian,-: application as follows: 1) a hardcover variance permitting a hardcover increase of 436 sf within the 75' - 250' setback area; 2) 2.5' encroachment by 472sf addition into lakeshore setback area; 3) 17' encroachment for 3' walking into lakeshore setback area; 4) to permit the roofing and screening of 9-8' x 16-1' dprk staff to draft a resolution setting forth the conditions of this approval for presentation and action at their January 23, 1982, meeting. DEADLINE DATE for submittal of new information (application may be considered formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided). for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be application completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawings, resolution and all other required documents recorded, with certification of such recording returned to the City by deadline date. Certified copies of official City Council Minutes contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three may be obtained by weeks from meeting date. CITY of ORONO Control No. 667 Office liox 6fi•Crvstal 11av, hlinnrsauk 553�-Ii•Nlunicipnl Offices Telephone 473-7357 TO: Kent Swanson 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Copies to: Meeting Date Notice Date X 1-25-82 1-27-82 Variance Conditional Subdivision, Subdivision, Use Permit Preliminary Final �:�:;��.�:��°-� k*�� Y�iY�k:::Y -k�s'; ;; :; ;:-� k�:'•�-k � :::':-:; :; ;';-k-�--� k�k k�-•:; �Y-k�k�� *�k�HF�ks'c�X�r�k�t�k�Y�*ok�ktk COUNCIL ACTION Vote: 4 For 1 Against Abstention MOTION to approve your variance application subject to the findings and conditions setforth in the enclosed resolution 01357. �J..Lti.�..►..A.rS.i..l..l..l �1.3�it.V �7k..1'�:-��"►.l�t'�"*7lf'�' i�'*'1C'>AC7k'* ** i�.'k7k� *�"� �C'h��''�"�''iC*�^�':�'* i��'�C � •n'� 7�'.�'7�C7k**�"�'�'*'I�s��c �c� X DEADLINE DATE January 25, 1983 for submittal of new information (application may be considered formally withdrawn if information or explanation is not provided). X for Work Permit for work to begin for work to be application completed WORK PERMITS ARE REQUIRED - contact Building Inspector before beginning work. VARIANCE APPROVAL is limited to the extent shown on approved plans. Do not change plans. Variance authority expires one year after approval. CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL expires upon change of ownership or use, or on deadline date specified above. PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must provide all information and/or improvements required for final approval. Contact Zoning Administrator. FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Applicant must have drawirgs, resolution 11 h i d documents recorded with certification of such and a requ re recording returned to the City by deadline date_. _ Certified copies of official City Council Minutes may be obtained �y contacting the City Clerk. Allow at least three weeks from meeting date. C City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ;. NO. ----- — -- A RESOLUTION APPROVIN,� A VARI"NCE APPLICATION FOR KEN T SWANSON FOR I,AKESHORE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARTANCES FOR a PROPERTY T,OCATED AT 3229-3 CASCO CIRCLE WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State StatuLcs 4,'z et. seq. and 462 et. seq. the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 34.201 and 34.202 of the Orono Zoning Code, Kent Swanson has applied for variances to the setback and hardcover standards for lakeshore properties to permit an additijo to his existing residence on a property legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1333, hereinafter referred to as the property; and I WHEREAS, upon review of the findings of the Planning Commission and City staff, written comments of the neighbors, written and oral c--.nents of the applicant and the applicant's architect, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact: 1) Tract B consists of approximately 30,000 sf and is located within the LR-IC zoning district, a district that requires a ninim-= of 21,780 sf ner residential lot. 2) Tract B satisfies all lot standards of the LR-1C zoning district. 3) The existing house was placed on -fie property prior to the 75' lakeshore setback requirement; the existing house meets all the original 50' lakeshore setback standards. 4) The pie shaped lot has placed severe restrictions can the building envelope - the lakeshore setback area consists of 1.7,000 sf (total lot area is 30,001) sf) over one half of the lot area is unbuildahle. 5) The location of thes house: on the property and the interior-3esir-M of the house dr. termines the only fr:asihle location for the addition is to the "`rr nt ,: rh 4, -usc City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL t NO. _ 6) 3,500 sf of the 7,167.5 sf of existing hardcover on the •arooerty is the sharcd driveway for abutting properties. 7) The neighbors on the abutting properties have written to the City affirminc their approval of the proposed improvements by the applicant finding there would be no detrimental effects to their property. 8) Council approved the following improvements on the property: a) A 472 sf lakeside addition requiring a structural setback encroachment into lakeshore setback area of 2.5' finding the integrity of the interior design would be maintained and a decrease in the impact on the 0-75' protected area by removing 23 sf of hardcover with the removal of the brick patio. b) The roofing and screen siding of the existing 9.8' x 16.1' deck finding no further structur l encroachment into the lakeshore setback area and no additional hardcover because of the existing patio area under the subject deck. c) A 3' x 20' second story wal::way along the lakeside of the house finding the lakeshore setback encroachment to be only .5' because of the existing 2.5' rverhana and no increase in the hardcover because of the existing 3' walkway under the proposed walkway. d) A 400 sf patio area within the 75' - 250' setback area finding this would replace the patio area within the 0-75' setback area in addition to the applicant being advised to employ environmental selection in the design of the ratio. 9) The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately surrounding property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10) Thom granting of the applicat on is necessary for the preservation and enjo•,•ment of a substantial property riqht of the appli,-.ant. 1 l ) The (grantinrl o` ,c,? irianco ::i l l riot in any way imi.alr C,):.. ort, mor,ils Ot ;encral 13 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 's NO. _ 12) The granting of tho propcsod var ian,:c will not be contrary to the i at o:zt or ::le Comprehons ive Land Use Plan or the C.,;:e. 13) The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrated hardships ar difficulties. NOW, T1iEREFORE, 3E IT RESOLVED t-at the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves t;ie lakeshore setback and hardcover variance application of Kent Swanson to permit the construction of a lakeside addition and the additional '_mprovements roiled above based on one or more of the foregoing findings anti subject to the fol'_o:•rinr, conditions: 1) The non conforming 9.3' x 16.1' deck located within the 0-75' setback area may never be enclosed as part of the principal structure but _a to remain as approved by Council in this resolution a screened deck with roof. 2) The building permit written to co:•er all proposed improvements :lust include the renoval of the 6' x 9' roofed deck and the reio-ai of the bricked patio area within. the 0-75' setback area. 3) This variance application ::ill expire on January 25, 1983, if a building rjermit fjr : e propose-5 improve- r.9ents on the property has not been issued. Adopted by the Cit-.Co ."I c i l of e C i tv o= Orono, ';innesota at a regular meeting held------i _-0 1982. t;illTam F;. ': zn Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Alberta M. SUO;r., orillflad --suwey TWO STORY WOOD FRAMFO HOUSE & GARAGE Ifla ky • R4 v rn - �— SF -rBALK ww�rs , LXMII.1G LIVING i of �1�,��- � � °� �"'-� fie-' �►,� Pi 7jQ le- o '7S z-- r 4ft"-4 0 - 7s '?.s boa ,•f �' '„ � 4AOIP.�� ewe- I�