Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Packet# I_ CITY OF ORONO, NUNNE90TA .',„���(ional Use and Variance Application LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (or property) Address Legal Description a .— APPLICANT �7 Name �jQ,E/CE/�✓ f, 1�.'c ,r/'.'i _ Phone M.., .. yId S-. Address 1d"27—.Sis©.2EU.ri�. s�2. .���2/.✓c>�.C'. OVNER Name 5,f/r,F Phone s Address Present Zoning XXFS,4FAf7i-sZ- Present Use {/~C<! S F /<-e-0 Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request Specify Ordinance Requirements /nn ' IT4� /O • je Iw TYPE OF REQUEST Conditional Use I X Variance Wetlands Variance Riprap FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Council Action /o _' o '• �ii� �= fi tiT/ria.✓cE 2a7ao tF < � I¢ /cn, OK Explain Request Relative to Requirements T1EU7VES�i•✓[T (o = o.✓ Sou�i/w/iss� SLOE �nT SE7 LTiic,� � �Ein/ in.wJ Y Bi�i .4s � Extent of Non -conformity f14 VAK4 4 ' = 40, /of a c/W 4 c ' = 409, Hardships to Property (Your reasons for requesting this Variance or Conditional Use Permit) �oE4�r/.>•>E !Ji /�iE- s<F %IEl%L///1F5 lf/e� 4� o" AO/�i >i�.V:ac. ��9�.E W/Yy P MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE APPLICATION (Mat be submitted 1 week prior to Council Meeting) 1. Application completed 4. Certified Property Owner's List of 2. Plat Map Section owners within (300 ft.) (150 ft.) - 3. Survey (Sketch in proposal) from Hennepin Canty Registrar of Deeds S. $30.00 Fee J Date Signatu- ,f'✓ irrs..9e.e.✓ F>°.e a<�.4O.ereM3e.nO XNO13NH1W d tti ' ^,� ' , * fTNE,�'; ,.. .. � . Ranol � __ ,: � l N�iLL . � fly♦, .r:. �' � q�ki --¢"��� s' '/ it :' 1 �� •. ♦ Imo• -" . �'�� �C I _ _ .-r.``/\ Y M� �t+ ) \� �:u • i `�Yiy dM.IN11.Y N• IM•/ �� M f •�+ Ill .- • ♦ �' `r ; ��\ kA r'.J.cn.ti�'•:r.�J���STlwfb �• Ti t _ _ �_ tioy K A 1 l ' c�rq e ' top v 6t roll s va 0 �Q �• �w Zyi�J rr ).Kn.} A~il�yl I's & N94 T� ryt 1 g-Le.e to�L6 kW,.. i` fvo 1 1 Qi 20.a Plntof Foirvwy for wawrun A. Orten3.1ad !innn:•P1^ !'aunty, Ylnnoanta t� vu eras tww.r � ' r nS It Sr' ea�i-i �r t 1 N i F i r dr.ly /wr ! ep b,kP r A rnrti'1,', t.4 nr r...,.xyt 1 ^dr werti M1• t'.:.t t.t!" 3' n t.rue mu rrr wrt r:.•.r •p•,ntn: 5:. - wnrv-y tite +r,,•:::.-I'x of .nt L:"a ::psi<.. ['e.rk, inlb Snf t.hot .rt ol. varAtwd uPce :hn .. �t'fS:'••Haan tlw etttnrw Snne vrrorn IL of She en3:• s•, 1.'i, �trn th+t, ,rt. or •rv-t n" l.Rd t+t.W-r ao3d vuvVr, Ivrm:w n•+! t� - jt:o;A !9nn 'rnku trine' )Yt~v tM" Wl-t- w•"ram Ll— a•' WO - 'At t_-9, .wnrtit^f " thw nwrrnf.ad nLw' �� .) a.•.�•.:.,n .'.l .,;"tinf hvii anrr, t!..,.ww . It .3nne 1M• Tn'�.r!'. ;•.. ilwJ••.iy.,...nl � v ofcM ;CFn•n� I In o lr" M.t.nr '.gym' C, PAIn= ,.i y DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE _611GOVERNMENT CENTER NN p 1 NNEAPOI IS, MN 55487 � I7 J�0 PROPERTY OWNERS LIST NAME ADDRESS DESCRIPTION LOT BLK. PARCEL I Ii 4ob1314Np�l-- `.vF a t�Url(4c 31 � of �t �ck aFal taa�ot�Yrr nr, �n,�r �m..�Id'13'� ,, F,Ic l.Ic:_. r FIEF h .A 5C ., � _-+.�•o Fit. �I. 2F?7CG > kks�, IkI v A Au F crtn r�t l a _ -- LA i ;,&i tli NC. tt o L @l or-c vD vt, a.R(x�e�:cn aLv�� r r0 7/ O CITY OF ORONO P. O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA 55323 .ee BUILDING JOB REPORT �/yf ADDRESS_ LL—C-Z_,'a.— OWNER------ --- - -- ---- CONTR ..- --- - - - ----- DAT 7ye _ ___PERMIT NO._— DESC I N INSPECTION RECORD i 1 ",L-Vl 2GI6. fez- Af we -- __.a,It.�e �-.� ..�-�'t ys - zo ,fit ..�•�.(� r �Qs REP DATE �����-��---- INSPLCTIO➢N);�W CITY OF ORONO P. O. Box BB CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA 55323 BUILDING JOB REPORT �//J, ADDRESS��_.L__ OWNER CONTRACTOR_._ DATE_.1.0_.jY. ___PERMITNO. __— DESCRIPTION INSPECTION RECORD -fie. k ..Ye) etit - - -- - _ --- tN— REP. _ --- - --- DATE---. INSPECTION__ _ - TO: W. R. Benson, City Administrator11 FI M: A. P. Olson, Asst. Zoning Administrator DATE: October 26, 1976 SIIRIECT: Warren Ortenblad - 2799 Casco Point Road Variance - Lot Width, Side Setback, Lakeshore Setback Compared to Adjoining Dwellings Mr. Ortenblad is requesting variances for construction of a new dwelling on this lot which presently contains a vacant cottage. The proposed home is single story with a walkout basement on the lake side. The lot is 60' wide by approximately 395' dean. Lot area slightly exceeds the minimum 1/2 acre requirement. The proposal shows a 44' wide building with a 10' north side setback and a 6' south side setback (10' minimum is required). The house is staked on site and shown on the survey to be located approximately 10' closer to the lake than the south neigh- bor and 15'-20' closer to the lake than the north neighbor. Both adjacent neighbors have called the staff to voice concern over the location of the building as regards side setbacks and positioning ahead of their homes. I see no problem with the lot width setback as new construction here would eliminate the old vacant cabin; however, I question the need for any other variances on new construction. Variances: Lot 'fidth - 401, 40: Side tictback - 4', 400 34.'-01 - construction not permitted to extend closer to the lake than the adjacent buildings. PLAMINC OWSSION MEETING - November 15, 1976 Suggested applicant submdt revised plans which would meet required side yard setback with a lakeshore setback that would meet tie average setback of the dwellings located on the lots on either side of this subject property. Neighbors on either side of this property objected to variances. STAFF - November 24, 1976 No new proposal has been submitted as of today. PLAMING 0Jh IISSION AEFHNG - December 6, 1976 Commission reviewed three plans submitted by fir. Ortenblad: 1. Original Plan - proposed house closer to lake than adjoining neighbors,10' E 4' side yard setback requested. 2. Revised Plan - proposed house set back to average of two adjoining neighbors, 9' and 7' side yard setback requested. 3. Remodel existing house - 211' existing, 14' setback requested. Neighbors objected to side yard variances. Commission also felt that house could be designed to meet setback requirements as no hardship was demonstrated. Some of the Plaming Commission m-mbers felt remodeling of the existing structure might solve the problem. The Zon.ng Administrator informed the Planning Commission and applicant that in addition of more than 500 of the value of the house would constitute a new structure. Tabled until next meeting to enable applicant to decide which plan he wanted to submit. Warren Ortenblad - 2799 Casco Point Road WWI*, 41 Page 2 PLANNING COtlISSIM ME rR1r, - December 20, 1976 Adjoining property owners were present. The third and latest proposal submitted indicates proposed location meeting all setback requirements and a reduction in excavation by raising floor elevation 4'. Neighbors were agreeable to proposal. Planning Commission recommended approval of lot width variance as the lot is currently occupied by a non -conforming dwelling, no other land is available, a sewer charge has been assessed, and the proposed location meets all setback requirements. MJCIL'U'MI M, - January 1n, 1977 Approved subject to Planning Corrussion jnstificat ions and conditions. fMJ ES OF A PLANNING C'OWSSICN (MEETING HELD NONTMBER 15, 1976 - PAGE 3 Higleway Depa.tmmt will report on future roads. Mr. Muhich SIEVE WALLACK (T.M.G.) informed the Commission that in talking with the flood (Continued) plain people, they told him that the flood plain had no d188 bearing on the subdivision. Their only concern was insurance which would be increased in s flood plain area. Guthrie moved, Hermah seconded, to table this matter until all additional material is complete. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). Mr. Solie was present and submitted a letter from the ROBERT SOLIE Pollution Control Agency. Chairwoman Dunlap read this LOBS NORTH ARM DRIVE letter which, in effect, stated that they were not CONDITIONAL USE PEIAIIT opposed to the use of creosote ties and felt the ties GRADING AND FILLING would not have a significant impact on the surface runoff. (m190) Mr. Solie also ment'onned that the MOND had mentioned that these ties were non-polluting. The Planning Commission was concerned about this as it has been their understanding that creosote ties were polluting. In the past six months, many applications requesting the use of these ties have been turned dam. After a short discussion, the Planning Commission felt they needed more time to obtain additional information. Hannah moved, Guthrie seconded, to table this application in order to receive documentation from the engineer regarding the amount of creosote in the logs and the vmpact this would have on Lake Minnetonka and any other documentation that is appropriate and make a decision at that time. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Zoning Administrator stated that the applicant is DAVID BUTLER requesting a variance for the proposed addition to the 4685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE existing dwelling. The location does not appear to VARIANCE - LOT AREA 8 conflict with any neighbor's view of the lake. There LOT WIDTH is no other land available and addition would be an (0194) improvement to the property. Hannah moved, Woolley seconded, that this variance be approved given the fact of the configuration of the lot, does not interfere with neighbor's view of lake and no other land is available. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Zoning Administrator informed the Planning Commission WARREN ORTFNBI.AO that the applicant had telephoned earlier explaining that 2799 CASCO POINT ROAD Fe could not attend the meeting until 10:00. Mr. VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH, Ortenblad is requesting variances for construction of a SITE SETBACK, LAKE,%M new dwelling on this lot. Two concerned neighbors were SETBACK COMPARED TO present and the Planning Commission heard their comments ADJOINING DWELLINGS at this time. Audrey Santella, neighbor to the south, (m195) objected to the proposed location of this house which would extend closer to the lake than her home end felt obstruct would obstruct their view. City Ordinance states that houses should he in line and her feeling was that this should be followed. She was also concerned about the MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMfIISSION MEETING HELD NOMBER 15, 1976 - PACE 4 proposed side yard setback of 61. She wanted setback to be WARREN ORT7NBLAD the required 10'. Ron Gnmdeen, neighbor to the north, was (Continued) not concerned about the side yard setback. However, he did #195) object to the proposed location which would extend 1S-20' closer to the lake than his hare. After their comments were heard, Chairwoman Dunlap stated that this matter would be continued later in the meeting and that Mr. Ortenblad would be informed of these concerns. Nona Kuglin, son of the applicant, was present. The Zoning EDWIN "LIN Administrator stated that the applicant is requesting 2314 SHADYWOOD ROAD approval to add a garage to the existing non -conforming lot. VARIANCE - ADD GARAGE The cars, etc. that he is currently storing outdoors would TO NON -CONFORMING LOT now be enclosed. Per my suggestion, he has agreed to AND SIDE YARD 8 STREET maintain an 831' side yard setback, a 10' setback from his SETBACK house and a 22' setback from his property line along Olive (8196) Avenue. Proposed garage world be 22' x Z2'. If proposed location would be changed to meet side yard setback, the rear entrance to house would be obstructed. Woolley moved, Guthrie seconded, to approve variances so as not to obstruct the house entry and no other land is available. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). Ptr. Jenson was present. He is requesting approval for an CURT JENSON a'dition to their non -conforming structure which does not 2700 ETHEL AVENUE meet the front and side yard setback requirement. The VARIANCE - LOT AREA 6 Proposed addition would have no affect on the front yard SIDE YARD SETBACK POR setback; however, the same 2.8' side yard setback would be ADDITION TO NON-OOMF0%1NG maintained. Hank Mkich stated that the unimproved platted Lon alley between subject property and neighbor to the north (8197) would tend to provide the necessary distance between structures. The addition would be an improvement to the ^"operty. No other land is available for expa—'^n. Two los are combined. .. 1 m:o.ad,.r:cDonald seconded, to approve b:ucse of the nuure of the lot, no other land is available, platted alley provides necessary distance between structures, no additional encroachment as proposed addition would only be a continuation of existing house lines. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Planning Commission took action on the following Work Session items. The Zoning Administrator stated that the Mondale's are GARY F. NUNUALE requesting approval to add a 24' x 30' attached garage to 1965 COUNTRY CUM ROAD their existing dwelling. The present tuck -under garage VARIANCE - I.OP AREA 6 would be used as a recreation room. There would be no IVIDTH change in access. All setback requirements would be met. (x198) There is no way to expand lot. Guthrie moved, Hannah seconded, to recommend approval as no other lard is available and all setback requirements will be met. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 1S, 1976 - PAGE 5 Hannah moved, Guthrie seconded, to schedule a public VICTORIA GRAIN CCMTPAWY hearing for December 20, 1976, at 7:30 p.m. The Planning (BRAZIER 6 ASSOCIATES) Commission requested staff to get legal opinion from NORTH AIA1 DRIVE attorney concerning riparian rights in regard to this SUBDMSION (PRELIMINARY) application. (0200) The Planning Commission requested staff to obtain the JAMS McCLEARY dimensions of present building and total amount of useable 3445 BAYSIDE ROAD sq. ft. to be presenteu at the next meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (M201) Mr. Kaaverry was present. He will be moving his drug store RICHARD KEAVENY into the old Super Valu building. He is requesting approval 3425 SHORELINE DRIVE to use the existing sign which is 0' from the front property VARLV4CE - FRONT SETBACK line and 8' larger than permitted by one ordinance. He has SIGN LOCATION agreed to remove the 64 sq. ft. lower area and use only the (0204) 108 sq. ft. at the top which is within 8' of the 100' per- mitted sire. The Planning Commission was concerned about the stone planter in the parking lot. They felt that this stone planter should be removed. The Zoning Administrator informed the Planning Commission that the Public (Yorks Department has considered removing this planter because of obstruction to the walking traffic. Mr. Keaveny stated that he would agree to remove the planter as soon as possible. Woolley moved, flaonah seconded, to approve the area variance of 8 sq. ft. and setback variance of 10' on the basis that Mr. Keaveny remove the stone planter at his earliest convenience. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). The Planning Commission suggested that the Public Works Department continue previous investigation for removal of stone planter and possible erection of transit shelter for that same location. Applicant arrived at 10:10 p.m. The Planning Commission WARREN ORTENBLAD continued discussion of this application. Mr. Ortenblad was 2799 CASCO POINT ROAD informed of the concerns of the adjoining neighbors. Neighbors VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH, were still present at this time. A lengthy discussion followed SIDE SETBACK, L41MSHORE concerning the proposed location of the house. The Planning SETBACK COMPARED TO Commission was also concerned about granting the 4' side yard ADJOINING DWELLINGS setback variance. They felt a dwelling could be designed to (/195) fit on this lot and meet the required 10' side setback. Mr. Ortenblad would like to use his present plans to build this house and was reluctant to submit an alternative plan. woollmoved Hamuah seconded, to table this matter and suggest he submit revised plans showing the front of the house no further ahead than the average setback of the harems an either side and that the side yard setback be 10'. Motion - Ayes (5), Nays (0). MINUTES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 6, 1976 - PAGE 2 Mr. Wallack was not present. Hank Mrhich presented a colored STEVE WALLACK (T.M.G.) map to the Commission which he received from the Hennepin County 4100 SIK7H AVENUE N. Conservation District. They advised against building an the SUBDMSION (PRELIMINARY) blue area which contains soils not suitable in maintaining (1188) on -site septic systems. Additional information received regarding proposed rerouting of County roadways revealed the proposed road is planned through most of the remaining high, buildable area of this plat. The Zoning Administrator informed the Ccmission that the applicant is aware of these reports and was very upset after learning that there might be some difficulty developing this area because of the existing conditions. Applicant felt he should have the right to develop the area or sane way be reimbursed. The Zoning Administrator suggested he contact Watershed, Flood - plain or Conservation Agencies or the Hennepin County High- way Departent. The City's primary objective through control of land use is providinq protection of health, safety and welfare of the public. Hake nxwed, Pesek seconded, to table this matter. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). Mr. Solie was present. The Zoning Administrator presented ROBERT SOLIE the letter from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 1085 NORTH ARM DRIVE stating --hat they encourage the use of rock riprap for the ODNDTTIONAL USE PERMIT control of shoreline erosion. Mr. Solie again stated that GRADING AND FILLING he had received the approval of the Pollution Control Agency (#190) and the Minnehaia Creek Watershed District. After a brief discussion, Hake moved, Pesek seconded, to recommend approval for the request for a conditional use permit for grading and filling on the basis that Mr. Solie was acting an the approval of the MCWD and was not aware that he was in violation of the Orono code. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). Hake also moved, Pesek seconded, that the Village immediately notify the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, 124CD and the Watershed District concerning their procedures for approval of applications such as this. Planning Commission felt that future approvals should be based an the stipulation that Orono review applications before final approval is granted, or that any projects involving Orono be referred to us for approval. Motion - Ayes (6). Nays (0). Mr. Ortenblad and adjoining neighbors Santella and Gnandeen, WARREN CRTFNBLAD were present. The Planning Commission reviewed the three 2799 CA.SOD POINT ROAD plans that have been submitted by Mr. Ortenblad to date: VARIANCE (figs) 1. Original Plan - proposed house closer to lake than adjoining neighbors, 10' and 6' side yard setback requested. 2. Revised Plan -proposed house set back to average of 1V/ two adjoining neighbors, 9' and 7' side yard setback requested. MIINVrES OF A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FIELD DECEMBER 6, 1976 - PAGE 3 3. Remodel Existing House - 24' existing, 14' setback requested. Adjoining neighbors objected to any side yard variances. Planning Commission felt that house could be designed to meet setback requirements as no hardship was demonstrated. Some of the Planning Commission Members felt that remodel- ing of the existing structure might solve the problem. The Zoning Administrator informed the Commission and the applicant that an addition of more than SO% of the value of the house would constitute a new structure and, there- fore, must meet zoning requirements or obtain necessary variances. After a brief discussion, McDonald moved, Pesek seconded, to table this matter until the December 20th meeting to enable applicant to decide which plan he wanted to submit. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). Chairwoman Dunlap informed everyone present that she had received a phone call from Mrs. Gasch saying that she would be late for the meeting and requesting that her item be delayed until later in the evening. Two adjoining property owners, Mrs. Ward Parten and Mrs. Harry Larson, were present. Mrs. Gasch also requested that the letters she sent to the Commission be read to the neighbors present at this meeting. Chairwoman Dunlap read these letters which contained the chain of events which led to the request to build a 12' fence. One such event was the location and positioning of Mrs. Parten's hc'se. Mrs. Gasch had the understanding that when the permit was issued for the new house it was to be built on the same location as the one that was burned dawn. Mrs. Gasch feels that the house is located closer to the lake and is positioned in such a way as to overlook her property when viewing the lase. Mrs. Parten's response to this was that she felt her house was in line with the neighbors if you followed the shoreline. She also explained that her house was positioned as such to utilize the sun for heat and light. Several Planning Comnission Members did feel that the Parten house was built peculiar to the lot and did, in fact, use the neighbor's lot for view of the lake. Mrs. Parten's proposal was approved as submitted by Council on July 26, 1976. The suggestion was made that some greenery be planted to promzde the necessary privacy which Mrs. Gasch is requesting. The Commission felt this would be more appe ling than the proposed fence. Mrs. Parten stated that she would be willing to work out some arrangement with Mrs. Gasch. After all the comments were heard, Chairwoman Dunlap stated that this matter would be continued when the applicant arrived. WARREN ORTENBLAD (Continued) 019S MRS. ROBERT GASCF1 1030 TCNKA34A ROAD VAR LANCE (X199) MINUTES OF A PINNING C014MIISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 20, 1976 - PAGE 3 proposal was approved, he was requested to combine his JIM DESPLINrER four lots along Elmwood and grant an open space easement (continued) to the City over his lake access Lot M6 which adjoins the (M164) DeSplinter property. The Planning Commission recognized Mr. Weiler's concern, but felt that the owners should came to some agreement possibly through a sight easement. Mr. Tiegen was concerned about drainage. The applicant was instructed to meet with John Gerhardson, Street Supervisor, before commencing with any grading to determine the location of the culvert to maintain the natural drainage. After all the comments were heard, Pesek moved, Hannah seconded, to recommend approval of the variances on the basis that there is no other laud available to combine the two lots, property has one sewer assessment, contour of the land, drainage and regrading of access road shall be approved by City Public Works Department and any building shall not interfere with the adjacent property. Motion - Ayes (6) , Nays (0) . The Zoning Administrator informed the Planning Commission STEVE WALLPCK Cr.M.G.) that he had not had any contact from Mr. Wallack. Hannah 4100 SIM AVENUE N. moved, Hosfield seconded, to table until we hear further word SUBDIVISION (PRELIMINARY) from Mr. Wallack. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). (N188) Mr. Ortenblad and the adjoining property ;wners Santella WARREN OR]ENBLAD and Gnndeen were present. Neighbors approved of th 2799 CASCO POINT MAD revised proposal submitted by the applicant which VARIANCE - LOT WIDTH indicates that the proposed location meets the side yard (gigs) setback and is situated in line with the adjoining neighbors. The grading cut has been revised from 9' to 4'. After a short discussion, Pesek moved, McDonald seconded, to recommend approval of lot width variance V as the applicant has changed his plans to meet the side yard setback and is consistent with the lot width of surrounding neighbors and also complies with the average setback of adjoining houses. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). The Zoning Administratur informed the Planning Commission MRS. ROBERT GASCH that he had received a telephone call from Mrs. Gasch 1030 TONKAWA ROAD requesting that this matter be tabled to allow more time VARIANCE - FENCE SETBACK for the concerned parties to come to an agreeable solution (STPUC1URE) to this situation. McDonald moved, Hannah seconded, to (0199) table this matter. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). The Zoning Administrator stated that he had not yet can- JM¢S McCLEARY pleted the report for their review. Hannah moved, 344S RAYSIDE ROAD Pesek seconded, to table until we receive information NON -CONFORMING USE from Staff. Motion - Ayes (6), Nays (0). (0210) ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD JANUARY 10, 1977 Page 4 Justification for recommending approval: VARIANCE 1121 Elmwood Avenue 1. No other land available. (Continued) 2. The property has been assessed for one sewer unit. 3. The topography of the lot justifies right of way setback of 25'. 4. All other setback requirements will be met. Butler moved, Massengale seconded, to approve the variances for Jim DeSplinter, 1121 Elmwo,.d Avenue, per the Planning Commission ninutes of December 20, 1976. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nay (0). Henry 14uhich, Building 6 Zoning Administrator, VARIANCE stated that Warren Ortenblad is requesting a 2799 Casco Point Road variance at 2799 Casco Point Road. 4195 Warren Ortenblad Planning Commission Meeting - December 20, 1976 Adjoining property owners were present. The third and latest proposal submitted indicates proposed location meeting all setback requirements and a reduction in excavation by raising floor 1 elevation 41. Neighbors were agreeable to proposal. Planning Commission recommended approval of lot width variance as the lot is currently occupied by a non -conforming dwelling, no other land is available, a sewer charge has been assessed, and the proposed location meets all setback requirements. Butler moved, Massengale seconded, that the variance request of Warren Ortenblad, 2799 Casco Point Road, be approved per the Planning Commission Minutes of December 20, 1976. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0). Henry Muhich, Building 6 Zoning Administrator, SUBDIVISION stated that Michael Cloutier, 3120 Sixth Avenue 3120 Sixth Avenue North North, is requesting approval to subdivide this 4175 12 plus acres into two parcels - one parcel of Michael Cloutier approximately 4 acres and the second approximately 8 acres. This property is located in a 2-acre zoned district. The existing dwelling would be located on the 4-acre parcel. The second parcel which consists of some wetlands would be acquired by the Hennepin County Park Reserve District. Since the proposal does not increase residential development, I believe we could waive the park dedication fee. (Continued) Explanations of Pictures - 1. 2623 Casco Point Road - Balcony from lake - formerly my house 2. 2623 Casco Point Road - Balcony from below 3. 2623 - Balcony from on top 4. 2799 Casco Point Road - 20 paces from lake 5• 2799- Note small stakes which are sidelines of the garage - also note stake through pine tree under chimney of 280). Directly in front of existing building. 6. 2799 - from the tree in center of property looking east towards proposed house. Note stake on left which would be northwest corner stake. On right down from telephone pole is southeast corner (the one observed through pine tree in previous picture) 7. 2799 - standing on south property line (2799-2801) looking north across proposed house front line stakes. B. Standing on north property line looking south across proposed house front line stakes. 9• Standing over north property stake approximately 50 feet from the lake. 10. Standing on south property line approximately 50 feet from lake looking towards proposed building. 11. Line of site from 2797 looking at stake along side of tree. Pictures 11 and 12 relate to each other one is to and one is from. 12. Line of site towards 2797 from 2799 property. Pictures 11 and 12 relate to each other one is to and one is from.