HomeMy WebLinkAbout#3946-variances-1997 r
�'_____ �
`� , �
t . �. O
� � �
• O O
�b. - CITY of ORONO
� ti
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
���.kE Hp4��'G �. � Na 3 9 4 6 �.
S
. �s A►uE,.�o� IZ�B��`7
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MITNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; 10.55,
SUBDIVISION 8; 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6(B); AND
10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(C) & (L)
- FILE #2264 �
WFIEREAS, Janet Kiernan (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property
located at 1491 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally
described as follows:
• Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56,
Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and
revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions constituting
hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hazdcover or structure is
normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the
25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, and such additions and revisions encroaching
past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed, and such
revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments are
. normally allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2264.
2. The property is located in the LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential
Zoning District.
� Page 1 of 8
� � � °�
� o 0
�b. - � CITY of ORONO
� � ti
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiL
���kE H�4��'G . NO. .��r � '
� S
� 3. The Orono Planning Commission initially reviewed a similar proposal with
slightly different construction and site plans as application #2166 on August 19,
1996, and on a vote of 5-1 recommended approval of the proposed variances
subject to the following conditions and based upon the following findings:
A. The major proposed room additions to the existing house will be located
behind the 75' lakeshore setback line. Some proposed revisions to
existing roof lines will encroach both the 75' lakeshore setback and the
� 30' required side setback, however none of these additions will increase
the footprint of the encroaching portions of the house, nor will walls be
moved closer to the respective lot lines. Therefore, the additional impact
. � of the additions and roof line revisions on neighboring properties is
minimal.
• B. The existing house encroaches approximately 26' past the average
lakeshore setback line, and the room additions to the north of the existing
house will cause an additional average setback encroachment of a lesser
� magnitude. No neighboring property views of the lake are encroached
upon by either the existing house or the proposed additions, hence there
is no impact on neighboring properties by granting the average•lakeshore
setback variance. �
C. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to be reduced from 6.0% to
3.9% by removing certain existing hardcover items and replacing them
with a terrace area at a reduced level of hardcover. Hardcover in the 75-
� 250' zone is proposed to increase from 27.5% to 27.6%, and the impact
of this minor increase is minimal. .
D. The location of the existing house with its existing encroachments into
the lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and side setback is a
� hardship to the property.
E. The driveway relocation is a positive improvement to the property, and
the 75-250' hardcover variance is justified by the need to provide
' adequate off street parking for the residence since no parking is available
• in the County Road 15 right-of-way at this location.
Page 2 of 8
. . � °� �
� o 0
��b. � CITY of ORONO
� � .
�� �,'� RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� � ��kESH�4�' �. NO. � � � G
F. The proposed garage addition should be offset to meet the required 15'
street setback and the footprint kept at no more than 1,000 s.f. to keep
it from becoming an oversize accessory structure subject to much stricter
setback standards.
4. Applicant revised the initial proposal to eliminate the need for a street setback
variance and proposes to construct one additional garage stall which yields a
footprint of the garage being less than 1,000 s.f. and meeting the required 15'
street setback.
5. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway relocation and finds the
driveway configuration feasible and appropriate.
6. The applicant submitted a new site plan and revised proposal after the initial
• Planning Commission review and recommendation which took place in July
1997. The new site plan and construction plans indicate that 40% of the
existing house will be incorporated into the proposed additions, resulting in 20%
of the final product being the pre-existing house. The Planning Commission
reviewed tlus revised proposal on August 18, 1997 and concluded that this level
of preservation will not trigger the need for lot area and width variances nor the
need to relocate the residence to meet setbacks. The City Council concurs with
the Planning Commission's finding.
7. The revised plans indicate an additional bulk of structure encroaching the
average lakeshore setback as compared to the plans approved in 1996. Planning
Commission reviewed these plans on August 18, 1997 and concliided that this
change in the nature of the average lakeshore setback encroachment has no �
� impact on views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. The City Counc'il
concurs with this conclusion.
8. All other aspects of the request including continuation of the existing structure
setback encroachments of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone and the 30' side
, setback, as well as the originally proposed hardcover reductions and revisions are
identical in scope and magnitude with the 1996 approval. '
� Page 3 of 8
� �
,
. . � O�
• O O
��b. - C ITY of ORONO
. � �
� G'ti . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiL
� � ��k'ESH�4�' � ' NO. � � � � . .
9. The City Engineer has reviewed the future potential routes for municipal sewer
on the property. Sewer installation for Bracketts Point is underway. The City
will require an easement across applicant's property for construction of the
proposed sewer improvements.
10. 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.
11. The City Council fmds 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 tra�c 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 substantial
properry 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 variances
to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and
10.56, Subdivision 16(C) and (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing
residence and revision of the roof of the existing residence, such additions and revisions
constituting hazdcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no hardcover or
' � structure is normally allowed, and constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone, in
excess of the 25% hardcover normally in that zone, and such additions and revisions
encroaching past the average lakeshore setback where no encroachments are normally allowed,
� and such revisions encroaching into the 30' required side yard setback where no encroachments
are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions:
1. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 3.9% per the revised site plan
attached to this resolution as Exhibit B. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not
exceed 27.6% as shown on E�chibit B. Applicant shall provide updated
� Page 4 of 8 �
� � � °�
� o 0
. �b. - C ITY of ORONO
� ti
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� ���kE H04��'G . � NO. � '� �� _. _
� S
. hardcover calculations confirming that the limits aze adhered to prior to issuance �
of a building permit. The hardcover removals necessary to achieve these
hardcover levels shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the
proposed new construction, except that removals associated with driveway
reconstruction may be delayed with the approval of the building inspector in
order that construction tr�c not be impeded. Applicant is advised that
hardcover on the property exceeds the normal limits, and any future proposal to
increase hardcover on the properry will likely not be approved, but might be
approved only in conjunction with the concurrent removal of pre-existing
hardcover, resulting in no increase or a net decrease in hardcover on the
property.
2. Applicant sha11 provide adequate grading and drainage plans for the proposed
' driveway relocation which must be approved by the City Engineer, prior to
• issuance of a building permit for the proposed additions and site improvements.
3. . The applicant and future City Councils are advised that the current City Council
intends that no future additional structure in the 0-75' zone should be approved
for this property. �
4. (DELETED PER COUNCIL ACTION 8/25/97)
5. Applicant is advised that in the event the existing house is totally removed, the
City shall have the opporlunity to reconsider this approval.
6. 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 yeaz of the date of Council approval, or this variance will .
expire on that date (August 25, 1998).
7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor. �
• Page 5 of 8
� � � °�
• � �
��b� � CITY of ORONO�
� � �
�� G'� � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
. � ��kESII04�' � . . .NO. � � � �. �
8. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of August, 1997.
A ��EST:
.
orothy M. llin, City Clerk Gabri Jabbour., Ma or
���� �
s.
• perty Owner(s) �
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) .
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of
August, 1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of
Orono, a Minnesota. municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the
City.
:�:,�.:f�,+ CAROLE A HASEMAN
• NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA Notary Public
'.••= :- . HENNEPIN COUNTY
'�IYM{�• My Comm►sslon 6cplres Jan.31,2�00
• Page 6 of 8
� . , .: �
. , , � O ' v
, • O O
�b. � C ITY of ORONO
� �
�� G'� . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L
. �`�kEsKO4� � . Na �Q � �: 6 �
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss. ,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this�'"�h day of �'�,vP,,.,�,,�r , 199�before me a Notary Public within �
and for said counry, personally appeared�"����;�r h Q h �,�, ,,.,a r�.-:e _
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.
�:d��• �_ ,.
� ;�•q•.,;��� CAROLE A.HASEMAN .
: ' � N4TARYFi1BLIC-MINNESOTA �'�—� -� • A �a
�"�= H�N�NCauNn NOTARY PUBLIC
' My Canm►ssion Enpires Jan.3t.2�00
• �
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 199_before me a Notary Public within
and for said county, personally appeared
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
• Page 7 of 8
i -- �• '.,, EXHIBIT A . .
' RESOLUTION ��3946
� . : • „_
�•
EXHIBIT A
� • LBGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots I and 2, N.J'. Stubbs First Subdivision, in Lot Number 2,
Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, west of the- 5th Principal
� Meridian, Hennepin Courity, Minnesota.
� . AND . . :
That par� of Government Lot 2, Section 1.1, Township Zl7 North,
Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, which lies westerly .ot
the west line of Lots i and 2, N.J. Stubbs First Subdivisi.on in Lot
2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23, Fier_nepin County, Minnesota
and southeasterly of the southeaste=ly right of way line of
H.C.S.A.H. No. 1.5, Plat 51, per pocument No. 4701348 .
• ' .
. �
. ,
. !
�•
�
• AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 3946
PER COUNCIL ACTION DECEMBER 8, 1997
On December 8, 1997 the C'ity Council voted 5-0 to re-open consideration of Resolution No.
3946 because the property no longer met the conditions established for approval, because after
' the approval was granted the pre-existing residence had been removed in its entirety (except
for a small portion of the foundation) in order to meet Building Code requirements. The
minutes reflect that Council concluded that the project for which variance approvals were -
• originally granted, i.e. a remodeling of and additions to the existing residence, no longer is
applicable, and that the project now must be treated as a total reconstruction for zoning
Pw.Poses. '
After discussion, on December 8, 1997 the City Council voted 5-0 to amend the Findings and
Conditions of Resolution No. 3946 to reflect the following: ' ,
. 1. A new residence may be constructed under the approval granted in Resolution
No. 3946, except that no portion of the the new residence and terrace/patio sha11 '
� be located less than 75' from the shoreline.
2. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone sha11 not exceed 1.3% or 186 s.f. All 0-75'
hardcover items originally proposed to be removed shall be removed, per the
revised site plan attached to this amendment. All 0-75' hardcover square footage
• associated with the portions of house and terrace/patio previously approved for
. � a variance per Resolution No. 3946, may be transferred to the 75-250' zone.
Hardcover in the 75-250' zone shall not exceed 8,122 s.f. (7761 s.f. originally
approved plus 361 s.f. transferred from the 0-75' zone) or 28.9% as shown on
attached site plan. �
. 3. The side setback sha11 be as originally approved per the attached site plan.
This amendment is hereby attached to Resolution No. 3946 per Council action as reflected in
the official Council minutes of December 8, 1997. ,
JJ �
Michael P. Gaffron -
Senior Planning Coordinator '
� Page 1 of 8.
, MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL .
• MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 .
• APPROVAL OF MiNUTES �
(X#3)REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 24, 1997 ,
Goetten moved,Peterson secorided,to approve the Minutes of the Regulaaz City Council . �
� .� . Meeting of November 24, 1997. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.. �� � �� ' � � . � . � � �
(#4)TRUTH IN TAXATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1997
� Moorse indicated that the minutes have been revised to include information regarding
the bud�et.
Kelley moved, Goetten seconded,to approve the Minutes of the Truth in Taxation �
. Meeting of December 3, 1997 as amended. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
• � PARK COMMISSION COMIVIENTS � �'
Appreciation was extended to White on his work on the Park Commission and his
� willingness to serve another term.
White reported on the issues before the Park Cominission including long and short term
• goal setting, long term funding, and park improvements. White said a report is � . �
forthcoming on the Pazk Commission's mission statement, fund'ing sources,parks, and
rinks. He indicated they are making progress in these endeavors.
Jabbour informed White that he has met�vith Hennepin Parks, and the meeting was very
productive.
' PLANI`'ING COMMISSION COMMENTS �
. No member of the Planning Commission was in attendance.
PUBLIC COMI�NTS .
.� There�vere no public comments. � � . �
ZOI�TING A.DMINISTRATOR'S REPORT .
(#5)#2264 JANET KIERI�TAN, 1491 SHORELINE DRIVE-VARIANCE-
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION _ �
The applicant was present, alona with azchitect,Alan Christy, contractor,Joe Dzurik,
• and footin�s sub-contractor,Mr.Nelson. ,
2
' �' � MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
� � MEETTNG HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997
� (#5 -#2264 Janet Kieman- Continued)
Gaffron reported that the applicant ti�-as granted variances in Au�ust, 1997, for
remodeling of her residence with the findings that 40% of the existing house would
, remain,resulting in 20% of final product being the existing house. Since that time,it . �
: � . has been determined that only�a few�pieces of original foundation remain and none of the �
superstructure. Work was stopped by Staff for Council direction regarding whether
reconsideration should occur of application since lakeshore and side setback variances
• - are typically not allowed for new construction. Gaffron said there is the opportunity at "
this time to have the property become more conforming as it appears to be a total �
. reconstruction.` , �
Gaffron reviewed the plan noting the location of the three remaining pieces of
: foundation. Photographs were distributed showing the current properry condition. He.
noted that the problem created is that too little remains of the foundation to consider the
. project a remodel. Gaffron asked Council for direction whether the applicant should be ���
allowed to continue under the buildin�permit and variances granted, or whether the '
house should be moved to meet side and lakeshore setbacks, or reviewed again by
Planning Commission. GafFron said the Council's first step should be to formally
conclude whether the project is new construction or a remodel.
Jabbour asked if Staff feels the project has gone beyond the 40%threshold as noted in
• the conditions of the resolution. Gaffron said he believes it has gone beyond that ,
threshold. . ' .
� Christy said he understood that all are familiar with the history of the properry. He �
noted the applicant has tried to stay��•ithin the parameters of the resolution and building
permit dated 11/20/97. He said the building inspector was contacted throughout all :
, steps. There was no attempt to do an�rthing that was not intended. Christy said the .
building inspector requested the additional building demolition without considering
�.vhether this was right or wTOng under the conditions of the resolution. He said the last
direction given by the inspector was removal of the frost footings which were deemed -
inadequate. Christy said conditions�vere found that were not originally anticipated,but
,the plans are the same as faz as location and structure and all facts presented. He said the
only.variation is to site conditions�and,directions of the building inspector resulting in � �
less of original building remaining. Based on that, Christy would like to see the project
. continue. '
� - . '
. � 3 _
� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL - '
� MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 .
• (#5 -#2264 Janet Kieman- Continued) ' �
Jabbour said the Council is familiar with the site and that the applicant has diligently .
' _ worked with the City. He noted,when Council had previously discussed the application,
.� . that Council Member Kelley had felt the footings should be inspected and certified prior
.. �. � to.consideration of the variance application to determine their condition. Jabbour had - � � � � �
� thouaht it would be a burden to the applicant to have to determine the soundness of the
foundation. Based on that information,the resolution approving the variances was �
adopted. Jabbour said that technically,the construction is now starting from scratch as a
vacant parcel and could not be allowed lower standazds than required of new
' construction. �
' Christy said he understood that what is remaining is as it is but it is due primarily
_ because of directives from the building inspector. He said it seems that this furthers the .
hardship for the applicant as all of the plans to save portions of the existing building
. proved futile. �
7abbour said the building inspector is responsible to adhere to universal building codes
and the two are not mutually exclusive.
Christy asked what alternatives could be explored.
• . Kelley said he agreed with Jabbour that with the finding of bad soils or bad foundatiori;
the applicant should be required to adhere to zoning code ordinance:
Kiernan said the occurrences happened over 5-6 steps where the building inspector came
out to the site and contractor was told of the situation and had asked what should be
. done. She questioned why it was allowed to get to this point where the framing and
footings are in and not determined in earlier steps. .
Gaffron recharacterized what he thought took place. He said he understood the building
contractor asked the inspector to come out and look at questionable areas and was told
they should be removed. This occuned without zoning staff involvement. Gaffron said
. he visited the site last month where he felt the structural removals were at the point . -
where he was barely comfortable that it conformed with the conditions of the resolution, �
but the project got to the point of needing additional removals putting it out of zoning
conformity. • �
Jabbour asked if the building inspector was awaze of the 40%structure remaining
criteria. Gaffron said he was. He said it was a question of wearing a zoning hat versus a �
building inspector hat. He said he told the building official last Thursday, 12/4/97,that
the work had to be stopped as it was past the point of ineeting the findings and
. conditions of the resolution. •
�
� . 4
, , `
� � . MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
� MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 �
• (#5 -#2264 Janet Kiernan- Continued) �
Kelley asked if the contractor knew of the situation. The contractor said he did. Dzurik
said when he spoke with the building inspector about the framing,noting he had to raise
the foundation two courses and suspend the structure in mid-air,he saw that only 5%of
. � �existing foundation could be incorporated into the blueprint,the role of common.sense � . �.
r took over. �
Kelley asked if the applicant was informed when the project got to the point where over
40% of the structure was removed. Dzurik said he assumed the building officials knew '
� of the 40%requirement and should have informed him that no more could be removed.
Jabbour felt the project went one step beyond where it should have with the framing. He
. said when the applicant made application, she was told the variances would be given but
should hire a structural engineer to certify soundness of the foundation. Jabbour said he
. � had thought this would result in undue hardship so the applicant was granted variances ��
� � provided 40% of the existing structure could be saved. Jabbour said the applicant chose
to go forward and found out that 40% of the structure could not be saved.
Dzurik said he was told to remove more of the structure by the building inspector. He
said the structure could have been underpinned. Dzurik said he asked the building
� - inspector if the removals would cause the project to be stopped and was told absolutely
� � not and told him to take additional structure down. Dzurik felt this did not make sense.
� Flint said he agrees with Jabbour and Kelley that the project was new construction.
Peterson agreed. ' . �
' Kiernan said she feels caught in the middle. She said she informed Dzurik not to do
anything without talking.to the City. She noted the project has cost alot and this will
bear additional cost burdens.
Jabbour noted the possibility of having to go through the entire process again. He noted �
that the applicant did not have a house that could be added onto. He cited another _
example of a similar situation. �
Kiernan felt there were ways to have worked with the materials, such as underpinning,
and it�vas the inspector's opinion to remove further structure. She noted there was a •
' � structural enaineer on the job. '
Jabbour said the building inspector could come to the next meeting to answer questions
but feels the project has gone beyond the parameters of the resolution.
�
� 5 �
- � , ,�
� MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL � '
MEETING HELD ON DECEMSER 8, 1997
• (#5 -#2264 Janet Kiernan- Continued)
Gaf&on said there is no question that the building inspector approved all of the steps
taken and approved them because from a building code standpoint, the substandard
.. � portions could not be part of the new house. He said the project possibly could have '
, been stopped earlier. .:.: . ' ' � . ' .: � . : � . : � . " .'
� Dzurik asked if it has any bearing that he had asked the inspector whether the removals
would cause any problems and was told it would not. .
. City Attomey Barrett said he is comfortable with telling the Council that they can '
enforce the conditions of the resolution as far as the building code has to be protected.
As a question of law,the City has the right to enforce the findings.
Jabbour asked Council for direction.
Goetten noted the unfortunate situation. She said she is generally steadfast in such
situations. Goetten said the applicant was put on notice when she applied for the .
variance that she had to comply with conditions of the resolution. She understood the
� applicant has been above board with the City but does not believe there is a win-win
situation. Goetten felt the application should be reviewed again by the Planning
� Commission and the structure pulled back behind the 75' setback line.
Jabbour asked Gaffron to show the site plan and the 75' setback line and house location.
Kelley clarified that there were two variances required plus hazdcover.� Gaffron said the
project is over the 25%hardcover allowed. Parts of the structure,terrace, and steps are
� located in the 0-75' setback. There is also need for an average lakeshore setback
variance but that is not an issue.
Jabbour asked if the structure could be moved to the north. Gaffron noted the location of
trees to the north. Tom Kellogg said the sewer line comes in from the driveway,
showing the location in the northwest comer, so this would not impact any construction.
� Dzurik informed Kiernan that her sewer line was in place.
Gaffron asked if any construction under the current approval would be allowed in the 0- �
75' setback. Goetten asked how far into the 0-75' setback any construction occurs. '
Gaffron said it was 6-8'. Jabbour asked if Council would support the plan if the structure �
, ' , was pulled out of the 0-75'zone. Kelley suggested he would support the structure if
pulled back behind the 75' setback and to the north to meet the side setback requirement. �
Goetten said she was concerned more with the 0-75' setback. �
� . -
6 ' � .
, ", �
' ' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL �
� MEETING HELD 0�1 DECEMBER 8, 1997
• (#5 -#2264 Janet Kiernan- Continued) _
Jabbour noted that it is not the Council's intent to design the home but were trying to �
� determine the issues of concern. He said the majority of the Council feels the resolution
could be amended if the structure was relocated out of the 75' setback or the portion
� � . � eliminated in the 0-7�' setback. Kiernan asked if this included the terrace and stairs. �
. Jabbour said the terrace would have to be located out of the 0-7�',but the stairs could
remain. He noted the house was only allowed to remain where it was located due to the
use of the existing foundation. �
_ Peterson asked if the 6-3' distance into the 0-75' setback included the terrace.� Gaffron
said it did not. He said the plan would have to be moved back 20'to allow the tenace to�
be located out of the 0-75' setback. � �
� k.izman noted that she had significantly reduced the hardcover in the 0-75' setback.
� . Jabbour a�reed but noted that the requirement is for zero hardcover in the 0-75' setback�=
with none of the original house remaining. '
Jabbour asked the applicant if she would like to take time to consider her options at this �
time. He clarified that the resolution could be,amended with the house as designed as
long as no portion of the house or terrace is located in the 0-75' setback.
� Kiernan noted the problem with getting closer to the garage with the elevations. Gaffron
showed the site plan and the difficulty in making use of the existing �arage as planned if
the structure is pushed back on the property,with having to swing into the garage if it is
� moved to the west. Jabbour suggested if the structure is moved to the north,there would
� be more space in front of the old garaae. Kierrian questioned whether this would affect
the drainfield. Gaffron said it would not create a problem as sewer will be ready to serve
the property. He said grading may be of question. Kieman asked Council to consider
the busyness of CoRd 15 and her desire to keep as far away from that road as possible.
� Jabbour moved,Kelley seconded,to continue the agenda item to the end of the Zoni.ng
Administrator's Report. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
. (#6)#2279 G.MARC AND TRAC.Y`VHITEHEAD, 1220 L�'MAN AVENUE�- � . '
PRELII�xINARY PLAT -RESOLUTION NO.3966 '
Tracy Whitehead and Attorney, John Winston,were present.
Jabbour ascertained from City Attorney Barrett that the applicant and he have reached a
conclusion regarding the park dedication fee. Gaf&on acknowled;ed that the
preliminary plat�vas being reconsidered because of the park dedication fee.
�
_ 7
- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
• MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997 � .
• (X#11) CITY OF ORONO -ZOYING AMENDI2ENT-LAND ALTERATION
REGULATIONS AND PERil�1IT CRITERIA#102,2ND SERIES
Goetten moved, Peterson seconded,to adopt Ordinance No. 102, Second Series, an
� . Ordinance Amending the City of Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19 �. �
� � and 21,and Section 1�0.56 Subdivision 16 (�to Revise and Clarify Requirements and � . .
Limitations on Land Alteration and Land Alteration Permits. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#5) #2264 JANET HIERNAN- CONTINUED
Jabbour asked if the Council would be within their jurisdiction to amend the resolution.
Barrett said this could occur as lon;as there were less variances required. � _
. Christy said the applicant proposes to rotate the structure clockwise 15 degrees and �
� move it back behind the 75' setback line in its entirety including the terrace. This would
• allow access to the garage�vithout jamminD the structure into it, minimize economical ���
�vaste, eliminating further excavation, and minimize tree loss. The same variances
would be required for side setback and 75-250'hardcover. Christy said the hardcover
would increase in the 75-250' setback due to the amount that would have been in the 0-
75'would now be pushed into the 7�-250' setback. The other variance would be the �•
same for average lakeshore setback. � � .
� �Christy said he would like to see the permit amended, submit site plans, and redesign the �
interior. If elevation is changing to meet the grade,there may need to be a slight design
change making some of the cunent design of the old home awkward and could be
eliminated. This could be accomplished without further increasing the bulk of the
structure and resulting in less of the bulk encroaching the side setback. He speculated �
that there would be no additional fees necessary for the ne�v construction. _ �
Jabbour asked about time schedule. Christy said if the footings and concrete work could .
be done within the next ttivo weeks,there would be no problem with continuing,
Jabbour said he�vould like to reconsider the application w7th eliminating hardcover in .
�� the 0-75' setback(excluding stairs), and allowing this amount of square foota?e to be in .
the 75-250' setback, maintaining same side setback of 15' �vith no further encroachment,
� and eliminating existing footings. Kelley noted that there is 3.9% of hardcover in the 0-
7�' setback and the 75-250' setback is c"urrently at 27.6%. Jabbour noted that the . . �
calculations�vill have to be by square footage. Barrett said the recommendation by
Jabbour would be satisfactory. , '
Gaffron indicated there�vould be no additional fees. The only change mi?ht be the
� valuation for the buildin�permit. Jabbour asked that Staff diligently work with the
• applicant. � ,
20
° ` � MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL
. MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8, 1997
• (#5 -#2264 Janet Kieman- Continued) � �
. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded,to reopen Application#2264. Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded,to amend Resolution#3946 to reflect that.any �
. � . � previous variances given to the structure in the 0-75' setback would be totally.eliminated
and the amount of square footage would be credited to the 7�-2�0' setback. All
remaining variances would remain as in the original resolution. The side setback is not
. to exceed amount stated.
� The applicant supported this motion. �
Dzurik asked if structure changes are made on the blueprint, if the applicant has to pay a �
fee. Gaffron said the building inspector would likely have to charge another plan review
which is typically a percentage and would be for probably a couple of hours time. �
Jabbour asked if this fee could be waived. Barrett said it could. This was not added to ��:
the motion but with Council a?reement and understanding by staff:
Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0. �
(Agenda order continues after review of Item#17)
• �. (#1�BURNING PERMIT REGULATIONS � � .
Gappa reported that the Council has reviewed the buming permit regulations in the past.
The recent changes for consideration include changes to the length of the permit and an
allowance for burning of brush depending on the lot size. The buming regulations in
Independence and Minnetrista were researched,where they allow brush to be burned
�vithout permit up to a 25'pile, 10'high. Gappa said development in Orono was then
� reviewed and burning was considered for three categories: recreational, small brush, and
large brush. Gappa reviewed the requirements for each type of burning as outlined in
the packet.
Gappa said he spoke with West Hennepin Public Safety,who requires a water supply .
consisting of a single hose.for a small brush fire that includes log disposal. .He thought
their requirements were reasonable. The large brush fires would be for properties of 5+
acres. In that case,the West Hennepin Public Safety requires two hoses. �
Jabbour asked for public comments. �
Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road,asked if the Council was now considering
burning of brush. He�vas informed that this�vas beina considered.
i �
21 �