Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-20-2004 Planning Packet
Public A ttendance □ C ouncil iSi Planmnc : C ommission □ Park Commission □ Other Please ni.LOITTIIE INFORMATION REQIFSTEI) BELOW FOR Ol R CITY RFCORDS. NAMK (please prini)ADDRKSS PRFSFNT FOR (from agenda) NAMF OR NLMBFR 1. .LJ -7» . p/K*\ r> *v.; c - w c*/| 7—' 2. / '>/' V ^ X*’» * 1 1/ 1 1 L ciL<« (’♦ \ i»: Ic.i ICu ii* V 1 .'t\.‘ h V\ tr.t.ivk ( 1 iic LI 1 Y U , ^ ( (si *1 4. iVvc rvul fV '" I ■ 1 ^------- , MC'i' / L*ii ill i \ c i\, iNk* ( (fV r*'^i 'X:' IWllj Pt I 1 r ■ . w . ir 1 t C o'" - 5..V>)/ ./n\ . y rt ' 1 ------ Jt / j /i'. //.y . *A '> V 1 ‘ ./ T"- ^--S 7. ) - ' » » .. V / i w / t. C S 7 /*-*#/)7 »•» /J • y-J 1 " 8. 4 / r/~- //, /,V,^/ V- ■’‘V M 9. ij!u 't ( 7 Ai’ C>//c,'(. /'/”V( .0. -jo Tk .1 ''L^^ i 1 i* ht f . 1 r:‘/0 -/ 7v ’ II. .ir y i* V ' 7 ‘i i.( * f^. Lr c 7 ?. VC ' 12. A7^* h /'Tx.'C >)'4 y X'.'/7c /( u~ -iY-,. 13. C)f.r\:‘' ( /. !-■>f? , t'i'.7.'.' /'c C l '..’ S V / / 14. ^ vv\ i‘»' R. - y ,( .1 Mi-----------: i ^ 15. ■ Vv- • L *>N ^4*s/. fwmmrMtmttmw m a,___ y r OKONO PLANNING C OMMISSION Tuesday January 20.2004 6:00PM 2750 Kcllcv Parknav - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representalive: Lili McMiIIiuii AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you svish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants ssill be asked to move to the front table to anssser questions ssben the Chair announces the application. The Planning C'ommission is an adsisors body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they ssiil be scheduled for the February 0, 2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the C hair. CONSENT 1. 04-2970 Kobert P. Mack. 1525 Bay Ridge Road. Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 2. 04-2975 Rcscrcnd Loren D ()a\ is on behalf of the G oih I Shepard Lutheran Church. 3745 Shoreline Drive. Condition il Use Pcmiit Amendment (Staff: Janice Guiultach) 3. 04-2980 Orficid Dcsten and Construction Inc. on behalf ol Marilyn McCIaskey. 2693 Kelly Avenue. Variance (Staff; Melanie Curtis) OLD BUSINESS 4. 03-2923 Slev an Wagner. 3609 Shoreline Drive, Commercial Site Plan Review (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. 03-2958 Judd Daylon, 2885 Little Orchard Way. Renewal Vari.nncc (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 6. #03-2962 Robert and Joanne Sw it/. 1740 Shady w ood Road, \ ariance (Staff: Janice Giiiuilach) NEW BUSINESS 7. 03-2965 Sennes Design Build Inc. on behalf of Fran/ a:;J Kersten Jes ne. 819 Bronn Road North. Variance (StalT; Melanie Curtis) S. 04-2967 Sharon Rae Guimond. 2900 VV atertown Road. C onditional Use Permit and V'ariance (StafT; Melanie C'urtis) 9. 04-2968 Custom Structures Ltd., 440 Stubbs Bay Road, Preliminary Plat (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 10. 04-2969 Terry and Grclchcn Blount. 1390 Cherry Place, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (StafT: Janice Gundlach) 1 1.04-2971 Mickoiy Fine Homes Inc., 3220 and 3240 Walcrlown Ruud, Lot Line Re-arrangement (Staff: Mike GalTron) 12 04-2972 Robert Knuth and .Mary Thompson. 2700 W hlle Oak C ircle, V ariance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 13. 04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc.. 4753 North Shore Drive* .AAer-Thc- Facl Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 14. 04-2974 Reliance Development Company LLP. N\V Corner of Willow Drive and lIlKhway 12, PUD Rc/oning, Comprehensive Han Amendment. Preliminary Plat, and Commercial Site Plan Review (StalT: Mike Gaffren) 15. 04-2976 James and Judith Pierponl. 1801 V' esi Farm Road. Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 16. 04-2977 Mike Keaveny on behalf of Richard M. Keaveny Rev. Trust. 3425 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit and C'cmmcrcial Site Plan Review (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 17. 04-2979 Dr. Donald Ristad and Kent C’a.S;:Jy. 1005 Old l.ong Lake Road, Variances and Conditional Use Penr.it (S’.aff: Ja.nicc Gundlach) PLANNING CO.M.MLSSION COMMKNTS IS. Report of Planning Commission representatives a;:cnding Council meetings December 8, 2003 and January 12. 2004. 19. Other issues for discussion. 20. Planning Commission approval of minutes for November 17,2003 21. Selection of representatives for C*itv Council mec::ncs on Januarv 26.2004 and Feb* -lary 9.2004. ADJOURN.MENT ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tanda; Juaary 2«. 2004 «;00PM 2750 Krilo Pirltwa> - Coaactf Cfcimbcft AGENDA ^ c^- Coaocil Rtprn«auU*c: Uli McMillim Al DIE.NCC MEMBERS: Pica** iit« to for Ihr pabUr rreoni al Hr fronl poJiam lf)aa »hb la addrm Hr Planatoc < »mmK*laa. Appllraal* «*W be a*inl la mo*c la Hr fraal lablr la M«arr ifar«ltoa« »bra Ibr 0.alr aaaaaam Hr appUrallaa. Ibr Ptaaatoi t *nml**{oa h aa ad*baf) body lo Hr Cliy Coaai X If arlloa ii lakra oa aay lirim oa HI* atrada. Hry «*U1 be KbeduM for Hr Irbiaary » .vW Cll) C'aaaril atertiac aalcst aHcrato*aaled by Hr Cbair. CONSf' . I B4-207B Robot P Mack. IS2S Bay RJd|* Raid. Var^r (SufT Janice Cundtach I 2 04.207S Reverend Loren D Davu on behalf of the Good Shrrard Lutheran . ^ Church. 3745 Sbar*«orDfh*,CoodilioiulL tePaniilAs:er^i>mt (Staff JamccGundlach)(Staff JamccGundlach) 3 (M-2bW OrfieU Oetijn and ConimKtKW L-c on behalf of Manlyn MtClaike* 2*53 KeU* A*roar, VaiiaiKe (Sun Melan(*Ckr.i» OIUBLSIMSS 4 OJ.242I Sic*anWj*iKr.3«WhlioreHa*Dri.r.Co«rxnrreialS.tcPlanRr*icn (bull Melanie Curtii) 5 0J-205II iudd Dayton. 2StSLl(Ue Orchard Uay,Rer<nalVanance (Sulf ianice Gundlach) 6 *03.2462 RolieTt and Joanne SniU. 1740 Shadynaad Road. Vaunce (Suff Janice Gundlach) NEW BLSINfSS 7 03-2465 Sennet Denipi BmU Inc on behalf of f raiu arJ Krrtten Jevtie 119 Beano Rwd North. Vanjnce(Staff hUlanieCis-.ii I 04-2467 Sharon Rae Cuimond. 2900 Uairrtona Road. Conditional L»e Pcrtail and VanancciSuff MrlanieCunm 4 04-2460 Cui'om Siniclure* Ltd . 44o Mubbt Ba* Road. Prelimmarv Pial (Suff Melan.c Curtitl 10 04-2469 Terry and Gretchen Blouni. 1390 Cherry Ptoec. Conditional U»e Permit and Variance (Staff JaniccGundUh) II 04-2971 Hickory Fine Home* Inc . 3220 and 3240 UaUrtowa Raad. Lot t ine Rc-anangemcnl (Staff Mike Gaffton) 12 04-2972 R<R>ett Knuih and Mary Tbompton. 2700 While Oak Circle. VanaiKC (Suff Melame Curut) 13 04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc. 4753 NorH Shore Drhe. After-The Fact Vanance and Conditional Use Permit (Suff Jarjce Quad'.ach) ^ Reliance De^ekifmcni Company ILP. NW Corvee of WiHow Drive aod lligbtvay 12, PUD Reronm*. Comprtheniive Plan Anend=;e:;i. Preliminary PUi, and Commercial Site Plan Re*ie>» (Staff Mike Gaf^cn) Road.Conditional Lt*Permit (Suff MikeCJafbon) «« behalf of RKhard M Kea*er.> Rev Tnut. 3425 Sborrilae Del**. Condmonal Lie Perm.i and Cotn-Tcmal S;U Plan Review (Suit Jamce Gundlach) 17 ^2979 Dr Donald Ritud and Kent Caisid-. 1405 Old Loaf Lake Pr»if_ Vanances and Conditional Uie Permit (Suff: Janice (jundlach) PI AN.M.NC COMSIISSION COMMENTS •04-2»70 January 20.200J Pag«l*r7 Dale A^HcsIioa Recehfd: 12-17-OJ Date Applkalioii Considered as Complete: 12*17-0J 60-Day Review* Period Espires: 2-15-04 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Janice Gundlach. City Planner January 15,2004 Subject:04-2970. Robert Mack. 1525 Bay Ridge Road • Side Setback. Hardcover Variances - Public Hearing Zouiug Dbirict: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1 A. One Family Lakeshorc Residential Disuict (2 acre min.) 0.858 acres 137,377 s.f.) 120 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to replace a flat roof with a pitched roof which raises the ceiling in the existing living room, and to construct a car port at the front entrance of the home; 1. Side setback variance to allow a side setback of 18* at the southeast comer of the home when 30* is normally required and 18* currently exists. 2. Average Lakeshorc setback to allow an encroachment of approximately 50* in order to construct a pitched rood where a flat roof currently exists. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 27*/o hardcover in the 75-250* zone when 25% is normally allowed and 28% currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the side setback as the existing setback is non-conforming and no additional living space is being proposed. 2. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as the home was constructed in 1950 and the proposal docsn*t include any expansions. Also, the raised roof will not afTeci any sighllines as an existing tree line currcnlly covers the southern property boundary. 3. Approv al of the hardcover variance due to the square footage of removals being greater then the square footage of additional hardcov er bringing the lot closer to conformance. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. .-Xrea. height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots The following minimum requirements shall be observed: ■M-n-'O Jaii«ar> 20.200i Pa|«2or7 Lol Arca(acrt)Lol W idth (fecll Frrni YaiJ Ifcetl Slilr Yard <rr«l»Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feeil Rear Yard tteci) i 2 200 50 1 JO 50 50 Sec, 78*1279 (6). Average lakeshore setback No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this docs not apply to stairx^ays. lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations (a) No hard cover or imperv ious surface shall be placed, located or constiwcted within 75 feel of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) DelwYcn 75 feet and 250 feel of the OHW’L. there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1.000 feet of the OIIWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations In any i.R-| ,-\. LR- IB. LR-IC or LR-IC-I district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no exwavating. filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant's Narrative E.xhibil C - Existing and Proposed Suney Exhibit D - Surv ey Showing Removals'Additions of Hardcover Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F - Aerial Photo Showing Average Lakeshore Setback Exhibit G - Elevation of New Pitched Roof Exhibit H - Proposed Roof Line Exhibit I - South Side Elevation of New Pitched Roof E.\hibii J - Site Plan of Proposed Car Port Exhibit K - Elevation Showing Proposed Car Port Exhibit L - Photographs Exhibit M - Property Owners List Exhibit N - Plat Map M4-2rro Jaaaary 2I.2MJ Pace Jar 7 Backgrouad The applicant started a renovation on the interior of the house when the City’s Building Inspector discovered a permit had not been issued for the work. At that time the applicant submined the materials needed in order to receive a builiing permit. Upon review of the plans by the City’s Building OfTicial it was discovered that the conversion of the flat roof, at the southeastern comer of the lot, to a pitched roof required a variance due to the existing non conforming side yard setback. During conversations with Planning Department staff it was then discovered that the applicant was planning a car port, hardcover was non-conforming and that an average lakeshore setback variance would also be required. The applicant then submitted all required materials for a variance review. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaA%'idtlii LR-IA Lot Area Lot W idfh Required 87,!20s.f (2 acres)200’ Actual 37.377 s.f. (0.858 acres) 123’ Sctbinlai LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front n/a n/a a'a Rear (street)50 ’207’207’ Leftside 30’12’ (S\V comer) 18 ’ (Sl£ comer) 12’ (SW comer) 18 ’ (SF. comer) Right Side 30’19 ’19 ’ Lakeshore 75*128 ’(deck) 130 ’ (house) 128 ’(deck) 130 ’ (house) Average Lakeshore 180 ’128'(deck) 130 ’ (house)130 ’ (house) Srnictural Coverage; ToUl Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 37,377 s.f (0.858 acres)Allowed: 5.607 $ f. (15%) Proposed: 3,501 s.f (9®/i) Hardcover Catculationi! •04-2*70 Jannary 20.200i) Pag(4or7 Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Eiisting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9.180 s.f.Os.f (0*/i) 0 s.f (0*.) Osf (0*/i) 75 - 250 21.060 s.f.5.265 s.f (25%) 5.965 s.f* (28%) 5.785 s.f (27%) 250-500 15.160 s.f.4.548 s.f (30®/o) 2.960 s.f* (19 5«/o) 2.960 s.f (19 5%) Side Yard Setback V'ariance The applicant is proposing to change a flat roof to a pitched roof, including raising the ceiling, at the southeastern comer of the home. The height increase, from the top of the current roof to the pitch of the new roof, will be approxirr.atcK 11 *. The current setback in this location is 18 ’ when 30’ is required by the Zoning District. No footprint expansion is proposed Average Lakeshore Setback N'ariancc The applicant’s home was constructed in 1950 in the locahon indicated on the surxey. All City records indicate that the home all City codes in ericct at that time. Because the proposal involves additional structure, and the home no longer meets the avciage lakeshore setback of approximately 1 80’. a \-ariance is recurred Hardcover \‘ariance The proposed roof change will not increase hardcover on the property, however the proposed car port will move around the hardcover somewhat. The existing property meets hardcover requirements in the 0-75' and 250-500’ zones, but is non-conforming in the 75-250’ zone where 28^i (5.965 s.f.) currently exists causing the need for a hardcover variance. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a bnef hardship statement in E.xhirit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis /if coHiUtfing tppUemtioHi/or wiance, the Planning Commauon %hntt eontUer the effect of the ptopoied variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the conununin, etisting and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area, ne Planning ConunLulon shaU consider recommending approval for variances from the Uur^ provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their Uriel enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval onh when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. MM-2970 January 20.200J Pafc Sof7 SiafT finds lhai there are convincing hardships to recommend approval of the side setback variance. The applicant isn't proposing to increase the footprint but merely to add height, not additional living space, to this comer of the home. The visual effects of the new. raised roof only add approximately 5’ to the overall height of the home. It is also worth noting that the setback at the southwestern comer of the home is 12 feet further lessening any impacts to the neighbor to the south. Staff finds that a hardship exists because additional living space isn’t proposed, the height increases are minimal when compared to the entire home and the existing setback is non-conforming. SufT would also conclude that a hardship exists to allow approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The hardship arose when the lot to the south. 2050 Shoreline Drive, was built in 1989 in a location that now places the applicant s propertv in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The characteristics of the two lots are quite different in that the applicant’s property is accessed from Bay Ridge Road and the rear of the home faces the lake and Shoreline Drive. Also, the applicant’s propertv is e\iremelv screened from Shoreline Drive, whereas the propertv to the stmth. most ^fTecied bv ih .erage lakeshore setback, is accessed off Shoreline Drive and the front of the home faces the lake. The applicant’s proposal to change the roof line doesn’t affect any views this proper!) has to the lake due to the following; the view lines point extremely northeast, the property to the south has approximately 250’ of viewable lakeshore, and a significant tree line sits along the applicant’s southern and lake propeny boundary further hindering any views the southern lot may have. Because of these factors staff finds that conv incing hardships exist which warrant variance approval. Finally, staff would also recommend approv al of the proposed hardcov er variance 1 he applicant is proposing a car port on the western side of the home, which has potential to affect the existing hardcover. However, with the addition of the car port the applicant has proposed to remove approximately 379 s.f of driveway and sidewalk. The car port. 22’ x 24’ is size, will be placed over existing driveway causing an increase of 208 s f of hardcover. With 379 s f proposed for removal and 208 s f propt>sed new hardcover, a net decrease of 180 square feet of hardcover is the result (see Fxhibit D) Because fKvst- construction hardcover will K* lower th.in existing conditions, staff would recommend approval as the applicant has made a good faith effort towards reducing hardcover on the propertv. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application; 1. “The proper!) in question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” Bt\ aiisc the property is non-conforming %% iih respect to harJeover. siJe setbacks, ami average lakeshore setback any improvement to the property bey onJ interior remodeling u ould require a variance 2. "The plight of the landowner i$ due to circumstances unique to his propert) not 8. •04.»T® Jaanar) 20,20O» Fagf 6 of 7 created by the landouTter." Without the landowner doing anything to his property, hardships are inherent due to the house being constructed in 1950. the new construction of the house to the south, and the level of existing hardcover. "The variance, if granted, uill not alter the essential character of the locality." Should the variances be granted the essential character of the locality would not be affected If anything, the applicant s property has the least visual effects from the lake than many of the homes along Bay Ridge Road “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter " Xot applicable “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate acce? direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth snellered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section I I6J.06. Subd 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." Xot applicable "The Board ot Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permined under this Chapter for property in the /one where the affected person's land is located." All the laes proposed are uses allowed by Chapter "V of the City Code “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Xot applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining propeny." The special conditions arise due to the age of the existing structure and the new construction of the home to the south 11. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." It is of staffs opinion that his criterion is met "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjovment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The proposed variances are required should the applicant want to pursue anv improvements to the home beyond an interior remodel, regardless if the footprint is changed "The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any w ay impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning ■04-29T0 JauMry 20.2003 Pag«7«r7 Code.- // is of staff's opinion that this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience lo the applicant, but is necessary lo alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty." Granting of the variances will alleviate hardships inherent to the property Issues for Coosideration 1. Is there adequate screening to the property to the south? 2. Are an> lake views obstructed? 3. Has the applicant made a good faith efTort lo reduce hardcover? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the following: 1. Side setback variance lo allow a side setback of 18* at the southeast comer of the home when 30’ is normally required and 18’ currently exists. 2. Average Lakeshore setback to allow an encroachment of approximately 50’ in order to construct a pitched rood w here a flat roof currently exists. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 27*! o hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25®/o is normally allowed and 28“/o currently exists. EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.f0 Afrer-lhe-Faci Fees (Double application fee) Applicatloo # Date RecclvetT* ith ^ Amount Paid i ^P.^.OO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Slh&L fioAD My. Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ! a l\*J _____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired OCTtsp^Q I (9) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: - lA________________________ _(month\ear) APPLlCi^T rnonc toomcj ta f a_» y jf * iTfi fi Name Rohmrr MAc.i^_______________ Phone (work) ^*7^ Address RucMAHAU ST. Al£. City: /wi A4i/" Z ip Phone (home) p P^AnJft ^ ^ mm B t ^ ^ OWNER (if difTercnt than applicant) Name______________________ Address; Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:._Z'P DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ^ Describe request in detail: C.akS'rPOt^T A H^UJ A A * _7. Jt\^Xkt "iajC fn^AT (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) AT^gj^^n L£n rt:t^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback; ___Ut Width Front X Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverace __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue h.:rJship or practical difficulty or unusual nroperty condit.ons preventing; compliance with Zoning Code requirements; 5£6 Ui.T7tSi_____ (attach additional sheets if#2970 must A-60.*. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All.gf Ibe f9llffwfng Information mmt h«. submiiterf hi th. . for vour aPDlicatlion to brcon"^^ c!eicff.^tibtLjlLOr^r I. ---- Completed Application Form — ^ names (include marital status) of all nersons wv'i an int . • • . _ As «, addffldum to this appUcation. please aLch a separate lis^ cVlrr.hiL,. >t)u wish notified of this application. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please r-n-mh.. n, . atHa« applitatlon li poi eompletf If the above mm.n,,.,.. K.f'.Ij’rMry APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE •^e applicant hereby agrees to provide all information requirej or reoL-<-.d hv .h, » supplied is true and correct to the best of hisTier toiowledge Applicant's Signature P. Date /a-/3-»g S. OWNER'S SIGNATURE tt%“c1” "aV-^lha'« TeT C ““ mernbets for purposes of investigation and verification of ihi?r^«r" D^i» J.a~/ai-oa Meeting. Planlling' Co!il7uion Meeit'.s'^'L” he'd In “’the thhd'Mo df® s,r^:',s 's.r sCi'Kii’oirrr'iv'; ir’ki970 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ROBERT MACK OF TRACTS I k J. R.L.S. NO. 192 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA U aiw iccAi ocsovroN or mcmscs ’**' ** •* 1»«i wtr ihovt IN bow^lct el IN above tfHoibed pte^evlr. IN locolloo ol wt e»eUi4 «N ariveeey INre«<v end IN e>opo»ed tocolion el o prepoeed cerporl H deee nel (Mpwl le thorn ony olN« vniirovtnwnll or fnc>oocl«Tw«lt • e«n morkw *MO : JU*CN Nitfnak Beer«ti thoon «o bo»ed i^en on e*MnN del«efi eCROiNBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. uta xrxvcnv gnc euMUti Me wiiH eeiae mat, im umc. mi ium eit-4»-4l4l Mat I ■■ a Ml I ycTjr, r HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA TrocU I ond J, R*g«sl«red Lond Survey No. 192, fBes of Rt9istrar of Titles. Hennepin County, wnnesoto This survey shows the bourxkiries of the above described property, the locolioo of on eaistW>9 house, deck ond d'ivewoy Ihereorv ond the proposed k>col>on of o proposed corport. It does not ptf-port to show ony other improvements or encroochments o Iron mo'ker Xlfs Judicial kmdnnorlc Beorin^s shown ore bosed upon on ossumed datum ^^ACJL I2.US i^Z, EXHIBITE " — HARDCOVERjL;^CLLAIlUiN WUKIkdllbt.l ‘ StTBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^75^ 75-250’ 250-500’ /1-/Z-C3 500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOXTR IN 20XR A. H olk . ______________ .. Lmi*WiMi B. Ganfe * C; Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Laztdsc^ Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other X X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. .S.F.’ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .?F* S.F. TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X. /> ^ i» Qia.^ ^+ B ^tAO X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER r^ONT^^ , A. House X _ S.F. S.F. B. ’ daraie C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric C. Other Witfih S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;s.F. SF. S.F; S.F. © (^1 OJ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ' _ _ _ _ _ -► B X 100 - • S.F. __S.F. % AUCAL -----— HARDCOVER CALCLLAllUiM WURK a hkki S^ACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-73* 75-250* ^ EXISTTNC HARDCO^TR (N ZONE A. Houk _______________ X _______________ I 300-1000* Widiti B. Gara|< * C. ' Drivewiy D. SiOewilk E. PaUo/Deck F . Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric C. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. __S.F. _____S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B a 100 ■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ B. Carafe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other 5% S.F. S.F. WidA S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A :_____________♦ B .a 100 • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F< • S.F. S.F.' S.F. ' % ••T • a (■ c __I 5. ■ :• n : . ‘.^ V. // ■cir-r;’ 1^ •s>=.'v.v. k'.' : ?■ m -'^fl ]0/*fc’-" Kfei fc ^aS'-!' 'A •'T >•■' - '■-. -.-.iV'l ; ■ '\'^fm ■;V. "'J fc: USX& (iio&e ltA£r K.ClVA~it.W o 05) CQ» JOOTM *V£vaT\on r (Sis I I IJIPy — N rHoK.*r ei-evArioi^ or C/kw-POftT \ai5 feAV Amor. I \M1HM I. S\.1f .v' _ '/<\ -i liSf> -’I \5J-; t'S rs-.jM - *'^.'- •. ‘ ^ If*- ^5? :::Mm^^n^mm^.um^\1^1:1^ i,*.' / I If cK^-u.'^ -S'* mmm iml ' SI sal?2s«^ ■ J^^.51 *S^i ' -V- p%^'V^ r r ■ v^ nJNDATE:l. 1 n loiiTZjiiaoo} PWrAOnt M AOOHeSSUNA»QNEO OWNtKNAMC HfNNEfWCOfUSanNALRRAtmi TAXPAVn lieNNEPm OO RCOONAL RR AUni NAME/AOM AnSlWSTNfnO MMNEATOUSMN S540I M IOil723MOaw PIIOfADOII ISn nAVRIOGf.RD OWNCRNAME RENNfiTIIAVOUNORERG TAXEAVER KBMETM A VOUNOKRO NAMl/AOOR tSISBAVRIOQiRO WAYZATAMN SSMI HENNEEtN COUNTY EROr. .* INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY owners LIST PAGE;I 3t I0II72J3300M PROEAOOR 2»« NORTNSHORE DR OWNERNAME ROl ’ I KARON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ROOE». • I KARON TRUSTEE NAME/ADDR 1700 flEER lAFERAY TOWER mfTHSTS MMNFAEOLRMN 35402 30 1011723340009 EROPADOR I33S RAY RIDGE RD OWNERNAME REMACKRAMMACK TAXEAYa RODERTEMACK NAME/ADDR ISIS BAY RIDOE RD WAYZATAMN S339I 31 1011723340007 EROfADOR 1301 BAY RIDGE RO OWNERNAME EDWRIETTERKWRXETTE TAXPAYER OAVmWIUETTE NAME/ADOR l»l BAY RIDGE RD WAVZATA MN 33391 31 1011723340014 PROP AOOR 3050 SHOREUNE DR OWNERNAME OEDON1RPIIONI TAXPAYER Mirt * A a TTUCU BOM NAME/ADOR 2030EJPREUHE WAYZATAMN 33391 30 1011723340010 EROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSKJNEO OWNERNAME BEBONIRPBONI TAXPAYER BRUCE PR PATRICIA BONI NAME/ADOR 2030 SHOREUNE DR WAYZATAMN 25391 30 ISI1723220001 PROP ADOR 2143 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME WALTERMRINGERIRETAL TAXPAYER WALTER M RINGER JR NAME/ADOR 9334 PARKOALE OR P300 ST touts PARK MN 55414 31 1011733330002 EROPADOR 2243 NORTHMIOR R OWNERNAME KINOsOtYlUUUREHYIR TAXPAYER KINOSLE^MURPHYJR NAME/ADOR 2243 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY TMATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACOXtATE AND TRUEREPRESENTAT10NOFIfTORMATK)NAS IT APPEARS TffS DATE ON THE RBCOROS OF THE HEMIEEIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. ,, , , DATE /X-X-oJ by MENT.TOTHEBEST yy I5 S // KXHIHI ■ W H«“tiiu*pin Hennepin Cbuh^ Taxpayer Services »< -1 •• Vmmi H oum Number 1825 SlTMt Hmmm BA ms 1$ not»l»g»fy ncordtd map. ttrapraa and Oats bom Oty. County, and Stala toad i04-297S jMMr>20.2004 r«gt I pti Date AppliaitiOB lUccWcd: I2*l7m3 Dale AppUcalioD Coasidtred M Comptcic: 1-64M 60-Day Review Ptriod Eipim: J-0-04 From: Dale: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ January’ 14.2004 04-2975, Rexerend Loren D. Davis, Pastor. 3745 Shoreline Drive • Conditional Use Permit /\mendment • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1C min.) Lot Area: 4.834 acre (210,567 s.f.) Lot Width: 318 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit amendment in order to change the roof structure from flat to pitched on the e.xisting classroom portion of the church. Stq£f Recommendation: Siafl* recommends approval of the submitted plans as they meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-348 (3): Conditional Uses. Churches, including these related structures located on the same site uhich are an integral part of the church proper, and convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site, provided no building other than a residence shall be located uithin 50 feet of any lot line of an abuning lot in an R district. Section 78-350 (a): Height. No structure or building in an LR - 1C district shall e.xcced 2 Vi stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78*1366. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application E.xhibit B - Applicant's Narrative Exhibit C - Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit D - Truss Plans Exhibit E - Perspective Drawing Exhibit F - Property's Owners List Exhibit G - Plat Map Jugary20.20M Page 2*13 Dackgrovnd The Good Shepherd Lutheran Church received their original conditional use permit in early 1970. B^ause churches are conditional uses in residential zones, any mcdification to the building envelope requires an amendment to the conditional use permit. The church is proposing to change a flat roof to a pitched roof to create additional space in the classroom portion of the building, and has applied to amend their conditional use permit in order to receive building permit approval. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET UtAmAVidth: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f (0.5 acres)100* Actual 210.567 s f. (4.854 acres)318’ Setbacks; LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front 30’140’140’ Rear 30*450’430’ Lefl Side 50’59*59’ Right Side 10’75*75’ Structural Coverage; According to section 78-H03 of the Zoning Ordinance only lots 1.99 acres or smaller arc subject to structural coverage requirements. The applicant ’s property is in c.xcess of 4 acres and therefore not subject to structural cov erage requirements. Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allovv ed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500- 1000 210.567 s.f 73.698.5 s.f. (35M 36.500 s.f (17%) 36.500 s.f (17%) «t4-2*73 JaH«7 2«,20M Pagt J*rj ComUtioDal Use Permit Aaalyib The only requiretnem of conditional uses for religious institutions, beyond those required by the zoning district, is a 50* setback from any residential property. Residential property exists to the west wliere the church currently maintains a 59* setback. The actual roof change takes place at the most southern part of the building further lessening any potential impacts to neighboring properties. Religious institutions are subject to the 30* height requirement with exceptions for church spries, belfries, cupolas, naonuroents, ect. as noted in section 78* 1366. The proposed roof change will maintain the 30* requirement for all structures. It is also worth noting that other portions of the church are higher than 30* making the roof change less apparent. Finally, the proposal meets all other zoning district requirements with respect to setbacks and h^cover as discussed earlier in this report. Imucs for Consideration 1 . Are there any negative impacts to surrounding residential properties? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stoir Recommendation Appro\’al of the plans as submitted. * I. »2.o 9, REQinRED SUBMITTALS ------Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. muit obttfcTSTHsrS, '^o “** ^ A-603. Goveramenl CenlwjLMS^W^.^TL^y "f Fiiun«, x_ Cnificatc of Survey (eigntSTyii^ information. smeyor) - refer to handout for surCy changes in elevation (grades) P P® contours) if land alterations involve - 2 “ n».. wi..i* £*?«.? ™" "■«» -----Ax in eddendum lo this Bmlicaii™ -— e^i^aJhm v:hu FOR IO-PHODUOTON^of^x''l7^ OR COPV SUBMITTED. (SulT .iXX requi^ "scaS d DOCUMENTS submitted.) o«*ings of all documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Property Ouner must sisn thit • application is not complete if the above information has not'bee^^^^ S.“/ci.fc.l stf »»o" » complete. -----------------------------------------Daie____________ APPLICi^VT'S SIGNATURE A^Ltor. t^pv ISdiU^MU^ (Itafftoe" n'^“^er^' requested by the Zoning Applies..-, Signature Date 0^\^^^ER•S SIG.NATURE Arrr^>f> The ouner hereby acknou ledges and asrees to thi. ^ entry onto the propert)' by City staff, consultams authorized reasonable members for puiposes of investigation and verification^”^ commission members, and Council entry onto the propert)' by City staff, consultants • member, for purpose, oHnyestigation «,d verificahon Ou-ner’s signature _^iy^Ud^ ^ _____ Applicant must have all of the Plaanini Commjiioo r ^ f?- Applicams nm be present at a!I Kb^ed meetifli. pleaje nuke ananiements lo havv an “ applicant is unable to attend a Buddieg a Zeoini Office of du, ehaoge prior » ni^mceSi “ >~r plK. lod sdc^ih. #297aJ 6 EXHIBIT B Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 374S SHORELINE DRIVE WAVZATA. MINNESOTA S5391 LORE*.: CA."5 PASTOR PhC*.E 471 December 17. 2005 APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ROOF ON THE 1959 SECTION OF THE CHURCH Our request is to replace the r^f on the original (1959) portion oFour Good Shepherd Lutheran Church building. The existing sinjcture has a Oat root and our request is to r^lace it with a pitched roof over the flat roof We vrill be mstalliiig engineered attic trusses At this time, our proposal is to install 6/12 trusses Once our contractor, Joe Nastepniak of JMN Builders, has the drawings of the engineered trusses, he will meet with Janice and describe in detaU the consouction plan for the proposed project and review with her the height restrictions The height elevation from the ground to the curren: flat roof is 21 feet The height with the gabled or pitched roof will be 31 feet, or an increase of 10 feet on that portion of the building. Currently, the newer (1971 addition) portion of the budding has towers which are 20 to 25 feet higher the existing flat roof on the original budding, or which would stiU be 10 to 15 feet higher than the height of the proposed pitched roof Thank you for vour consideration of our application. Loren^D. Davis Pastor Good Shepherd Lutheran Church #2973 . exhibit c OEI^TOITBEOTE OF Fttri Good 9Mp«zd Lnth«x«a Chiareh 5749 Showllnt I)riv« (Co. Hd. #15) VaorwtA, fUanoaoU. 55391 Survtyor: Gilbert J. Baaeke 4401 Crovfonl Road Hopkiaa, Rian#sola. Phone: 93»-2887 Peacriptlcni Lot 5. Block 7 TcvTjaito of Ua^don Park. Scale: 1-.1C0* o Ceaotea I.F. X hereby certify that this survey was Spared by ce or under sy direct super- viaicn and that I aa a duly Refiatered Lead Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Hesistration Huaber 13 Bate: Woveaber 26. 1986 1IZ21 il ii’ZQOi ni 11:43 FaI S «12 496 8312 SCHEJIE?. ILHBEK CC EXHIBIT D Sdo: f38* ■ IjOM rrnr Avrc IIIIW. AUftK ■viuEruFTSBcn Tr^lMp‘wjOCTMiT*fc VM J*^?!i?9SfSe^1ir40 4* gOrPiei’ •■1»4 •» ir^o H4.to., u-i.n 4413 44*10' 3.T4" TSI - 0-144 Ocrt*»in.i 2.ftC ----------- sr s ^ Sst OilfcL 0-104 «Ci10 S-1-13 •«13lliaOM- 8444 1444 0-144 ?-7^' TCCL rOO 00 100m S4ACIN0 tnoMM C8I DCFL •n OCCJ -070 tO-17 .1 03 ie-17 lOsT LB FLATVS dUFTC 004 ec 090 Vr^Li Vattu *522*257 «2 SSh 1^44 18M4:WB 009 (Mbi»} Hyi(7L)aos 12 va n/a IAbiO’ic 332 >3 i LUMUMg?ggs5;?c’?rrfS?i'J.wets 2X45PFSM *tewr¥VM3X4HFNo3 SffoX 0 HP -OOCF 1 Se. "o’-t 2 X 6 HF 16S0F1 5£ MACIMQ TOFCHOftO fiorCHORD r/eas JCIVT3 sr \7-3ocxrinx. Rif « atl'c tfrccTy &x<43 C'4>10-C occaa^a 1 Rev. ■ rot 8-2i 4-a 1 Br«i* a; j“i; M UBHremc-iotieatfcMif). i2«-u3(ioMejMBi Mb Griv2=3473(lood BM 2). 12*8472i eai ca* 3) ! FORCtO (to) • Conp««t»lenWn4T Tt*.*«n To.o-o« lOrC^ORO ii-i4>>20&‘U73. tO-l4.-2C7.3840.1M4.-:C7/38£8 *6-17</347i. 16-16-C05S 14-l5</35«3,12 14<(2i72 6-2>-3ar/73 0-20.-3M7/73. 0-17«(V33O4. $-16</224l. 11-14^14131132.11-1««-»9V754.WSBS Mono 3.1 9bi413/113-17a-t9&7&s, 74C<0/234 2) TOLL iSct 7-W. Pg- S3 0 co7(yc-j‘>4 »*.ov.!. Colefo^ II. E19 C. Fi-5i1| £n Cl* 1 3i U/*04*AoM anew oads *‘«.t bM' ecns^ticc 1»r ms csmi 41 Tit* tr.M has 9Mn io' 1 CO Istm 7jl rcc-’iosa ef35 0 ps.'or e t-tiavaa rcA-ovcu-«r: mV. OT«r »>• leaes £)Tn4r-4s r’«saMnesiS'«dte' a ic C piioertn eisia ivs es2ri-t:*e-,rtfi.ky ar/ era* l>t leact ctf TaMt 1007 1 of ISC4C. IC) Al eiMs a'i Mii» piKos ori«« ci-onMso aidcalao I 7) Colfv dairi load (9 0 p«0 on mr-tarts) 84. 8-9.0-2a 6-20 : t) Oocmi tfert '»v# cad (62 9 sa'i and add^Krai oooo-n eho-d deec euj no 0 ao*) aso*oo oni» a icon 16-i T f; Fro»ae intorjf<al eo-a3on (Cy otn*/a) c* if-as 13 bean-j alata eoulA cl imaU'Cais 143 a .sin «lo/l 2ond143® JoMaCjortli LOAOCAUlt) StifdVd________ ________________________ KXllllUT K M^m^,-S..ffir^.. )w.:j»p^! __ .: -i. -'•■-'•■ .>>^— 7/ t w' -r J*.‘ WL^ • . - **•^ . RIJNIMU 11/ I M iOllTiJllUQUi riMIPAraMI M AINMESSUNAMlIJMf ll UWNOINAMy JOIIVIIAMAllUAIUnriUMmLIISON TAXrAVeH JOIVIIAMAIiaMlimiliNUVItSON NAME^AOra MMDUNWOOOVAVe WAV/ATAMN SSMI hl NNI PIN COUNTY PROPFI I’RiriKlYOWl M AllWiJTIUUlU PtUlf AIMM 2M0 CAMT) rtNNI Rl» UWNIiNNAMli HUAI- PAUMIffi TAXFAVlill HUAPrAUIIUS HAM&AOCW 2M0 CASCO POINT Rl) WAV/AIAMN MM| NFORMATION SYSTI M .I.LSI PAIil 2 ii ;viirji;iuui4 PROP AJRm 2SJ0 CASCO PIKNI Rl> UWNPH NAMli 1 CHAU/rSRY A O Y t IIAl.UrsKY TAXPAYIX T aiAlJUPSICY AIIY C1 lAimiCV NAME/AOOR 25M CASCO POINT RO WAV/AIAMN ««»VI )• 2OII72J2I00I3 raORAOCW 2S2t CASCOPOOITRO OWMRNAMf MARHAtVANO TAWAVa MAR«ASVANO NAME/AOnt 2Sll CASCO POMTRO VAY/ATAMN 55WI .« J0IIT2)21W)I PROPAOIN* HCA OtMWOOOY AVE *aWI%R^/WA» &MVAAY MEMORIAL OIUROI TAXPA*. Y MCMORUL aiURai NAUI/AMIR ,r,%. YV/NWOOOY AVL «-»YM*AMN 5S»*»I M JOI>«'UI002I PRUT AOOR 2M0 OUNWOOOY AVE OWNER name lea ENORGARO TRUSTEE TAXPAYER lea E NOROARO NAML/ADDR 2540 DUNWOODY AVI: WAYMTAMN 35J9I M 20II7232IWI6 PROP AOOR 2310 CASCO POIN1 RU OWNERNAME REVEJU.V ANN MORRIS TAXPAYER BEVERLY ANN MORRIS NAME/ADOR 2310 CASCO POINT RO WAY/ATAMN 33391 31 2OII7232I00I9 PROPAOOR 2300 DUNWOODY AVE OWNERNAME TRMOTIIYJOGLAND TAXPAYER TIMOTHY J OGLANO NAME/AOOR 2300 OUN^-OOOY AVI WAY/AIAMN 33391 » 2011723210022 PROP AOOR M ADDRESS UNASSKiNEO OWNERNAME VILOFORONO TAXPAYER CITY Of ORONO NAME/AOOR PUDOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 20II7232I00I7 PROP AOOR 2320 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME RDROCCAR IISROCCA TAXPAYER RONALODRHOUYS ROCCA NAMf /AlKlR 2320CASCO POINT RO WAYMIAMN 33391 M 2011723210020 PROP AOOR 2320 OUNWOOOY AVE OWNERNAME UNOAKONLU/ROULRTONELL TAXPAYT • ■ ■'NOA K ONLLI/ROUt R T ONI E L NiM ' IJNWtRM)Y AVI. .’ATAMN 33391 3« 2011723210023 PROP AOOR 23«0 OUNWOOOY AVE OWNERNAME TC BRAOIIR R E R ORACIILR TAXPAYER TROY/LLUAIIEIIIDRAaiLR NAMI/AINIR 2360 OUNWIX)l)Y AVI; WAYMTAMN 33391 >0 mi-i •« ’j r ^ •* ^T| M 2011 723210024 PK3P AOOR 2310 DUNtTOOOY AVE OWNERNAME JRONAfUS TAXPAYER GAILMNAEUS NAME/ADOR 23W OUNWOOOY AVE WAY/ATAMN 33391 31 2011723210029 PROP AOOR M07 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME STEVAN3R OEBRA J WAGNER TAXPAYER STEVAN JR OEBRA J WAGNER NAME/AOOR 3440MORNBIGVKWCT MOUND MN 333*4 3S 20II7232I002S PROP AOOR 3743 SHORELINE UR OWNERNAME NWENGLUTHSYNOD TAXPAYER GOOD SHEf III RO LUIH CHUKI II NAME/ADOR 3743 SHORELINE DRIVE WAY/ATAMN 53)91 31 2011723210033 PROPAOOR 3701 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME CASCO RUN LTDP1NRSIIP TAXPAYER CASCO RUN LTD PINRSHP NAME/AOOR PO BOX 1*3 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 )t 2OII7232l0O2t PROPAOOR 3603 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME N W BELL TELEPHONE CO TAXPAYER QWEST COHPORAnON NAMI/AOOR ATTN PROPERTY TAX IMI CALBORNIA ST 42300 DFilVERCO 00202 31 2011723210034 PROP AOOR 2390 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME JOHNTREDMOND TAXPAYER iOlIN T REO04OND NAME/AOOR 2««3 CASCO POINT RO ORONO MN 53391 -------- '7 ;*T!!nrri-« ' *! 5. |e;Jii|i-^£^ . ' * 1-.. 1 ■ * liU^jrW^ .'J.... .•••■ I f..*-? J Afe’ n'^ ,"• "j"j "j , ^.5|I (3*/, Im.mt STEP COVE .; •- ,! 1 - .,. CASCO POINT RD id . M » d d-4 m]i m .-•» ’ • ’ ^ ' •WINSHIP^ SUBDMStON OF LOT 1. SPRING PARK FlLEiO*-29aO JsiHiwy 13.20M Pa9«l«fS Date Appikatioa Rrceivcd: 12-1R^>3 Date Applieatloa Constdercd ai Conplclc: 12-2943 40-Day Review Period Etpim: 02-27-04 Fron: Dote: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner January 13.2004 CONSENT 04*2980, Orfield Design A Construction Inc for Marilyn McClaskey. 2693 Kelly Avenue - Variance • public hcnrir.g Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 acre minimuni Lot Area: 0.76 acre (33,247 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance in order to add a 2'**' story addition on the e.xisting home 20’ from the front property line uhere 35* is required {IS’ into the required front yard).____________________________________ Stuff Recommendation: Plarming Department Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Hardship: The fact that the home was originally constructed 20 ' from the front lot line (prior to current ordinances) forces the property owner to ret^'^^st variances for any addition to the in order to construct a second story addition to the home The existing house location mav be due to the challenging topography of the lot ____ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area(jcre)Lot Width (fecO From Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Another 1 or (feet) Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feett 1 140 35 10 30 35 Lbl of Exhibits A. Application B. Photos C. Existing & Proposed Survey'Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Hardcover Calculations F. Letters to Neighboring Owners G. Resolution No. 2284 H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map J. Topographic map riLEiO4.29a0 January 13.2004 Paee2olS Backf round Marilyn McClaskcy is ihc property owner and applicant at 2693 Kelly Avenue. The property is 0.76 acre in size and b located uithin 500* of the ordinary hi^ water level of Lake Minnetonka. The existing home is constructed 15’ into the front yard setback. In 1987 the previous homcovMicr received a variance in order to construct a deck with patio 32' from the side street lot line where 35' is required. Directly behind the home the land slopes down to a lower area in the rear yard. This low area which renders most of the property unsuitable for construction of a home or other structures may have been a reason for the placement of the home nearer to Kelly Avenue. There are Urge pine trees between the front of the home and Kelly Avenue which would act as additional screening of the proposed addition. Additionally*, the nature of the front yard acts like a berm between Kelly Avenue and the front of the home thus lessening the impact of the proposed addition from Kelly Avenue LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LRIB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (I.Oacre)140' Actual 0.76 acre (33,247 s.f.)no* Setbacks! LR-IB Required Exbting Proposed Front 35’20’20’ Rear 30'300’+No Change Side Yard 10’15’No Change Street Side Yard 35’ 32’* (Variance in 1987. Resolution 2284 enclosed) 32’ Structural Coverase: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 0.76 acre (33,247 s.f.)Allowed; 4987 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 1879 s.f. (5.6) FILEf04-2M0 J«nu»fy 13. 2004 F«g«3olS Hardcpygr Calcutotions; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hai^covcr 75-250 14,170 s.f 3.542 s.f. (25%) 0 s.f.* (0 */o) Os.f (0»-o) 250 - 500 19.077s.f 5.723 s.f (30 “/o) 3.51 Is.f* ( 18.4 *..)No Change FroDt Yard Setback Variance The existing home i*as constructed 20* from the front property line, where 35* is required, probably due to the topography of the lot, which is sloping to the rear >ard with a wetland area in the center. The view of the home from Kelly Avenue (Fxhibil Bl) illustrates a berm-like front yard. The impact of the proposed 2"** story' addition should be lessened because of this feature. Due to the location of the home on the lot, any additions or alterations to the front of the home require a variance. The applicant is proposing a 2"^ story addition above the northwest portion of her home to add a master bedroom suite. The number of tall pine trees lining Kelly Avenue would screen the proposed 2*^ story addition from the Carman Road and Kelly Avenue intersection, and a number of trees lining the northwest property line which would screen the addition from the adjoining property. Hardship Stalcnicnl Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysts In consUerimt nipticMions Jot variance, ike Planning Commiaion %haU comUer the effect oj the propoicd variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the convnunin. existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for s-ariances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indhidual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that a hardship exists due to the location of the home at the substandard setback, and the challenging topography of the lot. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application FILEi04.2MO January 13. 2004 Pa9t4QlS 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controLs.** The property cannot be expanded H tthin the official controls due to the existing home location and the challenging topography of the lot. In the opinion of staff the criterion is met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The property 's unique conditions are not created by the landowner. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter ” The applicant has not indicated economics in their application, rather the challenging lot and the location of the existing home In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy syste.ns. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.” S/A b. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permined under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” S/A 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-famih dwelling.” S/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining propeny.” .Most of the homes adjacent ha\e property which allowed for the homes to meet the front yard setback In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The property is narrow and slopes to a u.rr lowland In the opinion of staff this criterion is met c L EXHIBIT A1 Appficalk»«L DMRtoInd / CnY OF ORONO • VARIANCE APPUCATION Initul AppUcitioii Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each addiiknal wince) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change fiom ori^nal ^iplication) Variance for non-confonnlng atnicturcs $250.00 After-tbe-Fact Fees (Doable application fee) Amauni Paid PROPERTY INFO^l^ON, , . SiteAddieas KgCu^ q Fropariy Idcodficadon Number (PXI^_ A7M 553S/ ^il 40011 I Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Proper^ Acquired fYKvrU (Sd DO^I -(do) (^ noQ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X-nsidential other (specify)or- 1 ]_______“ (month/year) Zoning District: APPUC Name! Address {)e<knqn fiOx^^\“.Jhnr ph :^n\n Kip!,nh citv i^d Phone nKuae^^i:^ ^^.2 Phone (wock)3^3^SSS3 in(0L^ Zip: /yi/vl It thanOWNER (if^difiereni Name iHrLl Uxjn^ ri Uf A/Address: Kf lLLj DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Cbnstructioo Cost S idetaflrU KotAO-jL.. C€Y)^i^h Phone (boat'iR^^n 1 0^1 ^ Phone fworirt O/J^'1rnooB tiwjfKf t fi I ^ uiat. t City; Q/Onn Zip:/Sf^^3 / CcntcLKnm Describe request in detail: tJOtAje/ (xlCc “fa CKSd (X, V pqv ^ fVJLJ I Stfvi^/ KotAOX-i C€Y)^iShrut QL CL> AIa <jr a. iMUMISSWiAX)CYK- VARUNCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ____Lot Width Setback: jL Front __Side Other (specify)________________ Hardcover Rear _Lot Coverage __ A'-erage Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDFnONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficuUv or unusual property conditioDS preveodog complii^ with Zoning Code reauitemrots:..] Kn Pwlou I h r\r^ aqaa ^ /1 ^ ^ kAJuJLT 'hiCi CLd SL hiJrkjL fct uaj jjntZ /g nr4ci\ Hotx dUA.'wnH (atuciLhdditional sheets if necessary) 192-i llViOO i I87-:iiireruii#29 EG M|S:»0 n0M0-»9 exhibit At REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH Ilf clit Ibltowln Jo' ^d*r far 1. '2. O , pK^K/\ CXppK,^M Completed Application Forrn iCertiJ------- imltlgd hv ||^>m d—dllng lilit* ^VOUCAX i 1-^ d SLu' ha aBnllcatioirioB daadllna dF^| In .3. Ccv n6cxv^\Vjs«X ll- for t—> 6. L.>7. 8. calculations as required. In addiUon, pro>ide one (1) cop-/ 8'4 reproduction- C^/dJ tC iLc ---- To^graphlc survey (existing and proposed el^tionsMf any changes in existing , J;******^^^'provide one (I)c(^8Vi-xn'for repro^ Sketchy or plau of floor d: elevation vieu-s (provide one (I) copy 84* x II"). v a, — List of the legal names (Include marital stanis) of all persons 'vith an interest in ^ the prop^. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownei(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any odier persons you wish notified of this application. rUA? Additional items as may be requested by City stafiF C* ITie AppUcartf and Property Owner must sign this appUcadon. Please remember that Mar Mflancf aDDllCttion is not complete if the above informatimi hai rnn lnclud»d. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ appUcant hemby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time cot covered by ori|iial fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the Information supplirfb^ and copact to ihe^best of hivlrer knowledge. AppUcanfs Sign^ir^^^^ OWNXR’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reaiOBhble entry onto the property by City staff; consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. i—> Owner's Signature . , ^-L f f Date lyUS'/r ? Applicant must have all submittals into the Cii>- ofTiccs 25 days bc.'ore the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the thiri Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review mceliogs of the Planning Commission and CouncIL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to odvise the Building ft Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. SOZ-i 118/100 4 isr-i fiirirzzss^ #29 8 , ON080 iO MC0:|0 l03Z>rC-tiO ;^H ^•1 li t ■"'i^■^. «.. . ^V^;y^- •»» <** ^ • —C • ■.* ".. ' ' ' i-: • ’ “. • f*. " rs ■.>». ?i ' ..'' A -■■mm h . W.' . S sfji; iIRsS <x-'‘ '<M > •1*1 iP,••* > i; \ Ig PW'-'- •,.4P« S?i ... As •.••..«»f’* •';ti5 m ^‘.’v;:A •*jiv£>. /n11^ s. .i r-'- >*-• - ^ iHHw.'.Vi'-. tv; • ■A'' \* *- >% ' i,-.. -"M: raster. ,::V:»'T £BB'Tft, .. J s V '’ I' ‘ i'f ,apT>r^ *% J twi9d Vm5Bj 4iW«ips?ife?-'S iiVjTjU li^<ss^,4 /r:;- •'« V-V ^?Kir4| ^ • :r‘i , FRANK a CAROARELLE Und iunrT«c. i««. (612) 941*3031 /iyi"9 cio«a ori*« Land Surveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 Survey For.Book. 2t«J Kt'ljr A(«nut Orono. NN . Page.File SOM o CO 0^ EXHIBITCI xr D«»crlBUa**t Slick 2. CirMi Co»t. iccorsiai to ti*t rteorCti plot tuoroor, Mtnncpin County, einnoioto Tkil ploi. tpoclMcoMl" ••• »’*P9*'t fOporor Sy at or anOtr ■/ • « 0 5ily SisUtirid liiS Sorttyir ta t»c Stott iP NioMioti. S«S"ot 2001. Front ll. <0rOortllo) , ond t*it I of Ooccotr, kfctnit FRAK R. CARDARELLE Und surveyor. Inc. (612)941-3031 Fiym.j cioud onvo Lan Jurveyor Eden Prairie. MN 55344 i Survey For Marnvn HcClaskeV Book Page File 5044 2693 Kelly Avenue Orono* MN Scale: 1--40' • Denotes Iron Mon.Found Land Area: 34.247 sq.ft. House with underground garage: 1296 sq.ft. BT Driveway: 840 sq.ft. Cone.Sidewalk: 120 sq.ft. Concrete Patio; 672 sq.ft. Patio Deck: 583 sq.ft. Total Hardcover: 3511 sq.ft. 10.25X Lot Cover Setback Zone: 250-500* ■ a. 1 !•• Mi«VirnMcCiu»k»r Mr MonNUtMrkJ ?«vj Ke«r A*o Ot«*«d OeU0n 4 Contkwcllar inc Orono MN 5S33I f 95? 9?0 4543 1952.471.0372 Plan It 1/4* Scale j «on Doted Sci 2. 30C3 j ^ropofd AMHon Devotion ffovited 1--!to*rb ! (nmu (-1IIM fto9& _fl,ft«UH^ TWH^ ||i£1—.|j£j ®iFFr — -tee1 7^ fvowr fvjycKANiae HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ^ ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75.250* exhibit E ; HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House B. OtfSfe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underiain ByPlas&c G. Odier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Q • B WHO xlOO EXHIBIT F) 2693 KeUy Avenue Excelsior, MN 55331 15Deceoiber2003 Mr.MkteelHalkdcy 3275 Caman Road Excelsior. MN 55331 DearMr. HaDaday: Please accept nay sinccrest condoknccs on the loss of >-our nx>ther. Tin sorry I did not know earlier that she had passed on. Sbe was always so pleasant to talk with, and an ins|riration as she wneot on her daily walks. I wfll miss ha in the neighborhood. The additional reason 1 am writing today is that I plan to add a second floor bedroom onto the north side of ixqr small rambler~the white house on the comer of Carman and Kelly. The City of Orono requim me to notify each neighbor within 150* that 1 am embarking on this project You do not need to give h your approval, only acknowledge that Tve told you of the project My addition will not go outside the footprint of the current house, and will be in keeping with the existing sty le, clqrboard, double-hung windows and shutters. • If you wish any more deta0of4he.plans, please conlact iny contractor, Orfield Design and Construction, at (952) 920-d543. I*m sorry to bother you with this matter at a sad time for you. My house is not even visible from your bouse, but the woods on the north side of Carman Circle b the &r end of my property, so techriically wn^^ithin 150*. If you could sign arxl return the enclosed form to O^eM Design and Construetkm inibeenclosed envelope as sooir as possible! would be most appreebtive. Sincerely, Marilyn H. McClaskey EdcL exhibit g ife-P THIS ITEM HH beck City of OROIVfgfciiOFlUllED it--. HONQ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 22E4_________ A RESOLOTION GRARTIIIQ A VARIAMCB TO MUNICIPAL XOHING COOB SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #1206 WBBRBAS, Katherine C. Perry (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2693 Kelly Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City”) and legally described as follows: Block 2, Carman Cove, Her.r.spin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")! and WBBRBAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a deck and scr«en porch located 32 feet from the side street lot line where a 35 foot lide street setback is normally required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 17 RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File <1206. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Coinnission reviewed this application on October 19, 1987, and recommended etproval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A) Moving the wall cf the porch to meet the 35* required setback would place the wall in conflict with existing door and window locations. B) The porch and detk as proposed will have no significant visual effect on the cr.aracter of the neighborhood. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendaticr.s 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. rage 1 of 3 &OFV-: .'I QRONQf Cityof OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2284 > vf ir wssmmp$i$!0aCity.^^ intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONTRITIONS .etb«clc 1. normally required. .ubjUJ resol|ition ruH with the property : application for a 'bui^dln®gwithVn^ o*ne yell ^ thVdVt« o- finiesK'’”'' ' ''arlance w^'ll expire on that date (OcVob« non-compliance with any of the terras anr* conditions of this resolution ahaVL constitute a violation zoning code, shal l automatically /tefSJniio any auiSo^trg?antel herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. grantee lo th«*tyJm«*^of^rhf*^®***' understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself kis kAfve succe.sore and assigns, hereby agrees to the recirdl’na of ^ resolution in the chain of title of Ihe property^ recording of this 1987.Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of October, mciXYrs ImRdiNOi Cltyof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2284_________ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SB. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this ^. . . ^ CA? ____________, 198^ bsfore me a Notary Public within.and for said county, personally KCL.4'her i/\e C. Pf ,/Oel^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person(s) descfil^d in^nd who executed the appeared foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (tliey) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Pamcia L Pet*r%un_ notawv puauc • UMNUor* MEWMEWH coow nr _Uy opMMWBn r.tw NOTARY PUBLIC n-!5-‘i3 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )SB. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of 198 * before ce a Notary Public withiQ and for said County* personally appeared _________________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who ex'^cuted the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 3 of 3 STATC or HIIICSOTA ) > COUNTT or HCMNCriM ) ) CITY or OlOlO ) #• Dorothy H, Ballla, City Clork of tht City of Orono, Hennooln SrthoVl"ty*o?OrJS oo October 26 19^7 . and thot th« sant Is a tru duly adootad•Dd eorraet copy of said raaolutl^ was Counoll at said ■eatlog.by said City KIJNIMlfciliMiUll IK Wllf/«I4UI»4 nuir miK mss i.yinamiiavi. OWNi (MAME JAJUUIti TAXTAYOt lAMiSSeHO NAMiyAMM MSSLYIMAJIOAVE liXCtLSIUMMN 3S»I lllMNU'INi IMINIY I'KOITUIV INI«>KMAII(*NNYMIAI IWI'IKIYIWNIRSIINI rAiii I I'Kir AtNIN 2(>VJ Kl 11 V AVI UWNLMNAML S J WLNUJMi A U A WLNIMJNU TAXTAYCR STEVEN IA D0«££ A WENOUNQ NAMn/AOOR lASOKHU.VAVIlNim UCn.I.MOMMN SSSSI la miH' Allim /MU Kl 11 V AVI UWNLMNAMI: IKA^LVULXMAN TAXTAYER JOHNRASIIEJUtYLVOLKMAX NAMI/AINW JMO KCU.Y AVI' IXITUSIOHMN SSJJI }■ 20II72JI40007 raOTAODR Mf7K£U.YAVe OWMWNAMA RONJCMRtfTINSOIBTAL TAXTAYIR NONJASARAHACWUmNSEN NAMBADOR 2M7KEUYAVE EXCELSURMN SSJll M IOII72JI40OIO nur AOOR IMS carman ro OWNOKNAMi JSNMLSRNAKRMELSCN TAXPAYER XN4 S A KJRT^^ R NIELSEN NAME/ADOR 324S CARMAN RO fXCELSXTRMN SSJJI M 20II72JI400I4 PMPAOOR ms CARMAN RO OWNIRNAMfi TPUJWEARALOWS TAXPAYER THOMAS P LOWE NAME/AOOR JMSCARMANRO EXCELSXMMN SSJJI Jt »II72JI400I7 PROPAOOR StfJ KELLY AVB OWNIRNAME MARILYNHMCCLASKEY TAXPAYER NAM&AOOR X t S5 XX U] MARILYN H MCCLASKEY IMJKEaYAVE EXCELSIOR MN SSJJI Jl 20II72JI40IMI PROP AOOR 2MS KELLY AVE OWNERNAME C D SIMPSON A R SIMPSON TAXPAYER CHARLESOSIMPSON NAME/AOOR 269S KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN SSJJI Jl 20II72JI400II PROP AOOR J2ES CARMAN RD OWNERNAME K M M OLSON A M D OLSON TAXPAYER KMMOLSON AMDOLSON NAME/ADOK J26S CARMAN RO EXCtLSXIRMN SSJJI Jl 20II72JI400IS PROPAOOR JJOOCARMANRD OWNERNAME JOAN E NIELSEN TAXPAYER JOAN E NIELSEN NAME/AOOR JJW CARMAN RO EXCELSIOR MN SSJJI Jl 2QII72JI40US PROPAOOR 2«SS KELLY AVE OWNERNAME IW EIXSTERACM EUGSTER TAJOAYER JACK EUGSTERATAROL M EUQSTER NAME/AOOR 2RSS KELLY AVE EXCEUKJRMN SSJJI Jl 20II72JI40009 PROPAOOR J22S CARA4AN RO OWNERNAME UCAVAIIOUCK TAXPAYER OAVIO C HOUCK NAME/ADDH J22J CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN SSJJI Jl 20II72JI400I2 PROPAOOR J27SCARMANRD OWNERNAME MICHAELHALLAOAYETAL TAXPAYER SORAMAE G MALLADAY NAMI/AOOR 7720 H CAUL I OS AROOLES • CSONA2 IJ7JO Jl 20II72JI400I6 PROPAOOR Jl ADDRESSUNASSICNEO OWNERNAME VILLAGE OP ORONO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/AOOR PO DOX 06 CRYSTAL IIAV MN JSJ2J I CERTIFY THATTIC FACTS REFRESEPirEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS PATF ON THE RKXJRDS OFTHE HEW. PIN COUNTY TAXPAYER S^JLVICES DEPARTWENH OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. DY 7/ o Q OQ EXHIBIT f 12L KpSpi VParce/lnfo^atfen,V:;;^V®|| irc«l ID 20il723i4p0ir imk not a.ki^ n^o^ map-n npiasants a compU bon .yd (tota>om pty. Ceunfy. and Staf road authonuas r:tE»03?»23 e 3c»4 P<s« ' o<3 Dale Appliriiion Received: 06>l9-03 Dale Application Considered av Complete: IO-0'‘-U3 60>Dd) Rivlew Period Cvpircs: 02-0"*04 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cil> Administrator From: Date: Melanie Cunis. City Planner JanuaiA 8. 2004 Subject:U3-2925. Mevan Wagner. 3607 & 3609 Shorelr.e Drive. • Commercial Site Plan Review for building addition and Var«“.ccs • public hearing Zoning District: B-1, Retail Sales Business District, 0.45 acre minimum 120.000 s.f.) Lot Area: 1.163 acre (50.682 s.f.) Application Summary Recap: In September 2003 the applicant submitted an application for a building c.xpansion and remodel in the U-1 Zoning District. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit p:i>mpL> a site review by the Plan.-.ir.g Commission and City Council The applicant h.is reqi:e.sted the following: 1) Commercial site plan rev iew in o-Jer to obta'n a building permit to remodel and expand an c\ ting 2.310 s f. concrete block building on uhe properix to a 4080 > f : wilding, a 1.770 s.t. total expansion. 2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which i> setback 8’ from the from property line where 10' is required. The signage it.'clf will extend additional 4* into the setback area for a sign setback of 4" when 10' is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow exi.siing driveway hardcover to become structural hardcover.* *Fac h of these items will he reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review.__________ App> cation Vpdatc: 'Ihe application was pre.-enteJ at the Cktober 2003 PIan.-.!r.g Commissiun meeting and the November 2003 work session The following infomiation was requested by the Planning Commission at the OctoKrr meeting for the applicant to provide for their rev iew: 1.Storm water management plan (indicating drainage and grading). De .lied landscape plan including any vegetative screening A lighting plan h.xisung and proposed exterior storage plan. i.*:cluding any equipment staging area. Exterior building material detail, ih/ardous waste manacemeni solutions Stajf Recommeniiation: Planning Depanment Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject the following conditions being met: 1 . Cilv Engineer ’s recommendations must be implemented 2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is mainlair.. J. 3. Compliance with City Code 5S-Ij ) Ma:ntena.*.ce of Private Propertv pric: to being placed on the C iiv C» uncil agenda for fi!-..sl review. fILE«03-W23 .•-.■•yl 2CC4 Pj;« I of 3 Date Appliralion Rcctivcd: 06*I9-OJ Dale Applicalion Contitlcrcd at Complete: 10>0*-03 60-Ua} Rkticn I’eriod Expires: 02>0''-04 To; Chair Smith and Planning Cernmission Members Ron Moorsc. Cil> Administrator Ntclanie Curtis, City Planner j January 8. 2004 03-2923, Stevan Wagner, 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Drive, • Commercial Site Plan Rexiew for building addition and Vanar.ces - public hearing Zoning District: B-1, Retail Sales Business District, 0.45 acre minimum (20,000 s.f.) Lot Area: I.I63acre(50.682s.f.) From: Date: Subject: Application Summary Recap: In September 2003 the applicant submitted an ^^rplication for a building expansion and remodel in the H-I Zoning District. As per City Code Se„:;on 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Plam*.;r.g Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan rex iew in order to obtain a building permit to remode; and expand an ex ting 2..'10 s f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f : JIding. a 1.770 s.i. total expansion. 2) A setback xariance in order to rc-usc the existing sign pole which is setback 8’ from the front property line where 10' is required. l>.e signage itself will extend an additional 4* into the setback area for a sign setback of 4’ when 10’ is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural hardcover.* *Fach of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review. ____ Appt cation Lpdate: I hc application was presented at the October 2003 Plan.-dr.g Commissiv..n meeting and the November 2003 work session The following infomiation was requested by the Planning Commission at the October meeting for the applicant to provide for their rev iew: 1. Slomi water management plan (indicating drainage and grading ). 2. De;.«iled landscape plan including any vegeiatix e screening 3. A lighting plan. 4. I:\iMing and proposed exterior sior.ige plan, i.'teluding any equipment staging area. 5. Exterior building material detail. 6. 1 la/ardous waste manacenieni solutions Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject the following conditions being met: 1. City Engineer’s recommendations must be implemented. 2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is maintained. 3._Compliance with City Code 5S-T ) Maimenar.ce of Private Property prior to being placed ______on the C itv Ct uncil agenda for fir..:l review. r ikL_ EXHIBIT A riLEMs-nn Odsbtrt 2Ca Date AppIkatiMi Ractiv»d: U-19-03 DaUA^pIkatlMCMnlderfdMConplHc: llM>7-03 W-Dajf Rtvkw Pfrtad Ciplm; ll-OT-OJ Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Cit> Admim'stralor Fron: Daft: Subject: Melanie Foth, Cil> PlaxmerjJ^J^ October 9.2003 03-2923, Stevan W^ner, 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Drive, - Commercial Site Plan Review hr building addition and Variances • public hearing Zoning District: B-1, Retail Saics Business District, Lot Area: 0.45 acre minimum (20,000 f.f.) 1.163 acre (50,682 s.f.) Application Sununary: The applicant has submitted an application for a building expansion and remodel in the B-1 Zoning District As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. Tne applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2310 s.f concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f building, a 1,770 s.f total expansion. 2J A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8 ’ from the front property line where 10’ is required. The signage itself will extend an additional 4* into the setback area for a sign setback of 4’ when 10' is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural hardcover* "Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review.__ List of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing & Proposed Survey "Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Sign Information E. Submined Hardcover Calculations F. Propertv'Owners List G. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections H. Photos I. Aerial photo Background The property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive has historically served as an equipment rental business. Lawn and garden equipment rental is a permitted use in the district; kowever, there is a great deal of outdoor storage associated with this business. Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the Industrial district only. There are no provisions within nL£M3-2923 OcS9Mr9.2003 Pi9«2of6 lh« B-l Dislricl to allow for outdoor storage. TTk Plaining Ccrjiiission should discuss dus issue and dete^ne the amount, if any, of outdoor storacr jot should he allowed *r" .'■".“'“i'oof it has’n-.er teen allowed in the B- I distnct md staff has found no indication lhai Ihe cxisUng ouiioo: storage is a leaal use by past City actions regarding this site. * * The applicant would like to improve the main building and ad; considerable in>»^r nri'nfilfh to accommodate his business. The expansion c: the building will allow for topnmaiy business site to move from the smaller 33-x52' bu-'in; at the rear of the lot IhTme e one.lT’x open faced storaceshed, one 33 x 53 building located 4,5 from the cast propcm ne ind the 33‘v 70* mam building which is the basis for this proposal. This 33’x7-: * buildine uill be expanded to accommodate more indoor storage and updated reiiil and office space. LOT ANALYSIS .............................................................................. Setbacks; B-l Required Existing Proposed Front (street)10 ’ (sign) 20* 8’ (sign) 49,5 ’(buildinR»No Change Rear 30 ’120 ’No Change East Side (B-District)15’4.5*No Change Right Side (R-District)35’90 ’75 ’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Aren Total Structural Coverage 50,682 s.f. (I.163acre)Allowed; 7602.3 5(15®/o) Proposed:6132.7f5f (12%) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allossed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500- 1000 • After exclusion 48.150 s.f 16.852.5 sf (35%) ~35.030s:* (72.75«,i 55.009 s.f. ('2.71%) IL FlLE»03-2923 OcJcCef 9 2003 Pass 3 of 6 Front Yard Setback Variance for Sign Replacement The existing sign is located 8' from the front property line, uhere a 10’ setback is required. The applicant is proposing to re-use this sign in part including the non conforming setback. He will be re-painting the pole and hanging new signage from it, however the new signage will extend an additional 4* into the 10’ setback. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 4 ’ sign setback variance where 10’ is required by City Code. Hardcover Variance This property is almost entirely within the 500’-1000’ hardcover zone. Currently, there is 35,030 s.f. of hardcover constituting 72.75 Vo. Most of this hardcover is gravel and paved pacing areas with buildings consisting of only 6,132.75 s.f. or 1/6 of tlie 72.15%. This proposal will increase structural coverage, staying within the \5Vo allowance, but will not significantly reduce hardcover. Site Characteristics/B-1 conformity; Site .nrea Defined Lot Width Building Setbacks Front Lot Line Rea. Lot Line Side Yard Adjacent to “R” District RcQuircd/Allowed 20,000 s.f. (0.46 acre) 100* Pronoscd/Fxlstina 50,682 s.f. (1.163 acres) 250’ 35 ’ 35 ’ 35 ’ 15’ 30’ (2'/j stories) 191 s.f. 49.5’ 120’ 75 ’ Propo.sed 90’ Existing 4.5 ’ Existing-Proposed 150 s.f Side Yard Adjacent to “B” Disirict Building Height Signage * i s f. per each front foot occupied by building, plui I s.f. for each front foot not occupied by building [cite: City Code 78-I468( I )1 Additional standards required for the B-l zoning district appear in Chapter 78 Article IV Division 12. Those standards are attached as Exhibit H. Parking Requirements A Location . Parking spaces and or garages shall be located in areas other than a required x.i.'J; c.xcept tr.at parking ma> be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common w ith an R district; in which case the setback distance shall be 35 ’. The applicant ’s property is irregularly shaped and surrounded at the rear and on the west side by residential property. The eastern side lot line abuts another B-l districL B. Number of parking stalls Required = I per 500 s.f. of floor area in excess of the I*' 500 s.f. (Net» 5829 s.f. - 500 =5329 s.f/500 = 10.65 stalls required) Total stalls required = 11 Total stalls existing =18 F1UEM3-2923 Cctce«r9.2003 Pag* 5 of 6 occupied by a building.** The frontage is 250* along Shoreline Drive, allo%^ing the property 250 s.f. of signage. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f.. A new pole sign is proposed at 83 s.f. and wall signs totaling 67 s.f.. The property is allowed signage up to 250 s.f. The proposed signage of 150 s.f. is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Landscaping Plan The applicant has proposed additional vegetative screening between the west side of the proposed building and the western drive. The western property line is screened with a buffer of trees over 6 ’ tall. The Planning Commission should discuss w hether the proposed and existing vegetation is adequate for screening the outdoor storage in the western parking/storage lot. yghiiag A lighting plan has not been provided with the application. The applicant should address how or whether the individual buildings, entr>’ways. or parking lot will be illuminated. Building Quality and Materials The attached sheets labeled A1-A5 depict the floor plans and elev ations for the proposed building. The approved exterior wall finishes as designated by City Code must be face brick, natural stone, specially designed precast concrete units, factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, or other materials as may be approv ed by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted The applicant has proposed vertical wood siding with a field stone base for the exterior facade of the building. The Planning Commission should discuss whether these “residemiar* materials are appropriate for the B-l district. Summary of biues for discussion: 1 . Is the outdoor storage use non-conforming? Should it be allowed to be improved and/or expanded? 2. Should the building be constructed to accommodate all of the equipment storage for the business, including the equipment currently being stored outdoors? 3. Should one or both of the accessory' structures be removed? 4. Should, if permitted to remain, the outdoor storage be restricted to a specific amount, type and location of equipment? Should additional screening be installed? The west and south lots on the property are gravel. Is grav el an appropriate parking surface for a business district? Should all of the lots be provided with curb and gutter? FL£«03-7t23 Octatar9.3003 6. bAevef^H-ood siding *s proposed in ippropriite exterior will finish foricommeiciil building? 7. Should the pole sign be relocated to a conforming location? *’ JL^siS?" ^ building on the property? How will that use impact 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecimieadaHyg; I. Planning Department staff recommends approval of the sign variance. Application CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Rene^^'al Variance Fee Si50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non*cocfonning structures S250.00 AAer«the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received i Amount Paid %J2SCX. exhibit a PROPERTY INFORMATI Site Address______ o ' Property Identification Numle: (P.LD.I 7^" /17^" g-3 " 2^ ^ 00J>^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____S£*^r Xopio I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(raonth/ycar) Present use of property: Zoning District:. residential .other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: ^ fln&Aj I Oi jL—< AjgrC City:. Phone (home) 9^1. «(7v 71 ro Phone (W'ork) V7 # t7#o AIO misIO At^Zio: OW7VER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUESX. Estimated Comtruction Cost S________ Describe request in detail: /<€••$ ST^/^ t^dsT" (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ____Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify) _________ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2923 • INQUIRED sin.>ilTTALS inpItfHhB Jmjii-. I- — Completed Application Form Govt Center, 348.5910). ^ Department of Finance, A-603, * ---- Certificate of Survey (siened bv a «re'’prepoKd. ""'i"* F»“’- 1- Z property. This would include namefs) of aDDlicanfro*^?*®”* ^ ’"*'"** *" *he ^ •” addendum to this application. u ” current owncr(s). >t)u wish notified of this SppUcation other perso.ns — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 7. S. APPLIC^T'S signature AdmIniiU^ator.»pee5^to^> adLoMrfe«*(«a^ requested by the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in resiew of this application Th •tipphed IS true and coi^o^the^t of hiVher taowl^gt ‘"'“""•'ion Applicant's Signature ^ OWTVER'S SIGNATURE mentber. for pun»se, .Wsti^on and veriftcation Tiis r^^^ --------____ Date ^-/P. 6 \ Meeting, rianning Co’^Usim m ft'd'f* .han'g:Vn”Mo"re rt'^"^ ” ^ BS.sLTrzt*n:;^~ o o/O AppUcatioD U 5 Date Received__________ Amount Paid crj CITY OF ORONO - GENER\L LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 3 7 Type ot Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.LD.) APPLICANT Name $rgj£. 7 Address Phone (home ) . Phone (work)_?ll AtCfc*». o V7» - ^700 Zip rrife/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___ Address Phone (home)_ Phone (wcrk)_ Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also ou-n the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S2SO.OO Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (churchy school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments ^ S250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ‘ S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. >d. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTH^ APPLICATIONS ^ S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement V'acation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezonin: (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule L 1 5. 6. • “0 P>« -P O.U p^.sk^^"^"-‘‘^r:rs‘zz. notified Of this appli^a^^^r'^ attach a separate list of any other sSrS/f"?'..- «. ' * <‘0''aicnts. plans, etc. lo be •PPlicaUon is not Wlials of Clerica?sTaffi Land Use Application is complete. Date APPLICANT’S SICVATirDr remember that >-du .- APFUC,Wr.S signatlue -----------------— -y Zonin, 0\>TVER'S SIGNATURE^*^ ' ---------0^0^— pa.-po«s^es,.garcn attd verif.cation'cf ftis ?r«, " Council ^^■ner's signature 5 —9-n~<^Applicant X ^-------------------- __2 *• GITYoTORONO Municipal Offices StnttlMrtss: 2750 Kelley ParUj/ Orsno. KM 5S3S6 Mailing IMrtti: F.O. Bn €6 Ciyitai Bay. 101 55323^C!5 DATA PRIVACY An\7gnpY iZ!LT * ^ • ’ C" ? P'""" fro ” >;« Citv of Orono or any of itsdepartment, may require you to furnish eenain private c: confidenUa: information. You are notified that: p^r©r llccwe rec-bc that the City deny the LratirmTbe»^U.ic“''“^ ” “ Sa"on":^S" "*"“ ” •» -i- P"«>' Your full name is required to process this appllcaticn cr permit. Fire* Middle ' ------------------------------------------- \JtC^ Address • ——-------------------------- ^ift-u -JO_________ Ai, j T<7?fey ‘^"v ^rvi-TSio Zi? Phone 1 uniSaicfMd my ^ Signature Its as stated above. Tdcpbeoe(952)24M«0 • Faa (952) 24M<1« CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA __________ SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 EXHIBITS CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR A;:?.,HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA_ _ _ _ __ m t: SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 IN LOT 7, BLOCK 7, TOWNSITE OF LANCUUN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : The West 250.00 feet of the East 350.00 feet of Lot 7. Block 7. Townsite of Longdon Pork. • -oir o qlowbr lbvil !il i«fi'i p 2>iI-C5 MCS■oaoi knS ilipI §di -ii • A2 NORTM fLCVATlON ) . EAST ELEVATION Ifli^fl'! I*>i HOG ■|aDi ip•EJ il A4 m M _ _ Bonestroo Rdsene Anderlik& |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects November 10.2003 Ms. Melanie Foth Planner CityofOrono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 3607.3609 Shoreline Drive File No. 139-03-000 PUi No. 03-2923 ■•naitta*. ■•«««•. mm mt nm rnttmmmhm Mtmtutmmt OMtilawni Otto O •e-»i-oo at • V « t M M • C »•*> * C m* *1 • •jecj C »| • i»"/ * •<>w»«0« • V**« A *1 Cmumimn * tatr-« »| • c • Wvia m !*•' AMMiMt tfy,M G®-S; ■ *1 . A| . # »f •0«*'«O 10I*5»A •€ . 1 *AA>’>jr<r M • ^ <i . • V*» t ts.*. *| « o«>.« A VIA Vara. ' * A.A-lO*' t J • Agrws v J rj V J A • A .J». I<« j- »f • *' Af . lm<n • mjfjrm H • V n» j*» •- 'I . t ■- t • »« • D*-*- I f A| • H>‘An *1 • rA*»Al A l.f.a n • i **- .-•Cat » OO.* »! • »«<—At A atMlAA. A| . j *1 OMm*! H »aw » ii C<.S VMAfttr A-s* -A- VS.V AJu*ra »:<Cn<«9> « VMlil* AAAbtAwt'-;: exhibit c Dear Melanie: We completed a site inspection plan review of the property Icoted at 3607 and 3609 Shoreline Drive. The proposed improv ements include a buildmg addition and some n=nor grading. We have the following comments with regards to engineering maners: • The current and proposed use of the site is for a rental center. Our site visit indicated that most of the rental trucks and trailers are stored outside on a gravel surface parking lot. There w as no evidence of curb and gutter or any type of storm sewer system. Tae s:*4C lies immediately north of an existing weMand. We strongly recommend that the plans incerporate some type of storm water treatment system to treat the site runolTprior to discharging to the wetland complex. This nught include storm sewer, a treatment pond, vegetated buffer strips, pa-.cd parking areas with curb and gutter, or a combination of the concepts mentioned. • The plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Cree'e Watershed District for review and approval. • The drainage calculations indicate that the proposed rerm water discharges will not increase from the existing discharges. The calculations do not include the "furcre 1 2-foot wide bituminous drive*' shown on the landscape plan. We recommend that the stone %aier calculations reflect proposed and future site improvemenu so storm water treatment systems czn be sued accordingly. • The drainage calculations should include existing ard prc<posed drainage area maps for the touti drainage area to the site. • The flammable wrasie trap design should be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for review and comment. The site may requre an cidustrial permit from the MPCA. • Fmal plans should include temporary and permanent erosion control plans. If you hav*e any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. \ BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES. INC \ \ /o^ Tom Kellogg ^ Cc: GregGappa.CityofOrono 2JJS W9%t Highway 36 • $t. Paul. MN 55IIJ • 6S1-636-4600 • Fa*: 6S1 636 IJTI EXHIBIT D CONSENT Pennit Applkation No.: 03"39l Applicant: SttvmnWanier_________ Project: CoMBiTtial bnifclina addition Location: 3<07 Shoreline Drive. Oreno Rule: B/N Received: UZUfli Complete: Notification: m2A3 RccoBBeodatioa: Approval. Pennil should rK>t be issued until the following conditions are met; 1. Reimbursement of mailing costs 2. ReimbursementofRule J Fees 3. Submittal of a Declaration for maintenance of the skimming structure which must be executed and recorded. _________________________________________ Background: The applicant is proposing building addition at the location cited above in the City of Orono. The site is approximately 1.15 acres in siie. The increase in impervious surface uill be I.S70 square feet. A permit would allow for the creation of new impervious surface. Rule B: Erosion control consisting of silt fence and a gravel construction entrance has been proposed for the site. The proposed project requires Best Management Practices (BMP) and rate control to fulfill the stormwater management requirements of Rule N. Stormwater runoff rates will not increase as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has proposed to convert a three-foot wide area along the West property boundary from gravel to MN wild grasses and install a rock drain with a skimming structure for their equipment wash site as BMP’s.________________________ Attachments: 1 . Permit application 2. Site plan/survey (2) 3. Site location map Renae Clark Date ....______i December 19.2003 Sievan Wegner 3607 Shoreline Drive Weyate,MN 5S391 MCWD Pemh Appliceiiaa No. 03-591.3607 Shoreline Drive Dear Appltcont: The Minnehaha Creek Wtfenhed District Board of Manegen reviewed the above mentioned pennii application at iheir Board meeting on December II. 2003. It was the action of the Board to approve this application with the following conditions: • Reimbunemeni of mailing costs in the amount orS39.60 • Pa>tnem of Rule J fees in the amount of S227.IS • Submit a Declaration for maintenance of the skimming structure which must be executed and Due to the size and complexity ofcertainpn^ects, the Board, by Rule J. requires that site inspcctkms be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to the District, a fee equal to the actual costs of atudysb of the project, field inspectiofi. engineering services, legal services, and any subsequem monitoring of the work. These costs are referred to as Rule J fees. Once the above mentioned fees have been paid and the other conditions have been met suff will issue the petmit. You are reminded that work on the project cannot begin until the pemuihm been issued. This permit expires one year from the date of this letter. If final municipal approval of the project resuks fai changes to the protject you must submit revised plans to the MCWD for review. Please call me at 9S2-47I-0590 with any questions. Sincerely. Renae Clark Distria Technician City ofOrono Rachel Igel. Anorney at Law December 19.2003 Sievan Wagner 3607 Shoreline Drive Wayima. MN SS391 RE; MCWD Permit Application No. 03-391.3607 Shoreline Drive Dear Applicant; The Minnehaha Creek Waienhcd Didrkt Bomd of MamKgen reviewed the above mentioned permit applkmkm at their Board mectinf on December It. 2003. It was the action of the Bomd to approv e this applicathm with the following conditions: • Reimbursement of mailing costs in the amount of S39.60 • PavmentofRuleJ fees h the amount of S227.SS • Submit a Declaration for maintenance of the skimming structure which must be executed and recorded Due to the size and complexity of cenain projects, the Board, by Rule J. requires that site inspections be conducted. In these cases, the applicant b required to pay to the District, a foe equal to the actual cosu of analysb of the project, field inspeakn. engineering services, legal services, and any subsequent raoniioringof the work. These costs we referred to as Rule J foes. Once the above memioned fees have been paid and the other conditions have been met staff wUI bsue the permit. You are reminded that work on the project cannot begin until the permit has been biucd. Thbpemut expires one yew from the date of thb letter. Iffinal municipal approval of the project results in changes to the project you must submit rcvbed plans to the MCWD for review. Please call me at 952-471-0390 with any questioos. Sincerely. Renae Clark District Technician c: CiiyofOrono Rachel Igel. Attorney at Law SSfeTSSSSSKSKa «». a h. ■ <<\ itM2 . •• ■•: PJli/ ‘ Mr ■ w icj^.Oip^n I ^■•e»A|»;ta d* r«i *ete irc any w corc«i^<.- 1 m.<o| {^iil!^^^W^aV«gper has applied for ■ Rule B E^«. Conttol «i^ RiUe R^mw^lEnagemeni permit for a building expwision It 3607 Shoreline »rive, Way^ If ^ iiKKOd Btoto ^ WUe-^ 47|!itfSrS«reaHa*aa»enttfycnphniDre^ lliliiTInrl' RfBUCiiEETMidl: V; ANNOUNCED • • -V^ 'li l ernrofoaoNO >1 rOBOX66■ v:'ii «”> ■■ j i|jii(jiiuiiimWMiitH«ittMMn*iiniiiU«fl»i|«U tl/K/2M4 IS: 12 SS2471B436 AIRENTM.PAGE t2 /IT*. «■ K«tooftl FotlttM Disebarfi EKaiBaboa SystHO (MPOCSySttCs Dtapo«l Syst0B (SOS) Oanaral Stonn Water PermK Application tor Indnatrial Activity (MN 0610000) mm •llanaMls Poflutfon Control Agency RgM OMaian. Mustrlii Storm Waiar Prn« pTogrwn S20 UteyMi Retd Norvi. St Pam. MN SS15S-41S4 Minft—Ota Pollullon Conlral Aginqf 9^ to ik* ^IfemUm 1. imwIdptSy Owwea or Operator FteWSw AM othBn aUp to ptrtA. 2. For TBunkiptUy owned or optoatodiaduittial fteflitiss, dcsipuie liiifls or noltiple lito penmt covmse. QB Single the permit Q Multiple tite pennit If multiple eitee. ouaber of etiiched ipplicetios forre, Pier —i>tyaBy ewWar ^paraaa4A»*«nat>nJaai.m»a» xA<>fe ca^Aaa 6rp<»cane»«. artrt-v/gr^i^Ar aaettiM iaanO -------- ...>ae«WfcW;i^.f<aevrfal>iaem»n»ao 9rrn<iffi€ialfyJnttmmn^WKmh0m^MlgitmktffhtmimJ^ 2. Me or FacMIy Laeattonto w FacaRy Laeatfon 44 /iQ i»lAJ£>r4 oA KlMOorittarnittoO Sfe5-7 SHPfL€.eiP»£ S'la tmm AMttaa (Acfna/S/^fl mrWatic. ifw/in 0 mA ccu tocwPia <warvWWa/MnCvAMMarCJfMMHaOPfcO £.* WWa • f.O. Sm; iTmi tMtiti ClorwTowiailsI u)Acij£lL ^ *****Ziy CeCa CMBiy C<«(a« tx« M«i4 Sea Nana * Tie# MN MCoaHdk(iU«a 411 9100 ir ® 4ol Iwa Z;Coe# E-M..1 AeOtH I MN IH# ZaC#L# Public Land Survey (logal dtKoptka) ndonnatioB for Ibe tita. Refer to propeiTy tax ttateacna, 6e county xul tor's «»***•. or coUBly pUt naps to obtain diis biformetioB. Tbe lito or fccllity Is located ta the GNEONW DSE CISW starter of the D nE D nw D sE □SWquanr of ■ectioo ia /-fr 7 jLAmpma^T^^A^ lowaihin. Towmhip >________Raaif a. Owner inFormaOon Is the site's owacr infbnoaticB diflerem ftoo the liae infennation provtdrd above? If yet. provide owna ^Yea ON o 1 T>ct ,3a >o£4C wKAiM f *OoMtYN^a V72-7J/0 OwerCoaOtakaoiNaM rmtNam ^ rnt - Tahymra >rA /»04iJ«aie Cr /MiJ Sax Tatayncra >rW mm aeW Q.aarMWhi •w«wr-i.'APClitohMrJtoraa ir«w L ■1/0&/2M4 IS: 12 9S24718436 AIRENTM.PAGE S3 •rftianiiwaivtntfi HisflltMtaiT lf]m»p>w4dftl>4DMaiof±eawTAwiarbody^hfcifft<r. jrr—n wEnwS; mrtlMa fmtK. mti AieUffg muMm Hmm BlfM QM« iMtf «mc (2m0 inm «•» fii« dntai IM. 1. OwtSw alii wIMnyliaw any attMrllPOCMOSpAmriltfbrSMuvitsr Haaaftaiia Waaia Oanaraiar ID • or any atfiar tyya of MPCA pannirf Ifya^iiArttr Typiofpnait: Pamiteri ^KIC. I □taa On * 'faftarallan QPaa BN oE Daaatfw alia arUKlItySlachaffa noncontact coding waMr(a.B.«alBruBad In I anO raMgaration, ole.)? If ytib wkara does ooDcoctict cooUag waier dlaeba.*|$ to? (check an that apply) □ Miaidpal nom aawtr □ SaBte>«wcr □ Septic ttck/dniB field □ OAv. indkatc vrfMva wdv diackdgea to (dbeh, ^tUMknpemd, tic). S. Doaa tha dta or fOdWy diadiarga pfocaaa eeaataowtof (o.g. waUf uaad In an IndualHal IM or other preduet wonhing)?Idod or other preduet wonhing)? If yai, whaie deal procau waiteefatcr diadiaria to? (cheek all diat apply) □ Makipal Item aewer □ Sanitary aawv □ Saptic ttak/draia IMd □ Odwr. bdteata where walar diiahaiiaa la (dMi, dtttntmpond, tic). mit iv *,•) t x| I. DaacrtbathoprlmaryacliwtlydOwallaorlaenHyAidiotarelheprlndpdprodOetBorawvteoej. , RCr*tt. hdjcatetfccStecdardiedaitrialClawAabaoCSIQ code icr that activiy (tct^pnetUmbitnctlcrufortttacftBtetMtmvidSICcodii). Prinanr *7^ Cl Sccooddr., nftffbetb^) M. la Iha primary aeSvty or tie cede you Indkated in guns«onD.1. Sated under die liat DUBaad of primary acSvMaa and/or SIC codaa In Vie appSeaUen ineiroetione?□HotUaiad If Bot limed, persit covangc ta oot feqeaed fo yes aits. Ship to part H tad ti|D Ae Owaee or Oprnter CardScalkau irC4 aobww JOm Wamtmmc 61/08/2M4 15:12 9524718436 aiwntal PAGE 84 ¥irM 8w sIM «r fMiny praviouslir c««fi«G undw M NPOn ttorm water pMndt? I£ya,eatoNPOESp«t^idntificaitaBBUDibcra«>«GOWaM';__________ I. WMIla Via total aba of alii anodMwWiMuttrtalaeiMty? □Yaa ij^Acfia 3. Naaa|aypaMVarraafa4avarafanMf1yaHpaaatf.vantouaarBalnarVartoqiialMyfartliaiio OVaa BNa aapaaiMa aaclualant rtn|frflr|piTi‘*^'iT ^ ~ ------------------------------------1---------- ««-------rr‘TT*1 —1 " 4>iiiw lhfamr oalac o»Ml4iilntaltotoriiwwi—M>4iictoncil»w»iyBafi.aiwUiriytofcmini4wmitiia3dOB waar anaUiy. b «hldi ene )(«> couU to iiqaM «B flbain p«mit ca««if& If yas, ^aato todkab ^ area watr^vtd cr noted am.□ Laas Ilian ana acra □ Ona to flva acraa □ Man than flva aoat An any of aw tollaartng aialaflals Of acVvWaa aapaaaV to aj^eipitollan ar alarm watar runoff, now or in ttia lanaaoaab futoro7 lbjB|.iMii«orckaohigtndaatr1aliDachiiiefyorcquipmep',aadaraai«lieranr:dual$ftemuiiBg, BVaa ONa ■toriagorclaaBiof iaduiti1a]niochiavyoraqoi|iincntrcflubudareaipes«dto rsfawaier MMarwlaoricaidaalaaolbegnuadorinitonnaalerinkU&smiptlUortcalu DVaa BNa MaMriab or producto from part iadiHtriaIacti\'ity DYaa (3No I4tterial haakmi aquipomt (cicqx adequately nniDtained vehidca) DYaa BN o Mabriala or producta durtof loading or unloadina or trampering activitia DYaa BN o Matcriala or produett stored outdoon (aacqit final products ctndad for outakk»c,nicb as new OVaa QN o can. urhara axpown to itorm water does not rasult in the di tchirge of poIhittDls) JdaMrlabconaiaad in opao,detcriontcd or baking storage drims.lwfTcla. tanks aadabailar □Vaa BNa eofituoan Mabritli or products handled or bond onroadi or raawayi owned or mauitaiocd by the discbancr DY ob BN o Watte nwbfial(cacqit waste in comad, Dofl'bakiflgooautm like a covered ds^star) □Yaa C9N o Applkalioo or diapoaalofprocctt wastewater (unless iNbe^iKpcmiitted) DYaa BN o Pardeulale natter or viaibb deposits of rctidualf from rwfjStacks nd/or vents net otherwise DYaa BN o regulated (t.c. under an air quality contcol pannii) and cvidfc*. is the ttocra water outSowicvidjcti Ifyou checked yes to ANY ofthe ilsns in question E. 4. a'kyc-: ire not cligibbfcrfte no exposure eadusion. SUp to partO. If you checked no to ALL of toe items in ^csttor E. 4. a • k, you a.*c not required to cbtiin pamh comsge. Continue to pset P and sign toe No Bxponre CertifiGatioa. 1 ecniiy indcr peashy of law that 1 have read and uodcrstaod the elif:bility icquircmcnta far clatming a cooditioaof *^o expofure ** and ohtainiBg so axchiaioo from NPOES atocB water per=:3iog. I cattily under penalty of law tost there are M discharges of storm svaiw contaminaicd by exposurt to iodaroial setvtfes or msteriab frr=i the industtial toeflity or site ideutiSad to this doeuamt (axcqtt u allowed under 40 CF& 122J6(gX2)). 1 uadcretaed toat I am obligated to rabust a oo et^esura ca rtillcatioc fenn ones avtty five v«xn to the MPCA and, if lequeatod, to the opeixiar of the local municipal atparate storm aewer ayslam (MS4) into which toe dischtoga (whert ^beaMt). I undarbaod toat 1 aaist allow tot MPCA, or hlS4 operator where toe (Lscharge ii tote toe local MS4, to pe*r«*»w» u> coaflna the coodHion of no exposure and to make lucb to^ac^ t^ens pitolicly availabb vpoB raquast 1 UBdarstaad toat 1 must obtain comagt uadtr an NPDES paralt prior to any poiai aeurct of stois water from toe tocihty. 81/06/2604 15:12 9524718436 AIRENT^PABE 05 A4diiiouUy. I wrttfy vote pwahy of ^ can^lrtt I w th« «peniWM for luboitBBi Jibe itfcmtfwo, iacludiai *e pooibiliiy of fiM Bd tapriManai te kBflwioi vielitioai. /T U mN mn J rmltmm a»4r<,T tw T SUptopatH. 1. HavtyoudMalap«0a8lDniiWMtrPollu0anPr«vtnllonPI«iforyo«jrfaemtyaralt» QNo 1. P0IO li TupamlW tef liwpawwitlng tfw 0WAPP? LmIKmm FMNltH MN Im B»Ca«t J. Wha4ilia000a«nnttrtpaia«fc«lwoto*b*fiwi4d7 Q 71» ria « Cailiiy contact pcraon and contMt imOtiig addicis ndkaad in ^pMction A.2, □ *n* «««• tnd enxcr oitiiiai a^dreM Indicated in quctdon AJ. i0hBiaad.BaaBd«i«yicm4iyofthepenon.orp<noa»,whoniwiieibaij(»t8jn,ordioaepe*iooidireet!yfea«**efcr tateiaa tbe infbmiiaQ, tba infbnnalka atAnhisd is, to ibc bea of my knowtedfa and bcUd; tnic. accuna. aad cantata. 1 an awan that there an aipificaat pasaltiea for lubmising ftiK BfiBnutiaD, iDchidkg the poniinlity of civU and ctlataal /g- 9^ D-i UnNam «?T-£J£. ' a) M flratAiM MaO yaar aanlicnMaa M MiMawts reOtitlM Canaol Afcney, MM DhrMaa, Indmaial Sttm Water Paralt rrcfraa, SIO UTayatta Raadherth, 8t Paal, MN S5I55-IIW. Da aotaMlaM any appttcatlaa faepayaanL Yea wtt racihaaa tavaka from tha MPOW tf VpHnMc. MPC4 MbnKW JkM aiMr^KOamOa I n/t(/2fM IS: 12 SS2471M3S AIRENTM. A»1 MlNMgTONKA REMTAL INC. Mg*—MOt •MK.Mi. Hm Minnesota pouution control agency Waste manaqement plan . 1. WASTEOIL ) ' A 8T0RA0E IN MARKED DRUM W/ CONTAINMENT B. PUMPED OUT AS NEEDED BV WASTE OIL COLLECTION COMPANY 2. Major wash area for rental equipment A Inside BUILDING WITH SEDIMENT TRAP AND FLAMMABLE WASTE TRAP B. USED WITH REUSABLE AB80RBATE SOCK. 80CKFROMPIO«REZ103 3. Secondary WASH AREA OUTSOE for RENTAL EQUIPMENT A OUTBIOE ON SLAB. WATB< RUN OFF GOES THRU A SEDIMENT TRAP. B. A FLAMMABLE WASTE TRAP WITH REUSABLE ABSORBENT SOCK. C. THEN T>»U A ROCK ORAM TO CONTROL RUN OFF WATER. 4. Green space increase to control run off water. vwifleirAimMMa.>uMotT -jUta if liWii III tl li n/K/2flM 15:12 9524718436 AIREHTAL PAGE 87 T® BE^i A>AfcTC ■mtoiNa 1 R*r •MNrrr 9t^me^k mrm •8S Mor A •KSg%ittBSmrt •* ••—■Lai WUAMWT aUTMC »«» AWOPUTICA tflW •9 AiT e •DAvo THervaeN mm nom MAW^IdaA •8AVID TUOraWN*-Aar wU4^C *iw i/ir V Oil- T72/p ut5Ci> / ^soecwr | •p^j Cr. PA>^>i<--r it> CvLt-ecr ^ •7 p£re®vCu.n ■ £«« ?.X.<S-. , I C,r. »»•■«■. 4 ’ i*M -n^» s u sC . I Ai£T*w P i- 0\u/ciT^ TtU^J_ ■: 0 nv CtMCrC- il *1 iiimliiiwiaii-rrtrir 61/86/2664 15:12 5524716436 AIRENTAL P6BE 69 PkG^iadusiii6libtoitaitB.tb90ibaitBi6ti,6btofbaitsocks,w^en^oU6^fopome,Daft Pi|elof2 - K • ■ ' OSlSMM OQ bmbO m |Qcv |l»m# |Qcy I5T K(H:"SH0P6HII 14IO>HOMiO SheppmsCstt < P1G9 IUHIs*M Abiorbams flora's s mowsy-fsvsil Atoortosirt Socks that you can urrinf and ro-uso. 1 D isOSMI CsnUMS Looks Sum AMortMota Coitonmtnt FUtrstlan LMk and Sdll Nttnoanoiot MatcrW HandUig Fcraanal SaSiCy Plane Safttv Ttraming 6 RsSmnea wtpars Pacitty Savors# Cans a Cabman Drain a Sconn«ratar Naintananea Mao a Piartarma Strwonra Piaaacdoo Traffleasahty TockXnfo Cantor Tacn Tips Mgulaaons PIGS Tach Brian Tacnnleai Aittdas CempasaaKy Mb Saiacticn Tooit ASiorbant SaeyeSno Customor Tacli Pibdm PIGS Sa-Ux-ttS Absorbano a Highly absorbent — sach Sock absorbs .75 gallons of oils, water solvents and coolants (not for use with aggressive liquids) a Designed for multiple usage — wring and refuse up to 10 times a Polypropylene sUn, celluloso*based filler — specially formulated to be durable and keep its shape through multiple uses a Minimizes your disposal liability *-> less waste going to landfills nam So-Ua-lt# Ahsorkonts nwes 't<2 s-e 74 UZ103 Sacks • 20 wcla/box • Absorbs 15 Sai^box • Absorbs M oz./sock • 4B* L x 4' w f 24 lbs. $76.00 $69.00 $63.00 Prtdne far IMs praSiM Ktm*//iw>«M««a ITCAw*#,* SV*pw»l*« exhibit FI 128 Managing Used Oil and Related Wastes Hazardous Waste #4.30, September 1999 IhaJaeiAtm describtnati^U rtquirtmtmafor bmsUmsu, tack at: • wkkknptir ihopt • tcnkattadaiu • kigkmay auUaitaaact • nUromlmal auriacttmiaais • mam^a eiart a gaad buhaolatplaatt with eagbm or comprcsson • atUtilataad • mackltu tkapt. What Is "Used Oir? Used oil includes petroleum or qmthetic oil used as a lubricant, heat traoifcr fluid, h> draulic fluid or any similar uses. Some exan^lesare: • cngineotl, • transmission fluid, • lubricating oil, • hydraulic oil, • gearoil, • transformer fluid, • cutting oil, • tempering or quenching oils, • greaseaod • brake fluid. NOTE: Antiflecee; fuels, such as fuel oil; and solvents are not used oil. What are *Msed OIMIalaled Wastes*? Used oil filters and nulerials used to soak up oil (sorbents) are common used oil-related w-astes. Used oil filters are Alters having a metal e.t;enor and paper, packed bed, wound or similar interiors that arc used in v^cles or machines to Alter lubricating oil. Examples of sorbents often used to clean up used oil inehide: • polypropylene or other plastic resin pod^ hd)^ sheets or grar ules; • pest; • corncobs; • cellulose Aber. • sawdust; • wood chips; • paper wipes; • cloth towels or other reusable materials; • rice and cotton-seed hulls; • granular clay, • diatomaceous earth; • amorphous silica; • cork and • pumice. Environmental Concerns Used oil. Alters and used oil-contaminaled sorbent materials often contain hazardous contaminants, such as flamroablc Axis and d r« 'rad and other toxic metals. La :*tposed of improperly can kill vege»ai.un and wildlife and pollute surfme water and ground water. For this reason, it is illegal to: • pour used oil on the ground, • pour used oil down a drain or sewer, • put used oil m the trash, or •’ apply used oil to roads for dust suppression {Muut Rules 704S.0S4S). vwisie rraveniiofi To decrease the amount of used oil generated, encourage and practice alteroanw transporutum, such as carpoolmg. busmg. Mbvwaola Polution Control Agency. S20 Lrfay lto Road Norih, St Paul. Mtonasota S515S4194 (651) 296-6300. lotdiraa (600)667-3064. TDD (651)282-5332 or (800)657- '^64 This mr.ar1ai can bamadaavaimia In allomativa formats for peoptowKhdtoa^ uas. ^ ^Printad on re-ryded papar •umtamJng at toast 20 parcant fibars from paper racyded by consumara. & Prtimton Control •«isher wane llurt ii hazanloul only be«MMe it is ntible with their used oil and mioaie die mixtnR at- uwdoil^rpWd^. • die toliwnt does not contain metaJ-beariag paint; • the aolvcnt is not an F4isted hazardous waste, ittch as many carburetor and brake cleaners: • the aolvcnt is not psolinr. • the advent doea not eaceed 10 pereol of the total volume of the final miature; and • die flaah point ofthe advent is above 100* Fahrenheit (Mjm. Rm a 7045,0900 Subp. 4(C)). Rtcyclingf Dtaposal Opiiono Uaad oU is prohibited from land disposal by state Uw. Recycling optioos include: • le^finingand • burning fix-energy on or off site. Used ofl miirs and the paper media, if separated, are prehtliited from l»d dismal; they inust be recycled. Recycling ascaos sending the cooplcte filter to a scrap etal-iecycling bcUity. Ifthe paper media hu been removed from the filter, it should be sent to a burner that a permitted 10 accept filter media or managed as a haardous waste. Contact the burner to which you intend to tend waste for additional reqiuremeots. Used aU-enntamlnttad sorbents ate prohibited from land disposal unleas they have been tested and shown to be noohazardous. There is no need to test oil- contaminated sorbents if they are: • wiuag and reused; • laundered or cleaned (Sorbents sent to a commercial laundry camoC contain free liquids.); or • burned for energy (Sorbents destined for burning roust have a beating value of at least 5,000 BTUs per pound.). Used oU-cootaminated sorbents diat have been shown to be nonhazardous can be burned at a facility that docs not bum for energy recovery; diqiosal at a landfill is not recommended. Jumlng for Energy Currently, most used oil collected in Minnesota is shipped to asphalt plants to be burned for energy Hazardous Waste M.30. Soptamber 1909 recovery. Businesses also have the option of burning used oU and sorbents on site for heat provided: • the used oil is generated on site, brought in by the genera: public (do-it-yourselfers) or by farmers genennng less than 25 gallons per month on average, or from another location owned or operated by frte same business. (You may accept used oil from other businesses only If it has been tested at leas: once per source and shown to be on- specification. “On-specificatioo** means die used oil meets the conditions listed in Table 2. The party claimicg the used oil is on-specification ia call^ a ‘^isei-oil marketer** and has additional requirements. Form(Kcmforroatioo,seeMPCA Hazardous Waste bet sheet M J4, AforAetiitg Usti oa.) • the umt bums for energy recovery. • the used oil ard sorbents are buroed in a furnace designed for that purpose and the furnace is rated at less than 500,000 BTUs per hour and is vented to the outdocn. L*;OU bum used cil on site, contact local building code penonnel to determine requirements for installation and U5S ofthe burner. Contact your local fire department to ce*.eiTnu:e whether there are additional local requiremesu. Tee Minnesota Uniform Fire Code (MUFC), Uniform Mschanical Code (UMC) ind State Statute 299F.015 ccstain proN-isions relating to used-oil burners. Contact the State Fire Marshal Division for requirements specific to your operation. Spilit Ween developing guidelines for managing oU, start at the beginning — avoid spills! Here are some tips: • De\V.op and practice proper handling procedures and careful work habits. ■ Use appropnaie toots, such as funnels and spigots. • Perform regular preventive maintenance, such as tightening or replacing leaky seals, gaskets and dispensers. Next, be prepared. Keep ipill-containinent and clean-up rra'xrials is a convenient, nearby ana. Train enqiloyeea when led how to use them. For help preparing for spills, conact the MPCA Emergency Response Team. Mmiaolna UMd ON and RaMad Wastaa Some shops have oil- water lepanlon on the drain coonccted to the aewer to collect maU dripa, ipilU nd pit To ensure oil docs not enter the sanitary sewer, service the scpsralor rcfularly: skim off the oil and place it in the uaed-oti container and remove and evaluate the collected pit How often this most be done depends upon how much oil and grit is allowed to enter the drain and the size of your grit chamber. TbM»2: Conditions for On ffpscMlCTMontlsodOM Arsenic Cadmun Chrondin Total Habgras 100* Fahrenheit ranrun S.Oppm* maxanan 2.0 ppm* naxmun 10.0 ppm* maxman 100.0 ppm* nauanan 1000.0 ppm* maxman** •parts per mUlien •*/4 Itvti of haiogens vp to 4,000ppm is allowod f M cm te provtm that h^ardotu wasto hat not boat mtstd with tht ased oiL CMials and dess sp Mqsld spins os fasperaiehblc surfaces by using squeegees and dustpans or mops or vacuums desigiied for liquids. Combine and recj.’cle with other liquid used oil. If sorbents are required, use sparingly and only after all liquid oil that can be recovered is recovered. Coatrol spins an laid by using soil. sand, sorbent socks or granules to build a barrier to contain flowing oil. Recover liquid oil using appropriate pumps or vacuum trucks (a contractor may be needed to assist) and plsce in a container for recycling. Con tai n ins led soil, sand and clay sorbent must be excavated or recovered trtd treated at a permitted fimility. If the quantity is leas than 10 ya^ and if approved by the NIPCA Emeri^ Response Team, treatment on site may be an option. Report all used oil or other petroleum spills of five gallons or more to the Minnesom Duly Officer at the 24- hour emergency number given on the last page. For additional informatioo about reporting spills, see MPCA Emergency Response Fact Sheets 6.1, Rtporting SpUls and Uaks, and 6 Reporting Hazardous Material Spills. Regardless of amount, if your spill enters a sewer, ditch or suriace waterway of any kmi report the spill to the Nahooal Response Center. For more mformation about spill prevention ted cleanup requirements, see the following MPCA Emergency Managino Used CXI and Raiatod Wnstos Hazardous Waste #4.30. Saptembsr 1089 Reyoose fact sheets and others available on die MPCA Web site: • 6.3, Prevention and Pr^aroiness for on Delivery Companies • 6.4, Spill Prevention and banning • 6.6, Minnesota Spilt BiU • 6.\Z,SmMl Petroleum ^JI Cleanup • 6.1 A, Spill Debris Disposal Options • 6.\6, Thin Spreading Small Quataities of Petroleum Contaminated Soib Shlpping*Requiramanti (A/mn. Rides 7045.0855 Subp. 4) Used oil generators may transport up to SS gallons of used oil be sorbents in their own vehicle or any amoiait of used-oil fitters without being subject to the used oil/filter transporter requirements. If hauling your own oil wastes, you must: • take the oil, filters and/or sorbents to a collection site or to an aggregation point owned by the generator. • ensure that filters and sorbents do not contain free- flowing oil. • ensure that used oil docs not leak during transport. IT not hauled by the generator, used oil must be hauled by an oU hauler having an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identification number. Used oil filters must be hauled by an oil-filicr hauler that has a license from the MPCA or a metropolitan county. MPCA Hazardous Waste ftet sheet #6.00. Used Oil Hauler Sendees, includes a list of oil service providers. NOTE: Neither a hazardous-waste manifest nor a hazardous-waste transporter is required when transporting used oil destined for recycling. (However, both must be used for oil that is too contaminated to be recycled and requires disposal as a hazardous waste.) Racords Generators must keep records at their businesses of all shipments of used oil, used-oil filters and sorbents, including those records they make themselves. Used oil and used oil-filter haulers are required to give receipts Pages <8> Hazirtfous Waste M JO. Saptomtwr 1IM whenever Uiey pick up oil or filters; gcncrettm mey ux these receipts as their records or th^ ney uee a lof. Records for used oil, used^ filters and used*oil- contamittsted sorbents should inchide: • die date of the shipment; • die amount shipped (fslloitt of used oil. weight, number or volume of filtcri/sorbents); • the name and identificatioa number of the transporter (if qiplicabic); and • where the waste was taken. Very Small Quantity Generators who mix parts washer solvent with used oil must also: • keep records ofthe amount of solvent mixed; • report it annuBlly; and • ifgencratini mote than 10 gaUotu of hazardous waste per year, obtain a Hazardous Waste Genciatar’s License. (Some metropolitan counties may require businesses generaling less than 10 gallons to get a license.) nvpofimy Businessca located outside the Twin Cities Metro Area that generate and recycle only used oil. used-od filters and/or used oil<cntaminated sorbents arc not required to report anmiany or to obtain a license from the MPCA. but they must still maiuige the waste as ouUincd in this foctshect Businesses located in the seven<oun^ metropolitan area may still have rqiarting and licensing rcquiienxnts. Contact your county hazardous watte oflice for details. Rfftiring Equlpiiwnt. Cloting or Soiling Your BuglnoM When taking equipment out of service or when ceasing operations, generators must either remove or clean up used oil-storage equipment and any site contaminatioo. For Mom Information Your metropidiian county and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency have staff available to answer oil- mansgemcot questiofis. For general iofonnation, contact your metropolitan county hazardous waste oflBoe or the MPCA office closest to your county. Mttro Couty Bazwdom Waste OflIIccs Anoka Ojunty--------------(612) 422-7093 Carver CoiDty--------------(612)361-1M0 Dakou County..................(612) 891-7011 Hennepin County —........(612) 34841100 County................(651)773-4466 Scott County---------------(612)496-8177 Washington Chuiity---------(651) 430-6655 MiHMiota PdlHiiM Control Agency ToU-free.........................(goO) 657-3864 .........................(2lg) 828-2492 Detioit Lakes..................(218) 847-1519 Duluth...........................(218) 723-4660 Marshall.........................(SOT) 537-7146 Rochester-----------------(507) 285-7343 SLPaul---------------------(651)297-8363 Tanks Hotline--------------(651) 297-8367 Web Site: httD-7/www.ncajtate.nai.ua Signs Weights and Measures.......(612) 639-4010 Spilta, Planning for Emergency Response Team. (651) 296^300 SpUs,Repoitiity Miim. Duty Officer (Metro) .(651) 649-5451 Duty Officer (Greater Minn) (800) 422-0798 National Response Center.... (800) 424-8802 Stiiragc Tanks Above-pound --------------(651) 297-8679 Underground---------------(651) 297-8367 State Fire Marshal Dhrisioa... (651) 215-0500 IVaasporlatloa Requirements (Deportment of Transportation)................(651) 405-6060 ..............(8SS) -4-Safoty Used-OaBamert Building Codes (Department of Adnuniihation)------------(651) 296-5639 Air Pennit Requitements..... (651) 282-5844 Mnnagino UMd 01 and Rniaind Wnatns Pago 6 VWHiiFKtShettM.IS April 19ga< Gicck wiih die Depiftnicfit of Heahh Plumbing Piognm for icquifemcaiiaad recommcadMioiis for capping driins. (See page 4 for die phone number.) Prohibit engine and trannisstoo «nshing in vehicle wash and vehicle repair sbopa. Sweep up Donhazardous solids on the floor anddisp^ of diem in the solid waste. Hninrioaa mnaeriab ihoeld be 4 aepenlaly end stored foOewlag hunrda waste rogeiremeats. For more mfovsnaikm about hazardous waste storage requirements, request hazardous waste foct sheet 41.04, L^tmd Store Hatardom Waate Caneedy. from the Business Assistance Unit. 6. Use screens in the drain to prevent solids from reachng the trap. 7. Use drip pans to collect fluids. Tryfintto pick up liquids from the floor using a squeegee and dustpan. Combine recovered liquids with waste of the same type. For example, oil spills recovered with a squeegee and dust pan may be placed in the used oil container. If you cannot collect or recover liquid, use a sorbent material to soak it up. I fusing sorbent materials, they must be managed in die same way as the waste material they contain. (If th^ contain used oil, for example, they may be wrung and reused, burned for energy recovery or recycled.) Disposal of sorbent material in the solid waste is not allowed unless it has been shown to be nonkazardoos. I. Prepare and train for emergencies. Have a plan and the necessary equipment in place to quickly clean up a spill before it can escape. 9. Design and implement a plan to reduce the amount of slush and snow/sand'sal: carried in on dres before parking indoors. For more information or help with prevention, contact the Minnesota Technical Assistance Prograra (MnTAP). (See page 4 for telephone number). Miintenanc* Maintenance b second only to prevention in importance. Traps that arc not cleaned regularly may allow oils and other chemkab into a septic system, holding tank or sanitary sewer, resuhing in problems and/or environmental damage. Be aware that maintenance of these systems may involve entry into a confined space and require additional employee training and precautions. Wisto Manaotnwnt Options If you bave ant followed tbc Best Management Praclkes (BMPs) on page 5, you will need to test the liquid and solid portions to determine whether or not each is hazardous. Test results will determine how to manage each portion. Nonhazardous trap waste may be managed according to the guidance below. Hazardous waste must be managed according to the hazardous waste rules. For more information about hazardous waste management requirements, contact the Hazardous Waste Business Assistance Unit. If yon carefHUy folmv the BMPs, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) allows you to assume the drain and trap wastes are aonhazardons. Here are the options for managing them: • Floaliag Layer. IfBMPs are carefully followed, little or no floating oily material should accumulate. (If there is a significant floating layer, the MPCA must assume that B.MPs were not fc llowed.) If a thin fl^Mliiig layer of oil b present: I. Skim or vacuuA it off and recycle it with other used oil. 2. Use an absorbent pad to remove the oil. Wring and reuse the pad or recycle it w ith other oil*contaminated sorbem materiab by laundering, oil-exttaclion or burning for energy recovery. If these .Hratfout ^Mnlt FkI ShMl M.18 Apri 1996 • opiiow for nan^dif ihc abwibcflt BMcriol m not possible, test it for mcdl and volatik cootamiaanis using the Tonicity Charucteristic lenc hint PrecodurefTCLF). (See Haardous Waste Aset 92.04, CAaracieri«fc ITarrar. for more infonnatioo.) If the material is noehazardous. it may be managed as an industrial solid waste and lent to a solid waste landfill or burner that can accept H. Check with the landfill operator before Atpping! e mold Layer: Carefully followiag BMPs will hasp levels of hazardous mcttts sad organic compound* below maximum allowable concentrations. Your county solid \''aste officer and/or local wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operator can provide infonnation to help you detennine which of the following management options will work best for you: 1. Ifyou are hooked up to a WWTP and discharge is approved, you may discharge it to the sanitary sewer. The WWTP may require testing prior to discharge. Check with your local treatment plant operator first 2. Nonhazardous liquid vrastes diKharged to a septic system or holding tank, may be managed like domestic septage. A certified septage hauler can pump out the waste and dispose of it at a WWTP or by land application in accordance with an MPCA-approved land application management plan. The WWTP may require icsdng. Check with your local treatment plant operator. 3. Send H to a solid waste incinerator or power plant that is able to incinerate it They may require testing. Check with your county solid waste officer to detennine your local options. 4. Pretreat it using an appropriate pretreatment unit, suA as an oihwattr separator, reverse osmosis or acthrated carbon filter. Treated liquid may then be hauled or discharged to a WWTP. (if approved by the plant operator), or land a pplied in an approved manner. Check with the Solid Waste Section (see page 4) to determine if land application is appropriate. If the liquid waste has been sufficiemly trea ted to meet drinking water standards, it may be able to be discharged to a sepek ^cm outside a well-head protection area. Contact MPCA’s Underground Injection Control Program for guidance. (Sec page 4.) For help with pretreatment options, contact your local WWTP. • Sand/Studge: Carefully following BMPs will keep levels of hazardous meuls and organic compounds below maximum allowable concentrations. These are your managemcnl options: I. De-waier and send the sxnd/sludge to an approved mi.xed municipal or industrial landfill that is able to accept it Contact (he operator first; they may require testing. 2. Incinerate or thermally ueat it (only if organic compounds are not halogcnated) at an approved facility. For a listing of facilities, contact the NfPC.\ Emergency Response Section. (See page 4.) 3. Some soils can be land ucated in accordance writh an MPCA-approved management plan. For more information, contact the MPCA Solid Waste Section. 4. Send de-watered sludge to a mixed municipal compost facility if there is one in your area that w ill accept H. Contact the operator first. • Liquid and Saml/Sludgc Together: If accepted, take or discharge to a W WTP. You must fiat get approval from your local WWTP operator to discharge. • Hvardoin VMMli Fact ShMl M.18 Apri 19M • • TWwPhaMiTatMktr: Ifiiwwaiieb huardoBi, or you we aoc tara whether or act it bheardotti,vacaanitouL Then. Aip it widi a hazardout wa«B traniporter who meets dM U^. r>ma thBeBt of Tfuaipor ta rioa standwdsfbr ttwspoftation ofhaiardow wHies to a petminsd haardotts warns dispoeal bcahy. (Hiis otoy require teitiiig; check with your iraaspocier). You Huy scud this waste to a rcfisaerodpstrokuairecycliagfacility. Alistof fraasporters. rscycliuf bcilitics aad treai maiu. ttorafs and disposal facilities is available fhan the Haordotts Waste Business Assistance Unit (See below). For Mofo InfofiiMlIofi Department of Health Plumbing Program (Capping Drains) Minnesota Duty Officer-------------------—-—...........lOli) 213-0136 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency_________(612) 649-S451 or (800) 422-0798 Emergency Response Section ________ ,--------------(612) 296-6300 or (800) 6S7-3864 Hazardous Waste Businen AMiatMr. \ ...--------------(612) 297-8S6S or (800) 6S7-3864 Solid Waste Section________________----------(612) 297-8362 or (800) 657-3724 Underground Injection Control Program-____________(612) 296-8S9S or (800) 657-3864 Brainerd Regional Offira. -----------(612) 296-7764 or (800) 657-3864 Detroit Lakes Regional Office_______________(211) 828-2492 or (800) 657-3864 Duluth Regional Office........................(218) 847-1519 or (800) 657-3864 Marshall Regional ......................- (218) 723-4660 or (800) 657-3864 Roehewer Raginnal . ----- ----(507) 537-7146 or (800) 657-3864 Metropolitan Hazardous Waste Offices Aimka rniifity-------------- ----- (507) 285-7343 or (800) 657-3864 Carwiv rnuMiy----------------------------(612)422-7063 Dalr^a . ---------...............(012) 361-1800 llennapin Pii^Vnly -------------(612) 191-7011 Ramsey Pnunty^ . ------(612) 34S-8I00 Scott County-------------- -----------..............(612) 773-4466 WaihinetoB County _______*.........■••(612) 496-8473 Minnesoto Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP)------------(612)430-6655 Pretreaiment Hein:...........................■...........“(012) 627-4646 or (800) 247-0015 .................................7uur ioul wasiewaur ueatmcni plant •HazardouiWtateFactSheetM.IS Ac*. 19SS< Best Management Practices for Managing Floor Drains and Flammable Traps (Post in Shop) Using these best management practices in your shop will enable you to mar.sie flx’nmable trap waste as an industrial solid waste rather than a hazardous waste. Use aerosol solvents or other degreasers These chemicals can compound waste management problems by contaminating wash water and sludge with hazardous materials. Clean parts over s drip pan — not on the floor, collect waste. Use a parts wash;: to clean engine parts and manage the solvent in the wa-~.er as a hazardous waste. To prevent contamination of :se parts washer by listed* solvents, db not spray listed aerorris over the unit Change vehicle fluids (oil.'bcake fluid, antifreeze* etc.) - These diemtcals ciut compound waste management problem's by contaminating water and sludge with hazardous materials. Use drip pans imier vehicle to collect fluids. Recyxie transmission arid brake fluids with used oil.' . v Drain radiators be.*bte Cushing and recycle waste antifreeze. Clean shop floors Hosing down the floors with water or solvent can flush contaminants into floor drains, contaminating liquids and sludges in the drain sy stem. Use drip pans to ccllect fluids. Use dry sweeping compounds. Reuse them as Icr.z as they remain absorbent. Combustible sweeping compc.r.ds tray be burned to heat your shop if burned in an apprrved burning device. \ccidentally spill material Many materials used in vehicle maintenance may be hazardous and can contaminate other wastes in the plumbing system. Clean up spills izimediately. Notify the Minnesou Duty Officer—(612) 6^9-5451 or (800) 422-0798 — if it is a petroleum spill o: more than 3 gallons or if it is a spill of any materia] of any size that impacts soil or water. Have appropriate rpill cleanup materials on hand and train employees how tc rropcriy use them. Store solvents Spilled or leaked solvents and tfieir v^rs are dangerous and can contaminate other wastes in the plumbing system Keep containers sealed when not in use. Store solvents in a “flammablcs*’ cabirct. Do not use solvents near drains. Store waste vehicle fluids in a room . with a floor drain Spilled or leaked solvents arid their vapors are dmigerous and can contaminate other wastes in the plumbing system Keep containers sealed when not in use. Keep waste containers in a separate storage area with no floor draim . Install a curb or benn to contain any wastes that may leak from storage containers. Inspect containers for leaks on a we^ly basis See htPCA Hazardous Waste fact sheet #2.41, Documeniing Cor.:ainer Inactions. Wash engines The resulting wastewater is likely to be hazardous from greases, oils and solvents. Only wash engines if absolutely necessary-. If y ou do, separa:: the resulting wastevvater and evaluate h. • Latedtoi\tnU on F-tui Ule mfthiUnt cniondt. mdthyi tihyi :t:raehiaru r.ltrt :oiutne and nttv iWliliiJ IVIG TAP EXHIBIT F> Understanding Floor Drain Systems MnntsotaliR:hnicBAssistinct Precram ■ FACTSHEET< Bask utilities usually are not thought about until a problem anset. Plumbing systems typically hmetion for many years without needing attention. ‘Ibis fact sheet gives tips on prevenUi^ piuaibing problems. It focuses on aesver traps (separators) and inclxides basic Infocmalion and simple maintenance ideas. Maiqr buildinp have floor liench systemic Boor drains, or vrash aitd service boy areas whidi allow liquids to drain away Ihe Mirmesota Plumbing Code provides specifications for constructeg and Instdiing separators in these buildlnp. These devioas separate artd collect flammable aiul oily waste horn wastewater before it enters the muiddpal sewer system. The code applies to any busing location where flammable or oily liquid wastes are produced— including: 1) encloa^ over 1,000 sqxiare feet; 2) vehicle maintenance or washing operations, or 3) garages h. ’.sing more than four vehicles. NOTE: Buildings not connected to a mu.*'.idpal sewer system generally use on-site wastewater treatment stich as a septic system, drainfield or drywell. ConUct the MiiuiesoU Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) at 612/297-7574 or 800/ 657-3864 for fact sheets and information on regulatory requirements for discharging into these kin^ of systems. Generali}; businesses %rith on-site systems are permitted very limited discharge. How «• SiiMrttirt WUrk?__________ A separator uses gravity to separate liquids that float (like oils, fu^ and other petroleum products) and problem wastes (like sard and sludge) tern wastewater before it enters a sewee. When waste%vater collects in Ihe separatot petroleum products collect on top ^ heavy materials settle to the bottom. Thewaleris discharged at a height beturttn the outlet and iiOet pipes. If a separator is not used, petroleum products could accumulate in a sewer system, which could result in a high concentration of explosive vapors in the sewer. Or the petroleum wastes or other solids could plug the sewer. Why lUaliitiln Sepiratort?_________ Sooner or later, too much oil and/or sludge accumulates in the sewer trap, causing contaminants to discharge «vith the wastewater or plug dw sewer trap outlet When this happerts, you have problems, such as full floor tieiches, badicd up sesver discharge or authorities investigating contaminant sources. To fix dtis problem, you %vill need to: 1) identify the separator locatioiu 2) assess the problem aiul prob:^ly hire a dean out service, and 3) arrange for proper diyosal. (emtmmi) W W • WMIM iw*-w MI amwaitMUiQa I a w uwvii» X umm . aMOlvyORMWI MnTAP • 1313 50) SOMtSC. Sell 207 • Mirxeapois, • Minnesota 55414-4504 612/627^646 • 800/247-0015 (Iflnnuctaorty) • MX 612 627-4769 D^GEK: Btlow grade tpKts. like ftpmtoti. when various oigank liquids have aconmibted over ttme may be hazardous due lo volatile «*«pounds (explosive atmosphera) or lack of oxygea WDfkereirtqrofcoafiiiedspacoi nqaiies exinsive IniaiagaBd pncmliaas. Discharge of significant amourtis of oil or solvent wastes can inicrfcn with maintenance and safety in the sewer lines and wift the functioning of the waste%vater tnatment plant Dischaige of other liquids is typically also highly ragiUaled by the fewer authority Sludges accumulated in trm Biay contain oigank oontaminanis and heavy nttils, which Bsay daseily the ahidge as haza rdous waste. Expensive lastii^ may be tuquirtd to evaluate the waste for detemdniiig the pfoper disposal method. IMi ManaiNifiiit_________ Opeadona Generally speaking, floating accumulated oils can be collected, and managed and recycled with other used oil waste. Other floating hazardous materials collected in significant amounts, such as petroleum sdvenb or corrosive cleaners will need to be maitaged as hazardous waste. Bottom sludges may be nothing more than accumulated dirt The hazardous waste program in metropolitan counties or at the Mixmesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) can provide guidance on how to best e\*aluate the wastes in your business setting. You can then consult with your service contractor about its abilityto properly dispose of this maleriaL Cm m PraUtn It MlalmbM ir A floor drain system is often necessary for husirtess operations. Hotvever, drains are often neglected and often a surprise source of problems when things go wrong. Routine maintenance is required to prm ent plugging and ^***P collected materials from discharging to »h* fewer Measures described below can reduce or eliminate maintenance fiequcncy and save you money. Determine if all your floor draiiu are ncomaarv If the location of a drain could cause or^ ^ contribute to problems with traps, consider c^dting with a licerued plumber to cap the The Minnesota Department of Health Codes Rcomme^ that a licensed plumber cap drains. Improperly done, abandoned draiiu GU) be ffngennis sources of accumuUted sewer cases. Temporary sewer plugs can be used in U<1«U, Opine aD Mlvmiii^ Mf aiM oity IMdi, Oils are easily leeyded if captuied and managed •eparaiely This is done by coUectir^ oU in drto pans and trays, rather than allowing it to foil onto the floor When oU docs foU onto the floor coUect it by using a dust pan and squeegee. Thb recovers the recyclable oil and minimizes absorbent use. Lost solvents, deaners or other industrial Uquids cost you money to replace. These lost chemicals also cost you money to clean out of trips and to dispose of properly. Sludge that accumulates in traps also may be hazardous waste If you are careless about the ^terials and contaminants that enter the floor SoUda and Dill Good housekeeping takes effort Don't use floor j “ • convenient feccptacle for end of the daydeanup. C3eaB the floor Mlagdivmelkoda «d don't take shortcuts. Use a broom and dustpan instead of a garden hose. femlmmi) EXHIBIT G MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 20,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (§5) M2-2858 SCOTTSTAyDA, 2659 C.4SCO FOiXrROAD, Continued Mabuith moved, Rabn seconded, recommendlnf approval of Application #03-2858, Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road, granting after-the-fact variance approval for the reconstruction of a 4*X7* deck and 3* wide access stain to the accessory slnicture, subject to the removal of the concrete slab, sidew alk along the side of the rMidencc, and all landscape plastic prior to the final Inspection; Duly noting that the structure Is considered a nonconforming structure and limited structural repair is allowed. VOTE: Ayes 4, Na>*s 1, Fritzler dissenting. Fritzier staf-^i that he nothei supported the work being proposed to the nonconforming structure nor could support the after-the-fact request. (#6) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607 SHORELINE DRI\T, VARIANCE, 6:43 - 7:40 P.M. Slevan Wagner, the Applicant, and Martin Woody, the Architect, were present. Foth reported that the applicant has submined an application for a building e.xpansion and remodel In the B-1 Zoning District. As per Cit>- Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1 ) Commercial site plan review* in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f. building, a 1,770 s.f. total expansion. 2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8 ’ from the front property line where 10‘ is required. The signage itself will extend an additional 4* into the setback area for a sign setback of 4 ’ when 10* is required.* 3) Hardcover variance to allow existing drivew ay hardcover to become structural hardcover.* *Foth noted that each of these items would be review ed in pan w ith the overall commercial site review Foth explained that the property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive has historically served as an equipment rental business. WTrile lawn and garden equipment rental is a permitted use in the district, there is a great deal of outdoor storage associated with this business. Outdoor storage is a conditional use in the Industrial district only. WTiile the existing sign is located 8 ’ from the fiont property line, where a 10* setback is required, Foth stated that the applicant is proposing to re-use this sign in part including the non-conforming setback. The property is allowed signage up to 250 s.f ; therefore, the proposed signage of 150 s.f is in compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pa|e7of29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. October 20,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. mj HOl-msSTEyAy }M7SHOKEU\f n»nr ---------- Mtbou^ this propeny U almost entirely within the 50O -IOOO' haidcover zone Foth located cntratiy there is 35.030 s.f. ofhatdeover constituting 72 "s" M^^ofthi. parking stalls; however, currently there arc 18 stalls. ’ * ** required to supply 11 elevauonsona 100-fool grid if the two-foot contoun axe over 100 fm^^ ^ f“dS=r" "’““rial* Sb. In conclusion, Foth presented a summary of issues for discussion: '■ S'-'<>«baalIowed,ob..%.proved 3. Should one or both of the accessory siruciures be removed? Page 8 of 29 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondiy, October 20.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. m MMtllSTEVAS WAGNEK 3U7SHOKEUNE DUVE, ------------- "“."y “®"**'» cocained »iihin (he ctquiml double wall tanks in the diesel fuel area but didn't know how the Cit>- wwild ceact to that Hawn asked for more specifics regarding te sign. ‘h' ''»“W P«f" '0 ««<"««storage moved inside, ^ile she recognized that many pieces of equipment cannot be kent trade for practicality, Hawn requested that these items be moved tow^ards the back ^tfi? Mabusth asked about the dock sections kept in the north >ard. Mabusth asked if there were a staging for rental of vehicles etc. Fritzler questioned whether the industrial business itself was compatible with the B-1 Sng “ wfnS“ . Noting that it was not her wish to see the b.iiness go away. Chair Smith urged the applicant to utilize the indoor space by mo.;.-.g more of the equipment insidV Page 10 of 29 MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 20.2003 6KX> o’clock pm (M) M3-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3607SUOREUNE DRIIT, ComOmued While he could not get specific until the remodel was complete, Wagner acknowledged that be would strive to move equipment around and inside as he could. Hawn suggested the applicant provide the Planning Commission and City Council svith a schematic where everything would go in the new plan. Chair Smith recommended he include the landscaping and lighting plan in this schematic. Mabusth agreed that she, too, would like to see a final site plan relative to placement of all of these rental things. With regard to the outdoor versus indoor storage, Rahn suggested the applicant consider installing overhead doors versus patio doors to the lower level in order to ease the nonconformity of outdoor storage to a certain degree. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she would look favorably upon fimher effort to store less equipment outdoors. She questioned whether the Commission should limit the t>pe or amount of equipment. Rahn felt they should not anempt to further limit the type or amount of equipment necessary for him to run his business. Hawn suggested they have him designate a specific number of suits for his items in the schematic. Gaffron poir. jd out that the business is allowed a certain number of parking sulls, war^using may require fewer, however, rental may require more. Mabusth asked how many trucks the business typically houses. Wagner stated that, between Budget and Ryder, they have 7-10 trucks on hand. He indicated that he couicl draw up the landscape plan, as requested, designating where those trucks will go. Rahn stated that the site plan deUil phase w ill allow* him to do this. Fritzler mainuined that the City may need to be more restrictive with this applicant, if the business requires more than most other businesses in the zone. Hawn agreed that a specific site plan would be helpful, since this business has been found to be accepuble. Page 11 of29 1 4 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. October 20,2003 6.-00 o’clock p jn. <M) m.»2SSJtyM WAVSEK. M7SHOREusFMn^ ----------- Chair Smith asked for comment on gravel versus blacktop. Mabu^ .ug^ the Ci» allow that »r,e kind of eoncma pad b* piKcd »«r die lank. Woody belicvnl the Engineer would nippon a pa% ed apron on Ihe weM. Co™S““^ ***" '*"* “<• «P»n fcMk to Ike *“ "Tort '>“k Chair Smith asked if the Commission found the exterior finish and sign acceptable. Rahn stated that the proposed sign did not seem out of place. Wagner Mated that he would gel lho« items done to meet the w ork *«ion deadline. P«|el2of29 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. October 20.2003 6:00 o’clock p jn. m m-2923 STEVAN WACSER, 3607SHOREUNEDRIVE, Continued Wagner stated that the shed is used to store unsightly items, such as scaflblding and parts. He indicated that he would give serious consideration to relocating it. Rahn agreed that relocating the shed to a lower site on the property would free up valuable parking space for large equipment Mabusth asked how long Mr. Wagner had been in the rental business. Wagner replied that it’s been a family owned business since the 60's. Dan Crear. 3701 Shoreline Drive, the adjoining property and business owner stated that be was curious to see the proposal and decided to attend. He pointed out that this remodeling project is a prime example of what was accentuated at the Navarre Town Meeting last year. Crear maintained that, if Orono had a concrete master plan or vision for the redevelopment of the Navarre area, the City could provide Mr. Wagner with valuable direction in his remodeling efforts. He felt this was one of the reasons to look at that overall vision, as opportunities to beautify and clean up sites like this occur. He believed this site would better serve the community as a ’people site’ and was pleased to see any efforts to beautify and clean it up Chair Smith shared with Mr. Crear that, the City too, has put the Navarre vision or master planning process at the top of its priority list in the Navarre beautification effort. Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to table Applkatioo (V03-2923, Stevan Wagner, 3607 and 3609 Shoreline Drive, to allow the applicant time to proside the Commission with n detailed site plan at its Work Session in November. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) 1103-2934 JASON BLISS, 3445 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:40-8:04 P.M. Jason Bliss, the Applicant, and Paul Larson, the Architect, were present. Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested a number of variances to construct a new residence on the property. The variances include: 1. Lot area and width. 2. Side street setback (required 15' proposed « 1 r-12.S'). 3. 75-25(y Hardcover (existing - 1 ,985 s.f - 30.6%; allowed - 1,623 s.f - 25%; proposed “ 1,66S s.f. “ 25.7%; adding AC pad, minimal sidew’alk and probable future 8x12 deck yields 1824 s.f.-2S.l%). Page 13 of 29 ElkMiH 8m. St-I. Maiatcaaac* pfivaic prtptrly. (a) It is the duty ofthe owner ofev^ vacant propefiy and the owner and occupant of every occupied property to maiiitain the property in a oeat» clean and preantablc manner tree of any junk, debris, icflae, liner, dead trees, or noxious weeds, and to remove all other public heahfa or safety hazards from the property. r Remove oil from water tanks and amnp« n ■ai ftW" iSSmh m ^ Absorbs up to 1.8 gallons of petroleum based Kquids • Repels water, absorbs only oils • Available in 2 sizes Tie a rope to one of these Sump Skimmers and lower it into your sump, pit, tank or bilge. Eliminates a breeding area for bacteria and helps prevent odor. 3 ”-diameter Sump Skimmer is great for small sumps and bilges. 8 ”* diameter is perfect for large tanks and pits. EXHUm^ SKM403 .. ^ Sk2 m«4 WC* Sump Skimmar ]•«10* SKM^.iSMcrwto. ^Mftn 10 9 4 gji .bo« (•t Ou )* 118‘l*9tn 191 187 $83 SKIMOa^WMcMn. *tnoitnui)io2l6»d^ Cii Oa 1 1 t8‘i»2}tn f9t S93 $89 '• f Phone to order 1-800-HOPHOGS*(468.4647) ’I Mo = } i '' / -1000*LWE \\-—250L0' 1 •ACE * POLE • ••••••••••••••••••»•••»••••• EXHIBITB^ •fA0i9tts «••••••••••••••••••••••* CONC.Q iSL . CONCPETC ff r r r M.0 FLOOR PROPOSED EXISTING / building; 6S.( BLA( SURI floor LEVEL =(961.B) - 16.0 il"i 33.0 CONCRETE V-* .••• y* .••• Ca*iUCt^ y /V 7 \ ^ CONCRETE £ EXISTING ^ -T BULDWG UUUINII KUAJJ INU. lU S 89*56*30** E COHCRnt SCCWALK -35;:- 250.0-s*- \ SM EXISTING ! 1 2 fir ; BUILDING _ _ ^ ua 1 /I BtACKTOP SWVACE .TS^CMT^gAb^C 30«22»'f n I s/v»tm.ocas »«TVi O€. 'fe. C:^AJc^£:re LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROMISES : The West 250.00 feet of the Eosi 350.00 feet of Lot 7. Block 7, Towns!te of Longdon Pork. denotes iron morker CEMENT MIXER ELEx2 CEMENT MIXER GASx2 DOCK BARRELS x6 PARKING LOT SWEEP ENGINE HOIST x2 BOBCAT X 2 753 BOBCAT X 2 553 DINGO SKID BOBCAT BUCKETS x4 BOBCAT AUGER HEADS x2 BOBCAT AUGERS X 4 o TRACTOR ALMAND EXCAVATOR TRACTOR RIDING LAWN x2 POWER POST AUGER TR x 2 BLOCK SAW w/TRL CHIPPER x3 LOG SPLITTER X 3 AERATOR TOWABLE TRENCHER x 2 WHEELBARROWS x4 GRILLS 3“ X 5 GRILLS 5* X 2 SIGNS 3X6 X 4 DUNK TANK CHAIR WASHER CEMENT MIXER ELEx2 CEMENT MIXER GAS x 2 DOCK BARRELS x6 PARKING LOT SWEEP ENGINE HOIST x2 BOBCAT X 2 753 BOBCAT X 2 553 DINGO SKID BOBCAT BUCKETS x4 BOBCAT AUGER HEADS x 2 BOBCAT AUGERS X 4 TRACTOR ALMAND EXCAVATOR TRACTOR RIDING LAWN x 2 POWER POST AUGER TR x 2 BLOCK SAW w/ TRL CHIPPER x3 LOG SPLITTER X 3 AERATOR TOWABLE TRENCHERx 2 WHEELBARROWS x4 GRILLS 3* X 5 GRILLS 5' X 2 SIGNS 3X6 X 4 DUNKTANK CHAIR WASHER (3 5x10 5x10 5x10 6x10 6x12 5x5 5x8 5x8 5x10 5x10 BOX TRAILER REDDY HAUL G2150E208 93 H3MnR 47SU101T1X1015380 90 BOX TRAILER REDDY HAUL 47SU101T3X1015381 99 H32506 COVERED FLEATHERLITE V COVERED FLEATHERLITE V VERT LIFT TRAILER COVERED KEIFER COVERED FEATHERLITE COVERED KEIFER COVERED FLEATHERLITE 12 TRITON JS SINGLE 15 TRITON JS DOUBLE 12 TRITON JS DOUBLE 2003 G1410B505 90 W81818 4FGL0081XYD029966 00 C93840 G10200294 93 271194 4FGL010XYD035977 00 H13198 4TCSM11 1XYHX84438 00 J11914 4TCSM112 1 UH0723 10 97 E78285 97 (2) .^loader TRAILER BOAT 12E1REV11NE029314 92 . ^ 90 96 82 EAR 67 18 V TRAILER G1380B395 22 V TRAILER BRAKE G1380B394 25 V TRAILER TANDEM 28 V TAMDOM TRAILER X29902019 ssssa YRPUR TRUCKS 1067 DISC TITLE# Y INT PANEL G14402099 1987 FORD 15* RAMP «1 M29308558 1992 FORD 15* RAMP #2 G0480F175 2000 ISU2U 15* 2000 FORD F250 2001 CHEVY VAN 3500 10* 2C01 GMCVANDURA ASTRO 8‘ RYDER//BUDGET LOCAL TRUCKS x3 ONEWAY X 3 AUTO TRAILERS x2 TOW DOLLY x2 OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT GENIE LIFT GENIE LIFT 13* CANOE CRESTLINER LADDER RACK LADDER RACK C0040N072 C0030N78S C0750M416 C1360N269 016740171 88 76 97 2001 2001 A79168 CTA8304 CBT5941 CGT8558 CTD1378 CYM194 YAF8352 YAL0971 368 MKA 5806GA 7 H /O U • 'fS 50 tlfl'TS STEEL RACK ?IAU EXHIBIT Bi.(D D isc TiUa Yr 2:01 x12 BOBCAT TRAILER 63 T10006332 65 CTK7425 7*14 BOBCAT TRAILER «4 Q 0440K032 60 CTS5-4?2 5*10 BOBCAT TRAILER 553 7*12 EXCAVTOR TRAILER 6*16 CAR TRAILER «3 G2180C5S6 91 CTC-.741 TOW DOLLY DETH 94 JD 094 G:2123 TOW DOLLY TOW DOLLY FISHHOUSE TRAILER HM 67 3000 87 C35-26 FISHHOUSE TANDEM TR G:2137 BIKEALUMA 6x10 1YGUS12ieiB0016l9 1 1-55322 6x10 DITCH WITCH TILT HD G0480F178 87 CT\*,7902 3x4 KWIK TRENCH 3*4 KWIK TRENCH 149FS0817K1 140266 95 3525=7 3*4 TILLER 9 HP TRL 2003 4x10 LADDER TRAILER 2001 .*1953 3x4 EQUIPMENT TRAILER K21906019 86 378*66 3x4 EQUIPMENT TRAILER K21906017 86 A16:^2 4x5 EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F190 94 G55S51 4x5 EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F191 94 =78168 4x5 EQUIPMENT TRAILER G0480F192 94 £78-.67 CABLE PONTOON TRAILER G2150E207 92 H326:4 NARROW PONTOON TRITON 4TCSP1228WHN22CC8 98 ?*!8455 NARROW PONTOON TRITON 4TCSP22401HN24593 1 1-35323 4x8 MOWER TRAILER OLD CAT VI3904280 84 .*194= 6x8 SNOMO TRAILER H33901574 79 G49e:9 4x4 REESE BACKPACK 4Z6KC0816VG0007C3 97 349-311 4x4•REESE BACKPACK 4Z6KC0818VG0007C4 97 349-310 4k 8 FLOE SGL SNOMO 378-210 4x8•FLOE SGL SNOMO 4L4T30815TH000580 96 6x10 FLOE DBL RAMP G0480K247 93 C517:4 8x10•FLOE DBL RAMP 8x18 FLOE QUAD RAMP G0480K248 94 C338-4 5*20 FLOW QUAD RAMP G0660M363 00 333833 4x8 UTILITY TRAILER AB-58-1500 58 312-136 5x10 UTILITY TRAILER AB-63-1500 63 312-137 Quick TR-SS Ver.s.47 8/N: Executed: 08:35:41 10-31-2003 A-1 MZMNETONKA RENTAL After Conditions Tc or Tt DATA :: t::::::::t:t X t:111:t:t!t::::::::::::::::::::::Ij I . Subarea: DESCRIPTION LENGTH (feet) 300 VELOCITY (ft/sec) 0.50 TIME minutes hours 10.C « O.IT minutes hours TOTAL Tc ---> 10.0 - 0.17 :::::::::xt:x:::::::::::::::::::: Quick TR-55 Version: 5.47 S/N: ^ - Return Frequency: 10 years TR-55 TABULAR SYDROGRARH METHOD Type II. distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) « . Executed: 10-31-2003 08:36:19Watershed file: --> mrb .mop Hydrograph file: --> MRB13.HYC A-1 MIN?,*rrONKA RENTAL Before Conditions >>>>Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph <<<< Subarea Description A.REA (acres) CN Tr (hrs) « Tt (hrs) Precip 1 (in) 1 Runoff (in) la/p input/used 1.15 89.0 0.2:0.00 4.15 1 2.98 1.08 .10 I cooposite watershed ^tfiii'^int!I -- Subuea where user specified interpolation betvaen ;a/p tables. Total area ■ l.is acres or O.0T180 sq.mi Peak discharge - 4 cfs »» Computer Modifications of Input Parameters <<<<< Input Values Tc * TtSubarea Description (hr) (hr) (hr) (hr) ‘"(Yes/NS) Rounded Values la/p Tc • Tt Interpolated la/p Messages .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .Cor^uted • Travel time from subarea outfall to :3mpositrwatersheroutfali"point?. . Quick TR-55 Version: 5.47 S/N: ^ Return Frequency: lOO years TR-55 TABULAR HYDROGRAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) watershed file?^*?I> Hydrograph file: --> MRBIOO.HYD A-1 MINNETONKA RENTAL Before Conditions >>» Input Parameters Used to Compute Kydrograph Subarea AREA (acres) CN Tc (hrs) * Tt (hrs) Precip. (in)Runoff 1.15 89.0 0.20 0.00 5.95 11 4.69 .10 T from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall oo’nt I - Subarea where user specified interpolation betwee- la/p tables?* Total area ^1^15 acres or 0.00180 sq.mi »» Computer Modifications of input Parameters <<<<< Subarea Description Input Values Tc • Tt Rounded Values la/p (hr, ,hr, *,S,la/p Messages . . . . . . . . . ._ _ _ _ _. . . . . .Computed la/p < .1 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. mm Quick TR-SS Version: 5.47 S/N:Page 1 Return Frequency: 1 years TR-55 TABULAR HYDRCX3RAPH METHOD Type II. Distribution (24 hr. Duration Storm) Executed; 10-31-2003 08:44:41 Watershed file: --> KRA .MOP Hydrograph file: --> KRAI.HYD A-1 MIHNETONKA RENTAL After Conditions »» Input Parameters Used to Compute Hydrograph <«< Subarea Description AREA (acres) a?Tc (hrs) • Tt (hrs) Precip. (in) Runoff (in) la/p input/ussd 1.15 89.0 0.20 0.00 2.35 11 1.32 I.11 .11 * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite wace..shed outfall point. I -- Subarea where user specified interpolation between la/p tables. Total area - I.IS acres or 0.00180 sq.mi Peak discharge - 2 cfs »» Coci^uter Modifications of Input Parameters ««< Subarea Description Input Values TC • Tt (hr) (hr) Rounded Values la/p Tc * Tt Interpolated (hr) (hr) (Yes/No) la/p Messages 0.17 0.00 0.20 0.00 Yes * Travel time from subarea outfall to composite watershed outfall point. . . .. Quick TR-55 ver.5.47 S/N: Executed: 0a:3S:S2 10-31-2003 A-1 MINNETONKA RENTAL Bo'ore Conditions RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA Cooqposite Area: SURFACE DESCRIPTION AREA (acres) CN Existing Buildings Existing Blacktop/Concrete Gravel« C Soils Grass. C Soils 0.101 0.2^4 0.493 0.312 98 98 39 79 COMPOSITE AREA ::::::::: 111 .---> 1.152 B9.0 mb Quick TR-55 Ver.5.47 S/N: Executed: 08:43:42 10-31-2003 A-1 MINNETONKA RENTAL After Conditions : : : : RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DATA : ::::::: Composite Area: SURFACE DESCRIPTION Existing Buildings Proposed Addition Existing Blacktop/Concrete Additional Blacktop/Concrete Gravel, C Soils Grass, C Soils COMPOSITE AREA ---> :a ■es) CN .... .102 53 .012 58 .2¥4 53 .002.53 .430 85 .312.79 .152 85.1 :::::: EXHIBITB I A-1 MINNETONK.\ RENTAL DRAINAGE SL^IMARV October 3L 2003 BEFORE CONDITIONS Drainage Area -MS acres Time of Cone.■10 minutes Runoff“CbT Qi - 2c6 Qio ■ 4 cIs Qioo - 7 c& m 89 AFTER CONDITIONS Drainage Area •MS acres Time of Cone.■10 minutes Runoir“CN^ Qi - 2ci Qio ■ 4 c6 Qioo - 7 c6 89 CIONBERO A5SOCIATI5. INC +45 N.WULOUDR. LONG LAKE. .\(N 53556 ir<r~Bt M rr~r i —« —■■nrir ■ File 03-2923 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Dr Commercial Site Review F.VHlBn F d ^Pli!H W ’ •; v-< .vV: '-> '•>•:•. ■■•• . * r*^ ':^-:" ' . • ; • *-•%'. ••.•*. * *^ • ■ • . ■ . • '■ .. • .■•■ ■. . . {••■•••v ■ ■i/-::x^A' •.::^ ' /• * . • * • : ' V r-iir- •—''' - mDi' ^»v • '•'--/ y\^r ?AH^^iiJ6, LOT iL.,% ... , . ••..... ,. E lv ’* • • * . • . * to'\ ' v’-■m w1 r joiliiii " r«aEIB HiMHI'iiSSilBBt^ mr'-:- mm ■V#--. •■:^^•^-^,|J\pl»; ^ Yl ■'/’i *^ h .•t^.»»* j ^i<ir.4 'isw tiVv. s3«I^^,*r'«nr (2) Where the driveiK-ay to ■ perking area of more than six parking spaces is within IS feet of an adjoining residential lot line. (b) The screening required in this section shall cons t of a solid fence or wall at least 50 percent open, not less than four feet nor more than five feet in height, but shall not extend within 15 feet of any street or driveway opening onto a street. The screening shall be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, 15 feet from the street right-of-way with landscaping (trees, shrubs, grass and other planting) between the screening and the pavement A louvered fence shall be considered solid if it blocks direct vision. Planting of a type approved by the planning commission may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fencing. (Code 1984, §10.60(10), (11)) planning commission and council for approval. Such ninoffmay be required to be propCTly c^eled into a natural u^tercourse. ponding area, storm drain or other cubUc &cihu«. Any change in grade affecting u^fer runoff, whether onto adjacent proper or othemise. must be in compliance uith the surface uater management plan and sha2 be consistent uith other applicable regulaUons or provisions of this Code and subject the appro\^ of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainacf. (I) Height. No structur or building shall e.xcecd 2 1/2 stories or 30 fee: in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (Code 1984, § 10.40(6)) See. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. "* iwnnintd subject to (I) B.J. B-2 andB-l. size Within the B-l.B-2 mid B-4districls. the .Mregateicuare footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each t.^t .1 the B-1. B-2 and B-4 districts, no sign sh£! e.xtend»" heij^t more than mo feet above the highest outside uall or parapet of an% principal building, nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from anv propen. Sec. 78-1516. Required off-street parking. (1 7) Furniture store, appliance store, uarehouse under 15.000 square feet of Hoc: auto sales, grainhouses, kennels and studios, at least one for each 500 square feet u: excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structur? rarea. Sec 78-1573. Gbrc or beat Any use requiring nn opciaiion pr^ucing »intense heat or light transmission shai; ce perfoiinri «i* the ^es^ shtelding to prevent such heat or light from being (Code 1984. § 10.60(8)) Sec. 78-1575. Screening. (a) Screening shall be required in residential zones where: r~:exhibit c Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Scettons Sec. 78-^2. Permit application. All applications for a building permit in any B-1 retail sales business district shall be revie\%*ed by the council and may be referred to the planning commission for review. (Code 1984. § 10.40(2)) Sec. 78-648. Area, height* lot width* setback r^uiremenu and design requirements. (a) Area. In any B-1 district, the minimum lot size shall be 20.000 square feeL (b) Lot u idth. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. (c) Front yards The minimum front yard shall be 20 fe * (d) Rear yards The minimum rear yard shall be 30 fer. . > ard adjacent to any R district shall be 15 feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street s < il be ten feet. (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line. 35 feet from any rear lot line. 15 feel from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; e.xcept abutting or across the sueet from an R district* no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. (0 Fencing Wlterever a B-l retail sales business district abuts an R district, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50 percent opaque nor less than six feet in height shall erected along the abuning lines except within the required front >-ard. (g) Building design and construction In addition to other restrictions of this chapter, the use. consruciion. alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the follow ing standards: (1) All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: a. Face brick; b. Nanual stone: c. Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture. d. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted in subsections (gKl)^* -c of this secrion; or e. Other materials as may be approved by the council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. (2) All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original consuuction and shall be designed in a maimer conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. (3) No building or strucrure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. (h) Drainage No land shall be de\ eloped and no use shall be permitted that ‘ results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent propenies. Site and drainage plans shall be submined by the applicant in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be rexiewed by the city engineer before submission to the lUNUAltrVliaw} M I7II72J>40I>I2 ntarADM un buuncavi : OWNBtNMIf RIIANMHAMNNQ TAXTAVOI ROKRTH HARDING NAM&AOOR ajMRLAMGAVe WAV/ATAMN Hm M numymtk nnPAMM MS LVmCAVU OWNeRNAMB aiARLOnRCIAOUJiY lANTAVIIt 1‘IIAMUIIII rjAI-RlllV I4AMIM1NJM 3613 LYMA' AVI: WAY7^1AMN 55WI M aoll72J2l002« rROTADOR JM7 SMORCUNEOR OWNERNAMB fTEVAN J A DEBRAi WAGNER TAXTAVER STEVAN J A UEUHA i WAGNER NAMC/AODR 3440 MORNINGVICW CT MOUNUMN 33304 lllilNIJ'IN (VHIKnr fMon K1Y INM iKMAIION SYM1.M l*K<riKIYO\VNIK.M IM fAi.l I 34 l7l|7iJ)40lM4 nnir AfNM jo33 lyrc avi : OWNUtNAMB OEANWAMURRO.UniN TAXTAVER DEAN W AMURKLLATIIN NAMI/AIXIR 36331.VRK* AVI WAY/A IA MN 34 171177334(1)47 nujr AIM3R M AUURIi&S UNASMtNUI owvcmnamii RANIIAROING lAKI'AYlH RINII'HI IIIIAMINNII NAMUAINJM 23V4 UIAINE AVE WAY/AtAMN 35JVI 31 3011723310033 TROrAODR 3701 UlORELINEOR OWNERNAMB CASCO RUN LTD KTNRSi IP TAXPAYER CASCO HUN LTD PINRSIIP NAMWAUUK P O UOX 163 CRYSTAL DAY MN 33323 34 I7I|77)34(W43 PROPAUUR 3033 I.YHR: AVI. OWNUINAME KATIILELNL7INE TAXPAYER KATIILLLN L HNE NAMIMINW 3023 1 VXr AVIi WAV/AIAMN 33JVI 34 2UII72JilUUil PROPAUUR )U(S SIKJRliJNliUR OWNERNAMB NW|||UJ.TIJJ.PItnNP. CO lAXPAVIM UWI smiMnMIAIIDN NAMI7AUOH Al IN PNUPI Kl Y TAX IMII L'AIIIOHNIASI aiVJU DINVIMCO MI2U2 (Aroo- ‘6 o I CERTIFY THATTIE FACR REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RCPRESEPTrATKINOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS Tl IS DATE ON TIC RECORDS Of TIE IEM4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES OEPARTMENT. TOTTIE OEST Of MY KNOWLEDGE AND OEUEF. -7 * ^ DATE by w cr<i. IV) iticuiai ^ ^ EIXHIBITE ^-| /VtiMNETONl^ Revise o U a1U)C0VEU CA SITDACK20NT: .Cir»CLEONE) C-IS* EXiSTfNC HAmrovrn in tqn - -------------------- C jci Stih A ^^^io3”\^15Kksheet IM UfT *7^ 6uauc 7 'H^WMSiTd LAh&OO^ 75.:so ’aso-soo* <^^0-1000^ _______SF euluoiAtfis 9. Ca.'3{t ^OJriuu :.faiTM 0f ttn fUMr 0- Sidewalk E. P«u=/Deck F. LyiKa^ sM- 0 O'itf 12^5 “ X^wCuiTMMi/ fcgg ■tut:?!? 60mA, at ti«/ 4M. IIAAS :::ai :-.n.“J3C0M.i i>; z2NE TOTAL r*.TY AltEA :>: ZONs A _____________ - B PROPOSED HAr.LCOVLniNZQM A H:uj;__________ X X i:o B Oarsje C Driveway D S.dswilk E Pa-^Dejk ?. Lr-.ditapc L’nierlaia By ?:a«j; Of Fiini G Oiiref TCTAl HA.CCOVE?. IN ZONE 15,610 • Zl- TOTAL ATY A^A IN ZONE A _____________ - 3 ____________ X ICO I- nbol 2T>4- 17774 XWO 72,75 4. 465 4 71 ^562 .3 * .Sr-gAjT Sr 8vAU»*^* .Sr -Ca*tC.i*6H Sf - guACi^rop ■ 5 p ^CPr*Cftgr£ Quano?/cj*^t SF* SiOfi'AtX !sf SF-CtCl4fSTtP5 [sf ■ j P oai»/fw*xK s F >AO6m0»ML a^UA/fu __ CONCRCTC .5 r - vwAtiS SF ’SF V, ,SF .. .PCOfWEO^ Nfr ,SF ACDiTf^ flA-w 'SF -AOOn»OHX: L o^AOCkTr SF NeT6AlM SF'&BAveL Uf^t SF 3^007 HSISO" SF !sf SF !sf SF SF SF TZ7I SF SF Si «o rj i.Mij vij. ’:=h^ 3 :i[ A . ; Ti-'' ia^isnioei ‘5(£nWAG»fc" - 8'H V/ T 18*^ ,0vwa «-IMMlJ^ir DTTB 'UMTt: ajvJ> l-.\ 14' vV: !»► <^®2I ; MINNETONKA RENTAL 3- .^. r-' m 1! Budget TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE = «B' ?3' TOTAL HEIGHT ^ ] ' 'm.A>i MnnonoNKA Rental Inc. 3607 ShoreiiM Dr. Wa>Tata. Mn. $5391 952-471^700 Wl mHT ANTHtmO.. ALMOST L cO i^Avc T»?ru •3L l-V ?>a>^AT I'T /i- 36oT XT a a ?C(L EXHIBIT D Jaaaary 20.20M PHtl«C4 5 Dale ApiMksllMi Rccchrtd: 9>2^^ Dalt AppHcatioa CoMidcrcd M CoMpktt: 9-29-U «A-Oay Review ferlod Eiplrcs: I l-ZS-«J eileaded to l'27^M Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>* Administrator Fron: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach. City Planner Januor>’ 14,2004 03-2958. Judson Dayton. 2885 Little Orchard Way - Reneu-al Variance • Public Hearing Zoning Disirici: Lot Area: LR > 1 A. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) 2.0 acres (87,120 s.f.) 2885 LiCtk Orchard Way: 825 Old Ciy sul Bay Road: 2.0 acres 21.131 acres A^kalion Summary: Applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the e.xisting oversized accessor>’ structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming location in the rear of the lot. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request because the existing conditions are not representative of the conditions that resulted in the original variance apprD\-al. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-1432. Time of Construction. No accessor>' building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the lime of construction of the principal building to which It is accessory. Section 78-1434. .Area Restrictions. See attached Exhibit C. Exhibits Exhibit A - Notice of PC Action dated October 20.2003 Exhibit B - Plan for Re-location of the Bam Exhibit C - Section 78-1434 of the Zoning Ordinance Exhibit D - Plan of Existing Awcessoiy Structures at 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road Exhibit E - Photographs Exhibit F-Plat Map j r L jMMr>20.Jtt4 Patti *r4 BackfraiiMl This •pplication was originally heard at the October 20.2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that time the Planning Commission had encouraged Mr. Da>ion to combine parcels and move the bam to make it conforming. Doing this raised questions about whether or not the parcel would be conforming as to the amount and size of accessory structures on a single property. Therefore, the application w*as tabled so stafTcould research the existing accessory structures and whether or not moving the bam would alleviate the current situation. The application was then to be heard at the November 17, 2003 meeting but was delayed to January to allow the applicant lime to consult with his anoineys. Esbtiog Accessory Stmcture Analysis The applicant’s properly aside from 2885 Little Orchard Way consists of 3 tax parcels, i.c. a large main parcel and two smaller parcels. Only the main properly. 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road, is eligible for combination with 2885 Little Orchard Way in regards to the bam issue, because it is the only parcel with a principal stnicture. Because of this, a total accessory structure analysis was done for all the existing accessory buildings to determine if the existing bam on 2885 Little Orchard Way can be added to 825 Old Cry^ Bay Road without additional planning actions. The following is a list of the accessory structures located at 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road: Bam/Stable: 5,168 square feet Care Taker House; 1.940 square feet The property is allowed 6.000 square feel of accessory structures with a maximum size of one singe building of 3,000 square feet by City Code Section 78-1434. The care taker house was left out of the accessory structure figures as it is allowed by Section 78*303 (8). The square footage in excess of the 3.000 allowed for a single building w^ allowed by a variance approved in February, 1992. Conbining tbc Lots aad the Feasibility of Adding the Bam To combine 2885 Little Orchard Way to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, or simply moving the bam to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road would require the following planning actions: [Bam (48’ x 24’) - 1.152 square feet] Variance: Variance: To allow the accessory building total to exceed 6.000 square feel (5,168 ■*•1.152 » 6,320 s.f.) To allow more than or»e oversized accessory structure on the lot due to the existing bam/stable. Feasibility* of the Above Planning Actions The chart in the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance. Exhibit C. only e.xtends out to 9.01 acres or more. This sets the limit to 6.000 square feet of total accessory structures allowed for any property 9.01 acres or more. The chan starts as 0 - 1.99 acres allowing a maximum of 2,000 square feet of accessory* structures and increases •OJ-lWi J$m9BryiO,2t$4 Pi«i3«f4 by appcoxiiMtely 400 square feet ui’Ji e> ery additional acre. If this chan t^ere extended out to include the applicant’s proper), wliich is 214- acres, it u-ould allow for lO.SOO square feet of accessory structures arJ the applicant could conceivably add the bam to his parcel and be within the allowable loits of square footage, should the Planning Commission deem this appropriate. Howev-er. the same section of the ordinance sutes that a propeny is only allowed one oversized accessory building (any building in excess of I.(XX) s.f). This requires that an additional variance be granted to allow more than one oversized accessory structure. The Planning Commission should discuss whether there ore any hardships to grant two variances; one to allow more than one oversized accessory structure per property and also to allow more than 6,000 square fee: of accessorv* structures. Hardship Aaalytb It is staffs opinion that there are no convincing hardships to allow the bam to remain at its existing size requiring n\o \*ariacce approvals. Ihe "Little Orchard ' subdivision has eliminated any context the bam pre\iously had in relationship to its surroundings. Further, the bam has already been rriuceH in size, further lessening is historical significance. The bam could still be allo\ '. without any planning actions, if it were reduced to 832 s.f. and either moved :o 825 Old Crystal Bay Road or if 2885 Linie Orchard Way were combined with 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road and the bam is moved to the location shown on the plan (E.\bJrit B). Possible Options Planning Commission should discuii the following options: 1. Require that 2885 Little Orchard Way be combined with 825 Old Crystal ojy Road if the applicant wi;‘*es to keep the bam. This action would also require the bam be moved to the location indicated on E.xhibit B and the following planning actions: a. Variance to allow the total of all accessory structures to exceed 6.(X)0 s.f.. b. Variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure on a single parcel Same as above but requL*ing the bam to be reduced to be under 1.000 s.f. to alleviate the need for a \ riance to allow more than one o\ ersized accessory structure. A variance m2;- still be required to allow for the accessory structure total to exceed 6.000 s.f i:’the bam isn’t reduced to 832 s.f. or less. If the applicant doesn’t wish to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, the bam must be reduced to under 1 .(XX) square feet and it must be moved to S25 Old Cry stal Bay Road in a conlbrming location. If the bam isn’t reduced :o 832 s.f. or less a variance would still be required as noted above. mynm Pl|t4tf4 liMMt fbr CoMidtratioa 1. Should any varimces be approved to allow the birn? 2. Docs the bam ba\'€ any historical significance? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff WtramarailafiaB Requife the bam to be reduced to 132 s.f. or less to alleviate the need for any planning actions, and if the parcels are combined the bam must be moved to the locaUon indicated on Exhibit B and if they are not combined than the bam must be moved to a confomiinElocation on 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. EXHIBIT A CITYOFORONO ZONING FILE: 03-2958 2750 Kdky Parkway P.O. Boi 06 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (^) 249^4W .......................................date of NOTICE: October 20.2003 TO: Jtxlson M. & Elisabeth I. Dayton COPIES: 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayzata,MN 55391 ................................ DATE OF MEETING: October 20,2003 Plaaniag Commissloa rccoBBMadcd as follows: Table. The applicant must explore the option of combining the lot containing the bam. 2885 Little Orchard Way, with the lot which contains his residence, 825 Old Cry stal Bay Road. The applicant must also determine if the bam can meet all Zoning Ordinance retpiirements, including Oversized Accessory Structure limitations, and Building Code requirements in moving the bam to a conforming location in the rear of the existing loL VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is tentatively set for: Planning Commission - Monday, 1M7-03; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available fiom the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataia at 952-249-4623. NtxtPafeLWcPubliih Pate 2 of 2 •ccaeao»y etrucara must ba lamovad If no principal stnjciura has -L».!! - ***?**^'. accessory structure and principal structure P* wesy totsawr erwy a tot ttial moots ffio minimum lot area rsryuiremeni lor the Qivan alsaof aooaasory buliSng. In suMidsion apprmral. fie satiaek laqiilrsd tor tie oversize accessory sb^ahal remain binrino on current and Mure proparty oemers and shaS be Wed in fM chain of ttbe of tie properly k.hdp://Uv«p«blijhjnuiiicode.coiii/2MpeictdlI/Iiifolwe99/l/l04e«»»2l99/2Ii37lii-<locu... IIWOO) EXHIBITD •03-1462 January 20.»HM Pa|tlar4 Date ApplkalkM Rccthtd: IO-22-OJ Dale Appttcaiioa CMsidcntf ai CoapItU: I0-22-03 M-Day Ravkw rcHod Eipim: 12-2I-R3 oad cstcadcd lo 2-I94M Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ Januar>' 16.2004 03-2962. Robert and Joanne Swiu, 1740 Shad>-svood Road • Lot Area and Hardcover Variances - Public Hearing Zoaiof Dbtrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - 1C. One Family Lakeshorc Residential District ('/j minimum) 0.47 acres (20.624 s.‘f.) 120 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a ne\^ home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6^o hardcover in the 75-250* zone when 38.8% currently e.xists and 25"/o is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations the follow ing: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Approval of a hardcover variances as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-up apron prov ide hardships inherent to the property. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lois. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: LM Arta (acre)Lot W idth (feet) OJ 100 Front Yvd (fcoit Side Yard(fe«i)Rear Yard (feet) | Side Yard .Vd.aeeni to I 1 I')I ?-J Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. E.xception; Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1.500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. mkyiHi JMaary 20l2M4 P«t*2a«4 See. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-IC-1 district, >vithin 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, haid cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. W'ithin 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or imperv ious surface shall K* placed, located or constructed \%ithin 75 feet of the ordinary high uater level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts. landings and lockboxes as retnilated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL. there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1.000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Revised Survey E.xhibit B - Revised Elevations Exhibit C - Revised Floor Plans Exhibit D - City Council Action Form dated January 16.2004 Exhibit E - Planning Commission Action Form dated November 18.2003 Exhibit F - PC Report dated November 14.2005 Background This project was originally heard at the November 17.2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the excessive stnictural coverage and hardcover. The applicam chose to continue on to the City Council. At the January 12.2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project tabled as new plans were being prep^d. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning Department staft* brought 'he applicant back to the Planning Commission for a new recommendation. The applicant has submitted new plans for a house that mcct« the 15% requirement Also included is a conservative driveway of 1.000 s.f.. a 53 s.f. stoop. 60 s.f concrete walk bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4%. That applicant had also indicated that a 12 ’ x 12 patio'deck would be incorporated into the new plan, however that is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f patio deck were inco.-porated the hardcover would rise to 37.6%. If the proposed 16* x 16* patio deck is added instead, it rised to 4.409 s.f or 38.6%. LOT A.NAL\’SIS WORSHCET Tlie lot analysis worksheets have been updated from the previouslv denied plan to reflect the new footprint and hardcover. order to approve the 38.6% hardcover in the 75 ’ - 250 ’ zone. MU.2H2 January 20.2004 fagtOori HARDSHIP M discussed in the earlier PC report, some hardships exists that could support approvaJ of a hardcover variance. The lot is quite shallow if you consider its depth. This is limiting when calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcover a lot with the exact same lot area (0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250 ’ hardcover allotment If its dimensions were 250 ’ x 82.5 ’ which would yield a 25®/o hardcover of (175 x 82.5 x .25) = 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship can only justify a hardcover level of 3,609 s.f., 800 s.f. less than what the applicant has proposed. ^so, because the lot is located on Shad>Avood Road, a hardship exists in that more ^veway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has proposed a 1,000 s.f driveway. This is essentially a 3-stall wide driveway that tapers towar^ the road. Other similar lots have been held to much narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcover limits for rebuilds. The Planning Commission should discuss to what extent a hardcover \ ariance should be granted, and what hardships allow what level of hardcover excess. Building Heighi ■^e applicant should be aware that if a basement were constructed on the property w ith the proposed elevations is appears that there would be a building height issue The lot currently sites low whereby substantial fill ivould be necessar>' in order to construct a basemem. Zoiung C^dinance states that building height Is measured from existing, not propo^ pade. If the applicant decides to propose a basement the plans should be 30 f«? from existing grade, is Issues for Consideration 1. Has the applicant made a good faith effort towards limited hardcover? 2. WTiat level of hardcover variance might the Commission consider? 3. How' can the magnitude of the proposed variance be j'ustified? 4. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the follow ing: 1 . Approval of die lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot w hich is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Plai^ng Commission must determine whether there is adequate hardship to justify allowing 38.6% hardcover (4.409 s.f) in the 75-250 ’ zone when 38 8% currently c.vists and 25% is normally allowed, for this total rebuild on a nearly I •; .»»♦, S S9*57 ’48" € I < I ** * V•up • r 'iiv i ‘I.. 1 II f 1 mar Jc OvER SCALE IN FEET • ci^TfA irjt rrv«ic»4 litm-u'Jll 'J-Iil |l)VAIit/4 - O^tCTON ScMfACC 0«*/*A(iC ■■‘ROCO vER cast 125 46 n* It42« Sr 1 25» - 28i6 5< K Att»3 Q.^^ . 9,00 y C»|SI WO«»OS£P C'St K3USC - 2M) Sr KVSC • 30«0 y (Uin iOT)h C^.<M . 450 y sTtPS - 140 y stocp - 5j y etc* - i^o y WA14 - ee y «i4m > to v e34T*.t£ . 370 y ^ lAvT'v: - 540 y total • 442S y (Men) (20 2moT)___________ : ? £*ST.*/; K\;SE p«opoyo B0ATKX«€ - 370 y 4 on -i OeSCRPTCN ' LOTS 14 4 15. SMAOTROOO. K»#l C 20600 ST 0 47 AC ^ PC 0 17-117-23-21-0020 AOORESS - 1740 yiAOiiAOOO ROAO L‘ r~ ItoH Y ^ n □=>VYVl 'ISs Mnite ■SSOlfiOMiMj 45T«r • . 2SliLf CITY OF ORONO ZONING RLE: 03-2962 27S0Kdcy Parkway P.O. Boi 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN5S323 (952) 249-4600............ ^ DATE OF NOTICE: November 18,2003 TO: Robert and Joanne S^itz COPIES: S930 Boulder Bridge Lane Shorewood, MN S5331 TWE OF APPLJCATION Lot Stmetml Cov;eT^_wd_^ DATE OF MEETING: November 17.2003 Pkuuiiag C—iiiloB rccoBBCMlcd as foUaws: Denial consistent with the following staff recommendation: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when O.SO acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot cov erage by structures variance to allow 19*/o structural coverage when ISYo is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8% currently e.xists and 25% is normally allowed. VOTE:FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Canacil - Monday, Janaary 12,2004; ■ecting starts at 7:00 p.n. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Citv Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-1623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 davs from the date of application, and that this review- period may be extended by noiiftcation to the applicant. Your application was received on October 22, 2003 and the 60<4ay review period would end on December 21. 2003. However, due to your inability to attend the November 24. 2003 or December 8. 2003 City* Council meetings, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60- day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to February 19,2004. MJ-2M2 Kovtabtr I7.2M1 rage I *f7 Dstt AppScatiOB Rccehad: 10>22mS DMb AppticBtiM CoMMcred ts Coapittt: IO-22*«3 «(»>DBy rtriod Eipim: 12-2143 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Fron: Janice Waataja. City Planner Date: November 14,2003 Subject: 03-2962, Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadyuood Road - Lot Area, Hardcover and Structural Coverage Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - IC. One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/s minimum) Lot Area: 0.47 acres (20,624 s.f) Lot Width: 120 feet Apptieation Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when O.SO acres is normally required. 2. Lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Stqff Recommendation: Staff recommendations the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot wL'^h is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25^o is normally allowed. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lois The following minimum requirements shall be observed: L«l Arti (acre)Let WiJihifecu Fror.: Yard (feet)Side Yard (feel)Rear Yard (feel)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (fim) iOJ 11 ICO 30 10 30 IS Sec. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0--1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not •05-2N3 No««abtr 17, MU Piftltf? of ihe lot irca. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot Sw^sttilctures** **** coverage by principal residence and LR*??alteration regulations. In any LR-IA, LR- <h« «>».. b. n. Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed w\hm 75 f«t of the ordinary high vvitter level of any lake or tributary, except for ttairv^^^ifts. Uimlings and lockboxes as regulated else^%1iere in^CodT^ ^ *■*** ^ »h«Il be no greater than 25 Lbt of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - AtUacem Ptopeny 0*wrs- Acknowledgement Form E.xhibit C - Existing and Proposed Survey E.xhibit D - Existing Footprint Exhibit E - Proposed Footprint Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit O - Elevations E.xhibit H - Floor Plans Exhibit I - Aerial Photograph Exhibit J - Drawing Showing Building Pat at 15y« Exhibit K - Plat Map E.xhibit L - Property Owners List Background I Wbeams have also agreed to remove the existing boathouse In M3-2MX Nmaiktr I7.2M3 Pift3«r7 and stroctural coverage proposals are excessive to ^vtat has beeo consistently approved with rebuild lituatioas but ^ve decided to move forward without any re-design. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LtAwiWMtt; LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f. acre)100* Actual 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres)120* StOukii LR-IC Required ExbtiBg Proposed Front 30’ na n/a Rear 30’ j if 36’ Leftside 10* i 9* 1 15* Right Side 10* :o*!'»* Lakeshore 75’60* (house) 55’ (deck)IS' Average Lakeshore 5i ’ j 53-75* (not including any decks) Stractnral Covcraee! Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,624 s.f. (0.47 acres).\llowcd:3,094 s.f. (15%) 1 Proposed:3,895(19%) Hardcover Calcubrionit Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover . 0-75 9.200 s.f.Os.f (0%) 2,050 s.f (22%) Os.f. (0%) 75 - 250 11,424 s.f.2,856 sX (25%) 4,428 s.f.* (39%) 5,027 s.f. (44%) • After exclusion of fabric or plastic*lined landscape beds •OJ.2M2 ^io*«fflbcr I7.20U Pa|c4«r7 Lot Area Variance ............................................ ^ •* I? V *" '* nonnally allou^d a lot areavanancc is required The lot meets the uidth requirement of 120* when 100* is required. Hardcover Variance fnXllIr.^r®-' ”-250- zone. The Te^hoifi™ .1 ® f"“- *8"^ “ «"’»«'h' l»a.hou« nearthe shoreline, therefore no vanance is required for the 0-75' zone. However the 75*o«v' “ » 3-8P5 s.f. home. 72 s.f. of walk, and 1.060 s.f. of driveway in the 7a-.50 zone whieh puts the hardcover for the zone at 44% requiring a varianee. Lot Coverage by Stnictures Variance Hardship Statement Hardship Analysis Smfr finds that there arc no viable hardships to approve the hardcover and structuraliprPsHsl=T= &”4risr=s;;?43sr“'"“™““- ^o«t«b«r 17.2MJ rebuild situations. Staff mil hold to this suggestion as new homes have consistently been held to 15%. No hardship e.xists to allow structural coverage in e.xcess of 15% due to the allowable building pad of 3,093 square feet as shown on Exhibit J. This is more than double what the ordinance allows for in particularly small lots where a minimum of 1.500 square feet is allowed. Staff would support a lot area variance as this is a routine N-ariance which is required with rebuild situations where the lot doesn't meet the area requirement for the respective zoning district. The lot is a legal lot of record which requires approval of th:s variance request Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for ”undue hardship** pefinent to this appH Mio"' 1. ‘The property in question caruiot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controL.” A reasonably sired home could be placed on the lot meeting all requirements. 2. *The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property net creat^ by the landowner." There are no circumstances unique to this property which would Justify granting of the variances as proposed Staff has indicated that a hardcover variance could be explored due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a turnaround but 44% is excessive to what has consistently been approved with rebuild situatiorj. as is the 19% structural coverage. A reasonably sized home could be constructed on the lot meeting all requirements. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The nature of the lot at shown in Exhibit I is smaller lots with modesty '-lotprints and 7-2 V: story homes. This house as proposed may alter the essential character of the LR - IC zoning locality along Shadp%ood Road. 4. "Economic considerations alone shal' not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of the Zoninj Chapter." The applicant has indicated th it her older parents u ould be moving in w hich causes the need for a larger house. This lot fits within the applicant's budget however, stafffeels that this lot cannot support the amu unt of hardcover and structural coverage the applicants feel they need 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direa sunlight for solar energy systems. V'ariances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter * Abr applicable 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a ma-mi •N'«vtabcr I7.200J r«if<«r7 i\ot t^plicable zone SSSSSSSS— »Wch^d'Si1° generally to oUitr land or stnictures in the distria in of a sSJLtfal pro^'^friXTf ^rapSl”enjoyment applicant may be be^^^h^flM^tuafsl^^T''^ °^"'" II. Code. bru have consistently 1 2. -The granting of such variance will not merely s^rv i* . SjSS';srrS“t±S‘“^P^^ «or necexsao' /« alleviate demonstrable harZTps " Issues for Consideration 3. A««tereanyothetissuesore.n«r:^ttUthrs7;S^^^^^ Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: N««t«kcr I7.3lt3 1. Approval oftbe lot area variance to allow a rebuild OD a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.S0 acres is notmally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% structural coverage when 15% is normally allowed. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75>250* zone when 3t 8% currently exists and 25% is imrmally allowed. EXHIBITA CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change froin original applicatioo) Variance for noo<onfocining structures S2S0.0C After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatfon # Date Received Amount Paid ip. ^r>. « ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address 1*7^40 SV\ol<J . p ^jqqA _____ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.1 x3 Cci^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. I (do) (do not) also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Pineol usT*>f property: _^residential _(momh/year) Zoning District:. .other (specify). APPLICi^T ^ Phone (home1 « «^i »O t HopgrC JQ<lv^y^e. Phone (work) n • o (CcxO (home). Addrets:_^q «i A Ps>^ City. SUor-g.LOrwjL Zip: » OWTVER (if different than applicant) • ^ Phone (home) i/7/^d Vol* kx)Ai>;s^^hone (work) _____ City. ProOQ ^ rAAJ an: SiT3lf Name (work). Addres^ -nsX rs ^Vv/» J. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S C5**0.oo0. on Describe request in detail: ^Th>^r> t ^ TyV, 'J—t*vj o ji^L ^ .-t-3 <.1 1 .a (attach additional 'Sheets if necessary) « ^ ^ TTow^n ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover __Rear Klot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) 1 HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difliculiy or unusual property condition.^ preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: LoV ci xe. ; c I ^ or A y ^c I "thiCm ir\a^ lArs >r,Ceptti ^ M-/i / {g.Oive r-* 4-t> \ q., \ _________ ' (attach additional sheets if n«es$ar>) ~ m^L /O EXmBITB Adjacent Property Owners' AeknowIcdgcmeDt Form I (^^«) ^^egrcHgiu of nsi> SX^APyin^aP [prim iume(s)) [prim addr^] bave^^w^ ^ plus for the proposed improvcmcnl or proposed use of the property located at * ^ ^ nAtft4^A|>also referred to as Land Use Application No. _______. 1 (we) undentand thal ii cxecutiai this adcnowledtcmeni, I (we) tm (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I Tw *^*** "*■ **" n«i*l>bot's project or use cicr /P q/Vi-? Date Owner .Oct /y Date 1 (we) C. )CtxjcV< [print nanie(sj] of >72.^ SUaa . [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property hratfd at ------»lso referred to as Land Use Aoolication NoLand Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am^are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use ^ A' Property Owner ;f zoo^ Date Property Owner Date If >uu h»ve »ny information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use rr ^;• r SCALE N FEET - tCSTWC *®0T CltVATCM . ' I(99a0). PwyotfO SPOt CltVATON - m 0^£C7C*4 SiJWACt 0R«N«CC V- r- 1 I/) Co \ \\ ' HARDCOVER lt«74 Sr I 75t • 3BM Sf HC AUWO «»0»WC0 House - 3895 SP WAIK m 77 ■• OOJVt - lOPo SP TOTai - 507f 5P (44«tt) 17 V KXISC - 2665 SP STEPS - >40 SP WAIK - M SP CKBVt - «2C^ SP lA^OSC • 335 SP TOT A*. • 4478 SP (38 85) £ASr 125.46 0-75 - 9700 » tnST HOUSE • 450 SP OCCM - 670 SP OOAtMSC - 370 SP IA>«SC. • 560 SP TOT At • 7050 SP (77 35) E»iStPJO t^jSt PPOPOSEP B04fK7.i£ • 373 SP 40t bCSCWTCN tots U k 15. S-JIC-AOOO. Kf« CO. MT4 706C0 ST 0 47 #: PO 6 l7-l17-?:-2’-:O20 *CC«£5S - 174: SHi;''A0C3 ROAD exiiTinti c«40)ti44<s r EWSTtlC HOUSE I ». fir< OK • / • ■’ A I \ 't -I .N \ \ ! ' uV 's 'i SCALE IN FEET - Cnsrnc spot cicvatom 1(990 0)- H»0IWC0 SPOT C lCVATCN - OWCTWN StWACt OWAWACt W' •’'’’.'I'll I f —,1 -— II4J4 V ■ ?S*5 MOoSf - J60S V 5ICPS - 140 y WALK - 88 y OAVC - 1200 sr LAW)SC - 835 y total - 4438 sr (388X) »Ly. MAROCOVCR - ?flS* S\ HC AUAP pnoposto HOir^ - 389S y WALK - 72 y OPrvt - 1060 y total • 5027 y (440«) EAST 12546 0-7S - 9?00 y ________________ JjiritV cr t.lStJA. HOvy " *52 « W»CPO«0 PCCK ■ 670 y BOAtMOjxf • 370 y 80ATMSC - 370 y 4M ^ LA105C • 380 y total - 2050 y (22 38) '1 Q)^ '* DCSCW»TON '' ^ LOTS 14 8 15. SHAOTWOOO. ICTM CO, MN. 20600 y 0 47 AC PO § 17-117-23-21-0020 AOPPCSS - 1740 SMADYWOCO fH)*0 i m f09lpriVf,anVe, 4 w*ll^ proposed EXHIBIT F fSlBACK zonii BABBCQai<(oacLscMi) nma m vakv ^ CjOjCtXATION WORKSIKET Miwr B. Garv C. Dihtw«)> 0. tUnntk B. M»1taek 14.^ SM-IMT 45a 14,0 total MABDCOVEk IN ZONE TOTAL PtOKJtTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _• 1 _ _ _ _ _ _________• fe_______I 100 X IX PBO»QtE» HABtirfiVW m A. Hmm _____________ I B CtiN« C Dri«t«B7 D SidtviB E PMiiyDr:k Lc*rUx By riuiic C Otitr t4.0 I ___ HARDCOVTZ IN ZONE TOTAL ?KOPCATY AXEA IN ZONE A _____________ • B___________1 IW ‘X.O IT mnHBi*Mni"-tirnriiA. HBHii , J| WOftKSHCCT UMW SM-IMO* B. 0^ C DiHcwiy 3. liitwilk E. STbop Ui By nwk a o*« total hamdoovex in tone total PROKirrv area in zone - »_________« h 100 100 panonAOT X Hmm JlAlDCQXlUZLUUU 8 0p4^ C Orivtway /Ng. . liO _____> O IMmk E. Pmu^M F. LcAnteic 9y FiMic C 0*tr total harocovtr in zone total property area in zone —----------------- ’ a___________t ZimGS SF 5? \2oe>55 sr 66 5J SK V, JOB "2^ SF SF Sf 44o2-sr. a SF. B 5. sr SF SF. ______sr Sf JL?:.SF _____SF SJ. SJ SJ. SF -.?F _____SF _ SF A . SF B J. »5>» *75’'2^0 *Z.ov»<- (.r O'Wn 'V * 7.<a T. TWr, .OaMAM ** ®* 0®i0i« ChrlaftiM H. litfan MS*449*I194 ^aefS p*l jC jjteyii^iwfe wijK tj»mii,ii; /A 'L mu" W B r s t CQ S X Ut ou a« M n y I•• K 3 * . i V , :.-K'r *• r MiMUit'pin EXHUITK Hennepin Cou taxpayer Services Di U O.Parcel Information w are«l ID 1711723210020 eiiM Nuinb«r 1740 stmt Nam« 8HADYWV0M RO 7Mi if iwra loga^focorprtf map ttisp»«aentt a eaevMtat*a and tfoto from O^y.OPKniy. end SttiQieetfeuPiorlMawrfBiiireaoces’ UL RUNIV\1li;li lIRNNEPIN COUNTY PROPl INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWr^iJlS LIST PAGE: 1 3« miTlTIimi PROPAOOH M ADtWrSS UNASSIGNEn OWNOtNAMC AADFMKeLSTEM TAXPAVet ARTHUR A DOROTHY nNRELSTCM NAM6/A00R MDIMTHAVRN MArLBOROVCMN 5SM* 31 171172)210003 PROP ADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNFD OWNCRNAME AAORNKELSTEM TAXPAYER ARTHUR A DOROTHY FINKEISTEIN NAMH/ADOR M33 104711 AVC N MAPU!GROVI:MN 3S3V> 31 17)172)310003 PROP ADOR 1719 FAGCRHESS POOfT RO OWNER KAMI; LAUREEN E DARUNO TAXPAYER LAUREEN EOARUPK) NAME/ADIM 1719 EAGERNESS POR«T RO WAY/ATAM * SS39I la l7M72)2innnh PRUPAIIUR 3« AIMMISK UNASStRMia) OWNER NAME IIEWMEPRIPORPPJTED LAND TAXPAYER CTIYOPOROHO NARWAOOR POnOXU CRYSTAL RAY MN 33323 « I7ll77»7lnnm PRUPAMIK )■ AUURI-SS UNAViMiM l> OWNER NAME I lENNEPW FORFEITED UNO TAXPAYER CTTYOPORONO NAME/ADOR PODOXM CRYSTAL HAY MN 33)3) M I7ii72i7ianu I^UPAIMlR 1710 SHAUVWUUUKU OWNER NAME JOHN P FTT7PATRICK TAXPAYER JOHNERTTPATRICK NAME/ADDR I7IOSHADVWOOORD WAY/ATAMN 33)91 )t 171173)310019 PROPAODR 1730 SIMDYWOODRO OWNERNAMB AIAN R KOnCKY TAXPAYER AlANRKOaCKY NAMyAlXM IT30SIIAI7VWnni)RII WAY/ATAMN 1U9I 31 171173)310020 PROPADDR 1740 SIIADYWOODRD OWNliRNAMR THAMLKWANSDN TAXPAYER NAMP/AINIR THOMAS n A MARR.YN I.SWANSON l74QStlAI7YWrX)DRD WAY/ATAMN 33391 31 I7II7333I002I rarN'ADDR |7M SIIADVWOODRD OWNI-R NAMli OREICTILN S SHAW TAXPAYER CRETOIENSSHAW NAMI'MINIR nWSIIADVWnODRD WAY/ATAMN 33391 m D 30 171173)310073 PROPADDR 1700 SIMUYWOOORD 09PNERNAME DAVR3 H EOS AIRMXY M EBS TAXPAYER OAVR3 HA HOLLY M EBS NAME/ADOR I NO SHAOY7HOOO RO WAYZATAMN 33)91 PROPADDR 30 171173)31003) 1770 SHAOYWOOORO OWNER NAME DAMELPOrDONOGIKJE ETAL TAXPAYER OANRa-PODONOOIRJE NAME/ADOR 1770 SHAOYWOOO RO WAYZATAMN 33391 8 qr i ICCRTIFY TilATTlIP. FACTS RliPRI-SI-NTnO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS FT APPEARS TIES DATE ON Tl K RECORDS OFTHE IChWOPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES OEPARTMET^TOTTIE DEST; OFMYKNOWLCDGEANUUEUEF. ^ ^ DATE/O’^-^^ BY MENT.TOTTIEDEST yy FILEM»-im Jv«uafv7.2004 PsgalofS Dsm AppIkallM lUcftvt^: 10-22-«3 DaUAppttcallMCwHidcrtduCMplHt: 12-29-03 iO-Day Rrrlew PUfiod Eipircs: 01-07-04 00-Day Ravltw Pariod Cilcadcd to: 03417-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning ^'ornmission Members Ron Moorse, City Adn:ini:»tralor Froa: Melanie Curtis. City Planner Date: January 7.2004 Subject: 03-2965, Sennes Design Build for Franz & Kersten Jevne, 819 Broun Rd. - Variances • public hearing Zoaing Dbtrict: RR-1B, One Family Rural Rcsidcatial, 2 acre minimum Lot Area: I.O acre (43,819 s.f.) ApplkMkm Summary: Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance in order to remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage within 24.1’ feet of the side yard where 30 ’ is required.____________________________________ 5tq(f Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends the following: 1. .Approval of the side setback variance to allow a *;ide setback of 24.1 for the garage, and bonus room os designed, where a 30' setback is required. Hardship: ____________________________________________________ PcrliuMt Zoning Ordinance Sections Um Axes <acm) lot Width (fc«) From Yard (feet)Side Y«d (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Re« Yard (feet) 2 200 so 30 so SO UslofEiliibitt A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Original Proposed Survey D. Existing Sl Revised Proposed Survey/Site Plan Background E. Proposed Plans and Elevations F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map The existing home is on a 1.0 acre property within a 2 acre zone. The applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home, adding additional living space while utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the applicants wvre requesting a 10.7 ’ setback from the side lot line where 30 ’ is required. After discussions with staff, the applicants r nLE«»-296S Januwy7.200« htve revised their plan to extend no further into the side setback than existing resulting in the request for a 2A2' setback where 30* is required. The requested side yard setback variance of S.8* is in order to utilize the existing foundation on the south side of the garage and continue the plane of the garage toward the rear yard to change the 3-staII front loading to a 2‘Stall front loading and a 1-stall side loading garage. The applicants have proposed this change as the result of the meetings with staff and their hope to minimize hardcover on the lot Note that while a major driveway expansion is proposed, hardcover limits will not be exceeded. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.210 s.f. (2 acre)200* Actual 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)150* Setbacks; RR-IB Required Esbiing Proposed Front 50*140*140* Rear 50*no*no* South Side 30’24.7*24.1’ North Side 30*53*53* Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Toul Structural Coverage 43.819 s.f (1.0 acre).Allowed: 6,572.8 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2.876 s.f. (6.5%) ik Hawtfflvr Cilentattoai: F«^*03-2965 January 7. 2004 Paga3o(5 Hardcover Zoae Total Area in Zoae Allowed Hardcover Eibting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-500 18,430 s.f.5,529 s.f. (30%) 407 s.f* (2.2%) 643 s.f. (3.5%) 500-1000 25,139 s.f 7541.7 s.f (35%) 3,893 s.f* (15.5%) 7,938 s.f (31 6*/y_ After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants have proposed to extensively remodel their home while utilizing the existing foundation. The proposal is virtually a total rebuild, but re-using much of the foundation for cost savings. There will be two new areas of additional square footage where foundation will be installed. The new* living space will consist of 288 s f. 24 s.f and 20 s.f additions to the home and a 230 s.f addition to the garage The applicants are requesting to maintain the substandard setback in order to continue the existing line of the building with the garage addition. The applicants have also requested that the 2"^ story addition also maintain the substandard side setback. Hardship Suicncnt Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anal>’sis /it eoMidtrUtg apptkatioHS for tarUuice, tie Ptoiuiint Commiuiom ikatt consider the effect of the proposed vorionce upon the keaUk, softty ond wetfore of the commnnity, existing and antici^ed traffic condUktra, light and air, danger r^fite, risk to Ac public safety, and Ae ^ect on values of property A Ae surroundAg area. The MannAg Conunlsslon shall consider recommending approval for variances from Ae Ueral provisions of Ae ZonAg Code A Asiances where Aelr strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of clrcumsAnees unique A Ae AdMdual property under consideration, and AaU recommend appro val only when It b demonstrated Aat such actions will be A keepAg wlA Ae spirit and Intent of Ae Orono ZonAg Code. Staff finds potential justification for granting the side setback variance including substantial separation from neighboring homes, and the minor magnitude of continuing the side line of the house at essentially the same setback. Also, if the existing foundation was not being reused, there would be absolutely no need for a variance. The house foundation however is substantially centered on the site with only 15’-16' to the south setback line or 22'*23’ to the north setback line, so that creating a 2-car garage on either side would be difficult or impossible without a variance, or require the garage to be fonvard or rearw ard of the house. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: FILE*03-296S January 7. 2004 Pagaaors I. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used undrr conditions allowed by the olllcial controls “ A reasonable home can be constructed on the lot meeting setbacks In the opinion of staff this criterion b not met. 2* **The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.*' 3. “The variance, if granted, w ill not aher the essential character of the locality “ ne reduced setback would not ha\e any greater impact than that of the exbting home. In the opinion of staff thb criterion b met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The foundation b being reused in part to reduce costs for the remodel. However the applic^ has not indicated economic considerations as a hardship. In the opinion of staff thb criterion b met. J 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construcUon as defined in Minnesota Sututes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." S/A 6. “The Board of Appe^ and Adjusunents or the CourKil may not permit as a vwance any use that is not permined under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." S/A 7. “The or Council may permit as a VTiriance the temporar> use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." S/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure cr land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property “ T^propertyb a 1.0 acre parcel located within a 2^acre zone In the opinion of staff 9. “-^e conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Many of the surrounding properties meet the zoning requirement of 2-acres In the opinion ofstaff this criterion b met J njEm-Tm imuary ^ 2004 PagaSors 10. **Thc granting of the appGcatioo is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of die ^iplicanL’* tn tht opinion of staff this criterion is not met. II. **The granting of the proposed variance uill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contnry' to the intent of the Zoning Code.” 7n the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. ”The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The applicants' wish to reuse the existing foundation in order to affordably remodel their home could be viewed as a request of convenience. Jn the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. baocs for Coosideratioo Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 1 . Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a: story bonus room above more intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low one-story garage? Will either expansion have negauve visual impacts? 2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild, should it meet all zoning requirements, including seibccks? Under the proposed ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild. 3. Is the applicants' desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback considered a hardship? Stair RccommeiidaHoo Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to allow a side setback of 24.r where 30' is required, in order to construct an expanded one-story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations: I. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk envelopes shown on the attached plan. EXHIBITA Appkicatlon U Dale Received AmouDl Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AFPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no ebanpe from origioa] application) Variance for non-conforming smictures S250.00 After-the-Fact Feet (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ _ Site ftCoulM iPgAQN/, Property Mcntific^on Num^ (P I-D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Xrmidential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:___________________________________ _(monlh/year) APPLICANT Name ift vn lAAL/ Addfess:"IPrM C».v\fg fhome^<^ /^gC> _____ Phone Phone (i O^^TVER (if d ffeinnt than applicant) tA3 ^\}krr^ Name Phone (home) Plwne (work) City: .______Zip:.S3i3Z^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S_____________ Describe request in detail: ^ine. fhSCM. F/^ovi__ If^*^ / hejaC Z-oT“ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback: __Front ^ Side ___Rear ___ Average Lakeshore ___Other (specify)__________________________:________________________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difliculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code reouireme^.ts: tU/LL. ^ qc,t *2^*03 (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS to ■rpHfitiw mmimf <inf In ffnitf I- __ Completed Application Fonn / Govt Center. Ws9^l0)^ ^ ^ hennepm County Department of Finance. A-603. 6. ✓ List of the leoal na ^ «lcvaiion views (provide one (I) copy 8 ‘/i" x 11"). 7. ~ rj:^d^L7o“ ■"' - you Wish ““'■ • «P“'' «“ “7 o«-« P«0« 8. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE coiuultim expenses incurred in review of this < i **7003111x1 fee payment) ind/or supplied is Je «td cotrect «. 1 "^0 •»« AppUc«fs Signamre-------^ > • D.../^. OWNER’S SIG.NATURE membets forputposes of LesS^atJ-.^'^Siorfl?” ““ Owner’s Signamre_________________________________ issr "iss ss'/r s ” r AppUcanismusibepreJeMM^S month. C oudc IL If an applicant u unable to attend a sched^l!d^”!L®^ *^*i****""*"* Commiulon and have an authorized agent attend in your olace and tn «ri • *"?* d *’,5i**** •'^Sements to change prior to the meeting. Building St Zoning Office of this ^9. it ' ■*N r'v EXHIBIT B TIm MMCfiMiMi at Mdbmined with thii varimcc appticaiioii 10 dncribc tfic cooditioni that exid aid will dial w • ftwk of diis itnoddiBg pniccL rt fPBirvT rONDITIQNS: Tiv fewi yad ateck b caiindy noo<oalbnnii« to today*> ordioaicc riacc it wabidtl tn the 1960*1 to thedMCWToMordinaKC. Tkc at back b.ltowevtr.coiiiiacMwidi all the other houses in ifac Mijlthortwod UCACnaW ana nOAMTTMn MPnitEST FOO VARIANCE: Tbe owwn (iai dat dds is a rsaaoftobk f09uea becaua: • The owners like and ciyoy the acifhbofhood and city but baa a and to make die home more livable for their needs for now and in the IVaae. • The remodeling project will add cbaracar and esthetics while not creating conflict with the other homes in the neighborhood. • The osvnen arc taUnf the extra eflbti to make sure dat the home has architectural character and appeal. • The project presentt additions to the home, which ate both Amctional and meant to enhance the livability of this home. • An ortheckmenaorthisprqjact represent reasonable inqucstsfBr enhancing an existing home. • The home, even with da propMeddanges. would be consisieni with the inantorthe ordnances that were current when the home was originally buih. • Kcepif« the addition in the same plane, and therefore compact, would not add unduly to the hardcover of this properly. fr fQ ,r-?i w b KARDCOVIR CJVLCULA-hON WORKSHirT SXTBACX ZONX: (CIZCLl OffI) ' n-2tV SOO-IMV ‘O^ ofs «C VAAOCDyZBJSLZQBL A. Kcom SJ. B. C D. SMmIk E. Pm IoM c P. total KAftDCOVIIUN ZONE total PHOPIXTY AREA IN ZOPIE ♦ B K4 ‘»0_a too m^nmtrntn PAonrovn IN znwx A. HP--------------------* B. c D. SU|»1& E. fftkmtA f. ByPlwSB a 06w total HARDCOVER W ZONE TOTAtWOtWIYAMAWrO® ♦ ■ IB4%Q a 100 5J. ,S». SJ. RF. .SJ. S-“. SJ. SI. O SI. SJ. O SJ. ____SJ. ____SJ. SJ. SJ. A ____% SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. -SJ. u. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. 4b SJ. A SJ. B SmACXZOMC: (CnCLZ ONC) hardcover calculation WORX5EZET :so.fmrT5-2S0* •. OM|t C E. hri^DKk ■yfiMli TOTAL KAIU3COVE1UN ZOMB TOTAL PROraOY AMA IN ZONE ♦ B X 100 KBQQXULBUEflHE R C Omit DrivwiiV D. SidtwUi r. ByPliNk a otfMT TOTAL HARDCOVEE IN ZONE TOTAL PfbOfEXIY AREA IN ZONE nA%«_____ ♦ B zlOO IR v-l \n-L-b sj. exhibit f2. RT. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. i^.< ST. ST. H R»13 ST. ST. ST. ST. O ST. <4l4 ST. _______ST. Rl< ST. _____ST. IPU ST. ST. ST. !st. ST. JULiXA. ST. ST. ■St .Lm % r- 1 .N . -I N* I fS . »»\ • '' V. ■ r^'m o H * *'> ^ \ ’ >V • ^ ‘ '±^- S ^ ■-..-r?*:-i rt'5'7^(«5 RUN|M1t:IIMaj HENNEPIN COUNTY PNOPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE I M J7IIU3MS0U PROPAOOR M AMMUaSUNAISIQNliO QfWNWWAIil NOHNPATCONnMICTVMMC TAXPAVn NOMWATCONmUCnONMC MAMWADCR lll«S JilTAVCN PLVMOUIIlim 53447 Jl 17IIU)340aiM pnOPADUR tTfIMOWNIIUN OWNCRNAMC HOtSNPATCONmUCTIONOC TAXPAYER MOCSNPATCONnrnumONMC MftMK<AI)nW IIIOSJISTAVF.N PLYMOUTH MN 35447 PROPAMJR Jl 27IIUJJ4U»3 II* BROWN RUN OWNERNAME PAJEVNEIVAKNJEVNE TAXPAYER FRANZAJEVNEIV HAMrMDOR BROWN RO N tONGIAKLMN iiiH, M 27lll2JJ4nM PROPAOOR MIMOWNRON OWlOailAilR UBUiNBAMY 1AXPAVIR IIRIRiNIIAIIN NAM»A1NM mBHOWNRilN IIINIIIAKI MN 141V. M 37IIUJ4M0IJ PROPAOOR IV95 WESTFARMRO OWNERHAMC RLPARIUUIACIPAIUUSII lAXPAYIH MkIMHIII PARNISII NAMh>AIN1R IVW WI ST FARM Rl> lUNiilAKI MN Jl 27lltU4JQUi PROPAOOR IfR) WESTFARMRO UWNUINAMR AAMBRATIBIAN lAXPAYIN ARMANIII AMARYAIIMAnMAN NAMI /AIRIR IWO WLST FARM Rl) MINI) I AKI MN 3t 27III2J4JI0S4 PROPAOOR M AOOREUUNASMQNEO UWNERNAMB 71 Hi FARM ATUJNU LAKE TAXPAYER THE FARM AT U)NO LAKE PTNSHP DO TRROniY ADAMS III! WEST FARM ROAD LONG LAKE MN 3533* (' 1 ICERTtFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION Of IM=ORMAHON AS IT APPEARSTMS DATEONTHE REC OF THE HEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST Of MY KNOW1J-IX.I; ANOni-UI-F. OATE/L^lflP UY 3ROS MENT.TOT1IEBEST ^ / // FLU 04-2967 January 6.2004 PaoalorS Data AfplkatiM lUcthrttf: 12«KMM DataAppIkalkMiCoasidtrtdaiCoaipIttt: 12-2949 60-Day Rtvkw Period Cipires: 92-27-04 Frooi: Dtte: Sabjcct: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Memben Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mdaoie Curtis, City Planner |y|Q/ January 6,2004 04-2967, Sharon Rae Guimond, 2900 Waterto\%'n Road, •Variance •Conditional Use Permit • public hearing Zaaing District: RR-1B, One Faui|y Rnral Residential, 2 acre mininuBi Lit Area: 86,968 sq.ft (2 acres) AppUe^on Summary: Applicant requests a variance to allow an oversized accessory structure ISOO s.f., (30*x SO’ pole bam) where 1200 s.f. is allowed on a 2 acre lot and a conditional use permit to construct the oversized accessory building on the through lot. Stf^ Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions: 1. Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed bam. Hardship: Stc^ finds a headship exists in that the situation which destroyed the barn was a situation not created by the ijplicant.____________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1431. Conditional use permit rcqnircd. All accessor)’ buildings on through lots located in R districts shall require a conditional use permit Sec. 78-1434. Area rcslrktions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint am; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (I) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permined on any property. FILE# 042967 January 6.2004 PagaSofS Stlbickst RR-IB Front Rear West Side East Side Required Existing 94’ Proposed No Change 50 ’ New Bam Nd change No change Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area 86.968 sq ft (2.0 acre) Total Structural C average Allowed: 13.045 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3.972 s.f. (4.6 %) Conditional Use Permit Review The property is located at 2900 Watertown Road, with Watertown Road to the south and Wear Circle to the north, and is a through lot. A conditional use pennil is required to construct any accessoiy structure on a through lot. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure that the project is reviewed to protect sight-lines from roadways and neighboring properties. There are a number of mature trees to the rear of the property which will assist in screening the bam from Wear Circle. Oversized Accessory Structure Variance To evaluate the v isual impact of the proposed bam an on-site inspection was conducted by staff which revealed tree and vegetation coverage. Staff finds that the maintenance of Imge trees on site, the location for the proposed bam. along with the homeowner ’s desire to re-use a portion of the old barn's foundation would be supportive of the variance in this case. Additionally, the new bam is proposed to be 1,116 s.f less in area than the old bam which was destroyed. The new bam is proposed to be 14’ high, shorter than the 2- story home on the property. The proposed bam will meet all required setbacks for the RR-IB zoning district The property is under the 15®/o lot coverage by structure limit by appro.ximatcly 9,000 s.f (13,045 s.f allowed. 3,972 s.f proposed). Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. FllE* 04-2987 January 6.2004 Paga4ef9 Hardship Auhsismwm^m ^ ’“* *'*"•"""•"* -* finds there is a hardship caused by the situation that resulted in the exisUng bam being destroyed. Staff uill support a variance to allow an oversized accessory siiucture exceeding the UOO s.f. by 300 s.f. to be constructed in the place of the old bam as the destruction of the bam u-as neither the applicant’s intent nor an act of God. Staff wodd make the following recommcndaiions in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application; 1. “The property in question caiuwt be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The property can be used, and an oversize structure can be conuructed under the reasonable controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The existing barn was destroyed by afire which was ruled an arson. The applicant did not cause the circumstances In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The harn which was destroyed was 2.616 sf and existed for over 25 years in the same location Replacing the old larger bam with a new bam 1.116 s f smaller will not alter the c.usracter of the locality. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met 4. “Economic considerations alone shall rx>t constitute an undue hardship If reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicant has not indicated economics in the application In the opinion of staff this criterion is met ' ^ 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2 when in harmony with this Chapter.” AV/f as a6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council mav not permit _ s yiancc any use that is not permined under this Chapter for pr^pem in the zone where the affecied person's land is located " K.4 FILE«Oi-2M7 J«yM«ye.2004 PafitSofS 7. **The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one*faroiIy dwelling as a twt>-family dwelling.** N/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or inunediately adjoining property.** The old barn was destroyed by a fire caused by arson. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9. **Tbe conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.** In the {pinion of staff tMs criterion is met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the prescr\ ation and enjo>'menl of a substantial property right of the applicant** The applicant is requesting to enjoy a property right that was taken from her by the arson The old barn's size was grandfathered in as an existing non-corforming structure. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 1 1. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.*’ In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.“ In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Issues for ConsMerafioa 1 . Does the size of the old bam have any bearing on the size of the new bam? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccoaMBCudatiou Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variaiKe and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions: 1. Densit)' of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear Circle is minimized. 2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed bam. 3. The new bam is not to exceed the height of the 2*story home on the property. exhibit A AoMaakmn D»tg Rgccfvcd '03uAmottiitPald ^7^*0 CITY OF ORONO - CENTRAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ / Site Address Uj,-<rPC Toc^«c/ _____*:>«■> 3 tTfe Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P-l-D.)_______________________ Name Z>MPCfeA^ frtonj,^ Phone fwortrtb/ Address^ QOCI C±j TO vl > »L> ^ I^itV LckjcL aaU.tr Zip_ APPUCAOT , p .TV *’*»“« )Mn^^ '2 Sp^RCbA^ C^oi/hoAiQ Phone fworkiL)/ rntJ c«j ro L Cttdifljmt than applicant) ; Sg _____ - OWNER 0 Name, Addr^ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Dare Property Acquired pu i L j ^ S I amaccI (do) (do not) also own the a(^acent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _ S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP appUcotion yC S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Gucsl Apartments _____S2S0.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-ihe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review coosuluot fees) $300.00 Vacation $250.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule # O'-"7 jUgCJ^D SUBMITTALS £ Completed Applicatioa Form. ^ — Describe request in detail. ® CerilW Propoty Owners List of owners within 350* labels Md nUi / . st3 ‘^.,r5^T2;" ^ *^) - -0 for .«.>.> - :S2^rno ‘::fiS‘cr*Ss‘:s:;u"^r “*■ »> FOR ^TO w5ct Io/V^x'\7^^ TO**s*ulLE*u°F0*^^^^ •pplictoo is not com^lS^ttelbwfSoSio^'hJ'Srb^^^ remember thit >x)ur 5. 6. S. 9. AFPLICA.Vr*S SIGNATUREass S’?s SPSS'S srsrr^j: r-?- *' - OWNER S SIGNATURE members for purpo^ofinvcsi^on'ar.d vcrific^i ’on 12 -bi-o ^ wtry Mto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commissi members for purpo^of investigation t-.d verification of this requ^ ^^.t:y.;rf Date pSoiai Ceaauiifol M«S^^heToo***e^^°*"'*®*^ Conwiuioo Hccocf. Kj^ mie. H:e«ia„ of ±e Appli«nu „«« b. p«« «*.!, «*wWH trrnici. please md« KraDf^^TSS!^ ^ «> «»*ble a, .iiKd , BuOdiai A Zonir* Office of this change prior to ***“ “***^ « >«» P«>et tad advise d« CXHIBITB DnrCityofOrocio, I am writing to reapectfuUy request approva) of a variaoce to build a one atoiy 3(hcS0 xll pole ban on my property at 2900 Watertown Rd. This smicture would replace a gabled bam that was 44x54x23 that was destroyed in a fire set b>- an arsonist on June 08.2003. Ibe new one story pok bam would conpbr with the set back of 50 feet required by the cityofOiooo. Due to the extreme nature of this devastation to myself and my fiunily I would like thb pole bare approved. This structure has been a part of our life for om 25 years. Attachments: Photo of original gabled barn News paper article on Arson Police report on Arson Cdtified ownen labeb and addresses Sample structure design I have used the barn to store my boats, canoe.1966 Musung. snowmobile and misc. hems some ofwhich were destroyed in the fire. I continue to have storage needs, which a new structure would meet I would Gke to get ^)proval to build this in the spring and would like to begin getiiigt esthnates to do so as soon as possible. Thank you Sharon Rae Guimond #.c 'q its f'O ^>jrtiricate of Sui'vey for David C. Cuimond in tlm SE^. or the 3dl of Section 33-110-23 Itonncpin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that this ia u true and oorreot rep- rescnUtlon of a survey of the West 225 feet of the East SH5 feet of the South 1115.6 feet of the South east quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33. /i Township 118 North, Range 23 Mast of the 5th Principal U ^ Meridian, and of the location of all bulldlt«s. If any, thereon. It docs not purport to show any other Improvenenta or encroachnents. im iN a (iHONUEIU, INC. U»r«lon It. Cos rin !lcg. No. 60G<I f'nglnrcrs and Lo.^cJ Surveyors ixNig lake, Minnesota Scale: 1 inch « CO feet rule : Fehrviary I'l, IQ85, o Iron marker ro c:^ \ r** t _ ^rlificate of Survey for David C. CuiMond in Um Si:4 of the Otl of Section 33-liil-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota T^ip ne north, R0hg« 23 nJot or tSi IS *** loohUon or all liutldliKa, ir ^ ony, thereon. It does not purport to show anyother improvciiicnta or cnci*cKiclwncnta. ^ IWrJN k (IIMtUticiJ. iHC. C^u*€»fse\ J^i*nloo H. Corrin !lc*i. H k oooh ^5*^»/Sac jj-m-ii r^iRlnfcrD awJ LflivJ Suryevors ^ lake, Minnesota C.i C'? .*k:alo: I inch a 60 feet r«te : rebruary 1h. 1785. ^ o ; Iron mrker I______ EXHIBITD I ^gLSir/'n.tnf <e^F (*JCT f-t WFi - . •*. 7‘ .*'“*; r.; . . I’l' I !} /T> .••■«*. —• o .' rt. « .. .:.-• */ o t Affordable! Ijlf lintirr olt<r$ >ou j Utln^* mntPvnl ihjt >«il «v> \ w jlin a<u.«MWu •« CMt(iin(»M llM> ». w<w«/IM nnp^mr I/■«■. mX !■#>*! tui* t »» . —T-^.n 7l« SV OW/biWt. ■*• •i»«ra’ OH Big '■nr IWii trfy I•a^Mrnri uMT « «W «ir f»Ai«r '/hqMi nt-mmrm/Bif Utr immBtr r« w««bidto Aar •» «9 Ldy/tt-Vr n fir ttvia 01 ttMrftf \•aa«W^*ii.'wwrw^ ' «« HW ^TMT Mi« a OT Im M iv »•« f>«^ ■•Aw.aar.m ntmm^ tV^rr« «Wi Maa^aariWn «auw • ••. Sbep around, ftMummiat ! Mg Like I H rc root ia^PhW f — — • •i UoneArenmjjl^plli:^ tbmgive macaU...' with Biglahe Lumber i^iilii . 1 Our Goals are siu^«. ... Do it Best! Al Ry lAr Ii»t4«rt «f krvHi thu Jai J«k Ixlijri m |wduw>{»|Ur UdUby at Knitr (fuilrtt jnJ (W profniMuL CMTtA'w (*t rrprrtMMA* a« lft« diM<<|r to idrJt 10 (mwr ihjt )ow haling ii tMom dtttfnti 10 iwcl Jl >iw »|«fcil<j|i0ni Otlah (•w4»t nrfaMd fMii hm—kmith f/n «brif •fmhM I rntmaa tmJ$aj mtMar #**«r .'•••If. V.I I n-kfrffvalaA tS m/mhi • y>il>u Mrfii<.■ai/iMijlar... tM M.afrittf ai4li Haw //aI «■■< .W|» liai in U,it1if»Hg mi «*wiiiM>M.i*«if;»*«i<tii.Wifi lilmnilmt .liviiniri ■HUlhr mM w^r«nMawr.iMH»^r MrH»->aiaa»» «dilrrfM0m« mt iOtmhtliff /«•< fkrtfaMilKalarMIawHinrrf AO CarnMM ■ hnanri «r mmtn0 nmuhtmj Ihri atM *»t*» M>"r ‘ Wr. fa In ft J—V 'll DwUllotul good looks, bidden slrei^bs TV K\trJ jin I Kilim u\lf hjt lurm jn \inmt-jn Ijvixji- u »fjri Rag IjV liaalai UH-t |!|-\| Pakl liitn Vkttr l Mi>-I U> «ii.aa-llul Lsi •• • ii.aiil.ukkf li«v >lr<f|t.k«l willi ((• tinii.i|'i' Ilk’aliiTii i44vil < I t.,l« •> tkttiiil.i U.1I1 Miii.i i4k |[«-w r.aiil •« j\jiiUr n »««irt> 0I VjuliiiJ u'lavi «kJ ta^nrt M4h j v^ji njfrjiit> AUit »<l fM MjmUJ t.kKiiuiUNi I, Jiiar* jir fctir»l m .^ikkn’ »«li anlin I iak) iVl cw la^hl> lUtJ rrokt at » fitjwt 10 Mori a«li jni nM tanlruci )M MUng HMif npmor ipukty aalununjhp m■1^ ■ w i],i !4 », wf«w iMMafwMkfaM * }ei 4^tmMm$otOo^0moa0KirJ * t^mo ta a^i mgnao KV tanwi " rAa«*«a.V.<t» m |g««# 1# Ar fnM 4,* a AMitp^W^L3: *.•.a 1;-v 11 T»««t»i at oftaa 1 .■<4. J a >11' HU' h> ui lit iii.i __________________ liiwtkuifa- Ik <-avi a>Mf kf I .a »». ...si I..1 a tnatMamk Ih .•!. • k. I'l ‘...I Hv Ik >1 H.11 I. .ski a/ailx. k> i«i N.il..'i..( l.i Isk/iflar (kiil,i,.| ,.,iMH.d.l ll«al llv aai /li^ /.ilr 1 >•»''»•» i..M0rinNif m ambrfM Vm«N«i NkMfHinWirf* fit i.Ml'tal..* aatiifi •koMHWaklftllf aMlflt«lMliwi^(NMiM«MlfM f iiatW k«r MaMTI CL IfMfWt 7 .l«ilii<4n«nMka i.k>. H>r< aiwf lig ln>r laafikf | i.aiNMUif aai nUkaf «.<->Nir .k-«r^ *0 r.anaaa ’ I .ffk * 1# 4aw «jf # • iih^IhJ ;.l k-...* WNaas *.s«fc duality Workmanship it, ‘ , «v/j • *>rz-v’.*ft . > : r. ' t> KT V * ' ■ ;»ar.tii>—MtJ»> jagflOMBgjaBmB!,jlv^ •; -^rj^* .y .• •;''V| ! ‘ jj.^ *' >• •/** I iPfrsiiB '-^ «- ':-.W *V*Af - • . ,' k L*r-' V . V_. j-U ■'.''<S' trn~7X.r. /- *'rCj> •>*r__7.....................‘ jr. . ^ -"vvvfinrt “»■ •• t~ k . - ■ •'* I Arson suspected in barn fire in Orono on June 8 •v.4^ OwTier hopes someone saw something Bv A-vni Wtftn J-* s««5;u»n It »3S supposed to tw a of c*«>brif»on but »h*n Sharon Guimcrd»barn burned doan ir.d arjcn »a» impacted, tho ir.oo'J char.j^d Guimoni. Orono. taalki around th« a«h»» and lh«» bla:«k rr.H r»fnair.« that outimr the *:• bvw fc* t prrimoter of ih# on^*- f»d barn that itood at ih* back of h-r property at 2900 Wat«»rt'v n Riad Wj'.ktnif up to It. vtsit .r« or. jctf and »tne'.l thr black^n**d r'-of shin.’lri na-.v lying on the ground There ti a row of C'n\ SMT.chicr.i th.«t ha In t been U“ *. f*-; someMr.e thercmamiof acar ar ICui.T. T.lsbc.at She Ic:k» at the charred ir.Ji.ni of the boa: and »ay$.' Ca: #.iubel.e\r It’It v\a$ ihefirat ti:r. :r 22 year* t.hat I d*c ided to not p .• t;.- boat on the lake " The b.irr. burred down earl;, i: themornin;on Jur.eg After c*-;. brating her younger daught.-: . jradtiati ’T. from high school. Cu. r wa> in Mankato that Snr. • .lorn.ng to celebrate h-: bluer daughter * wedd.ng st> «:■» A neighbor. Su»an Samp' f h^i been t.G.ing care of the C- .nd » di. i who wa* left out?; *.- c.a hi* cl the* line run that wa. suspended between the garag- and the barn Gulmond si>. S.imp*on .■ hecked the dog at abv u* ; Wpm that Saturday night A* midnight another neighbor r. member* getting up and I» < k;r out at the barn When that *an*.e n« Ighl'or w ^k- agaun at 5 a m the barn wa> r :!ame» Giii.T. inil »a>* Thenei.’i ^r ran to the Sampson* O; '.>d the f.re department whi!* other lived the d >c. who.* lea»h h.»f caught on a tree r.e.-: the barn N 1 animal* were kept in t: • t.’rn Gtur nd sa>* The firr ; Mted the barn a* a game and pa: t rcorr. and t, *• ;ee ; iiprr*v The Lon; Lak* Fire T';:.': men: wai th*:* a-'•.at 3 ;, n-* 1.or; Like F -j* rh.sf Bra 1P;»hl but t-v b ; -{ ho 1 aLv u 1 .1 lapse 1 The r.;.f.;h-* ri -1 cor.ra.n it art tr an: p:.;*:t r.~a;:,. tree* Th- M»;:. F.a.r f;r* I'^pict m-r.* C*-ia.«..v.l h*' S-ilt l~- de; u>. ; i' :: *• •• i .. r.‘ :: .’..i* ; ar.dt ir ; tf.. :» r.:... a m. he *i.* Tr.» f.r». . .n:..*. -i t sniu'iVr f r ir ‘h. rdlh -r* o:r..er f.T. •.'nm; -k *• th* Or r.' P'di ’e r . { sr’.r.er/ .. i; *;;•> 1 • in' • !-.p in ! f r t- WW^' ^ ’ w\. mB IIKF To Page n \ T**barn c' **# G. ■’Sruj preperf; erWa'ert: ;:.*n Jur# • A.:*:* t es suspect a'sen in t* ; :rn for pa- is •*: ts »lo'e equ pr-ert • Ssa: ' C'oea bi^rned •» T'» 'a- , used me 7 ►au • , iyiin . . .e i? A*:*' t-e G. *' :'J PJ" 2;..- - C*ce; j • *» c«;i- tc * .:ce:t a'*:- a-,:-*..e: -j. ej.fsct' s.*: :jf .: es • i ;•:• i ! j - s.r*,., P3 ce ^^^ S^fiSporfr; \y1vri wALF^Tj-t/eiCE ..1 •. ; ' •_I* -1 EXIimiT F // / ; nimisiiMWaraMOp iHtatoS4iw»S»lei/rhuf»e«y, 10.2003 Ouimond B bam also housed a car, shown here after the fire.C#»9 LMvgSo) “r emiMi Fire: Family was out of town when fire happened From Page lA man. deputy state fire marshal, was also called In as well. Comtek says. The Fire Department didn’t move anything, so as to assist the investiga (Ion. Roehl says Comtek .vas stlU waiting for an offi cUil report from the state, he said at press time Howeser it is thought to be arson, he said K.thnuit gave me a \erbal indica (ion that It w.is an arson Due to the sensitiutv of the im.*>:i gatton. Rahman cmildn t nta'Ke a com ment. ho s.iid in a phone conversation. Guimond didn t see the fire or the de* structlon until she got home Sunday af* ternoon. she says. She IS hopuig that someone saw sus* picious activity near her barn In the early morning of Sunday June 8. she says Anyone v. ith information Is asked to call the Oror. 1 Police Department. ■ .Mayl ^...mebudv S.1W something." To add insult to injm y the day of the fire was her husb.and s birthday, she savs He died some time ago T'i cor.:cci thi Oron<j hilue call 952 4:00 r> - r r .. I • *t '• »- .V • *. HM STATE FIRE ARRSHRL OIV 123-123-1234 exhibit G ON 20031209 PEOPLE: Sharon Rae Cuunood, ovk*ner Matthew David Guimood, (DOB 7-2S-79) son of Sharon Timothy Edward Graham, (DOB 1 l-I -46) person threaienmtf Matthew Wally Brambilla, person cwniiM one boat in bare ^ /n . n /* ranComick,4 »oi4Lafct Tire Ctiltf IrV^^tii'yTLrfC^ • PCUC( BACKGROUND: Boieaj of Crminal Apprehension (BCA) COmsnmications contacted me on 6-S-03 at 0600 hours approximalelv' concenung this storage structure fre located at 2900 WatertowTiKoad in Orono. Telephone conmunScailons was established with Long Lake Chief Jim Comkk. Long Lake Fae Departrvnl covers the affected area. It was related tl^t the fire was discovered on the same date at 0S25 hours and the structure, an old ^as VMally dertroyvd and on the ground at the time of fire depanment arrivaL Cl^i comick stated fimher that the depanment was applying foam to the structure and ^ iire would be out by the time of cy arrival. 1 fc3> munediately end met Comtek, along with uniform police officers from Oroor > he owner of the propeity*, Sharon Rae Guimond, wros not home at the time of thrt fire A was kamed later that she was anendir.g her daughter’s wedding in Mankato the day and prior to the fire's discovery. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The affected structure sets on residential property on the north side of Watertowa Road and the affected strxKture sets north of the house. An asphalt drivauay is located east of the house and a sand/gravel driveway is located west of the residence. There is no roadway to the affected structure. The structure is constructed of heavy timber whh wood exterior covaring and the roofis a hip style. The main level floor is poured concrete and the upper level lofr floor b constructed of wood. Steel posts are located on the main level for support to the upper level floor. The second level floor joists are exposed and travel east and west. Openings to the structure include a service door is the norJi wall and a service door tocated in the south wall in the southwest quad ram. Two large sliding doors are located in the south wall, one in the southeast quadrant and coe in the southwest quadrant Electrical service enters the su^ucture on the south wall ard a small fuse box b located on the south wall also. An oolet b utilized cn the south wall to power a heavy extension cord that b looped under the second level floor jobts to a hanging florescent light The light b located in the mid Jle of the structure east to west and just north of the middle of the structure north and sou*Ju .1 • «■'■■* ■» . ' * • ■ j ®TRT6 fire WRRSMflI. DIV I23~123”1234 No heating units were being used in the stniclure. The structure was not locked EXTERIOR E3gAMfNATinM- The stTucttve was still bttrnirg at the time of my anival however; tire Cracks could be seen going from the sand/gravel drive across the grass to the afiected structure and Mking a loop to the right, then traveling hack to the same drive. Information learned from police and fire officials confirmed that no officer or fire fighter drove over that part oftte lawa The tracks were photographed and measured from center of track to center of track. The entire stnicture, except fur a small addition on the west wall in tU southwest quad^ was destroyed and at grade level Because the structure was still burning no interior examination could be conducted on this date. Abo. 1 was paged to respond to another unrelated structure fire at that time. INTERIOR EXAMINATIOM On 6-8-03.1 returned to the scene afier making telephone contact with co investicator Nathan Kreye, as this is his territory and I initially responded being the on-call investigator that weekend. Kreye was on-site at the time of my arrival, as w« owner Guimond. Affer briefly interviewing Guimond, we began debris removal and identifying the area where ^ electrical panel box was located. During this time. Chief Cornick a.Tivrd and Msisl^ in defani icmaval Electrical activity was noted in ciicuil wiring close to the ^1 box however; electrical activity was not noted in various branch circuits in the barn. The florescent light was located on the floor under fire debris and no electrical activity Inside tbe Ught was noted. The ballast was in good condition for being exposed to fire impingement. This light was lefl on by Guimond ever since her problems arose after breaking up with her former significant other. The 1^ cord servKing the florescent light was located in small pieces and those pieces iwi^ significam electrical activity wkb large beads formed on the waes. Uu pIcGCS of the extension cord were located however, no electrical activity was noted on tbe extension cord between the south wall and the area close to the florescent light. It IS also noted that fire could travel horizontally under the second level floor much easier and west than north and south because of the position of the second level floor joists. Fffc wuki easUy travel east and west between the floor joists instead of having to jim each joist and fill that tunnel area wrhh flames prior to jumping another. r C' \.:,V p.s MH STHTC fire NRRIHfIL OXV 123> 123-1234 Ptvtlier, th0 am of fire ofifin is located in the Oft sector of the bun in the middle area taveling north aad sooth. Foe tnvafing between floor joiau was able to n^iitfe upon the dectrical Une cord powering the floraoent lighi and cause the electrical acttvily. The eart side of each boat was totally destroyed whDe die west side was in relatirely good shape in convarisoa This is because the cast sides of the boau protected the westsides until they were deshoytJ. The steel support posts were predoaunantbr bent to the east showing the cast sector of the soucture coUnpaed first and caused the posts to bend toward the east after beiire on their east sidea This case will renain in aa open aad active status pfcaemly. RapecdbDy Subnitted. RonRafanan Deputy State Fire MarshaMnvestigator O ■ X 57 jj i u f HH STflTC FIRE HRRSHAL DIV 123.123-1234 P-1 State Firt MRnhal DIvilioR Fti OMk7.14-03 To:Oo.JiaiConikk Phone: 952-476-302f From; Ron Rihain PhoK:507.645-7ttt Sullject Ouhnood BmFse Report ToColP«gciSat*7 nrt STATE FIRE 1 ARRSHRL 01V lSa-123-1234 ' p.2 DtpoitnentofFobficloOKy Slate Fire Manhal Divtelon 444 Cedar Streot • Safio 14S fic. Paol, Miaaaaala SSI01-S14S File No: 20I31209 «• Occnpaal(a): Not occupied Addiett: 2900 Watertown Road Fhone: Cby; Orono Connty: Heonqnn Owner Nanc: Sharon Rae Ouimond Owner Addreae: Same as above Pboat: City:Siaic:ZIP: TypcofOccttpiBcy: Storage ApprojdaMte Lon: S30,000.00 Roqocttiog Affocy: Long Lake Fke Dote ood Tteac of Fire: 644)3 @ 0325 boun Dote A Tine of RttMte: 6-943 9 0600 boon loitial fire d*3Mrtnc«t:Loeg Lake FDID: 271)3 Fire official coolacted: €loaf Jim Cdhock BCA Cootact: N/A Date: Cooperafiag •l**cy(i): Orono Police Pqwtinem Fire Caose: loccndiaiy Syoopeit: Penon(f) unloiowB jpibod imeiior ofhani h Ok cast lector of the maa «v \ .V - Conpteted by: Roo Rahman Dtepoiltiaa: Open and active Date: 6-2443 I-.: ■; ^ ' Jt MIITWIMil PMTABM ms WATBnOWNRO OWUMIW TOALiMMJI TAmm IMOMASOAUMMIMMUUB fMMt/AOOT mSWAienOWNKO UMOLAKEMN SSJS* HENNEPIN COUNTY PKOPERTY INFCMMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE; I N o*imj2ionu PROfADOR IMS WATERTOWN RO OWMERNAME SWRWAPPENRIROCRETAL TAXPAYER SWAOMKNAPPfMRERCER NAME/AOOR l«2* TAMARACK DR LONOLAKEMN SSJS4 ji MimniooM PROfADOR U OU> CRYSTAL BAY ROt OWNERNAMC SCOTTRMRIER TAXPAYER SCOTTRMRIER NAME/AOOR IS OU) CRYSTAL BAY ROS LONOLAKEMN SSSS* M Mlt72J2l«»S PROPAOOR MWIiARU OWWIUME JARRBfSRKLKR»PI TAXPAYER JOULOAREERRVLRR&PS HAME/APOR at WEAR LA LOPHILAXEMN SSJSt M I3lll]JS4tOM PROP ADIM mt WATERTOWN R» OWNERMAMI SHARONRAEOIRMONU TAXPAYER SHARON RAEOURRMO M WATERTOWN RO UNRIIRREMN S5US Jt MIITJJJiaot PROPAOOR at WEARU OWNBINAME DRJHRL TAXPAYER OAVHS MR JEANETTE PIHLL NAME/AOOR SO WEAR LA LONOLAKEMN SSJS* Jt JSIIUJSRiOtS PROPAOOR ISWTARLAN OWNERNAME MPROMSICVCRT TAXPAYER MRillAEL PA GAYLE MSKVERT NAMI-yAlXXI IS WEAR IAN KIMIIAKI MN SSm JI tlllTUJIOUOi PHOPAUUR IS ADDRESSUNASSIUNLU OWNERNAME ESTOP RUTH F WEAR TAXPAVU CITYOFORONO NAME/AOOR POBOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SSJJJ JI JJIIUJMOOM PNUPAINIR SSWI ARLAN OWNERNAME OUNAIUIIOSS TAXPAYER IXANAJ GROSS NAMiyAINNC SSWIARIAN MINIIIAKI MN SSJSA X t: M SJIIUJMWIOT PROPAUUR mt WEAR OR fKUP AIMIR OWNERNAME OSEBERLERAOEUliRLE TAXPAYER DAVRSSAANOELRIUEDPBERLE TAXPAYER NAMU/AOUR mPWEARCTR NAMIVAIMM LONOLAKEMN SSJSA M JJIIli1.l4MIM 2ISO WEAR CM OWNERNAME ORSAMPSONRSESAMPSON GRFOOR SAMPSON nSOWIAHCW LONOLAKEMN SSJS* .M JHISISSAOnin PROPAINM JIUS WIAMCIR OWNERNAME KLIOIINSONRSBXJilNSON TAXPAYER ru m I. A SUSAN n JOHNSON NAMiyAIRM JMS W1AR CM UMOLAKEMN SSJS* JS JJIII3J]40tlt PROPAOOR 40WEARLAN OWNERNAME HIIOEFMANRSIKXTMAN lAXPAYIJt IRRMIRMHANIRREMAN NAME/AOM lOWEARLANEN UXRlIAIUiMN SSJSt Jt JJIIIJJJ4ttl4 PROPAOOR IMWEARLAN OWNUNAMB OIANAUJOO TAXPAYER OIANAUJOO MAMB/AOOB lltWBARLAN UMOLAKEMN SSJSt Jt JJIIUJMOOII PROfADOR Jt ADDRESSUNASSKMEO OWNERNAME WEAR EJOERPRSESPARTNERSHIP lAXPAYIR WI AR IMH RPRMS PARfNI JISHIP NAME/AOOR CRJ WBLiAM W WEAR ponoxais U)nuiaki :mn ssjs* Jt jjiiiajjiotis PROPAOOR I10WEARUN OWNERNAME 80BERKEY TAXPAYER SCOTTOBERKBY NAME/AOOR UtWEAR LAN LONOLAKEMN SSJS* M JJIIUJJ400I2 PROPAOOR Jt ADDRESSUNASSICNEO OWNER NAME. WEAR ENTTKIMBES PARTNERSIIW TAXPAYER WEAR ENII HPRMS PAM1NEKMRP NAME/AOOR CA) WILLIAM W WEAR POItnX24S LUNULAKEMN SSJS* ,'7>nI • •v; D»tt Apptotoa ltoCTt»t<; ll-tl-tj Prtt AypIkitfoM Co«»idcrtd m C—piKt; M-Day fUrltw P«rM Eipim: FroM: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner January 9.2004 t>04-2968. Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, 440 Stubbs Bay Road - Prelimiiuuy Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre minimum Lot Area: 448.107 sq.ft. (10.287 acres) AppikmtUm ^uiwnoo** Applicant requests preliminoiy plat approval to create 2 lots on one block at 440 Stubbs Bay Road to be knoun as Stubbs Addition. RtcommeniUaiom: Staff recommends approval of the preliminarv’ plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the Ciiv' Engineer prior to placement on a City Council agenda. 2. Implemenucion of the reconunendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Derrolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Review by the Park Commission prior to Citv Council review. Pcrtiacat Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lois. The following minimum requirements shall be observ ed: Lo« Aica (acre) Lo< WMiih (feel)Froot Yard(fe«i)Suk \ui (fecti Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear YanJ (feet) 2 200 50 >0 50 50 Lbt of Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Comprehensive Trail System Plan C. Wetland Inventory' from Ryan Freitag Wetland Delineations D. Letter from City Engineer dated January 15,2004 E. Septic Evaluation by Pemel Hentges for Steve Bums F. Aerial Photograph G. Memo from Septic Inspector Matt Boltennan dated November 12,2003 H. Application I. Property Owners List & Site Plan •e4-mi JwMUryf.MM r^2«fi PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS InlroductioD rad Conforauiacc with ConprcbcnsK c PUn Custom Structures Ltd is requesting preliminary plat approval for a 2 lot subdivision at 440 Stubbs Bay Road. The propen> is located on the east side of Soibbs Bay Road between Wayzata Boulevard Waierown Road. The current zoning on the propeity is RR'IB, One Family Rural Residential District which requires two acre minimum lot sizes. The proper^' is guided for Rural Residential in the Orono 2000 - 2020 Land Use Plan requiring a minimum lot size of two acres. Conformance with Zoning Ordinaace The existing home and outbuildings oz Lot I are proposed to be removed upon approval. The proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and setbacks. The following table outlines the required setbacks for each lot (proposed building locations have not been deficed except conceptually on the septic reports). RR.1B Required Loci Lot2 Lot Area 2.0 acres 2.34 acres 2.01 acres Lot Width 200’291* 291’ Front Yard Setback 50’ (75’)*50- 75’ Side Yard Setback (sontk) 30-(45*)*Iff ! 43 ’+ Side Yard Setback (north) 30’ (45 ’)*250- j 45V i Rear Yard Setback 50’ (75’)*50' 1 75’+ Snrronndiag Devclopmeat The preliminary plat to be known a Stubbs Addison u surrounded by residential property in all directioos. Two acre cinimum lot sizes with RR-IB zoning are to the north, east and south with five acre minimum lot sizes with RR - lA zoning to the west across Stubbs Bay Road. Lot Layout and Staadar. The plan in Exhibit B shows the req-ored setbacks and primary and alternate septic locations. The applicants have shown tnat an adequate house can be placed on these lou and staff is satisHed with the lot layouts as proposed. The lots meet all required lot standards as shown in the tables above. m-swa Janarrf.ltM Pate3«f» City Engineer Toro Kellogg has not submitted written comroents regarding the proposed grading at this tiroe since no grading plan has been submitted. However, the applicant will be required to meet all recommendations of the City Engineer prior to City Council review. City has reviewed the safety of the location of the outlot access and determined that it meets our requirements. CompHarr with Back Lot Staadards City Code Section 78-1370 requires special standards for back lots created after January 1,1994. Back lots which are created as part of a subdivision are subject to the following special requirements in addition to the standards required in section 82-256: The dimensional standards for back lots shall be as follows: • Lot area shall be 150 percent of the zoning district requirement. The lot area for the proposed Lot 2 b 312,677 sf. (7.18 acres), including 2.35 dry buildable acres. • Lot width measured parallel to the front or street lot line at the street yard setback line of a lakeshorc back lot, or at the front yard setback line of a nonlokeshore back lot, shall meet the zoning district width requirement. The lot u idth proposed for Lot 2 b 291 ’ where the dbtrict requirement b 200 * • 'Hie depth of the required street yard or front yard shall be 150 percent of the zoning district front yard requirement. The depth of the front yard of Lot 2 b proposed to be 75' where the zoning requirement b 50 • The required side yard and rear yard depths for back lots shall be 150 pet-.ent of the zoning district yard requirements. The side and rear yards for Lot 2 are proposed to be 45 ’ and 75' respectively A front lot created as part of a front/back lot division shall meet all zoning district area« width and setback standards; eicept that the required side yard of the front lot adjacent to the access outlot shall be cquh alent to the side street yard requirement for that zoning district. The side yard setback for Lot I to Outlot A b proposed as 50'. Access requirements shall be as follows: • Access ouilots shall be 30 feet minimum width, and shall be wide enough to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. Outlot A b proposed to be 30’ wide and 350 * long • In approving front/back lot divisions, the city may require that both front lot and bock lot share a driveway access within the access outlot if the council determines that creating an additional access to the existing street will be a potential safety hazard. * •M-29M Jaastry 9.2M4 faga4«fi • Drive^^ays within a back lot shall be located at least ten feet from the side or rear lot lines of adjacent lots. * • No more than two residences may be served by a driv cw ay located within an access outlot • *The applicant has not provided staff with driveway details but will be required to submit plans prior to placement on the Council agenda for approval. • No access outlot may be platted abutting an adjacent access outlot except when the intent is to combine the two access outlets for creation of a public or private road meeting city standards. The proposed outlot does not abut an adjacent access outlot. Screcniog requirements shall be as follows: • Driveways constructed in access oudots shall be adequately screened by fencing or vegetation at the diKretion of the city , at all points to the rear of the required street yard of the front lot, so as to eliminate intruion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yard of adjacent lots. The applicarj has not provided staff iih driveway information but will be required to submit plans prior to placement on the Council agenda for approval. • The street yard of the back lot shall be adequatelv screened by fencing or vegetation at the discretion of the city, so as to eliminate intrusion of vehicle headlights into the side or rear yards of adjacent lots. At this time Planning Department staff does not recommend additional screening beyond the existing vegetative cover. The Planning Commission should discuss whether additional screening would be appropriate Accessory structures sbalJ adhere to all requirements of this chapter, with the follow ing additional requirements: • Accessory structures within a back lot shall be allowed no closer than ten feet to a neighboring property's side or rear yard. Upon receipt of a building permit request the proposal will be reviewed for compliance w iih all City’ codes. • Accessory structures shall not be allowed within the required street yard of a back lot nor within the required rear yard of a front lot which abuts the street yard of a back lot* • No accessory structure shall be allowed within ac access outlot* *The project is not proposing any accessory structures, end all existing structures are to be removed prior to building permit approval. Any new building permit applications will J«f> IS eoo4 atscpn bonestroo RosEriE nnoEiiLiK esieasiaii EXHIBIT D > BormtrooH^\}| Associates Inf m««r« ft A#chit*cfs toiuaiy IS. 200ft , wc w •• *«*—/<»»««m*mm J*ny A •mma . u. • Mwni A HI1MIV M. c*««.iu>u • jananc^w««.ri •tew«t . tuMiMla«>.«vc*A C«»I A a»f<wi«.. aaM<t •. m . t c*«*s « fonc. m. . oma ~ . *—* ** —|- i—r fl' I i»i nr i ■ ■■». ai i r~~i n« ^ City gfOraoB Foil OflBftft BflK 66 CiyitBlBiy,MNSSJ23 lU: 440 StubbfBfty Hold PUftNo. 139-04-000 PlftlNo.04-296t DtftrMftUnift: Wi bftfia ft prtlinlnay iBviftw of e« ^hns for dw prapoMdtwo lot fubdiviBiaii e 440 Stubbft Bty ILohL Thft ynpoftwUmprovoaMoli lachido rabavidbig an ftftitffaif lot Into loM iBd oMtiBi w ouUot Wt haw Aftfo0oo4ag coimonlft wi6i rrgvda to ongtaocciac raHton: • lWplMahottldelftfffytl»puiiMM«brOiitlocA.IiapptflnitwlU]irovtdOftcetMtoLot2.Willii ■IwprovidftftoottiloZ^ 171fio.thtfiaftlpltniibaoldaiowthorfmovftJofilit txUQngftocftWflOH) SnlbOft Boy A cwm —■wmatft ihould bo proviOtd if apprapntfo. • A gcopoood pBdfna pin riiould bo giovkkd Ibr nvitw Bod ipprDVBL Tht gradiiu oln ihould Idftad^drtvawftyloeanlflundtnclttdoptnftDdiinofUo viowi ofeopropoacddnwwftyi • Pinftihoiildiaehidopiopoftodbuildiilipftdioeitlaafftndpnpooedlownifloorclovnooft. • Drftinon Bftteuhtioai ihould bo pwvidod for oinitiai ond ocopoMd oondiboM. a Otimbx —1> ihwM tyfftiTiMiy thf eaieny*-*^ o Stans Wftier nio camrol iboold be provMod &r is the fttol dcoign. Stenn witor ralM aScr dovolopmont nould net oieood tKifongruoi. IWi may bo ftcoompllihocl by pon^. InfilcitianbHioft Of MOM other beet fBanosuum pncsee. • Tho wcsMrly 33-fMt of Lot 1 ihoold bo dodloaiod m Stubbe Bay Road right-of.«^. o Tbo final plat Ihould iseludtdniaftBend Utility etieaae8tiS-&et Wide oo interior lot liMond 10-Moftdo along cavrlorlotUMi. ^ • P**^**4B> **■*">*«*• *>»«<^ bo provided over aUcKiaiias««ilaadi,ponda and prepoaedimBwmr If you IM any quoitien pUaae caU me at (651) 604-4S63. Youanrysuly, aasESTROo. rosene . akderldc a associatbs , inc . TonKoUofg Ob: OfegOappa, CityefOrono 2MB Wmrt Highway Jft • tt. foul, IMN SSIU ■ ftSl-ftia-ftftoo ••tSIf I I ei/M/2ee4 21:11 3202362343 Ur, /»€KTGES PAGE 01/65 exhibit £ I EvBlmtioB for Os-SHt Snilk SyBiMi PREPARED BY: miPHB SEPnCS DESIGN AND INSPECTIONS PcrmI **Clup'* HcBifcs P.O.Box 27 Pkto,MN5S370 320-238-2343 MtoMAote PMM m Coatrol AfMcy S«vift TraMcit Sy«tM UcMtc No. 2tM For: Steve Baras 38ISCMityllMd21 Welcrtoira,MNS53M M2.9S54in Location of evahialkm: la pan oTSectloo 33 Tmsklp 118 N. lUaie 23 W. Heaaepta Coaaiy 1 was fciained liy Mr. Bums to research the suHabflity of the soils at the above meniknHd aitta fttrthe use of individual saniury sewage treaDiienl systems to handle the sewage flow geaented within a ttBgletoilydwalli^ Tlw bsis were and survey ed out on the site. I ooapkted four-iofl boring and foir-ncA tests on each she to complete my evaluation. This e>aluaflon was complctad oaoSte 28,2003. My findktgs fine theaiaa to be aiMable for sandarddeaiinsyweos if the oooditkMtt leimin the aaiBt. as they wen when they were tewad. Tlw bis woe levfawed for a suiublelocalbn for two septic treatmonaitca. (besittb the prfBMy she for a treatment area and the other is the aheraaielccatkNi. Ahndprobe with an faBtdedkmeler of I inch completed the soQ borings. The sop borings indicate the soil type attitbe position of the seasonal high watcrtable. LocarionsoftbeioU hofh^ were idsolifiad by pin Digs at the bcattons of each she. TlK Hettwpin County Soil Survey has mapped the area as Lester Loam •1/64/2864 21:11 32B2382343 »€NTGE5 PAGE 02/05 MMimi iwiunkiulteMeb lot m October 2t-29.206}. He Mbwk« icm U sis?i=S!;'5f.=Ksr3iss ’““ "■*- Mnry Site AJteraateSite P-1 29q>i F-2 26fl0pi p.3 32iqn P-4 27iq>i P-1 20iqpl P-2 24mpi P-2 26 opt P-4 an^i Cia —I The ■oflcoodkiooi h4v Ixcn •■ta bliihri te the tot hole location only. TbefcnMybe vvkiiooi Id loO tendgvipliy belwwo aid wnaid the borii«*t tod iolefpolatkm tf^ CTiwpolteiDp of tbt fOMkfl b not wra ptcd HoiDe Sewage Treatneot, Univanky ofNfiniieaote Agrictikure Extemioa Strvkc Dtva Gustavaoiv Exteasbn Eofineer City of Orooo Seplb System Ordbocc And MteDewuPoOnUDo Control Agcacy Rules and Scaodwds, Cbeplcr 70t0 Ifyouihodd have aayqucitioas or need fiotheriiifofiniioii, you can oootaet tfaffatdie Cky of Oreoo, or me at you oonvcnienoe. 1 hteoby oteliiy thte I have coogpleted Ikb ti^ tytecm design work b moocdtevc wkh MPCA*i Rules and StendanlsCb^itcf 7010^ local crdjnenres, rules and lews. -Chip*Hcaigea Lkenses#2064 01/04/2004 21:11 3202382343 909L BORINOS UI1 DATE;io-2>4a ICNTGES PAGE 04/05 CONDUCTED BY: CHIPS SEPTICS ChlpHtfi^ ioyrz/3 lOyrSM 10yr4« SandLlOyM 10yM lOwW Shalt/cNdum Somt moMtt noiid 10yrS/2 Color 10718? 10yr3/4 10yrS« lOyrM lOyrSM Siructuii Shalt/c0ldum Sornt mottttt noted lOyr ND.12 ka«n 12-28 ^ 16-26 to M-36 ^ 50-46 piCL 10YR2a 10YR3/1 10YR4/3 10YR4M 10YR5O wwwii mSHNVS QraymoCItttlOyie/a [Taiteift Color Strudurt SUb^fMlWM ■ L/-1U 10-16 16-26 26-32 32-42 jomn jornn BIL 8ICL BICL 10YR2/2 10YR3O 10YR4/3 10YR4M 10YR5M BraymottoatOyiS/l Sub-Soil fttaiurtA _ Sub-Soil fMiurM - ^ •1/04/2664 21:11 32623B2343 L(?f is^CNTGES page 61/es exhibit El ^teEvri —Hoa tor 0»-Site Septic SyiiBMi PREPARED BY: CB1F8 8EPTICS DESIGN AND INSPECTIONS Perm) •Chip’* Henlfcs P.O.Box 27 Ptato, 55370 320-23t-2343 Mtemaote PiOBtlo* Cootfol Affmcp MfrUMri Siwift TfWtmMtSjMM LicnMNo. 2M4 For StemBirm SeiSConlyRoodSl WotefftowB, MN S53SS M^955-^112 Eocodoo of evmholioo: l6 poft oTSoctioa S2 TowoAlp lit N, lUofi 23 W. Hmmpto Coooiy 1 tMi rciHned by Mr. Burno to iwmrch the saitobilily of ibe foOi it the Aw nitrtioDcd fto fcr 11* iM^f WMdml onitary Kwigc tre«ncni ty***®* **“ “**•• flow lencMd willA 6 Bi0|k ftmOy dwIUoe. m0c^2t,2003. My fiitotogs flm Ow « to bo mitA# i>jr«dmld*A» ifihe oooffldoai iwtoin tho tome, •• they wtit wb6« tfloy W6W !*«. OmHtob TheioOboriytiDdjcHe ll»oofltypeiirflhipo*iiionofthBioo*onolhifhwi*e»tibk. locAomofthefoU borb^ worn Uofldliod by pin floes it the tocotioos of each the. TM Heitoepin Coumy SoU Sur\^ bm impp«* “ “ L«**« 01/t4/2l84 31:It 3283383343 ^CKTGES P4GE 82/05 KfclolM October 21-29.2003. Tie ft>0owk« icnkt hidieBluhipewoiBriwimtoafllieetolcrtoroqifafbetontoiaipulcepcrinch. Ttefctor it iKludcd to the design and bM a b88riai oo the fi» of the syfUa. PriotorySila AbenateSite F-1 29M P-3 32ng>i P>2 2diapi P-4 27 p.| 20BBpi P-3 26ng)i P.2 24avi P-4 2lmpi The aoilcoidilioni have ban aalabUahadal the ted hoW only. Thefanayba va ritoieot to toflaBtrigra^b eha a en and around the boringly MdinicipolatioB and catrapototioo of the raauka ia not wanaotod. Home Sewage Ti Uhivariity ofMtoneaota Agriculture Extentbn Service Dave OuaiavBon, Extention Engiaeer Qty of OraoD Septic System Ordiaace And Mjnneaeto MoitoD Coaarol Agency Ruks and Standaada. Chapter 7010 Ifyouabould have toy queatkwa or need fifltberinfonnaiton, you can contact dalTattha City ofOrono.or BBS at you oonvenknoe. I batoby ototMy that I have ooovletod ihk iydem design woefc in MPCA'a Ruka and Staodarda Cbaptor 7010^ local ordtoanoa^ roka and tows. -Odp^Ifcaagea Lkeaea«2064 ei/M/2e04 21: II 3222302343 «KTGES SOIL BORINGS Lot 2 DATE: 10^SQ3 CONDUCTED BY: CHIP'S 8EPTICS B-1 PAGE 05/C5 Chip HtniOM B-2 Primary B*a ANMiiati B4 ANimalo M2 12-18 5L 18-22 SICL 22-82 ISICL 32-48 SICL 1UTR2/2 10YR3M 10YR4M 10YRSM 10YRS/4 eojMhjftt Somt mottlot noted / lOyrSG >pth Rulure jC^r Suo-Soll lOatufie jDepth Ttahm Color Strudurt Sub-Soli iMturet 90N.B0RM08 Loll DATE: 104M3 COMOUCTED lY: CHIP'S SEPTICS EXHIBIT E 3 Cl^pHinl^ MU 11 '-H»iotar Kwlflo ^ISSRSnSEni ------MO 10^16 16-20 MMS 1042 42-66 Hi OyiM OyiOM 9yrM Qyf4« 9yr»B MM p«M moMM noM I0m«a boior ■PiMftM ftuOSolMiio------------------------------- ME M6ni 1246 mSim S044 nL 1442 ilCL/S lovRua lOyiw lOyiOT lOyiSM Mo/eHdum Bow mown wd H iS lOyrSQ LI”m color 1.inrrmnSSlSSiiii 1lonoa^crvRsn 10VIUI9 10VR4Mlovms SfsymoBiislO^ poDlh \r^'iiJ Color SMrucfcn Su D-S oBM m»-ia ijow 10-16 tmm 16-26 pL 1642 nCL 12-42 nCL lOYRSa 10YR34 10YR44 10YR4M 10YRSM Brsymolfci 1(^1 elormsjs: 10YRa/2 10YR3/3 10YR4iS 10VRS« 10YRSM SSuolufo Shilo nolKl10wS/2 uNfSn 10YR3« 10VR4/4 10YR6/4 10YR5/3 mcuro MotBMriolidlOyffi/2 ■1/68/2804 15:81 3202382343 UI2 OATE: ICNTQES 10-2M CONDUCTED BY: CHIPS 8EFnca 10VR2/2 B-1 Mmwy W 12-30 2SS0 aoso 10VR»3 lOYfUn 10YRSM HAtik. tfl CMpHMYfBM pirMkm hUl88ftm 111= 1DienjIMura color Ktouehim Sub-Seil iMluiOiS3TI ISSO XK38 r lOyrM 10yi9M lOYIMM 10YR5/4 INoMMo nol8d Gny mottoi 1 1 '•TT.■H52I21 iH8m>f80 1 2d Ud^l :C0 »00Z G0 *uvr Znc-SSG-2S6: ‘CN Xbi 0NIJ.un»DX3 UCeiL: -fT X o M \ N«rtK««sl comm of tfio SeoUivotl 1/4 ef> 7 Northoool 1/4. SocUoo 32. im Mooft 23. Hwwupln Coonty, Mhwiooolo.cv-'^ ■tmi /''-North Hno •«• I S* tmt •f mmmtf 0io**»*, .i ' ..........<>• *-. Ill v~ Vf ‘•x SS'l ‘4»do { i ^ f'-X . \ \ N ®!«fe*»-P!OTT /s .'"€f Vrf.;^ > • - • “. : A • .. • -. ^7-V- -!mn ’• -Ms? ..i* •0 • J . ■ 4 . * !.*»• ,^' '• f'. > :^y ':t-'i*^.*-;7v,-'- .’. • • - J* V- C«.l ’ « « «• 7^ a-:-.- “^>j</:*>; V ■•*«>.* ■?-«C.«^.- V; ^ ,* -. , ':i-. %-'M.Jv' V-<J • -!•. ■ .- 1'- ■:aK3?r EXHIBIT G CrrYoTORONO Maridpy OfllcM iMi 27S0 IWby NA mv Omni Ml SS3M Mk|M*in: P^laiK Cijfstallai. Ml S$1234»66 TO: FROM: DATE: Melanie Curtis Matt Boltcnnan, On-Site Septic Systems Manager January 9,2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 440 Stubbs Bay N. 2-Iot Subdivision The property at 440 Stubbs Bay N. has two mound septic sites on each of the two proposed lots. The sepUc evaluation was done by Pemal Hentges on October 28.2003. Each lot has two sepUc sites that meet state and local requirements. The septic evaluation only shows sites for each septic and a mound design will have to be completed before construction b^ins. Based on the evaluation I recommend approval for the two lot subdivision in regards to septic locations. TBiptiai 051) 14M<M • raaOSDMMlIi exhibit H Agplicatioo# Date Received Anwant Paid *d£C* CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIMSION APPUCATION PROPERTY LOCATION . y/X ✓ i Siteaddrets fyg >y Propeityfcknlific«ionNumbcr(PID)_5^^^^^ > Please check one - Property abstract or ____lorrens? Attach legal description to appUcation. OWNER (if difTerent than applicant) Name Address, City. (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District PROPOSAL .Phone (home). _ Phone (work). -VLVy Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels ^Residenti of units Other (spedfy)_______ / __________ Division for Tax Purposes ---------------- Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) __________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _ / Existing Units / New Units Tola! Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) .Units per ____Acres , Sq. Fl Dry Buildable Land . Residential . Other (specify)_________ 00 f c.; Cl 1 *' ^”'7*“' eoveoiB!*, «c. 3- Dc^iopmApecmentaod Letter of CredtLZoBiaf OrncuTi Signatuie t ItllilSi,™ B«“^* ***•"« » ckcl pq 6o„ Sketch PUa Review (Cliti L D 4 m) S275.00z:^X£S;snss»r ~ >iSrj3SS‘cfiiiss“-“~<«-«*« ___ Legal Review and Filiog; Subdivisioo only Si00.00 lQta!f non-mideatiil)~SsIss “J «««ao .*1 J200.00 Resewal of Clau I and D Subdjviiion P»r^ V S95oW^ ft- * .50 - s------- S60.00/per Ux a____b** lot, *» w»l tubdimioo applicadoos) C. Fleiible Appileatfoa Fees/Mlsc. Fen ~ P« «*«iitioail v^iriaace) EjwrKoi Vacatioo Associated »ith SubdivisionSioo 00 FRD AppUcaiJoo with Subdivision SSS.OaDweDing Unit hereby agrees to provide all infenaation required < Applkaoi's Signature OwBCf*s Signature CityAnome;.. cstiblubed by / (oeetiQg. •0 JJ _1^Q RUNOMn:!. «1 M niiiuimti raOTAIMMI 3»T WAVZATAM.VDW OVMnNAMI DONMUANRAMBI TAXTAVn DMUANRJIMai NAIMMOn 19MWAVZATAH.VO LONG LAKE MN S5JM HomepiNooumvpitop. /iNra«MATioN system rtOforrY OWNERS list Hot: M 32III13IMM) MOrAOCm «0 STUMS BAY RON OWNBRNAME TOOO HA DONNA M CAUSE TAXEAVER TODD A DONNA CAUSE NAMB/ADOA 4IR STUMS BAV RO tONCUKEMN SS3M 3S 32l1t33l3MR« EBOfAOOB 440 STUBBS BAY RON OWNERNAME EREDEJUtERCBB. TAXEAYEB CUSTOM STBUCTURES MC NAMWAODB 440 STUBBS BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN SS3M 30 3311033140003 EBOEAOOB 3343 WAYZATABIVOW OWNMNAOM NEEBBOEBETAL TA3CEAVBB NOWAROEEBBK3EB NAMVAOOB 334SVAVXATADLVOW LONG LAKE MN 3333* 30 3311033340010 EBOEAOOB 3*40 JACOBSMBXRO OWNBBNAMB MATTGCAMUEiIIVANSLOOTEN TAJIEAYBR MATTO VANMOOTEN NAMWAOOB 10303 37TNELACEN ELYMOUTHMN 3344* 31 33IIO33JIO0OI EROEADOB 303 STUBBS BAY RO N OWNERNAME EAMEUFOREOORY TAKEAYM EAMBJ^ FROST OREanRY NAMWAIMM <'A)IRMJ.YIMOnKAlT) T3033H3AVESEI430 MEISMN 33403 30 331103343000* EROEAOOB 330 STUIHISBAYRON OWNERNAME JERRYC A F.MYRENRIVERSON TAXEAYEB JEBBYC A EMYBENE IVERSON NAMWAOOR 33*STUBBS BAY RON OBONOMN 3333* 30 331102331000* EROEAOOB 30 ADDRESSUNASSKMEO OWNERNAME BURUNOTONNORTHERNRY TAXEAYER BN ASANTAEERRCO NAME/AOOR FROEERTY TAX OEET FO BOX 0*1000 FORT WORTH TX 7*1*1 30 3311033240013 FROEAOOR 3*23 JACOBSMRJ.ro OWNERNAME RCJOCHBISASJJOCIOMS TAXEAYEB ROBERT CJOCIRMS NAME/AOOR STEEHANRIJ JOCHB4S 403 STUBBS BAY RON LONO LAKE AIN 3333* 31 33IIO234M00I EROEAOOR 400 STUBBS BAY RON OWNERNAME RICHARONSTUBBS TAXEAYEB HniARD N STUBBS NAMl!/AUm 400 STUBBS lUY MB N U3NOLAKEMN 3333* 30 3311033420007 EROE ABOR 30 ADORFAS UNASSHINFO OWNERNAME JERRYCIVERSONETAL TAXEAYEB JMBY C A E MYRENE IVERSON NAOIE/ABOB 330STUBBS BAY RON LONGLAKEMN 3333* 30 3211033340003 EROEAOOR 403 STUBBS BAY RON OWNERNAME RCJOCTRMSASJJOCNB4S TAXEAYEB ROBERT A STEEHANMJOCNBIS NAME/AOOR 403 STUBBS BAY RO N LONGLAKEMN 3333* 31 3311033340014 eboeaoor 30 addressUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME MATTOCARRCIII VANSLOOTEN TAXEAYEB MATT O VANSLOOTEN NAME/ADDB 30UMEET1NOST WAVZATAMN 333*1 30 33III3342000S EBOEAOOR 300 STUBBS BAY RON OWNERNAME TOOOWAJENMFEBMRADAM TAXEAVFR TOBO W a IENMFER M RABAM NAiMt/AntIR SJUIAMRSAVeS MELSMN 3341* 31 32ll0334IIOetO*«Z. EBOE ADOB 3)30 WATERTOWN RO OWNERNAME BOYEROUllOINOCOBFORATION TAXEAYEB BOYER BUILOBIO COBEOBATKIN NAME/AOOB 1037* MBBMTOIRCA BLVD 0»MAVENMN 333*1 # O: n- ■ •• o ■» •04.2ff* J«Mii«ry20.20M f»V I •'* Dsic AppUcalhMiRccchtd: 12-17-03 Date AppIkathM CoBskIcrtd as CoMpktc: 1-0-04 iO-Day Rnir« Period Espirct: 3-0-04 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planne^jbi Date: January 15.2004 Subject: 04-2969, Terry & Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Place - Lot Area. Setback, and Hardcover Variances • Conditional Use Permit • Public Hearing Zooiag Dbirict: LR - 1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: 0.527 acres (22.957 s.f.) Lot Width: 100 feet Application Sununary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a new residence on ar. existing lot; 1. Lot area variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when I acre is normally required. 2. Lot width variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 105’ in width when 140* is normally required. 3. Side setback vx^iance to allow a 2"^ story deck to be setback 8' from the south side property line when 10 ’ is normally required and 25* cunently exists. 4. Hardcover varix-.ce to allow 8.41% hardcover (653 s.f.) in the 0-75’ zone when 0®i is normally allowed and I l®/o (860 s.f) currently exists. 5. Hardcover variance to allow 35®/i hardcover (5,321 s.f) in the 75-250* zone when 25^* is normally allowed and 40.45*« (6,149 s.f) currently exists. 6. Conditional use permit to allow restoration of an existing railroad tie wall in the 0-75* zone which consists of a boulder outcrop area. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations; 1. Approval of a lo; area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required 2. Approval of a lo: width variance :o allow construction of a new residence on a lot where the width is 105* when 140’ is normally required. 3. Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback of 8* when 10 ’ is required. 'The proposal should be re-designed so as not to encroach into the required setback. 4. Table of a hardcov er v ariance to allow 8.41*/o hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when 0% is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed plans for review by the City Engineer 5. Table of a hardcover variance for the 75-250* zone. The applicant shall further refine the proposal in an effort lo reduce hardcover. 6. Table of the conditional use permit to allow landscape restoration in the 0-75* zone. More detailed plans shall be submitted for rev iew and approval bv the City Engineer. MM-2M9 jMnar> XO.UM Pagc2*ra PcrtiBcal Zoning Ordinance Sectioos See. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obser>cd: LMAm(«crt)Lo(Widai(fccll Ffoni Yafd (ftet)SMt Vare A4Jacrat iLAMtkfr Ul (fan) Rear Yard (fact) I Side Yard Adjacent lo ' Siren (ftci) | Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feel and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1.000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-I A. LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-IC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be* no excavating, niling. hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-28 1. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application E.xhibit B - Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Forms Exhibit C - Hardship Statement Exhibit D - Existing Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Aerial Photograph Exhibit H - Photographs E.xhibit I - Landscape Plan for 0-75* Zone E.xhibit J - Proposed Elevations Exhibit K - Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit L - Propertv Owners List Exhibit M - Plat Map Backgroaad The applicant has met with staff lo discuss the proposed plans. The discussions related to whether or not the proposal would be reviewed as a renovation or a rebuild. The applicant is proposing to tear the existing house down to the cap. replacing flooring as needed and keeping the wall on the south side of the house in order to reuse the fireplace. The applicant has stated the intention to reuse whatever the builder is able to. although m-m* JasiMin 30.2004 PagtJafI the cost of a icnovation to retro-fit plumbing and electrical work is higher than if she oveie to do a rebuild. After review of the submitted plans and fimher discussions with the applicant, staff has concluded that the project will be reviewed as a rebuild. The information submitted in association with the conditional use permit and hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone are incomplete. The City Engineer has requested further information prior to making a recommendation regaling the proposal. Rather than separating this request firom the proposal, staff is recommending that the variance for the 0-75* zone and the conditional use permit request be tabled. If necessary , and in an e^ort to not cause further delay, separate resolutions can be draAed and approved. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/WMth LR-IB Lot Area Lot Wkllh Required 43,560 s.r (lacre)140* Actual 22,957 s.f. (0.527 acres)105* Setbacks LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front n^a n'a n^a Rear 30* 0’ (detached garage) 63* (2"**“ 106* (house) 52.5* Left Side 10*25*8*(deck) 13 ’ (house) Right Side 10*31 ’ (house) 10* (garage)ir Lakeshore 75’78*(deck) 92*(house) 86'(decks) 92* (house) Average Lakeshore 80*78*(deck) 92 ’ (house) 86' (decks) 92 ’ (house) Structural Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 22,957 s.f. (0.527 acres)Allowed: 3.443.55 s.f. (15^i) Proposed: 3.428 s.f (14.9^ o) Hardcover Calcalalioos M4-2M9 laiaary 30.2MM PagcCafl Hardcover Zone Toul Area in Allow ed Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 7.760 ..r 860 s.f* (11.08%) 653 s.f (8.41%) 75-250 15 ‘^OOsf 3.800 s.fI3..WS.I.6.149 s.f* (40.45%) 5.321 s f (35*/o) Lol Area Variance Due to the extent of the proposed improvements, the project is being reviewed as a rebuild. The lot is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is required by Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, a lot area \oriance is required to allow the applicant to construct a new residence. Side Yard Setback \'ariancc The applicant is proposing two large additions in addition to a complete renovation of the existing footprint. Included in this proposal is a screened porch with an attached, second story deck. The porch meets the 10* setback, however, the deck is proposed at an 8* setback requiring a side yard se'J^ack variance. Hardcover Variance As stated earlier in this report, the applicant is proposing two large additions and a complete renovation of the existing footprint. Because of the extent of the work being done the project is being reviewed as a rebuild. This is specifically pointed out because the proposal is subject to the same sundards with regard to hardcover, which rebuilds have consistently been held to. 75-250'ZOSE The existing hardcover in the 75-250* zone is 40.45% or 6,149 s.f. *I*he applicant is proposing to tear down the detached garage that sits on the street property boundary , add two large additions to the existing footprint, add two decks, reduce the existing driveway by 1,379 s.f, construct a 92 s.f. stoop and to keep the existing keystone walls and steps. This brings the proposed hardcover to 35% (5.321 s.f.), well below the existing hardcover but still requiring a variance. 0-75'ZOSE The applicant is also proposing a variance for the 0-75* zone. Currently, a large railroad tie retaining wall, concrete stair sy sie.-n. and railroad tie stairs comprise 11% hardcover in the 0-75* zone. The applicant is proposing to keep both sets of suirs and replace the railroad tic retaining wall with a bou!der out-crop, which reduces the hardcover to 8.41%, requiring a variance. CoBditional Use Permit According to Section 78-1286 c: the Zoning Ordinance any earth moving work In the 0- 75* zone requires approval of a condiuonal use permit. The intent of this ordinance is to r Jsa«ar) 20.2M4 Past S an protect the shoreline, minimize runofT. and preser\e lake views. As stated in the hardcover section of this report, the applicant is proposing to replace the railroad tie retaining w-all with a boulder outcrop area. This involves requires approval of a conditional use permit. At this lime the applicant has not provided enough information regarding the railroad tic wall restoration for the City Engineer to conduct a complete review. Once the City has received complete information for this piece of the proposal, a full analysis of any impacts to the lake w ill be reviewed. Section 78-1282 only allows for one set of stairs to provide access the lake. 1 he current plan proposes to keep both sets of stairs. The second set of stairs adds hardcover and impacts view^ from the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the impacts of two accesses and encourage the applicant to eliminate one. Hardship Stalcmenl Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in E.xhibit A & C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the applicaiton. Hardship Aaatysb________________________________________________ tn coiuUtrtiig tppllcathnt/or variance, the Plannlnt Commlulon ihatt comider the effect of the proposed voriattce upon the health, safetK and welfare of the corrmunity, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approx^ for variances from the literal provisions ofdte Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approsol only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Stair does not find any hardship to allow approval of a side setback variance in order to allow a deck to be setback 8’ from the southern property line. The deck can be easily re designed to meet the 10' setback. The applicant has expressed her willingness to do this and the Planning Commission should therefore, not approve a side setback variance as no valid hardship has been demonstrated Staff finds that there may be some hardships warranting some amount of a hardcover variance for the 75-250* zone, however not the 35% that is cuncnily proposed The topography of the rear of the lot. and how the existing walls, which the applicant is proposing to keep, tic into the existing foundation make i* difficult to shiO the house further towards the road requiring a substantial amount of driveway. Staff has reviewed the proposed driveway and finds that it, as proposed, is a minimum and isn’t an area for potential reductions However, staff feels Uiat there ore potential areas for additional hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f. of the hardcover. The applicant is also proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f The decks and porch together comprise 5.6% hardcover (861 s.f.). The applicant's plans also arc proposing what appears to be a 4-car garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has staled that f leir real need is only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attached to it. The applicant has demonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, porch, and garage. •04-2M9 Janairy 20.2004 r«tci«rt The Planning Commission should discuss uith the applicant the need of the proposed decks, porch and 4>car garage and determine if a re*design incorporating a smaller porch and deck, and smaller garage area is warranted. The Planning Commission should also consider that a full 2^ stor>’ isn't proposed and could potentially be an ideal way to reduce hardco\*er on the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: I. “The propcrt> in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Lot area and i» idth variances are required in order to build a new residence, w hich is an inherent right the property ow ner has The lot could he rebuilt at the required 25% hardcover, however, the strict enforcement of this requirement may not be reasonable on this lot "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The challenging topography of the lot is a circumstance unique to the property and not a condition which the landowner created The requested hardcover variance is a circumstance which the landowner has control over "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The granting of a lot area and width variance will not alter the character of the locality as many of the lots in this I acre zone do not meet the I acre requirement. To w hat extent a hardcover variance is granted, may alter the neighborhood with regard to setting precedent •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter " \ot applicable "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Sot applicoMe "The Board of .Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a \ariance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." The uses the applicant has proposed are uses allowed by the zoning district, and as such variances can be granted to those uses "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." •04-2M9 Jaanary 20.2004 ra|*0»fl The Planning Commission should discuss wih the applicant the need of the proposed decks, porch and 4-car garage and deienninc if a re-design incorporating a smaller porch and deck, and smaller garage area is u-arTanied. The Planning Commission should also consider that a full 2 stor>' isn't proposed and could potentially be an ideal way to reduce hardcov*er on the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Lot area and u idth variances are required in order to build a new residence which is an inherent right the property owner has The lot could be rebuilt at the required 25% hardcover, however, the strict enforcement of this requirement max' not be reasonable on this lot. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his propertv not created by the landowner." ' The challenging topography of the lot is a circumstance unique to the propertv and not a condition which the landowner created The requested hardcover ' variance is a circumstance which the landowner has control over. •^c variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality " The granting of a lot area and width variance will not alter the character of the l^ahty as many of the lots in this / acre zone do not meet the I acre requirement To what e.xtent a hardcover variance is granted, may alter the neighborhood with regard to 5err//i^ precedent 'Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if “““ "" ■ •Undue haidslup also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct stinltght for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Subd 2 when in harmony with this Chapter." Xot applicable "The Board of .Appeals and Adjustments or the Council mav not permit as a =e“S« The rues ihe opplicani has propose J are uses allou eJ by she zoning disirici and as such variances can be granted to those uses -The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 3. •04-2969 JiBHary 20.2004 Page 7 of• /Vb/ applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The challenging topography is a condition which is peculiar to the property The Planning Commission should discuss whether there are any special conditions applying to the existing house, where that applicant has proposed to use the foundation, which might warrant a hardcover variance 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” It is of staff's opinion that this criterion is met. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The granting of a lot area and width variance is necessary ’ for the applicant to construct a new home, which is a substantial property right of the applicant The granting of a hardcover variance is not a substantial properly right of the applicant, however a reasonable hardcover variance might be Justified due to the hardships noted earlier in this report 11. “The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." It b of staff's opinion that this criterion is met 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The granting of lot area and width variances are necessary to alleviate the hardship which exists due to the lot exbting in a I acre zoning district and only being 0.527 acres The granting of a hardcover variance, and to what extent, nuty sen e as a convenience to the applicant Issues for Consideration 1. Arc there any hardships to support any amount of a hardcover variance? 2. To what e.xtent should the proposed hardcover by further reduces? 3. Should the deck/pordi garagc be reduced in an effort to further reduce hardcover? 4. Should the applicant consider a 2*^ sioiy? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required. 2. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot wfacfe the width is lOS when 140* b noimellv retjuired. •M-2H9 JaaMry 20,2M4 Page I aft 1^‘al of the side variance to allow a setback of 8’ when 10’ is required Tli^posal should be rc-designed so as not to encroach into the required The applicant should consider re-designing the plans to incorporate the following: 1. Re-design the southern deck to meet a 10’ setback. 2. Reduce the amount of decks porch on the propem 3. Reduce the unouint of gi^e space, end if possible, driveway connected to it 4. Consider a sMond story in an effoit to reduce the footprint and hardcover. r e ^ **** ““ ‘o allow one access to the lake. 6. Submit more detailed plans for the railroad tic retaining wall restoration. EXHIBIT A AppBcatioa# D»le Recfh«l Aroottot Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Cinyy-Li Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.LD.) OSf ^ //-/ — 2 J 53^OOL3 Phone (home)2t^APPLICA^ Al •T’ Phone (home)^ Name TdVyVf S f GvM^cn ^ U.JvST phone (work)T(T^ Actress 7<?*y/\|. Arvl Citv~ilCa7 Zi feS/>^7?C,y jlo Zip *7 /I ( 0\>'NER (if different than applicant) Nnme Address ____City Zi/f/ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired _____________^_______ 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent pa.'cels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S350.00 Residential Accessory Use ____ S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg S32S.OO Commercial/Industrial Use )( S250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more--------------------------o---------------—W. VI tllWIW X - Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakcshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afrcr-the-Fact Fee - Double Cuirent Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Re\iew (■► consultant fees) 5300.00 Vacation 5250.00 Easement Vacation 5100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment SI00.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #2969 required SUB.\nTTALS I ------Completed AppUcadoD Fonn. ------Describe request in detail. must obtJSTthiriisrSSl Md **’*' “*P C'ou Government Center, 348-32^1) ^™enl of Finance —i.'iSS.'' . „s, „ ^ ' — PS syr„“jyi?» c^ges in elevation ^^esy B-PO ed contntirs) if land alterations involve 8. 9. Please remember that jour ■ chan^ in eleS PISBOud,cornou^ FOR REPTOoi^ON^f^^X*'^,/' ORDOCUMENTS OR COPV SraMITTED. (Staff «I| to scate d„ "-L DOCWIE^s .ubmined.) ««'vngs of all docuntania. plan,. . “ ,7 b, ™ asove mfonnation has not been ineluded SPSS' «»»■«.... Date APPLIC-W’S signature ------------ Admuuftrator! ^eef t^i^ («!ffStoe" «nd/or unusual expenses incuned in review of d^i., T ° *'> “"Si^ f«e payniem) atipphed IS true and eoiteci lo Uie best of his V?4oiowIed^°"’ “fonnation Appheantssignatu^i^Q^^^^^Ji^^ /^. 0\\*NER'S SIGNATURE ’ The owner hereby ackno^l ledges and aen^ ,u- f^Of^y hy City Stoff^uiJ77 “a^i7to ‘ eo7"‘‘- reasonable metnbess for pu^toses of investigauon and verincaiion of Ws”e^J,““" Owner's signature ' --------------------------------------Date ______ ApplKim must have all lubmituls into the „ir -------- KbrAdto nuew,. T «> ruLt*, -j' al RlUtowl im _______ . •***“ • • ••■■ f •/ ^» j iB Application # Date Received Amonat Paid $ i^^OO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($30.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original applicadoo) Variance for non-confonning ttroctures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFQWIATip^N Site Address C^rytTYU Pin rj> nberfPiP.) OT-3JL OOi-I MW 1 w s i Property Identification Number #■ AtUrh legal description to appliuuon if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /O/^l_____________________ ___ I (do) (do noO also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential ___^olhei Zoning District: /_ ic I ^ Jmonth/ycar) _olher (specify). APPLICANT V, , , o ^ Phone Naive ne/TTlJ f^lOtJnT____ - Phone (worl ^ 3./y- Addreai r^g A/^nritL Citv:7ttfef YXlfe Zip: O^NER C»f different than applicanO Name ____________________ Phone Phone (work)_ Address:City..Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQ ribe request in detail:m Mmated Constructionist S .^.SP. (WVt>X erd <t rod-Flif^ rtfMdeJ iy\SideL VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area _Lot Width 1 necessary) Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback: __Front Other (specify) __ Side __Rear Average Lakeshore additional sheets if necessary) #2969 f ^ • I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS l.> i» n.n,r *• —y Completed Application Form / Govt Coiter, 34*-59lSr ^ l>P«1n«nt of Fiance. A-fiOJ. ’■ - r^t,^Ts£Si-S?2i:';?74rr^ *. ---- Addmooil items as may be lequeced by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide aU ^ Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees fstrTrim* w,r^^ f®*l“csted by the Zoning consultant expenses incuired in revietv of tis Joliet supplied is true and coii«UaJJie best of hisier la(^Mge *"*" information AppUcanfs Signattue '^AAa, ^22. /:2./-i J 0\\^^^ER’S SIGNATURE 2^3 E'j;:;x “S rr?-" «™ibw (or porr«^jnmtn(so6oo',oa VfSScido^^f^^^™ C««U ttr "SS loiSS 2 STm s^rs;sc“ \ ^a V..« y t- j J . •x_b t -;i EXHIBIT B /./* Adlactil Proptrtr Owmm* Adaowtedtcmcat Form M Ml 1723310025 SCOTT DSANOOERO I3MNOHTHARMM OC(8)l [print address] MOUNOMN SS3M proposed impfovemeBt or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use ^plication No,________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) cot asked to declare ^)proval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of die improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council anoroval. Property Date Property Owner Date 3S Ml 1723330031 SALLSNSCHMOT i4i5CMsaaYrts MOUNDMN S53M iame(s)l (print address] tor the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located attw.iwtvwu uic tor the proposed improvement or proposed use f also referred to as Land Use Application No. 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) cot asked to declare approval or dis^iproval of the property or use but merely to confirai for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review* of this Land Use Applicadon, please submit >x>ur comments to the Building & Zoning Office a: least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.#2969 n Adiaceat Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form y JS 0SII72SU00I2 GCNCAAMARYTZUUC IWOCMEJUtvri MOUNOMN »MI It name(s)][print address] . the proposed in^)tovement or proposed use of the property located at /s •Iso refowd to as Land Use A|^licatioa No,________ 1 (we) understand that in executiiig this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City CouncQ that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed net^bor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date M MII7UJX0II THOMASOa A.VNE T WILBUn MiocHcaavPL MOUMOMN SS3M 'print iuane(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans 1for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighboi's project or use requires Council^pro)faf,7>^ Propeit)^ Ownerr> 1 Date Owner Date / / If you have any infoimadon that may assist the City in the review* of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. M 0III723]»00I TIMOTHY B A DlANf I lATES I IJUCHEIUtYn. MOUND MN 59JM ▼■en* AdcBowlMlgCBcnt Form ___of [prini address] the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located athave review^die pl»nj^ the proposed improvement or proposed use CtuAu fit also refened to as Land Use AppUcatioa No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. fa Property Owner ^tp * Property Owner M 0tll72JJ200}r TOCMNAFSTAO mecHcaxYPL MOUNOMN SSM4 me(s)l Date [print address] *lSS*** “"**^”“^*'* proposed use of the property located at I (w e) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the Kheduled meeting date. i y/M «l 1723330019 OUNNDSOUE l«30CNCMVrL MOUNOMN 993M Adlactol Property Owoert* AeknowIedgenieDt Form _________of (*)] [prim address] . .oposed improvement or proposed use of the propoly located at •!» refored to as Land Use AppUcation No, I (w^) undentand in executmf this ackno^ledgeaeot. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but moely to confirm for the City CouncU that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and tka: the proposed neighbor's project or use re<iuiies Council approvaL Property pwner Date/ ' — Property Owner Date 3S MII723J]0ai wiLUAMcamcLAm of iJMCMoaveLACE 1 iisme(s)] MOUNOMN S33M [print address] “/aiys?” "y3?“ taproveiiKDt er proposed use of Ihe property located at «lso refentd to as Land Use AppUcation No._______ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgenoit. I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merety to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and tha: the nroDOsed neiehhor'i n»Wt «r requires Council approval. Propirt^ Owner plans and tha: the proposed neighbor's prcject or use //- 29-<o3 Dale Property Owner Date If.yo “ 1>«‘ »y inforaiirion Ihit nuy issist Its City in the review of this Land Use tot U. the Boildir, * Z«ua, Office et le« 10 dey, pri. r. -K * *!**)'•V ^ EXHIBIT C AjjtZu.aU'a^ cJt^ AZt^Cyf^^ AJla. ^jUA^^ ZoyduL.'^jeiotJu:(;d J_iUAju^y£^ ^Ll AeZiU^T^A^ u/JL '•^/UA<. A_ aMolaU^ %uAcAi'i'. JlMf^ <t-Kx^ OiT^iyC^ LjtjJ^ii^ /yOt. /yU^^ £^^(lo<AffiJ:4,L*i^ ) ,. l(^ /^JtjByyX^ M^9tlctyn^ yto diC^OyaJL. ^-tOt ^/iAde<ri/r^ It^uL, dyUA^t^Oa^ OyriJ- /:adyn^ dduK. ICkel C^ AoXA/^iL. , /’iUtyut^AeiU, U/irtcjUi Qm^ yUUL lU a^d- Vd-A-oJt i^Xtu- jzi) d^ A WBOb:,d(A^ ■ ___ ^ ^ -^-'- O Q P{ C: 'ii' /Q w w r la] fc OB CERTrCATE OF SURVEY FOR TERRY GRETCHEN BLOUNT OF LOT 7. BLOCK II. SAGA HU. REVISED AND N SEC. 8-117-23 II.NNLI^ COUNTY. MNCSOTA > 'V-') ' M? rpUt^l ^ -r" } /// fV LAKE MINNETONKA --««« CMMUC NOkTH ARM »i «• — iCC«i oun■*•«>• 9 MCWIMt »MI •) CMttiaiWl l*lt • «M 9 tnliM •. TwatJiip llT Mm Ik »t»t* ii mil •» tk« Stk HktiC**. mtirim* •« tPf.M.sp «| (K« WikMit at iai ». Ii H.II |k«iM» cm Ika $««lk liaa •! !•• T la ika •»••• •• ■»»lk ^aia i».a«aia<ik«. taaikarir •'•«» *ka*a a« la>t M<a«alaMa %t 0 ImI. «••• •< la«« la Ika aaOkaail <tm»t al iki I. •■a«i «. *C>rtl«i aa> *•#•*. Ika^a aatl aiM is SrSo\'l"5 *il**k*n*'s«*l**i'M J**'*^** ****** •• •••• Ikl •. lka<M» >*itka<if !• Ik* pia« •• ka^iaxap. • «•«•••• Makwka* •aarikf* (kaaa •>• »•«•« mm" •» mim fki* »B«*«r •klkM* !• «ka> Ika »ka«««HM *f Ika a»»va mitriM $ftm'll. Ika iMClIkk •• m •••«llkf k*at«. Ika laikllwa af •laikla *ka>«»kt«r‘. Ik* *«*pai*4 •*t*ll*k *1 Ik* *i***fi* **«<ll*«l an* *t«ki Ckat*** • I 4*** M*l mml I* •*>*■ **r *lk*> ««4*a*>*ali *r mctmk *»ll _ N GRONOERG k ASSOCIATES, INC. M napMM «•»<«• •—* «« «w m mmm •M «M«^» fi 4 M «••• «•«* MMMn «•r*«r M 'zt=______» • tl M MS MM MM. IM UM. M tUSS ■ /« f- : Tf.„3 -w f<s«Tc^ exhibit f fM00§tu iXrl0-^l HARDCOVER C^CULATION WORKSHEET '*'SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75.250’ 250.500’ SOO-IOCO' / EXlffTlNC HARDCOVER IN ZONE RAILROAD / K^asi — * _____________ - -------------------sjf.-tie VipRAf Uncib B. Gartge C Orivewty D. Sidewtlk E. Pitio/Deck F. LaadKipe Uoderiain ByPUstie Or Fabric S.F. S.F. SJ. .S.F. STEPS f WAIXS NcA^' .S.F.-SM^/^f .SJ.-STEPS WEST C «« T,f5 SJF. SJ. S.F. SJ. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ARFA Dl ZONE A 8AO - B PROPOSEP HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houie _____________ * Untih "77AO X100 - . mko .LLQa. B. Garage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. LindKapc Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 470 SJ. SJ. % SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. _SJ. tvf/F# AA r/ff Skfa SJ. SJ. SJ. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B A B H \RDCOVrp tv 250.500* SOO-IOCO* Lef>nh ' ____ • I t ^ ^ ^ WJtl* I 1^ ^Ad4 }4,j_ »« bfcTip^ 0-II7-23 LcR|t!i 2,a ZB t B. Garage C. Driveway 70. g D. SidewiUc £• Patio/Oeck F. l^ads^e t’^derbin B^^Utic 9^Aric Width -lO- -IflA ftjiwtfSajL- C Oier total HARDCOVER IN 20\Htotal property area in 20N*« *'3 _LS.i PROPQSg p HARPminm i\ yovr A. Hsuse ___ —XIOO Un(th Width B. Ga.-age C DhvYway D. Sidswallc E. Patic/Dcck 7.^7 • Lecdic^e ■ B]^itj; 9^%ic — G- Other ^----------------------------- B \02A i S.F.-HOys/r SF. krcr&^Mi S.F. -222------S F. -S/w^«,r -2l22_SF.-tSftS,y xlOO - . *li *A__'1___t _SF. cr__SF. ’‘APi70f^ _S.F. . S.F.-cx-dllii .S.F.- .S.F. 'i.^ebCi eOROi ,s F. -Boat BaRci hA^ J'KE yst One WAtL5 IS. ZOO SF. SF. V. A B -------S F.- J5HL ___S.F. ___S.F. S.F.-fP©#V3s£D PO S.F..Pfl8p. AOOn \72A .SF. .SF. PROPOSED “ORiv Cv /ai» .SF.-STOP .SF. ___S F.'Mofim octi ___.SF.-SOv^lVOfCX .SF. .SF. .SF. 3S.0/ CdiSTiNt Kfi ------S..P. -WAtcS » ST To ao^t ___.SJ. A ___S.,=. ____;i B •V mmm -'j 'I './' .r /■ t. t V0S«hxm-.ii^V'!fS 'V*V I 3 l->.i *’ ► ’'r>^ •■T: ■*4 -\ p. ■*m- u. V!f>' IIIA^ > .T' • V-- 1** ’ 1 1 sj-i__ M&l ^■'fm mm my: i*i .*Vi-.i- •»! '\iU: ‘my V» • ■' • • I SEivC'*^ •• • Li..*-*.. *. S'*'*C-*I e? «XiSTN« K.fX5T^M^-WA?'^^ _ ^ % f ^ ! ^ ...c.M ■/- *^•^1 f?--# :-v ■ -)Sc'.- _jvS-^ ' 3S£JU!^«ur«<«',! ^ * ■^rPi'V' . .. , . . • •?, ’ i v-r%* :* ;v./-' -;^. >« A. . - '-/{'r-iv £;? *n.5 K»A?^ O'^'2 I? '.'1 '1 u a] 1 M _ ■ • - • •'* ; V ' V • - *.7 Ir • ^1* M wm4 . i* • > ,.'.i ^ iaSe*1 fir\' Ht^ ^ :• . wmm L ✓ j „ .A ; ^ • Svr^.,, .7 V If kiLv': - •■■A^ PWOiM. Im BmrmMitWiAP m w/cu VI/|lW 0'T9’fJ^A>f RECEIVED JAN I 2 2001 cnVOFORONO AKORNSEBVICBSINC dba ‘WOCWOOO !< 5T BOM !»II061ECS Terry & Gretcben Bloun! Ml IfWtw li iKS K«j p*r r tSIjj • • liii!- “ I I .l------1 J4- rj‘2969 t>C43V: ^ BmiMMCSEcnow ^ IMlDl^JSfCTIO^#2969 1 r-—!—: -■: iMVi \Nt.r::^ .wcr. fSI^ Ws>fe» '“^anrtJsr gs:^ ir:./ z -.-T bL •s5sss ftA-iifffcJT'* -•*4 /•yoU/iNK' J/•p . ±Iib«El £'___ " VIjiu u*i^“ I------------------r j rM>MPMP^ !I I t'^^3? ^- - — \. _^isaaga^ i -■ -0: --------1 >0^1 y<v«;rjit i.K.vnu \\jy%^^\'-p» mW* » -. 2969 t.I -ts.— :—! —lT~HV/*iiPirr Ms __iU__ 11 wurn mu 11---------Jf. -U- M•fei• • Mi. ■‘-.JW- « — , M. [:i ■ .•■ '.....^^v. #' r> \ k r Gwce rouwcMTioii HAM r.» GARACCHAM := ^ ! t ■UNIMTC:M J1 n MII7]J)2000I miTAOM IJS3 amMvrt OWMEKNAMC T ■ BATES A O B BATES TAXFAVBB TBKWHr B A WAHE E BATES NAftIBfAOOB inSOIEBRVn. MOUNDMN SSJM )l MIITTMIOan pBor AOOA mo oiebbv n. OWNER NAME TONAfSTAOETAL TAXTAVER TOCMMArSTAO NAME/AOOR DTBOIERRVfl. MOUNDMN SSJM 31 MIIT23JJOOI2 rBOEAOOR IMOaifRRVPL OWNERNAME OAnRRAMTJUUC TAXFAVER GENEAAMARVTZUU NAME/ADOR 1400 niCRRV PL MOUNDMN SSJM 30 OIII72JJJOOII PROTAOOR I4IOOIERRVPL OWNERNAME T O WILBUR A A T WRJRJR TAJTPAVER THOMAS O A ANNEX WILBUR NAME/ADOR 1410 OIERRV PL MOUNDMN SSJM IIENNCWN COUNTY PROfL . INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 3t 0111723120002 PROPAOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNERNAME HENNEPINPORFEITEOLAND TAJCPA VER CTTY OF ORONO NAME/ADOR POBOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SS323 31 0011723320023 PROP AOOR 1300 aiERRV PL OWNERNAME TACRLOUNT TAXPAYER TERRY J BLOUNT NAME/ADOR IJWaiERRYPL MOUNDMN SSJM 30 OOII7233JOOIS PROPADOR MJOaiFRRVPL OWNERNAME GLENNDSOLR! TAXPAYER CLENN D SOUS NAME/ADOR MNIOIERRYPL MaWOMN SSJM 30 0011723320021 PROP AOOR 1340 niERRY PL OWNERNAME WILUAMCSINCLAIR taxpayer wrxiamcsinclam NAME/ADOR 1 340 OIERRY PLACE MOUNDMN SSJM SO 0011723320025 PROP ADIM 1300 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME S O SANOBERO A C B SANDBERG TAXPAYER SCOrr D SANtXIERO NAME/ADOR 1 300 NORDI ARM DR MOUNDMN SSJM 31 00II72J33002I PROPADOR MISaiERRYPL OWNERNAME F.ASniMIDTACASaBilOT TAXPAYER EAl'JINSaiMIOT NAME/ADOR NIJOIERRY PLS MOUNDMN SSJM s H r I CERTIFY TIUTTHE FACTS REPRESEfTTFJ) ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRU'.REPRESENTATXJNOf INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTIRS DATEONTtC Rf OPTIC ICFt4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES OEPARTM^TOTHEI OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE by .*’s‘ * .* * r. •• s->.^ j'I O’ - Dsit AppIkaciM IUcthrt4: 12>17-43 Datt AppUcattoa Caaaidcrcd aa CaoplMc: (l>«Nnpkte as af 1*1443) 120-Day Review Periad Etplret: 0%'UI aol Mart «Dtil complete appUcalioo received) Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaf&on. Planning Director January 14.2004 404*2971 William & Roslyn Hcndcrson/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220*3240 Watertoun Road - Lot Line Re-Plat (Preliminary Subdivision) Zoalag Dbtrkt: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2*acre min. 9.75 Acres (7.57 ac. dry, 2.18 ac. uetland^creckbcd) ApplicatioH Summary: This is a proposed 2*lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Orono Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertov^n Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220 Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono's Shoreland Ordinance (Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland Conser\ ation Act (WCA). Both of these subsequent regulations are applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on. As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation of the proposed driveway (which was never built and now would not be approved in its 1990 conli::untion due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in potential house local ons. The new plat is subject to ‘front lol/back lot’ area and setback standards which were als(i not in effect in 1990. The application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staffs intent to review the variances and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each other for viability. Staff Reeommtudatian: Briefly review, provide comments, then table pending receipt and City Engineer review* of requested drivew ay and creek crossing plans. List of Eihibits A • Application B • Existing Plat. Senn Orono Addition C • Survey/site plan including staff sketch D • Aerial photos E * Wetland delineation excerpts F * Septic systems information G * Plat map H • Property ow ners list Information requested but not submitted as of 1/14*04: - Grading plan and design for driveway and creek crossing IMM.2971 322»-3240 Watertown RMd January 14.2004 rafe2 Rrf«lator>* Impacts The follo\%ing regulatory impacts have come into play since this property was originally subdivided in 1990: /. Skoretand Ordinance Imoaets Prior lo adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in February 1992. Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at best a 26 ’ wetland setback was likely the only setback enforced for structures. Furthcrroorc, tne City had no hardcover limitation applicable lo tributaries. The City had enforced a 75' septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late 1970 ’s; tested sites for Lot I w ere icccpt *d at less than a 75* setback. The Shoreland Ordinance established standards and conditions for Stubbs Bay Creek (AKA Classen Creek) including stnictural and septic system setbacks from its Ordinary High Water Level (OH WL) as well as hardcover limitations, tree removal regulations, etc. These standards have placed numerous added restrictions on development of the Senn Orono Addition lots that w ere not in effect when those lots were created. The primary impact is that parts of the proposed dri vcw av w ould not be allowed today. In discussions leading to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance. stalTand City Council acknowledged that many e.x isting structures would become nonconforming, and a number of already platted lots would likewise be negatively affected It was the intent of the City lo deal with these through the variance process as each case came up. The City did not “grandfather" existing vacant lots w hich as a result of the Shoreland Ordinances became substandard. Development of the Senn lots, including construction of the driveway and bridge, are subject to the current regulations in tlTccl today. //. H'ftlaftd Consenation Act fH'CAi Refutations Prior to enac tment of the WCA Regulations by the legislature in 1991. the City had few guidelines for determining the boundaries of w eilands. Furthermore, the specific w etlands protected by Orono ordinances w ere limited to those identified in the 1974 Oruno Wetland Inventory maps. While that inventory map shoxx ed substantial areas of wetland on die Senn Orono Addition property it did not specifically identify the creek. Because the original subdivision was completed before WCA was enacted, the wetlands on the property were not delineated per today’s standards The City merely determined at that lime that areas below the 970* contour would be considered as wetland. Howc-. er, the wetlands have now been delineated as depic d on the survc>’. Exhibit C. and generally foHow the 968' contour M4-2f71 J22t-324« Waitf1«ini RomI iamury 14.2M4 ri«t) II/. OHWLarndFMMmlmmmi^ The Zoning Code definn the OHWL fiw watercourses as “the elevation of the top of the bank of the channeP. It also establishes the *Ttegulatoiy Flood Protection Elevation” (RFPE) as an elevation no less than 1.0 foot above the 'regkmal nood ’. i.c. I’ above the IOO->ear Hoodplain ele\ation. The Surface Water Management Plan indicates that the Normal Water Le\ el for the large wetland basin just to the north of the properly is elevation 963.5*. with the High Water Level (100-year flood level) at elevation 970.4*. The top of the bank of the channel at the constriction area in Ut I U at approximate elevation 968.0*, and closely matches the delineated wetland boundary. In recent discussions with the City Engineer, staff has concluded that the OH\\T for setback and lot area calculation purpose for this property should be established at the wetland boundao elevation of 968*. The RFPE, i.e. the minimum floor elevation for anv building, should be established at elevation 971.4*. In proposed Lot I, it appears that neither the buildable area nor the septic sites will be impacted by floodplain and OHWL elevations. However, the creek drivewav crossing will likely require fillinK within floodplain as well as wetland. IV. Front Lot/Eaek Lot The original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of^front lolback lot ” standards (Sections 78-1370 and 82-256). The existing lots aren’t subject to these special setback and area requirements, but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will be subject to those standards. The impacts include: - Lot I M a b^k lot must meet a 3 acre minimum (it does); • Lot I is subject to 150% of the standard setbacks (See staff sketch. Exhibit C2). • Access to Lot 1 must be via a 30* driveway outlet (as proposed) - Lot 2 is subject to a 50* side street setback from the drivewav outlot, r-.? er than a 30* side setback. Suminaiy of Regutotorv- Impacts 1.The 968 OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be measured for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site a'c* • 100* structure setback from OHWL - 75* septic setback from OHWX - no hardcover allowed within 75* of OH\\X Areas below* the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations. The lot diy/wei ueas and the OHWX Ktbacks as shoim by the sui\e>or appear to be acceptable. L_ •M-2f7I 322«>324tWaltn««aRMd Jaaaary 14.2004 Pagt4 Wetland delineations and the OHUX detennination have established boundaries which have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildablc area, especially of Lot I, due to nonbuildability of wetland and the 26’ setback requirement. The original approvals to constnKt a drivew ay w iihin existing Outlet A paralleling the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid, because the driveway and creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The speci fie issues with the dn vcw ay arc: a) Portions will be within 75 ’of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78*1286; Portions will be within a dclincaied wetland or within 26* of the wetland, requiring variances from the City (a.-.y variance for this work granted with the final plat **sed)' ** definition hav e expired w ithin one year of that approval if not Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also subject to WCA regulations adminiitcred for Orono by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distncl. and variances to their regulations would likely be required. As a related issue, note that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be only one access to \V atertowTi road for the tvvo lo3. i.c. a shared driveway is required. Prcliminarv Plat Review ° Conformity to Zonins District and Comorth^Httv^ The ptoposni subdirision lo create mideetial lots of wo acres in area or larger conforms to the Q Ktiotionshio to Snrrouiidiiig Di^vflopmont The proposed subdivision is consistent w ith surrounding rural-density residential development. O Lot Layout amd Lot Standard^ Lot area: Both lots exceed the minimum lot area stand-rd of the RR-IB District. . Lot uidth: Lot 2 more than meets the 200’ minimum w idth requirement. Lot I has a defined width of only 105 at the rear of the required 75 ’ front yard, requiring a lot width variuce. M4-2971 3m-J]4«Wal«rto«aRMd iMaary 14,2W4 Setbacks: The preliminary plat drawing has been annotated by stafT in Exhn>it B2 to accurately depict the setbacks that would apply to this subdivision. Adequate but somewhat limited area exists within each proposed lot to allow the construction of single family residences. □ Driveway EstMiskmemt: Alternatives Ar* A primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75* hardcover/grading setback. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot I would ultimately be approved, then the proposed 30* corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the hillside in the south half of Lot I, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlet A is shortened and Lot 1 extends southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot w idth variance for Lot I. As an alternative, suff has suggested that access to Lot 1 be sought from the Boyer property to the west of it, avoiding any new wetland impacts or new creek crossings. However, such a driveway would require tiie cooperation of the owners of the property to the west, which apparently is not likely to occur at this time. The potential issues with this alternative include; • Possible significani neeaiive impacts to the adjacent Boyer building site by constructing a driveway through it. • City codes w ould require that access through Boyer be via an Outlot, requiring new approvals of preliminary plat. • City codes would require that for a level of three users, the Boyer driveway would have to become a road, bringing significant extra costs to the table, including issues w iih the width of the wetland crossing. A further alternative that obviously docs not meet the goals of the applicant, is to merely sell off the back portion of the property to an adjacent landowner as additional land, forgoing buildability north of the creek. Driveway and Creek Crossing Design. As of this writing a design for the driveway has not been submitted. Such a design w ill entail vanances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review . The application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and reviewed before preliminary ’ plat approval can be granted. □ Park Dedication A park fee of S200 was paid for the existing Ul 1 w hen it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 had previously had a house on it. Thineen yrars later, the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived in since some time in the 1980s. M4.mi J220-3240 Waicrt<ma RMd JamuMry 14,2804 PiftO U MA*** Slarrwould suggest that as a former occupied dw elling site, and based on the 1990 subdivision conclusions. Lot 2 should not be charged a park fee. Lot 1 is being re-platted to make it buildable. Should Lot 1 be charged a park fee based on today ’s ^ Siormwafer and Drainafe Imorov^mfw^f^ tolh lots dran dirally to a acek which How s to Stubbs Bay. From a water quality standpoint, they B W«horc lots. There ,s little ability to collet s.gnific«,t amounts of stormw Ser ™off from cither lot before it reaches the creek. St^wuer tr»tm<mt provisions should be added to the plan in the form of required substantial buffer stnps along the creek, w hich must remain vegetated with high grasses and not be feniliaed. M with the park lee, there is some question as to s-helhcr this subdivision should be subject to the Storm W ater and Drama^ Trunk Feeestablished byCily Ordinance. The fee is established at $2,700 perKre.w,ihacapof4.0BTOtobechargedperloi Forlhispropeily.Lot I would be charged the maximunt 4.0 acre fee (SI0.800) and Lot 2 would be charged for 3.47 acres (S9.369) How ever a «'»“ “ » '“ble building site, and the real intent of the i^tvis^istomakeLoi I buildable. An argument can be made that only the fee for Lot I shouldDC required. EMtmtnlVMMip^qjPwljtalifln. The proposal includes vacation of existing Drainage and ftiliiics EasemCTIs grants with the onpnalSennOrono Addition, with rededicationofnew easements alongnew lot lines, and new ly dewnbed wetland easements to match the new wetland delineation. Th! subdivision is subject to dedication of standard Drainage & Utility Easements along lot lines. Q Septic Testing and Sit^ required 75’ setback from the OHWL and other required setbacks. ^ Other SkoeeiamJ Standafi^f The »loi» n™ the south end of Ut I avenges 29V. at its steepest point, and theicfure is not conside:edabluirT^renioval(6" diameter or greaterjwithin 73'of the creek isprohibited unlesspeimiB are^trt; tlw creek crossing may require tree removals w hich need to rev iew ed once a plu u submitted. As previously noted, hardcover and other variances will be required for the L •04-2971 J220-3240 Wattrtowa RomI Jaaoary 14.2004 Pag«7 A Conservation and Flov^age Easement will be required over the delineated wetlands on the property. SaiBiBOfy of Isracs for Dfacossloii I. Width variance for Lot 1 - hardship is site topography Hardcover variance required for driveway and creek crossing within 75' of OHW and for fill in wetland and floodplain - plans needed for review. Park fee for Lot 1 - did it meet its obligation in 1990, or is this creation of a new buildable site subject to current park fee...? 4. 5. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee - payable only for Lot 1? Establishment ofbuffers along creek for stormw aier management - should any other specific conditions apply to protect the creek? Has applicant contacted MCWD regarding their permitting process? Any early indications regarding approval of creek crossing? Other issues? Staff Recommendalioo The proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the information submitted to dale. How ever, the lack of requested proposed drivew ay and aeek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in determining the feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be appropriate until that information is submitted lor review. •iHHIII 9itmrn PrarCiTT OP m ♦IU24I4III T-MI PIII/OII P-141 ArniBcrtlnii# r>y.^c»>7/ DtteRiCthed AnountPikl CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION AFfUCATION mOPERTY LOCATION Silfddrwi - ~^>uy Prepet^yUaDdflcatkoNumbcr FImm dwck OM - Picpaty .1 Attach kgal dtter^doa to ipplkadoa APPUCANT _ Kime_ ibsnctor .MTCdC? WMne_ tAve^VJcr . txCwrf fe0>c^yfrPboocftoiM^9<n ------f11 ICf4_______________Zip.____Pbonafwork) 1.1"^ OWNER (if dilftm than ipplicaiu) N mbc CLrcyi »s ^ ^^.^_Phw(worfc) V7y/ Addrm Citv (atl^ htt if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Phoeo(home^ </oy> co Phone (wod()________ NuBiber of Tax Parcels Development Six*7.S7 AciesDryLaad Acres Wet Lsad2.t6 ^.7 5 Acres Total, all pwcels Residential; no. of units Other (spedfV) Present use (check)X Present Zoning District X4-/S PROPOSAL Divinoo for Tex Piuposes yT - LotLiBcReaningcma»Oah*(QonewbttildIiiigiitcs) SiMivitioo for New BuiUing Sites Number of BnUdinf Sites 1. Exisiinf Units .IZ__NewUniU T___ToulUoiU Proposed Gross Density Minfanum Lot Sixe Proposed Use (check) .L'aiuperTZfAcrei ^7./to Sq. Ft Dry BuildableLend V ResideBiial - OAerfmeelA’1 #2971 1 Pk-M-IWI 04:Sln Pror<in or OKW ♦M2I4I4III THOI MI2/DII hUI 1 -- ••*• ~ V- .:. -, ^ ______ _J. VMiHHByptMlBtaHMteOBCaiifkaiiafSiBV'iy. "xai AmjcATn»i 5s “cSSsi’ts:iS;s^ 3. Tliitcvteioa. 4. EMWMBtt,covwMa,«e. 3. DtvtkpcnAfra«BntaodU(sr«rOtt^ ZMiBgOfBdiriSipanHt^_______________________________ •Wtofele). Sk^PUa Review (CUu 1,11 A ni)S27iXO Sobdiviaioa of ■ Lof U m "■■■"■ihmut S3S0.00 S4ibdivttiaa Applacnoa (Out 1A 0) S4C4 00 Toti!| __lum 1« O) S4C0 00 _ LcpllUviowHulPQiaf: __ Subdhrisioa oaty SlOO.OO Svbdhrisioa w/oMctDCBis led cavt=Aii UB. s:S0 00wvwpMiAcm OBU Pitk Fees (0 be detciaiscd per Soctiaa 12.227) Ufsl nd Eatateriat Review Fees (M iL.-artd)Mfii M Eagatenat Kcview Fees (M iLrsrtd) _____Proposed PrfvKe Roads S450.00»iJ0^1tnI ft: --------Ptop^ PttbUc Roads $950.00 -»-Stoical ft; “ifa. fe , jq .$ ‘, • av|rvv«w W MMMA #«^WBQa IL; u Request for CRy a Aeeepf Ejdstai PiiriJi Road $W05b Proposed Saaitiry Sew Ms.a Extaasioa 1273.00 ♦ $21 «,bProposed WMcnaaia Extensio.! $275.00 ♦ 523/soib Profased Sana Sewer Systeai (exchidiag calvens} $25:.00nopesca oocm sewer sysw (cxcbidiaa ealvsm) $25.‘ 00 C. flexible Appikatfaa Feas/Misc. Fees _____Vsriaace $250.00 ($30.00 per each addjfecalvihsnce} Eucineni Vacadoa Associated «iih SubdlvRioo $100 O: PRD Applicadoa wiA Subdivisioa $35.0aD»cU^ \ZSLl Owoet's Si^uture O'. k J<miuy7,2004 GlTYor ORONO Moaidpal OQka SmiMtSS: 2750 mtt Orsno. MK 55350 ■alifliinn: p 0 ta 06 Cnritjl itt. HI 55323-0066 Steve Bohl Hickocy Fine Homes P.O.Box 815 Long Uke. NIN SS3S6 Dev Mr. Bohl: REQIXST FOR FURTHER INFOR.>UTION Zooing Application *04-2971 The Citv’ of Orono is required to notify you within fifteen (15) business days as to the sutus of yov application for subdivision of the property located at 3220-3240 Watertown Road. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting in order to complete our review: o Copies 0 f on-site sewnge treaanent system testing and design reports for each lot ^ o Copy of the complete wetland delineation report for the property. c»o Grading plan and driveway design for driveway in Ouilot A and Lot I, including engineered design for proposed creek crossing. o Indication of proposed house locations (show on the survey). . o Drainage calculations and information to indicate the OH\^T of the creek and 2-yev. 10- ^ 100-\ev flood elevations within Lots 1 and 2. Sufficient information must be presented to confirm the extent of potential impacts to the septic systems 00 Lots 1 and 2. ( n9T and to establish minimum floor elevauons for structures tc be placed on those Lots. Application *04-2971 is incomplete. Please siAmit the items requested above by Monday, January 12,2004 to remain on the January 20. 2004 Planning Commission agenda. Absent timely submirjl of all items requested, this item will be reviewed as a sketch plan for the January 20 meeting to merely identify potential issues, with more detailed review as tnfotmaiion is submitted. Please call me at (952) 2494600 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffion Planning Director cc: William & Rosfyn Henderson Gronberg A Associates T«l<phoac(952)24M6M • Fai (932) 2494616 «nnr,<LonmAan.n a 1 s U) rr •) O HMO O Ht? ■ »5 »•3 < 7 A » rr • H- « 2 .. ■o SP s"s SS3&S iSSSg |SS*S9 ^ "O W rr P -^V... -4, tm': P-K. 'H T>^ I,<'* -P ■i*'. ^^■Sh E®ti 4-J ■^'-N m mm • ^-.'.C«'- -c;. ■ . r.-^.r.--"-S,; ^ ‘ ■ ■ »'• ,,; ;>;fl . v» .• i% ;-“®S 4 r*rv ^*■ ■■ ■'<•.■ ^••. fly .*—... __^^x. L fT-Sro4;>fes!'<|f-%U>l: W--mmIm^r li:. • ^ JiteC. J StlU^UciM MNSS41* Eoifinil>tta,liic. fSS344.176l ta:9SL9n.9S46 ••aail: ly4rts#pMgy-nct Nyj»^ww»pww¥|i^»<widiii/ JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELIENATION FOR COLDWELL BANKERS PROJECT IN ORONO.MN Wetland DeliaeitioQS • Invonories • Peinitf • Mit^itioo WETLANDS delineation DOCUMENTATION FOR COLD WELL BANKERS PROJECT IN ORONO.MN ^ MNdelinoiW,*! documented. LOCATION Southeast Vi. Southeast 'A Section 32 Township IIS,Raqge23 methodology ^ «<«>■"«.- u.in* Urn 19*7 Oup, of Engines, We.l«Hb CHARCTERJSTICS OF SITES INVESTIGATED Checksite A.I^ ®“l«*><>n> (FAC-). <md Wild BiKk Cur^i So.li.m Marsh.. weil«d»,|. Welland hydrology is pnsenl. TTiesileis Checksite A.l.b Checksite A 11^ pr^ Die site is saturated within onc-fooi of surface and in a wetland drihiagc®^ (FACW.).0»«oo QifilmlsADifi Ameiican Elm (FACW-) and notevidail,M«ttisooC a wtUand drainafc psttent ^^etland diainBCC the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. panem. pattern. ®s^r^sj?,rrirfrizrjr^^ in a wetland drainage palieni. id id d d d d CImtewF This is a noa-wetlaod checksite. Dominant spedcs are Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Reed Canaiy Glass (FACW+), Sedge (OBL), and Fowl Meadow Grass (FACW+). Soib are Lester, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite GJj This U a Type 3 (PEMICd) weUand checksite. Dominant specie Is Reed Canaiy Grass (FACW+). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Wetland hydrology is present. The site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. This is a Type 7 (PEMIBd) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Virginia Waterleaf (FACW-), Wild Black Currant (FACW)andS^ge(FACtoOBL). Soils are Glencoe, a weUand soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surface and in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.I .c This is a non-wetland checksile. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed C^Ohm(FACW+). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology U not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.I .d This is a non-wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Reed Canary Grass (FACW+). Soils arc Lester, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one fool of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.ll.a This is a Type 7 (PEM1 Bd) wetland checksile. Dominant species arc Cr«.c;i Ash (FACW), American Elm (FACW-), Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Gray Dogwood (FACW-), Sedge (FAC to OBL) and Tall Goldcnrod (FACU). Soils arc Glencoe, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is saturated within one foot of the surface and in a wetland drainage pattern. Checksite G.ll .b This is a non-weiland checksile. Dominant spedes arc Green Ash (FACVIO. American Elm (FACW-). Common Buckthorn (FAC-), Tall Goldcnrod (FACLT) and Sedge (FAC to OBL). Soils are L«ster, a non-wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage wetlMd cbedoHe. DomiiiMl ^p«ie» «e Giten Ash ptttOIL ^uS^SSdwIcheckshc. Dominartipedes ire Grew Ash (FACW)in^ BudctbocnCFAC-). SoUs are H«nel. ■ wetf«d soiL Sufftea hydrolo*y is not evide^ as si^ not iwded. ponded, or satwalad within one foot of the surfcce « diainatepatieni. ^^is^aTyp^ (PFOlB) wetland checksite. Dominant specks are Green Ash (FACW), Common £!*thorn(FAC.).Chay Dogwood (FACW-). and WUd (FACW). Soils are Glencoe, a wetland soU. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. T^^iOMKW^and checksite. Dominant species arc Green Ash (FACW), Box Elder (FACW) and Gray Dogwood (FACW-). Soils are Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not evident, as site is not Hooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. ThkkaTvK? (PFO1C) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Sedge (FAC to OBL), ar«i Moss (FAC to OBL). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident, as site is ponded and m a w ctland drainage pattern. This^!s*aTw f(PFOlA) wetland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW), Black Ash (FACW+), Common Buckthorn (FAC-). Sedge (FAC to OBL), and Moss (FAC to OBL). Soils are Marsh, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is evident as site is ponded and in a wetland drainage pattern. Thk i^a n^^iland checksite. Dominant species are Green Ash (FACW) and Common Buckthorn (FAC*). Soils arc Hamel, a wetland soil. Surface hydrology is not esndent, as site is not flooded, ponded, or saturated within one foot of the surface or in a wetland drainage pattern. 1 rt^^t^unA lliitisaBoo-wedaDddiecksile. DooiuimI li^ecks are Gren Aib (FACW). Gny Dogwood (FACW-X and Coanoon Buckthorn (FAC-). Soils Hamd, a wdlMd toil. Surftoe bydrologjr is ooc evident, ss site b not flooded, pooded, or munled within one foot of tlw surfkoe or in a wetland drainage pottern. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I dciineated two juriadktiooal wetland aresa within the property boundaries. One wetland araa has flow-through hydrology and is dominoed in its center hy Reed Canary Grass and open water. The notthcm wetland b a swamp that b dominated hy Green Ash, Black Ash, and Black Willow. I appreciate the opportunity to present thb assessment. Sincerely, Anderson (y EnviroData, Inc. Professional Wetland Scientist (SWS. #0001065) Certified Mapping Scientist, Remote Sensing (ASPRS, #RSI27) - (• ‘ GlTYorORONO Maaidpal Otlkm SMAMms. 27M IMiv Patinm OmoL MN SS3S6 TO: Mike Gaflran FROM: Man Bolterman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE: January 14, 2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Senn Lot Split P.O. 9m M Cf)itallay. Ml SUmOK The property has two existing vacant lots and is proposing to re-arrange the lot lines. The septic tests were done by Swedlund Septic on December 1.2003. Both lots have two septic sites that meet all Orono ai^ State Septic Code requirements. When the design is done next spring we will reqtiire one more soil boring per septic site. The existing design only has 2 soil borings per lot where Oronos* code requires 3 borings per site. My only concern is to make sure the septic sites are out of the floodplain on lot 1 . 1 recommend approval based on septic design. 1Wcplwac(fS2)24MMt • Fai (fS2) 24MilA WWW ■Mwy. wii 0MRVI siiu* M 04II72I2M0S THOMAS C A KALU t Wmit SIfSWAmiOWNAD lOrJOLAKCMN S53M M MII723U0007 DAVID A ANN SNAUQHNCSSV SiCYONtTn. LONOLAKIMN SS3M M <MII7312m»l KEVIN A MICKEU KAOLCZVK «S CYGNET PL LONG lake MN SSIM M MIITnilOOSI CAKLERHAME 3243 WATEKTOWN K3AO LONG LAKE MN SSJM 38 OSIITIJIIOOOS ECGRAHAMJR •3 LEAF ST LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 32118:3440003 GARY L ROLLER 37W WATERTOWN RD LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 3211823440003 OARYLROLLER 3280 WATERTOWN RO LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 32II82344Q0I2 WILLIAM A ROSLYN L HENDERSON 430 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATAMN 33301 38 3211823440013 WILLIAM A ROSLYN HENDERSON 430 WAKEFIELD RO WAYZATAMN 33391 38 3311823320003 cmroFOAONO FOOOX66 CRYSTAL RAY MN 33323 38 3311823330002 STEVEN A ANNE KOEHLER 33 CRYSTAL CREEK RD ORONOMN 33336 38 3311823330003 MARK A A LAURA DSUMMERS 73 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN 33336 38 3311823330004 JERRY A LORRAINE OOOOWALO 133 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 3311823330003 KIMBERLY A ROBERT MELAMED JR 163 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 3311833330006 CHRIS PAUL A itXJE FAUL 173 CRYSTAL CREEK RO LONGLAKEMN 33336 38 3311823330012 CRYSTAL CREEK HOMEOWNERS OO STEVE KOEHLER 33 CRYSTAL CREEK RO ORONOMN 33336 38 3211823410001 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION 18279 MINNETONKA BLVD OEEFHAVENMN 33)91 J9M9A»BUW $AlllAV^>O^I MMOTbBABWMAM •P9IS urwNii xn rn.EK«-2S723004 PaetlgfS Date AppHcaliM Rtcthrcd: 12-P-4U Dalf ApfIkotio«Co«ld*ffd«sCoBiplit#: IM94I3 40-Day Rtvlcw Period Expires: 02-27-04 /2. Froai: Date: Svbjcct: Chair Smith and Planning Comroisiion Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Curtis. City Planner |t(|2/^ January 6.2004 04-2972, Robert Knuth & Mary Thompson, 2700 >Mii’,e Oak Circle. •Variance • Public bearing Zooiiig Dbirki: RR-IB, One Famity Rani Residential, 2 acre minimum Lot Area: 92.077 sq.ft. (2.1 acres) Appiicmtion Summary: Applicants are requestc.3 a front yard setback variance and a side street (right-of-way) variance to allow a porch with pergola 45.1‘ from the front lot line where a 50* setback is required and 35* frem the street righi-cf-way v^hcre 50* is required and a 40* setback exists currently SiiiffRecommaMlation: Planning Department SutT recommends approval of the 5' front yard setback variance and the 15’ street side setback variance due to the location cf the existing house with relation to the front lot line wih the following stipulation: 1. The covered porch shall not be enclosed._______________________________ Pcrtiacat Zoaiag OrdiaaBcc Scctioas Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard req-irements. (b) Lois. The following minimum requiremenis shall be observed: Lot Arei (acres) Lot W idth (feet)Fraol Yard (feet)Side Yardt'estl Side Yard Ad.&;eat to Street (feet) Rear Yard <fca) 2 MO 50 30 50 50 Lbt of Exbibiu A. Application B. Ha^ship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Surxey'Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Ele\ aliens E. Photos F. Leners from Neighboring Owners G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map I. 1978 Septic Diagram showing alternate site directly behind the house FILE0O4-2973 Jwtuary6.2004 P*992«f9 Backgroaad The applicants' (Bob f^uth and Mary Thompson) home is situated nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order avoid encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil t t-atment site when the home was built in 1978, the home was constructed 56.1' from the front property line. 5* from the required 50* setback. Along the w^em property boundary between 2700 and 2715 TOte Oak Circle a continuation of the road .ight-of-way exists. This right-of-way is currently and indefinitely not used as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently located 40 ’ from this street side yard where a 50 ’ setback is required. Due to the angle of the home on the lot, the proposed porch addition would extend 5 additional feet into the required side street yard. The property is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owners wish to create a ’’neighborly feel” to their home with the addition of the covered front porch. Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any modification greater than 5 ’ off the front of the home requires a variance to front yard setback requirement. While there is ample space for additions to the rear or east sides; the applicants wish to add this amenity to the front of the home. The neighboring properties have homes at setbacks greater than the required 50 ’ and with the open quality of the neighborhood the 5 ’ encroachment into the setback would have little negative effect on the adjacent properties. Adding to the openness in the vicinity is the right-of-way continuing south from the cul-de-sac directly west of the applicants' property that is currently open space and the adjacent homes located over 200 ’ from the applicants ’ home. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaA^’idth: RR-IB Lot Area Ut Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200 ’ Actual 92,077 sq.ft, (2.1 acres)47 ’ RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’56.1 ’45.1 ’ Rear 50 ’196.5 ’No Change West Side 50 ’40 ’35 ’ East Side 30 ’156 ’No (Thange Slmetaral Covcracc: FILEW4.2973 2004 PaOtSofS Total Lot Area Total Stmctoral Coverage 92,077 sq.ft. (2.1 acres)Allowed: 13.811.5 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2.627.75 s.f. ( 2.8 %) Front Yard Setback Variance The i^licants uish to add a 492 s.f. porch ^ilh pergob to the front of their existing home. Due to the location of the home on the lot a front yard setback variance is requested to allow a S’ encroachment into the required front van! setback. The existing home is conforming and has a 56.1' setback from the front property line; however, any additions to the front of the home require a variance. Side (Street) Yard Setback Variance The porch addition is proposed to be set back from the uest side of the property 35*. An existing public right-of-uay is located along the western property line. This right-of-way is currently open space and the road is not proposed to extend further south of the cul-de- sac. Therefore the western property line Actions as an interior side yard rather than a street side yard. The existing home has a setback of 40’ on the west side and the required setback for a side yard is 30 ’. this requirement would be met by the proposed porch addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship AnaKsb in ctmsUerint fw yfrtanct, like Ptatmirng sMatt eotuidtr th* effect of ike proposed vorloHce upon the keoitk, safely and welfare of Ike communis, existing and anikipated iraffk eondiiioas, Ugki and air, danger of fire, risk lo Ike pubtk safeiy, and Ike effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Tke Hanning Commission skall consider recommending approxal for variances from Ike literal provisions of tke Zoning Code bi Instances wkere their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of drcmmsiances unique to tke InMtidual property under consideration, and skaU recommend approval onfy when It Is demonstrated dtat suck actions wta be In keeping witk dte spirit and kuent of tke Orona Zoning Code. Staff finds that due to the location of the existing house and the histor>’ of the propcny*s septic locations some level of hardship may exist in order to justify a front and street setback variance for the construction of a front porch and pergola. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship” pertinent to this application: I. “The property in question cannot be pul lo a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the offcial controls.” The 2. / acre property can be pta lo reasonable use under the official controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met FHJi04-2«73 Jang««y 6 2004 p«9«4ors 2. “The plight of the landoN^iier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lando\%iier.“ The unique circumstance on this property is the location of the existing home, and is not caused by the current properly owners. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The adjacent homes in this neighborhood exceed the front yard setback by at least twice the setback required by zoning code In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Economic considerations have not been indicated for this project In the opinion of staff this criterion is met, 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." A7/4 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." KA 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-familv dwelling." S/A 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The home is situated .such that it uos constructed unnecessarily within 5 ’ of the required front yard setback line TIte other adjacent homes in the neighborhood have exceeded the from yard setback requirement with respect to their home locations. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The setback of this home is unlike the front yard setbacks for the adjacent homes. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Fttff04.2t72 JwMMry6.200« PagtSoff 10. **The granting of the application b necessan* for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the ^iplicant** The applicanis have indicated their desire to create a welcoming, neighborly aspect to their home, however, is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a property right of the applicants. In the opinion of staff tlus criterion is not met. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance not in any w-zy impair health, safety, comfort morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.“ In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely ser>e as a convenience to the ^iplicant. but is necessao ’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or dilTtculty.“ The location of the existing Home and it’s proximity to the required front yard setback are a difficulty for the applicants as a variance is required to add a covered front porch to their home. luvcs for Considcratloo 1. Is a front porch a “property right“ of the applicant justify ing a variance to the setback requirement of the City Code? 2. The neighboring homes ha>e front yard setbacks greater than the required 20\ does Planning Commission feel granting this variance would alter the character of the neighborhood? 3. Is there a hardship to allow for making an existing conforming setback non- conforming? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Suit Rccomaicadation If the Planning Commission concludes that a sufficient hardship exists, then a recommendation for approval of the 5* front yard setback variance may be appropriate with the following stipulation: 1. The CON ered porch shall not be enclosed «o that the visual impact of the addition is minimized. CXmBITA CITY or ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional vaziance) Renewal Variance Fee S 150.00 (no cfajoge fton original applkatioa) Variance for non-confotming atnicturcs S250.00 Aftcr-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPCRTV' INFOR^UTION Site Addresi 37^0 1^/Lt OaHi Un(f AppIkniloD # Date Reeeh-ed i ^ - / 7- Amonat Paid O Propein* Uentificatioa Number (P.ID.) Oa - in * J? - Attach legal description to application if not includ Date Prooeity Acquired A/f)ifA*h4/ ion if not included on required survey. I (do) gojn^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present iuTm property: i/^resifrntial other (specify). Zoning District:__________fe_______________________ Jmonthfyrar) Address: J “)ad U/k.f» /OciC Ci>yfi 0\\*NER (If different than applicant) . Name______________ A' Phone (home! ____ Phone (work) 5#/- City: /D/rwtt Zip: S'yJJ'd Phone (home). Phone (woifc)_ Address:City.. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estiznat^ Construction Cost Describe request in deuil: /i//A Su/ Qre / hovu \ J I j -V 1^ Construction Cost %70 CCa CrT /.P V (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area __Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Cosxrage Setback: Front __Side ___Rear ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify)__________________________________________________ HARDSIflP/DESCRlPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS DeKribe undue hardship or practical diSBcu^ or ^usual prop^ conditions pre\*enting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: fiikt *_______________ (attach addititmal sheeu if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS for tBPlfyiflyo deadllii# f, 1. ---- Completed Application Form j. ---- Certificate of Survey fiierttl Kv » t;_____ ___ . . -w—... 9*^%^ lauciB mllQ Govt Center. 348-5910). -------------- 6./ttji* Li,, of .he 4, * "> Drooertv. Thi^ ___ /. persona uith an interest iniina- u. .f«, 4, »J. '?■ ■ "■> wish notified of this^Ucation.*^ * separate list of any other persons iw mis appLcation, p you wish notified of this appUcation 8. — Addiuonal items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE AdmiS^tor. agre«V^n<lSiioSl*^^lt^^ required or requested by the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in revici- of ^ applicalior*!^ supplied IS true and cone^ the best^f his/her faiowledge ^ ^ information Applicant's Signature Date 13-/6 ".5 3 OWNER’S SIGNATURE onto the pJI)perty by d” MfT^^LTia^u ««hori2es reasonable n.«nbm for puT»«, ^ve,.iga,i^„d voificaiion o “to - - ^OuLU^0\«ier’s Signature ^ ::---------— Date \9"/h-Ol______ sr ?4sr s 2 1 S' "“•■ Sir “ rs" ■aar.'s^snss ’#29 7S>a EXHIBIT B AtlacfcMtat A lUrdiBIp/DacripdM •TUbbimI Property CoBdMoBS Wbes the bouse wot buih in the 19701, it was placed fitf forwwd on Hs kN - so ftr forward that HUetodyS6 feet fitm the lot line. We pwcliased the home 3 yean ago and would like to install a 1 r pergoU (open-roofed porch) on the front of the house, extending Sleet into the setback. The 6 feet available for floor and stain within the setback would not allow enough room for safe use of a normal-sized table and chain, for example. It isn’t practical lo move the entiie house fonher back, but we would like to add the neighborliness of a porch to our home. List of Legal Names af AB Persoas with aa blcrist Ib the Property Robert F. Knuth (husband) Mary L. Thompson (wife) #2972 j EXHIBIT C I i .V J J ;J NUTH 10.1447 (/)0 c 1 Ulcn fo (O r « . } j /•h )) ws w H D If r. > IM MI’I I'ltl, /!' • I 1. > r % 7 m Wy m -J.-, •-•< • V y \> ^.;*. • V/ ■/•» • ■ ' .*, ^.••^..’•* .' "'^ •'•H-. \* ■' .' ■*. • * '^\ ■V?-- -••»'IS!'=:*->:W ‘---* . . i:H:\- • ”***” • ^* ' ■ .* ■* , .* • * • .7'** • .~ • -'~ . ;. •■• •' ^ .>7‘. ,..y -r: ■-V->. ; #v **. •«* •••*. t»''-:?:f.-'^W. - V’ ElK#' fc g'¥’‘ ^ \ \ {^ mmm^mArM f* V^ f ^^14; y Aif --P.,- ^:‘ 4s \j|f^'i»- ■|S^'‘' .';.: EXHIBtTFl CHARLBS M. KBLiLtBY •?tft waiTB OAK CIKCLB OKOXO, MI9CKKSOTA s.z—'f -Ti: A- «i4a-L Aa~ ikMio ^ -#W JU ^ « . fa/-. ^ V-'/—*— -t 'JA. e*^ ^ f exhibitf B Steven and Laurie Jenniges 2715 V^-hite Ode Circle Orono. MN 55356 952-473-1962 December 20.2003 Orooo Planning and Zoning Orono Crty Council 2730 Kelly Parkway Long Lake. MN 55356 Re: Proposed property improvemert at 2700 White Oak Circle To Whom It May Concern: Our property is one lot away from this property. Between us is a vacant portion of the lot which is the continuation of the private road White Oak Circle. This letter represents our acknowledgement and if necessary our acceptance of the planned upgrade to Bob and Mary Thompson’s property. If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact us. Steven Jenniges Laurie Je^ges * J c Bob and Mary Thompson 2700 White Oak Circle Orono, MN 55356 1 ■UNCMIl; IWVaU IIENNETtN COUNTY fHOPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM fRororrY OWNERS list rAUE: M MII71XIMM raOTAOOR MAOdRCnUNAMnNiO OWNMINAMR RIVWWBRMANNITAL TARFAVm RiVWWWRMANN MWFOXCT WAVZATAMN SSNi M MII7U4MMI rwrAOOR MM roxsT OWNMNAMC VERNONROANEETALSUBMR TAXTAVER ROGER V « LCNORA DANE NAME/AOOR W40POXST WAV2ATAMN 5S)»I mOTADOR N O«M7U4n00) UW FOX ST OWNER NAME lANJFETERSEN TAXTAVER lAHiTeilREEN NAME/ADOR 2EWFOXST WAYZATAMN S51«l M •«ll7ZJ4iaOM iMTAOIIR MMPCWET nWRRIlftIM RIVWWENRMANN TAXTAVn KIVWWBMMANN NAME/AOOR MNTOXST WAVZATAMN SSMI 31 Ml 1733430019 TAXTAVER DMRMBJAffRAY NAME/AOOR 2UOFOXST WAVZATAMN S53«l 3t Ml 1723430030 ntOTAOOR 2720 WHITE OAK OR OWNER NAME CHARLES M KELLEY TAXTAVER OIARLES M KELLEY NAME/AOOR 2720 WHITE OAK OR LONG LAKE MN 33JS6 C\| 3E MII7234200II MOTADOR Z1W WNnEOAKOR OWRIIMli ML1N0MTKWRRPKNUICH TAXTAVER MARY L TIIOMTSOM NAME/AOOR ROBERT FKIMmi 2700 WHITE OAK CM UM40LAKEMN 333M 31 Ml 1723420022 TROTAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNAW0NB> OWNERNAME WNHEOAKCRKIEABOC TAXTAVER WHOEOMCCMCLE ASSOC NAME/AOOR OTLONOLMCE 2720WIHTFOAKrm LONG LAKE MN S5JS6 3S MII723420025 TROTAODR 2723 WHITE OAK OX OWNERNAME TCBECKERREM BECKER TAXTAVER PAUL C A EUZA8ET1IM RECKER NAME/AOOR 2725 WHITE OAK OR LONULAKI MN S5J»0 M MIITIMMIIS MOTADOR Ills WlffTBOAROR OWMmiAlMI lALJEMROCS TAXTAVER STEVEN R LAURIE lENNIOES NAME/AOOR 2713 WIRTCOAXCIR LONG LAKE MN SS3M 31 MII71343HU3 PBOTAOUR 3473 KIXST OWNERNAME TI SLOCUM A E T GR LXUN TAXPAYER PETER SLOCUM A ENIN GILUOAN NAME/AOOR 247SHIXST WAVZATAMN 333*1 3B MII7234JaUO PBUTAUM 030UANUUUU) CIWNI RNAME JG1UCKIR A WIIIUCKFR T/UTAYEM JAMLS O A WHITNEY U TUCKER NAMIMUUR fcSOOANIMRim WAVZATAMN 33391 c (J ■'’ '.tT » • J; I. OWNERNAME OFRUMUIETAl TARTAm HAMR/AIWR DBBMTRUMIM FOiOXISS WAVZATAMN SUM I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS RETRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND 11UJEREMESENTATK3NOTIM«U«^TN)NAS ITATTEARSTtlSOATEONTHEREOORM OTTHB HEIMETIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEFARlRSaffJO THE BEST, OFMrKHOWUOGCANDKlJEF. --------------- / EXHIBITI >UT RECORD LOCATION SKETCH r L / 3 •M-297J M. 2tM Halt AppUcafioa iIcccivMl: ll*l7-03 Date AppMcalkHi ConMcrad as Coaipklet 12-1743 M-Day Review Period Eipirti: 2-1541 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ January 14,2004 04-2973, Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc., 4753 North Shore Drive • Hardcom Variance • Conditional Use Permit • Public Hearing Zaalag Dbtrict: Lot Area: Ut Width: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) 0.173 acres (7,550 s.f.) 50 feet AppticaikM Summary: Applicant request the follo\^1ng in conjunction \%ith a previously approved project: 1. After-the-fact variance to allow 49 ”/o hardcover in the 75-250* zone when was previously approved and 25% is normally allowed. 2. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5* of the property line. Staff KecomimeMd&tioit: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 44% was previously approved and 25% is normally allowed. Staff recognizes that a new hardcover variance may be needed in order to allow some additional hardcover, however, not the 49% which currently e.\ists. 2. Denial of the conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5* of the property line. The City Engineer has indicated that the walls can be moved within 5 ’ of the property line while still maintaining the needed swale to control drainage. List of Eihibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicants Narrative Exhibit C - After-lhe-Fact Plan Showing Un-Approved Retaining Walls E.xhibit D - Memo from City Engineer Dated 1-13-04 Exhibit E - Plan Approved with Building Permit Exhibit F - Plan Previously Approved by Planning Commission and City Council Exhibit G - Resolution from (Mginal Approval Exhibit H - Photographs •04-mj Januar> 20.2004 Exhibit I - Property Ouocrs List Exhibit J-Plat Map Backfroond The applicants received a number of variances in April of 2003 in order to construct a new resideiKe on the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive (see Exhibit G). Hardcover variances were received for the 0-75* and 75-250' zones of 9.34% and 44.85% respectively. During the building permit approval process it was concluded that the City Engineer needed to review the giving plan and that to result in proper drainage on the property the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions (see E.xhibit F and Exhibit E). The changes included raising the house approximately 2 feet and installing gutters directing all the water to the driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shore Drive. Also, approved wus a short retaining wall on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance. Following construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City's Building Inspector noticed a number of retaining walls were constructed in the 75-250' zone in an effort to control the drainage on the property. Also, repair of an existing wall at the top of the bluff and a second wall at the top of the bluff were also constructed all of which were not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan approved in April of 2003 by the Planning Commission and City Council. Suff informed the applicants that this work was not q>proved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49.2% hardcover when 44.85% was originally approved would be required if the walls were to remain. A conditional use permit is also required in order to allow- retaining walls within 5’ of the property boundary . Revised Hardcover Calealalioiu At the time of building permit review- the applicants proposed less hardcover in the 75- 250' zone than was approved by the plan attached as Exhibit F. This occurred because the applicants went from a footprint of 1.500 s.f. to 1.451 s.f. and a smaller driveway/walk (525 s.f. to 481 s.f.). At this time the applicants w-ere also approved to construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance (shown on Exhibit E). This retaining wall added 8 s.f. of hardcover, which brought the total hardcover to 44‘/'o (when 44.85*b was approved by the Plarming Commission and City Council). Hardcover Zone Approved Hardeover Additiosal Hardcover Allow ed by Buildiag Pcrnil Existing Hardcover (aficr-the- fact) 0-75 354 s.f (9.34%)NONE 480 s.f.* (12.6%) 75 - 250 1.965 s.f. (44.85^i)8 s.f.2.153.9 s.f.* (49.2*/,) LT «KM-»73 January 20.2W4 Patc2afS Exhibit I - Property Ow-ners List Exhibit J-Plat Map Background The applicants received a number of variances in April of 2003 in order to constroct a nevi residence on the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive (see Exhibit G). Hardcover variances were received for the 0«75’ and 75-250* zones of 9.34®/o and 44.85% respectively. During the building permit approval process it was concluded that the City Engineer needed to reviewr the grading plan and that to result in proper drainage on the property the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions (see Exhibit F and Exhibit E). The changes included raising the house approximately 2 feet and installing gutters directing all the water to the driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shore Drive. Also, approved was a short retaining wall on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance. Following construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City’s Building Inspector noticed a number of retaining walls were constructed in the 75-250’ zone in an effort to control the drainage on the property. Also, repair of an existing wall at the top of the bluff and a second wall at the top of the bluff were also constructed all of which were not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan approved in April of 2003 by the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff informed the applicants that this work was not approved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49.2% hardcover when 44.85% was originally approved would be required if the walls were to remain. A conditional use permit is also required in order to allow retaining walls within 5 ’ of the property boundary. Revised Hardcover Cakulations At the time of building permit review the applicants proposed less hardcover in the 75- 250’ zone than was approved by the plan attached as Exhibit F. This occurred because the applicants went from a footprint of 1,500 s.f. to 1,451 s.f. and a smaller driveway/walk (525 s.f. to 481 s.f.). At this lime the applicants were also approved to construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance (shown on Exhibit E). This retaining wall added 8 s.f of hardcover, which brought the total hardcover to 44% (when 44.85% was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council). Hardcover Zone Approved Hardcover Additional Hardcover Allow ed by Building Permit Existing Hardcover (after-the- fact) 0-75 354 s.f (9.34%)NONE 480 s.f (12.6%) 75-250 1,965 s.f (44.85%)8 s.f 2,153.9 s.f (49.2%) •04-2973 Januirw20.2004 Pagc3«rS East Wall ft Steps: West Walls: The as-built survey shown in Exhibit C shows hardcover as it now exists. The most nouble new hardcover consists of 148 s.f of retaining walls bringing the total hardcover to 49.2%, nearly 5% over the original approved hardcover amount. AiatysbofthcAs-BuUtPlan The City Engineer reviewed the plan and his comments can be found in tne memo oaiea January 13,2004 (attached Exhibit D). A summary of his comments and the necessity of the walls is discussed below: Neither the steps or retaining wall were approved with ar.\ of the plans. The City Engineer has determined that a smaller wall is necessary to provide a transition from the driveway eluvai:on to the elevation of the side yard. A smaller wall can achieve the same results as the current wall and not be within 5 ’ of the property boundary. The steps are also not needed because, if the site were constructed according to plan, an access to the lake would exist on the west side of the lot (sec west wall comments). The only wall that was approved is the wall that protecis the side entrj'way. The original plan was designed to grade a swale leading to the lake, much like photograph #’s 4 ft 5 in Exhibit H. which shows pre-construction grading along the west side. FuTu.er, these walls encroach onto the neighbor ’s property, which isn i allowed by City Code. These encroachments potentially create problems later when maintenance may be required and responsirility for them becomes shaded. The City Engineer has stated that an extension of the e.xisting wall protecting the entrance may be warranted, however, the rest of the walls and fill should be removed and a swale should be re-graded as showT. on the approved plans at approximately the original site elevation (Exhibits F ft E). The wall that was approved was the pre-existing wall, which has since been repaired. The applicants also constructed a second tier to this wall and brought in fill in an anempt to create a larger lawn and to avoid a l’-2’ step down from the walkout level to original grade. It should be noted that these walls are within the bluff impact zone. The City’s Building Inspector authorized the applicant to improve the pre-existing wall in an effort to protect the bluff. The applicant did improve the wall but also consi-ucted a new, second tier which extends onto the neighbors property. It is of the City Engineer and Building Inspector’s opinions that this second tier wall was not necessary. The second tier wall and the fill should be removed and re-graded as originally approved. TTie second tier wall and fill raises the walkout yard to an elevation South Walls: higher than the neighboring yards. «04-2973 J«aMi7 20. MM Pagt4«rs Hardship Analysis A hardship must be presented in order to allow the walls and steps which account for an additional 5% of hardcover. The hardships for each situation are discussed below: East Wall A Steps: The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the wall as buUl is that an access to the lake is needed and to control drainage. Staff doesn't view these hardships as valid due to the following: • An access isn t needed as the lake would have been accessible from the west side of the home if the site were graded according to plan. • Tlw City Engineer has stated that currently the drainage is being directed onto the neighbor ’s property. A smaller, sliorter wall can control the drainage without it being diverted to the neighbor. West Walls:The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the walls as built is that the tree line didn’t allow* for adequate room to create a swale and that, aside from adding fill to the neighbor ’s foundation, the walls were needed to prevent water from entering the neighbor s property. Stafl doesn’t view these hardships as valid for the following reason: • A swale could have been constructed solely on the applicant’s property, regardless of the tree line or elevation of the neighboring property, without impacting the trees South Walls:The applicant has stated that the hardship to allow the second tier w^l is that the slope from the house would have been too steep. Staff doesn t view this as a hardship for the follow ing reasons: • The wall caused unnecessary fill in an anempt to create a larger lawn • The area is in the bluff impact zone which limits any earth moving activities in an attempt to preset - die slope. • Steps could allow for a safe access from the house to the original grade. Issues for Conilderatloii 1. Has the applicant controlled drainage in the most efficient and least obtrusive wav? 2. Have any hardships been presented to allow the as-built plan to be approved with its excessive hardcover? 3. Should the applicant be allowed to bring in fill and construct retaining walls in an effort to create a larger lawn or to avoid a step down from the walkout level? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 1 Jaawary 20.2M4 Staff RtcoBBcadatioi AccqK the City Engineer's conuncnts and ^jprove the follouing staff recommendation: 1. The wall on the east side of the property be relocated westerly onto the applicant's property to provide a 5 ’ setback to the easterly lot line. 2. The steps on the east side of the property be removed. 3. The wall following the property line on the west side of the lot be moved easterly to a point S* of the west lot line and its length be cut in half. 4. Reduce the replaced existing wall on the lake side of the home to the previous height 5. Remove the iKxtherly wall on the lake side of the home. 6. Removal of fill along the side and lake side of the home and require the construction of swales. 7. Approval of the steps on the lake side of the home as they are needed due to the steep grade of the slope (once the fill is removed). 8. Grant a minimal additioiud hardcover variance to allow the above The above recommendation shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Cenificate of Occupancy. This bouse is intended to be in the Par^ of Homes and the revisions need to be completed ASAP to avoid buyer surprises. L EXHIBIT A AppUcHkaij^lllZl. DattRtcdvfd Ithn I57C-AiDoiutPiid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address_____ Type of Application to be Filed WiU^ 0^ puydyifii luiX Property Identification Number (P.LD.I Ol • It 1 • Vb '^bX' Oc2if — APPUCANT . r i_ I Phone ’ “hSO« Name /hluuu. tuyUjJy Cujrf^ Mc . Phone (work) Address JildLAj /V: City Zip *T^34rV OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________________ Address Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also ot^m the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES • CONDITION.AL USE PERMITS • ii S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application X $250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartmentt _____$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling • 501 cu. >d. or more Grading, seawall, retaining w alls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renew-al Fee (no change fiom original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amend.Tient _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule -«2973 REQIWD SUBMITTALS *• -i—Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail y A<03, Goven«n^c«M€^ Ss-Mt!)*^ Hemupin County Dqannwm of Finnr.ce. SSSo'n*^ •>««>«) • refer to hendout for tm ey ~ «» »vey. ctoiei in eleind^ (|nde$)* contoun) if bad iheiatioas involve property. T’2*lon!d1nclude*nL^'!lf *" *"'*“• ® 'he ^ JjJ^.ro“6S’ofr• -P- •i« Of «y o..e, 5. 6. 8. 9. SUBnroV .. ...1., „ ..T'eS""L.'TLSJSUBi\niTED. submitted.) iSSic^SllTnorL'^f^r^; remember dm. your sis' AppUcion is complex. ---------------------------------------------- Date ^viuiicaiion oy v.iencai Initials of Clerical Staff: AFFLICANT'S SIGNATIHE AdmwJlrator. ngren !ddhfon»1*fw (toffUme" no?'^*t,S 1^““'“' **“ ^onLig and/or unusual expenses incurred in re\ie^%- of thU ?• * onginal fee payment) supplied is true and correct^^i|»»4^ofw2L^ “ ^ information Applicant ’s signature 7^Dnte OWNER'S SIGNATURE ^ ArrcA Owner's signature aS. . • ___ Date /iJjl/o' ^ticMt must h3%e all wbmniU into '’*’v Commiuion Metonp are held on ifce did Connamioa Meenr.; Koeduied review iceeents of the Plaaai-p or each cocUl Applicaoti —m be amMt a? *•» BuUdioi A Zoning ORice of tha dueje pror lo iTineeiing ^ ^ ^ k.i If.- V-5;/•7 CITY OF OROMO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial AppUcadon Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change ftocn original appUcalioo) Variance for noo-conforming itiucturcs $250.00 Aller-the>Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcadon » 0^-3975 Dale Received 12.- ABonnt PaM PROPERTY INFORAUTION Site Address W7S3 AJ j ILtu Property IdentiOcation Number (P.I.D.) otJ »co^o Attach legal description to qiplic^on if not included on required survey. Date Piyertv Acouired A-ol.___________________________ I (do) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential other (specify)_______ Zoning District: ____ (month^ear) APPLICANT Name Address: ^5 srft Phone ftame) (c/L-BSl: c XytiPhone (work)________________ City:Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ***_______________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:.City..Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request b detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost S (anach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area .Lot Coverage Setback: ___Lot Width X Hardcover Front __Side ___Rear ___ Averare Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF Ul^UAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difliculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sbeeu if necoyry) A W2973 required SUBi>nTTALS tor vo^thf IPBHfrtox ^ *• — Completed Application Fonn C om Cent*,. C<«»<y Depamnen, of FiZ^A^ot calcutationj u hadcovcr «p«KlocUon. •^oon. provide one (I) copy SW » ir forleprodocUon. --------- P™™* ®“ (D 'opy aXi- x ir for 5. _ Sketches oe pbns of fk^r «Pr»<loction. <• __ Ust of the legal names (include mariul^fT* »'’'r”i‘!* ““ * •'■)• ptopeity. This would faclud.t.^^rt P^” »" ■"'««»« in the 7. — As sn addendum to thi. 'f ■»>< current ounerfs). you wiri. noti(i«l ofto^pSj”'"* of any other'p«son, 8. _ Addit.on.1 hem, as may be requested by City staff. Applicant’s Signatur ------- iSZjei------------ —> . rs-yo: OWNER'S SICNATimE ^ enny onto the propeSj“by*a“ «aff*^/.,!i'!.^ «ctu ''c “'*• •““'»™es reasonable rnembers for purpose, members, and Council Owner's Signature ' . O EXHIBIT B c^piSTOM ffrpp. 2fS0I»iModVJ,wDm9 Monod, MtS 5S3U €t2-396-U94 ta-600^75H> December 16.2003 To Whom It May Coocere Re. 4733 North Shore Drive 4733 North Shore Drive is a namm- steep lot. As ue wwrt ihrsu^ the process to txo'Vf Ais house we were told repeatedly that water from our lot MUST cct flow ooto the oetgbbon property. This is an explanatioo of our actions in amving to the current iaml<rap ipg When we went through the vnhance process the first time we had build in approximately a lOOsq/ft of cxxtu ground cov er for retauiog wall on both sides of our bouse near the front. When the pla nning committee denied us a side setback variance cur house was narrowed, ttdf entry was ad(M and the house was lengthened Jennifer, our cit> planner, changed our hard cover between planning and city council She lengthened the bouse acd remov^ the amount taken off the drive but fiiiled to account for a side entry, which reduced cur over all hardcover. I do not blame the omission for our entire problem on this site We still would have gone over the ground cover sUghtly. Because we were concerned about the hardcover issues we selected retaining walls that had the least amount of hardcover, (i e block and timber walls and not boulder waU) As we were building our house we discussed with both neighbers exactlv what thev would like to see and bow to accomplish aU objectives I will start with the east side of the bouse The retaining wall was placed near the garage and stepped down as rapidly as possible but still controlling erosion and preventing run-off ooto our neighbors Tee drop is so steep that we. with our landscapers, deemed it necessary for steps, as it is the coly access to the back of ihc^ home. The steps are located as close to the bouse as possible ard partially under the eves to cut down the impact of water shed Our neighbor requested us to move dirt up to his fcuodatioo and taper it down to the property' line. We also did this to our house creating proper drainage at the property line This was easily done because we had no tree line co that side of the house and the neighbor ’s bouse sat high enough that we could add dut to his IcL The west side of the home is quite different We have a tree lir.s on the property line and we could not place dirt along that neighbor ’s house. Again consulticg with this neighbor and our landscaper we came to the following consensus The retaining wall by the door was always planned to be there We decided to do a mo^ier wall for safety; if we had done a single wall it would have been over 7 foet tall at the entry . We felt this was tco high so we did it in two shorter walls We continued a knee-high wall (about 2 & tali) weaving a.*ound the tree, as this was the only way to control water flow . We could not cut the property lire down because of the old oaks and we were not allowed to add dirt to this neighbor ’s fouadaticc His lot siu lower than oun. so without these walls water would flow towards their property ^i^lMriMttciiyMtocfih»c<y,whicfcn)c«grwdaeedBdiob<icph«d. Aiec«»dif*b5?S JSSdfc..: Ia polngiiefof thistoiwwlaidiKWiwiBdwnmaiyofcheumobifcrottrIdo Min n ctnn lM Ciutotn Hoaw. he. #2973 EXHIBITC j«n I# Eoo# 7i^4nn ■OriESTEOO ROSEnE nnOERLIR EXHIBIT D 6S16361311 I BonMtfoo I A«MIM. •• M> am * I« tiXUMW. R*. • AndBrBkBi Assodales ■oflnMra ft ArctilMcu Ptmmpami m mrmww. n. • m<#> f> u n««. n A. tMWA. M. • A. N«>Mn. K. <—WM—■» M • rtWjAC Ai*a«-?A n I »f-4«« t •« . I^M »«rM. e^A. AJIM'MV •MNeMM. IMat A OMao »C • «■*••• A AVKir«* l*L • ■!(»«« « >3l|»f PI • OlvM O LaiMM PI • ••€«»•« T i*a «. M«<«, a ai •••*•• A |Kn% A pa 11 • A«MI M PWA M BA • AtJ« «K» »n^ «. fl. • *»»^PI *. PA • •nviR Mpi»*API • v*«AMraaAPf • I PMAsCiiP<«i« PA* D«««ii if|ar*vPR• ruaiMP'tnti.*1 p TMa«w A tffPAPA* IPPMIP^ mtwvmrt • •«• A « a^*** »»*(»** A •».*• sc •%. . Man A M««ifbPA •f*l<«ai u paa at. («•« a*cns«M» m* arjaan*’. ap* • *A'-»*a» <aa . V D.3004 riftM CtqrofOraoo Poll OfllM sox 6d Qp«llB«y,»Of9912S lU:4753 Marti atOMDiivi POtMo. 13»4}3-000 p]« Mo. 03*2973 D im Joaica: Waha^foviofpadtiiaawtificittofamYiyB giDwBt-OifcdalOtfad l-l-04fa±aftawtyct»it»iearthonia •I 4733 North Sboco Drivo. Wt obe noda a rta twi to <ha looporty tody to rt%tow tha IrtHtotofai i4 latatniito wilb. Iha iotohiii« ««11» ora locotad out of th« home, wcot of the houM ib4 aoiJh Oohnida) of tho ThffUlilnlWI'aallltll---------------------------------------------aaiMVMPPaiaJiaA2^ toft TIM MUth ffdrintaf mil if 0ttoo««tiabiritoU tott oppoon to onooMh ouo ±«Bdfhbtotaf womrly proporty hy A id S-bot Thaio itabn mllf olao oppav tobo loerod ontiroly wiihiatht bluff •etbick MOft Biacd on ■ loviow of Ac wnny vd our lita vioii wo hftvo the followtef obiovttonf and Eoii WillA TlMOMiwaUwM not ihowBoerappravod OB A m oM^Mlhuildinc plica. Tha woU is noAilw block and Is loeoMd pthoMily Ao oast lot hot. TIm sotvoy iadinlof that at ono pomS AM woU casnochet onto tha odihboftocpnpcrtyby 0.2 C hC to oddilioo totho wall A mo Im^iBiaio« of aoBcnto Map* ooiMCWiCd to IhohouM betwosatho portdnft aria and As ndc yard Tho iiopi wnoaoertowB or approved on the proposed grodtaif pin. bappciiathatiomoformcfaiiasllawall 11 neoeiuoy fdlioMU toiht dflvtwiy to pnmdt ftOfBniitioQ ftem the ditvowiy olevKion D tbt toifaly •idt yord. Tho woll could bo rcloeMod woitorly onto tho oubjoct proporty to provide a five Sw; lodiack to dM •ofliorly lot line Tho otopo not aeseuoiy for oeeost to dio loto iido of Ao bono (loo West np,l|.>..,M«-M)TbM«wAloahowmlohc>tdcftmt^foewooaradodiiMogortlynd6tfocMib«iene orjo iho odioiiriiif property. Tldf fldi ytod iwolo ibould be reiridad to contain fiowi on dM lobj act propaV- WortWoUi . . ^• The wort weUi MOO erlei of deiadfnodulvbloak polls. Tho only wall tha* was ahown and approved 0D 0 pfopoKd gradtsi plan is As wall adjscaiit to As nonhwert oeroM of tho house. This wtU it aecestary to paovidc occeu to a door located oi^ that side of the betut. As sdditiaftsl wall wu aloof dM west lot ttae. This wall opndoia aloof the boca oo Ao west lot liae aod csieroaciws eoM tha noi^ibennf property tn tsvoi^ loeadoet. 01 ens poliu by 2.2*fiiet. It appavi (hM the WtU along dM lot hac could bo lolocattd to a poiK 3-flNi ooat of ihc weat lot list nd m ItoifSt Muto bo out to half A await could bo conatruetad tplWfOB dw horoo and tha wall to envoy dM anall dninaga area that ictebei dtia tide of the bon» towvda the like. The iwalc cossiruccoo «o«id lacittlio leoxival of aono fill odjocont to the hciac. Thia would provido fsr a fivo foot peaacd ana from tho Alvoway to the laknido for pfdoibiie ttaSc. aaai Woal Highway Pft • ft. Psuf, MN 1^112 • 4fl-ftaft-afOO • fO«: ft*k•ll1l I ■**— j«n 14 C004 7t44fin ■onEsmoo itosenE nnoEiiLiic •sisasiati ^.8 iwmk lilt iwtfiavtatiioliflr < M SMMMry «4 ilMiM r >wi>tr——iimmrtirwdb 111 110 dun ipprawa «■§ dMtaaawMddu fcyM ugitn^Mu.lHt D m nrvay dMiu duidw kymimmS4m.h nwt to An bom thna fwvIdnfiB • I totfL By toBonlag aoou 80 nAneat ID ite I m aonbvty d«0 eoiild bt nmtvid tad at nplaottf aMb« wio eoultf Of nduttd ta Mgiio ■MB dto ainvtolaD oran pmlna iralL TBt Wto Adn ]fwi wold duB In toOnd to yravM^TilMn ^^***“f!.*****^*'* **^‘"*—^"*"*Httrdinnirih miniB m Bnw ilrnu wlitdii flu r. k It cnr tptolea due • lonntknofrtodiiitgwrib—Bntnwytolr«Mi1toa8Bwdnaivnuatodnt<dnynd»adduiannkAifttaatrtoaUiltkiatlahitMtBntdidfnpAf. wmmmywfmmnmmm • ‘^unUnthmutonlniminduninirtoitinuMli 4*nrtnlnruid ii Inin will iiAii^iiiudninoi ta dnkiB Tko nmik 8U wn pltand adlnontt ID du hntot on a# kdt yndt tod Mu Udn ftnoi dn B mm Md fni ra»rtMnipB»»«»llli<»iuh»md<hr—■of^ nUiiaiaa nulb. * tnmtofuy tfUit apdyltrblotkidukdtyadi tfyou lu«u ay FlMM ttO a» A (jit 1) Ymnaqrln^r. MNBITBOO, ROSBNB. ANDBMJK a A8SOCUTB8. IMC /^rw^ TbaKnUos Or Oftf atdpt.ciBfor< BfuaVng, Ci^ofOvono ________» EXHIBIT E fwttrr PKsaarrtoft ( cu—« tM 4, Mm* a tUK^tnrr * tmumr HKK. rn—m^plm Cbw^r. Kuumw U Uai ^rt •/ !«*• «r«W M 4Mk«M to WWWIT * tfeBIMW MML a»M«^ CM*^. •tocft Km to* —tof<f ••toMtoN «r to* *m4 wi4 •»( Km* af tot A Mk* A mM mae^var * tiesiimf rtML CMtoe mwkm* »-n raw um innvrBm jnc JBJ0 M»tor l««« M>Scr^rsii^ fm 4'U) »*>0«79 1 towto (•'Wy Mat M« aa«aa. a***, ar Maa>« aaa *»,«—»#« tf aw ra> Ma i;of4 f lotor M* Uaa a« Ma SUta af Mmaaiala Uc^rifi^f4 vr au/O^T ------------------------------------- to>a**aya «ll««4 ra* MINNETONKA Sm*CUSTOM HOMES V755 A/ S/»*T^ CV* ma avmt t ( chmi * EXHIBIT F ____ Ommtf. Mitt Mil m4 IteC ptii aTUto aumt M MtaaM la mK^OOT * fflOacm Mac fcua^ CMHlf. •*!(* Jfca >*«**— aaaUarlf aalMatoa aT l*a aart aiM mM llaaa ar la« a. Mac* C aaM * ncluaiw fijut riMpeaica e-n 20C '■>•M h. waa»<»^sa rr. 'aM ~-i i.j «aa sa IT .'CM *aa JLiai » It. laiaK al Ci i>i|i tiaa otsn« iwaocena n-na loac If/10 It OW»aV«K*lU n IT ■ak »n It .'aaa kaaaa.a>M IT ratal kaa oai M It. aa-(M at caaaata KIT ^aaeatp mfoeont* »-n rar rIT*,‘M .1 SO IT k0*m» (U^sa IT *»« »iaatan>aao sa IT *aaa *«a x»i » IT ^ tai« al Ca i-mi tin aaoaoua •aMocoxa n>na «»C •iOO M tn ta rt . aa*n sa It Fas »iaaaaia sa It r»iX »nm so IT avrax X Caiaaaa at t1 la m« la •»« Caai n.^-A hh*!Ip iot<- r?:AV^ ceCJUS i AU>T tt Q*DAl&> I -n> »o rwxie ntfW I *2 •»» I :=x.-= ^ flMT •«« aVtl J ^ Kin< im *m0»49»m0^ •iff %«Ml A mt «%• •CMCMMAV fm 90 09m 0^9 C\m<M«a^r;cS4 0aC ) aaraar raXiy mat Itat r*c«af. aka m aapart cat a kant la mt Sx»kaa ■maa ma laaa m ma Siak at Waaaaata ' M» I7M4 f STTCkaa ■aaa tkta aii-*t Sraa f-W cc/?nncArE or suRvcr /m MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES exhibit c CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ P ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CERTAIN VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.24, SUBDIMSIO.N 5 (B); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 3 (2); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 3 (3); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (C)(2); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (Q(3); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (J)(5)(h); SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (LKl); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2) AND DEiNYINC CERTAIN V'ARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIMSION 14 (C); AND SECTION 10.24, SUBDIMSION 5(B) FILE NO. 03-2887 WHEREAS, Minnetonka Custom Homes Incorporated (hereinafter "the applicants") arc the owners of ihc property located at 4753 North Shore Drive, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 4, Block 6, BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK. Hennepin County, Minnesota, and that part of Lake Street as dedicated in BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, Hennepin County, w hich lies be^veen the southerly extension of the cast and west lines of Lot 4, Block 6, said BERQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK (hereinafter "the property*"); and VMIEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances ftom Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (3); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(3); Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)(5)(h); SecUon 10.56, Subdivision (L)(l); and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to permit construction ofanew residence on the prope.iy, with a lot area of 8,172 s.f (0.19 acres) where 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required; lot width of 50* where 140* is required; rear yard (street) setback of 19.2’ where 30’ is required; side >ard setback of 7.6’ w here 10* is required; 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshorc setback zone where none is permitted; 2,051 s.f. (46.8%) hardcover within the 75* to 250* lakefhore setback zone where 1,095 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 1,504 s.f. of lot coverage by structure where 1,500 s.f. is permitted; 15’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30* is required; T •r/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted, in the LR-IB zoning district; and WHEREAS, after due published notice a.nd mailed notice in accordance with Miiuiesoia Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Page I of 6 GITYof ORONO resolution of the city council NO. concerning this npphcMion ^ J,"' to!!"”” Minnesota: THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\XD by the City Council of Oiono. Fi NDIsNCS I. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2887. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: E. 1 he c.xisling detached garage and concrete driveway pad located within Page 2 of 6 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ fi b .« — City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, that granting the variances will not ad versely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council has considered this application, ir.cluding the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissio.n, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed vari2r.ccs on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER. AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (2); Section 10.56, Subdivision 3 (3); Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (CX2); SecUon 10.56, Subdivision 16 (CX3); Secuon 10.56, Subdivision 16 (JK5Xh); Section 10.56! Subdivision (LXl); and SecUon 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to pennit construction of a new residence on the property with a lot area of 0.19 acres (8,172 s.f.) where 43.560 s.f (I acre) is required; lot width of 50* where 140 ’ is required; rear yard (street) setback of 16.2’ where 30 ’ is required; 354 s.f. (9.34%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakcshore setback zone where none is permitted; 1,965 s.f. (44.85%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakcshore setback zone where 1,095 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 14 ’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30 ’ is required, T H- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permined; ar.d placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted, and hereby denies variances to Seciicr. 1 0 03. Subdivision 14(C) and Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B), denying a variance to exceed the rr.ixl.mum allowed 1.500 s.f. lot coverage and denying the requested side >ard setback variance Appro-, al is subject to the following conditions: I. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants as amended by staff and as attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any further amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and Citv Council review. Page 3 of 6 fm CITYof ORONO resolution of the city council NO. 4 9 5 i;.. . NO. O L ^:\ppfOvaI U subject lo the following conditions: ”"“P“ ‘^“"'5' •» •““» •» «he n*”"* wntoun showing proposal ll! *‘*^®*^ ***°“*^ ^ installed south of the hone r!^.eTAH 2 W '*i* •■•'y ofihe leims and conditions of this wmce shall comuMe a violation ofihe zoning code, shall automatically lernunate any anhonqr h„,., ^ « rS^S2U:ea»r. herehyagree.ti.e.ecordU.rofr,^L7:;X^^H“^„^^^^^^^^ 2«di day ofA^Um 3. 4. ATTEST: /V>s<f^^ l/jli Linda S. \'ee,XiiX*Clerk ^ rUS Bwbaxa A. Peterson, Mayor PropertyOvWf (s) ^i^ U Page 4 of6 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. R ft R Q STSOTA COim Y OF HENNEPIN The foregoing iostnunent wis acknowledged before me on this 2Sth day of April, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of theT^ity. lotaiy^l^c /3 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrumenl was acknowledged before me o*. day of April, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, Ci^ Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrjment was executed on behalf of the City. lyCCA'r.^stn&Majfn 31,350 Notary Public / Ocol^ . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HEN’NEPIN On this day of Apr/1 .2001 StxTOo appealed before me, ____ who is personally known to me __whose ideality I proved on the basis of M O ____ whose idendty 1 proved on the oaih/afrirmation of.________ credible uitness j>ersona!ly t".d ho executed the foregoing instiuraenL and acknowledged that he/shcAhey executed the same as his/her/iheir free act and deed. ‘3Sr"D^M.l£SWKEN I ±_ Notary Public Page 5 of 6 L. GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. i 9 5 9 On this day •ppcared before me, ^2003.—.J^enonally who is pcffonally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose Wentiiy I proved on the oath/arnimation ofcredible witness -.a Notary Public Paged of6 — —- pmor urr BoaumoM ( cumi »•«*•«« l*« nuU«r^ •«U««<«« •/ U* aasl pu4 «Mt ttmta t Ut 4. •!•«* *. nt4 MIIC«tf0r * WtCKLUNDS MX. coumr ROAD m.^ is ' NMOCSHa J*C wwp iwwoTt 4-n i»c ffcftVvf 124^9^ •M««f i*$ to n lU to fT to rr. yyl t.n» ta n. Htn*u»n^ 'M< •? -/, *• M«* CwtMa .. . ^ i.«as M n. , , - Vf aa■Mt 11 M n. (««•****» t^tan.l^Hb^ r«M *M «J*' to n. tt Cm*** «>•< /• rvo'\0««ii\i.'M<»< OeSlAJtS-CAMIUEL UM SUHVSYOES. LVC. r*« j/«j) ut-o*n t3S2^S*r% M IX«« 0 cvtrmcATz of suftvty •Mf.A.no Caw C €»•••#1 I*J4 MINNt 1UNKA C«*« Mm *r» M _J>«U faw ■x>CUSTOM HOMES A I (Z£5oUjLr»a\ I 4959 r •Y• (I. 11/ -• ■'4‘ /;- ''"///l i Wf *» 1 w r>» V »r . -C^ !?• ■■ RwiMi^ar' " " ' a I I hr* - '.li.'di - • •« 1 \x. Nt I-'* •'•ft , ' ■*laie' '' T: ? .. (i--"^iS»^1m t i • ^ A ^ J *I f 'I / £S rv:\:ir:’Ttcj <& >yi V riV:/.^'.•v> *r^ s iiIIM .A ’aV 'V 'I'iri' V'l i('i.'';;;hl'iii mgEm .'■ If - -s flt'‘'ii5i 1!' t <fi ikiiY I -). • r* Y ^ti^V: . V ' SV I I'ise? ’S (!’• - - r 6 vmP M mM il' ’ ’’-J PII '! ;] P'S, i 9i !?'„* s?€£3,- Av m ’S<v.: im^ QcaSSl ■••«-:'viJ-. ■'afe* nOiiKSSStfS ?>■ • f - 1 • MM MTI MTCN SM TSLSrmm/mm PtOf MM MHil NMC tMTAm HMK/UM Wf MM Mr* mm TMPAVn NMt/WM f*or MM MM* mm rMPAVi* I/I*WmiPlII COUNTY P*OPC*TV INPMN. mopf *TV OMMRt LIST N SVSTCM *tPMT HO. P141MI1 PMC t« 5* 41 *N1 •40*1 mWiMOiU AM C S TNOHM AIN TOAlCt C % TNMAS A f N TtAlCI 4»*i mmupoits AW miMi m M tr-m-zs s* IMS *4m TOMKAYlfN U CAT CmUTIANMN iAOi i TC**V CMOISnAIOON 4M1 TOmA VICM um NOIMO m SIM4 U IT-117-2S S2 M*4 MTSf TOMAVZEW U 1 V MNEINAN AN* WNITIUN *TUA*T V NNXTNAN 47» TOmAVXCN U HOUNT IM USA4 POOP AMO SK«"r mm/AM* M I7-1I7-2S S2 AIM •47U MOTH Moot M CMlSTim J cmxsTim j 47S4 mOfN SMOIC M NOUND NN SSJ44 M *7-117-U St Ml* •4741 TMUVIIN CT JAMU ■ TNDHMN KTAL JAHO TIWBM 474f TONUVICV CT OOONO m SM44 9i •7-117*n SC Mil ■47*7 TOMUVXCH U T 0 OLSM A I H UALUCC T 0 OLSM SIN mUAtt 47*7 TomAviev U HOUND IW SS944 omt* mm TAIPAYCR N*m/AOM M •7>n7*2S 52 M12 A47il TOMCAYIIV CT * A KNAUC* A r K ROUOWV * A SCNAM* API ROWMT 47*1 TOmAVIIH CT noUNO HN **544 M A7-117-2S 52 1114 •4759 TOWAVIIN CT LAMT A OMCHNAMH IT AL L MCCNNAOCN A V CRCCNNA0KN 4754 TOMtAVlIN CT IM SA A7-1X7-2S 52 AAIA A47S1 NO*TN SNOW 00 OCNNIS A mVIRoma* A mYf* 4MA NORTH SNMC DR HOUND HN **944 M RT-UT-SS 52 M17 •472* NMTN 5H0RC OR J P NfHRV RTAL J f WNRV 472* HRNTN SNORC M NRUNO HN **S*4 SR R7-117-29 92 lAlR •47*1 NORTN SNME DR OrMNlS A nCVCA MNNIS A mViK 4AM NORTH SHROC M NOUNO NH **544 5* I7>117>25 52 RA14 •474* NMTN SNORE M MAHAN CAAMTOAA CTAL NCMAN CRAMfOM 47U NO *NORC MtW NOUNO IM **544 m H M IT'llT'ZS 12 AA2A •47SS NMTN SNORE M I PCUETT I S PtUITT LORCM PlUITT 47*5 NMTN SNOM OR NOUNO NN **544 M I7-117*29 52 AI21 •47** NORTN SNORE M O R CVmON PNC IWRSM •AROV R NUIR CVUSON 47** NORTH SNORC M NOUND m **544 5A 47-117>2S 52 1122 M77* NOCTN SIIOOC OR • C oeu ISC ROLL ROUSLA* C 1 SANMA C ROU 4775 NORTH SNORE M NN 1*544 SA AT«117-2S 12 AAtS Mi74S HANTN SIT Af M NEMiPlN PRRPIZTIt LAN* CITY OP ORONO P 0 OM U CaVITAL RAY Ml **521 SA AT'lXT-fS 12 AAS7 A4TSS TOMtAVlIN LA DANM S' HRlANT/mRY P JOmS OANON S MIONT 47M u mUMi NN o ^ **• *. 14 A7-117<21 J2 AISA •47AB NMTN SHOW M A H ■ T R RASCNRR AMOOCN N A TRACY K RASCHU 47R* NRNTH RNMf M _I 'iJ 1.. .Tr. 'v ri MN MIC r/tt MTCH SM "•""“TSU'STSiSrS!, ^MmSSLi IMMfli KTOtT NO. msMM ^MC SO #284 J*ses?.S£ y.sjs.srs^’jsj; {sr*™ “• '•«5 S’JSSS s£s^”•TAMTIM. T^TNMtCST . i ! ‘ eixhibitj :^cO O / •j!*i________»_.«!__ iiiiLB AffIkaMM Itott] Dfct«k«r 17.2MJ M>D*)r Rt%k«» Ci^rattM (Sit* flaa * fl'D Rtnalag): Fffcnuo >9,2WM Ut Day Eipiralloa (SabtfbtiiM): AprU IS. 2H4 Chair Smith & Planning Commission Nfcmbcrs Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron. Planning Director^^^^^^A January 16.2004 #04-2974 “Stoncbay Marketplace”, N\V Quadrant Hwy 12/\ViIIow Drive - Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development: 1) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2) PUD Rezoning 3> Commercial Site Plan Review 4) Preliminary Subdi%ision Summary of Request Applicants propose a commercial retail'omce development on Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community Management Plan (CMP) to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-IB (SFR. 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD (Highway Commercial District). The proposed development iiKludcs a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate building lots as follows: Lot 1: 1.53 acres • 10,000 s.f officc/retail building Lot 2: 0.86 acres - 5,000 s.f. bank building Lot 3: 1.30 acres - 14,490 s.f Walgreens retail/pharmacy building John Terrance Homes LLCProperty Ow ner: Applicanl/Dcvcioper: Reliance Development Company LLC • John Trautz PUnner/Enginecr: Landform Staff RccomroeodatioD: Suff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. However. Staff recommends that after holding the public hearing and offering comments regarding the application and site plan, that Planning Commission table the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants to meet with Cir>’ staff and consultants to w ork through the variety of identified site plan issues. iM-2f74 SMMtey Mtrfcitptact riftitr* Lbt ofEihlbiu A • Applicttion B - Applicants Subminals: 1 • Namti>T 2 • Elevation View Depictions 3 • Plan sheets: ci.i-nusk**t CU-EjU$timgC»tidiiiMu Cl.2 • DtmtUthm Mm Ctl- fnilmUtary Sbe Men C2.2 • PnUmimary SlgHtgg Mm C3J - ^rtttmimarg CrUlmg, DralrntgeA £rm$wm CttuniPImm CX2 • thwtmagt Arfs CU . PrtUmlmmry L'dUiyPUm CS.t • frtilmlmarj Hat Eli- Enttmtmtry UgMmg Pimm Lit - PtHimImmry Lmmi%emflmg Pimm LU-Umiae^D«lmas AU . Wm!gnem$EiewmAmms ELI. OffkmrnttmaEUmUmt EL2 • Bmmk ElmMtlmmf Ai.1 • W^grttus Sigmmge SNI • Sbe khuumemt Sign DetmO C • MPG Letter to Applicant 12-16-03 O - City Engineer Comments 12-31-03 E - Consulting Planner’s Comments 1-15-03 F - CMP Excerpts G-Plat Map H • Property Owners List •04-2*74 SlMitey MsrttlplKt jMury 14.2004 p«i»3«ro I. ComprchcBsive PUo AmcDdmeal The 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) guides this property for Commercial OfTice uses. i.e. ^^...professional office as well as limited service uses, and reuil uses accessory to the office use.” (CMP Part 3B, Page 3B-24). The proposal is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, in that it includes freestanding retail not specifically associated or supportive of an office use on the site. The Walgreens and the office/retail building would be characterized more accurately as neighborhood relaiL'service uses. fhe applicant requests an amendment of the CMP that would "allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD, based on the finding that amendment w ould comply w iih the spirit and intent of the City’s Community* Management Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, would provide limited retail to serve the neighborhood, and w ould aliow development of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed.” The amendment would apply only to Outlot A ofStonebay. Please review the highlighted areas in Exhibit F, excerpts from the CMP regarding guiding of this area. The City Council has informally review ed this proposed amendment to the CMP in the contc.xi of its impact on development in Long Lake, in full knowledge of Orono ’s slated intent 11 not take actions which will be counterproductive to Long Lake's efforts in maintaining a vita!, viable dow ’ntow'n retail area. Council's general conclusion was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed will have minimal impact on Lons Lake's ability to move forward with its Dowotown Master Plan. If done correctly, the proposed mix of neighborhood service/reuil and office can provide the business locations, services and quality emplovment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this area in the 2(X)0-2020 CMP. Additional factors w hich may come into pla\ in icnns of this proposed amendment include: • The ether three quadrants ofthis intersection arc devoted to retail uses; it is not much of a leap to bring in the remaining quadram as retail, especially w ith an office (bank) component. The Long Lake Downtown .Master Plan does not at any location provide for the Walgreens model of a building set back from the street w ith parking in front. The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streetside with parking in the rear. It is highly unlikely that Walgreens would locate in Long Lake’s Dow*ntown area. • From a staff perspective, Walgreens is an amenity* that w ould be w clcomed by the public in this area. M4-2974 SMMtey MvlMpiMt JuMiy li^2M4 ru«4«r« Having serv ice reUil uses within walking distance of both SloneBay and our senior housing less than ‘A mile east, provides a positive amenity. - The location on Highway 12 will enable certain types of retail uses that can serve the Stonebay development that we would otherwise probably not attract to the area without the Highway 12 traffic. Review of the traffic study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of the general Stonebay PUD in 2002-2003 indicates that the traflic generated by the proposed retail uses would be very similar to the traffic generated by ofTice uses at this site. The upgrades to surrounding roads required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals will still be applicable if the amendment is approved. Proccdurally. this CMP Amendment requires approval of the Metropolitan Council; however, it b expected this will be viewed as a minor amendment, will have no new or unplanncd-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by Met Council. A copy of the plan set has been provided to the City of Long Lake. No comments have been received as of this writing. II. PUD Rezoaiag St Highway 12 Corridor Staodards Permitted uses in the B-6 District include business and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels & hotels. Retail uses are allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Rezoning this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the -*Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area" of zoning code SccUon 78-1065 and was anticipated during the approval of the Stonebay plat B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed use. Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development standards applicable to this site: Minimwni Area- Minimum area for a rezoning in the Highway 12 Corridor is 5 Kres (variucc required - the existing parcel is nominally 3.69 acres in area; how ever the site was created in 2003 with the City's full knowledge of its size and the intended commercial use. An area variance to allow rezoning of the site is at this point a mere technicality M4*2974 SccMbay Marlwfptect Jnury 14.2«M r^s*r« Acccts and circulation pl«n. The proposed site plan meets rity*s established standard for no direct access to Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Cr>^tal Bay Road. The applicants are proposing a right-in, right-out access to Willow Drive and a full access to Kelley Parkway, which will be further discussed as the rc\icw process moves forward. Trail links are provided as called for in the City's plans and in the Stonebay approvals. Interior site circulation is a ro^or concern which requires additional discussions between staff, applicants and consultants. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water must be available . The>-are. Connection charges for the site were established at the time of the Stonebay PUD approvals. Stormwater Manaecment .The code requires that a stormwater management plan be submitted and be in compliance with City standards. AH stormwater from the site w ill be directed to the regional pond immediately west of the site which was designed with capacity for development of this site. Building Design and Construction. This section addresses the exterior wall finishes, architectural compatibility of future additions and outbuildings, and prohibits temporary buildings. The proposal generally appears to be in compliance with the pertinent standards. Development Agreement . The ordinance requires that all reronings within the Highway 12 Corridor are subject to a Development Agreement assurino compliance with the code requirements. Unique to this site is the intent to create multiple lots with individual ownerships, using shared infrastructure. The applicant has suggested that separate Agreements he established for each of the three lots, w hich should be feasible but adds to the adminis*4rative complexity of the approval process. III. Preliminary Plat The proposed plat would create three building lots, one for each proposed building, with each lot fronting on tw o roads. Access and other site functions w ill necessarily be shared betw cen the three parcels, requiring shared parking agreements, for instance. Plat approval will include the establishment of drainage and utility earements, payment of park fees; and stormwater &. drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent w ith site plan approval. M4-lf74 SMMkay MarkttpiMt JiMMfy I4.2M4 IV. CoaunercialSMcPIra Review, CMifmity to ^Staadirds City Engineer Tom Kellogg and tlw City ’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson of DSU. Inc., have been asked to comment on the engineering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. Please carefully review their commenU (Exhibits D & E) as well as the commenU in the stafTletter of December 16. Phil Carlson’s commenU of January IS are in complete alignment with sUfTs thinking. The site plan has a number of significant issues which should be worked through at the stafEdcveloper/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a deuiled site plan review. For that reason, a review of the site plan details has not been included with this memo. A pubUc bearing has been scheduled for this proposal at your January 20 meeting. Planning Commission members are encouraged to use the limited allotted time after hearing from the public, to identify for the benefit of staff and the developer any specific concerns you believe need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics you may wish to make general or specific commenU on include: 1. Site orientations, rclafionship to Stonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to l2AVillow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-lhm ’s Building materials and building design Pedestrian access and circulation Signage, lighting, and landscaping Other topics of concern or iruerest Starr Recommendation Suff suppoiu the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to B-6 PUD. Planning Commission could take action regarding these elemenu of the application at this Ume, or could table them so that the Commission lakes action on all elemenu of the application at the February 17 meeting. Suff recommends tabling the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicanu to meet with City suff and consulUnU to work through the variety of idenUfied site plan issues. The intent would be to present PlarmingCommissionwitharevisedsiteplanforacomprehensive reviewat your February 17 regular meeting. A DateRgcrivcd Amouot P»»4 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site AddressOU6 Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) APPLICANT A(k^^ip**UAU^ ^<»^»y)»A4honc (home)_______________ Name______UacLt*^ ________ Phone fworkl UtZ-^^'OlO'h Addr»«< City Zip UO'^fUCAAST t ^ n. K OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home).------------------------ Name UMc. ulA -Ter-»yMtL/ii<ePhone fwork) 95^-f 7^ -(97 i AAAn^ City /V>«o f. AfA^ Zip 553$]^ Date Property* Acquired______________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERVHTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S230.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S250.00 Uuplex Crcdit/Bldg _____S32S.OO Commercial/Industrial Use _____S2SO.OO Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore _____PRDPID - see Fee Schedule _____SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Afier-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation 51 00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision 5350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) X S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____S100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #2974 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS *• Completed Application Fora. X Describe request in detail “P (»»»A-603. Government Center. 34S-3271). *™**P‘** ounty Department of Finance. *' ~ W6™don“*^ «*r«yor) - refer to haiutout for jurvey ctoiTin elevS & “* *"«««» involve ’■ — pX^''VLTlo"StSlL,':S*^f 9 — S'r^ren'’:’^’■ — ;ro.;jr.^ro:«n^5of's “‘^“a^^^ outer FOR REPMOUCTroN™?^^*^^ OT”s\L\LLEw*^rop°*^*”''^'^* 2!Sic«talTno"tm^l!^^ "ntentber tiu. >our S"^c.?stm "•■“ -'•’"'■•'"‘on is contplete. --------------------------------------- Date_______________ APPLICANT S SIGNATURE Sas, TSi ss; .T*" *' »■ and/or unusual expenses incurred in re\ieu of this »nr>r t ° original fee payment) supplied is true and coirj^ l^l^best ^sler knwledge^”* *" infonnauon Applicant's signature^ Date 4^ OWNER'S SIGNATt«. Owner's signature ________Date y^. /?- 6 j Apptkani must ha\T aU subminals ioto da Cir. e*!-p« '< a *^r PlaattBt Commissiofl .\fecnof s are held on te tTeT* “ •*** PlanBing Cbnamuioa Meetint Kkedvkd retie. n«*,p .', y. pjji^ •![ «=!> Applies* I^TpM^'eU Khe^lled meetiot, pleue nuke afruseowsu tt kit. u •_. •PPiiveni u tinikl. i. .nend . Buildifli A Zoning OfEce of this change pnorio de taeeong. **”* *"***** ^ ^ P**” ‘he #2974 S-l 8T0NEBAY ASARKETPLACE NARRATIVE Communlfy Managwmnt Plan Amendment We are requesting an amendment to the Community Managemer: Plan to allow retail uses on this 3.69-acre parcel. The property is currently vacant, but was recently platted as Outer A. Stonebay The appScant is now proposing to provide a mix of retail, service ard office uses at this location. The commercial uses v.oukJ complete this intersecten. which has retail commercial uses at the other three quadrants a.nd would p-vide neighborhood convenience commercial uses for the community. The property was recently revie.ved as part of the Cil/s recent Community Management Plan update. The City has Indicated a desi-e f:* office uses on the commercial portion of this site and has suggested that this prope.T/ be developed in a way that does not compete with the retail uses In do.vTitown Long Lake. Our ana^y5ls shovw that the area would not support the amount of office the Cit, planned for the site- however, some retail commercial could be provided to serve this neighborhood and provide retail uses that are not planned or available In Long Uke. V/c are proposing to fimit the commercial uses in StoneBay to this outlot No addition rs .a:i is planned elthin the StorieBay development The mix of residential homes approved in StoneBay end the proposed commercial land uses would albw for the creation of a truly walkable community th.e; would be an asset to the City of Orono and would complement the exisLng and plarred develooment in the City of Long Lake. We respectfully request approval of an amendment to the Corr..-unity Management Plan to allow retail uses In this area when approved as part of a rUD based on the finding that amendment would comply with the spirit a.nd intent of t-e City's Community Management Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, v.culd provide limited retail to senre the neighborhood and would allow developmer.: of the mixed use StoneBay development as originally proposed. Rezoning CurrenOy. the property is zoned Single Family Rural Residential (R.=v.1B). This zoning is not consistent with City's Comprehensive Plan. VVe are requestng approval of a rezoning to Highway Commercial District (B-6) with a PUD overta. district as required by the original StoneBay development approvals. This rezoning v.ould be consistent with the existing land use plan and the requested land use guide pla.- amendment The rezonIng would also be consistent with the Section 10.52 of the Zoning Ordinance which kJenUfies the requirements for rezonIng in the Highway 12 Crrridor Study Area’ S.l eSO SUTLER NORTH BUILOINO FIRST AVENUE NQRTw WN.NEA.=Ct 5 5S433 OFFICE: fUZSZSOr: FAXei2Z52J0n 1 - r Vi" Cxi UtfiMlOafton StontBayMaitit^tenNMTaav* _____Oaeambar 17. xta 1. The project area exceeds live acres In liM. 2. Tl» propow^ developm«,t would b. eon.lsten. with Ihe Cit/. Transportation 4. This development complies wHh Ihe Cit/s Surface Water Management Plan. 6. PUD Concept Stage Plen/PUD General Plan/SIta Plan housing op^rtunities rOm^V“re«tnte%"dl7i'^^^^ as a secondary access to the site. We wU utiliza ih^rrak^sm™ L? of the site as planned with Ihe SloneBay devetopmMl awrovils "*** notion that convenient service retail should te located ^ -u-rt^t cterorufen.“:<^^ f -- 10,000-square fool relail/office building and 8®S OOC^M^rl’too! ! this development Is critical if we are to create a July walSSl r^toh^rl^T'S^ ®' i>ao: •MevTlER NORTH SWOir.0 S:0 HRST »/£NUE k;,tm IHNNEARO.H1 Office. snjUKTi f« „„asc- -».i«to,,« ' PaM3«f)«•. Slua ty Mttiifsuc* _____________17.2003 would support the walkable neighborhood concept In StoneBay. eonn^ns aiwnd ^ perimeter of the site wHh sidewalks providing Internal conne^TO. Bika rarts are planned near each buRdlng and an overlook with benches is provided in the southwest portion of the site. . (7) The design of Orono Village will offer a rich, warm material and color palette which ^l^s to^ site’s Immediate context. Including City Hall. The buildings have been designed w^ pitched roots and pitched roof elements to reflect Orono s residentiat nature. Buildings wHI be constructed with brick and integral colored block and will receive equal treatment on all sides of the building. Trash enclosures are constructed . as the principal building and will be heavily screened to reducetheir visibility. on the B-6 standards and exceed all setback requirements forbuildings arxf parking. StoneBay Marketplace will have covenants in place to ensure tha* high-quality development Is rnaintained. Additionally, the commercial portion of the development will be part of the Master HOA for StoneBay. AHowabte Uses We are requesttng eppreval of a PUD to allow a retail development with uses as allowM In the B-6 zoning district, plus retail uses as allowed in the B-1 district. Including: banks, restaurants, drive-through businesses, dry cleaning, gift stores jewelry stores, video stores, gift stores, barber and beauty shops, day care of?-^ale liquor, medical and professional offices and similar retail or service uses. Master Sion Plan StoneBay Marketplace Is designed to create a neighborhood commercial center that Is compatible with the surrounding uses. We have met or exceeded all development standards as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. ^ We have prepared a master sign plan and are requesting PUD flexibility for the proposed signage. During our early discussions with Planning Director Gaffron we TOted that the there were no sign standards for the new B-6 district. Director Gaffron indicated that we should use the B-1 standards as a starting place, which we have done. •so iUTLER north SmtOlNC 510 FIRST AVSNUENCRTM UM«APOUS. HW SS403 OfflCt 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 KT7 www IMmuwt K.i;rui (7^v. C LU r: MeftMiGafton P«o*4of4 Ra; SksnaBay MaAt«Iaca Narnia _____________Cacaffltar17.a003 changeable meeSge heart on S-e phln^^s^n chanee^^^^ ® a»^ by your ordinance prov«ed Ihey are n"o, ^ashingX®.^ aou^as. conrer of this^aite. woi^ be part of the landscaped entry feature on IhTcomer Thte f^^ reinforce the identity of the entire mixed-use StoneBay development. A second development monument sign would be located at the entranrA in cfnnAO Marketplace on Kelley Parkway. This sign would also be heavily landscaped and would simply 8ta*e StoneBay Marketplace". The signs would be brirk nnH Mn#*i# »« match t^o building materials. The backdrop will tovTa LcL C?th “ "**■'“" *• “ ~ ™ S" that are consiatent witMte'reaTof die developm^ (ealurea than is allowed by ordinance and are requestin', rjo n^xiwiih, !> 415 650 butler north BUtLOlJ.G 510 r.RST AVENLfE NCRTH MNNEAPOtlS. MN 5M03 O^riCe 612 252 9070 f AX 612.252 SCH McliMlOaflkan PanSofS fte: 8tont8«y M««*xi«ea Namlw _____________Oacantf 17.2003 proposed Signage it consistent with the Intent of the ordinance and the would meet the needs of the developer. landscaoinQ SSSSSSsSsSSSpedesinan traflic. It is Importanl^to iraintain visibirity from Highway 12 and WPlow Drive, while creating an en^nment that is enjoyed by pedestrians. This is accomplished through the use of undystory trees, small shrubs and perennials along the pedestrian tran. These smaller ^ oatheiing areas. Urge oversloty trees are placed along Hghway 12 ai^ Wlaw Drive to allow views within the site. The screening of enctosim. packs of buildings and car headlights from surrounding homes is also important. This was achieved through the thoughtful placement of evergreen plant materlaL Our iarxlscaping plan compiements the street trees planned along Kelley Paricwav and provides an attractive environment for residents. While the City has no open soaoe undersfond that 25 percent pervious area te the goal. The proposed devetopriient has 20.5 percent pervious area, however, it is important to note that much of the impervious am is created by the exceptional amount of trails and sidewalks within this development. If the trails and sidewalks are removed from the plan or placed In the pubGc Sent ^ aresivbuld Increase to 25.1 percent This dearly meets the City's Pniiminary and Final Plat We have prepared a preliminary plat and final plat for approval. Outlot A will be reiHatted as three lots, which is consistent with the original PUD concepts for this parcel. Cross access agreements will be prepared to allow the three lots to share parking and access. Summary of tM developer Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval of StoneBay Marketplace. We request City Coundl approval of the PUD concept stage plan. PUD general plan, commercial site plan, preliminary plat, final plat commuStv management plan amendment and rezoning. ’ eSOBUTLESNOSTHBUILOlNO SIO FIRST A'.-EVUE KCBTH MNI«APOtlS. WN 5SAC3 OFFICE SIEJS? *070 FAX 612252 9Cr? c 0 leais — ' /• i\ <J ' Si LANDFORM Stonebay Marketplace E ntrance Feature \cliance . 'development ompanv, L.L.P. Entrance to Site at Kelley Parkway E-2W , r 7, ■ LANDFORM 72 S tonebay Corner Feature Willow Drive and Highway 12 Reliance Development Companv. L.l .P. lAiitA toc*Tmi luri OROhO. MK IAfl8RCVUTK)N9 sr hji.------- r*cl:u. s.x.^ i B fIr I’m I £=Lr- ■V 7& pz. S'-^j^SS* < $■ 5Is- #... m 11? &P i s?r • ■ • ••»% 5 I——W« 4mWB «• I- m »A 7*1 »St* »“w}e ’S^ m iiss i&w ^£=— j- •"'"• “it {=?*• • •« •IM, »««p ••m «M ••• STONEBAY MARKETPLACE lORAWwo tnaoLsi E> . ./^* •MMc m»* • m r: isrrc SYmouti tm %i9% mrm • ••mm mm tm*rnm mm inosnu coifTiioL symbolsi •(wm^ mm •m%0 mm m*4* «»•) •Jm m MA A*M IBOfCNSIjUmSl • *9 «• # « -Ai * •* ^ «9^*r 4«A«^ # ^ •rmmm* # ma «« mm** « IVnUTY SYMBOLSI isntArrtLmr coirrAcm W#««* 4jh« t t-r* mm'rn mm-m • m •.'V^ u» ••• %% %m$m «• mmm^S «• W «• AWN* «• ■■ io*xt cMfumt cc«*w-» • ?-•. |M*V^ »■(!«br^/r^r a? .W•' -• mrm' mm m mt mm* mmmut*.. »mm§• * %*% mm ^»««»X9 ^ 99—9- om «• v«« ISVRVrr STOOLS • z"': zsr^A's.f^y^ IDC5 TIXC LTCAL *.*«• • «»Ma- >»**! mm IPIKSP0SC3 UCAL DCSCIUPT10» ^ n r.mm* mm* S %3 «• ««W< :••> BA •4‘*4 •«•«%« ; w««; •*!.•* iMt V« •kAT'Ce V# tm sS6'l'4 OnimMCBtlAlL* ptSSSSn^Ma am «•■•« H»a XIClTDUliKCHOkESlIC P j^fL<iuan rVvdofaieiw Comp^oy. L.LP. ‘: K.«> : cirr euBMiTTAL PKMIX 0.1009 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO. MINNCSai'A LANDFORM ^ vMa i CO.l HICHh’AY 12 2974 *^8i^sr .MinraoB hJlLJ mTmuawmuc p’'j IUI mbc * Cooip4uqf; L.LP. Cirr OU^MITTAL. rrcfi—p.aoca STONEBAY MARKETPUCE OMOMX MINNCaon'A LANDFORM Cl.l imnsi >- >■ ' ; iS HlCHtTAY 12 •”* MMorSt*^7>^SS«aV(%Sjrsssrtssrffis^riwsiir-^ - • s^i'5‘^.jsA'vsr^x'*.r“mtm»rnMm’» <«• ««« •• ^ xr« «<• tm. IDCMOUnON M0TZ9I • «• mmm • ••• »*». • .»•« •• ••c*»-«K'a an « » y a. a • MM n «■•) CM n a>-n aiM a-*ac »•« a MM <• a a-n ^a tcaa* • 2Lrrx5p;,t?.-aKr-i W.-S troca a Mnac «a •• mm a tna n .m* » *■• t-waw »• M..f MC a>M<M ->. ■ M M» iMa >a» «. Mac a iM-«--M n i ------------ . •««• *« ^ I * 5rSy^r?r ** «M «• ’ ^^tsf-r-WaSL-J s-a--?r-jrs S2::^t."Sfa*t; i,x~ •* * ssrs’as^j^—~' *•'-’* ••— * 5£2r'?3.’si4.-^ •! zr^jsssr « ««» CAMX-« ••• «M* ^ ><f***^ MH ^ .Vl» MW mrnmt09 #••' «i »r«» .% ^ rtmmrnn 0 •« *«m «• tmkf «K« •«• ♦ . b40 'M 4 ^ »» I n «• cW«r* ^ C»»—t *7 «IM •« *4 • •- m «• «c« .«• .JCSV • ^ *• M> rm •« 9M ^«r* aK«^ Mavt U • • »»«4 • 90 «V •msrrnm :j »0’^u~*^ • •» •«•*«« «• •• • ««7- ^ r* ft•»..w«o •*- fta ,«% r*-^ •# ■«««^ •••*««>• • ^ ^-M< »• MftMN «# • AM •« V awfto tl I AJ* «• ■ *.* « I =:‘2974 giisnMiraiMi^u; yaaAwT»>iai««Ha jGKnnuuxEincsiicwwiniim^Mtaiauivvcamt UIK* cloMirni Conip4fl>i LLP. M»»«c»* {a» rrx-srs ciTV au»MrrrAu KCDmaio.woa STONEBAY MARKETPUCEoftONa MiNNcsai'A LANDFORM OMUnWflMI C1.2 HICHiVAY 12 muorawa^m^m^^mma^ ISI7I PUN NOTCI ' srr*srir:5c t *—* •* • r»w rw « % yn •§ • •••« ^ « r«M # » •« • «• AJM ~nJ rt %• • *< «r^ M. to • V»«.* i« ^ ^ MMM. • ^ •’MS • «■• • mmt ^ ^ «*»• i^aM« — *t wv« » 'm » *4 ««j; •« • =^•• * ••-» •»^ fV*»* •• ^ «t««v «c*t mi zm f~1 wii a»M ■PARXLSG StlOUAYl M <v *« « #• • *.-%« ^ • :'!•,« v^l M •*%. ^ ^ • « «« «^ A «'• «*.%» • • • a •• «• T.'rv-v — ^ -»• •• •» ♦ *-» • - i*-»^ f.•1x%H*m rws «.N«^•* M ■ • t#% ^%• » •«i« t »•• I* ? t t# • 4% «# #2974 k9iI EiodiFQiMiratfi^ii? IT \ rr% tWfl mt« «0Mm »« xf!>moa HOMES tir pK«tui^#^rv«f #9/ Rcluncc l>cv«lopifient Corep^\*. L LP ii& S |-£^ ; ti*"»c»»*-:i* a«*x(^'n CITY ©LIOMITTAL PtciMg«i7.aoca S^TONEBAY MARKETPLACE PHONO. MINNCSOI A LANDFORM •£s25Ss •^SSSF- nauAMT miham C2.1 r INOTBI ft: Q -a 74 fu-L_j KumscmaiMiiL’mumntm m0m0mm XKYTBUUXEHOC&LCffWMj-m t>c»«lofMrnf Com^AOjf; L LI* V m i mm.t SrJTJ citw^not •.“r.-js; CITV eU»MtTTAL pcoMBntr.ns STONEBAY MARKFTPUCE ORONC /»» .'T»OI A LANDFORM •mUSTSS.*71S?-saar 'UfOKPMAMMIMttAS C3.2 •Tai# m r*v« IliOTISI ____*6 ^ ^ I “ ----------1 ------»--------------------------------------------- ~ t5K-/—' ii! a\/ 1- ■ - - J.vV>:" " "-HI* V«>^«0a.fn ■-»«• i jpw—J * ®. TT7!T!r^T»f 'i N kWitm ^^4^M m% •«««#«• »*•^^5 r*; « ~^i-«p X HiCHVAY 12 •■M .•— <14 a&;r.^rrg.yw.y»~»» «■»■»■« 4 -4 «4< — » 4M <• lirnUTY M>TBI • W -<4-4 MK •• 4 >— >*4 • nw> JB < »»» » rag-m m mm w 4 — <tf »<ra< rS< II?: « V« JM >1^ W Mr^« * ^ ^ > <fr». • I* • I I ■*% •■■><» •• .ss^M » •# « m» rn^0^-m • »«««^ #> A * ««4«* W «A4 «« «•••« •• « w MW l«’^K :^.' ^ «. » arx‘a t -f M-w .*x— »►*?* w« •# • wb>** • *r «.>«• »a« o *i m: »«•<•« •• t t**-t «■ w MV tviitf <n -* <jr*'M *» : iM 9^ «» %-mm .n.«« ■« >« •«••«< (JiMM isrrcATun coktactsw rursi crvpuro ccfcTjm « ^r » JVA* 9AT9€1iiL*ir,.v •-Tvbw .mi « *. R «m*» % IM «-#** Mif*«k r ^im-0•V k* «%• V* ♦S^.r^V #QQ74 im CvSnvunoroMiu; mcvvw m «wMww« o»««BC»iNF>^CMr Xt-MEULCiOEHCiiaUr Dodopoicnt CQ.-QpABjr. LLP. cv. »>«fi «a ) Is'Sf fT‘WK»#Tr- ■-T“.-*? CITV SUBMITTAL 9cojb«xo.ns STONEBAY MARKETPUCE ORONa MINNCaOI A LANDFORM M«WwS^< iimarnAM C4.1 r STONEBAY COMMERCIAL 4A4T' HlCHnWY !2 •mm 9 \ 9 mjm % r« ' SSSS^i’lSS mSJS m -JSSWSSTJCr - SfmSmSmTmSSXy^ • »tm "■ ^ «• ^m» mm ^ rnrnm^ 9 mtmm* sr.-r^-mm •mmm m matm* lou wamurfmmammm^ «%«•• «••• u *. * A* M ^ • iNf* t r tmm* • iB^ « •# or • w tm m. #29 74 M I fUmilBMVflMilUlf. jQKnniAXsni&U£ mE.- . ^^P^RcImoc* DodoMTOC Com|Ma)i; LLP. , mMie a?rc:- r Cirr OUDMITTAL OtOMBOtO.gBP STONEBAY MARKETPUCE ORONO. MIMNESai'A LANDFORM M C5.1 •CAM IS nrr 5 Q s C •n: lUKOSCAFC wmsi I ^ iM «• «»fc» •ffc«r»iifc » rMMn *c tift. ■ > >mv r.*.« «4 •*.>• mum tu*jt mu tumut-m> • ‘mm » » mmm* ■•«•» -m «/»< .• Awt % <4 ••• ■• •« mrm4 rnm.umjtm%mm^m»m u-mm>mum<* •m-. km «a» iwr m M.x«tAA> BV,^ wt^AMW w M_ M ••M • *«r iM-w MKM uu mmuuuwuui mu* <««•••••»% mm* tmtum mm^ jtttt > ••• a. m.rn m.« rmum mxt-m r!Ti*’r%.TASrj« J5 *• «»»«•* • «..« • >»«> »«» ^ mm* u ummm, • mm*uu • V »■■*»? Mja— m a»j ^» a.•«-• •• mm »>■<■ *w .•«• ,--r ■>»»*».'««* rnmrntmmm «>>».•••«» mm >Mt a. •m M<i »■«■> •• >a. AM MUM • *f • *aw r » •■*•■»< mur^ ■^•m m *m* mrnmu m‘rm uuf3um> tJirurm • m**a *m*t mijm* tm-A'*^ m.m* m*am m mi •r;< ■* m <a w<a< » ami tM. «n«M 'JSk ■ ai X* AM— • AM «M*A» ^ «A M *A mm* ***** ^ AM- ■•• •*** '*•• ■* ■'* M»^*« M .« M) • MA* AM •• .•*• ••• , ^ - , -I •• mm M M M*M m mum .mu. m a—x. «*, m« •.• amm mi • ^ MMaa» MMara • •* mmu m. -mam »-•• m amm >“ aj » mm * am « (MMATM • m mtu* Ai A«MM-~^ M ** '• » •■*• MA M-M M I , a. ,aMM l»aMU MM M •« IMMA * »M .X* M MM< "A . MV.A M M Am. MUKDSCtfg ?MM mV M mm M. •». • MM%M» M- MMt MAM* MAM AM* MMX M MM •■ MM MM AA 7*S*m m* uirnmmmmmm<m mm**, mmtmumm*-•*••*• » Ma'VM » .•*.* ■pmiioiAinr runr acKouti— t "sr I tvc^ «w «»««M ^ tr«^ M n MM ir:^ M *%.£JI.4 SScma M «^*K« ta.1 cawmoMt mn # D O JTJ4 mu aa.iM t« »M «M a. «a ID .* |M mu u.m* © •* o • O * s «r ^ 1 a* •«. (A.1 la. :a I o c • m0^ aKW« I :mm • ^ «-•«« %« ••b#* MM fta* »4^ •r I m* ii«. ar «r mrm 91^ «r >.f S?lt> v.M E>C> • iM E>0 AA.M E>E> *.x DID M.M E>CD ra.*^ CA*« ^a .« cnnaocs mms e -atf €tmn «n #r m u —fe>Ll>• WaMr •IM ar E>E>9t*^r« •Ift-tt IMM atf »i»*;<b »• ••DO wwwAii k uuna Mf*** • i*.ar ^ • 9*DO A* DO• t0m 4T%4 ««•• t»a «T»> • m • •f»SA* 4*-^^•a-ft *4»a «r > •DO • :• CO^amt tf^U • A •r*>. -••DO ft CJtlt»H *ak ar *• 9t DO DOttj EU^ORLmOM^lil Iff myn JCHNTIRRAXEHtlfSUf Relume l>cxckp«Hcnc Compiny. L.LI*. em»tr «■ ‘ ==.5^- • 5~”; lii- --J. Cirv' OUOMITTAU pcjMBCtp.aoca STONEBAY NURKETPUCE ORONO. MINNCSOri'A - LANDFORM WMMMIAMt L2.1 VSf—► —► ^—► QJOU!HPW’^«\*<yiOI ]jii3 liii liil mgnr ©■0JHUDikU8l! ^ icmw WWM. m EJmammjlaj MWHiW m ma mm ''■ainir vruvr uxtm; - m—► A j74. ▲ 3Is?Z A_SrS:SrA.A. A. UJ Q. t vu«. nnn— 1/r • r-«r I? ATM EL1 Q EAT mim ft W'*—♦ 0janiu EBCieimL ©—«T ■mriiAiMM r"' ^ ' .. '•74 A A.1=A.A.1: 1: lUo < <2 ■MM ocwnoMs i/r - i‘-r u£?, EL2 0 PROPOSED aON ELEVATION (TYPICAL or THKp #2974 A m*.mrn i= 1= lE lU Q ill 52 i ^ ^“ Ul !/•• • r-«* SN1 c ------ GITYoTORONO MakipalOfflm tttMtMimi: 2750 RMcy Nitakiy Oreoo. MN SSUe fUSi»tUdmm P 0 Bci S6 Corji Uj, in 55323-::f: December 16,2003 JohnTrautz Reliance Development Co. LLP 1000 Rand Tower 527 Marquette Ave. S. MinneapoUa, MN 55402-1327 Re: Stonebay Marketplace Dear Mr. Trautz: This letter is to follow up our December 8 meeting that included Cit>* suS and >x>ur development team for the Stonebay Marketplace project. As you know, a significant amount of information v^*as exchanged at that meeting, and staff was to some extent in a reactionary mode. >Mule I believe we provided you with the basic concerns of the City in regards to development of this site, we would like to reinforce a few key points w hich we believe are critical in gaining City acceptance of this PUD project: Wd Cll8r8<?|g.r. The City is looking for a high quality development that wilt project and refiect the residential chp'^cter of the area as opposed to an urban commercial image. The setting is at the edge of the Stonebay townhome development, and is within a stone's throw of large-lot upscale developmenL As we indicated, the basic Walgreens flat-roofed design would not be acceptable, and you suggested a number of architectural features and methods by w hich a higher quality appearance can be accomplished. In our view, this necessarily includes incorporation of a substamial pitched roof element, to create a residential character and to eliminate the ‘boxiness ’ that is commonly projected by the standard Walgreens design. We support and concur with your plan to make the other buildings on the site architecturally consistent with the Walgreens design. The Walgreens store at County Road 42 and Lac Lavon in Burnsville has a roof design that meets these requirements. Slgnigg. We believe that a signage plan more limited than our general zoning code siandwds is appropriate for this site. Small, low monument signs at each of the two site entrances are reasonable, and the monument at die comer of 12/>\'illow can set the right tone for the site. 1. Ttbphoae(f32)24M«>0 • Fai(f32)24M<I4 wtrwxUrowunajM John Tnutz December 16,2003 Page2 Kn.Uin, o, n»£.g wr.“-d P^ require backing Uiu) ihe inain*dn°ving ’i«r' ^^’driv-^ add:si: counierproducUve in Ihe Khemc of the oih^is- >x)u are proposing. The lack of depth ben^ cen parking opposite the drive-thni. leaves no r^c C:;ssxxr::,ti “ •“ ‘'= we would like to know that up filnt locauon. and would preferlhai Ihe 5«ond lane b«o=!Fcen,pacT''^'‘ “ .‘f^5rKs.srat:"s “.r*';“-s plan that can feuibly.be maintained for the lOTg-iet^l' r:. JobnTmti December 16.2003 Pife3 While we diieusscd additional minor aapecti of the tite plan that need we eodcenii are broo|bt to your aitcntioa We win be fommg yow December 17 •ubmittab to our coosuhaDt plaaner, DSU, and to the City coosultiiif enfiiiccr. Bonestroo and Aisodates. Ibr review* and We wiU forward the comments to you as part of our review process. We had also discussed foe potential of at least one work session before foe January 20 Planni^ Comn^on meeting, perhaps jointly including the Planning Commissioo and Cbun^ This bto not been coofiimcd. but potentially can be scheduled as part of foe Planning Commisston's monthly evening work session tentatively set for Wednesday January?. I will follow up on this with you. We lotfoforv^ toyomj^cn^ 17 application submittal. If you have anyquesdoos. MOceGalfion Planning Director I/II Bonestroo ^SRosene Anderfik& IVll Associates Engineers 4 Architects December 31.2003 Mr. Mike Otffton Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ciysul Bay. MN SS323 Rr Stonebay Marketplace File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 04-2974 Dear Mike: *i»w. A»i*ira jKrf Inc. M Mitmsow Acl>*n/t«H«l 0| r»iMci»atc era a ta ' ** • L Ut’tta.Pl . Cwfwit Caat. M • ■aaa't O tOHtfMfic. rf • A. ■oc.rccn. PM. • Mri «. Her tow. Pt Umv CannmanCK BcM-t « toM-w. rs • Mitan C Arda«M. rf •t^nacal X«ma> rc. • V«»« M (aaciMC C M *«»a<»a»a aiyf^aatE i Oarao»\. ai . toaan t rftffatia. a* . a.<nM w raitcf at . o*r.a o lawei* at . T at. > >; c r«« at . itfv^ a amcmoh at . mj>« ■ MoUt. Pt . Oa«.d a •onaitroa WS a . bar«a a «rw-MA. as. LI tc.* M ■ A • AJar l ea at . Ta«>naf w aatrriaA at . jjraa ■ H»we PI • Mm« t jp^nr. ax . l a>wip Cca>a< - a* . j Pt . nrvMi at . fnerva* A l,'.a ai . 9*~sy I Jc-r un . 0«c A at . TPcms% A aawlAcr at . Icecct t Oa«a^ Pt OMxac U aAi k Oec^ kc-aaa- ar« mn • m •**.«#€ wi. c»w«ea A «M a«K nr« > MrcKros nr WHC&vgg We have reviewed the prelimicry ccnstnicron plans fer the proposed Stonebay Marketplace development The site is located in the oorth»est quadrant of the c:rsectoo of Willow Drive and T.H. 12. The proposal provides for a mix of retail, office and service tiset We have the following comments in regards to enginecriog maners. Saolury Sewer Services: • All 6*inch sanitary sew er services should be installed at a mmimum grade of 0.6%. • All sanitaiy services should b« DiTkallcd in acccrdance with city standards. Water Services: • The fire chief should review asd approve veLrjlar access and b>drant locatioru. • Stainless steel bolts shall be uaed on all bvdraia and core-blue bolts shall be used on all fittings and joint restraint Storm Sewer: • Storm sewer calculatioiis should be provided ::r review and approval. • All storm sewer shall be reinforced concrete p^e. • All storm sewm within the pa verr.cr.t sectiorj shall have a mimmum of 3 -feet of cover between the finished street grade and the top of the pipe. Strccis/Parklog Lots/Tralls: • A geotechnical report, R-\alue recon-jnecdatic: and pavement design should be provided for review a.-.d approval • The typical trail section should be 3-irches r.pe 4 1A bituminous wear course, 6-inches of class 5 aggregate base and gtoiexhle fabric. • The proposed bituminous traH along WiCow Ohve should be S-feet in width. Traffic: • Please see the attached ccmrrjesis a.-.d sketch tzm Shelly Johnson regarding traffic. 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. VS SS1I3 • 6SI 636-4600 • Pax: 6SI-6J6-1JII Slit Gfa«^ Ud Braiw CteM to fa hdiit «i5^« *">?•***• All) t icpvtfc cngfacmd dni^ aod dcfafl aubratBaL nMscfalGMrtMMK • WcwiUpv^aftaccfigtnictii hive been saboiited ion coft atiniiie«fa ihe Mioci««d ihanciai gutruitee once the Snal plans Pleaaeooalacti •.(651)«0MM3ifj™.h.««vqu«i,»«prtii,du.n«w. Yoanwyitaly, BONEST«^R()SENE,A3roERIJK*AS«^ TomKtnogg Attefanams Cte Grcf Oippa, Ciiy ofOrono Inter-Office Memo l/y ■onotrooflHAaedaus To: Tom Kellogg Prom: Shelly Johnson Doto: 12/3CV2003 Ro: Stonebay Marketplace - Traffic Review Project 139-03-000; Land Use Application #04-2974 The following provides my comments concerning the Stonebay Marketplace site plan. The comments ar- referenced to the attached copy of the site plan. 1. Consider using 40* radii for the right in/right out driveway along Willow Drive. This will allow for easier entrance/exit lo/from Willow Drive. 2. The “closeness" of the parking aisles to the access drive md the flow direction of the pharmacy d.n\e- Ihru creates a series of conflict points in that area. Numerous potential turns and motorist decision will need to be made upon entering the site from Willow Drive. These decision points are all too close to the driveway. The pharmacy drive-thni location would preferably allow for entrance without having to cross an opposing through lane (such as the valet drop-off at the office-retail building). This crossing adds to the potential conflicts in that compact area. Improvements to alleviate these problems would probablv require building footprint and parking redesigns. 3. The need for the northbound left turn lane along Willow at Kelley Parkw ay is very imponant to this development and to the area. Provision of the lane is necessary as soon as possiblc. 4. Should the parking on the south side of the office/retail building be full, a \ ehicle has no way to turn around as they search for that parking spot Their only opuon would be to travel the w rong way on the west end circulation road or “back out" of the parking aisle which isn't desirable. 5. The median by the crosswalk area at the pharmacy drive thru should be shortened so as not to extend thru the crosswalk. 6. Consider widening the Kelley Parkway driveway to provide a four foot median separating directional flow. The driveway angle, as it intersects with the parking aisle access, is such that the median is reeded to keep vehicular traffic in the proper lanes. Consider using 40 foot radii on the Kelley Parkwaj intersection with the driveway. ^ If there are questions, please contact me. Boo—tioo, And^ik and AMBociaIn, Inc mww.bcimtreo com •LfMlOMn: WwaMiMi — UitoMlMaOmn: itit Wat RM atm* NocfMMwOiact: Mr-nMtoo *m MMn-JlOO WmiMrOffie* KUmtmmtm mmw.mutti atm* a»tunt7 fm SL Oe«id Of«c«: Office P'UM hCWIMMaei a‘*r* V>ai.4SS3 f I/ t n —--i"-=----------------------------------------------- ■ IKOTDI rurssw !^iS?7«!&m •'^SSS^Sb isnt PUN NOnSl^HHH • t w VMi* ••■ MW»«« rtmw^mm f I mam r ^iSTtJgV^ZZimZi^'LS, ssi^arJsSSSsr r^v « ^ «• * «• l»« « > rr^ laJ •• •« ■■■§ ««i % %• AM «A 9 m^mm •m m I m f9rn^ am «• v -a ■------------------»M<aMM4 C3?A?JG>G SLIOURYI •• AN IM A A AJM tm% S.'tM*'* I* r*»i • mt Va%« AMN im> M.AA T.-Tjv^r£^—- - • ^A M AN l□cSII^iI^MlrOltC^lL: V A^irT% AMsam MTH^iAA MM0IA ^M jcH>mu'asiciiic ^/lUtiaaca Com^4a7. L LI’ OrVfU- aCO .vrs : •rA ■■■■ RWMA rw • «s aa.*M «» r*«M Aa«J f^FA rA«A AFN* M lA • «A *TA AAi^ MAM M M A#M «M M M MS* M AAAJ %0 AM* AM» IM »# • Mw»MC.tr mkjm Ml rii-.'T:^^sssazs:^ CITV &UOMITTAL cfnwenir.aDC9 STONEBAY MARKETPUCE ORONO. MINNCSOI A HIGHWAY 12 :a /j- ..- i:^-« - . 2974 »LANDFORM ■ - ■ .»rC- •<• !v “ TTi?s y:---.•i.^; ..y. . *-,77 •hr-T 7 unrM> r5JL COHlUlTtNC nASStm LANDSCAPK ARCHtTlCTS 300 MAST AVtNUt NOATH SUITE no MINNEAPOLIS. MN SJ40I All 3Jt 3300 HIMOIUIIDUII DATE: January 13.2004 TO: Mike GafTron. City of Orono FROM: Phil Carlson. AICP; Dahlgren, Shardlow. and Uban, Inc. RE: Stonebay Marketplace. Highway 12 and Willow Drive, Orono At your request we have reviewed the materials submitted for the Stonebay Marketplace PUD. as well as city staff and consultant comments, and offer the following comments for the Planning Commission at their January 20 meeting. Racomwind aMow Based on our review of the Stonebay site plan I would recommend that the Planning Commission continue review of the PUD to a later meeting - perhaps a month out - allowing the developer, staff, and consultants additional time to look at alternative layouts and a revised plan. I believe the time spent in this additional review will be well worth the effort for the developer and the City in getting the best project possible for this important comer in Orono. The ideal situation is for the staff and developer to come to the Planning Commission with a plan tha: they feel orks well for everywe. We looked at the various element of the Stonebay Marketplace PUD and have the following comments: Site Plan. The site plan places three buildings on a small odd-shaped site, with one full access off Kelley Parkway atul one right-in'right-out access to Willow Drive. All three buildings (W’algreen ’s pharmacy, bank, office'rciail) are shown with drive-through lanes, plus their own parking lots. The combination of these numerous features crowded onto the site creates a number of awkward or potentially unsafe internal intersections. These have been pointed in other memos by staff and consultants. These issues alone suggest that there needs to be more work on the site plan, to make all the uses fit together harmoniously. All other site and building issues should be put off until the basic site arrangement can be made to work. MtkeCaghm. Cf^e/OtMo JamiarytS.2004 2) Pedestrian Connections. A key foal of the development is to be pedestrian-fnendly for the immediate residential neifhtm north of the site on Kelley Parkway. All three uses turn their back to the residential side in favor of the Highway 12 side. While visibility to Highway 12 is desirable and impor^t, there could be arrangements that try to accommodate both, while still ftmctioniog well for the retail operators. Ideally, pedestrians need a pleasant, safe, dedicated pathway from origin to destination. For example, the sidewalk off KeUey Park» ay near the main entry into the site does not provide such a pedestrian connection to the front door of Walgreeo's. Again, until the basic site arrangement works, all other issues fidl to the side. 3) ArchUeetnre. The building materials and details are quite nice and would create a high quality, residential char^ to the development 1 am especially pleased to see Walgreen's come forth with this kind of design. Older versions of their stores have not offered this level of design sophistication. I do not have color material samples, but I presume the colors of Walgreen ’s materials are compatible with one another in earth tones and green, and also compatible with the materials and colors of the bank and office/retail building. 4) Signage. Signage is a critical element to creating the character of the development - the size, style and placement all being importanL 1 agree with staff commenu that signage on the Highway 12 froot^ should be reduced or eliminated, relying instead on building signage and monument signs elsewhere on the site. I will be happy to assist in further detailed re\iew of the Stonebay Marketplace PUD at your convenience. r rMP Part 3B. Lmmd I »• Ptoa extent limited by environmental constraints, each such development must be analyzed and revie\%^ on an individual basis. The properties identified for residential development at densities of 2-6 units per acre include properties guide-planned for such use as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1988. as well a.s properties heretofore planned for single family development at rural densities. All kfentiflcd properties are located relatively high in the Lake Minnetonka watershed, allowing ample opportunity for effective stormwater management. These properties arc deuiled in the following tables and maps. ^---------- • • - -. -t 7W-* ‘ : Site Dcscriptloa: SITE A (Parcel Group 1. Map JB-7) SO-acrc parcel located aorib of Highway 12 betweea Willow Drive aad Old Crystal Bay Road Backgroaad, Site Cbaracterblics A number of potential development schemes for this parcel which included lownhomes and commercial development were reviewed in 1987 which became the basis for CMP Amendment *2 adopted May 23. 1988 This site was not subsequently developed, wriih the exception that the City of Orono municipal facilities were developed at the west end of the parcel in 1991. A development option for the vacant parcel was generated by the City^s consulting planner. DSU Inc., in 1998 at the City's request, taking into account new t information including the new MnDOT \ stormwater pond; City's new topography maps suggesting greater areas of wetland than previously anticipated; and the initial development of Kelley Parkway that esublished a service road corridor at the west end The intent of this plan set was to show how townhomes and a small number ofcommercial sites might be developed. Planned Development Parameters The 'csutl of the 1987 study was adoption of a plan with the following components a An cast-west service road will be developed connecting Old Crystal Day Rivid and Willow Drive. Uxated approximately 300-S0O feet north ofllighway 12. This service road will allow for one tier of developable lots between the serv ice road and Highway 12. such lots to have access to the service road but not to Highway 12 due to IrafTic considerations b The portion of the property between Highway 12 and the service road may be developed with one tier of commercial uses, to p*Mcntially include professional office as well as limited scrv ice uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use ______________________ c 1 he portion of property north of the scrv ice road may be developed for residential uses, potentially a mix of single family and multi-family uses at a density of 3-6 units per dry buildabic acre. d Conversion from 2-acre rural zoning to to the mixture of uses described above will be subject to strict performance standards which were added to the Orono Zoning Code in 1989 CHy of Orono Commuoiiy Maoagraient PUn Stpumbtr mo Pagc3B-M CMrr»r«3l. LsmIUmPIm 4r Urtu C^ucrdal Uad Um Urban conunerctal development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial coder of Otom will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This "*** sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most OroQO lesidenU. Accessory (unctions such as offices and owner-occupied living irats or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important development parameter for the Navarre conunercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities. An additional commercial area is designated along Highway 12 where the availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make conunercial use appropriate. Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to Highway 12 area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Ijdce downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. The retail development in the Highway 12 area will be community/neighborhood scale rather than ‘big box ’ regional scale development. The types of retail uses will be those that focus on providing services to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono. while also drawing from the traffic stream that will be on current Highway 12 after the Highway 12 Reroute is open. However, the retail development is not to draw substantial traffic from l^ond Orono. The development plans for the Highway U area will encourage locally- owned and operated businesses that provide ser\ ices to Orono and Long Lake rwidents. Additionally, the Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian- friendly area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways providing access to the retail uses, (t also involves providing public amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the public. The two commercial areas along Highway 12 within Orono are identified in Map 3B-7 and include the following: CUy ef Oteao C—aaily Maaigemeat Ptoa PaftJP-JT CMPPftrtJB. UadU-Ptoa 1.Prapcrty abvltteg Cbc Mclk iMe «r ttStUmg Higkwasr 12 (Wqntti Boalcvird) firoa Brows Ro«d North to WHowIMyc. This area viv levie^^Td as port of Comprehensiv'e Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1989, resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uaea abutdog Highway 12, with primary access to a service rood connecting from Brown Road to Willow Dri^n, and elimination of direct access to Highway 12. The area b currently bounded on the north by exbting residential desxiopment at densities ranging from 1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per IJ acres. The western half of thb area has since been deseloped via PUD as a nursety/garden center with included leasable commercial spaces. The cast half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000 s.f. office building, and a secant 6 S acre parcel at the northwest quadrant of Brown Road and Highway 12. The City Council in February 1998 adopted a General Concept Plan for deselopment along Midway 12 indicating that the Council's vbion includes community scale retail development (as opposed to regional or ‘big bo.x* scale desclopment) focused in a more compact area in cr near downtown Long Ldce (closer to Brown Road thu to Willow* Drive, at least in the short term) for the following reasons: 1.Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail area, and helps preserve owner-operated small service businesses in Long Lake which are \-ital to Orono and Long Lake residents. Focuses on maintaining a vital downtown and "sense of place* for both Long Lake and Orono. 3. 4. A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity. It is easier to pbn, coordinate and control the development of a more compact retail area than an extended retail strip. Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen the ability to obtain desirable development on the rK)ilh side of Highway 12 east of the Otten Brothers Nursery. Enables better control over the amount of retail development that occurs along Highway 12. Pro\ides the opportunit) to geneiate stable jobs in office, high tech, medical, etc. CMy arOnoo 0>SBbaUy MtaateBnl Plaa 1 S' i* A mofc conpaci community scale retail area matches the design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through Long Lake. 9. Limits the impact on north/south roadways (i.e. increased traflic and activiQr levels) as compared to the more **big box” retail uses. 10. Maintains a lower activity level in the area west of Willow Drive. 11. Would create less pressure for providing an access from new Highway 12 to the retail area. Accordiitgly. Ihb area should be developed with a mix of commercial uses including retail, service and offree components. Access via a service road paralleling Highway 12 should still be required rather than direct access to Highway 12, since existing traflic levels along Highway 12 are expected to remain at a level wliich mokes direct all way access difficult and dangerous. The Highway 12 re-route ("proposed Highway 1 2") when completed in approximately 2007 will hove a sigrificam impact on access for this area, because current Highway 12 tnffic levels are expected to itKrease between now and 2007, then should drop dromoticolly when the Bypass opens. However, traffic levels on "old Highway 12" after 2007 are expected to again creep upward, aid the long-term need for a service road may again manifest itself. For this reason, it is in the best interests of tte City and the business coiiununity to preserve at least a partial service road corridor betw een Brown Rood and Willow for future use, that will provide all properties with access options other than direct acces s from Highway 12. The City supports the development of a "mid-point" connection to Highway 12 directly across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right-in, right-oul configuration. Further, if acd when the service road is constructed, all otberexisting accesses directly to Highway 12should ultimately be removed. Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Road. This area (shown on Map 3B-7 as the 'commercial' portion of Parcel Group I) cunently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent City ofOrMO CMoaaaliy MaugnieBi Plaa Pa|eJ»J» 4 lo the noidk tide of Highway 12forcommercU]developroeoL Atthat time, the City was not dear about the type of commetcial development that should be planned for this area. Through joint discussions with the City of Long Lake regarding development along Midway 12. the City has deteimined that the optimum development in this area would be oflOoe developmeoL development can provide services for Orano residents, can provide facilities for businesses owned by Orooo resideats, and can pro\ide quality employinent oppoitumties. The development of this area for office use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a more compact pedestrian-friendly retail area versus a non<ohesive extended strip of retail development. Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto Highw^ 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay Read. The City's Intent is to have a single tier of office uses bemeeo Kelley Parkway and Highway 12. with primarily residential uses north of the service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by MnDOT midway bc^vccn Old Cr> stal Bay Road and \^'illow, and the Cit}'*s intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially at a density of 2-6 units per .^le, the opportunities for Urge office sites ate limited. As maity as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the intended residential developcncnt to occur. This area b guided for office use with minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory toes to the office use. "Big box ” retail uses will not be allowed within this area. City afOroM CMBuity Maaaftacal Ptoa Pag«3B-M r f L PfBtlOfOUOl! m:sgcsyjjTKsi^a^VOT ****^'^ P»TMlQfouD>: » ■■ iZaw^ }A£t<wv^ Bircfl0nMM3; II—■lt»»wt ww 14c»l«>i>^ CoiwwrdalA»—BlwnWWIIooDfandafttwfi Rd.: t?cffarsiss:cr,'>-- ~s5t5L5^^-^ ?^ssc^:Rjji ‘oii:s:ir^«srjsss^^ Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change City of Orono Minnesota •f RINGERSVi Dale AppUcallM Rfccivcd: 12/21/03 Data AppUcatioo Coaihfrrtd ai Complete: 12/21 OJ 60-Da) Review Period Eiplm: 2/19/04 Fron: Dole: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gafiron, Planning Director ^ January 13.2004 #04-2976 James & Judith Pierpont. I SOI West Farm Road - CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Structure - Public Hearing Zoning Disirici: Lot Area: LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2-acre min. (87.120 s.f.) (Per approved lot line rcarTangemen:) 4.01 ac. (3 ac. dry. I ac. wetland) AppUemtiom Summary: The property at 1 SOI West Frm Road contains a principal residence and a guest house originally approved via CUP Resolution No.2 854 in 1990. During the recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition of Resolution No. 2854 had never been fulfilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801-1849) and the Planni.-.g Commission and Council confinned that the 3 ac. dry/I ac. wetland area of 1801 West Farm was r.ot sufficient to meet the intent of the Guest House ordinance regarding lot area Based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory Building, with the understuxling that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be removed. Staff Recommeudatioa: Approval, subject to removal of kitchen facilities and execution of standard covenants limiting future use. LUt of Exhibits A - Application B - Surv ey - Showing Location of Accessory Building. Proposed Lot Lines C - Floor Plan Sketches by Staff (Approx, per 1990 Bldg. Permit i, Elev. Views D • Photos E - Propoty Owners List F - Plat map G-Memo of 1020/03 H • Council Minutes 11/24.'03 Jnury n.2MK< Pafe2 FciHarat Code Sections: I. Section 78O03( 17): LR-1A Conditional Uses: *’ P"P®*«* “»• ■ccMiory tlruclure «ilh plumbiai will 3. The prsperty b 2.0 in area or Urfcr. 4. The accetsory buiUiog b coaronniof in location, ibe and heiclM. JJir.kl'2rt'2«r"" **"” *« «« «««»f f . ^ tw nne .r the property * • borne occup,tkMi«rfeM «P««ncaUy approved by City or If aligned by City code. Supplcmcntaiy Requiremenu and Resiriettons - Ac«ssoi> Buildings- ‘‘Bccauie the provbion of plumbing nuurea and natienalcr plumbing in accesMrv buOdinov 2. Ia»taiiaiio«or...cic... nforming in location, and height, which meeti one of the folioning tri'eria- ^Tmlr or“"^ ‘ **“ '***" ■PP”»'«* ■ ‘C«e»t llauw* conditional nse 3. Section 78*1434: Oversize Accessor>- Structure Standards Background ss: tlnKturg tfc-OTid be required, but the niumhjng wmiM hf a|ift»H!” •04-297* Jaaiiftry 13.2004 Pat* 3 II should be noted that the existing guest house is located very near the north boundary of the property, this was revieiaed and found acceptable during review of the CUP granted in 1990. Neighborhood conditions have not changed substantially since that time. Septic Syttem Capability; Sewer Peadiog 1801 West Farm Road has been confirmed to have a site for construction of a 5-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serving the house and accessory building. However, the City Council has leceived and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that the property will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near ftiture. CUP Standards per 78-303(17) Lot Area The property contains the required 2.0 acres of land, meeting Condition 3 of Section 78-303(17). Building Conformity The property does not appear to abut Long Lake and is not considered a lakeshorc lot. TOlc the accessory building is conforming as to height, it is nonconforming as to size and location. The structure consists of two buildings - an old stable and a newer garage, connected by a circular room. The total square footage is approximately 1075 s.f., which would place this building into the category of an ‘oversize accessory structure* subject to principal structure setbacks (50* front, 30* side) and not nearer the street than the principal residence structure. However, this building is located approximately 49* from the cul-de-sac where a 50* setback would be required, and it sits between the house and the street Further, its location ranges from 1.5* to 6* from the north side lot line. This building was allowed to be established in 1990 via Resolution No. 2854 which made the following finding regarding its location: “b. The property owner to the immediate north that receives the most visual impact from the intensiricalion of the structure has submitted written approval of the project. That property owner ’s house is located 150* east of the project.” The building today is screened from the north by vegetation existing on the adjacent property. Staff believes the neighborhood visual impact today is as minimal as it was in 1990. Covenant Requirement It is assumed that the property owner will agree to the covenant requirements, including: • the building w ill not be used for a home occupation; - the building will not be used as a dwelling; and • building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling. •04.m< JuMry IX 2M4 Pagt4 Reouired Findingi In order to approve the CUP. Council muit make the following tw o findings: - the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing w ill not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. • *bcplumbiiig fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. Planiiing Commission should ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses of this building the kitchen is removed, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied.once Kitchen removal should include the following, in tf.e opinion of staff: 1. Remove stove and microwave oven, if any. 2. Remove refrigerator. 3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing. Planning Commission should confirm that these are the appropriate fixtures to be remox ed to result in the conversion from a ‘guest house ’ use to an ‘accessory structure with plumbing‘ use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as ‘not allowed to be reinstalled’ in the CUP resolution. Issues for Couslderatlou 1. Are the neighborhood impacts ofihe noncoofoimingaspecu of the stiuctuie so nxniiiia] as to be a non-issue regarding this CUP request? 2. With removals of existing kitchen facilities, the structure will still have a bathroom Is this consistent with the applicant’s proposed use for the structure? Arc the fixtures suggested for removal by suff the appropriate fixtures to be removed? 3. Does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding this proposed CUP? Staff Recommeadatiou Staff iKomrocndj approval of the CUP for plumbing in the acccjwty sttucnitc. subject to the following: 1. Applicants to execute standard ‘use limitation’ covenanu as required by City Ordinance. 2. Conversion from ‘guest house* status to ‘accessory building with plumbing* sums mm require removal of existing kitchen AciUties including stove and microwxvc oven, if any refrigerator, and kitchen sink and associated plumbing. NrlWM lMt» frw<iTt OP Vm HSZ24IIIII T-1S4 f vunn p*l!l PuRflwti. FiM^z^oo cm OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE AFFUCATION FflOrERlY LOCATION sue Addms Type of Applicadoo lo be Filed At^Mssart^ Pnpaty Idendllcetioa Number (PID.) APPUCAin: Nmm A^Onatyfs/ f^M/nXP CyWNSR (if diffiBeai duo appliCMi) Nnc______________________ Phone (boael PboM^^ 3f^/ AdAcw. Pheec (booM). Pboee (woric). Dete Property Acquirod _______________________ I (do) (do not) ebo own ihc a^laccsi peiedt of lead. FEES • CONDinONAL USE PERMITS • ___ S 75.00 For each vanance tcquest with CUP application V S2S0.00 RetMendal Accessory Use 5250.00 budiHliooal (dnvch, sehoo'^ etc.) _____S2S0.00 Quest Hottsc/Gucst Apsrtcsntt 5250.00 Duplex Cradit/Bldg 5325.00 Cenncfcial/lndiiitiial Uk $250.00 Land Altcradon ___ Gradiof and fiHag • deripwied weilaad or Orndiag and flUing • SOI cu. yd. or more Cradiiig. seawall iclaiaing wills within 75' of lakcshoct (fflondi^ctr) PRD/PID • see Fee Sdudnlc SISO.OO Renewal Fee (bo change from origiiul applicttioo) After-the-Fact Fee • DoiAle Carem Applicadoo Fee OTHER APPUCATIONS 5275.00 Comincrcial Site Plan Review (4> connilum Res) 5300.00 Vacation $250.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacaiioo With Subdivision 5350.00 Resooiag (PUD • refer 10 fte schedule) 5375.00 Cotnpnheiisivc Plso Anuadmeet $100.00 App^ Other - see Fee Schedule tac-IMOa PfM<lTV » OW0 ♦isniiaii MM f »7/c3a a-tn required submittals 1- ____Coa^Icttd ApplicMioa Fon. ____Dcsoite rtqiini ia detail IMP too. • "ft'•Jbr cnanica ui cievaaoD (pades). .mwi. luvwve SSST' Ite Applfcm «d I-topciiy 0«ii«r KM lipi diii -ipiie^. .i„ . wbemon » got coopleie if ike above jgforoiion iJm^ iiichSi >*" «“ ft «bP.«o.-----^—___--------___ Dtte APPLICAXT’S SIGNATURE aadtor unusual expenses inenned in iwiew o/ihis analle^*!!!?*** P»y*Bem) supplied is true md coirect to the best of bis/her lomle^^ e««»fies tba: the inronnaiion Applicani*. signature ^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE \__ [ entry oeno uT^operty bjTcity'aal^'^slJcwtt MoS^e^ «*i^ed reasonable members for purposes of mvestigarioo Md verifiSon^uii^^SIJJ^ »«»bcs. acd Council •««iMiai A ZoMm OfUce of Ms 10 de •«« •«*»< ■ sow ^ ^ mMm oh Dite ~ o “ ^ ^ Tf ^ ^ \c i5 c-\ 1 cled i mm m'-m ttHSo* /, A’ •^Vhx ^•‘ “V •, *•’ * * ikr/. v;-^•i ?.p -< <•••■■ * . .. -vviC-- • ' —i w -••'*■'. *™Si ?4,-- Ei.'#52 r''-. V / •:•■§ ..••• ••* •: ' . ? i:i 16 7ie HIH -s i t.: ■.'/—wSsTSk '"j .S M 2yill})4JOOI4 morAOCM lt2S WESTPAJtMRO OWNBRNAMe aiARLeStSaMOOIBlUITAL TAKfAVn aiAMiiSLSa«flOBOBR NAMVAOm PAMELA mBAANBaWOeOER l«25«f>5TPARMMn UMUIAKLMN SSIM M nilllJ4J«1T fMPAMMI IIM VIST FARM RD OWRIIAIH TMOTinfAIMMS TARPAVfR TMOnnr ADAMS MAMyAPCR ItltWPSrrARMROAO LONULAKLMN SSJM M 27IIUMJm4 PROPAOOR M ADDRESSUNAnaONEO OWNOtNAMC TIM FARM AT LONG LAKE TAXFAVIR THE FARM AT LONG LAKE FTMSI» NAMBADOR CO TMOTIIV ADAMS lilt WKTT FARM R<MD UJNULAKbMN 5SJS* FWlFAtNMI OWN M 17III1I IMA MNHUFARMRII I NAME J08EFIMIOFFERMAN TAXPAYER JOSEPH IIOFFERMAN NAME/ADOR IMA N FARMED LONG LAKE MN SSJS4 ja }7iiaiM4iBia nUirAIMIK I7» MNUIIFAMMRD IWM-RNAMI! IIRARSFRilJ) TAXPAYER 5EN1AMMR*R£HECCASP1EL0 NARMYADOR 172« NORTH FARM RO IGNGIAKRMN la jHiiaJHiaiRii PRirAIRM ja AINIRKVSUNASMIM|!» OWNER NAME JDSTAVIORPMtTAVIO TAXPAYER lOIMRPHOEMSTAVIO NAMBMOOR IMiROWNRON LONGIAREMN 5SJM III.i:NII ii4C iMINIV|MI iI< I'RUPIJU VI It 27liaiJ4)OOIS PROP ADOR lia« WEST FARM RD OWNER NAME Dll WIimENAPEIIART TAXPAYER Dll WHITTEN A PE HART NAME7AOOR IMf WESTPARM RO LONG LAKE MN SJJM JR 2llia2J4J00ia PROP ADOR IRU WIST FARM RU OWNER NAME L»IUIJ.AEVMORRtSON TAXPAYER UmueSlHRX NAMBAOOR ELKAOETIIYMORRBON laao WESTPARM RD LONG LAKE MN iii% Jl 27III2J440006 PROP ADOR 170* NORTH FARM RO OWNER NAME LARR08ENGREN TAXPAYER RANDY VROSENGREN NAMI7ADOR 1)0* NORTH FARM RD IIINIilAKEMN S.UM JM }7IIUI44mlfc mWAINNI laol WlJfl rANM Ki> OWNER NAME J W A J A PIERPONT TAXPAYER JAMES W A JUDITH A PIERrONT NAME/ADOR 1*01 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN SSJ56 JB MIIBJHIWMII nuir AiNm 77* iirown rii n OWNERNAMB RUUUCKMAIIALUEUilS TAXPAYER BAROARA A LUBlBtS NAME/ADOR RCHARO R OINSON TTAlMDWNRr ; IjDNH IAKI! MN .«•!* «a .HIIBJIlHBBIt PROPAINIR JB AINWLViUNANMLNI li OWNERNAMB MARYLSTEILETAL TAXPAYER MARYLSTEILETAL NAME/ADOR 744 OROWNRDN Ij ONOIAKI'MN 3$)J4 ' INhmMAIIU.CilwILM KS LI.M lAlil.. I 11 271112)41001* PROP ADOR 1149 WEST FARM RO OWNERNAME J W PIERPONT A J A PIERPONT TAXPAYER JAMESWAJUOmiAPICIIPONT NAME/ADOR HOI WESTPARM RO ORONOMN JSIJ* JR 27111214)0020 PROPADDR 1*10 WEST FARM Rl) OWNERNAME DAASMUSSCNAKAASMUBI9I TAXPAYER DONALOAAKELLYAASMUSSEN NAME/ADOR I *40 WEST FARM RO LONUIJUCCMN ))))* JB 271112)440007 PROP ADOR I*** NORHI FARM RO OWNERNAME RiCllAROWPERKMSTRUSTEE TAXPAYER RCHAROW PERKINS NAMF/ADDR I*** NGRHl FARM RD lOMilAKI MN DIM U 77iiB2M4nni7 PMorAIMNt 1770 WI.M lAMM Nl> OWNERNAME WMAMDRACKFN TAXPAYER WILLIAM M DRACKFN NAMF/ADDR 1770 W FARM RD lUNOUKEMN 3)J3« JB J4IIB2)IIOUOi PRCrADIW 7*0 IIROWN RDN OWNLRNAMli lOSTAVEIAPMSTAVIO TAXPAYER JOIMRPIIOCDCSTAVIO NAMe/ADOR TSOBROWNRDN lONGIAKIiMN 33J3* IB .MIlBlIllIBBI/ FKOr AINW BOO UROWN RD N OWNERNAMB VADSTEIN TAXPAYER VICIORNSTEIN NAMD/ADDR SOSOROWN RO N LONOLAKBMN 3SJS* V i CO lUNOMTE.-WUrjCD) M MliaiJIMm raOrAlNM 744 IMOWNIIDN OWMERNAMK TMiaiULr/flAMLBTraL TAMAVn MLraiLATMiaM.m mumtxm. tmhkwnwn uMouniM 3sm Jl J4IIU3I200M nuirAiNm ttomrownrun OWNGftNAMU IIAIINmm TAXPAVM ICMZPIIUnDt mNOKTMMOWNIIOAO LONOLAKEMN SSJM 34 34llini»l007 PROfAIHW MR DROWN RUN OWNliRNAMI! KlUCiUllSON TA3(PAm BUCJUnON KAMVAOM mOMOWNtON UMOtAXEMN SS3M DATE ov PAGR: I 'i-’i ^} d G) L. 0«t« AppKcstfM Rtcaivtd: «aM3 DMt AppllcallMi CMuMmrf M CaovlX*: f^7/«3 IM-Day SsMIvfilM fUvtew PfrM Eiflm: in4/«4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Novonber 20.2003 Ittn No.: Dtpulmtat Approval: Nune: Mkhae! P. Oaflhm Tilk: PianDini Director Ado^trailor Approval:Aftoda Sretfoa: Zoniag Item Deicilptioa: #03-2951 James A Judith Piapoot. 1801-1849 West Fann Road - Subdivision of s Lot Line Reairangeinent - Vacation/Rededication of Drainage A Utility Easement LIstofEihllsits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11-20-03 B - Memo and Exhibits of 10-15-03 Application Summary: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between these two residential lots, both of which they have ot^ned for many years. The westerly lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants* intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terras of gross area for 1801 and its guest house, but only if the wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest bouse requirement Planning Commission concluded the wetland area is qq] attributable, and detennined that the guest house use should be discontinued, the kitchen removed, and a **Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP** be appUed for. Please review the memo and exhibits of October 16 for additional information and history regarding this property. Planning Commlulon Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this at a Public Hearing held on November 17,2003. On a \x>te of 5-1. Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot line rearrangement as follou-s: I.Because the parcel containing the exisUng residence and guest house will not contain at least 4.0 acres of dry buHdable land, the guest house use should cease. The conditions of the 1990 Guest House CUP were never fulfilled and won’t be with this lot line rcarrangemenL it3-29SI ltO|.lt49WMir«nBltMd N«v««ibtr 20.2H3 P*g»2 2. Planning Commiision was open to the conversion of the Guest House CXFP to a “Plumbina In An Accessory Building CUP* which xould require the removal of kitchen facilities fiom the guest house. PUnnmgCornmission discussed the fact that the guest house did not meet location stan^ for the Plumbing a?, but concluded that the fact that the building has been in this IccMion for i^y decades, is far from any neighboring residence and h» no negsuive visual unp«ts.ituahistoncsr.xture.parisofwhichdate to the I87(ys.are factorthat limit any negative unpacts of such a CUP. l>l«nniii»Conini^oiii«M^llK an ABonKyihould«lvise,uirMU) whether theconvent™ c» be pan of dus praeeii (nd if » IWing Comminion ncommends approval), or whether na;h a proposal =uai be a separate appUcaiton and revietv/heartng process. ^ 3. Approval of the necessary easement vacaons in ettchange for dedication of new ------ along the new lot line. *' fo MW ' <»o lol» should be required and can occur Staff Recomnwadalkm Staff concurs with the Plamung Commission recomnieiidation. If Council concurs, resolutions cond.uon.lly wro^^g the lot lute^gemat mid the easement vacalionlrededicaiion will be prepared for Council adopUon on December 8. ptc City Auomey h« ^vis^ staff that the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a Plumbing in etptS »dT,3S ™rurm™ -U «» CUP procca. has hem. succS COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED gluttons for mtopiton on D««nto 8. ami direct the ^qtlicmti to nukeVapplicmion foe a ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24.2003 7. M3-2950 Tmra Cross, 2$35 CcumnysUe DHvt Wat—4fieMke^Fma -ResotuHom No. SOiO—Contimued Sansevere stated he woiM not support removing the court immediately. Todd Unless of2630 Countl^de Drive West, stated that in addition to bein|^a neighbor, he was serving as attorney fo>^ Gross’s. He stated that he was stunned/istafTs recommendation that the court W removed in two weeks time. He submed the variance application on behalf of the Gro^s in a typical time frame and it waymcoirect to say they dragged their feet The sport courf^ no li^ts or fence and use w^Id be inoffensive. He requested Council stick with the\me 15^ deadline. ^ White suted he would agree with the Jihu deadline becy(e in the spring weather is too muddy. He asked if the garden had t^me out too. M^r Peterson replied it did not. Sansevere stated that Sport Court should not hISeipftalled the court at 6’ w ithout permission. He suggested Mr. Gross’s attorney Afcuss the mancr with the company. McMillan stated it’s unfommate that there real n^ship for the variance. Mayor Peterson stated that Council codW not approve thcVariance. but would support a June 15*^ deadline for removal ofthdeourt. Murphy slated that if Sport Opdrt sent someone to the Plarmin^Commission meeting, where they admitted to chap^g policy on pulling permits, Mr. Omss should pursue some assistance from them, Gaffron suted th^flhe applicant finds a location that meeu City codeShe would not need a variance^t only a building permit. If he needs a variance for a location, be w ould need t^bmit a new application. The current application would boosed out once CouiKif moved on it. Ssnsyirt moved, and Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5080 denyL. variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1404, SnbdlvUioo 2, afiowl^ Mdline of June IS. 2004 for removal of the sport coart. /ote; Ayq {|, ^ — 8. #03-2951 Judith and James Pierpont. 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road—Lot Line Rearrangement Gaffron stated that the applicanu proposed a lot line rearrangemenl between their two properties. The westerly lot, #14,1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot. #15. 1801 West Farm, contaiiu a principal residence and a guesthouse approved via CUP ORONO cm* COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 B, §93-2951 JttBUkMdJomtsPierponu 1849 and laOlWtstFmRoad^lot Lint RearrangemtHt—Continutd ResolutionNo. 2854 -^e ipplicants- intent is to >ield lots dint are conforming for *e mt^ri uses *nth *e ^terly lot lonUly 4-acres. This can only be accomplish^) if the wetlaid area is attributable for the 4-aere guest house requirement Planning Commission conclude that the u-etland area is net attributable and that the gunthouse w^d be^nunued. the kitchen removed, ad a “Plumbing in Accessory Budding Gamon stated Ito at the time the CUP « « granted for the guesthouse, the lots should have been combined, yielding a lot with over 5 di;. condguous acres. For unknown reasons, the applicats never completed the legal cembaation. They requested the lot line re^geinent in ordw to maximize the aea of the homestead parcel while retaining the minunum 2.0 diy buildable acres m Lo! 14 for development or sale * The tMult would be a lot with 3 acres of diy buildable and I acre of w etland. The Planrang Comnussion fell that was not adequate to allow the guesthouse to remain There is a driveway on the pioperty that tas existed for many decades. The Planning Commission uggests it be removed by dCOa. The applicants suggested that the driv e ought to be left alone as it poses no complications to any one. Gaflron passed out copies of a letter from .Mr. Pie^onL The driveway recommended for removal has been inexistence since the 1870's. Previous ORONO CITY COUNCIL MUTISC MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24.2003 i. MS-29St Jmdkk mmi James Heefmn, ItJfmmdIiOl West Farm Moad^Lat Lime Meanamgeatemi—CaatiMued owners had blacktopped part of the drive, and they finished the blacictopping. The drive connected Farm and Homestead streets and was used by neighbon. The neighbor who lived on Homestead at the end of the driveway informed the Pierponts that they were nervous about a road exiting opposite their bouse, so the Pierponts blocked the access to Homestead by installing a mound at the end of the drive and planting it. The Pierponts did not understand the need to remove a drive that had been in existence for so long when iu presence did not impact anybody negatively. Mrs. Pierpont suted that when they bought the house, it was in disrepair and the stable was derelict. They wanted to keep the character of the property. They kept the roof, walls and foundation of the stable and converted it to a guest house with an alcove kitchen, bathroom, balcony, and bedroom. She suted that the guesthouse is only ever used by family members or close friends who visit, with the exception of allowing guesu of their church to suy briefly on two occasions. They have tried to add value to the neighborhood with the changes they’ve made, while keeping the original charm and style of the property. She suted that they originally believed the lou were connected in order to provide altenutive sites for septic. She stated they plan to bring sewer hookups to both lou 14 Mrs. Pierpont stated that her husband figured they have 13.000 s.f. (7.5%) of wetland on their property with lakeshore fronuge. According to his calculations, they do have enough dry buildable to keep the guesthouse. She suted they would gladly sign an agreement stating the house is only to be used by family members and that it would never generate an income. Murphy suted that the City should do a better job of protecting historic properties. Gaffron asked if they would be ignoring the preservation of a historic structure by merely requiring the kitchen to be removed. The 4-acre requirement has to do with density. The code doesn’t distinguish between constant use and occasional use. The PierponU seem willing to limit the use of the house. Wetland is not credited in terms of density when a property is sewered. Still, the situation has existed for over 13 years with no negative impacu. There is. however, a precedent setting concern if the City allow ed the situation to continue as is. Murphy stated that they need a unique situation m order to find a hardship. Mrs. Pierpont suted that the age of the house and guesthouse make it a unique situation. They w ere built in 1870. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003 Limt XwnMgtmtmi—C^mttmued McMillan a^cd Mn. Pioponl if ihey had intended to combine the lots in 1990 »ith the |ue«l^ CW. M^ Pieipont itated they had imended the lot combinatian. though it one *““<• •*“ 1 “ applicanta could combine the lots and gn only Gam<» atatrt if the lota were ^ined. the guesthouse as a aepatate unit »ould ceiie tobe an ism. However, if the Pieiponts only got one sew er, the cost of sewer for each unit Within the project would increase. Mooise stmed that the tone r^^ a 2-acre mitiimum for a guesthouse in the 2-acre zone so that If the lot were «cr subihvided. the guesthouse could stand on its own. In this case they wouldn t ™t the guest touse to stand on itsown. so would the 2-acre minimum requi^ent sull stand, or could tome compromise be w otVed out where the house rental^ but coi^ nevre be wbdivided in the Aiture. Such a compromise w ould then raise the issue of enforcing the use-restrictions related to the guesthouse in the future. Murphy^ed if they wuM attach a cor enant to the properly. Moorse stated that a CUP would effectively do the same thing. Gafhon stated that a CUP would run with the wSs" f *e CuT"^ of *» McMillan stated thu the Piei^nts would surely use the guesthouse appropriately, but the aTrrrjirrriror'^"’'*...?;.r.givcs"thec4 hta Pierpont asked if U would be possible to make the restrictions pan of the propeny Baitm stat^ ^ Iky have a subdivision applicaUon. but do not have an application for a guesthom kfore th^ In 01^ to grant a variance for the guesthouse, Ihev would need the appheauon and a hardship^ He atated Council could decide on a pretanary b»is if they would allow the guesthouse to stand, then require a formal application. They could pul conditions into the variance, but could never effectively ORONO cm' COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. NOVEMBER 24,2003 E §03*2951 JmdUh m4 Jmmet Htrponu 1849 mmd 1801 IVga Farm Maad —Lat Uma Raarrangamam^—Camtimmad police those conditioas. McMilten stal'd the only «*ay to enforce the appropriate use ofthe guesthouse, is to require the removal the kitchen. White suted he would like to see standards for historical residences, and also a definition ofaldtcbeo. Mrs. Pieipont stated they installed a cooktop to help prepare simple food items for children. Otherwise guests dine at the main house. Gaffroo staled that the applicants wanted to move the lot line 3/lOths of an acre, creating a 2-acre and a 4-acre lot Rededicating easement is not an issue. They would still have two buildable sites with sewer coming in to both sites. Mn. Pierpont stated they want to redeSne the lot line because they have the chance to bring in sewer to tw o lots, defraying the cost of sewer for the neighbors and making it more feasible for the City to bring sew er. Also, their son suggested they divide lot 14 so that they ’d have the option of selling it off someday if they wanted to. They also own a house on 6* Avenue North, which their son lives in. If someday the property passes to him, he would have the option of selling off lot 14. Gaffron stated that as it cunently stands, lot 14 is a separate tax parcel from lot IS. Both lots abut a private road. The only reason to move the lot line, could be because the septic system for lot 15 crosses the property line. With sew er coming, lot 14 could remain at 2.2 acres. Barren stated the Pierponts currently have two lote, so there is no real need to change it They would then be left with a nonconforming guesthouse on a lot with under 4-acres of dry buildable. If the kitchen were removed, that problem w ould be solved and they could leave the lots as is. Gaffron stated that the typical kitchen contains a sink, stove and refrigerator. The Planning Commission was not concerned with the Pierponts use ofthe house, but there is a risk that the next owner could use it as a permanent residence. Murphy stated that there ought to be a bener way to insure the Aiture use ofthe guesthouse than to punish the Pierponts for wanting to leave things as they've been for the last decade. McMillan stated that the lou w ere supposed to be combined in 1990, before the ORONO CITY COUNCIL »1EETLNG MONDAY, NO\TMBER 24,2003 B.n03-295l JmM Mm4Jmm9sPUfp0mt» 1849 mndltOI West FMrm!t0md^L0t Lime Reenemgemern —Cemtimmei conversion, and it never happened. Sansevere asked if another CUP would solve the problem. Mayor Peterson stated it would not unless they removed the kitchen. Gaflhm staled they would have to remove the kitchen under a plumbing for accessory structure CUP. or receive a variance for the acreage required for the guesthouse. Gaffion staled that the sink is the primary factor that makes the Idichen. as other futures such as stove and refrigerator can be merely purchased and *^lugged in.** Mrs. Pierpont suted that she is afraid if the sink were removed, the pipes would freeze and back up into the rest of the plumbing. Sansevere stated be felt a stove made a kitchen. Gaifron suted a kitchen is defined by use. cot the appliances insulled. He sUted if the Pierponts apply for a CUP, the discussion would center on what needs to be pulled out Mrs. Pierpont stated that the stable had a $bk in it before they bought the property. Gaffron uked Mra. Pierpont if they really need to move the lot lines. She replied not necessarily. Gaflron stated that if the application went away, the City would be faced with enforcing use of the original CUP from 1990. w hich has never resulted in a complaint Mrs. Pierpont stated that her younger son has a strong interest in the property, and so she*d be willing to put a deed on the propem- as it will likely stay in the family. Gaffron stated that the CUP for plumbing in an accessory* structure would not be intended for overnight use. Mayor Peterson suggested the Pierponts apply for a CUP applicauon. She asked what needed to be done about the road then. Gaffron suted no Jiing would need to be done As ong as the properties remained owned by the Pierponts. there would be no issue Most likely, the road, which passes through lot 14. would be dealt with should the lou ev er come under separate ownership. Sansevere asked that if the Pieiponts got the CUP. then removed the kitchen, got in two ^er hookups, then could they move the lot line at a later time and put the kitchen back in. The sons could then subdivide the property should thev uke ownership of the property some day. Mrs. Pierpont stated their intent was to Uke ca^e of ev erything themselv^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL »IEETING MONDAY. NOVEMBER 24.2003 A iOi-295/ J»iUh ami JtmtesPUfpoHt, 049 Wat F§nm Road—Ut Line RtonoHgemuot —Comtimmod that their children «*ould not need to go through the process. Gaflroa asked if there are subsuntial reasons to continue «ith the subdivision. If so. he suggested Council proceed ^ith the subdivision conditioned upon approval of the CUP application in January. Sewer w ould happen for both lots regardless of the subdivision. At this point, there is no need to do anything with the driveway. Mrs. Pierpont staled they would like the subdivision approved conditioned upon the CUP application's approval in January. They would then remove the kitchen if the CUP required doing so. At that point, they would have lou 14 and IS standing on their own. The road would remain as is. unless they were no longer the owners of the properties. GafTron stated CouiKil could table, or conceptually approve the subdivision subject to staff drafting a resolution that szys they approve the subdiWsion and lot line rearrangement subject to it not booming effective until they complete the CUP application and all conditions of the CUP approval. Saascvcrc moved, and White seconded, to conceptually approve the lot line rearrangement and easement vacation/rededIcation. directing staff to draft a rctolulloa for adoption on December S*^, staling that the lot line rearrangement will not be effective until an application for a PInmbing in Accessory Structure CUP b obtained and the guesthouse is brought Into compliance with requirements of the CUP. Vote: Ayes 4. Nays 1 (Murphy). Fllt«M-2«77 Pstti«rii Pilt AppMcHiiwi lUcthftd; 12«17m3 Pf AppMrti— CaiKtrei as Cowpirtt; 12-17^ it-Day Rtvltw PcrM Eipirts: 2-1S44 T«: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cit>- Administrator Frooi: Janice Gundlach City Planned Dntc: January 16.2004 Subject: 04-2977, Michael Keaveny, 3425 Shoreline Drive - Commercial Site Plan Re>iew - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Frontage: B-l, Retail Sales Business District 1.S8 acres (68.897 s.f.) 529 feet Appiicatioii Summary: The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Plaiuiing Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following: 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a restaurant. 2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant. 3) Hardcover variance to allow 90% hardcover on the site. The improvements associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently existing.* 4) StrtKturd coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past* *Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review. LblofEahibUs Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Applicant's Narrative E.xhibit C - Existing & Proposed Survey E.xhibit D - Description of Signage and Lighting Proposal E.xhibit F - Existing Signage on Building Exhibit F - Proposed New Signage Exhibit O Exhibit H Exhibit 1 - Exhibit J- ExhibitK- ExhibitL- Lxhibit M Exhibit N Exhibit O Exhibit P- ExhibitQ Exhibit R nii«4-2977 JMur)rU.2(MI - South Side Ekvation Showing Proposed Entryways and Awnings - Floor Plan of Proposed Eastern Eniryway Floor Plan of Proposed Western Enlry^y Floor Plan of Proposed Restaurant - Proposed New Stairway System - Hardcover Analysis -Parking Plan - Aerial Photograph with Topography -Photographs • Bus Re-Location Plan - Property Owners List -PlatM^) Bockgroiind The applicant’s intended restaurant lessee originally contacted staff in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and The Crib. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit. Following that initial telephone conversation. Planning Department staff met with the building owner. Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee. Paul Ode to discuss the proposal! Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the proposed improvements asswiated with the restaurant Following that meeting staff sent a memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a restaurant. The property is located at 3425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Buildiat Setbacks B-l Rcqnircd Exbtiag * Proposed Front (street)35*57.5': 57.5' Rear (R-District)35'80'= 76' East Side (street)35'123'jl23' Right Side (B District)15'0* f :0' ***** w -1 < I n » m . t*i—u I tmiftrtfiiiniiitfrii FUt^^-^rr January 20.2M4 Patcitm Talal Lot Area Total Stmctoral Coverage 68.897 s.f. (1.58 acres)Allowed: 10.335 s f (15S) Proposed: 11.032 sT. (16*o) Hlfdcovcr CakiiUtioas SufT did not require that the applicant submit the hardcover calculations in zones. Rather, the applicant had a hardcover analysis completed of the entire properly as the building is approximately 1.000 ’ from Lake Minnetonka, although the southwest comer of the property is approximately 200' from the lagoon that extends nonh of the main water body. Staff concluded that on analvsis of the entire property was appropriate as the majority of commercial properties do not meet the hardcover requirements, whether figured in zones or not. Hardcover on the propertv consists of the following (see attached Exhibit L for more detailed information): Toul Area of Property Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed HaHcovcr 68.897 s.f. 24.114 s.f (35^0 assuming entire propertv is in the 500- 100'zone) 62.106 s.f (90“i) 62.106 s f (90®. i) NO CHANGES PROPOSED Hardcover Anahsb Because the applicant is proposing site improvements associated with the commercial site plan review a hardcover analysis is requir^. .As stated above, the hardcover was figured for the entire site rather than zones due to the commercial nature of the property and the amount of hardcover that currently exists. The proposal doesn’t include any new hardcover. The major changes that should be noted are the entr>‘ways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along the southern boundary of the site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot (see Exhibit 04). The proposed hardcover breakdown is as follows (see attached Exhibit L): BUILDING 11 11.032 s.f. i LOWER LEVEL GAR.AGE 2.671 s.f. 1 BITUMINOUS PARKING AREA 33.376 s.f t CONCRETE walls 2.8II s.f 1 GRAVEL PARKING AREA 11.391 s.f I RETAINING WALLS 825 s f i TOTAL 90% 1 HARDSHIP The nature of this particular property is retail establishments at the front of the building FU»««4-2977 January 20.2004 rata 4 aril and entertainment oriented businesses (Navane Lanes/The Crib/Proposed Restaurant) at the rear of the building. The grade changes be^vccn the rear and front of the building are quite drastic and cause the need for retaining walls. Parking also needs to be accommodated at the front and rear further lessening potential areas for green space, all of which arc hardships which have caused the existing 90% hardcover percenuge. The e.xisting gravel parking area in the northeast comer of the site is the site of an old gas station and has been the subject of past actions by the Pollution Control Agency in order to clean the site. Those actions have since been closed and there arc no current environmental issues aviated with the gravel area. This brings the potential for added green space. The applicwt has proposed a parking plan for the lot. however, no islands have been incorporated into the layout and it doesn't meet the required setbacks. The Planning Commission should discuss with the applicant his willingness to pave, stripe, increase the green space, and/or curb and gutter this proposed parking lot. The grassed area along the southern border should remain grassed and the area between the two retmning walls could be better mainiained and further vegetated with shrubs. Staff doesn't see any other opportunities for futhcr hardcover removals without having severe parking impacts. Siructural Coverage Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all properties in all zoning districts be subjwt to 1 5% ma.ximum structural coverage. The only changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural co\eragc is two entr>x\ays and an awning as shown in E:^ibit G. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to help conuol heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to the building. The intention of the awning is to pro\ide for a covered walk. The eastern entryway is proposed at 600 square feet (50' x 1 2') and the western entryway is proposed at 36 square feet (6* x 6'). The proposed awning will extend along the south elevauon of the building to cover the current sidewulk. The structural coverage ordin^e allows for overhangs to be included in the building square footage when they are 2* or less in width. The awnings proposed are 4' in width and extend 97.5 feet adding 292.5 square f«l of structural coverage t2' of awning x 97.5'). This is a total of 928.5 square feet (1% of total) of additional structural coverage, or 16?o where the existing percentage is l5^o. HARDSHIP It isn't out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to allow for up to 20®/i or 30^i for commercial properties For example, the Service 800 building on Highwav P had a structural cov erage variance to allow 26.1 % The Zoning Ordinance doesn't allow for any exceptions for contmercial properties however, commercial properties are not seen as critical as residential propertiw with relation to the 15«/t maximum. The reasonableness of commercial properties having to meet this requirement, the impacts of the proposed entrances, and the benefits and'or disadvantages of the entrances should be discussed in FUt«04-2977 Jaaiiary 20,20M PaicSaril detennining whether a variance should be considered for this proposal. Parking A. Location. Section 78*1S11 ‘‘Setbacks for Parking** and Section 78-646 “Area, height* lot width, setback requirements and design requirements'* limit locations for parking. The following table outlines required, existing and proposed parking on the site: i Yard Required Parkiog Setback Proposed Gravel Lot Exbtkig Lower Lot Existing Front Lot Front (Shoreline Drive)20*0*150’O’ Side (Kelly Avenue)10*5*85’123’ Side (B-l Property)0’190 ’3 ’0* (shared) Rear (Residemtal Property) 10*80’10’167’ The applicant's property has street frontages on the north and east sides, abuts another B- I zon^ property to the west, and abuts a residential neighborhood to the south. The table above shows that some of the required setbacks are not met. either with existing parking or proposed parking. The front parking lot provides parking for the retail businesses whi h occupy the front of the building. Currently, a sha^ parking arrangement with the businesses to the west is happening in this front lot. It should be noted that this proposal will not place any cars closer to the residenlially zoned properties. The Planning Commission should consider requiring the gravel parking area to meet the required setbacks of 20’ to Shoreline Drive and 10* to Kelly Avenue. The 20* required front >*ard along Shoreline Drive is perhaps the most critic^ in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. The number of parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently e.\ists. The ad\*antages of a greater yard (green space) should be weighed against tlM disadvantages of losing parking spaces, which is discussed below . B. Required Number of Parking Stalls. Restaurant Use: Bowling Alley Use: Lounge (w ^in bowling illcy): 1,890 s.f. @ I space/80 s.f. = 24 spaces 10 lanes 6 spaceslane = 60 spaces 535 s.f. (g 1 space/80 s.f. » 7 spaces Total Required Parking - 91 spaces Total Proposed Spaces - 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76 x 20* spaces) As proposed, the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking required by Section 78- 1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that with the existing need for parking and the proposed restaurant use. these 84 spaces will be adequate if not excessive. r Flic a<U.3977 JuMr> 20. SOM PittOani These numbers do not lake into account the 15 parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the road at the front of the building. The upper level businesses are primarily retail uses. Assuming a net floor area of about 8.000 s.f. for the upper level, its parkirig requirement at one stall per 150 s.f. is about 53 stalls, as compared to the 30 that exist. Because the businesses that occupy the from of the building have prime-time day business hours, a shared parking arrangement would provide adequate overflow parking, should it ever be needed. However, during times when all businesses occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday aflemoons). parking could be short by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. As discussed earlier in this section the gravel parking area doesn't meet the required setbacks and if the required setbacks are enforced the number of stalls will be reduced. If a 20- setback to Shoreline Drive and a 10* setback to Kelly Avenue are enforced, appro.ximately 11 spaces could be lost. The Planning Commission should divuuss with the applicant the amount of parking that is currently available and whether it is adequate and also how he expects this to change with the proposed restaurant use. Lot Surfacing Section 78-1515 (B) states that “all of the area intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways for four or more vehicles shall be surfaced with material to conuol dust and drainage." Tbe applicant isn’t proposing to pave the upper gravel lot at this time. Due to Its necessity in providing parking for the restaurant, and the need to control the number of stalls, staff would recommend that the lot be paved and striped if this commercial site plan is approved. Surface Water Managenenl Plan The applicant has not provided a full drainage plan but has prov ided drainage a.Tows contours, and elevations for the gravel parking area. There is a wide right-of-wav along Kelly Avenue which takes a lot of drainage from the gravel parking area as well as at least half of the lower parking lot. The western half of the parking lot drains southwest towards a wetland and eventually into the Ugoon area of Lake .Minnetonka No hazardous wastes threaten the integrity of the runoff, other than the normal hes^vy materials which vehicles excrete, and no vehicles arc proposed to be stored outdoors on me site The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and finds it to be acceptable The City’s Public Services Director has recommended that the existing gravel lot be paved imd provided with curb and gutter. The Planning Commission should consider whether this should be required. Road and Pedestrian Access fiffnor pcp<5f , This property has one access to Shoreline Drive, and one access from Kelly Avenue. The access from Kelly Avenue will be the primary access for Navarre LanesThe Crib and the restaurant. Tht main access for the businesses that occupy the front of the building is the access which is directly off Shoreline Drive File *04.2977 January 20.2MI ra|e7ofll Ptdtstrian access. Sideu'alks currently exist along the front of the property pro>iding pedestrian connections to the properties east and u*est in the Navarre area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair s>stem which connects the top gravel parking area to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling alley and resuurant is to be accessed. A proposed new stairway system is shown in Exhibit K Proposed at the top of the staircase is a small sign with minor lights providing a safe pedestrian connection from the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no causes for concern with this plan, however, the applicant will be subject to any building code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed walls. Staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot. bowling alley, and restaurant entrances. Sigiu^(e The subject property is allowed 529 s.f of signage, based on City Code standards. Section 78-1468: **Aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building.** The frontage is 315* along Shoreline Drive and 214* along Kelly Avenue, allowing the property 529 s.f. of signage. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f.. The existing and proposed signage on the propertv is as follows (see Exhibit E F): Bumper-to-Bumper (wall sign)32 s.f. 1 Champion Auto (wall sign)48 s f. Champion Auto (wall sign)32 s.f Post Office (wall sign)s.f Liquor Store (wall sign - Shoreline Drive side) . 1 s.f. Liquor Store (wall sign • Kelly Avenue side) 33 s.f. Bowl & The Crib (post sign • Kelly Avenue right-of-way) 33 s f TOTAL EXISTIW SIGSAGE 341 sf Proposed sign at top of stairw ay 24 sf. Proposed sign at comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue 24 s.f. TOTAL PROPOSED SIGSAGE 48 sf SIGS’AGE ALLOWED BY ORDISACE 529 sf TOTAL SIGNAGE 389 S.F. The applicant is proposing two new signs, one at the top of the proposed staircase and one at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kell> Avenue (see Exhibit F), and no changes to the existing signs (see E.xhibit E). The sign at the top of the staircase is proposed at approximately 24 square feet. The r Flit m-tfTf JaaMry 2t.3tM factlafll applicant is proposing two light poles (discussed in the lighting section of this report) with the sign connecting them. The sign meets the requirements of Section 78-1468, but the specific design of the sign and how it will tie into the lighting poles should be discussed with the applicant. The incorporation of stone planters and iron railings, as proposed, seems appropriate. The ^plicant is also proposing a sign, 6' x 4’ w/a planter box and poles, at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue. The location of the sign may need to be revised should the proposed layout of the existing gravxl lot change. This sign will be a mulU- teoant sign listing the businesses that occupy the front of the building. This sign meets the requirements of SecUon 78-1468 and will be subject to 10* setback In addition, staff wvuld recommend the following: - The sign be re-oriented to be perpendicular to Shoreline Drive - The sign be monument stvic (no poles) LasUy, an exisUng pole sign for Navarre Lanes/The Crib is located in the rightK)f-way along Kelly Avenue. This sign is in need of repair and currently isn't illuminated. The appliewt has expres^d his willingness to wtjrk with the Planning Commission and City Council towards a signage plan that would be functional and visually appealing. The Planning Commission should consider elLminaiion of this sign and allow ing a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Dri\e and Kelly Avenue which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building. A new directional sign, possibly 3* x 3* could be placed at the Kelly Avenue entrance, out of the right-of-way. The Zoning Ordinance would limit the size of all new signs to 50 s.f. Currently. 389 s.f. of signage is proposed when 529 s.f. is allowed, leaving the applicant 140 s.f. to work with. Staff would not recommend that the Planning Commission encourage the applicant to max-out his allowable signage, but thw is room to allow for a larger sign at the northeast comer of the site and a small directional sign at the Kelly Avenue entrance. Landscapfaif Plan The applicant has not provided a landscape plan. The eastern and northern property boundaries abut right-of-way and the western boundary abuts another B-1 zoned property, not providing any opportunities for additional landscaping. The southern property boundary has a tree line and fence which provides screening to the residential property to the south. The Planmng Commission should discuss whether this existing vegetation is adequate for screening (see Exhibit 05). *rhere are also three other potential areas for landscaping: 0 The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper parking lot from the lower parking lot (see Exhibit 04), 2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway s> stem. and. 3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast comer of the lot. The Planning Commission should discuss requiring Implementation of some type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on property. Additional)-, as noted previously, the provision of 20*/l0* green space yards along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gra\ el lot. This FiteaM-SfTT jM«aryXO.MM raf«9«ni irea his been functiooiny i **ix>-^nin*s linT and overflow parking for many years, and its fonnaltzatioo as a pa^ng facility should trigger establishment of landscaped space that, at least, approach^ City Code Standards. Ugh ting The applicant has provided a wiitten description of the proposed lighting (Exhibit D). The lighting for the current lot^-er parking lot seems adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff would not recommend any further lifting in this area as the lot abuts residentially zoned property. The applicant has also proposed lighting under the proposed awning in an effort to illuminate the sidewalk. Staff finds no issues regarding these lights, howem. the bulbs must not be exposed and the illumination shall not overlap onto the residential property to the south. BaOdiag QuaUty and Materiab Attached Exhibit G1 & G2 show the exterior appearances of the proposed entrances and Exhibits 01, 02, &. 03 shows the current exterior fKade. The applicant has not indicated the exterior materials proposed for these entrances. City Code Section 78*645 requires that the exterior building materials must be face brick, natural stone, specially designed pre-cast concrete units, factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, or other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. The Planning Commission should discuss what materials are appropriate for the proposed entrances. Staff would recommend that the color scheme and materials match the existing facade and that the roof of the entrances be shingled. Bus Shdlcr Rc-Localiou The City’s Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. easement be granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D’vinci ’s restaurant to be relocated to the northeast corner of the applicants site. A 10* x 10* casement in the northeast comer of the site is proposed in Exhibit PI-9. The City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter. The Planning Commission should determine whether this should be included with approval of the commercial site plan review ’, and how this will impact the applicant ’s signage or parking plan. Condilional Use Permit City Code Section 78-644 requires a conditional use permit for any B-l district to operate a Class I or Class II restaurant. The notable distinction between a Ciass I and Class II restaurant, in this case, is the ability to serve liquor. The proposed restaurant will serve liquor and is therefore considered a Class II restaurant. The Zoning Ordinance doesn’t specifically outline conditions which the proposed restaurant must meeu other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community. There was one neighborhood inquirv into what was being proposed, but no negative comments regarding the restaurant. Staff would rU«i04-2977 JMMry20,2tM Piftittrii ncommend ^ the Planning Cocninissioa consider “Hours of Operation** conditions, keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. The applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle to be used in conjunction uith the proposed restaurant It must be setback 10 ’ from the south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be sufficiently screened. issnes far Disenuion I. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site? 2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped? Should the existing lower parking area be re-strip^? 3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)? 4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line? Should trash facilities be located aOjjccnt to the building rather than near the residential lot line? 5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange for a larger sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kellv A\cnue which would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building'> 6. Is the lighting plan appropriate? 7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole stvie? Should k be oriented perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientition proposed 8. Should “Hours of Operation** be ^Mcifred for the restaurant? If so. what hours are appropriate? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommeadatioa Planning Department staff recommends the following: I) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following: a) The upper gra\el parkmg lot be further refined in accordance with the Planning Commi»ion*s recommendation regarding the amount of green space to be established and tl’c number of new stalls to be constructed. 4) 5) % b) c) d) e) nitaM-ivn J wiu«7»,2M4 riftiiani The building materials match the existing south lacing fiiyade and the roofs be shingled. If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast comer of the site, the existing pole st>lc sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place. All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs acd not overlap onto the residential property to the south. The sign proposed at the comer of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be monument st>le rather than pylon st}le (no poles) and not higher than 8*. The ^jplicant shall have the comers of his property staked to ensure the sign meets a 10 ’ setback. The sign is also limited to 50 s.f. Approval of a hardcom \ariance to allow 90% hardcover when 35% is normally allowed, stipulating the following; a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast comer of the lot, b) The landscaping between the retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be maintained and additional landscaping be added w here possible. c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary. Approval of a structural coverage \-ariance allowing 16% structural coverage in order for the proposed entrances and awning to be constructed. Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant The applicant grants an easement consistent with E.xhibit PI to allow re-location of the bus shelter. EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION AppBcadooP Date Recdvtd ~ AmxMtPald lqP OD WcP/A^ PROPERTY LOCATION , Site Address sH4) S53^/ Type of Applkstkw to be Filed m#<. *- Property Identificttion Number (P.LD.) #4i<7 APPLIC^T MiMt/K Phone (home) vs»yyt» yieo NireeAdw^.dwi^y Phone (work)fr»-vva> VW/ Address/fWA4>jir ----------City y#<>>y Arnmt'^'m^ Zip S‘S^n'1 OWNER (if different thin ippUcint) Phone (home) Name ^«W Tmirfc Phone (work)“ Addresses#-#^y ^ Date Property Acquired 7 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____ S250.00 Institutional (church, Mhool, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg X $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use . $250.00 Land Alteration ------ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and Ailing - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walU within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule ___ $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee Zip ___(moDth^ear) OTHER APPLICATIONS X $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Re\iew (+ consultant fees) ^$300.00 Vacation 5250.00 Easement Vacation 5100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule #2977 L required submittals 1 ^ .Completed Application Foim. D^ribe request in detail. ^ Ub.u pu. A-d03. Ciovcnuneni Center! 34«.3^n^ Hennepin County Department of Finance. Cwificaie of Survey (signed by a Ucensed . 5. 6. / A-W3, Govemmenl Center. 348-327!) ------- oi finance. — «o h««U.«, 6, 8. 9. ToDo«f>hi<> •^JZTT - -t'fuw.uon II not mciuded on rcouirfd involve wid. i« u„ paion, >T,u •iTootifiod ““ »•*« FOR REFRODircnON (II" X \r OR SUBMITTED. (SlMT wffl require to\e.u^ "•*• DOCUMENTS •ubreined.) *“ “*'* "f >" document. pUns. etc. to be epplicSrno"‘I,.JJ?^f^vrWoZ ’uo“L*^^^^ ““ “ciel?ICS! ^ » ~"-P>«e.Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Sis: S2 ie? £ Sts rrr*"“and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of thic •» i* *>y onginil fee payment) supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her la^wic°"* ^ ^ infotmation !£!^r-^t OLIVER’S SIGNATURE entry onto the property b)MSty^tta/r*^S^umi •“‘horized reasonable ™reb«,forpu,po.’;nfi^v.4«r;.^:SiSonr«^^^ “»•M- W..S.UVU W10 venncation of this request. - D«e zV/r/pS A^lkant mutt b\e t'J tubminsb into the Ciiv ««*!#.•« it Wj^ CommiuioQ Mrenots are held oii*L^Srd M^Sday^f^eh^^'*ll,** revie* meetinfs of the PUooing "*Sr^ Appjicantt nani be present at all Kbeduled tneetuf. please make ammcineou to have an auAflrSS^-.«!^ “ Wkeant b iioable lo aoead a BuadiBi A Zooiat Office of ihb chaote prior lo the meeting^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ **» - - - r #29 77 EXHIBITS Request for Conditional Use Permit Kfy request, at this time, is to replace the current entry way to the Na^vre Bovding Lanes and to icnodd the two neighboring current garage/storage areas to accommodate a *Tizza Factor/* restaurant A new stairwqr and partial retaining wall would be cons&ucted to replace the old one, but also to make the access to the lower level more invitiiig and safer. I would like the new cntiyway to serve both the bowling lanes and the restaurant Thatwould save on heating and cooling costs but also make both places more invtnng and open. 1 would like to add an awnmg to cover the current sidewalk and enclose the entrance to the lanes and add some recessed lighting to illuminate the sidewalk. There would be a need for a trash receptacle area and the drawings show where we would like to place it. The area would be fenced off with a wooden fence to match :he current fence along the south property line. The current lighting has been in place for quite a while. It seems adequate. Some lights m^ need repair, which will be handled at this time. With the new stairway and sgns I would like to install some li^ts on top of the sign poles to direct people down the stairway and add any necessary lights for safe operation of the stairway. I would like to add a sign/plinter in the northeast comer of the prope^ with some lighting. Tte signs would be on poles in the planter and the lights would be shining down or up onto the signs, as required. I have included drawings for reference. My intentions for the property are to have a nice wdl^maintained attractive building that the City of Orono and I can be proud of and my lessee's can have a great place to operate their businesses. In the fiiture I would like to consider black topping the gravel lot and to repair or replace the current wall. Michael J. Keaveny Property Trustee #2977 CO. bituminous entrance CONC.Vr77.OO OPEN 5 ............. • ...;^,...|njkDUCE ®. i S -UPPER EXHIBIT C •CONC. CURB 315.32 N8r43’50**E liU7 -highway exception to tract b ROAD ENTRANCE ^^ ! :WAUCl« 00<.. ’ • t M UmiTY USE5IKfre-i' e» LEVEL 2^5 ®S i!.................................... N89*21*55"E ?kU 1'^”-+....sjsi^jtEA 1 M unuTY ;• : / i i to•/ s'* i ^ ^ \ PARWNC lAREA ! '^OPY walk o. 2-STORY STONE g^g5 m«» |||. BOA ci W < 0.( 152.0 I-STORY STONE NO. 3425 j, • ZcmZoi: 66 P23.0 IH / IQg^ PROPOSID ENTRY—;---- 12.0"' ; 39.d*-. * ' SIXES53E WAU •TT r.^TT 3 ; — -:sr--------Y . i ^0 i‘s^‘ ^-ilm7ro« Hcr. wall ca bI SI/ "**^ ?'*’------------------fr~~ A basement »or ingress * egrem ......... LO^ LEVEL 3TXI ^^-...^^-drainace a a RTa PARKINC area UnUTY easements 66 OPEN i2£ZAlL NO SCALE 315.17 M S8r43*39**W M 315.32 P S87*43’50*'W P o MB • PP DENOTES IRON PIPE FOUND DENOTES NAa FOUND. DENOTES UGHT POLE. DENOTES CATCH BASIN. DENOTES water VALVE. DENOTES GAS METER. DENOTES FIRE HYDRANT. DENOTES MAN BOLE. DENOTES POWER POLE. y exhibit d /«/ curr€»»ri-y //f 4^/,^ • /} -A^ U^ktefi>. tot'k ^ >^«- ••'•^ t\.eebU>- ^ /V‘4 ’'- *i* uf^tik.. U^ffi '//< oMAo*i_ o-fi 'M-e- 5*/««/*«^ X //ifce ftam<i~ s**>y^ ^-t- >t-A< s4/«s rn '/X«. 7»Aes vx*^ uoeul^^ be^ usei> Ar- S44& s-yx^. /^/ .>«#«*- /,<««z, ,4 >-4i«e. 'M^ -a^ n^u/t*t>. ^mouIJL. Itk-e. 'ie> rAcludle^ Cl. s/f^ <*]A 'kl-e. '/ef> c>'AV4^ /A ^r^et' ^ e^mcy— <>us/vy*tet^ >4 S^Xc. yASrUM’%^ 73iiLtlMf ltA4!i ^4i«/y«.. ;2T m>U(£. akt> nke. A puk fi. ptuAt- 'kffc. scfi,, /n 1^«. A/oyfAea*7~ osrntr- o-fi 'kk*. ^t*Kt£. (rf~. F(<*t<. t^A>^ A mc/hAA. h)/^ V^fs r^H*ir. ■ / J 1 W«T>w J»lt»■X» -»^-^ r iv\ G«.>:«c« c c*C..*c#«« '*••#«* ^51 I; unuTty m k wiury. o r ’^EASEMENT fOR INGRESS k EGRESS 5 ! ! Y y __________________________—--------------- “ 8 ................................................................^........... =sl 8 a: S 977 1 -JgyTir tLiy^ngu ■-’timnfwr* fj o: 1 :• :2 UlltUJf -'■■ OQ f f (• .<«/977 i o a: u> e81 a - “ t ac I Hi i <£> i .r.7tAKrrjti- i-. •■—i—; *-\T w #2977 j %-r/ ■ ^ n\ ■ u«s b.-?ck sld^ toflM, i. . OL U oja Q Kai U 2l ckM YA.m<C ^uJi^hcUr ^ iraty^«>s5 MJlie. 4df). 3^'m fnd/cWl> 4o klXiW B kc Il (A^alt u.p 3 «y M akou^- fl|KouKD Uu-eJ^^ <2 St^<^ pur-7 EXHIBIT L C. E. Coulter & A ssociates , Inc . LAND 5UKVEYOKS Lot Skr>«r« J0»« COUU9 PCTBOON 114«h SUM 216^ limiiagL MN 98317' 9S2)I83«39 / FW(|M8)963-3B71 HABnmVCT A SIQNAQE CAl. A) BUlLDINO B) LOWER LEVEL OARAGE s C) BirUBONOUS PARKING AREA « D) CONCRETE WALKS E) GRAVEL PARKING AREA JKQRIs'i: I a WALLS 11^ SQUARE FEET 2^71 SQUARE FEET 33,374 SQUARE FEET 2,S11 SQUARE FEET II ,391 SQUARE FEET tM SpUARR FBRTQJLfilA] TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER s 42,144 SQUARE FEET PARCEL CONTAINS M,197 SQUARE FEET. PARCEL HARDCOVER IS 94% OF TOTAL PARCEL SQUARE FOOTAGE G) COMBINED EXISTING SIGNAGE ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING CONTAIN 344 SQUARE FEET. H) THE EXISTING SION AT THE EASTERLY ENTRANCE ON KELLY AVENUE CONTAINS 33 SQUARE FEET. I hcfcij ccitiiy Ifcat 44otc H«4co?er CakalMloas m4 cxiitteg S4pufe CalmUlioM aictneaaii Datci:. 0^ (Mi CosRcrPi iLwiSuTcyorUccBfeNo. 13792 CECPBOJECTNO.U,457 I1LE3441A 12/15/tl J File«ardifpl/iH«ti9l,te /7 ■ mm - EXHIBIT M NO. CO. bituminous •CONC. CURB ...............____________________/ ^ *^------FBOPISTY uni-" UPPER LEVEL PARKING AEA ............................................... ________________ -------** \_________________-...................................................walk 4 « /=P CONC 1-STORY STONE NO. 3425 24 j GRASS 25 •*•.1 oCM6roCM> s—tr /: V / /'. __!Lg - .44 1=^ ,*S8r \l “ -’’•a oU 1.1. ».------963-- ,(*!• ____ SLa^-------------------IHAMM— s ^ ABEA [ 23 ! 25- “V.! area ..pROPEBTY tW----- -iUf aW' b; r >F1 :ar n^( S\1 AC 9 jyfflL T-:'' ^V.T L^..U I .' QXC________1M-* b. s *««* •MJ:; ------964 ------ ii-'i -----953--;mu «3 L >1' /..--951" 1 25- ,-iA^ • i**»4 »sJ«T4 tM.4 \ I Ji|3 II-■ 9®V* j o « fii !l I'-i! - IIii% E.,f.,' I [.X ■■■ . ,-! Wm -:4v-^n' <4immm ^v- ■ r'' j'#.•■■ •'"'' - . fn ■ : r r .fe j -t' tr: /I - -W i-asm i^iMm ~ ^iTL. •ri Li iV;- 1*1i'l \:TT ?jrr' — ...... ------t-^r,~..'^^tL;... •' fV • «fV/^ ~ Kr~ .1 f. •n>:‘- j^- »• "' "libii III-------------------- ti* ' '" " itmufii^i ,^'’ - v. V . >^■3 k'- fv.:,iSs?2pe’'V ^-■ • ■ -i ■a . /• J- -------- vf - • •s «I /. --y ''■'’ '&'W >'v| vWiHvV/-lLf wmis / 'W:v4 exhibit p, ^ -4 « CRJ£. I gitF i/ifuu Ik ^ \C‘ tr<f \ "•!«' / exhibit request for council action DATE: May 27, 2003 ITEM NO.: Dcpartmcol Approval: Name Cregory A. Cappa TiUc Director of Public Serv ices Admigistrator Reviewed: Ageada Scclion: Public Services Director's Report llciD Dacripliao: Navaire Crosswalk and Bus Shelier Projeci ■^isanewstingCounlyRoadlScrosswalk located n*arD-vincr5rnuuranl.an<lan«isliog bus ^llet locai^ on the south side of County Road 15 west of the Kesteny building. Ute bus suiter ts not local^ in a dnirable area as it is isolated in a poorly lighleJ area with woods and a steep sl^ dtmUy behind it. The crosswalk is also not located near the center of the business district as It IS too far west. A crosswalk location closer to the center of the business district would be a more convenient location and would provide better access to the businesses Alw. the crosswalk is located in the middle of the block which is not the most desirable area from tJeTmoSrp^nX"lhe^^^ ’"O «>» « The City parking lot behind the buildings, on the north side of the road, is used as a Park and Ride lot for commuters catching the eastbound buses in the morning. The crosswalk is in a poor location and IS not used by many of the commuters because it Is located in the opposite direction from the bus h^SriLSr"* " ‘’“‘‘'"'S je iMaUon of the existing cro^alk and the bus shelter have been a concern for number of years. We have met with Hennepin County Highway department personnel to discuss this situation, f favorable to the concept of moving the crosswalk to the west side ^the Kelly Avenue/Shorelme Drive intersccUon provided the bus shelter is also moved to this area. Without mov ing the bus shelter, it is not worthwhile to move the crosswiilk The Countv will install larger crosswalk signs for the new crosswalk location. We discussed to idea of having a “push button** system to turn on a flashing yellow light when a pedestrian IS crossing Shoreline Drive. The consensus was that this could create a fal« sense of safety as the pedestri^s may assume the traffle has red light and will stop. There is clearly not enough pedestrian traffic to meet a traffic signal warrant for this crosswalk Page I of 2 EXHraiTR, The Police department has contacted Metro Transit about moving the bus shelter, and they are willing to work with the City on moving the shelter. The shelter will be moved to the far northeast comer of the Keaveny property, and this will require obtaining an easement from the property owner. The siie of the easement is depends.-1 on the exact location of the property comer. This location will have minimal impact on the property. COUNOL ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pcopoaed concept plan for relocation of the existing Navarre County Road IScrosswalk and bus shelter to a new location on the west side of Kelly Avenue, and if this plan is accepuble provide staff authorization to begin work on obtaining an easement to move the bus shelter. d S ' 0 Page 2 of 2 cnv PAfL|t«li6 LOl fM\0.Al4CC / 8l#J , rMCLicft. exhibit ^ EW51IU6 y-U/AjLK.JC-wMk .rMMsf 5HeiU« is' - * '<UJL—!»:*<« *• ♦ 5^ KlM/M^M c^uuiy IL0AD 1^ C fLosru/Kllc dm SKUUH EXHIBIT \ fXl5lli46 , ?f.ofosio ftUJ / StttLTER -I < ^ ^ V-. * . I I ... 'f ■' • ■«.' ^ ?• \ \% •■■ :.. '■ • X '' Vr* - ‘\IE V' 3 J “f^ ' S: SV -; ..V> .;s • 400 400 800 Feet X'Wi^lVc o o M t;. ;*. If t-..;ri;- ‘ ■ ;,i M;i in; I'l !^ iAiiimi II C]ITV«f OROXO \r. S-? • » n. r i-.;/ : . . .- M/. 4 . . 1,1..-;, 24, : ; »’»• •> <1 • ’ .j... : . A l!u! • I ' » I: “• “ y' ,.v{ i.'.- : < Kf.iii : • I.:.- .! • }., j.,.., j j , , V..1 . .. Jt! .s: ll;; ^ ■ 'i V . ; p-.*' ' . « - • ... p:,.].', ; p_. . . . . i. •::5i ri. .I; s. / l • 11;. «j •; Hi,:;. . V. 1 ^ \\ cnv rAE.Vi»i4£. Loi fN»5LAKitf.PS.0fCS(P FwruM6 BUJ 5WEt1tR ®5®3Kr^2- \f%.\ : pEBmh - :Ljt I- ©MetroTransit exhibit?. June 12,2003 Kurt Erickson OrofK) Police Department P.O. Box g6 - Crysul Bay. MN 55323 Subject: Navarre; Bus Stop Inbound Near Co. Rd. 15 at Co. Rd. 19 Dear Mr. Erickson; There is a suggestion that the eastbound bus stop and shelter presently located tvso blocks west of the inters^hon of County Roads 15 & 19 in Navarre, be relocated to the municipal paring ITp Jkl Ride telow and ^h.nd the Navarre shops on the northside of County Road 15 (Shmdinc Dr tet The Idea IS for inbound bu«s to turn left at 3440 Shoreline Drive and wend their way to the N^rre Municipal Parking Lot behind and below the shops. The buses would then e.xit the municipal wgtlar* (Shadvwood Road), left aTd Some objections to this proposal disqualify it from consideration: I. Prom a training standpoint it has challenges: A) to locate the left turn leading to the unseen municipal lot B) to weave one ’s way through the lot itself, and C) to find and set up the exit turns II. Construction and geometry of the lot would require aitention A) parking lots arc not normally built for heavy buses B) the available vvidihs and clearances, given legitimately parked vehicles, could easily scs. III. It creates a discontinuity in an otherwise straight route align Sincerely. ^ 1»ri> Bob Beutz ^ District Superv isor mcni cc: Dick Loefner A service of the MetropoTitan Council S60 Soih A.«^ Hoitt hCp /,‘ww^ m.troC7«nvt cyg Mi^MpoK M/vimou 5541MJ90 (612) 549-7400 Tra-)»:)nfo37J 33JJ TTY3410I4J An Eqti«l Oppor«^ &v<plOy«' 3445 Shor«?in* Drive P O Boa 50 Novorr*. MN 55392 (612) 47I-6832 CHINptoN exhibit Pg R;, S-reei Cofioc: MN55II3 (612) 402 -36 *sgasaara:«agr A‘ /aJ ^ OwCT^ AlrVaOc^ ■-cO' /A^ //^£T FrT=?*^ u 3A V A*V »V»c> (j-pVt •> ^ _______ CUc^-^eXi 73>cvo*)^'^^i:)/cf;d^ 0.U.S » C'*>'VCn»'^CO^nZC" A C- 'pi(vR/<;Acscr &uGSi cUrt.»n--3r'n“v'2;y'^‘^'T-c. "S-^V '■5> ^ V 0.U.S i c«*vv eriia_ -Ta -^v * V. I f ,.J^ ''A*^^ ^ ___/7 '-pvlcwft^/O / >*. 1 ^ ^.) Uy’uJTTT' /?^<- ' i /J ! ■77-7^7/t ' 'Tcc^^7'^^' ^ C^e(=' 'T<‘'>'^ t_e->^o^ /=^Ce.o<; ft/Avy^^TTr-g A-f^^ 'S/'/C//U<S e / ,4.\^ O W. or. locoMy o-n,d. wrvina Yo„, A„,o. Ry, Boo.mg o-d Snow„,obir. N„d, ;nc« 1956 'Tl+« C_<qt*-C!rv_ -=^rtfte' f -4- UJK-i^ /^^4^>4,^^ -J—^ /^'*'n+« C.<c,«.^c;rv_ -ST>/2e' > "37 UJK-t- /iMi^er — /it;z>-75^ C>u7t~ oujA^ Cu.<T?~<.e=-v*S^ /)-i-7-M^ ,-775^ TTB 0^-»- 4L o.“7'2T' 'U^m.H- ^ 5. -T7^-^s cJ---------------- . . /V^ 4-<-’'z::> c/r«z /Q/2^ o ^ ✓ 4^ CS ' j, fZ ,■^^o o U4J /-t:^ A MM It l7IIT2J4J00tJ rnorAOCM Jt adokess unassihneo OWNEANAME MENNEEM RMFEnU) LAND TAXTAVEJt CTTYOEOHOWO NAME/AOOa EOBOXM CItVSTALOAVMN 55J2J IU;NNU*INC«HJN^IYI'KOl* PIlOrLkTYO. * ll«l OKiat<%tlOi7 ^ILKI kS LIST l>AMt M l7n7I34k)nM P«Of AODR 31 AnORFVS IJNASSIGNED OWNIUINAMII IIENNEftNFORFEITLULATUI TAXPAYER anrOEORONO NAMr/AOOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL nAYMN 5SJ2J 31 17117234)0013 PROPADOR 31 AnORLS.SUNASSr.NED OWNER NAME lIFNNFPIN FORFEJrEDLANO TAXPAYFR CITYOFUkONO NAMF/ADOR POB0X6A CRYSTAL RAY MN S332J 31 l7n 7234)00R6 PROPADOR 34U LYRCAVE OWNER NAME GARY A lUNSBFJlCFR TAXPAYER GARY A MANSIirJlGr M NAME/AOOR 34AS LYRIC AVE WAYZATAMN 3S30I 3R I7II72U)0010 PROP ADOR 31 AUUHESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME LCSCOHAJE SCOTT TAXPAYER LYLE C A JOYCE b SCOTT NAME/AOOR 2SW OANTAS POINT LA MINNE TONKA MN 33341 3R |7lt72M100«l PROfAlXm 3472 .SIKNUtINLDR OWNFRNAME LCSCOn A J E SCOTT TAXPAYFR LYirr A JOYCE F. scon NAMI/AINW JVailANIASPlNNriA MINNETONKA MN S339I m HIM,*imam PKIIf AIMNf 3400 MRIRI1 INI DR OWNIMNAMIl DAI I! SR HINSON 1AXPAYIJL C I JOlINVINAIIAlOMf.SON NAMI7ADOR IMI09TIIAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 33447 31 1711.33440009 PROP ADOR 2J77 SIIADYWOOORD OWNER NAME MARCELS INHRIGI TAXPAYER MARCEL INnRICH NAME/AOOR 433STTISTW 4201 WACOMAMN 53317 31 17117234)0017 PROP ADOR 3473 LYRK’ AVE OWNLRNAME TC AIM FLYNN TAXPAYFR tom C A iUUE M n.YNN NAME/AOOR >473 LYRIC ST WAV7ATAMN 55191 31 1711723430090 PROPAINIR 3499 LYRr AVE OWNER NAME MARK W MTIMII) TAXPAYER mark W SOIMID NAME/ADOR 3499 LYRr AVE WAY/ATAMN 33J9I 31 |7li;*U)009) PMUPAINM 344A SHORELML |)K OWNER NAME LDINZLLADIIFN/I LTRSTt TAXPAYI R SANDRA INN MAN NAMHAINIR 34M MNHIl IINL IW WAY/ATAMN )3)9I !■ lfllf.*UNIM.* PROP ADI iR 3440 SHORN INI l)K OWNER NAME NM1IARH W III IRIMiJI US I TAXPAYFR KKTIAKU W IIIJKlMgilLST NAME/AOOR 3)33 SHORI UNF DR ponox 121 NAVAHREMN 33)92 31 . 1172)440099 PROP ADOR 31 AOORFSS UNASSIGNLO OWNER NAME CFTYOrORONO TAXPAYER CTTY Of ORONO NAMF/AOOR POBOXM CRYSTAL RAY MN 53323 31 I7II7234300II PROPADOR 3477 LYRIC AVE OWNFJINAAIE L C SCOn R J E SCOTT TAXPAYI R LYII CR JOYCE ESCOTT NAMiyADDK 2301RANTAS POINT LA MINNETONKA MN 33391 31 1711723430093 PROP AOTTR J4W SHORN INF DR OWNLRNAME LC M.OIT* I E SCOH TAXPAYI R LYLE C A JOYCE E SCOn NAME/AOOR 2S0RIIANTAS POINT t,A MINNLTONILA MN 33)91 31 l7ll72MVn>M PROP AINm 3411 SHORN INL DR OWNI R NAME GFRM TOM PARTNERSHIP TAXPAYER Gl RM.TOM PARTNFR.SIIIP NAMI/AINM ( AKtNIRI MACIARIANE 1107 HA/EI.TTNE IlLVn tiJi aiASKAMN 33311 la liM/2t4Nin« PROP AIMIR 3491 SHORN INI; DR IIWNIRNAMII TIIAMKIMAIIM TAXPAYFR TIIUMA.SIIFRAIIM NAME/ADDM 3103 NORTH .SHORT: DR WAY/ATAMN 55)91 111 171172)440100 PROP ADOR 3312 SHORELINE OR OWNER NAMI DONALD F MCCARVILLL ET AL TAXPAYFR DONALD MCCAKVILIE NAME/AOOR 4M9 WARNER RO MOUND MN 33)64 l> !> Xs 5 Hc Jaaiiarjf 20.2004 Paitlaro Sec. 78* I. Definitions. Lot. through, means a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot On a through lot both street lines shall be front lot lines for applying this chapter. ListofEihibiU Exliibit A - Application E.xhibit B - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit C - 1988 Survey (Existing Conditions) E.xhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - 1978 Survey Showing Intended Pool Location E.xhibil F - House Plans Exhibit G - Property Owners List Exhibit H - Plat Map Background The applicants arc proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild a new home on the existing lot. They are also proposing to keep the existing pool. The lot is substandard in area and requires a lot area variance. Upon review of the initial plans, staff concluded that a conditional use permit and a variance to the conditional use permit would be required in order to allow the existing pool to remain. This is because the lot is considered a “through lot” due to Old Long Lake Road abuning the front and west lot lines and Highway 12 abutting the rear lot line. The applicants are proposing to use the e.xisting access off Old Long Lake Road. No access exists to Highwav 12. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Arca/H’idtb: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. (2 acres)200* Actual 66.360 s.f. (1.523 acres)250 ’ Setbacks; RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50*66 ’6T Rear 50 ’81 ’50* Left Side (west)50 ’126 ’87* Right Side (east)30 ’65 ’32* ■M-2979 January 20. 20M PnitiofO Stmrtiirml Crverage: Total Lot Area Total Sinictural Coverage 66.360 s.f. (1.52.^ acres)Allowed: 9.954 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 4.445 s.f. (7®/o) Hordcovcr Catculitlopt; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbtiog Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000 66.360 s.r.23.226 s.f. (35Vo) Unknown (»nha allo«aMc lunio) 11.945 s.f (18 After exclusion of fabric or p!asiic-lincd landscape beds Lot Area Variance The applicants ore proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild on the lot. The lot, excluding all right-of-wa>. is 1.523 acres in size according to Hennepin County Records. The lot is located in the RR - IB. One Family Rural Residential zoning district requiring two acres for all new construction, therefore, a lot area variance is required. Coodilional Use PcrmitA’ariance The lot currcntl} contains a pcs.->l. City records indicate that a pool was constructed in 1978. At that time it was overlooked that the lot was considered a “through lot" (lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets) and a conditional use permit was never granted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The pool was hand drav\n on a 1978 survey indicating a proposed 70' setback from the west lot line and a 65' setback from Highway 12, meeting required setbacks as indicated in the “through lot" definition. Hovvever, the proposed setbacks for the pool were apparently measured from the centerline of Highway 12 and not the edge of right-of-way. and they therefore do not meet the 50* required setback to Highway 12. The applicants wish to keep the pool with their rebuild, which now requires a conditional use permit fo' an accessory structure on a through lot and a variance to allow it to be setback 28* from Highway 12 when 50' would normally be required. Hardship Slalemcnl Applicant has prox ided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anahsb ___________________________________________________ !m comUtrlmg MppUetthm for vorUnct, tkt FUtmlmg Commb%lom tholi consider the effect of Ike proposed tnrlmce upon tke kenUh. safety and we^are of the commanity, exbting and antlcl^ed trojfk conditions, light ond air. danger offtee, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of pr>>perty In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the Uteralproiisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardsh^ because of circumstances unigue to r*r Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated mat such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. •04-2»T9 Januar) 20,2004 Pa|c4ofO Staff Finds a convincing hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre minimum requirement. The proposal for the house meets all Zoning Ordinance requirements. The lot is also sewered and not subject to primar>- and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area v ariance as the lot is a legal lot of record. Staff would also conclude that there are hardships that could allow the existing pool to remain in its current location. The pool was approved from a site plan dated 1 978 that indicated a 65' setback from the centerline of Highway 12. The pool wasn't constructed in the exact location but it does meet the 65' setback from the centerline of Highway 12. Staff believes that possible topographic challenges caused the pool to be moved from its approved location. Today ’s practice is to measure setbacks from the edge of the right-of- way putting the pool 28' from Highway 12. Although the pool was approved with a setback from the centerline in 1978. a permit would not be approved today for the some location. Because the pool has existed since 1978 staff would conclude that the appropriate thing to do now that the lot is being rebuilt is to grant a conditional US'* permit to officially allow it and grant a variance to allow a setback of 28' (being measured from the edge of the right-of-way not centerline). Staff would also conclude that the pool is having no negative impacts to the neighborhood and the rear of this lot is acting more as a rear yard than a street side, being one cannot see Highway 12 and there is no access to it. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question caruiot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The official controls would require that the lot be 2 acres, however the lot was created under 2 acres but is still considered legal. Therefore, a variance must be granted to allow a new house to be built, which is a riglu that cannot be denied to the applicant. Abo. the exbting pool b not considered legal without approval of the requested variance. The official controls would require that the pool be located at a setback of SO' to the edge of righl-ofway. however that pool has existed since 1978 and w as considered in an appropriate location at that time 2. ”The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The fact that the lot was created under 2 acres b a circumstance unique to the property' and not a circumstance the property owner created The pools setback, as measured in 1978, may have been correct in 19 ”8 but that fact that the standards of measuring setbacks have changed is not a circumstance the landowner created 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." r *• It is of staff s opinion that this criterion is met. eu-tm Janaary 20.2004 PaftOaro 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely sene as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* Granting of the requested vto'iances witi alievlate hardships which fan e been demonstrcaed by the applicant, and will not serve only cs a convenience. luoct far Consideratfan 1. Because this is a rebuild should non-conformities be alloucd to remain? 2. Are there any negative impacts to the pools current location? 3. b there adequate screening to Highway 12? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccoanmidatioB In order to rebuild a house on the existing lot staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance as the proposed house meets all Zoning OMinance requirements and the lot is a legal lot of record. 2. Approval of a conditional use permit to allow the pool :o remain on a through lot. 3. Approval of a variance to allow the existing pool to be setback 28* from Highway 12 when 50’ is required as the pool has existed since 1978, the City has never received any complaints regarding and. and it’s s-.Ticientlv screened from Highway 12. r EXHIBIT A c ApplicitioD 0 0^' Tfllf Due Received ft/njd3 Amoam Paid 3 1^ 00 CITY OF ORO.NO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additiooal variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (do change from original ^>plicatk)o) Variance for non>confonning stnictures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY' INFORMATION Site Address \00^ LAV^g P-O . Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)__________________________ Attach legal description to application if no: included on required survey. Date Pr^rty Acquired ib • ___________________________ 1 (do) (^on^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify)_______ Zoning Disffict: -L B1I ^_______________________ Jmonth'ycar) APPLICANT Name ^.T)pkJAUV^ • Address: loofe Old LoKlb lA u CT gcM)Ci:>'. Phone (horr.el 1711 Phone (work) «1U) ^ lo Id a^\ Zip:___55JlL * OWNER (if different than applicant) Naments^- K0dT Address: iKMfr t^c. ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Phone fhomel gl2- %U;-TriHt _____ Phone (work)__5iiiWi6£IZ:. Cit\- Zip: 4<*/d?T" Estiznaied Construction Cost S C/yQ tJCJb. Describe request in detail: "Tn *TP pj^feUtLaO TrttXAii|4 V tV3 K>or A 7^ . - ^ - VARIANCES REQUIRED y. Lot Area _ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Setback: _ Other (specify) ___Lot \\*uith Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF L*MJSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difccultv* or unusual propen>* conditions presenting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: VlJC. ARg> C kJ fyy\PEf 7H-B Age - ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #297 REQUIRED SUBiMlTTALS yMVlDDHcal^^^ WPBllCTtl^B tfritflln* jp I. ---- Compicled AppUcation Fonn ’ = E541tl^=H~Hr *■ ---- Additional items as may be reque .ted by City suff. i4AT'«( Mr^N’AXtiDrAPPLICi^NT’S SIGNATURE Atoto»“r!a^X’wld“ti5L"f^^^^ ** booing ccnsulunt expenses incSt^l in ^eTof ftis awl“ r'«d supplied is tnie and c«ect to the best of hiiSer iSiol wje. " ' Applicant’s Signature cqncct 10 the best of his Dae. IZ-li-OS OWNER S SIGNATURE membet. for pm,^ of LsS^atira^reLSonTius;^^^^^ Owner’s SignatureV^iiiA /i ‘-------■------------------------- L»a:e _________ tl£T "sr; ’issr £Stff S St SS’r have an authoiued agent attend in l,d .1 “S*--.? «™Senient. to ehange prior to the meeting. “ «^'’,se the Binidmg & Zoning Offiee of this ■#C.^ Y0 V r'EXHIBIT B December 23.2003 WECf!lveO Wb J 0 fflOj o»uronoNo ChyofOrono P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN S5323 Dear City Council and Planning Commis^n: We are writing to you regarding the existing pool on our property. In planning the rebuild of our existing house, we worked around the pool's current position so that we could leave it as b. During the summer months, there is a large amount of foliage around the perimeter of the property. One cannot, in any way. see Hwy 12. onl>' hear h. There are gardens all around the poobide of the property, wdikh will not be disturbed during construction. We were not knowtedgeable about the past circumstances involving the placement of the existing pool which transpired in 1978. long before we took possession of the property. We were under the impressioa that it had been approved in its current position. The house position in refereiKe to the pool was chosen due to the large oak tree located at the east side of the house, the 50 foot set back line to the south and another large oak tree to the north. Because of the east oak tree's size and age, we are determined to save h and have positioned the new home in almost the exact same position as the existing house, only twisting it slightly to better avoid the tree. As you can see on the survey, this places the house between the tree and the pool It is impossible to move the bouse away ^m the pool without disturbing the tree. One oak tree will be coming down on the property to allow for the attached garage. We are determined to save the remaining trees on the property, including the one on the east side of the house and the one on the north. We are requesting a conditional use permit for the pool in its current locatbn as a pre* existing condition and permission to place the new house as drawn on the survey. Thank you for your time. Sincerely. Donald Ristad Kent Cassidy li,-. lUi* ■ •* IM t"* inoHo m EXHIBIT C CertlMcJtfor Surrt* for Sluver CerporKiM In GovcriN«nt lot 4. Section 35-110-23 Menncpin County, HInnesoti V CITYOFOROMO" u APPnovEu v/iTH ne/isioNs riUlfiAP?WM3) ur UAfE. h 'a*. Sronfcerg m. itc. No. I27SS . Corrin KN. Lie. No. 6C64 St L*and Surveyors, Planners I. Ninneiota certify thet this Is a true and • representation of a*.surve/ of the of an existing building, and of the location of a proposed addition In relation 1st and West lines of the folloving described • part of the Cast 250 feet of GovtmBcnt lot 4. i.hetMeen Minneapolis and Watertow Road and the Hate Highway Mo. 10, In Section 35. Township lorth. Range 23 W«st of the 5th Principal Meridian, lot purport to show any other laproveaents or encroachaents. CRONBCRS. INC. Dt<CW»r>QN Of SUBJCT PtWWTY (*t tuppina bf ci^i) IM MSI 71000 fMl af tbet mm el Co«mmiw«i lo( 4. Seciioe 3V HB Nerlh. 73 Msl. M»«n«pn Ceuals, •*Mcb fees sewlH ol Lena l«*e Need eM nertli of U S w^ocy No 1 ) Th*s tut^f Met Ml MM'I lo shoo ony MdW^0M« ulMos TKo conlfoclor shoe MIentune IM oaoct Ioc«4)m ol o»y Ohd eO ••tsl««o ulWos bolore commoncina owe. Dio conlioclor thee be My r«spoi«t*l€ lor eny ond 00 Oomoiin erH«q Ml el iws loMe lo eiocDy loeaie ond proloci oO •wslm^ ullily lo(l>lles 7 ) Cenlocl C0l>»<tt STAIT ONC CAU el 631-414-0007 lor procise onstle iocel<en ol uN>los prior lo wiy ercerelion 3 ) A hH« epinton oos nel Mnltfiod lo the survofor Md no SPoc*l< lilts toercb lor oilslonco or non-ostslance el rocordeO or wn-recorded eosemenii hos boon conducted by the sursesor et port o) Iho Sur«Oy Cross B6.137 Sd ri - I 99 Acres Nel. 60.493 So ri - I 39 Acres (less rl^i ol 5) Xenino and selbocb Inloimolion os pronded by Ihe Plonnma OoperlmonI ol Iho Oly of Oeno llouse - fronl 30 ri Near 30 ri Side 30 ri (slrael sMa) Side 30 ri Cnra9e - lO ri Ner«ea»er 31B mo« co«oro9e if lol wnd« 7 ProposM HordcoMT IS 0» (Proposed house, deck. *i«e>oy. ond erislino pool) 6 ) Cievolons ore essumad I hereby cerltly Ihol this pion or specincollon ms prepored by me or under my direci swperMKm ««d Ihol I em o Ally Sensed lond surneiDr vndcf tha loaa ol Ihe Stole o> Nmnesoio lied this llh doe el Au9usl. 7003 :as±L_ ti 5 sSjlluj cBymi CXCMl ONO OAI'. BV13 a-i.* • Q ?vP ol u *.<11 v> ^ A 7 -w vj I ot ■ vT) < CC i' STcJri^lM ^Ht; *ux^> ^->N \ \ I-U- \ \ \ i !»• M.i » B aArl/ I »-%“^* s » I ^ o> } v4 » *1 -•I i ^ V 1 ' o.'M .•' 4/51., “ I u: « M.yrii|i>i E««-”r-=: L RUNIMU:liCNNLHNCOUNlYMOr mOfOtTYO /INFORMATtUN SYSTEM JtSLISr MOE: I M SSimiiMHI 453 LOMO LAKE HOE OWNEHMAME OTYOrOIIONO TAXEAvn ctnoromoHO WAWAPIMI tOKM CK VITAL BAY kM S55U 31 3311123130003 PIIOrAOOIk 1000 OLD LONG LAKE HO OWMERMAMB It C REEO B S L JOHNSON TAXTAVn RCREEOBSLJOIBeON NAME/AOOR 1000 OLD LONG LAKE HO WAVZATAMN S330I 31 3SII133I40000 mOfAOOR ««0 OLD LONG LAKE HD OWNER NAME BRUCE B DAYTON TAXTAVER RLBSRCO NAME/AOOR *00 OLD LONG LAKE HO WAYZATAMN SS3M 31 3SII1234I00BI rnorAOOR «i3 olduwolakeho OWNERNAMC RK1IAROORMEHARTETAL TA3VAYER RCIIAROOIUNOIART NAMC/AOM WOLD LONG LAKE RO WAYZATAMN 33391 30 3SII1134I000J rROTAOOR 90S OLD LONG LAKE RD OWNER NAME BRUCEBDAYTON TAJCfAYER OKABENA COMPANY NAME/AOOR 3I40NORWESTCENTER MPLSMN 33402 31 3SII0234I0004 PROP ADOR *70 WAYZATA OLVO W OWNERNAME R A DALES RIT DALES TAXPAYER REEO DALES* JEANNE BALES NAME/AOOR *W WAYZATA BLVO W WAYZATAMN 333*1 31 33II12342000I PBOPAOOR 1003 Olil LONG LAKE RD OWNERNAME NANCY TEMPli! SAMUELS TAXPAYER OONAID A RBTAD NAME/AOOR tOOS OLD LONG LAKE RD OBONOMN 333*1 72 33IIU342O0O2 PROP ADOR 1043 WAYZATA DLVDW OWN! Jl NAME I IIWARD V n H RMM A WU P. TAXPAYER EDWARD V PETERSON NAME/AOOR 10*3 WAYZATA BLVD W WAVZATAMN 553*1 72 3SII02342000A PROP ADOR toss WAYZATA DLVDW OWNI RNAME DONNA II PlfTERSON TAXPAYER DONNA H SHAW NAME/AOOR IMS WAYZATA DLVDW WAYZATAMN 553*1 72 33II02343OMO PROP At Mm 303 UMIAWUOOLA OWNERNAME IMNWEPB*PORPEI TEDLAND TAXPAYER CITY OP LOMO LAKE NAME/AOOR l*M PARK AVE LONG LAKE MN 33330 72 J3III2342004I PROPADOR 300 LBttMWOUOLA OWNERNAME JERRYDSMITHRWWE TAXPAYER JERRY OSMini NAME/AOOR 300UNOWOOO WAYZATAMN 333*1 I CERTIFY TIIATTIC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REFRESENTAT10NOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECXMOS Q| OF TIC ICIMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENTTO THEENT, TO THE BEST OFMY KNOWLEDGE ANDDEUEF. DATE^£l^^[lf-^ BY // MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («) #03-2917 WINHELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, 350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES, Coolinucd 3. Side yard setback variance lo allow a side yard setback of 10' when 30’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance lo allow a rear yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is normally required. ail variance lo allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally At the August 1 8.2003 Planning Commission meeting the applicant's proposal was tabled to allow for the applicant lo redesign in confoimance with sUfls recommendation which was as follows: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of a front yard setback variance to allow a from yard setback of 30* when 50’ is normally allowed. 3. Approval of a side yard setback variance lo allow a side yard setback of 10' when 30’ is normally allowed. 4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 30' when 50’ is normally allowed. 5. Denial of the creek setback lo allow structure in the 0-75' creek setback zone. Becai^ the project was being reviewed as a rebuild, the applicant was instructed to redesign a footprint w hich does not extend into the 0-75’ creek setback. 6. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75' creek setback zone to allow 2.7% hardcover w hen is normally allowed 7. Approval of a hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone which w ould allow for the buildable area as shown on Exhibit H of the original planning report due lo the limited amount of buildable area existing in the 75-250’ zone. Waataja reported that the applicant has submitted plans which meet the above recoimnendation. The footprint of the proposed home meets the 30* front yard setback, 10* side yard setback and the 30’ rear yard setback. Also, the applicant has removed all structure from the 0-75’ creek setback zone when 325 s.f was originally proposed and has proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone at 45% when 4A% was originally proposed. The applicants proposed footprint also meets the structural coverage requirement as 12% is proposed when 15% is allowed. Waataja stated that staff w ould recommend approval of the revised proposal, as submitted and shown on the plan dated November 3.2003, which consists of the following variances; I. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. PAGE 2 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. <#2) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS, 3S0 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES, CoDdittcd 2. Approval of the front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30* when 50’ is oocmally alkmvd. 3. Approval of a side yard setback variance to allow* a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ is normally allow*ed. 4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a 30’ rear yard setback when SO’ is normally allowed. 5. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow ^5% hardcover in the 75-250* zone when 25% is normally allowed due to the limited amount of area in the zone (6.580 s.f.) and the large amount of unbuildable area on the lot (12,000 s.f). Mr. Stephens had nothing further to add. John Lehmeyer, 320 Crestview* Avenue, relayed his concern regarding screening along the northern side of the property where a 10* setback will be granted. Mr. Stephens stated that he would be open to adding any kind of acceptable screening, including additional lilacs. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2917, Winfield and Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue, granting a lot area, front, rear, and side setback variances and a hardcover variance in the 75-250’ zone, subject to staff s recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1035 SHADY3VOOD ROAD, variance (6:59 - 7:18 P.M.) As the applicants w ere absent, discussion was postponed. (#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT (6:15 - 6:59 P.M.) Judith Pierpont, the applicant, was present. Gaffron reported that the applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between these tw 0 residential lots. iMth of which they have owned for many years. The w esterly lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants’ intent is to yield tw o lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1801 and its guest house, but only if the w etland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement PAGE 3 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#4) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1049 AND 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CoBliaacd Gaflron explained that in 1990 the applicants were granted a CUP via Resolution No. 2854 to convert a detached stable and garage into a guest house near the northwest comer of Lot 15. At that lime the property was depicted as “S-plus dry contiguous acres”, considered as including Lot 14 for density purposes. Condition 2 of Resolution No. 2854 staled as follows: “2. The applicants have agreed to legally combine Lot 14, Block 1, Tie Farm at Ung Lake with the adjacent homestead property by Fehrnary 28,1991. Applicants are hereby advised that If the legal combinatioa b not realised by the specified deadline date, all resIdenUal asc of the subject strvctnre shall cease immediately and applicanto shall be required to make the necessary alterations to the guest honsc stmetnre so that it ouiy no longer be used for habitation. AppUcaats shall obtain the required bnildiag permit to complete the alterations.** For reasons unknown to suff. the legal combination has ne\ er been completed by the applicants. They continue to own both parcels, how ever, and arc requesting the lot line rearrangement in order to maximize the area of the homestead parcel while retaining the minimum 2.0 dry buildable acres in Lot 14 for future development or sale as a building site. GafTron stated that Guest House conditional use standards appear in Section 78-303(8Xa) and have interpreted in past applications to mean that a properly in a 2-acre zone must conuin 4.0 dry buildable acres of land to qualify for a guest house. Staff is unaw are of any past situations w here a guest house was allow ed w hen a portion of the required 4 acres w as wetland. Gaflron also believed it should be noted that the existing guest house is located very near the north property boundary of Lot 15/16. With regard to septic system capability. Gaflron stated that the applicants have provided septic testing indicating that Lot 14 after the rearrangement will have two approved sites for a 5-bedroom mound system as required by City code. Lot 15/16 has also been confirmed to have a site for construction of a 5-bcdroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serv ing the house and guest house. However, the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that Lot 14 and Lot 15/16 w ill be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future. At the time of attributing sewer units to the various properties to be served, the guest house on Lot 15/16 will have to be considered under the City’s assessment policies. \NTiilc Lot 14 w ill contain the required 2.0 acres of dry buildable land after the rearrangement, hardcover calculations which have been provided, shows that existing hardcover is well below the established limits, and should not be a factor in future development of the property. PAGE 4 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (M) #03-2951 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1S49 AND 1801 WEST FARM ROAD. LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CoBtlaacd Garfiron indicated that staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the follov^ing: 1. AppIicanU to grant a 20* drainage & utility easement (10* either side of neu' lot line) to replace the easements being vacated. 2. Applicants to provide title opinion to confirm oi^nership of each property. 3. Planning Commission should address whether the Guest House use should continue to be allowed based on 3 acres dry/1 acre wet. If not, then applicants should be directed to proceed with removal of its plumbing, or make an application to convert it to an “accessoiy building with plumbing” and remove any e.xisting kitchen facilities. 4. Planning Commission should determine what the intended use is for the driveway in Lot 14 connecting to Lot 15/16; then determine whether any special conditions should be considered for continued use of that secondary access if Lot 14 is sold separately from Lot 15/16. Ms. Pierpont explained that the original guest house w as a con\ erted stable from the 1800's and that they would prefer to leave the guest house as is. She maintained that they were not proposing to increase the size of the footprint w ith the proposed changes in the driveway and would plan to remove the surrounding circular driveway someday. Benjamin Whitten. 1889 West Farm Road, voiced his opposition to the proposed lot line rearrangement. He questioned the process that allowed the applicants to fail to combine the two parcels as directed by their CUP in 1990. He objected to their request to vacate the original agreement, redraw the lot line, and allow to site wetlands for their purposes of septic etc. Although Whitten had no interest in seeing the guest house removed or changed, as a neighbor, he felt the process had failed to protect him and he questioned the Pierponts motivation as their property was on the market until recently. Ms. Pierpont stated that the home had been taken off the market. Zugschwert asked if the Commission had ever allow ed the use of wetlands to be a factor when determining the propensity of the gu^ house. Gaffron stated that the lot area for rural zones does not include wetland regions in the calculable area of the buildable lot area. He pointed out that, in 1989, that is why the two PAGE5of41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17, 2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#4) W3-295I JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRFONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM----- road, lot line rearrangement. CooUnued lots were to be legally combined. Since they were not combined, and the City failed to follow up, the Commission should now address this issue. Picipont stated that they would prefer to have two clearly distinct lots for their purposes and which could be assessed independently. Acting Chair Mabusth asked what would stop the applicants from disregarding, once again, w hat the Commission recommends as a condition. As demonstrated by their failure to follow through on the initial agreement. In addition, Mabusth stated that her support w ould hinge upon the remuv al of the outer circular drivew ay. She asked w hether the wetland posed a hardship of any kind for the applicants. As a condition of the rearrangement, Pierpont agree*! to the removal of the outer driveway. Hawm staled that her reservations stem from the fact that the original CUP for the guest house would not have gone forward if the City and applicant would have followed the terms of the past agreement citing the combination as a condition of its approval. She maintained that the Code c'early states that applicants need 4 acres of dry buildable to have the guest house. She stated that if the applicants wish to retain the guest house structure, they must remove that w hich makes it a guest house, i.e. the kitchenette. Pierpont stated that she hadn’t realized her husband had neglected to complete the legal combination until applying for this application. She pointed out that mast of the w etland appears, to her. to be on her neighbor’s property and not hers. Gaffron indicated that these were the numbers the City was supplied with and reflect 6 acres, one of w hich is w etland, supporting two structures and a guest house. Pierpont asked w hether the fact that they plan to attach the guest house to their present home has any bearing on the subject. Gaffron pointed out that an enclosed connection from the main house to the guest house would add a new dimension to the proposal and flag additional variance requesu Although this would change the need for the CUP for the guest house, it would be creating a new nonconforming structure too close to the lot line. Pierpont questioned what the issue was. since this home should be viewed as an asset to the community and they would remove the outer driveway. Hawm Slated that the problem stems flom the new precedent that would be set by an approval of this nature. She reiterated that the applicants had been directed to legally PAGE 6 of 41 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#4) #03-29SI JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT, 1849 AND 1801 WEST FARM ROAD, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT, CoaUnaed combine the lots in order to double the lot size which would allow them to build their guest house in 1989. While she agreed the home was a beautiful facility, Hawn repeated the options, which included either meeting the 4 acres of dry buildable or removing the kitchen in the guest house. Pierpont reminded the Commission that they would be paying for sewer on two properties, as well as, creating new space for a potential homeowners and tax payer in Orono, if they were allowed the rearrangement. The Commissioners agreed that they could not credit the applicants for the w etlond. Rahn stated that the applicants must comply with the original resolution by either combining the two lots or losing the kitchen facilities. Since the conditions under which the original agreement was made have not changed, he asserted that it is spelled out quite clearly what the expectation is. Pierpont stated that, although she would lose the kitchen, she believed that sew er has made a significant cluuige to the original terms of the agreement. Gaffron stated that if the guest house is converted to an accessory structure w ith plumbing by CUP. he would confirm with the City Attorney at a later date whether this could be mode part of the Planning Commission's recommendation at this time. He pointed out that the accessory structure fails to meet the 1 S' setback, as has always been the case, and remains nonconforming. In order to allow the accessory structure to remain. Acting Chair Mabusth based this upon the findings that the structure's proximity to the lot line was existent, wus used as a guest house, it sits on a hill with no impact to views, has a natural buffer, and has historical significance attached to it as a stable. Although it had been upgraded. Pierpont pointed out that the stable has alwavs had plumbing. \\*hile he would first check with the Attorney. Gaffron staled that this may offer some grandfathered status since the plumbing was existent. Acliog Chair Mabusth moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2931, James and Jndith Pierpont, 1801-1849 West Farm Road, granting the lot line rearrangeinent, subject to sUfT recommendations, the removal of the outer circular driveway; and pending City Attorney approval, while the guest house use must be discontinued with this subdivision, modifying the CLP for the PAGE 7 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17.2003 6:00 o’clock p.ro. (#4) M3.29S1 JUDITH AND JAMES PEIRPONT. 1849 AND 1801 FARM ROAD. LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT. Conliaued guest house ou lot 15/16 to reflect the approval for a CUP for accessory structure with plumbiug based ou the lindlags that the structures situatteu to the lot line was exbtcflt, the structure had been used as a guest house, does not obstruct views, affords a natural buffer, and has historical significance as a stable. VOTE: Ayes 5, nays 1. Fritzler dissented, stating that the applicants failed to follow the tenns of the original agreement and that the old stable does not necessarily hold historic significance. (#3) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON. IS35 SHADWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE (6:59 - 7:18 P.M.) - continued Kara Hutton, the applicant, was present. Foth explained that the applicants previously requested after-the-fact hardcover variances and an after-the-fact lakeshore setback variance in order allow a 10* x 12* shed within the 0-75* zone and after-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25*!o within the 75*-250* zone. Additionally, the applicants were requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f.. The variance included: 1. Hardcover in the 75*-250* zone of 31.9 •/• when 25% is allowed and hardcover in the 0-75* zone at 1.7 % when 0% is allowed. 2. Accessory structure within the 0-75 ’ setback where none arc allowed. The applicants have since revised their request. They are requesting the following: 1. Hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s. f staircase to their existing deck within the 75*-250* zone. 2. Hardcover variance to allow a 10* x 12* shed (additional 120 s.f. hardcover) within the 75 ’-250* zone. The applicants arc also requesting a hardcover variance to in order to retain 808 s.f. of drivway hardcover which w as removed in order to obtain a building permit for an addition constructed in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003 the drivcw ay hardcover was reinstalled. Foth reported that, in August 2003, the applicants were before the Planning Commission w ith hardcover variance requests and a request for a variance for an accessory structure within 75 ’ of the OHWL The applicants were directed by the Planning Commission to remove the excess 808 s.f. of hardcover from the 75*-250* setback zone, and with relation to the shed in the 0-75* setback the applicants were provided with Cit>- Code information regarding a lock box. Since that time, the applicants have provided their plan for hardcover removals within the 75 ’-250* setback zone. Thev are now proposing to add additional PAGE8of41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (MS) M03-29S3 RAYMOND AND N^XENE NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE, CoDtlDttcd 35.7% where 25°/e is allowed. The applicants* request for a variance within the 0-7S' zone is merely a formality as the 1.4% hardcover in this zone represents an allowed 136 s.f. staircase to the lake. Foth staled that staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variances as proposed; Hardcover within the 0*75* zone at 1.4% and hardcover within the 75**250* zone to be at 35.7% and that the applicants remove all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. Since staff finds a hardship to approve the hardcover variances as requested due to the nature ai>d location of the shared drivew ay and the inabih *o park vehicles along County Road 15. Acting Chair thanked the applicants for working with the City and Planning Department staff to resolve their differences. Ms. Newkirk acknowledged that it had been a terrible e.xpeiicnce. There were no public comments. Haw a moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application M03-2953, Raymond and Nylenc New kirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, granting both a hardcover variance in the 6-75* zone of 1.4% consbting of a staircase to the lake and the 75-250* zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, subject to the removal of all landscape fabric and plastic liners. %'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS («8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WXST, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIA.NCE (7:23 - 8:00 P.M.) Da\ id and Tara Gross, the applicants, were present. Foth explained that the applicants arc requesting an afler-thc-fact variance in order to allow a 2380 s.f. sport court within 6’ of the side lot line where 30* is required Foth provided the following background, in June 2003, the applicants w ere notified by a letter from Oronu Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an aOer-the-fact permit was required for their newly consuucied sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified that the sport court did not meet the required 30* side setback as it was placed less than 6* from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height restrictions. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work PAGE 11 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («8) M3-29S0 DA\1D AND TARA GROSS, 263S COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE HTST, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Continncd Ms. Gross indicated that the garden issues had been solved and were no longer in question. Mr. Gross explained that their intent to construct a sport court in this location was by no means meant to be a malicious act. He indicated that he and his family moved to Orono two yean earlier and have been heavily involved in the community. Having looked at their options for constructing a sport court last spring, they settled on this location as it was visible from the kitchen windows and proceeded without objection from adjoining properties. Gross stated that, in fact, the adjoining neighbor had no objection at the time but instead asked to use the sport court when complete. In addition, he had seen several fUll size tennis courts and q>orts courts on property lines throughout the area and had no concerns about its placement. Although the intent was to build the sport court 10’ from the property line, which they felt was meeting code based on others they’d seen, due to grade charges the court was shifted to merely 6’ off the property line. Mr. Gross slated that, after construction, Bruce Vang approach the applicants and said we’d have to apply for an after-the-fact variance. In so doing, the Gross’ hired Gronberg and Associates to hwdle the matter and provide the City w iih the necessary paperwork they required. Gross staled that, unbeknownst to them, the deadlines were missed, after which he placed repealed phone calls to his representatives to provide the necessary papers. Mr. Gross believed the proposed alternate location would place the sport court on the blind side of the home and cause the removal of eight large spruce trees. Instead, Gross proposed they plant significant landscaping to improve the existing situation. Acting Chair Xfabusth recognized that the applicants had been put in a difficult situation. Ms. Gross indicated that, typically, all of the contractors they'd ever dealt with had always pulled the permits for them, and it was not apparent to them that it was their responsibility. Gross questioned if the Code had been changed recently to reflect a 30’ rather than 10’ setback. Gaffron indicated that the oversize structure Code dates back 10 years. Paul Tichy, 2615 Countrywide Drive, staled that, as the adjoining property owtict, he wished for further clarity and definition of what the codes exist for it not to protect the integrity and values of property owners. He pointed out that, while it is their preference to preserve the natural state of their property, they did not wish for bad things to happen for the neighbor. PAGE 13of41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#•) m-29S0 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 263S COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, CeatinMd Acting Chair Mabusth pointed out that, specifically, the rules regarding sport courts exist to protect adjacent net^bors from the additional noise and disturbance the courts, and lights, create by nature. Gaffron asked the Commission whether they could find any hardship that would support the approval of the proposed location, had the application come to them before-the-fact. Although she could predate their concern about visibility. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, had they come in prior to construction, they would have been asked to test for septic and move it closer to meet the 30' setback. Gross acknowledged that, while they could try to reduce the size of the court to fit within the City Code, at great expense, he quesUoned how the additional 4' would eliminate the impact that noise and children mi^ have. Bremer asked what the sport court would have to be reduced by to allow it to remain 10’ from the property line. Gaffron indicated that accessory structures of0-750 s.f. require a 10' setback, from 750- 1500 s.f. require a 15' setback and so on. Hawn stated that this is the second time she had heard of this sort of setback issue being created by sport courU and asked why this continues. Bremer pointed out that the contract with Sport Court clearly states it is the homeowner's responsibility to pull the permits. Gross staled that, having never been in a position where the contractor hadn't pulled the permit, they simply had overlooked that aspect of the contract in the excitement of getting their sport court. He reiterated that they never would have walked willingly into this predicamt nt and noted that his proposed options placed a pretty significant impact on him and his family. Fritzler maintained that the applicants must reduce the size of their sport court and keep any fencing w iihin limits as well. While she w ould not have voted to support the current placement of the sport court if they'd come before the Commission first, Hawn asked whether a time limit should be placed on the courts removal or new* placement. PAGE 14 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17.2003 6:00 o*ck)ck p.m. <^8) #03-2950 DAMD AND TARA GROSS. 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRXMEi UTST, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, Comtimmtd Gaffron stated that weather conditions may warrant a removal relocation deadline of June 2004. Bremer questioned whether the applicants had spoken to their contractor about their role in creating this problem. Gross staled that the contractor referred them to the contract. Tichy. the neighbor, questioned w hether Sport Court should have proceeded without a permit knowing what they do about limitations w ithin Orono. He pointed out that Sport Court has acknowledged that Orono is one of 5 communities in the metro area with more restrictive setback allowances than most. He argued that Sport Court might have a bit more liability in the situation than they have been leading the Gross' to believe. Craig Jones, owner of Sport Court, stated that for 1 8 years he has been the one to pull permits for his clients; however, he had recently changed this policy and put the responsibility of this upon the customer. Unfortunately, as in this situation. Jones stated that he has learned this is not an effective alternative and has reversed his policy so that he, the contractor, pulls the permits. Jones slated that he was familiar with Orono's rules regarding setback, having spoken to Lyle Oman in the past. Fritzler asked why the contractor didn't question the fact no permit was posted at the site. He stated that he w ould not be in support of granting the afler-the-fact request Frkaler moved, Hawn sccoadcd, !• recommend denial of Application #03-2950, David and Tara Gross, 2635 Conalry slde Drive, a reqaest for aa afier-lbe-fact variance to allow a 2380 s.f. sport court w ithin 6* of the side lot line where 30* is required. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays I. Zugschwert suted that she would grant the request with additional screening. She believed it was unforttmate that the Gross' were caught in the middle; whereas, the Sport Court organization has once again begun pulling the permits for their clients. Based on the denial. Todd Umess, 2630 Countryside Drive West, asked for clarification of when the removal must lake place given the time of year. The Commission agreed that removal or relocation should be complete by June 2004. PAGE 15 of41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17.2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS - l.-OO P3L («6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDiMENT, SECTIONS 7S-1491 (b) ud 7»-IS77. REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Acting Chair Mabosth opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p m. Seeing there were no public comments, Mabusth clo^ the public hearing and postponed Commission discussion following new business. NEW BUSINESS • Coattaacd (#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (8:01 - 8:25 P.M.) Judy and David Zoschke, the applicants, were present. GafTron explained that the applicant is appealing City Staffs interpretation of the conclusions of the Planning Commission and Council in relation to the extent of hardcover removals required per Resolution No. 4920, adopted February 24,2003 GafTron reported that in February 2003, the Zoschke’s were granted a variety of variances in order to replace a deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose part of it as a porch. The applicants agreed to remove hardcover including landsc^ areas lined by plastic/fabric as we>? as patio area in the 0-75’ zone. However, the applicants are disputing the square footage and extent of patio removal agreed to; they do not believe they agreed to the removals as depicted in Resolution No. 4920, but to a lesser removal that allows the upper patio, stairway, and a 3’ portion of lower patio adjacent to the retaining w all, to remain. Stafi was initially advised by the Zoschke's in July that they disagreed with the Resolution diagram and the extent of the removals required. Staff review ed the zoning file and the PC and Council minutes to determine whether any documenution therein would support or refute the Zoschke's position. Gaffion indicated that the initial conclusion reached was that the square footage to be removed w as not documented in either set of minutes, but the Council memo of 2-20-03 clearly indicates a 681 s.f. removal, which was reflected in the attached resolution adopted by Council on 2-24-03. Staff has contested that the Zoschke's had opportunity to rev iew the resolution and exhibit prior to its adoption, and had further opportunity to review it between iu adoption and the time they individually signed it more than a month later. The Council did place this item on its Consent Agen^ so no discussion was held at the Council level for this item. PAGE 16 of 41 minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 2. Determine that the stafT interpretation does not correctly reflect the Planning Commission’s intent, and provide staff with direction to clarify and correct the resoluUon. 3. Reach no consensus as to whether the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome). The applicants could, if they disagree with your conclusions, file for a new variance and att^ to demonstrate a hardship that would support the granting of variances. In staffs opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the place of a new variance application. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she recalled discussion regarding the removal of stairca^ which resulted in the applicants retaining the upper staircase and retaining wall reinoving the lower stairway, and keeping the concrete area. Upon revisiting the site once again. Mabusth slated that she felt the northern steps could be removed instead of the lower access steps. Mr. ^Khke Slated that, in his recollection, he had asked to retain the lower steps and lean- to which were allowed in the discussion. Bremer concurred. ZoKhke indicated that he would remove the walk going down to the lake once the northern stairway was removed. He maintained that the 681 s.f. figure was incorrect, since the removal of either staircase would fall short more than 100 square feet. Ha»Ti pointed out lhal the ^tpeal could only be based on comments from Commissionets who were present at that previous meeting. Gaffron co.icurred. staling that only the people who were in attendance at that meeting should address whether the resolution representt what was intended. He asked if the Commission agreed that the 681 s.f. figure was the correct number. Acting Chair Mabusth agreed that the 681 s.f. figure could not be met in any combination. questioned where the 681 s.f. figure had come from, whether it was a combinaUon of all the concrete patios on the property, or who had come up with that number. Gaffron stated that staff could easily recalculate the square footage to come up with an appropriate number if the Commission could agree upon which things were meant to be removed. He stated that the hardcover calculation worksheet is most often completed by PAGE 18 of 4 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADY^OOD ROAD, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, Cootianed the sune>-or. GafTron indicated that he could recall a need to retain the upper patio wallofc ay from the house. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she failed to recall any conversation that stated the upper patio portion was to be removed. She maintained that the 681 s.f. flgure was incorrect. Bremer stated that she would trust the direction laid out in the Minutes w hich focus on the removal of the concrete patio and not the specific square footage. She believed the discussion centered on the visuals and less on the specific numbers associated with those items to remain or be removed. Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the Commission make a recommendation that designates certain elements of the drawing versus the specific numbers. She encouraged the Commission to evaluate what has been removed already and what's the difference between this and what is further to be removed, such as the staircase along the north side. She noted that she also recalled discussion that w ould allow the applicant to retain the walkw ay to the lean-to structure, as well as, the connection betw een the upper and lower level stair area. GafTron stated that if the Commission could conclude that the proposed drawing was correct and that numbers were not specifically discussed, staff could recalculate the removals based on their recommendation. Actiag Chair Mabusth luovcd, to recommead approval of Appikalion #03>2866a, an Appeal to Rcsolulioo #492t, based oo the coaclnsioo that the proposed drawing b correct, the Commlssloo directs staff to recakalalc based on the drawing how much hardcover was to be removed, determine bow much has been removed, and bow much additional b to be removed in the 0-75’ tone upon the appikanb choosing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 2. Haw n and Zugschwert abstaining. 8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING (87) 803-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71 REGULATIONS OF NONCONFOR.MING USES AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES Acting Chair Mabusth opened the Public Hearing at 8:25 p.m. As there wer« wo pvf*iic comments. Mabusth deferred further discussion following New Business A^^‘ «.»oos. PAGE 19 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:C0 o'clock p.m. NEW BUSINESS - Coatlavcd <«10) (V03-29S9 TIMOTHY J. LATTERNER, 2032 SHAOnvOOD ROAD, VARIANCE (8:27 > 8:42 P.M.) Timothy and Sheryl Lattemer, the applicants, were present. Foth reported that the applicuits request the follouing: I. A hordcom variance in the 75*- 250* setback 2one in order to reduce their existing hardcover from 65.1% (82.2% including rock and plastic) to 61.2% where 25% is allowed. Side yard setback variances for the residence in order to add a pitched roof where a flat2. roof currently exists and add a full 2' story where cunently a Vi stor>- e.xists at a substandard setback of 5.8' where a 10* side setbac'jc is required. Side yard setback variance in order to change the roof on the existing garage and carport that is currently setback 4.5* lirom the propern line where a 10* side setback is required. Foth explained that the applicants’ exiswr.g home is sei*rcick 5.8* feet from the side yard w here a 10’ setback is required. The hcr.e has a flat roof on the rear porch and a % story in the middle portion of the upper level. The applicants w ish to add a pitched roof above an existing flat-roofed porch make their current '/: story a full story. *Thc applicants have proposed remos'al of all of the plastic lined rock landscape areas and will be replacing those areas with sod. *rhe total hardcover reduction is proposed to be 296 s.f, not taking account of the 1644 s.f. of rock lined la.-iscape areas which will be removed. Furthermore, Foth stated that, in order to repair a leaking roof, the applicants would like to add a pitched roof to their flat-roofed porch and bring the pitch down and add % story to the existing '/i stoo'. The applicants feel that their water leakage problems could be solved by removing the dormered windows and adding the pitched roof to their porch. As part of this application the applicants would like to alter the roofline of their existing garage to include the existing carport. Staff found that no permit had been obtained for the carport. *rhe carport is currently 3.5* from the property line and approximately 5.5* from the neighboring garage roof Staff believes expansion of the garage roof to make this nonconforming carport more permanent :s not appropriate and not supported by hardship. Foth indicated that Planning Department Suff recommends: 1. Approval of the hardcover var.ance t.n order to reduce the level of hardcover on the lot from 65.1^0 to 6l.2®b within the 75 -250* setback zone. 2. Approval of the side setback variance to allow the construction of a pitched roofover the existing flat-roofed porch 5.8* from the side yard where 10* is required. 3. Approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current '/i story into a full story 5.8 ’ from the property line where a 10* side setback is required. PAGE 20 of 4 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10) #03-2959 TIMOTHY J. LATTERNER, 2032 SHAD\’>VOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CoBtiaued 4. Removal of ihe 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage from 24.8% to 21.4%. 5. Removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds. Mr. Laltemer stated that they had recently purchased the property and hoped to repair the problem due to water leakage on the top floor. In addition, he indicated that they would replace the current four types of roofing material w ith one standard design. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the carport would not be allow ed. Lattemer indicated he could accept that. Some discussion w ith regard to Ihe removal of additional bituminous driveway ensued, resulting in the applicants retaining the current surface amounts to provide safe access to County Road 19 and accommodation for four drivers. There w ere no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth suggested the applicants remove the additional 5* paved section along the rear of the garage and replace it with sod. Dr. Zoschke. 2040 Shadywood Road, the neighbor to the south, supported the applicants request to retain the bituminous surface of the drive, since it is extremely difficult to maneuver and safely access Shadywood Rd. Hawn moved. Zugschwen sccoBded, to recommcDd approval of Application #03- 2959. Timothy and Sheryl Lattemer. 2032 Shadywood Road, granting a hardcover variance reducing the current level of hardcover io the 75-250' zone from 65.1% to 61.2%; approval of the side yard setback varianc. o allow the constraction of a pitched roof over the existing flat-roofed porch 5.8' from the side yard where 10* is required; approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current '/i story into a full story 5.8* from the property line where a 10* side setback is required; Removal of the 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage from 24.8% to 21.4%; and removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds. VOTE: Ayes 6, nays 0. (#11) #03-2961 MNA WILD.MAN. 745 SPRl.NG HILL ROAD, PRELI.MINARY PLAT (8:42 - 10:00 P.M.) Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates, and Bob Carlson, applicants* representative, were present. PAGE 21 of 41 rflii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.ra. («I I) M03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT, Coolioued Gaf&on explained that this is a proposed 3-Iot residential plat of property located on the southwest shore of Lydiard Lake. The proposal includes: - keeping the existing residence, guesthouse and tennis court within a 6.3 acre lakeshcre parcel (Lot I); • development of a new 1 l.S-acre lakeshore building site for construction of one new home in the near future (Lot 2); • creation of a 5.8 acre non-Iakeshore parcel to be acquired by the adjacent property owner, has potential for future residential development (Lot 3). • creation of an outlot for a private loop cul*de-sac driveway primarily serving Lot 2 but also functioning as an emergency vehicle turnaround Gaffron continued, stating that the applicant proposes to construct a new home southeast of the existing residence. The property is zoned for 2-acre lots and is not in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, and therefore will continue to be served by septic systems and wells. Tlic site is mostly open fields and abuts the DNR's Wood Rill Scientifie and Natural Area to the immediate south. Access to the property is via a long, narrow pnvate road that exists pursuant to a variety of easements between property ow ners. The property itself does not abut a public road. The private road currently scrv es 4 homes, and w ill serve 5 homes (and a potential 6th) upon completion of the subdivision. While the applicant does not want to subdivide to the highest possible density under the 2-acre zoning, future subdivision potential e.vists. Staffhas worked with the applicant and her consultants to ensure that the ability to meet City codes for future subdivisions is not compromised by the current proposal. Gaffron acknow ledged that road access is perhaps the single greatest concern identified by Staff regarding this subdivision, relative to the following site conditions 1. The property does not abut a public road, but is accessed via a private road driveway w ithin a cartway established in 1882 from what today a^e properties owned by Winston and Hawn, and w ithin a private easement o»cr the adjoining Winston property. The cartw ay is not maintained by the City. Its legal status is somew hat unclear to staff and this will require some review by an anomey... 2. The private drivew ay/road serv es 4 existing homes, and will serv e 5 or 6 homes as a result of the subdivision. 3. The private driveway/'road does not end in a cul-de-sac, but rather branches off to individual driveways which each have a driveway loop near the residences. PAGE 22 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (I»l I) M03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 74S SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, Continued 4. The portions ofprivalc drivcway'road serving multiple homes is generally only 1 2- 14* in pav ed \\ idih. and at the point it enters the applicant's property is approximately 1000’ from Spring Hill Road. 5. The private driveuay proposed to serve a neiA- residence on Lot 2 will extend an additional 1600* into the property; that house will be 2600* or about '/j mile from Spring Hill Road. Gaffron pointed out that Fire Marshal Bill Meyer was asked to comment regarding the access standards required for emergency vehicles. Meyer has indicated the access should be brought up to the Minnesota Uniform Fire Code standards, which include; I) an unobstructed road width of 20*. 2) surfaced to support the imposed loads of and provide all-w eather driving capabilities for fire apparatus. 3) for any segment of private road or driveway serv ing more than two homes. Tne City Engineer has suggested that the potential use of the roads be considered in deiermitting what road width standard to use. and notes that the minimum width for 3-6 It • ellmg units would be 24*. Koied on Orono Code Section 82-282 regulating access to subdivisions. Gaffron explained ^ ^he City has the authonty to require improvements to the private road as a condition > JKi>di> ision approval, should the City so choose. The applicant would have to detrr'.' /hether such improvements w ould be allow ed under the terms of the vanous ca^. providing access to the site. The City should require an underIving ‘Road. Drainage «i.i Utilie. Easement ’ for the entire corridor; again, the question is whether the applicant has toe ability to provide such an easement. Inability or refusal to meet the City requirement could be a basis for subdivision denial. With regard to a Staff Recommendation regarding road improvements. Gaffron stated that, despite the complexities imposed by the casement situation, based on the code requirements staff must recommend that a SO* corridor be platted from Spring Hill Road to the proposed cul-dc-sac loop, and a 24' paved private ruad be constructed within that corridor. This may not be to the liking of the owners and users of the road, as it w ill change the character of the area. Further, actual construction of such a road potentially would require wetland encroachments in the cartway area. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss whether there is a basis to allow the proposed subdivision without requiring road upgrades or at least corridor dedications. As the subdivision will be trigger park dedication, the proposal will be submitted to the Park Commission for their review* in early December, to determine whether land dedication is required or merely a park fee for each of the tw o new building sites (Park Fee PAGE 23 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11) M03-2961 NINA WILDMAN, 74S SPRING HILL ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT. CoBttoved would be S5.550 per lot for Lots 2 and 3 under the 2003 fee schedule; Lot I as an existing residence would not be subject to the Park Fee). GaflhMi noted that the City Engineer has indicated that stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan. In addition, the subdivision is subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance for a total fee of S32.400. Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for adequately-sized septic systems. GafTron explained that a small portion, approximately 300 s.f of the proposed driveway loop in the Outlot w ould be w ithin 75* of the OHWL where no hardcover and no roads or driveways are normally allowed per Code Sections 78-1286(c) and 78-1288(a). A variance is necessary for any new road or driveway construction within 75* of the OHWL. GalTron pointed out that the property is primarily open fields, with perhaps only 10% of it being wooded. The only woodland impacts anticipated are related to the loop driveway, w here the loop center is intended to remain w ooded but the driveway w ill result in some removals. While there are no historically significant features on this property known to staff, the location of the property w ith bluffs abutting a water body suggest the potential for archaeological significance. The applicant should contact the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) and inquire as to the need for an archaeological review. GafTron presented a summary of Issues for Discussion: 1. Width variance for Lot 3 • typical for lots abutting a cul-de-sac. 2. Hardcover variance required for any roadway expansion w ithin 75' of OHW. Road upgrade to meet City Code and Minnesou Uniform Fire Code standards: a) should upgrade be required? b) to what standard? c) does applicant have authority to do upgrade over existing easements? d) en\ ironmental and aesthetic impacts of upgrade? 4. Would should voluntary limitations on the future development of these lots influence the City’s position on road upgrades? Status of second dock and pathway. PAGE 24 of 41 •nf • -i r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. Novanber 1 7,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. <«ll) #03-2961 NINA HILDMAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT, Coatiaaed Gaffron explained that the loop was proposed for two reasons; first, the code requires that the lots abut a private or public road. While a cul-de-sac is also acceptable. Gaffion pointed out that no one wanted to see a big open cul-de-sac in this area when they could preserv e some of the trees wth the loop. He added that the loop will provide emergency vehicles with adequate turn around space and give people who inadvertenily come down the private road an opportunity to turn around. Winston explained that it was her intention to purchase a portion of the subdivision in order to preserv e it and put a conservation easement over as much of the area as possible. She stated that they do not w ish to sec the area destroyed by the construction of a lot of houses built there. Winston pointed out that no one had approached them with regard to a bigger easement at this time, and indicated that they would have to think tw ice about granting a greater easement. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would concur with the Cit> Engineer's recommendation with regard to street widths and suggested stall'seek the City Attorney’s opinion over expanding easements in a cartway. She indicated that she would* feel more comfortable addressing access to these parcels only, and further suggested consideration be given to turning the access to lot 2 into an outlet. Gaffron stated that it would be unusual to require an outlot and require a road be built in it. Acting Chair Mabusth further suggested that the outlot be registered in joint ownership of the properties, in an effort to save the City from future difTiculiies. Gaffron indicated that, while making the driveway an outlot made sense, the City would want to pul an underlying easement over it Gaffron encouraged the Commission to make a recommendation of what should happen for the future and have the law'y’ers w ork out the details to revise as necessary . He acknow ledged that it would be difficult to make the road 20* w ithout some impact to trees and the cartway. Bremer asked what degree of impact a 20* roadway would have on the wetland encroachments. As the subdivision would be located 'A mile from Spring Hill Road. Gaffron stated that the road would need to be a minimum of 20* wide for safety reasons. Rahn asked if Orono had ever allow ed homes to be built w ithout adequate fire access or sprinkling systems. Gaffron stated that none came to mind. PAGE 26 of 4 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET^ .G Monday, November 17.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (Ml 1) M03-296I MNA >^1LD>L\N, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY FLAT, Coatiaucd Knowing what fire uucks need for access, Fritzler slated that 20* is adequate, but necessary, in order to access these properties. Although he did not feel either neighbor would offer additional easements through the cartway. (jailron pointed out that the Van Eeckhout proposal did not proceed because the developer was unable to obtain a 50’ corridor for a roadway 24 ’ wide to support the 4-6 lot subdivision they proposed. Bremer commented that this supports the need for a w ider corridor all the more. Rahn pointed out that the applicants subdivision had the potential to result in 5 homes, and he believed the City must plan a roadw ay accordingly. He urged the Commission to assume the worst case scenario. Gror.berg stated that they w ere not coming in w ith a proposal for 7 homes at this time. He believ ed the City would have ample opportunity to improve the proposed roadway solution if more homos w ere proposed later. Carlson stated that Ms. Wildman fell as her neighbors and wished to preserve the character of the neighborhood. He indicated that they had provided the City with a site sensitive design. Gafiron stated that if the Commission deems that adding one home is appropriate, and addressing the issue of more development later as these are proposed, he suggested the Comm. 1 lion consider the addition of covenants to the recommendation. Acting Chair Mabusth felt better address plates distinguishing the residential properties was necessary. She asked if the ^plicant w ould be comfortable with the Corrtmission placing restrictions on the development of the properties. Zugichw en asked if the Commission could legally deal w ith the possibility of future subdivisions now by setting limitations on development. Rice indicated that co\ enants could be placed over the properties if the current owners were willing to allow it. He suggested getting all of the stake holders involved at that time to afford them a certain level of comfort in creating the deed restrictions or covenants for preservation. Acting Chair Mabusth asked if these cov enants might impact the value of the lots. P.AGE27of41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (dll 1) dK)3-2961 NINA WILDIVLAN, 745 SPRING HILL ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, Coatinacd Carlson asked if the City could cover the zoning of this subdivision spccif.cally by limiting future development altogether. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, unfortunately, the City cannot spot zone. Gaffron asked whether this proposal would put a future planning corrunission in an awkward predicament. Rahn questioned w hether road w idth will alone limit development. Bremer asked if the oullot or driveway could be jointly owned by the three property owners. In that case, Gaffron indicated that easements would suffice. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned the dock situation and why the Wildman's had allowed the neighbor dock access. Winston stated that, historically, the neighbor to the north had run a dock al! the w ay across the wetland to reach the water, which was not allowed. The Wildma.-*s then offered to let this neighbor position their dock on their properly. Gaffron stated that there was no specific code that applied to Lake Lydiord and mentioned that the dock easement could be based on a simple handshake agreement which could be an issue w ith potential new owners. Winston stated that the neighborhood has an informal agreement that the trail is open to the lake, which is marked w ith wood chips. She noted that this was one of the nice things about the neighborhood in general and she hoped that Orono would not get :oo pick-y about overseeing where the neighborhoods trails are located. Acting Chair Mnbnsih moved, to recommend approval of Applkatioo s03-2961, Nina Wildman, 745 Spring HiN Road, granting the Prcliminar) Snbdivbion based on the Bndings that all standards for development of the lots within the natpr-*! environment lake area of Lydiard Lake to be satisfied, no bluff impacts, and all sett j^ks have been met; accessing via a private driveway on lot 1 subject to the standards set forth, creating an ontlot for future potential subdivision of lots 1*2-3 with access granted to lot 2, requiring restrictive covenants to limit deveiopment for 30 yeurs on lots 1-2-3, noting that road improvements will consist of a loop; and no standard be set limiting the number of docks on Lydiard Lake, subject to nil other fees .»nd suff rccomroendations. Park Commission rcsiew, approsal of th' iriacce for lot width of PAGE 29 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p jn. (Ml 1) M03.296I NINA \\1LD>IAN. 745 SPRING HILL ROAD. PRELIMINARY PLAT, CoBliaued lot 3 M the CMl^ew loop, and miaimaJ hardcover for 0>75* ictback to allow the loop. Gaffron asked if the road upgrade requirement would be tied to this approval. He suggested the Commission add the notation that if the covenants are not found to be accepuble. there would be no approval of the subdivision. Acting Chair hlabasih amended the notioa adding that the recomineadation to Cll>- Council conUin language that if the covenants are pat In place, the road upgrades will not be required at this time from Spring Hill Road to the outlot; however, if the covenants are not found to be acceptable, the approval for the subdivision will be rescinded. Zugschwert seconded. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, AbsUln I, llawn abstaining. Gaffron indicated that he would address some of these issues w ith the City Attorney and noted that the application will appear on the December 8.2003 Council Meeting. Carlson found this delay to be acceptable in order to have all issues addressed prior to Recess was taken from 10:00 - 10:07 P.M. (#12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, HJOSHAD^'WOOD ROAD. VARIANCE (10:07 -10:40 P.M.) Joanne Sw itz. the applicant, w as present. Waataja explained that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new home on the property: 1. Ut area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is normally required. 2. Lot coverage by structures variance to allow 19% stnictural coverage w hen 15% is normally allowed. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 44% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25Va is normally allowed. Waataja indicated that the applicants have bought this property under the contingency that the appropriate approvals are received from the City. The current conditions on the lot consist of nonconforming hardcover in the 0-75' zone and 75-250' zone. The applicants arc proposing to tear down the existing home and construct a new home completely within the 75-250' zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the existing boathouse. In PAGE 30 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Ml2) M03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADY^^ OOD ROAD. VARIANCE. Coatinved doing this, a standard lot area variance and a hardcover and structural coverage variance are still required to construct the proposed home. Since the applicants have met with staff to discuss their proposal and what the City consistently requires with rebuild situations, the applicants are aware that the hardcover and structural coverage proposals are excessive to what has been coi»istently approved with rebuild situations but have decided to move forward without any re-design. Waataja reported that, currently, a home exists within both the 0-75* zone and the 75-250* zone. The applicants are proposing to tear down this structure and rebuild a new home with a 3,895 s.f. footprint entirely within the 75-250* zone. The applicants have also agreed to remove the boathouse near the shoreline, therefore no variance is required for the 0-75’ zone. However, the applicant is proposing a 3.895 s.f. footprint home, 72 s.f. of walk, and 1 .060 s.f. of driveway in the 75-250* zone which puts the hardcover for the zone at 44% requiring a variance. The proposed house footprint puts the lot at l9*/o structural coverage when 15% is allowed thus requiring a variance. The existing house meets the 15% structural coverage limit. Waataja explained that staff finds r.o viable hardships to appro\e the hardcover and structural coverage variances as proposed. Staff would consider supporting a hardcover \ ariance due to the shallowness of the lot and the need for a driveway turn-around however, not the proposed 44%. This 44% also docsn*t include any decking or patio and staff feels that the 44*;^e has the poimtial to get even larger in the future. Staff has advised the applicants to re-work their proposal to allow for a minimal driveway, front walk and some decking or patio. The applicants have been advised that staff is not entirely opposed to a hardcover variance however the proposal needs to be re-worked to a hardcover percentage much less than the proposed 44%. The applicants are also proposing a variance to allow 19% structural coverage. Staff advis^ the applicants that variances to this requirement are hardly ever granted on rebuild situations. Staff w ill hold to this suggestion as new homes have consistently been held to I i%. No hardship exists to allow suuctural coverage in excess of 15*« due to the allow able building pad of 3,093 square feet. In conclusion Waataja stated that siaff recommends the follow ing: 1 . Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot w hich is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres is norrsally allowed. 2. Denial of the lot coverage by structures variance to allow \9V9 structural coverage when 1 5®o is normally allow -d. PAGE 31 of 4 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#>12) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE S\%1TZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD. VARIANCE, CMllBied 3. Denial of Ihc hardcover variance to allow 44*/i hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. Switt maintained that she was unaware until recently that the 15% stnictural coverage requirement was a steadfast rule. She pointed out that the lot is exireracly wide but shallow which is the root of their hardship. Switz noted that the hardcover presently on the site far exceeds code parameters and indicated that they would be removing all of the hardcover in the 0-75* zone and reduce the overall hardcover by 11% She maintained that reducing the design further would be difTicult for them to accommodate her elderly parents. While she would be willing to reduce the structural cover to a certain degree, she staled that overages in hardcover would be necessary to make up for the need to have a 1300 s.f. circular driveway accessing County Road 19. Acting Chair Mabusth recognized the hardships of depth and access to County Road 19; however, felt the City needed to tow the line on structural coverage for new construction. She asked about potential decks. Switz stated that they would be w illing to sacrifice decks to obtain more living space. Hawn stated that she could not support the variance requests for new construction, since they would be setting a precedent. Switz asked w hether she could be allowed 44% hardcover if the strucniral cover could meet 15%. Waauja stated that the home is currently at 38% hardcover in the 75-250* zone and 22% in the 0-75* zone. Rahn staled that ofientimes once the home meets 15% structural cover, applicants can evaluate where the hardcover numbers fall and can base their minimums of what*s absolutely necessary. He acknowledged that he would be willing to consider a small hardcover excess taking into consideration the need for the circular driveway. Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the Commission could vote on the application as proposed or table it to allow her to meet with staff ar»d strive to achieve the 15% structural cover figxire and hardcover allowance. Switz Slated that she had Waataja supply her with revised calculations based on 15% sii^tuml cover and found that the home would still exceed the hardcover allowance and hardly be under 44%. ' PAGE 32 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (»12) M3-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADY^'OOD ROAD, VARIANCE, ContlBHcd Waataja stated that if the home maxed out its 15% stnictural coverage allowance, it would still exceed 39% hardcover aOer adding in the drivewray and sidewalks. Gaffron explained that the issue then becomes whether the applicant has the right* to max out their 15% structural coverage allow ance or needs to reduce their structural cover to fall within hardcover regulations. Although the Commission could supply the applicant with some guidelines. Hawn stated that she would need to see a new design which better meets the new- construction standards. There were no public comments. Acting Chair Mabusth asked the applicant whether she w ished to table or proceed to CouTKil. Switz asked to proceed. Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Frilzler seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2962, Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shad>^ood Road, based on the findings set forth by staff. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #03-2963 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, 2605 WXST WAYZATA BOl LE\ ARD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN R£\1E\V (10:40 - 10:43 P.M.) Peter Johnson, applicant's representative, w-as present. Waauja explained that the applicant requests a commercial site plan revie\\ in order to expand the existing garage structure situated immediately south of the main facility. Waataja indicated that the applicant has proposed to construct a 20'X75' (1.500 s.f.) addition to the existing garage structure on the property with three overhead doors and two steel access doors. Although she would recommend the Commission consider whether additional Kreening is necessary. Waataja stated that staff w ould recommend approval of the pla.ns as submitted. Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, having visited the site, she saw no need to add additional screening. There were no public comments. PAGE 33 of 41 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13) #03-2963 WJ.M PROPERTIES, LLC. 2605 UTST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REMEW, CoDliBHcd Acting Chair Mabuitb moved, Hawn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03-2963, WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wa>-zata Bonlevard, granting approval to construct a 20'X75' addition to the existing garage structure as the project meets all standards of the Indastrial DbtricL \’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #03-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY PLAT (10:43-11:15 P.M.) George Slickney, the applicant, and Mark Gronberg. Gronberg and Associates, w ere present. Waataja reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 6 lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Ma.xwell Bay Estates. She acknowledged that all of the proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and setbacks. Waataja pointed out that the surrounding d:\ elopment is residential property in all directions with Maxwell Bay of Lake Minnetonka to the direct south. She stated that the applicant has proposed a private road approximately 590’ in length with a cul-de-sac serving the lots. While the City Engineer has not submitted his comments, the applicant will be required to meet all his recommend.i:ion? 'jii'ii Council review. Waataja continued, noting that the applicar.is would be required to dedicate the standard easements. She pointed out that the applica.-.: has also proposed stormwater ponds to be situated on lots 3 and 4. as well as. the northeast portion of lot 6. With regard to tree preserxation, Waataja pointed out that the applicants have submitted a tree preservation agreement which states that no trees shall be trimmed or removed w ithin 20’ of the lot boundary. In addition, the agreement provides strict penalties for tree removal consisting of a 2 to I replanting of a: least 6~ diameter trees. Waataja pointed out that copies of the propcsed septic plans w ere submitted and review ed by the City’s septic inspector, who is recorrjr.ending approval. Waataja indicated that staff would recommend approval of the preliminary plat with the following stipulations: 1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Implementation of the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Submission and approval of the final plat. 4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements. 5. Demolition of the existing home and any outbuildings prior to any site grading. 6. Rev iew by the Park Commission prior to City Council review. PAGE 34 of 4 1 NANUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14) (IW3-2964 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY PLAT, Coattened Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether there might be any btufTissues with the subdivision. She asked if upgrades of the road were w arranted. Waataja indicated that they had not performed that analysis. Gaffron acknowledged that there could be potential bluff issues and indicated that this would have to be determined. Waataja stated that the upgrade would not meet 24*. adding that this had been explored in the past and found to have limitations to hou wide the road could be. Slickney stated that the applicants were ser.s:tive to tree preservation and had also met with both neighbors to address any concerns they might have. In an effort to resolve the drainage issues faced by the Maass. neighbors at 3175 Fox Street. Stickney stated that they w ould propose a catch basin at the lop of the propeny to catch runoff that currently runs over onto the Maass property. A second dra;.-.age berm would run the edge of the lot line where the current driveway is situated directing flow tow ards the lake. Acting Chair Mabusth asked where the access :o the development would take place. Slickney stated that access would be past the existing entry gates and 230’ retaining wnll. He reiterated that they have proposed 6 propenies w iihoul variances and commented how nicely it will lay out. David Maass. 3175 Fox Street, stated that drainage is a continual problem for them as their home is located at the lowest site in the area. Beyond his drainage concern. Maass asked whether the County drain pipe directing flow from across the road might cause additional problem. Although there w as no report from the City Engineer at this time. Acting Chair Mabusth assured Mr. Maass that the Engineer would be review ing the applicant’s drainage plans and making recommendations. Gronberg indicated that the County indeed had a catch basin near the road w hich would not be eliminated, but enhanced to slow down the runoff. In addition, he stated that they have proposed to create a 2’ swale along the property line to retain the runoff on this site, which w ill likely result in solving the current drainage problems faced by the Maass altogether. Maass promised to provide the City with photos of the current runoff situation in an effort to assist the City with its planning. PAGE 35 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h) and 78-1577, regulation OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIALDISTRICTS, CoBllQued conunensurate with Ihc residential nature of Orono, and to address the wide ranee of vehicle uses within our community. At the last two Planning Commission work sessions the Planning Commission discussed amending the Commercial Vehicle parking regulations (78-149 1(h)). Out of those work sessions it was determined that the code section regarding vehicle storage on private property was a better fit within the Exterior Storage section (78-1577) of the Zoning Ordinance. Recreation vehicles and motor homes will have overlapping coverace in both the Zoning Ordinance (Section 78-1577) and within City Code Section 90-1 Mi^ufacturcd Homes and Trailers (police enforced) due to the different enforcement components. Foth indicated that Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessarv- changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forw ard to the City Council. Fritzlcr a«;kcd for clarification of what constitutes ‘mobile storage' in page 1 of 6 of the Ordinance. As this was existing language, Foth deferred to Gaffron to explain the term. Gaffron stated that anything not attached to the ground constitutes mobile storage. Mobile materials could be scaffolding, boards, etc. and is intended to be a catch all term. He questioned whether the Commission would prefer to define the term further. Fritzlcr acknowledged that it would be difficult to slop defining mobile storage, since it is spccificaliy designed to cover so much. Hawn moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2966, Code Revision, City Code Sections 78-1749(h) and 78-1577 VOTE: Ay es 6, Nays 0. (#7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71 regulations of NONCONFORMI.N ’G uses AND NONCONFORNUNG STRUCFLRES Gaffron reported that the Planning Commission initiated discussions on this topic in December 2001 primarily in response to concerns that loo ofien. remodeling projects were resulting in nearly total removals of existing structures, and the •pre-existing stnacnirc" basis for granting of certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was being abused. PAGE 38 of 41 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (»7) #03-2829 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71 REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, Conlinued The problem was quickly identified as the lack of a threshold level of removals after which a mere ’remodel and addition* project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to meeting all current standards. The initial consensus w*as that the City should adopt a formal policy establishing threshold percentages of newly constructed or reconstructed spaces that w ould define a project as a rebuild subject to meeting all code standards. Gaffron continued, stating that during 2003 an amendrnent of the Nonconforming Uses section (10.03 Subd. S, now recodified as Section 78-71 > w as drafted to reorganire that section and add standards speciflcally addressing nonconforming structures. Planning Commission reviewed the latest draft on November 5 and suggested a number of further revisions and slight reorganization. The current draft reflects the Plamiing Commission recommendations and includes additional paragraph titles for clarity. The current draft accomplishes the following significant revisions: • It separates the provisions pertaining to “Nonconforming Uses’* from those pertaining to “Nonconforming Structures"; - It eliminates the ‘36-months after 1-1-75' sunset provision for lawful nonconforming uig of: 1) land not involving a structure or 2) involving a structure with value less than S3000on 1-1-7S • It eliminates the language that made the existing section pertinent only to uses, not to structures • It eliminates language that suggests the Council will look favorably on the granting of variances where a situation existed legally under prior law s (prior to 1975) • For nonconforming suuctures. it distinguishes benveen ’involuntarv Destruction" (fire, war. acts of God, etc.) and “Voluntaiy Destruction" (intended demolition in order to rebuild) and establishes separate standards for each case: Involuntary Destruction: retains threshold after which rebuild must be conforming at 'damage is 75% or more of fair market value’ PAGE 39 0141 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. m m-2*29 ORONO ZONLNG CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-71 REGULATIONS OF NONCONFORMING USES AND NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, ContinMcd Voluntary Destruction:ntablishes that if less than 50% of fair market value is retuned. if less than 50% of pre>existing volume remains then entire structure and site must be made conforming - It establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming residence structures as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of nonconforming accessory structures GafTron suted that staff rccon u ends the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code revision, hold the required public hearing, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the ‘involuntary destruction’ should apply to the nonconforming uses section of the Code as well, as a w ay to eliminate nonconforming uses ui the community. GafTron indicated that he would have to consult the City Attorney on this suggestion. Hawn asked how the Commission would be administering ‘voluntary- destruction*. GafTron stated that the City would need to be provided with specific details of what is proposed to stay or be removed in a project in order to determine at what point it has gone past 50% and needs to conform. Hawn questioned how one would establish value. GafTron pointed to the value guidelines used in determining permit fees. He maintained that this revision will give staff and the Commission a standard to justify rebuild versus remodel. Waataja stated that the element citing the removal of‘5(Wi of the volume of a structure’ will be extremely useful, along with value, in determining the standard. Acting Chair Mabusth moved. Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2829 Noncooforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures Amendment - Zoning Code Section 78-71. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. PAGE 40 of 41 City ofOrono Page 2 January 16.2004 4. The use is inconsistent with the residential zoning of Kelly Avenue. The use is not located on Shoreline Drive - it is located on Kelly Avenue. 5. Parking is inadequate. Based on the foregoing we strongly object to the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit or for the consideration of a subsequent liquor license application for the subject property. We urge the Council and tl.c Planning Commission to deny the applicants request Very truly yow. Doris Schlampp 2507 Kelly Avenue Orono. MN SS331 JtnifQuftdIth.Agpicglion i04W7 From: To: Oolo: Chartio ftadtur <graoUayOnwm nel> <AundtadiCo orono.mn.us> 1/2(^04 5 03PM Apphcobon 004-2977 lamarooidontofOronoal2SOOKelyAvenue Today ljustbacama awara tial tttara it a propooal to alow a rastaurani adpcant to Via bowino aloy to ba optfottd and thalthe rattaurant intandt to tarva bquor I am tony I could not be in aOendanca tonight but I could not change prior commlmontt The purpoea of this e-mail is to let you know I am adamantty agaem alowing this whether or not liquof is served Evan though the rastaurant is ralatively tmal, any additional traffic at the intersection of Kelly and Shoreline Drive is unacceptable from a safety perspectrva I believe that the city should table any oonsideralion of this conditional use pe^ until the imp^ on the eidsling traffic Is thoroughly reviewed I drive every day at that miersection and can attest that even a smal increase in cars coming on and off Shoreline to and from Kelly Avenue adds exponential nsk of accidenis Currently there are competing left turn lanes on Shoreline just east of this intersection which compounds the problem In the event the Planning Commission is not willing to delay this application to determine the level of negative impact on the safety of the residents that use Kely and Shoreline Road every day. it should require the Owner es a condition of approval to create access to the lower parking level on the West side of the building and close the existing curb cut from Kelly into the lower parking level of that building That would effectively move the traffic created from the new use to turn left further west of the Kelty intersection (and not incidentally west also of the CR 19 intersection) I know that there is quite a grade difference but that does not mean that it should not be required at whatever the cost to the owner if feasible Kelly is a residential street-not a commercial one- by a quirk of bad prior planning a commercial use has been perrnitted in the past- but to expand the commercial nature of the lower level without removing the additional traffic compounds poor mistakes arnf mcrease the risk of senous injury to the residents of the area Respectfully Submitted. Charles E Nadler StoneBay Market Place f. !■ *. i . i Jit '>0r*i • >' • .• , • ' ’• ■ j '. • ■ -'r^'r^% '■i<^ •y' ;s >::r landform SllHhOUMM\C, I AN!) USt - X t f P V.' ■■ • rEir * ' a » <n':.:,:;f)-li:;; -,••-*