Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-17-2004 Planning Packet
f '' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday Mayl7,2004 6:00 PM 2750 Kelley Pariewav - Council Chambere AGENDA Council Rcprcfcnlathe: Mayor Peterson AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Pleaie tifn in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commiision. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission Ls an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the June 14,2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT I. MM-30II Danielle Steele. 4050 Bayside Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 2. #04-3018 Kevin and Michele Krolczyk. 65 Cygnet Place, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 3. #04-3013 George Funk, 540 Old Cry stal Bay Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Janice Gundlach) OLD BUSINESS 4. #01-2671 Alistair and Karen Jacques. 645 Old Long Lake Road, Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 5. #04-2974 Reliance Development Company. LLP .NW Corner of Willow Drive and Highway 12 (Outlot A, Stonebay), Commercial Site Plan Review (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 6. #04-3002 G & L Land Invcslment. LLC, 740 North Arm Drive, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Janice Gundlach) NEW BUSINESS 7. #04-3006 Aulik Company on behalf of Bartholomew and Elizabeth T. Butzer. 2625 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit and Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 8. #04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower, 1925 Lakeview Terrace, Variance and Amendment to City Wetland Map (Staff: Mike Gafiron) 9. #04-3008 Steven Valek and Ralph Palmer, 4720-4750 Tonkaview Lane, Lot Line Rearrangements (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 10. #04-3009 James Loffler, 1690 Shadywood Road, Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) ll.M44tl2 Rog.^D.O ’ShMefaoessy. 12(5 BracfccIf'iPoiat Road, Variances nd Conditional U;<e * »nnit (Staff: Melanie Cmtis) 12. #04-3014 aiiothy Povrers, 3210 Navarre Lane, Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 13. #04-3015 Robert Lund on behalf of UHliam and Bonnibei Byers, 13S9 Orono Laac, Variance (Staff: Melanie Cunis) 14. #04-3016 Hciu> L«uiuaii of WajzaU Design or.d Dc^*e!opmcnt, 120 Brow n Road Sovtii, Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) IS. #04-3017 Spruce Hill Propeities. 3775 Baytidc Road, Variances, (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 16. #04-3021 City of Orono. Zonlns Code Rcv lshms SectioBS 70-72,78-201,70-202, 70-203,70-1270(6), 78-1405,70-1432 Allow AdministrativT Approvals and remove Duplicate Language (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 17. Report of Planning Commission representatives anendtng Council meetings April 26, 2004 and May 10.2004. 18. Other issues for discussion. 19. Planning Commission approval of minutes for April 19. 2004. 20. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on May 24,2004 and June 14. 2004. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Mm MMi Dmi 'J - /”7' J C( y-l □ CoiArii Q^lanninc : Commission □ Park Commission □ Other FLPASC Fll l.Ot TTIIi; INFORMATION Rl<^ ILSTCD BELUM lUROI MC ITA RECORDS. NAME (plcair pHal)ADDRESS PRESEM EOK (from a|*cBiU) NAMEOR.MMBER to-s'c il Lc. ,Li-^'€ ^^\ 2. /Vtt A_____C{/\ fWi.it. 3. ^*n Tw Ay*-A a ^ D( - iL -i I Cif Zee ^ A,rr;c.., i^.cl SYc 6V^..A/yS.. Sc ______rc jiv r^________f I ?..,.______ Cc jp )t..v^-< OlV c^i I y I •va /6^/• / / IflL ^ n f-t r '}/V r! Public A ttendance Mil riNc. D atk _________________ □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other ____________ NAME (pkasr priat) PLCASC nu. m T THE l!S POILMATION REQi'ESTCD ■ELCm POK OCR cm RECXMIDS. 1., 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.. 6-- 7.. 10.. 11. - 12. - 13. _ 14. _ 15. - ADDRESS PRESK.M FOR (froiii aKcsda) NAME OR NUMBER ■S^U'.y/L rp-:.., Ol ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday Mayl7,20M 6:00 PM 27«0 Kfllcy PnrWav - Council Chambcrt AGENDA Couneil RapreieoUtive: Nlayor Peat.jn AUDIENCE MEMBERS; Pleait tin In for Ihi poblit record at the front podiom if you wiih to address the Ptannins CoomUrioa. Appl.canti mil b* asked to move to the front lablt to aniseer questions s»hM the Chair announces the appUeat.on. The Planninj Comrn.ssion I, « body‘o the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they »*iU be scheduled for the June 14,2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT t M04-3011 Danielle Steele. 4050 Bay side Road, Variances (SuCr Melanie Curtis) 2 SS04-3018 .<evm a.nd Michele Kxolczyk, 65 Cygnet Place, Vaiiaaee (Staff Melanie Curtis) 3 n04-30l3 George FurJi, 540 Old Crystal Bay Road. Conchtonal Use Petinil (Staff. Jankc Gundlach) OLD BUSINESS 4 *01.2671 Alistair a.id Kaien Jacques. 645 Old Long Lake Road. Vaiiai-.cc (Staff: JiaiceGu.".ilach) 5 *04.2974 Reliance Development Company. LLP N^V Corner of ''•••ow Drive and Highway 12 (Ouilot A. Stonebay). Couuneicial Site P ar. Review (Staff .Mike Gaffion) 6 *04.3002 O ft L Land Ir.vesttnenl. LLC. 740 North Arm Drive. Conditional Use Pe.'mit (Staff. Ja.tice Gumllach) NEW BUSINESS 7 *04-3006 Aulik Company on behalf of Bartholomew a.-d&ii^lhTBi.tw. 2625 North Shore Drive. Conditieoa: Use Permit and Vanar.ee (Staff Jimce Gundlach) 8 *04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower. 1925 Lakevlew Terrace, Varia.nce and AaierAxeni a City WetH.id Map (Saff. Mike Gaf&cn) 9 *04.3009 StevcaVa'.ek and Ralph Palmer. 4720.4750 Tonkavlew Lane, Ut Line Resmaegemeau (Staff Melame Curtis) 10 *04.3009 James Ufflet. 1690 Shadywood Road. Variance (Staff Mike Gaffmn) n *04-3012 Rng«rD 0 Shaughnesiy. 1265 Brackett s Point Road, Variances and Conditiorol Use Permit (Staff MeUme Cartii) 12 *04-3014 Timothy Pov«rt. 3210 Navarre Lane. Variance (Staff Janice Gundlach) 13 *04-3015 Robert Lund on behalf of WUUam and Bcnmbel Byeti. 1399 Orono ’ Lane, Vanaace (Staff; Melanie CurtU) 14 •04-3016 Henry Lainiart of Wayzata Design and Development. 120 Brown Road South. Subdivision (Staff. Mike Gaffcon) 15. *04-3017 Spruce Hill Properties. 3775 Baysidt Road. Vantccss. (Suff Jaiuce Gundlach) • a «04 30n City of Orono. Zoning Code Rcvuloni Sections 79-72.79-281.79-291. 79-1279(6). 79-1405.78-1432 Allow Ad-mm'4trs*.ivc Appisnali and remove Duplicate Lx-.guage iStaff Mike Ga*?ton) planning COMMISSION COMMENTS 17 Report of Planning Commission icpeMniatuci ar.cnii.ij Council mc::.n^^ April .6. :CC4 and Mav lO ZOO* IS Oihct for di»vu»» n:; FILE tCM SOII ktoy 11.2004 Pag* t of 3 DM* AppVcatfM Rftriictf: M-2I-M Dal* Application CeatMrrcd a* Conplrtr: tS-ll-M M*Da> Rr«ir« Period Ctpim: dT-ll-M T«: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cit> Administralor Fraoi: Melanie Curtis. City Planner Date: Mayl7.2(KM CONSENT AGENDA Svbjcct: 04-30 11. Thad &. Danielle Steele. 4050 Bay^ide Road. - V'ariances - public hearing Zoaiag District: RR-I A. One Family Rural ResMeutlal District, 5-acrc minimum Lot Area: 12.7 acre (555.796 s.f.) AppUcmtkm Summary: The applicants arc requesting variances in order to construct a detached 24* x 32* garage closer to the front lot line than the principal structure and 75' from the faint lot line when: 100* is required._______________________________ Staff Hecommen4atkm: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested.__________________________________________ Pertinent Zoulna Ordinance Sections Sec. 71-395. Area, heighl. lut nidth and yard requirements. (b) LtUs. The following minimum rcquimments shall be obserxed: l (tl ArcJlJcrc^l I tH WHjihircdl Kniot Vanl IfcctI SiOc V jnl Ifccti ShIc V41J AJjJccM U) Sired (fecO Rcjf Vjrtlircdl 5 tiNI im 50 IIMI inn Sec. 71-1435. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the pnncipal building on tiut lot except on lots w hich have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located w ithin the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of section 78-305(b). section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b): except that detached garages may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line w hen doors face away fhmt the street and a turnaround is provided on the site. list of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Photos F. Property Ow ners List G. Plat .Map FILE aOi XII Itoy n .2004 Pa9t2ol3 BackgrMiMl The applicants. Thad and Danielle Steele, have recently purchased the properly at 4050 Bayside Road. They are requesting variances from City Code Sections 78-395(b) and 78- 1435 in order to construct a detached garage nearer to the front properly line than the existing home and at a 75* setback rather than 100* as required by Code. LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIELT Lot Arem/WMth: RR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres)300* Actual 555,7% s.f. (12.7 acres)400* ♦ RR’IA Required ExliliBg Front 100*260*75* Rear 100*600*+No Change West Side 50*140* (house)140*(house) 229* (garage) East Side 50*320*(house)320*(house) 240* (garage) fStnictaral Coverage; As this property exceeds 2 acres the 15°/o maximum structural coverage limit docs not apply. Front \'ard Setback \'ariancc St In FmnI of the Principal Bnilding The applicant has proposed to construct a 24* x 32* detached garage 75* from the front property line and 160* closer to the front property line than the existing home. The rear 4.6 acres of the property is wetland and protected by a drainage easement. The topography of the lot near the home and the location of the existing well and septic system make locating a detached garage difficult in this area. The applicants wish to utilize the existing driveway for access to the proposed garage. The location of the proposed garage w ill have little or no impact on the adjacent properties. The existing dense vegetalicm w ill screen the neighboring properties and Bayside Road from V iew s of the proposed garage in all seasons. HardsMp SlaCeiMMi Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,aad should be asked for additiorul testimony regarding the application. FUEiOOOII •toy 11.2004 Pi0t3ol3 HarMipAulytb lm€mnUfrtmammtM m/w wwrtoTf. to» Plummimg C»mmhtim»lmM€9m timk*effett»fik* iiW xmrtm rt y tor mmd wt^mte tf ike n—■■■!». ocfatof ■Hr^^toiW 4n^glf €m»Mmn,ilgkl9$»dmir.4mttr9ffirt.rbkmike^mklicmft9,mHdiketffKtmt if tow to tor tmfrmmmrnmgmnm. The mmrnlag CmmmhHm tkmM rmtiitr nrmmmfm^img a^nvml ftrvmHmmcn fnm kecmmif tfeinmmtmmnt ■■iy r to ike pnftr^ mmSer tmmidff writm, mmd ikmH rt<mmtm4 tmnvml»mfy when kb 4tmmu»n0ri that UKk aeiimu wmheim kttfimM wkk Ik* ifirkami kbem ^ kte Onm» Itming Cede. SlafT finds that due to the existing vegetation, the orientation of the e.xisting driveway and the location of wetlands to the rear of the properly there is a hardship lo justify granting the front yard setback variance as well as the variance to be nearer the front lot line than the principle siructuie. Should the applicants be required to meet the 100’ frimt yard setback significant tree removal would be needed There is an existing clearing at the location where the detached garage is proposed and little vegeution removal would be required. Issues for Conakkratlun Arc there any other issues or concerns with ;his application? Stair RccamncmlatlMi Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Because the site plan is not a certified survey, a survey will be required before this is presented to Council for final action. matt rtlE §04-3011 May 11.2004 PagaioTS Date ApfIkaliM Rtcdvcd: 04*21-04 Data Ap^thmCoMidcrtd as Complete: 05-11-04 00-Day Review Period Etpim: 07-11-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dote: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner May 11.2004 CONSENT AGENDA 04-301 1, Tnad & Dauielle Steele, 4050 Baysidc Road, - Variances • public hearing ZooiogDbtrict: Lot Area: RR-I A, One Family Rural Residential District, 5-acrc minimum 12.7 acre (555,796 s.f.) AppiictkHt S«mnMry** The applicants arc requesting variances in order to construct a detached 24 ’ x 32’ garage closer to the front lot line than the principal structure and 75’ from the front lot line where 100 ’ is required. St^ffKecommendatk^n: Plarming Department Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested._______________________________________ yoaing Ordinance Sections See. 78-395. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. Lot Art* (acres)Ut Width (feet)Front Yard (feel) Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (reel) Rear Yard (feet) S 300 100 50 100 100 Sec. 78-1435. Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots are subject to the setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b); except that detached garages may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors f«:e away from the street and a turnaround is provided on the site. ListoTEiddbils A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Photos F. Property Ovners List G. Plat Map nLEi0«-3011 •torn.2004 Hurdahip Aaalytto M CMsMtriRf tfpUettihms /or ttorUuict, ikt noimbtg Commhihm skmtl CMuMff tk* ^ffrct of tko frofotoi rortotKO upon tkt koottk, tpfety omi wo^ort oftkt comommUf, txhtl^ omi oittkipotod tro/fk tomdUoHh U^tntdoir, dongoref/in, rbk to tkoptMkt4tfid)f, oodtke^oetoii rohmofproponpktOto MfTMMMttif orto. Tkt rtommlmg CommbtlMi tkoUeomsIdtr ncommtHdkig opprovot for tforloitcttfrom diolkorotprovttlomt tf tkt Zoning Code In kutonett tutert tkek ttrkt emfortememt womtd cmott tmdnt kmdAlp keaaue efdrauimoiietM onlgme to ike bidMdmolproptrtf on4er cotaUtrodoo, end %koU end ^promlontpwkemkltdemonttroltdtkoi sock oetlomt wU! be to keeping witk tketpMtomdreeoi kdtnitfikeOromo Zoning Code. Staff finds that due to the existing vegetation, the orientation of the existing driveway and the location of wetlands to the rear of the propeity there is a hardship to justify granting the front yard setback variance as well as the variance to be nearer the ftont lot line than the principle structure. Should the applicants be required to meet the 100* front yard setback significant tree removal would be needed. There is an existing clearing at die location where the detached garage is proposed and little vegetation removal would be required. Issaes for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccoaiaicndalioa Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. Because the site plan is not a certified survey, a survey will be required before this is presented to Council for final action. lOtoi,bOL-^. 3*Kibi+A City of Orono Variance Application Sfreef Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orcno, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-46:C fax; 952-249^6^5 Ma Jmg Address P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:C66 Application# CA‘ 3C.\\ Date Recervefl: - U -c>-1 Amount Pad: '/ cCO • >-X' Staff; ______ Fee:56CX3 Renewal: S300 After-U-.e-fact S1.200 DouQie Fee This application form must be completed in full. App cant will be rctified wi'J'.in 15 days as to the stat-s of fe application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ______ Property Identification Number (PIN); ^fG5 ‘0 £4:^ (Attach legal description to application if not,included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): nlOn □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: . ti^Residenlial ' □ Other ____________________________ Zoning District; Vk-1 A APPLICANT INFORiyiA Name:T na^es prd m^ta! s^atus^requjyd for each^interes^M ^ ^ Phone (home)r n /.• ^ Phone (work): /♦ / -7. yLl Address: f " ~ '[ A.u.*->lglr Lri ^fjLHA I 11/ p« ^. rcH^ax: " _Email: OWNER INFORMATION: (Comp'ete legal nair.es a-a man'.al s’.atus required for each interested party) Name: T IW cl u (f l 1 f. c I r / ■, 1 b^t. ni------/■--------X. -y, 7-, n,U Phone (^ork): ft l:j 0 ^ -3Phone (home):____ Address: ^ C; <X Pt »(..i j Email: A,? i * i / i! n It f/u flA Fax: ______________________________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ Cr). Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary);'.alt'uiiiLi ’it' ilfcrgiv cu ______■ I _'i I/OmBuilaf ' /ir.-ffiJify—l ir\ijs^'- i;DCt-TM ^rrfiahi.y'iyj. l,i.Cr\/i! i in r-jL :^ig£2|lM. #30 1 1 h .jMk REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must bs submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. ^^^re-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Q' B' r tw Completed Application Form ^ompleteildardsbip-DocurDentohon Form._ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map>. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. ■Government Center. A-603 300 South 6^ Street. Minneapolis, telep hone 612.^8-5910______ Q" Original Certificate or survey ^signed by a licensed surveyor), meoting^^'tfie' requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or , j 'll 1" X 17" for reproduction. qjft.Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet), □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8T5^ x*11* or 11" X 17* for reproduction. ^.^-'Sketches or plans of fioor and elevation viev/s (provide one copy 8.5"x11“or11*x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information suppi.ed is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of Jts potential merit. Applicant's Signature: Applicant’s Signature; Date: Date:w- OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicaton and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s Signature; Owner ’s Signature: UuQ::^. (I * _____Date: ---------Date: •V 'li7 ■p lAh Applicant must have all submittals Into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally he'd on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. : Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An appiical cn w»:i not be cons-dered complete or placed on any Teet r.g agendas unt l ♦‘'•s form is complete and submitted to the City. ___________ _________ Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdiviscn 7 requires that a harcship bo demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the lard and not the land cwner. Personal and economic situations are not considered vaha haidships. in order for an app'icat on to be hea^d by the Planning Commission and City Ccunol a hardship havrg merit must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine «f a hardship exists and how the variance will affect tht* surrounding ccmmunrty. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as dearly as possible Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave someth ng out it will not be considered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.■The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use If used under conditions allowed by the official controls.’ ^ • t J. jrl * i't'it'i f i li’iJ f 0 hf'a tir Jda^lr . '±urir ,,i: i i‘i 1 t-'i f <1_______ i( <• 'i hir 11 J ^ It > hi.ii>i I' 2. I J t»Cui»u’ •The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the.landowner* i f i ., > I r, - I H ^-.t^iiiifiLAi'UC (iinLuuLr 6 i- ht CJnil) ^ 1^ .1iVt~ tvbulr:i fc he y (' u fi~\ jl i-li^ iv:>n i^i n.rt\ In i._______ ■The variance, if granted. wHi not alter the essenfal character of the locality." • .. ^I,i am-f?(iHw riUUCiiy - k f ^ h'?Ln Ininr. ft.*- fi t .ulil hr* Inii < li- Ts lr» L> i.4 't^ ' n miItip- if iOi tr: l7 tl\:cl>.— •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* US^ fc iliL ft;Of»' H^ /'tCC {v.ttCvmses'ni^.rh fry*/A HcV k^l->i aiAiu hiMi^ds e(- P^uicictl^n^h-t- cf cve^ ft. iralne/ie ® ^ptic ftj dea-vi tituiWs of- tf*£5 (ttsi- • • • « • • •' '.1* • • /. • • i * • • • Page 2 of3 L . . ...... 'Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to drect 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." ^ j i ________^oUi\ iiCf _______ •The Board of Appea's and Adjustments or the Council may rot permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's lard is located." Til.. ^ tlCTr Liin iS^U6_____________ "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one*family dwelling ps a two-famity dwelling.” /s . . > / • _________jf i.L^iil q C»l(-fgr>niui LL>^:i(U "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." __________1^ fs UC _____________________________________ 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." TliiS \sHl 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant" ______________*7111 . I ^ T\~vtC____________________________ 11. "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 o \J Page 3 of3 ■The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fuily be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): rib rifmcLwif rlidi^inunj i f in ft LLt. fr, IC//T 1x1 ifir A Tile' f-i )i jn: K'i mi i Un n u Iri I nr)/.fIII* i / lAtr.^fthuirc. ZiZd f r.iKt-h ur~-f7£v"i tr. i:n.- d ij ii. C k'I S f lif f" n uL■rfi/irV nn- ^ ^ L. hr r fx 7n* fic fncni rnt- frCiLf- £f- I'f-U Li ’r'ju.ift pu.i- ft>7# bum 6n r-/t/lhl<_I______^__________________ (•Ifl.f 10,1^:^ ftu' Piii, Uh cl- CCLiili ff-ui- ivfcnXci tlUti fw U ® iXhiCvLci ff- t>f-baci tU'S -<Ca . I 4050 Bayside Road, Orono Proposed Pole Bam Addition 200 ’ FILE NAME •• «40S0BAY8IOE.TRV SCALE DATE bRAWNEY 200 FMn 4.20-2004 nam* ^ V- ,‘L JOB RCVWON SHEET . ^ 'n.. ^ * - t*. %tjoa 1/1 1/1 L__, REFERENCE POPOV ADDITION LOT 2 4050 Bayside Road. Orono >.• ■■ * *«ru«rt 1 nw 300* y'tr- C* Mini Legend P^"o“oVa« Existing Homes. Tor rsTervnca oniy FILENAME POPOV AOOmONTRV ■. t 1Tr w --- SCALE SOOFVIn 4-20-2004 DRAWN BY n«rw JOS REVISION SHEET SJoa 1/1 1/1 4 ax+tie»iTP THE ALMOND GROVE BARN Root Space: 768 Sq. Ft. Loft Space: 672 Sq. Ft. Roor ^ace. Each Expansion Shed: 288 Sq. Ft. 5 :\ -vV‘ V) •i •• I :i* riaii 11X 2-»' I xpjnNtun Jih-.»t-------- S!uling l)mir« Swim Irt L»tt H.1" -:4-'- cpicisf. . r -V Order Pole Bam Plan #N-20 Send S49.00 for first set, $10.00 for each additional set. plus S5.00 PPstage to: Donald J. Berf. AJA. P.aBozm RockvOk Centre, NY 11571 New York residents add sales tax. or«Order by phone 1-MI-8S7-2833 Please leave a recorded order c .1... e* % Ill I- f 1, ■ I >? \ \»sMJ 's , f Ji Lyrtjy. ■:i • ^ 'It* »■ ' ^ . V ii • ■»*' ). . : V. ‘ ' t/ V •••-V.-i.i ■ / ../ 'V ■■■ •• &*V4Mj • *j r- • ■4^i.-^r ’ ••■■ i ■^tmm X.v-mM mmiimm I i'r>lC! V * ' , ••- iv • I view t^Mc^ ^lArAfrE iOCATtP^ rt> ptUt^T L67 (*=.01.’tm) .r". r V.... I >K •-• ».»Y« V'v.-. ■ /^ I'l' il‘ '• ir/»^-iV'^j ^~'^‘i''-'i^ii} r'^'''‘^V^*' • T' '‘I'' 1* n Pf-~VrVffimw V. • vr •-• ••' ..^ *. _;**> .**•'*/' •V*'-‘v ^ * . " • V ; , ; -'. ,.* - ;. ^|2^P0S6D LOdATlON fxi. £)/KAtlt? '*• y'Pa'A': ’ey'" m,: ■UNOAItwraM n Ml 1721110001 ntOTADOR 42MBAVSIDeOO OWNEIINAMe VCICAriTALITKr TAWAYU VaCAFITALIHr NAM&AOOR rOBOXJ75 UMGLAKEMN S513A N MII72JMOOM nofuxm. 40MBAYSIMHO OWNOINAME MJAMMHARMNCTON TAXFAVn MAM A MONICA HARRINGTON NAME/AOOR 4010 BAVSUJE RO MAMJerUUNMN SSJ5V liENT4£f IN SYSTEM fAUA:l It 0411721110004 rtOf ADOR 40J0 BAYSIOeRO OWNCRNAME OAMCONNBX TaXTAYER GARVOCONNELL NAME/ADOR <0M IIAYSIOE RD MAfUrtAINMN 5SW* N 111142)410012 rROTAOOR 4021 WATtRTONHRD OWNER NAME MARY ttTH J FANML TAXPAYER MARY BETH irANOEL NAME/AOOR 402) WAIERTOWN RD MAPU PLAIN MN 11)1* It MII721110006 PROP AODR 4010 BAYMDE RD OWNER NAME CURTIS A EUZADETH LEVAHO TAXPAYER A ELIZABETH UVANO NAME/AOOR 4010 BAYSKTE RD MAPLE PLAIN MM )»« It )int234400M PROP ADOR 50CRJSTO4ORJC1R OWNERNAME 5 S BERCERSON A A BEROERSON TAXPAYER SHAWNS BERCERSON NAME/ADOR lOCRJSTOPORICIR maple PLAIN MM 11)5* OF THE ICWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVK3S DEPARTMENUOTME BEST. OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF.^^ ^CO u FILE *04.3018 May 4.2004 Pag* 1 of 3 I Dst* AppNcalioB Rtccivfd: (M*2I*04 Dttt AppHcatioa Coaiidcrcd bi Coapicic: M-2MM •0>ltoy Review Period Etpircs: 06*29-04 To:Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Cuitis, City Planner May 11,2004 CONSENT AGENDA 04-3018, Kevin &. Michele Krolczyk, 65 Cygnet Place, • Variance • public hearing Zouiug District: Lot Area: RR-IB, Siaglc Family Rural ResIdeatUI, 2-acre miaimum S0,97S sq.ft. (1.17 acres) Appikatiom iqiplicants request a lot area variance in order to constrtict a new single family residence on an existing lot 1.17 acres in area wbere 2 acres is the required minimum._________________________________________________ Stmff Recorntmendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance as requested. __________________________ Pertiaent Zoaing Ordinance Sccllons Sec. 78-420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed; Lot Area (acre*) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documenution Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Sile Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Property Owners List F. Plat Map G. Photo of Existing Backfrouad Kevin and Michele Krolczyk are the property owners at 65 Cygnet Place. They have donated their existing home to Inner Fai^ Outreach and plan to construct a new single finnily residence on their existing foundation with an addition. FILE f04.331B May 4. 2004 Pa9*2of3 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET UtAm/Widiki RR-IB Lot Am Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f (2 acres)200’ Actual 50.975 sq.ft. (1.17 acre)200’ Suteshr, RR-IB Front Nonh Side South Side Required Eibtine 85.4 ’ 100 ’+ 67.2 ’ 69.1’ Propoied 100’^ 31.2’ 69. r The applicants are proposing to reconstruct a home on the existing foundation with additions which will consist of7.6Va structural coverage for the lot. Total Lot Am Total Structural Coverage 50,975 s.f. (1.17 acre)Allowed: 7.646 s.f. (15%) Proposed: -3,920 s.f. (8%) Lot Am Variance The subject property is located in the RR«1B, 2-acre zone hut in neighborhood of similarly-sized lots with sewer. The property meets the lot width requirement and the proposed home will meet all setbacks and be well below the structural coverage limit of 15%. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Docximentation Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. j Hardship Analysis ie ctmUtHmt •ppUemHotu/or tmrhnct. Hit Pfamtnf Ctmmbaiom tktU rmsM^ like i^tet of the pnpmtHtimHtiictiipQHtktlieoltk,$^fttyamdwttftrttftkt etummmliy, tMtutog nd mitkiptud traffic eendMam, i%Jkr aud air, dM|er qf/lre, rikft fe dkepuM/c OTd Mr M M(M> e/prafcrqr In Httmrrommamgarm. Tkt ritimiit Commkthm tkoU comtUn neommtmHImg tpprtymi ^ voHoncet fiom$k*rnirmtpntltl$mt)fiktIomHigCoHtlmbi$imet$mkerttktktlrtcitHf$KtmmtwomUcmtte aadae hardrikp kteamu tf elKmmttmrn mipmt to Ac ImHhkkia lproptrtf luufar emaUtroHom, mmd tktMr ^wmtoHtppronotoiilf whom M tt itmtntirmei mck oetUm »m bt Im UtpfHg mpk dit ipIrittmUmimtofHuOromoZmHmtCoHe. iditfttia r-FILE •04*3011 May 4. 3004 ••0*3013 Staff fmds that due to the size of the lot there is a hardship for granting the lot area variance as the property is similar to die size of the neighboring properties and it meets all other Zoning District requirements. lasMt for Consideratioa Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RacoBBcadatioB Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. City of Orono Variance Ar)plication Ar Sf;isef Address: 2750 Ke ’.ley Parkway Orcr.3. MN 55356 Appi caton ^ Date Received Amount Paid; ialjll Mair.; 952-249^600 fax; 952-249-46*6 Madtr\g Address: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay, S5323-:066 Staff: Fee; a a; tAml5600 Renewal: S300 After-the-fact; Si 200 DouP e Fee This applicaion form must be completed in full. App icant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of me application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; |(?S Property Identification Nutrtber (PIN);imoi (Attach legal description to applicaticn if not inci-ded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): SI joo □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of proper^: ja ResIdential Zoning District: it- (’ l li/ □ Other APPLICANT INFORMATION; (Com.plete legal na-es and rr.antal status required for each interested paty) \/p u'tO K y'c 1 r ZVName:re II Phone (home): Address: Lfcb Email: Phone (wefk): tClL - OS I ~ 2hlCc..3 Cv-\q»vi QWex _m~2 \| Y‘ A’\sn . r Fax: QS2 -7u^-M'lT-n\rO OWNER INFORMATION; (Complete legal nam.es a-d marital status required for each interested party) Name: l^vYU. riioovTL^_________________^____________________ Phone (home): Address: ___ Email: Phone (work): Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost. $____ [^scribe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ____________________ \jAfwx^^fs -Vih Vr t\ V~\rUSf". USu^ Virtc.^ -(tJUiVi/Lfir^-t \rTf -kVVji t<N Vcc.^ 7 rxr^\.^ Tl-ui'ii-as -tVxf 7 - ckc»r vr cjjjL.1 KfnrMyut r^uyv. infc #30 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. •O□ Q □□ □ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Properly Owners List - owners w.thin 150‘ of the subject properly, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center. A-603 3C0 South 6'** Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348*5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or ir X 17" for reproduction Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11"or11"x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay addit.onal fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that ho/she Is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit Applicant’s Signature: Applicant's Signature;y ii^ I'u iw Date; Date; q , i d OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and funher authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature: Owner ’s Signature:i\ i ^ Date: Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. L- M r’”? >'■ / ai Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form la a raquired submittat for ALL variance applications. An applicator will not be considered comp ete or placed on any meeting agendas until this farm is complete and submitted to the C ty. MinnesoU State Statue Section 394.27. Subdtvision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be un'que to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance Is Justified. The Information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave scmething out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some nay not apply): 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used unde* conditions allowed by the official controls.” “The plight of the landowner is due to circunstar.ces un que to h s property not created by the landowner.” CXxf \qT 2.-acvd. IVti rafnann vug\ C VTcctrrt awl r\ot av> oynipt/'-turM ■to Cjf ^XjLira-\ui^ “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essenta! character of the locality.” - fT\obT of V-guS< vvUN cir\ gv One * b«ui^ \ici«rvs 'Economic considerations alone shs'.l not ccnstitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* icir ».• *..* ‘-I . Tr - ^ ^•7;Q Page 2 of 3 'Undue hardahip alao inciudea. 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.” *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.” 7. ‘The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one^amily dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” 6.‘The special conditions applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” 9.*The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” 10. ‘The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantia) property right of the applicant.' 11. *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.” WA 1 I i Page 3 of3 12. *Th« gmntrg of such variance win not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria, descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): r 't *•* ■ C*: • • V,- ^i r trw+i6irc ^fsn/oe? t Iron snrker IiOn£ lAki, FinnasotA o lUNDAIl: ]i (Mimmom mor AOM llfS WATfHTOWN M> OWNUNAME TCIUTTEAEICSAmEE TAXTAYW THOMAS C A KAIXIS RITTER NAME/ADOR Jl« WATERTOW RO lONGLAKCMN SSIM ]• MII72U2000T PROTADOR 1) CYGNET n. OWNER NAME DCA A LSHAUGHNESSV TAXPAYER DAVID A ANN SHAU*HNESSV NAME/AtXM JJCVGNETPL LONG LAKE MN SUM M O4II72I2I0OI6 PROPAOOR «• CYGNET PL OWNER NAME DC SHAUCMNESSV ET AL TAXPAYER DAVID A ANN SHAUGHNESSV NAME/ADOR 40CYONETPL LONG LAKE MN SSIM MM: I }| MII72I2200M PROPAOOR 10 LEAFST OWNER NAME JEROME IIIAU. TAXPAYER JEROME I MALL NAME/ADOR 10 leaf ST LONG LAKE MN SSSM » 041172)220001 PROPADOR M CYGNET PL OWNERNAME KTKROLCZYKAMAKROLCZYK TAXPAYER K£VIN A MIDIELE KROLCZYK NAME/ADOR 65 CYGNET Ft. LONG LAKE MN 55)36 n 041172)220017 PROPADOR 10 CYGNET PL OWNERNAME APSMITMAKPASTIRSMmi TAXPAYER APSMITliAKPASTlRSMITH NAME/ADOR » CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55)56 n 041172)220005 PROPAOOR IIOLEAPST OWNERNAME MS A KJORONBERO TAXPAYER mark S ORONRERO NAME/ADOR KATHERINE J ORONBERO IIOLEAPST LONG LAKE MN 53)36 JS 041172)220009 PROPAOOR ISCYGHITTPL OWNERNAME GJEHALTETAL TAXPAYER OREOORVJEMALT NAME/ADDR 105 CYGNET PtACE long LAKE MN 53)56 )1 041172)220022 PROP ADOR 100 CYGNET PI. OWNERNAME VILOFORONO TAXPAYER CITYOfORONO NAME/ADOR PO 00X46 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55)2) U 041172)220024 PROPAOOR 20 CYGNET PL OWNERNAME HJAMMPANUSKA TAXPAYER HAROLD JA4AROARET M PANUSKA NAME/ADOR » CYGNET PL LONQLAKEMN 55)56 Si 051172)110005 PROPAOOR 95 tiATST OWNERNAME ECGRAHAMJR TAXPAYER ECGRAHAMJR NAME/ADOR 95 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55)56 a OFTHE HEWEPW COUNIY TA)CPAYER SERVICES DEPARlMOfTTO TOE ofmyknowi ^dceandiieuef .^^^^^^ by ^ ADJACEfrr PROMRTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(8)] [print address] FfoL have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 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 neighbor's project or use require^ouncil approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date ee « eee I I (we) )4x^U I [prirUrtame(8)l Lc.a“f [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. 1 (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 arni that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 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 scheduled meeting date. ; •• ;: • .y ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS* A^OWLEDOEMENT FORM I (we) i Ann of ’ Placg^ [print name(t)] ^ [print address] IjQ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 6»5 PlQLt_ 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 tha proposed neighbor's project or have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at L /^A^<>also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowiedgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Counol that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plana and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Counal approval. C ^ 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 Buildl^ & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. #£f gx»ngir tg~ Mtimt-pin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department --WATEfmWN RD •- I . t\ V *«i-—n ----- t (9) ?. •V I:| WALNUT 05-117-23-11- 1 X.V tUf CREEKl 23D« W7m 04-117-23-22- Parcel Information < \ H&.&: IID 041172S2100MA if , 4 ? .V.mm } / .■ ,V-‘ ■'* .. * - ' ■ •% •- 1< »•••>• • «i' ua>/' ♦ 1 •. V ! \ J *.W. i "UiU *iPiir j.s.r- !Sf :%ii m *..* , • ' ’ >-AV*-. •• • - / ; ,1V • • • -.^' *04^13 May 17.2004 Patt 1 of4 Dale Applicatioa Ricci«cd: 4-2l*04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5-7-04 00-Day Review Period Empires: “-6-04 Chair Mabusih and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach. City Planner May 5.2004 K04-3013, George Funk. 540 Old Crystal Bay Road • Conditional Use Permit for Plumbing in an Accessory Building - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR - 1B. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 6.76 acres (294.479 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow plumbing to be installed, consisting of a bathroom with tub. shower and sink, within an existing detached garage. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plans as submitted. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-418. Conditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-family rural residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (16) The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flow's from the building plumbing. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Survey Exhibit C - Proposed Floor Plan of Upper Level Bathroom Exhibit D - Septic Routing Plans Exhibit E - Photographs Exhibit F - Property Owner’s List Exhibit G - Plat Map BackgrouDd The applicant received a building permit in May of 2003 for construction of a detached garage of which construction is almost complete. At that time the applicant did not propose any plumbing and therefore never applied or received a conditional use pennit M04-30I3 May 17,2004 ractlofO The applicant is now requesting permission to construct a bathroom in the upper level of the detached garage, consisting of a sink, toilet, and shower, which requires approval of a conditional use permit Survey: Garage Location The garage construction pennit was issued without an updated survey because the project met the one exception w here a surv ey is not required, being an accessory structure on a conforming lot where the comer pins are visible to allow the inspector to confirm the setback. Due to the lOO’-*- setback to the road and slight angle of the house, the inspector clearly felt that the garage me: the standard for being no closer to the street lot line than the principal strticture. As can be seen from the survey, the garage ended up about 1.4 feet closer to the road than the house. Because the garage is virtually complete, this is inconsequential to the current application, and no after the fact action is necessary. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Ut Area/Width RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.00 acres)200* Actual 294.476 s.f. (6.76 acres)783.28* Setbacks RR-IB Required Extoliag Proposed From SO*House-’lIJ.r Garage - II2*‘NO CHANGE 1 Rear 1 SO*House -210* Garage ~2J5*NO CHANGE UftSide JO*House *290* Garage-218.2*NO CHANCE Right sue JO*House -289.7* Garage-500*^SOaUNCE Structural Coverage Per Section 78-1403 the property is not subject to structural coverage requirements as the lot is in excess of 1.99 acres. Hardcover Cakubtions The property is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District and is therefoie not subject to hardcover restrictions. Mayra|t3ar4 Conditional Um Permit Analysis Section 78 - 418 (16) establishes a number of conditions that must be met to receive approval of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building. Approval shall be granted onl> when the following criteria are met: a. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the icsidential character of the neighborhood. The existing detached gm age has existed for almost a year and the applicant's property is of sufficient size to support the bathroom without the residential character of the neighborhood being compromised b. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. The applicant is proposing a toilet, shoncr and sink \%ithin the upper '/s story of the detached garage These fixtures do not indicate any significantly intense use which cannot be supported within the detached Install garage The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. The applicant s property i\ in excess of 6 acres The acce.ssory building is conforming in location, size and height The existing detached garage meets all setback requirements, is in conformance with size restrictions of the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance, and meets the 30 ’ maximum height restriction. e. The property ow ner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the properly providing that the accessory building will not be: Used lor a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by tills Code. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. 3.Rented, leased or otherwise proxided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The applicant has agreed to the filing of this covenant in the chain of title on the property Therefore, it is staff s opinion Uiat all of the above criteria are met and that the conditional use permit should be gramed. MOiJOIJ May 17,2004 Pt|t4of4 Imuos for Comidcration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? SUIT Recommendation Approval of the plans submitted stipulating the following: 1 . The covenant listed above shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Application# Data Racalvad " ^ kZccAmount Paid CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . . . Site Address______^ Yv 0\J C^iy >/»•/ S>i Type of Application to be Filed Cc/p Uiy Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0 "Y •l'S - ^1. 00 APPLICANT Name _____ Phone (home)__ Address *^/bL Gccrgo Punk 540 OW Crystal Bay Rd So ----leng Lc h « Mo 6SWS Phone(work) _Clty____ 157 - zL/> 5 s <; OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________________C0‘ U'.v t/ji r* Phone (home). Address _____ Phone (work) City_____I Judy Rogoshaske r 540 0idCfy«taJBayRdSo tc ngt.akg Wn. 95300— Dat? Property Acquired fl' I - J*l ^ 3__________ l(|^(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^ FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - (monlh/year) L't $600.00 Residential Accessory Use ,$600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments . $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg . $600.00 Commercial/lndustrial Use . $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____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 $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) , After»the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule ’ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. v/ Completed Application Form. 2. Describe request In detail. 5. -er ; Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6®* Street Minneapolis, telephone 612-348>5910). , Certficate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyoO • refer to handout for survey information. .Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. : Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). . List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 'Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you v/ish notified of th'is application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:__________________________Date APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplies true and correct to th^ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date f'Z/'09 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by^ity staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for pyfp^ses of Investigation and verification of this request Owner's signature Data'7'-?Applicant mutt twve all tutmiuls into the City dmces 25 days before the Planning Coinmitsion/'09 n Meetng!Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must bs present at all scheduled review meetings of Ihe Planning Commission and Councfl. if m applicant is unable to *r. :> City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a Q'ty Planner during yojr pre-apo ’ication meetinj *) SfrMf Address For Qf*’ce Use Oo’v City Planner _____JANU IT ^J?of 0 y Mdihng Address 2750 Kelley Parkway P O. BoxS6 __ Orono. MN 55356 Crystal Bay. VIN 55323>3Q5€ Meetng Oate/Time Main; 952-249-46C0 PC Da^. yutU 11,20 Fax: 652-249-4616 What Is thm purpose of a pn-appUeation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: ^^0 Ole* (aiifAC /^d S______________________________ Prnnar^u IWanfifi^-atinn Kli imKap ^!/ 7 •“2 3 2, “ ^^02- 3Property Identification Number (PIN): Zoning District: ££’lF> ___Size of Property:O S DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: j^Res. Access. Use □ institutional □ Guest House/Guest Apt □ Duplex Credit/Bidg □ Comm / tndust Use □ PRO / PiD □ Land Alteration □ Comm Stte Plan Review □ other: i'mlUHS CVP tX. <r c/I tJti (K hin A:Ifupofdfti ^ ch oiuilj ______________________ OTHER INFORMATION: T^O <P[a / qk / jp tj (jAyrJfZO/i/c,f rocitd/j ^ ir't OAj c/A^ O ^liution wiir N('Please note: Your application wiirNOT be which this form will be completed Applicant Signature ippiicaiion wtirNOT be a^pted wi ! completed^ City staff.) / pted without a pre-application meeting during Date: ^ ? 0^0 ^ George FtxA eeOOUdyeWBayndSo Long Lake Mn. 55356 #h Vc u '‘ilf •u tul Q < O Pi <m •-3 < E-* CO a:u CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GEORGE FUNK OF LOT 1. BLOCK 1, WHITE OAK OVERLOOK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA rmrtmm ^Smur^Asiiotn Q a exsTNc CAMAGC CnsttiC V<0 I________________________________________ S tow CO* « JCBM LEGAL OtSCflPTlON OT PREM6CS: Lot 1. Btock 1. WHIE OAK OVERLOOK Ihis survey shoos U<e bourvdories of the above described property, and the location of on existing house, garage and shed thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochments. o Iron marker bearings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed datum asuio «VOBM cwtt ccstsrraM N GRONfiERGftASSOCUTES.lNC. : M costiic oiMixL uw SMitn srt nesut 1MMST cmrsT iHAi hvs n.«w mcrcATOi on wran MW« fm tMVB AffV MB SCMl VA> ■« iB 0« VUW tlT U^AItS W...W . .... .. V... — WNNWWWC rwM«e* eeM s mm d A a ««f sewtei utu m (mi • *4 site v istesoik 0«lt S/*AH V ^ 44» H M.10W on LONG LAKE, let 5SU8 ^ 957-4/3-4141 otrt ------- JOS A o«>iao 04-»w» L_.. -i iriT.i-r..............'Tiilniyn^ 1^-^ j\j' George Ftmk 540 Old Crystal Bey Rd So Lone Lake Mn. 55356 lyew Gamti. V,'fXV u ,>* 'I' %‘ Vr f^»- 0«<i«>'*J H Tt^ COlO i ,„sint ■v'p;"Y P'^\ ,. FloJ'i. P'"’P S^e .llcrW u,..'*- IS' (lpro<c “*-t o/»f^ \\’’ Jftp '■■•v Q*«(ir<a« MilklOvfM VOM'TKKm ‘TSi -‘f75-3?>'y ?'2 7-0V ColO *jipnL-/ (SVJttX C»:'T Puri*/«^ fr<f\f 7o r RUNOAU vnOM Jl O4II72S3IO0OI mor ADOR 415 OLOCKYSTALBAY W) S 3YYNUINAMC W*f LAWTON YAXPAYER D» WILUAM G LAWTON 425 SO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO UMGLAKEMN 5515* It MIIT21IIOOM PROP ADOR 515 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RDS OWNER NAME XIMN RCUCRJNOM CT AL TAXPAYER JOMNROUERINCER NAME/AOOR LAURA SMORRBON^OERWOtR 535 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S IjONOLAKEMN 551** 31 O4II7231I0OII PROPAOOR IMOFOXST OWNER NAME LBTER E THOMPSON ET AL TAXPAYER LLSTERE THOMPSON NAME/AOOR 2«OFOXST RT I BOX 125T LONG LARI: MN 5515* 3« 04II72M20004 PROP ADOR 2720 FOX ST OWNERNAME LM STUBBSR DESTUBBS TAXPAYER »• M STUBBS ROC STUBBS NAME/ADOR long LAKE MN 55)5* ]■ 04II72J4700I4 PROPAOOR 2Jt5 WHITE OAK OR OYmERNAME JRLDOUOAN TAXPAYER JOHN FRELYNN DOUOAN 2715 WHITE OAK CtRTU IJONOLAKEMN 5515* 31 041172)420017 PROP ADOR JTiO WHITEOAKOR OWNERNAME RRIRLMO taxpayer RKniARDARJOANMKUNC 27*0 WHITE OAK aRCLE IjONOLAKEMN 55154 lltNNUMN rol NTY PROPFRTY INFORMATION SY‘ TFM |•ROPLR^YLWNIR.SI.IST PAO% HI 0411721.110002 PROP ADOR 05 OLD t KYSTAL BAY RD S OWNLR NAMI P IILMMIXL A M STEGEMAN TAXPAYER P MEMMLKI: R M STLGEMAN NAML/ADDR 415aDtRYSTALBAYRDS inNCJUVKEMN 55156 )■ 0411721)1000* PROP ADOR W5 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S OWNtRNAML PAUL W BtROCREHR WIFE TAXPAYER REV PAUL WBtRC«R£K NAME/AODR 515 old crystal BAY RD tONClAKEMN 55156 II 0411721)40004 PROP ADOR 2101 FOX ST OWNER NAME DANIEL J R MARGARET C KliJTlI TAXPAYER DANItLJ R MARGARET G KLUTII NAMUAUOR 71011 OX ST LONG LARI: MN 55156 M 041177)470005 PROPADDR 2740 FOX ST OWNERNAME OEORESSELETAL TAXPAYfcR ORV1UI L DRIXSLL NAMUADDR 7740 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55J9« 11 041177)470015 PROPAUDR 7775 WIHTt oak CIR OWNERNAME LESTER JAM tS MARJER TAXPAYER STACY SULLIVAN NAME/ADOR 4* SUMMn PL MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 10 0411771470077 PROP ADOR M ADDRESS UNASSKWED OWNERNAME WHITE OAK CIRCLE ASSOC TAXPAYER WHDt OAK ORCLE ASSOC NAME/ADDR OFLONOLAKP 7720 WHITE OAK OR LONG LAKE MN 55156 PROI'ADDR OWN! R NAME TAXPAYER NAMIMDDR IB 04II72J'UW0I 505 OID CRYSTAL BAY RD S DVRM IIARAIANN DAVID R MON4 IIARMANN 505 OLD r RYSI AL BA Y RD S LONG LAKE M*. 55)56 Gootgu Funk MO OM DvT4.ll aiy nd So Lnnt; l;*l> • W i Lh3b6 JR 04II77I1IOOIO PROPAOOR J65 OLDCRVSIALBAY RDS OWNLRNAME MARYORYERSt TAXPAYER MARYORYERSt NAMEJADOR 565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RDS long LAKE. MN 55)56 IB U41177)42000) PROP ADOR 7600 FOX ST 05VNLRNAME IAN J PETERSI N TAXPAYIR lANJPETtRStN NAMfyADDR f®X ST WAYZATAMN 55)91 )S 041172)420006 PROPAOOR 2760 FOX ST OWNERNAME MINNEtONKA Al>M7 GROUP INC TAXPAYER MINNETONKA ALAND GROUP NAMI:/AODR ^UX ST UONCilAKEMN 55)56 II 041172)470016 PROPADDR 2790 WHITE. OAK CIR OWNER NAME M L DOMERTY/P J tXlHERTV TRST TAXPAYER PJOOHtRTY AML DOHERTY 7790 WHITE OAK CIR LONG LAKE MN 5515* II 041172)47002) PROP ADOR 540 OLD CRYSTAL *IAY RD S OWNERNAME O FUNK A J ROOOSHESKE TAXPAYER GEORGE FUNK/JUDY ROOOSHESKE NAME/AOOR 540 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN SS156 % lUNOATE ymoi HENNFPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAGE 1 31 04II72MKOI4 •nOPAOOR WIilTEOAKaR >WN»NAMe i A MURRAY A LZ MURRAY taxpayer JOHN a a LYDIA MURRAY 4AME/AOOR 3T1S WHITE OAK CIR long LAKE MN S»M » 0*11723410025 PROPAOOR 2725 WHITE OAK CIR OWNERNAME PCDBTKER AEM BECKER TAXPAYER PAUL C A ELIZABETH M BECKER NAME/AODR 2725 WHITE OAK CIR long LAKE MN 55356 31 0411723420026 PROPAOOR 2715 WHITE OAK CIR OWNERNAME SALJENHIOES TAXPAYER STEVEN A UURJEiENNICES NAME/ADOR 2715 WHITE OAK OR LONGLAKEMN 5515A 31 0411723430002 •ROPADOR 2765 POX ST 3WNeRNAME YOROUXALEROUX TAXPAYER YVES O ROUX VAME/ADOR 2765 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 30 0411723430003 PROPAOOR 2675 FOX ST OWNERNAME P J SLOCUM A E E OILLHiAN TAXPAYER PETERSlJtXrUMAERINOItUGAN NAME/ADOR 2675 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55J9I 31 0411723430011 PROPAOOR 2760 FOX ST OWNER NAME MWNETONKA AlANO C3ROUP INC TAXPAYER MWHETONKA ALANO SOOETY NAME/AODR 2740 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 CO WT^rt^ClSfiPirTl^^^/iiii^AYERSERVICES DEPARTMU^iTOTlIH BEST OF MV KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF DATE // ) % • % Ma* r. 2004 Pagt3«r4 The proposed plans indicate that all other zoning requirements will be meu including setbacks and structural coverage as indicated in the Lot Analysis ^ orksheet above Hardship Statcmcot Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Apalysts fit coHiUering appUcathns for varUmee, the Plaiming Commiulon shaU consider the effect of the Piloted variance upon the heaUh. safety and welfare of the community, 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 CommlMSlon shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enfnf'emtnt would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consUeratlon. and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Qrono Zoning Code._________________ Staff finds that a valid hardship exists in that the lot is a legal lot of record, recorded at Hennepin County, and a house has existed on the lot for many years prior to the demolition of the previous home in 2001 . Several of the homes along that stretch of Old Long Lake Road are under the 2 acre requirement and have existed for many years. Also, the applicant is unable to purchase any vacant property in an effort to reach the 2 acre requirement as the Luce Line trail exists to the south, existing residential homes to the east and west (both under 2 acres), and Old Long Lake Road right-of-way to the north. The tfore, staff is in support of the requested lot area variance as all of the above are valid hardships. Site Plan Comments In most respects the site plan meets City requirements to allow issuance of building permits. However, in reviewing the site plan the Planning Director noted the follow ing plan elements that need to be addressed ^fore permits arc issued, some of which the Plaruiing Commission may choose to address: The side-loading garage at a side setback of 30 ’ faces the neighboring property . It has an apron proposed at elevation 970’. The topography drops 4* to the lot line, so a 2’-3’ retaining wall will be needed 5' from the side lot line alongside portions of the driveway in order to maintain a functional, safe slope on the drivew ay apron. Note that the driveway plan eliminates the natural screening (3 or 4 trees) between the two properties. The driveway design will have to incorporate drainage control features to avoid adding excessive runoff to the neighboring property. The two driveway accesses will require Public Services Director approvaL as the City code allows only one driveway access per property. The westerly portion of the driveway encroaches the existing well, so either the driveway or the well will have to move. 1. HOI-UTI May 17.2004 Pa|t2or4 Bsckfround The applicant originally submitted the lot area variance application in early 2001. However, septic sites could not be located and the applicant has been delayed until City sewer could be made available to the site. City sewer became ax'ailable in 2003 and the applicant has subsequently requested that his application be activated again in an effort to move towards construction jf a new home. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LotArca/Wldlh RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. (2.00 acres)200* Actual 44,523 s.f. (1.022 acres)205’ Priaclpal Structure Setbacks RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’N/A - Vacant Lot 50 ’ Rear (Luce Line)50 ’N/A - Vacant Lot 61’ Left Side 30’N/A - Vacant Lot 96’ Right Side 30’N/A - Vacant Lot 30’ Slructunil Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 44.523 s.f. (1.022 acres)Allowed: 6,678.5 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,341 s.f. (7.5%) Hardcover Calculations This property is not located within the Shorcland Overlay District and therefore is not subject to ha^over restrictions. Lot Area Variance The applicant has proposed to construct a new residence on an existing lot. The previous home was demolished in February 2001 in preparation for the proposed project. The property is currently served with City sewer, however is only 1.022 acres in area. Zoning Ordinance Section 78-420 (B) requires that lots located with the RR - IB zoning district maintain a lot size of 2 acres. Therefore, a lot area variance is required in order for a new residence to be constructed on the existing vacant lot City of Orono Vafiance Application EXHIBIT A StTB9t Address: 2750 Kelley Paritway Ororw MN 55356 Mam: 952-249-4600 tax: 952-243-4616 Ma3if)g Address- P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-4066 Appi«aton# 0/“ Date Received. Q/ZJfO^ Amount Paid; hf/A Staff: jAfJiC€ Fee:S600 Renewal; S300 After-me-fact. S1 200 Dsubie Fee This application form mutt be compileted m fuB. App cant will be noLfied within 15 days as to the status of tre aopliceoon. Incomplete appticatione will not be olaced on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; Site Address; 6»4 5 oiei iLorvA A-ftXe- Property Identification Number (PIN):’^ >t sx Xo ooA Orono (Attach legal description to application if not included on tne survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): ^jbo □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: B Residential □ Other____________________________ Zoning District; lA_____________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Completa legal na-es and marital status required for each ir^te'ested party) Name: AusrAtA.h. < tcA-A^ f^, TAmpug^______________________ Phone (home); Address; /oLct AgauA Email: _ Phone (work); f ^c,S) - \ SKA OfoAO ■ »-(#J , ^^*361 Fax: OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names a-d marital status required for each interested party) Name; _________________________________________________________________ Phone (home): Address; ____ Email; Phone (work); DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _____________ ate__tikts I ler I /VZ-i-m, Ift rtf tU. #2371 V, REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. 54 • Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Oocumenlation Form CMmA Certified Property Owners List - owne's within 150' of the subject property. labels and plat nap. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A-603 300 Soutli 6 “ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sun/eyor). meeting all the requlremerts listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5 * x 11“ or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11“ or 11" X 17“ for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project * APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide ai* nformation required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (start time not covered In the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potentUI merit Applicant's Signature; Applicant's Signature;A OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of/fhis request. Owner’s Signature; Owner’s Signature;iB•?/c4 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project 1 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is a rsquirod submitUl for ALL variance applications. An application win not be considered complete or placed on any meetng agendas urtil this form is complete and submitted to the Ctty. __________________________ Minnesota SUte Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and econotnio situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City CounCi* a hardship having merit must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? ^ This form has 12 points outTming the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance win affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance Is Justified. The Information the City receives is what ia used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.•The property In question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the offtcial controls * •The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.' •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the localih; • •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter* # j).r •> i i Page 2 of3 ‘Undue hardthip alto Includes, but Is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as dtfinad In MinnesoU Sututas, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when In harmony with this Chapter.* •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 zorw where the affected peraon'a land is located.* 7. -The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.* 8. ‘The special conditions applying to the structure or land In question are peculiar to such property or Immediately adjoining property.* ^ ^^h*^aid tond is^l^'ted generally to other tend or structures in the district in r • -I Pages of3 12- "The granting of tuch variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but Is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria, descr be the unique hardsWp, practical difficulty or unusual propety conditions preverting compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements In the following lines (attach additional shceu if necc ‘taary); ..OL 2.13^ iAi AAIW-SETml.TV^ piSairwait—i t ^ Atti tv r-g^l TTin t4.« h-r&H 4 d. n.>;u ;c tjdk M gm. ijij r.*~. 5 :*4. o ^ EXHIBIT C BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SUPV ALISTAIR AND KRISTIN JACC IN THE W 1/2, SW 1/4, SEC 36- HENNEPIN COUNTY. MiNNESO LUCt M PRClJMINiWVSnf PUN iWW' iW JACQUtS NCaiOCNCC •MMiaatuMi pmimmtm wifsjm SITE m g §a t'l-"L4L2si -■ xJII ^SS^SKSKmmmrnm^^^m^Wr • l_ •* * •- r!Ll: _, S li;eS3l d 3@3SS€SS^IBSs^'bd^ NORTH F.LEVATION J/_ / •DIE JACQUES RESIDENCE old long i^kf rd. orono, mn SCHEMATIC DESIGN 131 ns 00 qw I wm I mmr- Wr,-^‘.' ;W .• t>I • .<I* i"*^ « ♦,; <h -n ‘> /'Vt ':; V5^#J«...mvM iVI' ^vVi-.>->-%' A I 1 '•• V 0 .V ;» •• •:. ;"-v^'. , * [i !”-i 'V'Sv i5Rv.>A' •*, •* i* ' ‘'V-r-- •I- •vV-;'i^^‘'* /•.» '.r^ < .I- '■ I ■••>.'’T.'</ iv'r'^^‘:- ■ 'O.. • A‘ >*<• r^*.* • A* ^ .5 S«: ‘;w\-^...... a' C^EXHfBITC \ ■UNIMTl.4nrN0l HFNNF.PIN COUNTY PROfKRTY fNFORMATlON SYSItM property OWNFJIS UST PAGC; M 36linJ)20002 OPAOOR 2S0RUANNRD mCRNAMB rryniDCBAItERETAL XPAVER PAULTa KAY K STliOEBAKER ISO RUANN ROAD WAYZATAMN SSMI )l )AI ItlD^OOO) f«Or AOOR AJS OU> LONG LAKF RO OWNtRNAME M DSMIRHCR A AMU RtK MATTHEW da AMY ASHERtR NAMF/ADOR 624 old long UOCFRD WAVM1AMN 4>WI M Vimn)2ooo4 PROPADOR 644 OtDlONCIAKEltD OWNER name ADJACXJUt-'SDArgOES TAXPAYER AU4T AIR D JACQUES NAME/ADOR JilSOtUnEAClIRD ORONOMN 44)91 3t MiinnnooT or AOOR 614 OtD LONG LAKH RJ> VNtRNAME DBTH0M90MA8DTM0MS0H JVAYCR OCAN BA SUSAN 0TH06IS0H Utf&AOOR 6i3 OLD LONG LAJCERD WAYZATAMN 44)91 )| )AIIU))20009 PROP AOOR )W RUANN RD OWNER NAME O S KNWMT A M A RNIGIG taxpayer GERARD A MARY ANN KNCIIT Z.U.OO, WAYZATAMN 54)91 n )6IIU))200IO PROPADOR )40 RUANN RD OWNER NAME P A R STUOEQAKER TAXPAYER PAUL T A KAY K ST Unf BARER NAMEVAOOR 350 RUANN RD WAYZATAMN 44)91 M )6llt23))000) OPAOOR M ADDRESSIA4ASSIGNED VNERNAMC STATE OP MINN iXPAYER ONR REAL ESTATE MOM T \ME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE OURTIN 400 LAFAYETTE RD STPAULMN 44144 4t )6IIU)))0006 PROPADOR 50 MYRTLEWOOORO OWNER NAME SAMCHAMPUN taxpayer STEVEN KCHAMPUN NAME/AOOR SOMYRTLEWOODROAD WAYZATAMN 44191 OF MY KNOWIEDGF. AND BLUEE. DATE • ^ 0 . f BY \/ y*>>\ |0 Q3 H- nXs» a *04>2974 SiMicbay Markn place Mty 13.2004 rtgfi ■ Buildings on the site shall be oriented with a goal ofproviding an inviting vehicle and pedestrian entry fiom Kelley Park\vay without creating negative visual impacts for the Stonebay residential development. Staff Conclusion: Tit is parameter has been met by the reorientation of the Walgreens entrance to the southwesterly comer of that building, and by designing the middle retail building (Retail B, east elevation on Plan Sheet EL2) to have a windowed front facade at its northeasterly end ■ Arcliitectural design and details shall be carefully prepared by any developer of the site to ensure a liigh quality of design, compatible witli the quality of the office buildings on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC'Council approuti of preliminary building designs ■ Building materials shall be high quality and durable, slull be compatible w ith the quality' of the office buildings on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC^Council approx al of preliminary building designs Conformity to B-6/PUD Standards A. Aitowed Uses. Based on a compilation of the allow'able uses in the B-1 and B-6 Districts, Planning Commission has produced a list of permitted and conditional uses that would be appropriate for this site as part of the PUD rezoning process. The proposed buildings and site layout w ould reasonably accommodate many of the indivHdual uses on the proposed list of allowable uses. B. Lot Area A Width. Required area and width for B-6 are 2.0 acres and 100'. The proposed preliminary plat creates two lots: Lot 1»1.98 acres / 370', and Lot 2 ■ 1.71 acres and 135'. Both lots arc slightly undersized in area; how e> er, the site at 3.69 acres is limited by having no additional land available. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and widths as proposed. C. Sabaeks. Setback requircmentsandconfoimitywcre included in the April ISmcmo, indicating that all setback requirements are met except for the w cst side setback for the westerly retail building, which is proposed at 2(f rather than 35'. Staff recommends approval for this 20* setback as discussed in the April 15 memo. D. Site Drainag e. The applicants have provided a drainage plan that includes catch basins and storm sew'ers discharging to the adjacent regional pond. The City Engineer’s letter of April 28 indicates the proposed plans are acceptable subject to a number of conditions to be met prior to final plan approval. f. •#4.2f74 SloMbay MirtetplM* May II. 2004 Pag« S Vehidt Circutation . Sheldon Johnson, Orono's tnfTic consultant Bonestroo and Associates, has reviewed the latest rc\nsions and has indicated to staff that the layout is acceptable and that his prior recoramendations regarding trafTic circu! ation have been incorporated into the plans. The right-in, right-out access to Willou- has been refined to meet turning radius standards, and should function adequately. He recommends, and staff concurs, that signage be installed warning drivers entering the Walgreens drive-thru from the west to vield to. and watch for, incoming vehicles at the right-in, right-out. Required Parking . Based on Orono codes the proposal requires a total of I *73 parking stalls. The site plan has been revised to eliminate ‘proof of parking’ w hich yields a final par*King proposal ofl 50 stalls. Staffhas discussed parking numbers forthis site at length w ith Sheldon Johnson who recommends that the 1 SO stall number be accepted. He suggests that our ordinance is excessive for retail uses; the extra parking required by our code serv es no real purpose and results in excess hardcover and runoff. In terms of our past PC discussions, the 150 stall number exceeds by one stall the requirements we established for the site in terms of accepting Walgreens 60-staIl need and the remaining retail at theCity requirement of I stall per 150 s.f of net retail space. Even if a stall is lost to provide the suggested pedestrian connection from Walgreens to the Willow /12 comer, the parking needs will be met. Please review the applicant’s revised narrative in regards to the rationale for the parking numbers. Staff recommends approval of the parking plan as designed. Lot Coverage . Code Section 78-1403 limits lots of 0-1 .99 acres in area to 15% lot coverage by structures: • Lot 1 (8(3,268 s.f. or 1.98 acres) is proposed w ith buildings totaling 13.930 s.f. or 16.1 Vocoverage. • Lot 2 (74,428 s.f.) Is proposed with buildings touling 14,820 s.f. or 19.9% coverage. • Overall coverage of the 3.69 acre site is proposed at 17.9%, not including freestanding trash enclosures. Only a small number of dev eloping or redeveloping commercial sites in Orono have bcai subject to the 15% lot coverage requirement. These include: Service 800 on Hwy 12 (0.96 acres, 26.1% lot coverage) • pre-existing site Culver’s in Navarre (1.52 acres, 20.2*/o lot coverage) - pre-existing sue Snyder’s in Navarre (1.9 acres. 14®'o lot coverage) - pre-existing site Wagner Rental in Navarre (1.2 acres, 12 "/o lot coverage) - pre-existing site The dental office on Kelley Parkway was a pre-existing 2.0 acre lot and not subj«:i to the lot coverage limit. It has about 18% lot coverage. Please review the applicant's nairadve leganling lot coverage. Planning Commissioa should reach a conclusion whetto the proposed overall lot coverage of 17.9% is acceptable. Note that hardships given for the Service800 and Culver’s variances included consistency with surroundmg •04*2974 SiMicOa; Markctpteca May 13,2004 Pacti dcvclopmenU that holdinglo the 15% limit would undcrutilize the site, ^'ven the limited amount of land zoned for commercial uses in Orono; and that the available commercial land should be developed at a level that will maximize its potential while still conforming with the goals and policies of the Comp Plan. Grtett Space Under the curmit proposal with the elimination of ‘proof-of-paiking ’, green space on the site will be 26%. LooiBnf Berths . The location and detail ofloading berths for the Walgreens and the easterly retail building have been shown on the plans. Trash Enclosures. Details for the trash handling facilities have been provided, including cross sectional views to show how they will be \ievved from the residential parcels and Kelley Parkw ay Sifuafe. Proposed signage appears on the current plan set. Sheets C2.2 (Stonebay monument at comer of 12 and Willow); Sheet A2.1 (Walgreens wall signage); ELI and EL2 (retail buildings wall signage); and Exhibits D (Walgreens monument sign and Retail monument). Please care^lly review the applicant's nanativ e. including their request for flexibility in terms of individual sign size. The two primaiy monument signs air proposed at a dimension of 1 O’ high and l4'-8" wide, exceeding the 10* width recently adopted for mominicni signs (See Exhibit N, Ordinance No. 6. Third Series). The building wall signage appears to be consistent with what would be expected for a Walg-ecns and a small retail center. The Stonebay Monument at the comer of 12A\'illow is acceptable to staff as designed. Staff would suggest that a signage plan/agreement similar to the example attached as Exhibit O be prepared for this PUD. Message Board. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing reader boards such as that proposed for the Walgreens monument. Staff early on suggested lo the applicants that the Walgreen signage not include a manual reader board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Since then, it has been suggested that an illuminated message board such as that proposed, but with only one message change per day and no flashing, scrolling, etc. would be more attractive than a manual board. The problem with allow ing the illuminated board as proposed is that it could require ongoing monitoring, and that once it goes up, every other mail business in town will want one, but without the limitations. Approval of this one would set a negative precedent. Despite what the applicants might see as 'waffling' on the part of staff, at this time ttaffiecommends that the illuminated board not be allowed, and that if a message board is proposed that it be a manual board •04-2974 SiMtkty Martdptoc* May 13.2M4 Page 7 Liehtln^. The exterior parking lot lighting plan is in Sheet E2.1. The plan indicates 20 “Gardco” 400W luminaires at strategic locations throughout the site, on 20' high poles. The light poles at 20' will be lower than the peak heights of the buildings. Details on the Gardco fixtures have been provided for review. Applicant should address u'hether any building-mounted lighting Is proposed. Engineering Matte rs. City Engineer Tom Kellogg provided his comments in Exhibit G dated April 28. He has also reviev^’cd the May 7 plan set and his comments remain unchanged. His recommendations relate primarily to matters that will be addressed during the final plan stages of development. 4. PrellmlBarv Flat Plat approval will include the establishment of drainage and utility easements, as wrM as payment of park fees and stormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as pan oi me previous Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan approval. The two-lot layout and separate ownerships do not pose any formidable considerations. Shared parking, site maintenance responsibility and similar agreements will be established as a matter of course. Reaoniny As noted previously the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and will provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. Planning Commission identi fied a specific list of allowable or unacceptable uses for the site in February, and refined that list in March. The list of uses will be incorporated into the PUD rezoning for this site, as will a fairly detailed set of conditions related to the specific site plan approval for Outlot A. Staffintends to incoiporaie into the rezoning ordinance condiuons of approval that clearly document the approved site layout, building design and materials, signage lighting, etc. The PUD approval for this site becomes the governing ordinance for the properly. A drafi rezoning ordinance for the site has yet to be prepared by staff, but will be prepared for your review prior to final Council action. ««4.]974 StMMtay ^farluiptoc* May 13.3004 Pi|«l Summarj' of RemaiDtng Iisues to Address 1. Address approval of the lot area and widths as proposed, as w ell as the lot coverage issue. Address approval of the w est side setback for Retail Building A. Address acceptance of the 1 SO-stall parking proposal Address any remaining landscaping issues or concerns. Address the signage issues and flexibility request. Address height of buildings Address any concerns regarding facade coloration or materials. Address whether building-mounted lighting is proposed. Any other issues for consideration. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the \-arious recommendations contained within the text above. Any motion to recommend approval should address the issues noted immediately above, and should provide clear direction to the applicant. Staff believes this application is ready to be forw arded to Council, subject to your recommended conditions for approval. Staffhad planned to draft a PUD rezoning ordinance for this meeting; however, time constraints have delayed that draft. Out intmt is to have it available for your review in the next two w eeks, for final review and approval at your June meeting. A LANDFORM May 7.2004 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: StoneBay Marketplace Re-Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron. On behalf of our client. Landform is pleased to submit this revised narrative and plans for PUD concept stage plan. PUD general plan, commercial site plan, preliminary plat, and final plat for Outlot A, StoneBay. located at the northwest comer of the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12. We are prrposing a commercial planned unit development with 28,750 square feet of retail/office development on this 3.69-acre outlot. The StoneBay Marketplace narrative is attached for your review. We would like to request for you to give some examples of commercial projects in Orono or Long Lake that have 15% building coverage and that approach 20% building coverage for them to compare the difference between the two. it is my understanding that this item will be scheduled for Planning Commission review on May 17,2004 and City Council action soon after. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at 612.252.9070. Sir>cerely, LANDFORM’ STONEBAY MARKETPLACE NARRATIVE We are proposing PUD concept stage plan, PUD general plan, commercial site plan, preliminary plat, and final plat for Outlot A. StoneBay. Lot Area & Width The required minimum lot area for a B-6 district is 2 acres and the minimum lot width is 100 feet. We are proposing to create two lots with this subdivision. Walgreen's will than own their own lot. which is preferable to both the developer and Walgreen's. Although we have three buildings we are only proposing to subdivide into two lots instead of three to keep the lot sizes as large as possible. Setbacks A month ago we brought a site pi'n to meet with City of Orono staff that complied with all of the setback requirements, v.-hile maintaining our current building area. At that time, staff suggested that they would rather have us provide additional green space on the east side of the property then meet the setback on the west side of the property. Therefore we made the change to our plan to accommodate staff comments. The adjoining property currently belongs to MNDOT and therefore is being considered a side street, requiring 35* building setback. However, in the future it is believed that this pond will become property of the City of Orono. which would make this property line an interior side. If this was an internal side property line, then we would only be required to have a 10*foot setback. Site Drainage We are proposing to fill in Die ditch along Highway 12 and install storm sev.er to convey this water to the pond. This will allow us to sod from the south edge of this development to the right>of*vray and create a very aesthetically pleasing commercial development. Building Height The majority of the retail buildings are 24 ’-8" high with the gable peak extending to 33'* 4.5" high. The Walgreen's building has a roof elevation of 28 ’-3" with the gables extending to 32'-6". The majority of both buildings meet the 30 ’ maximum requirement, with exceptions at gable peaks. Landscaping We have had discussions with MnOot and Hennepin County regarding the gathering space. They have both stated that they don’t see a problem putting the gathering space on adjacent MnDot land. The idea being that the City will eventually own this land anyway. The landscape plan that we have provided for this site was designed to exceed the City's minimum requirements in order to provide a sense of place for neighboririg residents and customers of this future retail development The Orono Zoning Ordinance states that the minimum ‘Landscape Value" is to be $37,500 for a sHe with total project value between $3-4.000.000. plus 0.25% of the total project value In excess of $3,000,000. We estimate a total project value for this site at $3,250,000. The minimum required "Landscape Value" would then need to be $38,125. This minimum value does not include the cost for Irrigation. Wo have provided sufficient screening aksng any potential site lines between the trash enclosure and public streets. We have also added various shnjb and perennial beds througfwut the site to keep ordinarily long expanses of sod to a minimum. The approximate value of this landscape is $52,000. which does not include irrigation. This does not fully include the landscape amenities our client has agreed to provide on the adjacent MnDOT properly. Architectural Standards The design of StoneBay Marketplace will offer a rich, warm material and color palette, which responds to the site ’s immediate context, including City Hall. The buildings have been desigr>ed with pitched roofs and pitched roof elements to reflect Orono’s residential nature. Buildings will be constructed with brick and integral colored block and will receive equal treatment on all sides of the building. We have received comments that have stated a darker colored brick would be more desirable and we are open to working with the planning commission and staff to confirm what that color will be. Site Plan Pedestrian Access We have designed the project to be sensitive to the surrounding residential and create a cohesive StoneBay development. Kelley Parkway will form a buffer between the neighborhood to the north and StoneBay Marketplace, but trails will provide connections around the perimeter of the site vrith sidewalks providing «50 BUTLER NOmHSUILOINC 910 FIRST AVOlUE NORTH MMNEAI>OU5. W4 SS409 OFFiCe: 012.2S2 0070 FAX: 612JS3 0077 MMlMtomiiw internal connections. Bike racks are planned near each building and a gathering area with benches is provided in the northwest portion of the site. Vehicle Circulation We have reviewed Shelly Johnson’s comments with staff and have made the foltowing changes to address his site plan comments. a) We have modified the right in right out to allow for a straighter access into the site from Willow. We have also modified the radii for cars entenng the Walgreen's dnve*thru from Willow. We have run AutoTum and large cars are able to make this turn without a problem. The automobile path is ehovin on the site plan. b) V;e v.ould like to clarify the trash enclosure access as well. he commercial garbage haulers are front-loaded. They pull up to the trash enclosure and the dumpster is picked up and dumped over the front of the truck to the back. This works very well with the way we have designed the trash enclosures. For the retail building, the rear drive aisle is one way; therefore we have angled the trash enclosures to ease the trash pickup. c) We have revised our plan to show the turn around stall in the southwest comer of the site. Even though there will be cars parked there at limes, we agree that having the turn around stall is better than not having it. d) We have revised the coniferous plantings at the northwest comer of Walgreen's to be 3' high arborvitae instead of the 15' tall evergreen that we previously showed. This will allow a vehicle exiting the drive-thru for Walgreen's to see vehicles heading northbound through the site to the exit. e) Regarding the two drive thru lanes for Walgreen ’s. This is very important for them. Tney don't have a lot of drive-thru traffic, but having two separate drive thru lanes allows them to serve two customers at once. The additional by-pass lane is to ensure that vehicles can get through if customers are at both drive thru lanes. This is especially important for fire trucks and garbage haulers. Lot Coverage We are proposing 16.1% building coverage on Lot 1 and 19.9% building coverage on Lot 2. for an average of 17.9% for the both parcels. The ordinance requires Building lot coverage not to exceed 15%. but it is common for commercial parcels to exceed 15% building coverage and other commercial developments in the City have been approved at 20%. Normally, commercial developments are restricted by a percentage of green space required, in this case 25%. which is being met. If we were required to pond on-site, approximately 5-6% of the lot would be covered by pond. 690 BUTLER NORTH BUttJMNQ 510 RRST AVENUE NORTH MNNEAPOUS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.2S2J070 FAX: 612.252.0077 mmJwidionnJWl Therefore, if we did no! have regional ponding and were required to pond on-site. we would meet the 15% building coverage roquirement. The StoneBay mixed use development was designed to have a compact commercial area to support the StoneBay development and other Orono residents. We would ask for PUD flexibility since we meet the 25% green space, have provided 8 foot trails throughout the site, have provided extensive landscaping and this density would match what has been done in other commercial developments in the City. Loading Berths We are required to have a 25' long loading berth per ordinance. We have defined the location of the required loading berths on the site plan. Trash Enclosures Trash enclosures are constructed with the same materials as the principal building and will be heavily screened to reduce their visibility. We have provided cross-section drawings through the trash enclosures to give you an idea of what the trash enclosures will look like from Kelley Parkway and the adjacent residential parcels. You will see that the extensive landscaping along Kelley will completely screen these enclosures from view of the residents. Required Parking Current city ordinance requires one parking space per 150 square feet. For our development that translates into 173 stalls. Our development provides 150 spaces, which we believe, are more than adequate. We offer the following reasons to justify this position: a) Walgreen's is required to have 89 spaces per ordinance, but needs about 60. I have enclosed a parking study done by Walgreen's for their busiest store in the state that is located at 70th and York in Edina. The peak parking requirement Indicates that 48 spaces were filled. If the two remaining retaH buildings were parked per the city ordinance. 84 parking spaces would be required. Add the 60 spaces for Walgreen's for a total of 144. This is less than the 150 we are providing. b) Most cities in the Twin City Metro area require 1 parking space per 200 square feel of floor area. This is not to suggest that the City of Orono should endeavor to be like other cities, it is meant to suggest that the citizens of Orono will drive to. park and patronize the businesses in this development just like citizens in the rest of the Twin Cities. As a long- •so BUTLER NORTH BUUXNQ SI0 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MNNEAPOLIS. UN S5403 OFFICE: •ir2S2.9070 FAX: 6l2.2S2.Mn wwwJMtomuwt term owner of retail properties, I can attest to the fact that this parking ratio works very well. If we use a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 of floor area, the required parking would be 144 spaces. Again, this is less than the 150 the development provides. c) If a sit-down restaurant use wanted to go into the retail building, they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit with the City. The parking situation can then be re-evaluated. Therefore, the City isn't putting themselves at peril for a lack of parking spaces due to a future use. These lines of reasoning lead us to the conclusion that the parking we are providing is adequate for the type of development we are proposing. Previously we had shown proof of parking on our plan to get us closer to the City's requirement of 1 stall per 150 square feet. We did not believe we would ever need the proof of parking stalls, but felt we could show them in an effort to more closely match the City's requirement. Since that time we have obtained more compelling information regarding Walgreen's parking demands (see attached research study). This has prompted us to remove the proof of parking on the site. There are some developments that have the 1 stall per 200 square feet such as Peony Promenade at the Northwest comer of Highway 55 and Highway 101 and also in Champlain at tho northeast comer of 114^ and Highway 169. Signage 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 noted 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 havo done. The B-1 district standards would allow a total of 1.454 square feet of sig'iage for this development. Our proposal would havo a total of only 952 square feet of signage, which is 502 square feet less than allowed by ordinance. While we are not proposing to maximize the signage on site, we are requesting PUD flexibility to allow some signage in excess of the 50 square foot maximum Individual sign area allowed by ordinance. Specifically, we are requesting approval of wail signage on the pharmacy with individual signs up to 66.6 square feet and two freestanding monument signs totaling 62 square feet each. We are requesting individual monument signs with tenant space on each of the two lots. These signs would also be internally illuminated signs with brick and block base to match the building materials. These monument signs are proposed at 62 square feet in area to allow adequate space for up to three tenants on the retail sign and an illuminated message board on the pharmacy 6S0 BUTLER NORTH eulLOlNO S10 RRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 61E252J070 FAX: 612.252.9077 wwwlMtoim.nM r sign. The iHuminated message board will be changed a maximum of one time per day and would not flash or scroll. One development sign is proposed to identify the development with no tenant space. A moruiment sign totaling 40 square feet is proposed as the entrance monument at the southeast comer of this site. This monument sign would simply read "StoneBay* and would be part of the landscaped entry feature on the comer. This feature will help to reinforce the Identity of the entire mixed-use StoneBay development. The sign would be brick and block bases to match the building g materials. While this development sign does not provide any advertising for the tenants, it does provide a sense of place and an attracttve entrance Into the development. We have included the area of this sign in the total sign area calculations. The freestanding signs are important to the retail tenants who require visibility from Highway 12 and Willow Drive. Signage is key for all retailers. Tenants require the freestanding signage and we believe the impact of the slightly larger individual signs (62 feet where 50 feet is allowed) is mitigated by the fact that the total sign area is less than the ordinance allows. We have worked to integrate the signage into the landscape plan with design features that are consistent with the rest of the development. We have proposed less signage than is allowed by ordinance and are requesting PUD flexibility to allow individual signs to exceed the 50 square foot maximum allowed by the B-1 district. Retail areas in the B-3 district are allowed up to 100 square feet per sign; therefore, we believe the proposed signage is consistent with the intent of the ordinance and would meet the needs of the developer. Lighting We are proposing 20 feet high light poles through out the parking lot with a more modem shoebox type fixture (see attached cut sheets). The light poles at 20 feet high will be shorter than the proposed buildings at approximately 28 feet. Engineering Matters We have reviewed engineering comments with staff and agree to make the changes requested with our building permit plans, as they do not affect the approval process. Preliminary and Final Plat We have prepared a preKminary plat and final plat for approval. Outlot A will bo replatted as two lots, which Is consistent with the original PUD concepts for this BUTLER NORTH BUILOINO SIOFIRST AVENUE NORTH MNNEAROUS. MN S5403 OFFICfi: SISaSZJOTO FAX: 612aS2J077 mwJandtomuM parc«l. Cross access agreements will be prepared to allow the two lots to share parking and access. Summary On behalf of the developer. Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval of StoneBay Marketplace. We request City Council approval of the PUD concept stage plan. PUD general plan, commercial site plan, preliminary plat, final plat, community mariagement plan amerufment and rezoning. an BUTLEfI NORTH eUtLOMO S10 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MNNEAIMJS. MN 56403 OmCC: 612JS2J070 FAX: ei2.2S2J077 mMJWitfamuMi 04/20/04 10:27 Fa:I 10122130130_ _ _ _ _ _IW 2002 cn BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. Ms»bJ.2002 mem ORANPUM PROM; • Its Rsfb oFn«. C2:is Jotnsj A. BenshoSf^ A'»\Tnd Gottcnwlillo \ PtiVcin, 0==-fl»»> Sw-«y «» R«*? F-JcP»ki.< DO-.4 la S'*" tX 70* S«et ond York Avtaus fc tiirm SVUOSX AND approach Eiiao. BISI]I.TS . J^^S"”Sirtoto-[^P«S^^ i««ol« ItMpm.. FridtJl. Moreh 09.2002. I-----^------DATX/^TiMir 1 NVMBER OK PARJONG SPAOES OCtaTITD iwedtiMday. Marrh 0€. 2002. 12: li c je. 1________________----------------------«------ u/«i«Mil*v. Mir* 06.2C02.4JIO p.m. i_________________62.------- ------- mn^Adav. vtarnh 07. 2002. 12:10 B.m-42 ThiMilav. Mareh 07. 2002. 1:19 P.m.40 MBch 07.2002.5:05 PJD.— 4« _ IrviMflav. Mu«h07, 20C2. &15 p.in.33 Mnfck 07.2002.6J5 •.«!.54 Fndiy. KCirch CB. 2002^ 12;C0 n»«n 37 . 48* TOTft. H.Wf PROPOSED SIGN ELEVATION m ae • ^ »-■— mil Mm *«!..« MW «VtMA- A- A — A.. A. A- A. A.. A. •as'S'.'ssKTw' I LUo <t QC < >- <mmzR CO KMCC 1/** ■ v-o* a»t«MT I SN1 p LANDFORM May 5, 2004 Shelly Johnson Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul. MN 55113 Ro; StoneBay Marketplace Dear Shelly. This letter is in response to your comments regarding our April 14. 2004 submittal documents and from a meeting with Mike Gaffron. First we would like to address your comments from our latest plan set. Second we would like to bring up some items that have come up at the latest planning commission meeting and get your response. Aoril 14" Submittal Review 1. We have modified the right in right out to allow for a straighter access into the site from Willow. We have also modified the radii for cars entering the Walgreen's drive-thoi from Willow. Wo have run AutoTum and largo cars are able to make this turn without a problem. The automobile path is shown on the site plan. 2. We would like to clarify the trash enclosure access as well. The commercial garbage haulers are front-loaded. They puli up to the trash enclosure and the dumpster is picked up and dumped over the front of the truck to the back. This worte very well with the way we have designed the trash enclosures. For the retail building, the rear drive aisle is one way; therefore we have angled the trash enclosures to ease the trash pickup. 3. We have revised our plan to show the turn around stall in the southwest comer of the site. Even though there will be cars parked there at times, we agree that having the turn around stall is better than not having it. 4. Per your comments, we have revised the coniferous plantings at the northwest comer of Walgreen's to be 3' high arborvitae instead of the 15' tali evergreen that we previously showed. This will allow a vehicle exiting the drive-thru for Walgreen's to see vehicles heading northbound through the site to the exit. •M »LTua MoaiM •ui.fiiiio no rmtt mt'mt homth mn osaoi ernct: otatoro aia.aaa.MTT ■w.ioMoiofm.itM I-- Mr Johnson Pago? As StonoBsy Msrksiptacs ________^ 5 ?«4 5. Regarc’.ng the two drive thru lanes for Walgreen's. This is very important for them. They don’t have a lot of drive-thru traffic, but having tv/o separate drive thru lanes allows them to serve two customers at once. The additional by-pass lane is to ensure that vehicles can get through it customers are at both drive thru lanes. This is especially important for fire trucks and garbage haulers. Planning Commission Concerns 1. The planning commission has brought up some concerns regarding green space that can be clleviated if we can get your positive feedback regarding the parking for this development. Current city ordinance requires one parking space per 150 square feet. For our development that translates into 173 stalls. Our development provides 150 spaces, which we beiieve. are more than adequate. I offer the following reasons to justify this position: a) Walgreen’s is required to have 89 spaces per ordinance, but needs about 60. I have enclosed a parking study done by Walgreen’s for their busiest store in the state that is located at 70th and York in Edina. The peak parking requirement indicates that 48 spaces were filled. If the two remaining retail buildings were parked per the city ordinance. 84 parking spaces would be required. Add the 60 spaces for Walgreen's for a total of 144. This is less than the 150 we are providing. b) Most cities in the Twin City Metro area require 1 parking space per 200 square feet of floor area. This is not to suggest that the City of Orono should endeavor to be like other cities, it is meant to suggest that the citizens of Orono will drive to, park and patronize the businesses in this development just like citizens in the rest of the Twin Cities. As a long* term owner of retail properties, I can attest to the fact that this parking ratio works ve^ well. If we use a parking ratio of 1 space per 200 of floor area, the required parking would bo 144 spaces. Again, this is less than the 150 the development provides. Both of these lines of reasoning lead us to the conclusion that the parking we are providing is adequate for the type of development we are proposing. Hopefully, you will agree. 2. There are some concerns from the planning commission that the cross traffic for vehicles entering off of Willow Into the site would conflict with those entering the drive-thru for Walgreen's. Our position is that there isn't a lot of traffic making these movements for a conflict to occur. 6S0 BUrUH NORTH BUILOINQ S10 flRST AVSNUS NORTH MNNCAPOUS. MN 8S<03 OfFlCE. 6122UJ070 FAX: ai2.2S2.B077 «WMvJmlannj«l Mr.Jotwfon Pmb S 8lonteayMvk«plK« M m 9.2004 In conclusion, we appreciate your feedback on our plans and believe that your professional opinion will go a long way in assisting us with the approvals for this development. We would appreciate your writter. response regarding these herns on or before Tuesday May 11.2004. This wifi assist Mike Gaffron in putting together his staff report. Please feel free to call whh any questions at 612-252-9070. Sincerely. LANDFORM* Vicki J. VanOell, P.E. vjv COPY: Mike Gaffron. Chy of Orono John Trautz. Reliance Development File SSOBUrtER NORTH BUILOiNO S10RRST AVENUE NORTH MNNEAPOU8. MN SS409 OFnCt eit2S2J070 FAX;eiZ2Sa»077 invwJMIonmJWt •«>wu«Mn rum K«i«nj^a t-- TT.* 5*~*ir .-iT ■ ^s»s.r^fc5sr;=iTv:sr-T ;■• i .*-r* — —j?_. I—r~ sT^r ijrsrJ - .♦• .-..V — -• t> ... ... o sr ^ • • • *-i • rt. o i> D 4-.!(/) , ..o O ::• * ‘ •Ir.'i uo lL«.> tX)oouo r. i.“.C.O CO no HT ' * ~ *t.. «:_____ ‘Ob no rjO MraM«ar«ur lapmuaionuc fTTKCr Cirr fKtOMtrf i»rONL:BAY marketwace LANDFORM iSn=r irrt.,r.*L2.1 JX.J ••r«. •# t M iiit.iimt —r., rm^rt mm “•••v.r-v.* .--..i- * ■*" •' v.;i* ------------- -■ O; .-.-vtT- .^1-S*; -.* . IVMMOM ttWH«tnKtr< K::*'?;--------- VMM :. . . V * - .. . • r?S^.t4 fynyi ■muc Q ‘■ItW' k» V-"'- k:-:s?~=*» CITV ■U»TtA4 SnXDNtBAY MARKLTPUCE naoMt aMHMati • LANDFORM =MT •««7<S7 -SStt C2J Rpp 28 2004 7t83 Bonestroo iAndM’lik& jAssodaccs Kngktmtft 4 ArctWlvctt BONESTROO ROSENE RNOERLIK 6516361311 2335 04tt Htgnwa/ 34 • St. P»J. MN 55113 Ornce: 651*436*4600 • fMC 65h636*l3ll ww^ bootttroe co«n P» 1 Mr April 28, 2004 Mike Gal&on Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 CrysUl Bay. MN 55323 Re; Stonebay Marketplace File No. 139-04-000 Plat No. 04-2974 Dear Mike We have reviewed the preliminary grading, drainage and erosion control plans for the Stonebay Marketplace site. The site is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 12 and Willow Drive. We have the following conunents with regards to engineering matters: • A geotechnical report. R-value recommendation and pavement design should be submitted for review and approval. • Parking lot grades should be revised to no: exceed 4%. • The utility plan identifies utibty crossings in three locations. Final plans should provide the same information for the other 4 utility crossings. • Plans should include insulation between the utilities where the separation is leas than 3-feeL • Storm sewer calculations should be submitted for review and approval. • We strongly recommend that an additional wye be installed north of the exist Ing sanitary MH 1 to provide a separate service counection for the proposed middle building. • Final plans should include construction details. The following changes pertain to erosion contiol notes (sheet C3.1) • Add under note 14, “or as directed by city inspoclor.” • Add under note IS, *‘comply with gU local ordinances." • Add note 19. All NPDES phase D construction permit regulations will be followed, and a completed SWPPP will be provided to the city and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District upon submittal to the MFCA. • Add note 20, rock construction entrances will be maintained as appropriately requested by city inspector. ■ Add vegetation protection to existing vegetation that Is to remain untouched, and Indicate on plan set • Add note 21, stockpile locations will be on non conveyance areas and enclosed with silt fence until removed. Also, any open soil stockpiles will have temporary cover, if inactive fQr^H>IE^%PJc4iy%ocneitcr. wtllmar. WM • Miivwaukee. Wl • pUcago. IL_________ Rpr M 2004 7tS3 BOnESTftOO R08EME RNDERLIK 6516361311 p.2 • Provideddaildrtwixigs for rock ind block inlet proteetioii • Provide detail for drop in curb type inlet protection • Provide detail for silt fence (typkal) - should be as previoukly indicated machine type sliced with metal T posts. If you have aay ({uestions please call me at (651) 60MS63. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Oroco 'll I Iiiiri i ---- StoneBay Market Place M * • * V '. ■' t* /•tf. '. r -V^. . *• t * •» X . •—— V *• •, ^ ’ - i ■;• ;■■•>:■ .,■^'- , >'••''-i'./(v'*. '•’ •■/•• 'vfV ^ ' * ■■ *•— n *7 * 3 ti V • ■* ••- ’ ••• ''7'M 1 '1 V -• '• W - . '* K . «* •■ '\ y \ tf* •V 19901^^ IS vJm^M ' . *. .-.V. ,;';-ip- ?&,9- >- «Ti9 ;^ll^ LANDFORM r T- I •^4. iJLrf-Mm / «■ ---Y- T'•' "• y •»,-*> 'fe ^i 3t.. i 'v• (V' »‘- - s;--( SIGNAGE \ SIGNAGE MS ,-r.=L.' L... mub U-™- .T‘. i -.i'- . •--li-'-- ' ..',1. ; • *i-.v „ --..i Enlarged Retail “A" re s/c/J«cf C ;'tv 5/6Avtcr ___SICNACE 5/CW4Cf I I ;■- •< ‘P . SiGN’AGc .SiC\ACE ■-. V » ! ;.< .; 1 SIGNAGE-, ^ SIGSAGE . A A 4 E ^ } il i -r-:/-- 1 ; I -.. --I I; 1. 1-.. • S.-' SIGNAGE - i ^ . 4 cESSSl^.i!-^: Retail “A"Retail “B” Stonebay Marketplace Orono, Minnesota Ma AMCON . ..A . NNV-..-.: : : -4^ SIGNAGE , ■ > jWHHIg m^mmm SIGNAGE rz-J ' ‘•;- hT' ii .* 1- ___I-•?.•;•:M ^it;.::r.:: . ilr K. t 1 i i; * ■ 1 ii •^jW- _ y> . Enlarged Retail “B” Stonebay Marketplace Orono, Minnesota AMCON -I hj^_j•cut at ncn (i>SgC^ION A-A' L4NDV0KM RE03015 05/07/04 . Ik. Q PLAN VIEOJ 5 fii-ifc«u IS na ©■ landporm section C‘0' CROSS SECTION EXHIBIT 2 6T0NE5AY MAJW^ET PLACE RE03015 05/07/04 05/11/1004 10:53 PAX 0123375601 DACBLGR SHARDU3V A l^AN 12002 COhWLnNC rtAHNlAS LANOtCArt ARCHITlcn *» mrr avinui ko »t»i >jm i'i> MINNV\rOUS. MM SMOI (UXiStSiOO DATE; Miyl4.2004 TO: Mike Oaffron, City of Orono FROM; PlulC«Uoo.AICP;Dahlg!ren.Shafdlow,andU^Inc. RE: Sunelny Muketplace. Highway 12 and Willow Drive, Orono At your tequett we have reviewed the latest materials submlned for the Stonebay Marketplace PUD, and offer the following comments for the Planning Commission at their next meeting. dMMi________ Based on our review of the Stonebay Marketplace plans 1 would recoimnend that the Planning Commission approve the PUD with the following captions: 1) Plans for the iirigation system are to be submitted accoi^ng to the zoning code and approved by the City Plarmer and City Fr • jneer before building permits are issued. 2) Adequate performance bond is to be provided per code before building permiu are issued. 3) The parking lot ‘Island “ at the front entry of Walgreens (see sketch below), off the southwert coroer of the building. Is to be a raised landscaped island sunounded by concrete curb, not simply paintff* and striped on the pavement Landscaping should at a mwiimiuiB include shrubs and flowering planu widi a variety of seasonal color and interest. Ovcrstoiy or onmnental trees would be desirable but not required if there are cooceras by Walgreens about visibility to the front entry. 4) A more direct sidewalk connecnon needs to be provided flora the Highway 12-WHow Drive intersection to the flonl door of Walgreens, as suggested in the diagram below. ‘TOs will require the conversion of one parking space to a peninsula for the sidewalk, and of a portion of awlha island to aidewalk. 05/14/2004 10:55 FAl 6123375601 Hike Gaffhnt, C$ty of Oromo DAGHLOt SHa IDLOV A ^AN Hay 14.2004 8003 2 The Stonebay Marioetplace PUD hu undergone numerous revitiou and the cuimt version appears to be a leasoDabie tomprormtc on the many issues diicusied. All provisions of the latwicrape code appear to be met with the exception of the items noted above under Recommemlations. The screening of parking areas, loading areu. and service areas from residential areas it reqidied by code and is handled adequately in the latest plan. These are not screened completely, but considering the distance across Kelley Parkway, the change in grade, and the landscaping provided, the screening is reasonable. The ground-mounted mechanical equipment appears to be adequately screened by landscaping, and the roof-mounted equipment appears to be screened with a parapet The trash dumpsters are within enclosed structures. As noted above in the Recommendations, the paikiiig lot island immediately in front of Walgreens entry should be raised with curb and { landscaping. If any place on the site should have a raised landscaped island to provide a green, welcoming presence, it is here - yet it is shown as just painted and striped. 1 undentand that the (feveloper may not want tall overitory trees there blocking visibility, but there should bt flowers andshnibs. This is a small but significant piece of the site plan character that I suggest be revised. Also noted in the Recommendations. I have a concern vrith the sidewalk connection (or lack) between die Highway 12-Willow Drive comer and the front door of Walgreens. A person crossing at the intersection going to Walgreens simply will not follow the trail up Willow Drive for 230 feet then cut over on the crosswalk - they will cut difough the parking lot at an angle. I have indicated on the attached sketch one way to do this with a planned sidewalk, with a new peninsula into the parking lot at an appropriate point Other than these comments I believe the developers and consultants for Stonebay Marketplace should be commended for their hard work and patience as the Qty has worked with them to try and achieve an outstanding development for this impoitant comer of the City. r L AppUcatlon Date: DKcmbcr 17,200} Inlilal (O-Oay Revi«w Period Eipiration (Site Plan L PUD Rtzonmt): Februar> IS. 2004 «0-Day Etlcnalon Notmeatlon Fated ea 2-13-04. Etteaiioa to: Apnl IS. 2004 120 Day Review Eipiratlon (SubdivUtoa): April 15. 2C04 Addltiocal M day ettenaioo granud by applicant April 12. 2004 to; Juae IS, 2004 Chair Mabusth & Plaiinmg Corr.n-.ission Members Ron Moorse, City Adn*.;nis*.ra:or From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director April 15,2004 #04-2974 "Stonebay Marketplace ”, NW Quadrant Hwy 12AVillow Drive - Continuation of Public Hearing for Proposed Commercial PUD Development; (CMP Amendment/PUD Rezoning. Commercial Site Plai; Review/Preliminary Subdivision) Current Status of Application: The Comp Plan amendment element of this appiication was renewed ai tlie March 15 meeting, at which lime Planning Commission via a poll vote of 6-1 recommended denial of the requested amendment to re-guide Outlot A to allow primarily re’.ail use rather than primanly office use. On March 22 the Council reviewed •’v: requested Comp Plan amendmcniand voted 4-0 to grant conceptual approval of the amendment. d:ri'. -ng s:*ff to draft text to be inserted into the Comp Plan for implementing the amendment That text was bro» i^.>Council on Apnl 12 and with minor revisions was adopted subject to Mel Council review and apprt". *.l,4».«ci^g staff to make the appropriate submittals to Met Council. The text of the amendment as appr - Oraicii is attached as Exhibit A. The amendment will be submitted to Met Council and to .neigh«u;U'.»; •* i !cr comment uithin the next week PUD rezoning of the site w:/ occu , .vurremly with final site plan and subdivision approval. The detailed conditions the City establishes for the devs.^pment of this site will be incorporated into the PUD zoning of the site. The next step is for Planning Commission to review the commercial site plan and building designs in detail to ensure they meet the goals and standards esublished in the Comp Plan, the B-6 District ordinances, and other pertinent regulations The applicants on Apnl 14 submitted a revised site plan set for review, but have not submitted revised building designs and elevations. ListQfExbibiu A - Comprehensive Plan Amendment Text Approved by City Council 4-12-04 B - Applicant's Letter of Transmittal and Revised Plans: Sheet CO. 1 - Title Sheet Sheet C4.1 Sheet Cl.1 • Existing Conditions Sheet C5.I ShiiCtCI.2 - DeinoUtiOTi PUn Sheet E2.1 Sheet C2.1 • Prelimitury Sue Plan Sheet L2.1 SheetCB.l -Pitam Gwdnn, Damage Sheet L7.1 A Erosion Control PUn Preliminary t.’tility Plan Prelmiinary Plat Prtlimmary Lighting Plan Ptebnunary Landscape Plan Landsc^ Deuilt •04*2974 SiODtOay Mirl(ct|iticc April IS. 2004 Page 2 C • United Propen:es Letter to Applicant - Propeny marketing discussion D - 60-day Extension Letter 4-12-04 E • March 26 Letter from Applicant re: Revisions Addressing March 1 Staff Letter F • Compilation of Appropriate Uses Reflecting March 15 Revisions G - Council Minutes 3-22-04 H-Draft PC Minutes 3-15-04 Commercial Site Plan Review Following is a review of each element of the proposed development of Outlot A. The attached set of detailed plans was received on April 14, although staffhas had numerous discussions with the applicants on an ongoing basis regarding the site plan, and the current set is very similar to Revised Plan #23 which staffhas had since late March, and #24, which arrived about a week ago and resolved a number of issues of concern. A few general comments as a starting point; The current plan includes a 14,820 s f. Walgreens, an 8.970 s f. strip retail building, and a4,960 s.C retail building; total of all 3 buildings is 28,750 s.f or 17.9% of the site. Green space exclusive of the trails is 26%. The site will be planed into j usi ^vo lots - one for Walgreens, one for the retail buildings Shared parking & site maintenance agreements will be established by the two owners The building orientatioiis have been revised to create a much fr endlicr entrance from Kelle> Parkway, while maintaining the front facade visibility to the 12AVillow intersection the applicant feels is critical to the success of the site. At the same time, primary facades and parking areas are not aimed at the residential portion of Stonebay, in keeping with the request of the developer of Stonebay. The site circulation is vastly improved from earlier plans, and although the angular nature of the overall lay-out leads to slight inefBciencies, The layout manages to provide adequate building separanon from the intcncctior. ’o maintain an open feel, while providing subrjuitial green islands within the parking area. The westerly butidi n g has been oriented to take advantage of the stormwater pond as an amenity, and ^licant vs proposing a landscaped public tenace area near Kelley Parkway that will overlook the pond. This amenity is within Outlot B, dedicated to MnDOT for pond use; this may be a potential issue. Staff supports the slight encroachment of the westerly building on the w'cstcrly required setback (2(7 where 3 S' is the standard) which allows fbr a more intimate association with the pond while not resulting in a visual crowding problem to the west, as this west lot line does not abut a road or an adj acent building site. The site will have only two "drivc-thru’s” - one fbr Walgreens, and one serving die westerly space of the middle building. *04-3974 Stontbay MarktipUca April IS, 2**4 rage 3 1. Conformity with Comnreheniive Plan Pleascmicw the Council-appro\'ed language of the Comp Plan amendment (Exhibit A). The applicant’s letters ofMarch 26 and April 1 4 demonstrate how the applicant belie\ es this plan conforms \Mth the Comp Plan goals and standards for this site. The parameters of the CMP amendment include the following; ■ No individual buildings greater than 1 5,000 s f gross floor area. Staff Conclusion: This parameter is met. ■ One building must be a pharmacy /convenience store. Staff Conclusion: TItis parameter is met. ■ The remaining buildings shall have no individual tenant space greater than 7,000 s.f Staff Conclusion: This parameter is not a factor in the westerly building, and can be met via appropriate leasing of spaces in the center building. The applicant has agreed to this parameter. • The most westerly building on the site shall be oriented and designed in a marker that focuses on the regional pond as an amemty for customers or tenants. Staff Conclusion: This parameter has been met via the elimination of roadway between the westerly building and the pond, and the addition of pedestrian amenities in this area. However, the terrace is not within Ontlot A, which is a potential issue... • Buildings on the site shall be onented with a goal ofproviding an inviting vehicle and pedestrian entry from Kelley Parkw ay w ithout creating negative visual impacts for the Stonebay residential development. Staff Conclusion: This parameter has been partially met by the reorientation of the Walgreens entrance to the southwesterly corner of that building, and will be completely met by designing the middle retail building to have a windowed front facade at its northeasterly end. ■ Architectural design and details shall be carefully prepared by any developer of the site to ensure a liigh quality of design, compatible with the quality of the office bui Idmgs on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC/Council approval of preliminary building designs. ■ Buildingmateria!sshallbehi^qualityanddurable,diallbecompa!iblewiththequalityoftheofi5ce buildings on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. Staff Conclusion: This parameter can be met subject to PC/CouncU approval of preliminary building designs. *04-2974 Sttncbay Marketplace April IS. 2004 Pafc4 Conrormitv to B-6/PUD Standards A. Attowed Uses. Based on a compilation of the allowable uses in the B-1 and B-6 Districts, Planning Commission has produced a list of permitted and conditional uses that would be appropriate for this site as pan of the PUD rezoning procKS. The list is attached as Exhibit F. The proposed buildings and site layout would rosonably accommodate many of the individual uses on the proposed list of allowable uses. Planning Commission should again review the list to enstu-e it reflects your intent for this site. B. Lot Area A Width. Required area and width for B-6 are 2.0 acres and 100’. The proposed preliminaiy plat creates mo lots: Lot I -1.98 acres / STO*. and Lot 2 ■ 1.71 acres and 135'. Both lots are slightly undersized in area; however, the site at 3.69 acres is limited by ha\’ing no additional land available. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and widths as proposed C. Setbacks . Setback requirements and conformity are shown in the following table. Note that for this PUD rezoning and use conversion, staff early on established setback requirements at 35’ for buildings and 20* for par'icing. based on the B* 1 retail standards which are more appropriate than the B-6 office standards for the proposed retail uses. Rrqulrcd Setbacks Front (south)Side Inlerior Side Street Rear(north) West Building Utl Ai«a>re IU«UrH •nrin*rntmH iue*i(v<Prarwee 35*IS*MA MA («*)35'(w) 20'»35*42' East Building Lot 1 3S ’125*10*40'NA NA 3S'49' Walgreens Let 2 35*ISO'10'40'3S*40'3S'42' ParUng' Utl 20'20’S'O'*NA NA 20*20' Parking* Ul2 20'20' 1 5-0"20-20'-32'20*20' 'lacludcs drivlag lann This 0* setback U a runction of the shared driveway system *Starr luppoits a 20'wesl side setback for Ike wesleriy buUdtaf. The alternative would be to reduce the overall lengtli of buildings on Lot I. _________ D. SitePrainafe. The applicants have provided a drainage plan that includes catch basins and storm sewers discharging to the adjacent regional pond. Approval is subject to City Engineer review and acceptance of the proposed plans. L 0O4-3974 SlM(ba> MarhripUce A|h41 is. 3004 Pages E. Building Height. B-6 height limit is 30'. The proposed designs submitted to date for the Walgreens indicate a roofpeak height of 28*3" for the bulk of the building, and 32*6" for the entrance comer ‘parapet’ roofpeak. Staff recommends acceptance of these heights as proposed. The retail buildings are expected to be similar or slightly lower, to be determined once plans are submitted. F. Landscaping. Exhibits L2.1 and L7.1 are the landscraing plans and details for this property. These plans meet the general B-6 guidelines in terms of required infomoation detail. Staffhas not had the q^ttunity to have iheplan reviewed in depth to detenrane wliethcr the required valuation of plantings is met, based on the project valuation (range is from 1 % to 2% of project value) although it appears likely that the rcquiiement is met or exceeded. Because the total parking (including proof of parking) exceeds 1 50 stalls, parking lot landscaped islands are required. Three distinct islands are designed w ithin the lot, each meeting or exceeding the 1 80 s.f. minimum size. One tree is required for every 1 5 stalls, and this number is incorporated into the plan in well-spaced locations. Substantial landscaping including coniferous and ornamental trees is proposed along Kelley Parkway, in addition to the required boulevardoverstory trees. The grading plan suggests that the north side of the westerly building will be about 2' below the access drive way paralleling Kelley, and a 2* retaining wall is proposed between that drive and tlie building Additional detail is required regarding screening of trash facilities. The code requires that tliey be citlicr wiiliin the building entirely, witlut; an attached structure accessible fiom w i Ain the buildmg, or be completely screened from eyc-levcl view from public streets and adjacent residential property. The current plans provide no indication that any of these three options are complied wi A. The westerly buildings appear to have separated trash areas wi A no enclosure. Ac Walgreens has a minimal wall extension to begin to hide the service area of that buildmg from the pnmaiy entrance to the site, but much greater detail is needed to sliow how this area w ill be hidden from public vi=w. Thebordtrsof Aesite abutting Willow Drive and Higliway 1 2 have sign; frcamly less landscaping proposed. The applicants at Ac request ofstaffhavc moved the parking area w est lo meet more than Ae required 20* seAack from Willow Drive, as Ac traveled portion of Willow is very close to Ac lot line. This w'ill provide a g* c m buffer 35* in width adjacent to Willow, w ith Ac 8* trail meandering throu^ it. The parking lot will be approximately 50-55* from Ac traveled ponion ofHigJiway 1 2, Icavmga substantial green lawn area. Landscape beds are placed at Ae S W and SE comers of the site, and at Ae midpoint along 12. T.c nvo proposed retail sign bump-outs arc also provided wiA landscaping beds. *The comer feature highlighted by a STONEB AY monument sign has been retained in this plan. *04.2974 Sioncbiy MarVctptact April IS, 2004 Pagti It appears that the onlytrces to bcplantcdaloagthe 500'IcngthofHighwiy 12 frontage are those few in the parking lot islands. While it maybe to the retailers ’ advantage to mainuin unobstructed \iews of storefronts, there should be some trees planted along both the Willow and 12 fronuges. Note that staff has encouraged the applicants to create a pedestnan amenity that focuses on the pond. They have provided a terrace seating area at the northeast comer of the pond, aldiough it is primarily within Outlet B of Stonebay, not on applicant ’s sue. This may ultimately be acceptable, and staff would support this concept as addressing the intent ofthe CMP amendment and the City’s goals for this site; but further review and discussion is necessary to ensure that this location is acceptable to MnDOT, as this feature on Outlet B is technically in MnDOT right-of-way. Wc believe that Outlet B is subject to easements for the trail, but we need to conflmi that the terrace area will also be allowed. Given the variety of concerns noted above, staff would recommend that the landscape plan be addressed by Planning Commission and provide applicant direction as to \\ lut specific revisions are necessary. Applicant is advised to take a close 1' ok at the B-6 landscaping standards, especially regarding screening and buffering of trash enclosures. G. Architeeiurat Standards . Applicant has advised that he will wrork with the City to provide a face brick color acceptable to all parties. Applicant earlier provided aboard withbuiidingextcrior material samples for review and approval, this will be available at tlie meeting - stafThas suggested a darker color brick should be used than those proposed to date. Since revised elevations of the two westerly buildings have not been submitted, stafTwouId suggest that ihisbe flinher reviewed upon their submittal. City expectations as expressed to the applicant to date have resulted in a hi^-quality design for the Walgreens; w e w ould anticipate similar architectural stylLng for the other buildings. 3. Additional Site Plan Elements Pedestrian Access. In general, pedestrian access and circulation has been refined to a level acceptable to staff. Pedestrian access has been revised to provide for attractive and safe access and circulation dirou^ut the site, including three primary connections to the Stonebay residential development, as well as logical trail and public sidew’alk connection points. Sidew alk crossings of the parking lot appear to be proposed with varied surface texrures to identify crossing points. Vehide Circulation . Shelly Johnson, Ororo’s traffic consultant with Bonestroo and Associates, has indicated the layout is generally acceptable in regards to trafllc circulation, with a few minor revisions and conditions; The right-in, right-out access to Willow is better than prior plans but should be further refined to allow for easier turning access into the Walgreeiu drive-thru. Shrubbery at key intersection points must be low level for trafTic visibility. »04-2974 Stoncbay M«rk«tpUcc AprtllS. 1004 Pait? Shelly has suggestel an altonative turnaround layout for the dead-end parking lot at the southw^ comer of the site. LotCovtratt. Code Section 78-1403 limits lots of 0-1.99 acres in area to 15% lot coverage by structures: • Lot I (86,268 s f or I 98 acres) is proposed withbuildings touting 13,930 s.f or 16.1%coverage. • Lot 2 (74,428 s.f) Is proposed withbuildings totaling 14,820 s f. or 19.9% coverage. - Overall coverage of the 3.69 acre site is proposed at 17.9Vo. not including freestanding trash enclosures. Planning Commission should detennine whether there is sufiBcient reason to allow the excessive lot coverage for this property and the proposed uses. Overall lot coverage of 1 S% would yield 24,104 s.f as compared to the 28,730 s.f. proposed. LitadUtm Bgrths. Code Sections 78-1336 thru 1342 provide standards for the requirement of loading berths for various types ofbuildings. Any retail/oflice building greater than 6,000 s.f. floor area requires a loading berth 23' in length. Applicants should define the location and detail of loading berths for the Walgreens and tlte easterly retail building. Tnuh Endosurtt. As noted in the landscaping section above, trash handling facilities must be folly enclosed fiom view either within a building or in a detached structure. Applicants must provide detail of how trash handling will be accomplished on each site. Required Parking. Based on Otono codes for a strictly retail site, and using a standard 10% reduction from the ^ss floor area for stall calculation, the proposal requires a total of 173 parking stalls. The site plan provides 167 stalls, including 143 standards stalls, plus S HC accessible stalls, and 17 ‘proof of parking* stalls. Required Stalls froposed Suits Addt’l. Parking Total Provided (by Lot) W'algrrani (14J20 sfiOJ/lSO) 89 (60)*60* (34 on Lot 2) 10 Proof 2HC Lot 2: 54-12-66 East Rafail Building (1,970 If 10.9/150) 54 84 83 (91onUtl) 7 Proof 3HC Lot 1; 91-*^10-101 W esi Retail Building (4.960 If X 09/ISO) 30 Touts 173 (144)*145 22 167 *Cit) :ontultants have indicated that it would be reasonable to accept the Walgreeni model for a 60-iuU requirement Walgreens has substantial experience in determining their parking needs. The 'proof of parking* stalls are located in landscaped areas where it would be preferable to not constnict them until/unless they are needed. With proof of parking, the site is short only 6 stalls based strictly on Orono code. It should be noted that if all proof-of-parkmg stalls were constructed, overall green ^ace would reduce firom 26% to 24% of the site. «04>2974 Stentbay Mtrkitplaci April 19,2004 PagtO a reasonable assuinpucn that consnvc’uon of the level of retail square footage proposed will slam the door shut on any future restaurant opportunities should demographics become more favorable as the Orono-Long Lake-Medina area reaches build-out. Because the retail is split between tw o buildings separated by a drive-thru, Planning Commission should camfiilly re\-iew whether the 20 ’-4O ‘ separation of the buildings, and/or the building design detail, is adequate to break up what mi^t be seen from certain angles as a single 250' wide strip mall. From staff s perspective, this is a critical factor in the visual impacu of this site. Prriimlaarv Plat Plat approval will include the establishment of drainage and utility easements, as well as 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 with site plan approval. The two-lot layout and separate ownerships do not pose any formidable considerations. Shared parking, site maintenance responsibility arid similar agreements will be established as a matter of course. Rezonine As noted at your February meeting, the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan Amendment, and will provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. Planning Commission identified a specific list of allowable or unacceptable uses for the site in February, and refined that list in March. The list of uses will be incorporated into the PUD rezoning for this sue, as vail a (airly detailed set of conditions related to the specific site plan approval for Outlet A. Staff would intend to incorporate into the rezoning orditunce conditions of approval that clearly document the approved site layout, building design and materials, signage bghdng. etc. The PUD approval lor this site becomes the governing ordinance for the property. Summary of Issues to Aodress 1.Planning Commission should again review the list of aUowable uses to ensure it reflects your intent for this site. Address approval of the lot area and widths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue. 3.Discuss whether the 20 ’w est side setback for the w esterly building should be accepted instead of 35'. The alternative would be to reduce the overall length of buildii^gs on Lot 1. Also review whether the pedestrian terrace amenity is acceptable at its proposed locatioa in Outlot B, assuming MnDOT has no problem with it. 0O4-2974 Stontbty Markaiplact April! 5.2004 Pag*>0 4. 5. 6. 7. g. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The City Enguneer has not had adequate lime to review engineering matters for Lhis new plan set. Does Planning Commission have any problems with the proposed heiglit of the buildings (all expected to meet the 30' limit except the Walgreens comer feature). Applicant must address the enclosure and screening of trash facilities. To what extent arc additional trees needed along the Willow Drive and Highway 12 frontages? Applicant must submit revised building elevations and should also provide perspective'oblique views to help PC assess the building proximity/lack of separation impacts. Applicant should provide options for facade coloration for review. Applicant should further refine the ri^t-in, right-out access and the dead-end parking romaround per the recommendations of the City Engineer. Applicant should address the loading berth issue. Planning Commission should consider whether the 6-stall parking shortage (based on City Code) is acceptable given Walgreens history of parking needs, the proofof parking available, and the current mix of uses that does not include a free-standing family restaurant, which would have greater parking needs than can be accommodated at the proposed levelofretail space( 1 stall per 80 s.f. rather than 1 stall per 1 SO s.f ).. Applicant must provide a detailed signage plan for all buildings and for site monument signs. Applicant must provide a plan for building-mounted lighting, and confinn the design of the parking lot fixtures. Plarming Cornmission should consider whether the coinbinanon ofbuilding proximity visual iri^iacts. the pedestrian terrace amenity placed on the adjacent MnDOT parcel, the o\ erage in lot coverage, and other site factors suggest the need for further building down-sizing on the west lot. 1 6. Any other issues for consideration. •04-2*74 Stenibay Marketplace April tS, 2004 rage 11 Staff Recomincadation The current plans appear to meet the general conditions established by the Comp Plan amendment approved by Council on April 12. Planning Conaniission should give careful consideration to each of the points noted above, and pro\-ide direction to the applicant as to what fiinher re% isions should be made to the plans. Given the lack of certain critical information as noted throughout this memo, this application is not ready to be forwarded to Council. Staff recommends that after providing the applicant with direction, Planning Commission should table this application to allow for subminal and review of lacking information, for tr\'isions to the plan as necessary, and to allow adequate time for City Engineer review. Staff will also draft a PUD rezoning ordinance for this site, to be considered at your May meeting 3AREA LKA710)t MAPC OftOKO. MN STONEBAY MARKETPLACE CO ABBREviA’'io Kscrrtrr is ••• »__ ?■ ^vSTr*s E.- 5riir.r~’ k:.t^‘Sf r r-.S'— -f £=^7 a E- r iff-' & S’;sn?.V-'rL.^ iC^S-#«» (#«wt 1 ruB. j.. V’*'1 _ f*«i f-& &F s.I i :dra «wc sykbolsc c::ununf symbols ;cr:srrEA “nLrrr coktactsc G> :siTc symbols : - aAl. IH 0^tn •••« %«>V« ; « •# it»»ri re«*tm CM*<Ctt tr-rr-*r-w •-.j* «•■••• «• fti» M •»• « M# • :r-.-'4? 3i'T5^i» V««* •M ^5j 0r r*«« n««B.Rra !srjvv.v :stR^XY sYkscLS c: CI3EJa5T!N3 LEGAL DESCRlPrOJC vs.** • »'#•••■ ««««^ r>#** ^»«v« • • • tmn cz^rtfOFoscD tzcAt rcscfUPTicK: • «*> I t »——»* im, »4> m—9 *i«4M :aiOSIOH COMTMl SYMBOISC ft sr»iin ft M OBENCHMAIUCSC Eui'aniDWTcafAin.ii? Bf iMiMm •«••••« flPBOAlCP JOWTERRAKE HOMES lie ' RrlUiue I^rlopmeni Company. IIP. g- Ctrr ©UDMITTAU MAY7.20(H STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO. MIN>tSO I A LANDFORM Minft**POltt PMOr*itii CO.l ?Nu1UC ft; ci 2b C5 HICHWAY 12 9ste:ffSvSmZTJsi^sa» -Ti^sr sji jsry 35irrjr*'c,'?rs?T-.'vri • ipmimt «• *>• ««^ rMViB A^m mm *9 1^2,. h niiniEoiMrcMi.<iar. ^ '~i !R^■?^'l i?5ii *Yi JOWTERRAUCEHOMEaiir ’ Reliance De«elopmrnc Companv. L L P. ^ mI >taac HnwdU Kwai 0«»tA-*fc szz-^z. vr.j-.rruii.'^; Cirr ©UOMITTAL aaAyr.aoo* STONEBAY MARKETPLACE C5»I0>0, MIN.Nk.SOI A LANDFORM »Mac«'s Cl.l •CAU M rirr s ~MQTr< ----------- t% mfmm •• ^ ^ 0 mmm «mjj^*j jj =:DCM0U710N notes c • *4 «MH« • «« ««• 9^m m . m m^9* •« ' s-T.’s s?w" • rrr2:5’s^ir^•.^5^"-r.?i5l-^^r s?il^• « »mymm »i^.M MP mm «r ^•* .• ^ *A« m •>m-mmh^m^mrn* •« 41M * Nt mt0C‘ • (*-»*j*« mrnmf 0 p^m»m^% • •»' •••«* •** •«M» •» m0» i''^ nrm^*^ ^zwm^ • «•*- «»«M t*< ...-m’^^'" »«.••>« •'”'**1'_''*•T’*^**' ■' cunoFiLiiioTaififiui? •(•MV'txna m •uaM'nv ‘lUM ««nv wtiw* thm >•*»•■><■ •MMM< JOHN TlRR,Oa HOMES lie T—f I m>gi•■•cur* ' Rclunce Dnvlopnirni Componv. L L P. :•. s^5-r; =t:U ==rc-r£^—-= 2^-- Cirr ©UOMITTAL viArJZOO* STONEBAY MARKETPLACE oro.no. minnlsoi a TSism LANDFORM n.■Mla»ai )• ■■•I«IB :s« ^•zzzszzT* omOL-ioinAM C1.2 kau w nrt BUCnpOTCOftfUlf 7iuSi?^<UW mm JOWTinunCE HOMES U£ 'Reliance Dorlopmrm Compam*. LLP. I ««ajtr MAMion cc«w CITV ©UOMITTAL Anu.14 aoo» mcjtn STONEBAY MARKETPLACE OHONO. Ml NMtSO • A LANDFORM sssS mm nCaMNMCT tONriAN C2.2 C3N01 s CDCRAOtWS k PAVING KOTtSC * A i wm^ ** ^ r^» m* _ .9 f tarn •%:% Cl*' *»••# • »*>#*•,■ »>• ■• • a.** • 9»m **r» t* • r» • r«* M« ^^i»n *•« »«%«ak O***^ %«BM» ••n-jLr:nr^“*-ir..- » « «»»£•*« M •«*• t T ^ ■?! iSTT* 1*^ I MV* «VMr«« 9>^m •* C»*«« ^ » « r cMv w •« •.*%«* i.wi*— «• 1 • VMM M« M • «• «^ M.VVMM •« *^ M •«« WiW M^« M «AI •«** f 9m *t »«.»** -M «-M •••* ,1 V {mwv • K-M*^*** V mm. >Mr* * mm rERCSlOM CONTROL NOTES zn >M •*«««• *#«* «M« *r CW^-M! MV*« •» ***#• •« V«N. «M »*«Kt JU**** V M> * 0 'm «* *9€% «C .'«•<• »•»«• w*9« t .VMIV *<4 CMMV» Ml'^ Mf •• %MV» V* «M *LM V mmm VO** r«M*« *f « r-JM »M* •< *MM c^-»«» «M . *-^ kf* M v»'M *r AaMk V* •« Mm •M Mm ft.’WM M VI»i • V■ •# mmm *m *. I^.M ^ MM V«N. • avaM •■« »M» MM* * • *M* •■#*« aM M»« s 9mt •»M ftr M •« *f ■ M • •. ^ * *M . M MiM 54H mii*GKniiii0TCQriaiii. r: JOHN TERRANCE HOC^UX TPttMk/WM ■■KuTf *•»«** j^* R*Iia»Kr Drvrlnpmrni Company. I L T MOJUt MMwdU tlVM* onvc*>oi r.-r/isssriEsssrar CITT »UDK.4irTAl. MAY7.2004 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE ORONO MINNLSOIA LANDFORM»«•!« ••siar *-arsvr 0 »• 10 iCAUt lit rtrt rt£i*A ORMMO. OKAVMX. A*e BUM esNTia RAM C3.1 STONEBAY COMMERCIAL ---------------•" highway 12 C5 is £ pwipwo I •m mman ^rnmm m*m a— ^Bir> rnmm^:z‘srjsjxrA 7S asxr*» *»«.*»•« •-*••-» M •« ^Ifi >> • •« • m^m$ *4 m $m9 ^ %9 S4MA ■ ■ - • mmt0 arnm L#* • M l«# M • « k ••*** MEM BA ^ Hy' DunKmMjrr(Ofi!n.LL?«au««toa«i mmtmwnK «vni JOHN TIRRANCE HOMES lienttgiiutiai ■BCUPfiftrVcf 9 ’ Rdiance Doclopmmt Company. L.L P. amr^'m :=rx-i-srssrsi CITY SUOMITTAL MAY7.a004 STONEBAY MARKETPLACE 0R0>0. MINNI.SOI A LANDFORM gptiisr -’gag- wtfiMH^rrrLAT C5.1 *cau tM rtfT ORDINANCE NO 6 .THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1466 AND SECTION 78- 1568 REGARDING SIGNS The City Council of Orono ordams as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows: (101 Pylor) Sign. A sign supported by a post or posts so that the sign and sup- DOfts are finished to grade by encasing the posts in a material consistent with the sign and where the base width dimension is a minimum of 10% uo to and including SQ% of the greatest width of the sign. Mil Monument Signs. One monu ment sign. I'mited to two (21 faces is allowed per frontage Lter orooertv. with a maximum of two (21. The Areas of sign tflo si^)pQftinQ^ bflckyotiP^ struc* ture. and the sign copy shall be combir>ed lor determinir>g the total square footage and the height of the monumeni sign. a. The total allowable square footage shall riot Exceed IQO aquare feet per side. Ihg basB-and sugpgfling materia! stall constitute at least 25 percent of the total square footage. b. The base width dimension is 50^4 Of more of the greatest width of the sign. c. The sign copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 inches above ground level. pletcly enclosed within the nnonument materials. e. No portion of the sign or sign struc ture shall exceed 10 feet above ground IflyfiL The followirtg drawing is included tor >1 ustrative purposes: A/ t. The monument sign base shall be constoicted of materials similar m appear ance to those of the principal structure and shall nf hnck. natural stone. wtiirm textured oast Rtf>ne. or integrally polored concrete maxonry units The Structure surrounding the face of the sign from the base to the top of the sign must be solid, continuous, and consist of the base matehals or complementary rraterir als that match the appearance and color of the princioal building. g. The 200 square feet of ground area around the morument *ign shall bfl lAP*1Vyp^ with shrubs or oerenrta's. A ♦ B ■ maxinHjm 100 s.f. per face (including sign copy & base*). A s sign copy, where 75% of A ♦ B is the maximum allowed sign copy. B B base* (where 25% of A ♦ B is the minimum provided base*). *The sign base (B) must bo con structed of materials consisting of bncK, natural stone, stucco or materials consis tent with the pnrKipal structure so long as the extenor wall finishes of the pnnapal structure meet the requirements ot Section 78-646(g)(1). Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 1468 is hereby revised as follows Sec. 78-1488. Signs In B and I dfs- Iricts; Within the B and I districts, piete^tfne, wall and monument signs etid beoiwssB signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: Section 3: This Ordinance shall be pubitshed in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval arid pub- tical'on. (Note: The elwsAen language is delet ed; the underlined language is inserted) Adopted by the City Council ot Orono on this 26th day ol ApnI. 2004 by a vole ot 5 ayes and Onays. Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk (Published in the Laker and May 6. 2004.) vcw. 10. IVV3 i.'nrir. wi• t_wr_ifu,iticiww\M Nu. r. i WEST RIDGE MARKET SIGN PLAN AND CRITERIA Landlord thill enforce coofoixnajoce of signs hx the Shopping Center with the following criteria. LixuQord shall sdn>tnlster axid inrerpret these criteria, but is not en^owered to authorize any departure without written approval of Tenant A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS/SPECinCATIONS 1. AH signs shall comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. 2. Pa inted lettering on signs are not permitted, excqit as q>edfied Section C here of. 3. Flas hing, moving, rotating, exposed light or audible signs or elements thereof are not permitted. 4. Pylon or pole signs are not pennhted. One primary and one secondary monument sign shall be constructed according to Section 300.30 of the City zoning ordinance and located per the attached site plan. 57 Ah electri^ sigv and all componoite thereof sb^ bear the UL Utel and their* installation must comply with all local building and electrical codes. 6. No exposed neon lighting shall be used on signs, symbols or decorative elements provided, however, exposed neon signs (I) when held together by a clear glass tube firanxing system exposed in a window, (ii) inside a light box and covered with a colored translucent or mirrored Plexiglas or (iii) mounted directly on the store front, are pennitted. 7. All conductors, traasfonners and other equipment abatl be concealed. B. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS * 1. The horizontal dimension of signs on any stoic from shall not exceed two«thirds the width of store frontage. 2. The total sign (the rectangle eaclcs ’ng each groi^ of letters, symbols or logos) not exceed 15% of the area of the itcrefrom and shall be located at least 12 inches from each lease line. 3. No signs perpendicular to face of ax^ BuMngs are pennitted. 4. No signs of any sort are pcxmirj^ on penthouses, cano;^ roofs or Building roofr. »tt. 16.70yj l:4ir« uif.ur.mnuiou*^r. j ' 5. Wording of si^ shill sot include the product sold except is put of in Occupant’s trade nime or insignia. 6. No sign, or any portion thereof, may project above the parapet or top of wall upon which it is mounted. 7. All exterior metal signs, bolts, fastening and clips shall be of hot-dipped galvanized iron, stainless steel, aluminum, brass or bronze, and no black iron materials of any type will be permitted. 8. All exterior letters or signs exposed to the weather shall be mounted with at least 3/4" clearance from the building wall to permit proper dirt and water drainage. 9. No sign maker's labels or other identification are permined on the exposed surface of signs except those required by local ordinance, in an inconspicuous location. 10. All penetrations of the Building structure required for sign installation shall be neatly sealed in a watenighc condition. C. MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS ’ 1. *^Ea^ 'Occupant miy place uj^n wh escruice of its d*emis^ V^eyses not more duin ' 144 square inches of gold leaf or decal application lettering, not to exceed two inches in height, indicating hours of business, emergency telephone numbers, etc. 2. Each Occupant with a non-customer door for receiving merchandise may have tinifoTtnly applied on such door, in two-inch block letters, such Occupant’s and address. Where more than one Occupant uses the same door, each namf» and address shall be applied. 3. Floor signs, such as inseits into terrazzo, etc., shall be permitted within each Occupant's lease line in their store fronts, if approved by Landlord. 4. Paper signs and/or stickers urilired as signs and signs of a temporary nature, of whatever composition or material, will not be permitted; except for grand opening banners for no more than 30 days. D. TENANTS AND OTHER ANCHOR’S SIGNS BLTLDINGA 1. Anchor tenants whose leasable area exceeds 75,000 square feet shall be permitted two wall signs and logos not to exceed 6.5 feet in height on the south elevation. uct. 10. iWW3 i:^ir« wnf_ur_*i(nciu!»KM L NU. »u/ r. % 2. Tenants whose leasable jum exceeds 43.000 squaxe feet shall be pennitted one wall tisn and logo not to excea 5.0 feet in height on the south fiscade. 3. Tenants whose leasable aru exceeds 10,000 square feet shall be permitted one wall sign and logo not to exceed 3.0 feet in height on the southwest facade, and one wall sign and logo not to exceed 26 inches in height on the southeast Ikade. 4. All other tenants shall be ^owed one wall sign and logo not to exceed 26 inchn in height on their front facade. BUILDINGB /0WV4) USA VPT\ 1. The south tenant shall be permitted one wall sign and logo not to exceed 3.0 feet in height on iht east facade, provided the tenant’s leasable area exceeds 25,000 square feet. The south tenant shall also be permitted one wall sign and logo not to exceed 3.0 feet in height on die south facade, provided the tenant's leasable area exceeds 25.000 square feet 2. Other tenants whose leasable area exceeds 11,000 square feet shall be permitted one wall sign and logo not id exceed 3i0'fe^ ih~height on the ^t facads. 3. Other tenants whose leasable area is 11,000 square feet or less shall be permitted to have one wall sign and logo not to exceed 26 inches in height on the east facade. 4. The restaurant tenant at the north end of Building B shall be permitted one wall sign and logo not to exceed 5.0 feet in height on the east facade. BUILDING C SpVI/M', {Jo- 1. Tenants whose leasable floor area is at least 10,600 square fee: shall be permitted two waU signs and logos not to exceed 3.0 feet in height provided the average individual letter height does not e.xceed 26 inches. The signs not be located on the same facade. 2. Tenants whose leasable Coor area is less than 10,600 square feet shall be permitted one wall sign and logo not to exceed 26 inches in height. ^MstropoUUn Council Building comfnuniti«« t.'tat u-ork May 14.2004 Michael GafTron Planning Director City ofOrono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN SS323-0066 RE: City of Orono. Comprehensiv’e Plan Amendment Stonebay Outlot A • Waiv’cr Metropolitan Council Referral File No. 18392-4 Metropolitan Council District 3. Mary Hill Smith Dear Mr. Gaflron: The Metropolitan Council recaixd the City of Orono's Stonebay Outlot A Comprehensn*e Pbn Amendment on May S. 2004. The amendment reguides 3.69 acres from Commercial Office to Commercial Officfrlletail to allow potential limited retail devTlopment on the site. At Its May 24,2000 regular meeting, the gov-eming body of the Council identified certain types of local comprehensive plan amc .dmems that may be reviewed by Council stafT w ithout further formal review by the gov'cming brxly of the Council. Council staff applied the plan review w aiver critena established by the Council ’s governing body and finds that the amendment is in conformance with metropolitan system plans, consistent with the Regtonal Des elopment Framework, and has no impact on the plans of other units of local government. Therefore, the Council will waive further review and the City may place this amendment into effect. The amendment, explanatory materials supplied and the information submission form will be appended to the City’s Plan in the Council's files If >x)u have any questions about this review , please contact Robin Caufman. Principal Reviewer, at 6S1 •602-1457. Sin$mly, J/i C _/ Phyllis Hwson. Manager Planning wd Technical Assistance cc: Mary Hill Smith. CouiKilmember Distnet 3 Robui Caufman. Sector Represenutive Cheryl Olsen. Referrals Coordinator Metro 1*10 Lloe SO? ISM aao iMi Ptfoi a«cc ssioi-iaaa • lasiim iQoo • ruMnisso • masi-oaM do Bfml r»»iir fnr SwpMjo r •04.3003 May 17.3004 race I *14 Date Application Received: 3*174M Dale Application Coniidered at Complete: 3*17414 00-Day Review Period Eipirea: 5-16-04 extended to 7*15*04 To: Chair Mabustli and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Gundlach, City Planner / j May 4.2004 #104*3002, G & I. Land Investment, LLC, 740 North Arm Dnve - Variance Denial. Conditional Use Permit - Public Heanng Zonlog DbIricI: LR - IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: 0 81 acres (35,400 s.f) Lot Width: 153’ at Shoreline; 134’ at 75’ Setback Application Summary: The applicants have agreed to rcmo\e the boathouse, and arc requesting to amend their onginal variance request, to a conditional use permit to allow land alterations within 75’ of the 929.4’ elevation of Lake Minnetonka. The applicants will be removing the existing boathouse and restore the existing slope, including the construction of boulder retaining walls and vegetative cover. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CUP application with the following conditions: 1. The boathouse will be removed at the time the residence is removed. 2. Adherence to the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding the retaining wall bank restoration project. Pertinent Zooing Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-966. Prohibition. (a) It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the follow ing land alteration activities w iihout a conditional use permit issued by the council; (3) Build, alter or repair any seawall or retaining wall, or o’herw ise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. Sec. 78-1250. Conditional uses. Conditional uses allowable within shoreland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures and criteria and conditions for review of conditional uses established in this chapter. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shoreland overlay district; (1) Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure: a. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public w aters, both during and after construction; ■04-M02 May 17.2M4 r*tt2«r4 b. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; c. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and d. The t>pes, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible m relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. (2) Conditions attached to conditional use pemttts. The city council upon consideration of the criteria listed in subsection (1) of this section and the purposes of this article, shall attach such conditions to the issuance of the conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this article. Such conditions may include but are not limited to the follow ing: a. Increased setbacks from the ordinary high water level. b. Limitations on the natural vegetation to be removed or the requirement that additional vegetation be planted. c. Special provisions for the locations, design and use of structures, sewage treatment systems, watercraft launching and docking areas, and vehicle parking areas. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Survey Exhibit B - Bank Preservation Plans Exhibit C - City Engineer Comments Exhibit D - 60-Day Extension Letter Exhibit E - Property Owners List (amended to include owners within 350 ’) Exhibit F-Plat Map Background Planning Department staff met with applicants on-site following the April Planning Commission meeting to discuss possible alternatives for retention of the lake yard slope, as the consensus was for removal of the boathouse. Staff agreed to amend the current application to include a conditional use permit for land alterations within 75’ of the lake, on the condition the applicants agree to remove the boathouse. Details of that meeting are as follows: • The City will locate the sewer line existing at the shore and stake its location, • An erosion control fence will be installed by the applicants 5’ off the staked location, • Applicants will demolish the boathouse at the time of demolition of the existing house, • Applicant’s will amend their request to include a CUP request for land alteration and will submit a bank restoration/protection plan which likely will include retaining walls, • Staff recommends that any hardcover necessary for slope stabilization, such as retaining walls and a stairway system, w ill not count against the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75’-250’ zone. •04-M02 May I7.M04 Pagt J»f 4 • The l^'o trees currenily within the 0-75* zone, at the very top of the slope and 75* line, can be removed as long as tree replacement is included in the restoration plan due to their vulnerability during the construction process. • The revised application will be referred back to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, • The applicants will grant an easement to the City for sewer maintenance purposes, and • The applicants can submit for building permit for the new residence while the slope restoration project is in its review stages, as all other Zoning Ordinance requirements can be met. The application was brought before the City Council at their April 26, 2004 meeting for an informal discussion on whether the Council agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove the boathouse. The City Council did agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and also the details bulleted above. The application has now been forwarded back to the Planning Commission for review of the bank restoration plan, where the boathouse should again be denied as part of a condition of approval. At pment, the City has located and staked the sewer line, which is located approximately 1 fool off the front line of the boathouse, and 6 to 6 S feet deep Due to the close proximity of the line to the boathouse, the Public Works department has requested that they be informed of the date of demolition and that they be present. At this time staff and the Public Works department w ill verify if the 5’ setback from the sewer line is adequate, or if a greater or lesser distance would be appropriate. Staff will include this as a condition of any conditional use permit approved for land alterations. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Zoning Ordinance Section 78-1250 lists several evaluation entena that must be considered when reviewing an application for a conditio’^^1 use within the Shoreland Overlay District. The evaluation criteria arc as follows w.h staffs response: a. The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public w aters. both during and after construction. The applicants are proposing to install a silt fence 5 * in front the staked sen er location, which is about JO' from the 929.4' ele\otion. Ko activity wilt be allowed outside the silt fence except for re-vegetation of the area where the boathouse sat. Staff feels this is adequate distance for the pre\‘ention of soil erosion and the possibility of pollution to the lake b. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited. The applicants have proposed plant materials which, over time, will screen the retaining walls as viewed front the lake. c. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment. N/A L •04-3M2 May 17,2004 Pa|c4of4 The types, uses end numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. N/A Retaining Wall Plan The bank preservation plan includes the addition of four boulder retaining walls, each 4* in height, with plantings in the tenacrd areas to help screen them and soften their visual impact from the lake. The walls wil] extend across the center 60% of the widtli of the lot. The two mature trees at the top of the slope are being replaced with two trees located nearer the house and about 12' from the top of slope. Additional ornamental trees could be added into the terracing; stumps in the exiting hillside indicated that this slope was more wooded than it is today, and addition of one or two more tress at the base of the slope would help to bring this back to a more wooded, natural shoreline character. City Engiaccriag Comments The City Engineer has reviewed the applicants plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit C. The applicants will be required to incorporate all of his recommendations. luucs for Consideration 1 . Has enough plant material been incorporated into the plan? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Suff Recommendation Approval of the plan as submitted, subject to PC recommendation as to adding more trees to Ac plan; including approval of a hardcover variance to the hardcover w ithin the 0*75* zone associated with the stairway and boulder walls per the proposed plan, incorporating the following stipulations: I. The existing boathouse be removed prior to commencement of work, A Public Works employee is present at the time of demolition of the boathouse, A silt fence is erected 5' off the staked sew er location where no land alteration activity will be allowed, except for re-vegetation of the boathouse site. The silt fence shall remain until the landscaping as been fully installed, Implemenution of the recommendations of City Enginw, Tom Kellogg listed in the leucr dated May 12.2004. 2. 3. i. .. i-^ i . i J. . . 1 I V'.Kiai. 1-i.i •< » V. . ^ » iL i *• L Mn/DOT Seeding Maanlim (hBe2lJ Mtew SOA Modified (SOB) - Far«n A NadiiiT?; When. IPS*, sknter 'Revtnae* Blootta. bi| 'Bisoa' Bnunc pus. smooth Ryo-gps*. ptrennitl Al&lft. cntplj\| UgwDc. nidve (m below) Swiicfa gnu 'Oakou' Timothy Bluegrass, Keoftieky "Pirfc* Bocaakal Num % or Mix EfymtatndiravJui Aadropogoagen/dl Bnmuhiends LoBvapenae Medkago stdva NA PaiUcm tiiganm Phkmpnttease Poapntensis 8.0 7.0 15.0 200 10 10 8.0 70 30.0 Total:1000 MilkveidtaMda Prairie clover, puplc Tloiitfoil. ihowy Btols clover. romO headed Vetch. American AaragahaCuiMdtttsk Dalea parpurcaa Desmodtaa Cmdeate lespedem eapitaa Vkdaaaericena Rata. 50 Ibs/aoe (SS kpha). De^do^Porap and native gras* Reecbes a height of approxfiMlely 24 Iwche*.^ Ctoeral paocaa seed mix for roaditdc* and pestvinj. Mixture 60A Modified (60B).Low Maintenance Turf ComoMnNamc Bocankal Name %ofMU Fescue, ctccping-red 'Cindy'Festueenibn 10 0 Ryc-gpss, perennial ‘EIT LolJumpefvne 14.0 Blucpass. Canada Poacomprasa 12 0 Bluepass. (owl Poapahaths 10.0 Bhicgpa*. common *98/85'Poapraatmb 12.0 Bloepass, Kentucky 'Path*Poapnteruis 12 0 Bhiegrass. Kentucky'Caliber*Paapratmth 100 Alkali gran. 'Salty*PdedneOa dtstans 19.0 Wlduclovn TrihUum repens 10 ToPi:100.0 Rate: 100 IbVacre (110 kg/ha). D^pttoo: Low maintenance turf mix. Reaches a height of appmxlraaiely 12 Inches. General purpose seed mix for areas where a low maintenance lurf mix is dasued. na» 12 2004 16:08 BONESTROO ROSEME RNOERLIK 6S16361311 L P*2 Bonestfoo Ander»(& jAssodatM IMginMf 1 4 ArcfilMcli 733S \Mtt mtfywty 36 ■ St Paul. MN SSI13 Omcr 6SK636-4M0 • Fax: 65f*636M3tl ww w bcnet tro o.con d. May 12.2004 Mr.MiktOaffton Planner Director CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Cryital Bay. MN SS323 740 North Arm Drive File No. 139-04^ Plat No. 04.3002 DearMOn: We have reviewed the plans for the proposed shoreline improvements at 740 North Arm DriVe. The proposed improvements include removing an existing boat house ai^ constructing a senes of boulder rctamuig walls to stabilize the shoreline embankment. We have the following comments with regards to engmeering matters: • The plans should include proposed erosion controls. All silt fence should be the heavy duty type with Steel t.posts. ■ The planting schedule should identify the hci|^ of the Aill pown plants. All proposed plantings shall bo at least 4>feet m height to screen the retaining walls. Without adequate screening the walls will appear to be IS-fiecttall from the lake. • All eroakm conttol meafurcs should be inspected sad ^rproved by the city prior to any work on site. The ctosioa control should be naaialatnod hmI renvin in place until the vegotatiaa is established and the slopes are subilized. If you hive any questions please call me at (651) 604^863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES. INC. ”1'-^ Uou \X /(T^i TomlCellogg Cc. Ortg Oappa. City of Orono • St. Paul. Sc. Cloud, aochejter. WUlmar. MN • Mitwoukte. Wl • Chicago. iL ^— \ / ClTYof ORONO Municipal Offices Stnat Addrass; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 553SS Mailini Address; PO Boi 66 CrysUiBay. MN SS323006S May 3.2004 G & L Land Investment, LLC. 8659 Great Waters Alcove Eden Prairie. MN 55347 RE; 60-Day Extension for Application #04-3002,740 North Arm Drive 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from t:ie date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on March 17, 2004 and the 60-day review period would end on May 16. 2004. Since the Planning Contmission and City Council have recommended dental of your request to keep the boat'.iouse, your amended application for a cond.tional use permit cannot be heard until after Maj *6, 2004. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to July IS, 2004. As discussed during our on-site meeting following tlie Plaiming Commissions recommendation, construction of the house may begin following approval an • receipt of a building permit and demolition of the existing house and boathouse. Your amended request for a conditional use permit to conduct land alterations within 75’ of the lake will be placed on the first available Planning Commission agenda following receipt of the required plans. Should you have any questions I can be reached at (952) 249-4623. Sincerely, City of Orono Janice Gundlach City Planner cc. Mike Gaffron, Planning Director 1Wiihwt<»52)24M66t • Fn(M2)llM61i i-gAB Jmh flw Mnlinf UM Avwy^ TtMPUm Slfg^0^-1 9 wmm^wywm l-tOO-QO^VfllV 0611723320003 0611723430003 0611723430004 Lakeview Golf of Mtka. Inc.Gregory M Harty JeffD&CaraZiebarth 8SS Red Oak Lane 700 North Arm Dr.706 North Arm Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Mound. MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 0611723430005 0611723430006 0611723430007 K A Oneson & S K Dickhausen EGHagberg William L. Schmin 710 North Arm Dr.740 North Arm Dr.750 North Arm Dr. Mound. MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364 0611723430002 0611723430006 0611723430010 Douglas F Watson Jeffrey P Carlson D A Carlson & M C Ray 680 North Arm Dr.770 NorJi Arm Dr.780 North Arm Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Mound. MN 55364 Mound. MN 55364 0611723440001 Christopher & Claudia Engeier 1620 34'*^. Ave Kenosha. WI53114 •NiiaAiiirar ff\AM]AV^>!H)0l*l UMa^MATMMM «pf IS uvuvm •4i«Av Mn BunuMMiduier 0611723430002 DOUGLAS F WATSON 680 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 0611723430006 JEFFREY P CARLSON 770 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 0611723430010 D A CARLSON & M C RAY 780 NORTH ARM DR MUOUND MN 55364 0611723440001 CHRISTOPHER & CLAUDIA ENGELER 1620 34™ AVE KENOSHA WI 53114 Mi \v V i '■'•ii?-■ ‘5'*' '#fc. mmi rm^^' ■^m■• VA<2;^. 'k-^^n-A- x]M^-:: a:AmmA .viW-i-;V3? ■r-W... -if^br ■-: .,. -r:. ^5?? ■/I' 1kJ. -J^J-— c ^ c lMa: • ■• •' I \ s • •04-30M May 17.2004 Page 1 «f« Datt Applkalioa Received: 4-21*04 Date Appikaiion Considered as Compleie: 4*21*04 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 6-20-04 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach» City Planncrji^ Date: May 6,2004 Subject: Ii04-3006, Bartholomew & Elizabeth Butzer, 2625 North Shore Drive • Hardcover Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) Lot Area: 1.97 acres (86.129 s.f.) Lot Width: 268 feel @ shoreline. 259 feet ^ 75’ setback Afipiication Summary^ Applicant requests the following variance in order to cor<'r ct a new detached garage with recreation room: 1. Hardcover variance to permit 30% hardcover in the 75*-250* zone when 25% is normally allowed and 33% currently exists. 2. Conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building. Staff RecommendatUm: Staff recommends approval of the plans incorporating the following stipulation: 1. The applicant agrees to the filing of the covenant regarding the conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory' building (as noted within this report). Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-IA, LR- IB, LR-IC or LR-IC-I district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, 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. (Code 1984, § 10.22(2)) 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 thbutar)-, except for Stairway'S, 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 May 17.2004 Pa|c2of6 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. (Ord.No. 101 2nd series, § 1 (10.56(1 6KL)), 2-24-1992) UstofEahibics Exhibit A - Applications (Variance and CUP) Exhibit B - Ha^iup Documentation Form Exhibit C - Applicant's Narrative Exhibit D - Existing Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit C - Hardcover Calculation Surv ey Exhibit H » Elevation of Proposed Detached Building Exhibit 1 •> Floor Plan of Proposed Detached Building Exhibit J ~ Photographs Exhibit K - Property Owner's List Exhibit L-Plat Map Background The applicants recently acquired the property in November of 2003. The applicant and his architect have met with staff to discuss construction of a new 1.000 s.f. detached garage/recreation room to include plumbing for a */< bath and hot tub. The existing detached garage has become rtm down and sits within the 26* required wetland setback. The applicant wishes to remove the existir.i; iMujjjng, rather than renovate it, and construct new within all setbacks. The applicant s proposal includes a reduction in hardcover and removal of several structures that currently lie within the wetland setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Let Area/Width LR>1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.00 acres)200' Actual 86,129 s.f (1.97 acres)268* @ Shoreline. 259’ @ 75 ’ Setback Setbacks LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’N/A N/A Rear 50 ’ 296’-bouse 193.5’-garage 185* - playhouse 240’ - proposed garage ■04-3006 May r. 2004 Pag# J of 6 Left Side 30’107’ - house 22’ - garage 35’ - proposed garage Right Side 30’55’ - house NO CHANGE Lakeshore 75’39 ’ - house 162’ - garage 39 ’ - house 100’ - proposed garage Average Lakeshore Less restrictive than 75’ setback Compliant NO CHANGE Structural Coverage Total Lot Area 86,129 s.f. (1.97 acres) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: Proposed: 12,919 s.f (15%) 4.941 s.f (5.7%) Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed ' Hardcover 0-75 19,880 sf Os.f (0%) 3.768 s.f (19»/o) 3.768 s.f, (19%) 75 - 250 43.247 s.f.10.812 s.f (25%) 10,665 sf (24.6%) 9,075 s.f (20.9%) 250-500 23.002 s.f.6,901 s f (30%) 500 s f • (2.2%) Osf mo) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds 0-250 ’ Hardcover Calculations When hardcover exists within the 0-75’ zone, staff has consistently transferred that hardcover back to the 75’-250* zone. This allows staff to regulate total hardcover on the property even when work is not being conducted within the 0-75’ zone because that hardcover is technically not allowed. This also prevents the property from getting unregulated hardcover within the 0-75’ zone as the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to regulate hardcover on the entire property. Currently, hardcover levels arc in compliance within the 75’-250’ zone when the 0-75’ hardcover is not transferred back. The following chart shows the hardcover level within the 0-250’ zone, or when the 0-75’ hardcover is transferred back (using only the allotted area from the 7S’-250' zone): D04-J006 May n. 2004 Pa|c4«r6 Hardcover Variance Hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone is at a conforming level of 21.2%. The need for a hardcover variance arrives because of the non-conforming hardcover that lies uiihin the 0-75‘ zone. This hardcover amounts to 3,768 s.f. and mainly comprises the existing house. The applicant's proposal is for hardcover changes within the 75'-2S0' zone amounting to a net decrease of I.S90 s.f. Although a net reduction in hardcover is proposed, a hardcover variance is still required due to the transferring back of the 0-7S' hardcover bringing the total proposed hardcover to 29.7%. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibits B & C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anatytto___________________________________________________ In considering oppUaulons for tforiance. the Pfenning Commission thoH consider the effea of the proposed vorionce npon the heoith, sufety end meifare of the commanftf, existing end onticipoted treffk conditions, light end mir, danger of flre, risk to the pnblle safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from die literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their urict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall reconunead 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 in the fact that this house was constructed prior to adoption of the hardcover standards, which allow no hardcover w ithin the 0- /5’ zone. In addition, over 1/3 of the property contains a wetland with a required 26’ buffer of which no hardcover is allowed, lliis means that, short of rebuilding, any improvements will require a hardcover variance and less than 50% of the lot would be buildable w hen the 0- 75’ zone and wetland/wetland buffer areas are taken out of buildable area. It should also be noted, that the applicant is proposing to eliminate several existing non conformities with removal of the existing detached garage. These non-conformities consist of the following; • Detached garage within the 26’ wetland setback • Detached garage within the 30’ required side yard setback • 337 s.f sandbox within the 26’ wetland setback • 40 s.f playhouse within the 26’ wetland setback • Driveway within the 26’ wetland setback With the proposed detached garage/recreation room all of the above non-conformities will be eliminated and hardcover will be reduced 1,590 s.f or 3.67%. The applicant has the option of renovating the existing detached garage without needed v ariance approval. Lastly, this property contains a shared drivew'ay with the neighbor to the east extending 250 feet from County Road 51. A tum-around of some type, existing on the applicant’s property, is needed. Currently, a circular driveway encompasses access to the attached garage and detached garage. Possible reductions in hardcover may be achieved by eliminating the circle and constructing a small back-up apron. This option has been «04-3M6 May r. 2MM ra|tS»f6 discussed with the applicant who has stated that due to the restricted access to the detached garage (tuck-under that slopes do\K>*n) elimination of the circle w-ould not net much hardcover reduction due to the need for a back-up apron. The conditions of the attached garage create the need for a detached building to store vehicles of today's size. Conditional Use Permit Analyiis The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing within an accessory building. The applicant has proposed a recreation room above the 3-staIl garage, which will include a ’/« bath and hot tub. Section 78 - 418 (16) establishes a number of conditions that must be met to receive approval of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met. a. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. The applicant s property is of sufficient size to support the recreation use proposed u ith the detached bui! ling uithout the residential character of the neighborhood being compromised It should also be noted that the property to the east also has approval of a CUP for plumbing in an accessory building b. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed arc in keeping with the intended use of tlte accessory building. The applicant is proposing a % bath and hot tub ssithin the upper '/: story of the detached garage. These fixtures do not indicate any significantly intense use of which cannot be supported w ithin the detached 5-statl garage c. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. The applicant's property is 1.955 acres of which approximately 0.7 acres are wetland. The Planning Commission has consistently granted CUP s for plumbing to properties which do not meet the 2.0 acre requirement d. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. The existing detached garage meets all setback requirements, is in conformance with size restrictions of the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance, and meets the 30 ’ maximum height restriction e. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the properly providing that the accessory building will not be: 1. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. 3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The applicatu must agree to the fling of this covenant in the chain of title on the property. I L May 17, HIM Patt6ofi Therefore, it is staffs opinion that all of the above criteria are met and that the conditional use permit should be granted, pending the applicant's agreement to fiiing the above mentioned covenant. laiiiea for CoaaklcratioB 1. b the Planning Conunission satisfied with the level of hardcover reduction? 2. Should the applicant attempt to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle drivev^y and constructing a back-i^ apron instead? 3. b the need for the 3-stall detached garage/recreation building reasonable due to the constraints of the property and that a hardcover variance is needed to support it? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RccommciidatioB Approval of the plaiu as submitted incorporating the following stipulation: 1. The applicant agrees to the filing of the covenant regarding the conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building (as noted above). City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A StmtAMnu: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 MaJSng Addrtu: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Appttcaiion# Data Rtceivedi *4-is C'^ Amount Paid; Staff: Fea: S600 Ranawal:1300 Aftaf-»a-(act 5i .200 DoLO’e Fea This application form must be completed In full. Applicant wi'l be notified within 15 days as to the status of the appiK:ation. Incompleta applications will not be placed on Planning ComrnSilon AgendJs PROPERTY INFORMATION: Silo Address: Kiew PP P^P«rty Identification Number (PIN): m -9. x*j z~ooo z --------------------------■ lUDiiuiiMJuun mumoer trux;: 0*1 in ■y, Z.000 Z (Attach legal description to application if not included on the sun/ey )------------------------ Dale Property Acquired (month/year): |i/o5 □ Yea, I own the adjacenl parcels Presentuse of property: al^esidential Bother ^ Zoning District: f a___________ —------------------------------—------- Phone (home): Address: <g*foi ^Phone (work): gii-igco Email:Fax: (952.^511-190^ Phone (home): /egz) _________ ^dress: _ '2.(» 2.5* ^nrit Phono (work): C (pn■^ . a woo Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated a Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessary): ^ * I^9.flOO -----------______________________SA&Cn- ------------------- '■■■ ■->'J .rr. • ^ *' f je ■ J .7 •T •i ‘ ir. •• REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. bT Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documontation Form fiT Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*" StreeL Minneapo is. telephone 612-348-5910 8 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 6.5" x 11" or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. ^ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the vanance packet). B Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11“ or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17"). w Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide aN information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no attemative but to reject It until It is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regantfeCb of its potential merit. Applicant ’s Signature Applicant’s Signafo 1^2^Date: Date: 4-/ut-jh4 OWNER'S ACKNt The owner hereby agkfiov^edges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s Signature; Owner's Signature; Date: Date: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. ApplicanU must be present at alt scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. jj: 0) ^ 7r O Application^•: • . Date Received. Amount Paid _ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address '.'.ir «Sr V-.; *. Type of Application to be Filed \ t i, li * > r"! i—r. ^ 1 -A Property Idertificalion Njmber (P I 0 )_^t..v . . ^ ^ .______________ APPLICANT Name Phone (home). Aodress >»H u..V. •»»-%! __Phore(virork)1, City OWNER (if different tban applicant) Name. s. - • t-: -.•ll-__________ _____________ Phono (homo)_'.Tr.:.i,v,,.*^.Phone (work) Address . Cny ^ . ____Zip. , Date Property Acquired_____________________ - . ________fmonth'yoari I (do) Cdo not) also own the adjacent paiccis of land FEES . CONDITIONAL USE PERWITS • S600 OC Residential Accessory Use ___ S6C0 00 Institutional (church, school, otc ) _____ S600 CO Guest Housc'Gucst Apartments ___ _ S600 00 Duplex CredifBidg S600 00 Commcrciai/lnduslrial Use _____S600 (XD Lard Alteration * Perrrti ____Grading and f.'iirg • designated wetland or floodptam ___ Grading and filling *501 cu yd or more ___Grading, seawall, rclamir^g walls withm 75' of lakcslioro _____ PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____S250 00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Afier-the-Facl Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______S600 00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) _____S600 00 Vacauon _____S600 00 Easement Vacation _____$100 00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S600 00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______S60C 00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule M- ''• <‘4 f;t Mm L_. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ’ Corrpleted Application Form ____Describe request in detail. ____Certified Property Owners List of owners withm 350’ of the subject propery. labels and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6'’' Street. NT.mneapoiis. te'ephone 6‘I2*348*5910) ____Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for Survey information ____Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\-ey ____Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterat'Ons involve changes m e'evation (grades) ____List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of appUcant(s) if not current owner(s) ____Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) ____As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (IV X I?** OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff w.ll require scaiea drawngs of all documents, plans, etc to be submitted ) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please remembei that yout application is not complete if Iho above information has not been included Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete Initials of Clerical Staff Date APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide an information required or requested by ttie Zoning Aammistralor. agrees to pay additional fees (staff lime not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that tlie information supplied^s^e and correct to the best of his/her Knowledge Applicant s ___Date OWNER S SIGNATURE^ /y The owner hereby ^Inowiedgesano agrees to this application and further aulfionzed reasonable entry 'onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's signature V .V'v.Date Applicant must have all sybn-i.ttais into the C>iy offices 25 days before ih.e Piann«f>g Convntssior\ Meejng Pianr^ing Comm.es'on Meetings are he'd on the th.rd Monday of each month Applicants must be present at ai* sched'jiee rev ew meetings of the Pianmf^ CommiSs»on and Counol. If an applicant « unable to attend a scheduled meeting please make arrangements to have an authorized a;ent attend m you' place and advse the Buiid ng & Zonmg o^ ce of th'S change pror to the meeting neiN J City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This is to be como ’eted by a City P'anner during your pre-aapitcatior >reet>g *) Stroet Address 2750 KsMey Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main; 952-249-4600 Fax; 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P O. Box 66 For Office Use Only City Planrer V > C Crystal Bay. MN 55323-C066 Meeting Dale/Tirr.e V/ lJIPT PC Date; i t~7 , 2. What is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; 7,Z 5 • ■''f"' </»'V'^ ■ /f\. property Idcnliricalion Number (PINUi “ LflHAZoning District:Size of Property: Z - / 5 ac t ''Z DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback ^Ha'dcovor □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Other; M H»!.f /c/^o /' y/ / I- □ Front Yard Setback O Lot Width'n P___ Applicanj;s:''^^^^Sy HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, Initials: ^ understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it trust be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance^piication will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this^^r^rwill be completefMay Citv staff Applicant Signatu S'. Date: O EXHIBIT B Hardship Documentation l. “The propcny in question can not be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official conirols” N/A 2. "Tne plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his propertv not created by the landowner." Tlie c.xisting home and tuck under garage arc located within the 75' setback from the shoreline. Due to the descent of the driveway and condition of the existing tuck under garage, it is impossible to park a large vehicle in the tuck under garage. The existing detached garage and portion of the driveway leading to this garage arc located within tiic setback of the delineated wetland and the side property setback. The wetland located on the Owner’s property reduces the allowable area to build by more than half Due to the wetland, the propcny owner in question and adjacent property owner share a driveway. The majority of the dnveway. located within the 75 ’ to 250’ setback, is on the property in question This increases the hardcover and decreases the imperv ious area to the propcny in question. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The character will be enhanced by the removal of some existing structures, net decrease in hardcover, elimi-iation of structures in side setback, and total elimination of structures and hardcover in the delineated wetland setback. Per the request, the net hardcover reduction would be 3.41«/o. The aesthetics of the new structure would also be enhanced compared to the e.xisting detached garage. The addition of the new structure w ould also allow for all vehicles and recreational equipment to be housed within the garage and not be stored out on site. 4. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Economics do not play a role The cost of renovating the existing detached structure would be less than building a new structure and removing the existing structures. 5. “Undo hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct suniight for solar energy systems. Va.nanccs shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section I I6J .06, Subd. 2, w hen tr. harmony with this chapter.” N'A “The Board of Appeals and Adjust.ments or the Council may not pc.Tnu 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.” N/A “The Board of Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a tw o-family dwelling.’’ N/A tf ) lof2^*’ /f Xr V.. ^ 8. **The special conditions applying to the s’xjcmre or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The wetland located on the Owner's property reduces the allowable area to build by more than half. Due to the wetland, the property owner in question and adjacent prcpeny owner share a driveway. The majority of the dnveway. located wnbn the 75' to 250* setback, is on the property in question. Tnis increases the hardcover and decreases the impervious area to the property in question 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures tn the district m which said land IS located." Though many properties in the district have a high water mark setback, not all have a high watermark setback and a delineated w etland setback. Not only dees the property tn question have both setbacks, but the combination of these setbacks also reduces the allowable area to build by more than half. The property m question has another disadvantage due to the majority of the shared dnveway within the 75' to 250' setback located within it's boundaries decreasing the ability to add more hardcover. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and en oyir.eni of a substantial property light of the applicant.” The granting of the application is necessary to allow for the applicant to be able to accommodate vehicles, recreational equipment, and other equipment in a garage instead of stonng on the site. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrarv r* *he intent of the Zoning Code'' The granting of the applicatic , way impair health, safely, comfort, or morals. The request for a garag>. t.on room to accommodate all vehicles and recreational equipment, with no intent of creating a guesthouse, respects the intent of the Zoning Code. The request would also maintain safety by not eliminating the turnaround dnveway. The elimuiation of the turnaround would create a safety issue due to the need for vehicles and recreational equipment to back into traffic on Nor.hshcre Drive to exit and'or enter the property. The elimination of the turnaround would also decrease the access for emergency vehicles. 12. "The granting of such vanance will noi merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difiiculty.” Due to the wetland located on the Owner's property, and the location and condition of the existmg structures, the granting of the variance is necessary to allow for a new niccture to accommodate all vehicles and recreational equipment. The request will also remove all existing hardcover from the delineated wetland setback and all e.xisung hardcover from the side property setback Per the request, the net hardcover reduction would be 3.4l%. ■•'#30 y’■'A /V .‘«v,V. ) i EXHIBIT C Description of Request The Owner ii requesting t variance and conditional use permit to build a new detached garage/recreatjonal building with space for storage, parking for three v’chicles. k bath, hot tub. and recreational room. There is no intention of creating a guesthouse. The request is described as follows: The Ow ner is requesting a new structure in order to store all vehicles and recreational equipment, which currently does not fit within the existing structures. The requested 1 Vt story size of approximately 30' by 40’ is the minimum size required to accommodate all vehicles and recreational equipment. The structure will need to be located on the side property setback to allow for full use of the turn-around. The tum-around will still be required to allow for access into the garage, for safety by eliminating the need for vehicles and recreational equipment to back into traffic on Northshore Drive, and for access of emergency vehicles. The request will solve some existing nonconforming issues by removing the existing invading itruciures from the side property setback and the wetland setback. For the property in question, the hardcover allowance within the 0’ to 250' setback is 10.700 sf The existing hardcover within the 0' to 250' setback u 14.437 sf. or 33 37%. The request will remove all existing hardcover from the delmeated wetland setback and all existing ha.'dcover from the side property setback. Included in the hardcover reduction arc the existing garage, playhouse, planter, sandbox, and a large portion of the driveway. Including the new construction, the net hardcover reduction is 1,478 sf. The current hardcover percentage is 33.37%. Per the request, the new hardcover reduction percentage w ould be 29.96% for a total reduction of 3.41%. #3006 1 Ofl EXHIBIT D 9AMMNC KAUC 38 NO 31311 D«iA«m BY act NO t 0*^ l/'/MO.nvist BOMOMT MCNBCNl I 1 gHECAEO 11 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AULIK DESIGN GROUP, INC. 2625 NORTHSHORE DR. ORONO, MINNESOTA EGAN, FIELD, & NOWAK, INC. 'S urveyors SINCE 1872" 7415 Wayzata Blvo . Minneapous M:nnesota 55426 PHONE; (952) 54B6837 FAX. 052) 54B6839 WEB; EFNSURVEY COM ¥ V. / X y / .»tw ••;• •Xv o. j O •. ^ •• •I i J / / .•■ .y-'-v-v. ./f .'/ /•} —^5vxx>, ’ -Hx* -.ys.;. ;• •• A ■' u - (tjetOv^nofO PCtf‘^br pS ^oo•n^^O Proposed Hardcover Reductions 'x* 1:40 OA mX SS H n L exhibit f EXIBTINtt HARDCOVER IN ZONE ■ SPA. House wv\atn B. Garage C. Dnveway D. Sidewalk E. Pstio/Deck F. Landscape Underlatr) ByPlastie O. RetaMng WaHs H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A *3 lyb * B &g>e .S.F .SF SF. !s.f. .S.F. S.F. S.F. !sf. .SF. SF. .S.F. ^ S.F 3 7PI xlOO - S.F A l«^.fAQ S.F. B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatkVOeck F. Landscape Undedain ByPtasSe G. Retaining Walls H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •» B S.F S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F. .8.F. .S.F. .S.F. B.F. Vo' c >.SF. .S.F. XlOO .S.F. A .8.F. B •ETBACKZONC: (CIRCLE ONE) EXilTIRQ HARDCOVER IN ZQMg A. Houm lj«n0tn HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET •*7r soo*iooo* vwmh MAY. 6.2004 10:47Pri PLLIK & P6S0C O wmiumMCf uffER flook flan vr-r^ N0.625 P.2/2 exhibit I 0g»kiKUMefwmKmxxmnAH \‘\ ''A ■••.>•■ I f'A« ' ,.iiifTa^i.-'i srr • •' •’£• ■ ■ iPwii H« al£t.«r • ' ■ ' -««*-v*» . •• . , p-^CTSi^’- • •■ Vv ' • r./;.lv,./‘-' ’*r* •s ■»*•• . • *'- 5.’.» §Hi\>i'^. •/• .’v^.4- •A<V- . «•■» **•« » .;. ..'i •'. . /■<%! .-: r'>f L % • >-• ___________ _____ /. #- • ,v ^ ; • V ' -"t - * A' r7S<re»rsi-.T:rr-37o'' »T« ;'■ .- A ?;•' J ■ r •' > <; '. -,i .1 'tv ‘C :. .- 5'-'V/■■• ^.T<; ■■"•'................................................ ’ ( '■•• .« *■ ».*■ , »•• I >.•* • .. • •a •*/. • > •.•'!a.. -• . A •. .« ..*% * » '■ . i'-^V USUSm wr A »:•% //■ ^ '\if« .''•;>■' > • # Jir .^ «i :1^ • • /«;• « ^ -* * /•' vA , Kr *-«• I8i#^ 4 •^tT- ^'L 3. RUNtWTEyjVKW 31 0911731130009 ROOAOCM 2*40 NORTH SHOW DO iWNERNAME KIIHOOOfeR* J BHOOOER AXTAYER KENT ho JUDITH BMOOOfcR IAJMEJADOR 2640 NORTH SHOW DR WAVZATAMN 5JJ9I » 0911723410003 ROT AOOR 2549 NORTH SHORE DR IWNERNAME EOWAROJCALLAHAN JR j^XfAYEtl EDWARD J CALLAHAN JR lAME/ADOR ■OX 72 CRYSTAL BAY MN 5J12J 31 0911723420001 ROR ADOR 2699 NORTH SHORE OR IWNERNAME C A UNOELLR J J UNOEIX AXTAYER CRAIOARJENNIEERIIINOELL lAME/AOOR 2699 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 99391 IIENKTPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPIRTYOWNERSI.ICT TAlif I M 09! J2II4O0OJ PROP ADOR lIJO 010 CRYSTAL BAY RDS OWNER NAME THOMAS OR PHYLLIS DCOLWtl I TAXPAYER THOMAS OR PHYLLIS DCOLWHL NAMPyAOOR CX) COLWELL INlXJSlRItS INC I23 3RDSTN MPI^MN 99401 3> 09II7234I0004 PROP ADOR 2969 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAJ4E ILMARIIHEAURM LOmNOLR TAXPAYER itriREYLMARTMAU NAMI7ADOR MELISSA I OTTINOtR 2969 NORTH SHORE OR WAY/ATAMN 99191 M 0911721420002 PROP ADOR 2609 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER name I DJLROML ask JEROME TAXPAYER X3MN DA SANDRA K JEROME NAMI/a DDR 2609 north SHORI DR WAY/ATAMN 99191 II 0911/21410(102 PROP ADOR 2919 NORTH SHORI OR ONHER NAME MARY DALE JESTER TRUSIEE: TAXPAYER MARY DAU JESTER NAMfyAOOR 2919 NORTH SHORE OR WAY/ATAMN 99191 31 091172)410009 PROP ADOR II AOORJ:SSUNAVSI&NI O OWNER name C HARLES A BWCITTA SC IRJEN TAXPAYER CHARLES A BIRCmA St l»EN NAME/AOOR 24M NORTH SHORI DR WAY/ATAMN 99T9I II 091172)42000) PROP ADOR 2429 NOR III SHORE DR UVC-NIRNAME HHfl/IRAE TUIH/IR taxpayer DARTHOCUMEW/ELIZABLTHBUT/LR NAML/ADOR 2*2' NORTH SHORE OR WAV/ATAMN 99191 II 091172)420007 HOP ADOR li AOORESS UNASSKiNH) IWNERNAME IA WALKER ASSWAIKIR AXPAYE* JAMES A A SHARON SWAIKER lAME/AOOR »*•' »««TH MIORE DR ORONOMN 99WI a 9 k t ICRRTIFY TIIATTIIE FACTS RIPRESF.Nl EO ARE: AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENT ATTONOK INFORMATTON AS IT APPEARSTIIIS DATEONTIIE RECORDS OFTIIE HENNEPIN COUNT'Y TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMF>IT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. aCV|i/ DATE 7 by 006 i s H EXHIBIT L L Dttc AppUcalIca Rccchrd: 4-19-04 Dktt Applicalion Contldercd u Compiric: 5-6^4 60-Day Review Period Eipirrt: 7-5-04 Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron. Planning Director May 10.2004 <*04-3007 Harold & Mildred Bower, owners of “1925" Lakcs ’iew Terrace 1) Rcs'ision of City Wetland Map 2) Lot Area Variance Legal Descriptioa: Zonlog District: Lot Area: Lot 2, Block 2, Long Lake Ccuntry Club Addition LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2.0-acre mm. Gross; 43,957 s f (1.01 acres) Delineated wetland: ± 8.130 s. f. (0.19 acre) Area of intenor drainage easement: z 6,120 s.f. (0.13 acre) Net Dry Buildablc; ± 29.700 s.f (0.69 acre) LotStatus: This vac am lot was created- thin the plat ofLong lake Country Club addition in 1961. The applicants arc the {.‘•opcrt> ouncrsoftiiv; adjoining developed residential lot at lOSO Brow n Road North which they purchased in 1970 The applicants have owned this vacant parcel since 1974. Application Summary: Applicants request that the City revise its June 1975 Wetlands Imcmor) and Classification to exclude the portions of this vacant lot that are not wetland under the recent delineation, and to grant a lot area variance to allow the lot to be sold os a building site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the public heanng be held to determine whether Um surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property.. The application cannot proceed without MCWD comments and certification of the wetlanc boundanes. The City Aitomcy also w ill be asked to provide comments regarding the legal aspects of the City’s wetland designation. Once wc know- how the .MCWD stands on this issue, the City Engineer will be asked to comment on the stormwater management implications of declaring ihis not wetland. This review will ultimately require Ubling to the June meeting. List of Exhibits A - Application & Hardship Statement B - Letter of Request C - 2004 Survey with Topography and Wetland Delineation D - 1975 City Wetland Inventory Ov erlay Map (1970 Base Photo) E - 1955 Airphoto; 2004 Airphoto F - 1960 Preliminary Plat inch Topography G - National Wetlands Inventory Map H - Orono Surface Water Management Plan Map I - Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Fimclional Value Assessment of Wetlands Map J - City Wetland Consultant Comments 5-7-04 K - >Vetland Delineation Report L • Plat Map M - Property Owners List •04.30Q7 May 10.2004 Oagc 2 N - Adjacent Owners Acknowled^.ient Forms O - Seu er As-Built Maps P • Code Sections 78-1109 thru 78-1112 Q - Staff sketch R - Watershed Area Topography Procedure While the request for a lot area variance is not out of the ordinary, the request to ‘un-designate’ a City- desipiated wetland is anything but routine. No map amendment process is spectfically defined in the zoning code relative to the 1975 Wetland Inventory Map. We are treating it fiirKtionally os a zoning m:ip revision, but not as arezoning, and it will require a simple majonty (3/5 vote) at the Council level Staff advised the applicant to proceed with the wetland re-designation request application concurrently with the variance application, and we are researching “as we go ” to determine w hat other agencies may need to be involved and what information is necessary to properly review this map revision Background Prior to 1959, this property was part of a single tax parcel used as farni fields. Our set of 1955 aerial photos indicates that the area encompassed by the current lot in question was a wetland by today ’s standards; however, it likely was not considered as wetland in the 1950*s. and Orono did not have a wetland ordinance until 1963. In 1959 a subdivision application was filed to divide the property into half-acrc lots. The City at that lime was in the midst ofdiscussions about minimum lot size for residential lots, and while the preliminaiy plat w as approved by Council as presented, the Council a year later refused to gram final plat approval, indicating Ihe code had changed in the interim and one-acre lots would now be required. Aficr a scries of legal gyraaons, the then property owner agreed to plat with one-acre lots, which plat was recorded in September 1961. Lot 2, the lot in question, had a 20* wide drainage easement platted through it for a drainageway, a ditch leading from the wetland north of the road and leaving the property midway along its south boundary. The plat created 21 one-acre lots, and roads were constructed. Betw cen 1964 and 1969 b* i’ding permits wcteissuedfor3.4oftheloa. Theremairungloiswcrebuiltonintheearly 197(Tsorwoeneverbuilton. In 1970lheBower-sbought the homeat 1080 Brown RoadNorth, and in 1974 acquired the adjacent lot (lhelolinquesuon)fromC3eneralRealtyCompanyasabuffcr. The lot was not a lax forfci property but had delinquent taxes at the time they purchased it The County Deed Tax paid was 52 20 and it is they paid less than 5500 foritaccording to County records. Weassume they also paid3-4 years L N04-J007 May 10.2004 Pact 3 In 1974-75 the Hennepin Conservation District staff prepared for Orono a map of wetlands to be protected by the City, based on soil suivcy maps and overlaid onto a set ofhalf-section B AV airphotos taken in 1970. On the 1970 airphotos, Lakcvicw Terrace cuts through the center ofthc old wetland area, and the wetland overlay indicates that virtually the entire area of Lot 2 is considered as wetland, Soil Type ' Fd'*, w hich indicates filled land. It is assumed that the fill w as added dunng road construction in 1961, but we have not been able to pin it down other than sometime between I9SS and 1970. Jurisdictlooal Autborily The City has relied on the 1974-75 wetland inventory as the definitive mappingof wetlands protected via City ordinance Sections 78-1109 thru 78-1112 (formerly Chapter 10.55 Subs. 5 thru 8). The advent of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) in the early 1990's resulted in an additional layer of protection of wetlands, established a vancty of parameters for defining and delineating w etiands, and established certain timeframes for applicability of those parameters The City has authorized the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MC\VT)) to act as the Local CovemnKnt Unit (LGU) for admmistration of the WCA. Wetlands arc also Federally regulated by the Army Corps ofEngineers. The City code functionally ignores wetlands not shown on the 1974-75 Orono Wetland Inventory, but many small wetland basins not shown on that inventory’ are shown on the various maps used bv tlic .MC\VT) for w etiand administration. These maps include the National Wetland Inventory maps (1989 USDLTWS); the MnDNR’s Protected Waters and Wetlands maps (1983) and MCWD’s “Functional Assessment of Wetlands" (2003). .Additionally, the MCWD requires delineation of wetlands for all development where a w etiand may be involved. Due to the WCA w etiand delineation guidelines, many small Type 1 and 11 wetlands w hich the City never contemplated protecting, are protected under WCA rules. Current Welland Status of **1925“ Lakeview Terrace A)Under City Ordinance 78-1112, virtually the entire lot iscor.sidered as a City-protected wetland, and has carried that status since the City maps were adopted in the 19?0's. The northeasterly portion of the property has been delineated by the applicaiiis' w etland consultant as WCA protected w etland It has been delineated as a “Type 2 (PEM1B) w etland dominated by reed canary grass along with some lake sedge and a few red-osier dogw oods “ This delincauon does not include the ditch area. On .May 10 the applicant was advised, per the recommendation of the City’s wetland consultant, to have the .MCWD certify the w etland boundaries. This certification is still pending. The wetland on Lot 2 is nfil mapped on the NWT maps nor the DNR maps, and is nd mapped on the MCWD’s “Functional Assessment” maps. #04.3007 MiylO.2004 Pm|c4 The area mapped as wetland is relatively flat and opcn,but slightly higher in elevation than the non- dclineatcd wetland to the immediate southwest. This non-dclincaicd area has mature box elder and cottonwoods growing in the old fill. Issues to be Considered 1. Other jurisdictions: - Assuming the MCWD certifies the wetland boundaries as delineated, will they: - require that a buffer be established and maintained? How much buffer? - allow filling of the wetland to accommodate a house, driveway or other amenities? - include the ditch as wetland as they apparently have done with the Monies Auto property, causing problems with future dcvciopment of the site? - Or, will MCWD find that the entire site is filled wetland anu should be restored? - This is not a DNR protected wetland; what is the Corps of Engineers’jurisdictional position in terms of past wetland filling? 2. Functional issues: - The site contains fill soils which have a potential to be unstable for foundation purposes. We don’t have any idea of what’s below the fill... 10' of muck? - The drainageu'ay sei%’cs a specific public p-oipose and must be maintained in its current location; it has the potential to be an amenity to a home on this site, but at the moment it’s a place for debris to collect and for water to flow... • Ifthe delineated wetland cannot be altered, and ifMCWD requires a 16'buffer around it, this lea\’C5 an area meeting LR-1 A setbacks of approximately 50* x 1 00* in tlie lower elevations of the lot, in the filled area, as show n in Exhibit Q. - Further, ifthe City chooses to treat the remaining wetland as City protected and give up the filled area as no longer wetland, then the City’s 26 ’ wetland setback would apply, and the legal building pad area reduces to 50' x 90’... - Because the site is so low. it is likely that fill will be needed to make it buildable. and no basement would be feasible due to the extremely high w ater table... 3. Environmental issues: - Stomiwaier firom the church parking lot drains througli the ditch on Lot 2. The upstream drainage area from the culvert under Lake\iew Terrace is approximately 10-12 acres. The Orono Surface Water Management Plan indicates a stormwater pond is needed at the outlet of the church parking lot... - Lot 2 is the low point in the immc'liaie neighborhood to w hich mnoffnatirally drains. Any home built on the site will have to re-direct drainage to ensure floodir.g does not occur. - The lot appears to have been used as a neighborhood dumping ground... old abandoned appliances are scattered on the site, junk and debris line the drainageway, and an old brush pile is stacked at the northwest comer of the site. All these would likely be eliminated if a home is constructed on the site... #•40007 May I0.20M PattS 4. General issues: - What value to the Citv’ or the public is gained or retained b> not allowing the lot to be developed for a single family residence? WTiat value is gained by allowing it to be built on*’ - Was the City ’s designation of the site as wetland in 1 974 intended to preserve its remaining functions as a runoff collection point for the neighborhood? Or was it intended to prcscrNC the site for future wetland •■cstoration'’ - Does it matter whether the propeny owner was unaware of the wetland designation for this property for the last 30 year,’’ - The property w as purposely not assessed for sewer in the recent sew er project that serv ed the nei^boihood, because the City believ’cd this lot is unbuildable w etland How c% er, a sc%vcr stub was installed to avoid digging up the road if the lot became buildabic in the future. -Applicant states in his letter of request that the parcel w os purchased as a buffer in 1974 Based on information we have gleaned from the County records, applicant purchased it fora minimal sum. The 1974 and 1975 tax records show a value on it of S2.700. - How does the history of tax valuation affect the Planning Commission’s \ iew of this site** WTiile the assessor ’s land valuation for this vacant parcel increased steadily from 55.400 to SI 8.000 during the period 1980 to 2002. for 2003 it jumped to 590,000. Dunng the same 22-year period, the homestead parcel land \ aluc w cut fiom 517,500 to 578.000. with a subs^.antial (but not five-fold) increase in 2003 to 5109,000. It appears the assessor Iras concluded the vacant lot is buildable, since it has been assessed at approx imatcly the same value as the land portion of the applicantc ’ homestead parcel next door. McriU of Lot Area Variance Request The following table illustrates how this lot conforms to the LR-1A standards LR-1 A Lot Area Defined Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. dry buildabic (2.0 acres)200* Actual 29,700 s.f dry buildabic (0.69 acre)290 ’ Setbacks: LR-IA Required Front (North)50 ’ Rear (South)50 ’ Side (East and West)30* WeUand 26’(Orono); 16 ’?(MCWD) Drainageway easement 0 ‘ (but not in easement) Resulting buildable envelope 50* deep x 90-100* wide IV04-3007 Miy 10.2004 raitO Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 43,957 s.f. (1.01 ac.)Allowed: 15%-6.600sf. Hardcover Calcptationi ; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover 500'-1000'43,957 s.f.15,400 s.f. (35%) Hardship Statcmcat Applicant has provided a hardship statement and should also be asked for his testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« considering oppliemtions for vorionce, the Manning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare oj the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and alt, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values oJ property in the surrounding area. The Manning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances nhere their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumuances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it b demanurated that such acHons will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff V, ould make die following comments in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.‘The properly in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The area variance is iiecessan to allow use of the site for residential dwelling purposes. The zoning code would not allow use of this property for accessory uses without a principal stn.cture. It can gain a principal structure by being combined with an adjacent parcel and being used as buffer area as it has been for the past three decades. The key issue is whether the ojjicial controls (City wetland designation and ordinances prohibiting wetland encroachment) are reasonable for this property ‘The plight of the landowner is due to circumsunccs unique to his property not created by the landow ner.” The lot size and wedand status are factors unique to this lot and not under the applicant’s control. •04.3007 May 10.2004 Page? 3. **Thc variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Granting of lot area variance to allow a house to be constructed on the site wili ha\e only a minor impact on the character of the neighborhood, as long as the house meets the setback standards for the 2-acre zone (which will center the house on the lot more than for other tots in the neighborhood which Here de\ eloped under a lesser standard^ 4. "Econemte corrsiderations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Applicant has not suggested that economics are a factor Howe\er. staff cannot ignore that the assessor's recent valuation incrcas* on the property- may be injluencmg the applicant's perceived value of the property 5. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such pr ycrtv or immediately adjoining property." The lot size is ty pical of the immediate area, and all homes in the tmmedtaie area are subject to the 2 acre standards e\en though they are l-acre lots The wetland condition is a unique factor to this propern and the \acant lot across the street from 6. “The conditions do not apply ccncraily to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The lot size is unusually small for the LRl.4 District 7. “The granting of the application isnccessaiy for the preservation and cnjo>-ment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of area \anance is necessary to allow use for residential purposes, ll’liether the applicant has a right to use the property for that purpose is a function of wetland ordinances, laws and rules, how they have been applied in the past and how they will apply now 8. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any vv ay impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other icspcct be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Granting of the area variance to allow a house on the site wdl not he contrr-- to the intent of the Code ij it can be demonstrated that the area designated as w i d is no longer serxing wetland functions and cannot legally be required to be restated to its condition prior to the filling 9. “The granting of such vanance will not merely serv c as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Granting of the lot area variance may supported by hardship due merely to the later- imposed 2-acre requirement Howeser the wetland status of the lot needs to be resolved in order to allow the lot to be built on F V040007 Mty 10,2004 Page I StafT Recommendation Staff recommends that the public hearing be held to detennine whether the surrounding property owners have any comments regarding the lot area variance or the nature of the property. The application cannot proceed without MC WD comments and certification of the wetland boundaries. The Cit>’ Attorney also will be asked to provide comments regarding the legal aspects of the C v-etland designation. Once we know how the MCWD stands on this issue, the City Engineer wit. Aedto comment on the stormwater management implications of declaring this lot to be 'not wetland’. This review will ultimately require ubling to the June meeting. Li City of Orono Variance Application A-1 Street Adsress 2753 Ke ley »arKAa/ Crsrc. V\ £53:3 f.'an S52-24S-4203 fax S52-2A9^5:5 hfa:iing Address P O Box S3 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-::S6 Asp cat.on J* 0^ ~ ^ DateRece.ved i^l A.-.ouatPa:S jrCJ _______ Staff___^.U Fee S6Q3 Rerewal: 5333 Afte'-t^e-fact S* 2C: Dc.: e '"ee 5 ancl’cato^i fc'*^ Tust Pe cc'np eted in f»jii Aps cant wii ce net ted witr.in 15 cays as tc i-e sta..s o* I'c ape .cation Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: _ Site Address; /^.35; Property Ident.ficat on Number (PIN): __y X. c- o /y (Attach legal description to application if not inc’.ded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month,'year): »Y_Aj/j22X ^3 Yes. I own the adjacent parce's Present use of property ]O.Res'.dentia’ BCr er _______________________________________________ Zoning District; ____z i •'- / V.-1 llw-i lyit'Trirrt ?>u' ''ryi' APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Corr.c ete legal na-es arc r-a*tai s^tus recj.red *ar each irtC'esteC paty) Name: //Age*«.i3 Ffi'yrjfru*^ ________ Flioiiu (home): ) '7.c v-vc v-?__________ Pnone (work): 7 ?/ Address o.-v-e ______________ email; ___________________________________________ Pax: __________________________________ OWNER INFORMATION; (Cerrp ete eca ^anres a*c rra-ta s atus;eqj 'eo »cr eacn ii^erested pan/) Name: /vvo ry^A*<^v Pnone (homo)- Phone (workh 7 ~ ^ry 7 Address: Cc 7^<^a/£._______C•.•z a r.«g~~ /t^c ^'7k ^__________ Email: ____________________________________________ ________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost S - --------- Describe the request in detail (attach aedit cna' s-.eets i* necessary): *_______ \f^S^AKCQ. Tc TX^ *31A e/.>£ U. r S> 3.H /tt£<r% u T/f'^~r u.C C^/u SLCt. Zips 7 a ft *73, C9> T- TUf^ SA/^ f^<.^ei Lcr PcJ»r-7-£0 /Is X ^S'D^r^TfAL. cerCaS c’^CJt£. A*-i- oTX£^S j T /i Sr?/J- l/STi^a A< A ^ ... Ac^c- T/e/ Cc y 3 A 0 Hit TV e J>-‘') (l£sn>£^JT/fit. Lc-r CtK>A/7y 'T^7(f 7" /Za /» V * I ^ ^ ^ /^£jCCJ^I>5 ^ Sac L^r7-£/2 Aa/9 flrT/fCf/f^^TS #3007 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: . All of the fol'owing information must be submitl<»d by the application deaslme date in order for your app.icaticn to be processed. □□□□ n□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, corr.p'etid a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - ovmers v/ithin 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map List labels and map may he obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-6C3 300 South 6*'' Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyc'). rreet ng all the requiremerts l.sled within this packet, including hardcover calou ’at.ons Also provde ore copy 8 5’ x ir or ir X 17" for reprodjct'on. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the vahance paci'et) Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11 ’ or 11" X 17" for reproduct on.or I I X1f Tor repiuuuui uii. Sketches or plans of focr and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the oroject. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certif.es that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recogniaes that hc/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature: Applicant’s Signature: Jr,:U/'SZr Date: Date. ^P/. :i» f 9 OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission 8 Council Members for purposes of investigation and verif caticn of this request. Owner's Signature: Ovmer's Signature: Date: Date: //?. .3.0 r » Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to abend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project ’#30 0? Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for eanh sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J 06. Subd. 2, when in harmoriy with this Chapter."Tioriv/ "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 ' A//a ‘The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.”vA____________________________________ 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." 6rc'r//c>. es r / rJ/njC. Xka'/OCtces . 9. 'The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the distnct m which said land is located" 3 r<»v grower n 7 »" A r jt^ & u>^ g "The granti.ng of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." TbTt^i.t.y fcA/?>L&.______________________ •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." rcrAt.uy To i^L:Atm5£^ (f(£jt AcAft/A/g, AMSfingoT'j iPfeeu /ego Taf #3007 ! Page 3 of 3 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or d'fTiculty.* r? APPiJCAeuS,__________________________________________ Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cntena. describe the unique hardsNp. practical difficulty or unusual prope'ty concitions preventing compl.ance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): #eo 07 ..........aiiiiiriitittfti.. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Park/^ay P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 (952) 249^4600 Fax (952)249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET old BoweruEJ Date: 3/17/2004 To: Mark Brickman Fax: 952.474.9583 Re: 1925 Lakeview Terrace. Harold Bower/ Sender: Melanie Curtis, City Planner YOU SHOULD RECEIVE 1 PAGE(S). I\CCUDINS THIS COVER SHEET. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES. PLEASE CALL 952 249-4627 Mark - ' ^— -------- I spoke with Harold Bower today and he asked me to fax you the following infomrat on to you to follow-up that conversation. 1925 Lakevtew Terrace is a 1 acre property (less than 1 acre counting only the dry. hui'dable land) within a 2-acre zone A Lot Area variance is required The property meets the requirement for lot width at 200> In order for anyone to build on this property the following must be completed 1 Wetland delineation 2 Certified Survey of the property including an accurate dep ction of the wetland areas determined on the wetland delineation 3. The City of Orono's official wetland map must be amended to ref.ect the accurate location of the wetland(s) if any - (this map is officially referred to in City Cooe Ta il 09(2) as wetlands inventory and classification aerial plat map overlays, and were prepared by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (these maps were adopted in June. 1975)] 4. Completion of both the Variance Application & General Land Use Application forms and payment of the General Land Use application fee of $600. 5. Sewer assessment of $22,370 - to be paid at the time of building permit application (or by the Harold at the time of application approval if he wishes to pay the assessment rather than the subsequent owner) Harold also asked me when the City ’s map was adopted .. (as stated above) June, 1975. he also asked how the wetland areas were determined. The maps were the result of aerial photo interpretations, and no on-site evaluations were completed at that tme In order for the Harold's application to be placed on a Planning Commission agenda for the above topics; a meeting with staff is required. I would be available to meet with either Harold or yourself - if he will not be in town prior to the submittal date of April 21 (in order to be placed on the May agenda). ^ase give me a call at 952.249.4267 if you or your client have additional questions. A-2. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , „ ^ Site Address CC. Application# 0^ Date Received \^H) U Amount Paid {PCD.L V Type of Application to Pe Filed ^•r£^Oiy>frs Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) - 3..'? ^ g c c/y APPLICANT Name <»a/0 nyi.tf76.o >3: Phone (home)/’.<>af> ■><»•-? CcPP^Of^eAH Cey.'^ ____Phone(work) (S'^y) 7 7/-y>77 7VP/»4i C:ty Atpr AfCZxz ZP7C-'i. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_________________________ Phone (home). Address_____ Phone (work) _City _______ DaifrProperty Acquired____________________________________ I (^))(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. n> FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - __(month/year) $600.03 Residentia' Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ’ $600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ,$600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ' $600.00 Commerciat/Industrial Use [ $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ]____ Gracing and filling - designated wel’.and or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _______$600.00 Vacation _______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 Appeals .. a , y.. .Other- see Fee Schedule fi(pOO-CO #fl0 07 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 8. 9. ,Completed Application Form. . ’ Describe request in detail. f ) “certified Property Owners List of owners within 350'^ the subject property, ’labels and plat map. List, labels and map rh^y bf^tained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Governmentt^ter, A-603 200 South 6 ’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-340*591O). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout fcr "survey information. Attach legal description to application if not included on requred survey. "Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations "involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include mantal status) of all persons with an interest in "the property. This would Include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirem.ents). ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ” persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 3 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS AND 1 COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11” X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, pla.ns etc. to be submir.ed.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Piease remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certif cation by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;^_____________________________Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses Incurred in review of this applicalon. and certif.es that the information su^ed^t^ and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant ’s signature ______________________________________Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ’ Owner's signature________________________________________Date / Applicant must have all submiaa's into the City offices 25 d^s before the Planning Commission Meebng. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppRcants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Coundl. If an applicant Is unable to attend a schedul^ meeUng. please make arrangerrents to have an authorized agent attend in your ptoca and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. r> ’ i April 19.2004 TO CityofOrono (ihcciiy) FROM: Harold and Mildred (Middy) Bower 68 Copperhead Cove Trail Old Fort. NC 28762 (828) 724-4643 SUBJECT: 1925 Lakevnew Terrace (ihc parcel, the lot) BACKGROUND We purchased this parcel of land in 1974 as a “bufrer" between our property at 1080 North Brown Road arid the neighbors to the east of us It was a residential one acre lot as are all of the lots in the Long Lake Country Club Addition. Apparently in 1975. an aerial photo was taken and this lot was labeled a “wetland” without any scientific surface studies being conducted to show the limited area of the wetland Please note that in the accompanying Plat of this addition, approved by the Orono Planning Commission and Village Council of Orono in August 1961 . it states that there are no wet lands in the plat except as designated (none are designated within the boundaries of this parcel. Lot 2 Block 2). (granted that the definitions of w etlands may have been changed since this date in 1961 ) Also the Protective Covenants for this area (Torrertt Title Exhibit “A” Doc No 669783), enclosed, states in paragraph A that “All lots ... shall be known and described as residential lots." Please note that we were never notified of the “wetland" label for this property. In late 2002. it became apparent that we would be moving from Orono due to Middy's employment relocation When w e contacted the city for clarification of the status of this lot, we were then informed of the “wetland" label attached to it and told that a w etland delineation procedure must be obtained to show the extent of the wetland area if it did not encompass the entire lot. We had this study conducted by a licensed organization. Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. in November 2002, (results enclosed) In February. 2004 we had the lot resurveyed to show the boundaries of the wetland delineation (survey enclosed). As of this date w e have entered into a purchase agreement to sell the property to a developer who is familiar with the necessary follow-up procedures that need to be completed in order to construct a residence on this lot A part of this agreement is that the developer will, at their cost, pay for sanitary- sew-er assessments and any improvements that are necessary to ensure that a suitable foundation for a residence be constructed. Please note that a rough measurement of the “non-wetland" area of the lot reveals that a residence of suitable size to conform to the limits imposed by the aforementioned Protective Covenants and to conform to the general aesthetics of the surrounding homes can be constructed in conformance to existing wetland and lot-line setback limitations WITHOUT any vanances THE SITUATION AND REQUEST; We arc now in possession of a purchase agreement for the lot that is labeled a “wetland" and that is the same size as others in this addition but is now nooconforming to the standards of the city (2 acre minimum). We diefefbre request that die city EXPEDITIOUSLY honor our request for a variance to the lot size #3007 r requirement and our requM for an amendment to the city wetland map to correctly label the lot as a residential 1^ instead of a wetland. Based on the following facts 1. The lot was originally platted as a residential lot with no wetlands depicted (aforementioned plat record, approved 1961). The lot was described as a residential lot (aforementioned Document M 669783). Current survey shows that the wetland encompasses a minority area of the lot Current Valuation Information form obtained from Hennepin County Taxpayer Services on March 29,2004 (enclosed) shows that the lot is classified as a residential lot. S. Other lots in this addition were “grandfathered in" as one acre residential lots. We hereby respectfully request that the $600 processing fee be waived in this unique case and that the $600 depexHed this date with the city in order to expedite the accompanying applications be refunded to us 2. 3. 4. NOTE: Mr. Mark Brickman from Coldwell Banker-Bumet will act as our representative at the appropriate city meetings. His telephone number. (932) 470-2344. Sincerely yours. Harold Bower Mildred Bower S O ^i I iiiirttiiiiitiliiitdhi Oa/lt/1004 11;»0 FAI tSt4T495i> 03/16/2884 C9;12 8287714848 CB BllWET IDITKA BILL.V GRAHAM TR CTR Ordar Mo. €79X66 REGISTERED PROPERTY ABSTRACT liBOoa/ooB PU3L 82 A -------aSliO------- Joybor 2fl. 195S _ i.f Vrt.U3L2----tMtllliiO—talk.oCfk*anB.»HtolnrrtftelanA el'fltlM af aMaaBla CMatjr, BMMOte. 1B« rmM iNBimANCC cbiibanv or minnibota 4m h««»y ccrUfn mt a» pf F>rt> filBllt li 1—■»»••*« «b««u M Mlrmi „Bt 2 Block 2 io LOOC Mko Countrj Club Addltioo, oecordloi to tb. plot ««;it oS ia. Odd of r.cord l« to. offtc. of tb. R.gl.cr.r of TUI., la aad for emld M«nQ«plo County lbMict*i4iMt*»*WOntlllei(i«,it«»»tf«ijrtoWfWMd i« tb« foU«wta« ConernX RoBXty Co. (Hionesota eorporatioo) IMNdUlii iwMtovii SubjBOt to utility oBd drBlMgt onBoaoBta as Bbowa om piut. Oa/H/2004 ll!>0 FAI BS1474t5S3 03/16/20B4 09:12 0287714848 CB BURNET UmU BILLV GRAHAM TR CTR Q)dO4/oO0 PAGE 03 CaaerBX R«al«y Co. (Hla&aaota corporation) to Sat Fu'olio Prottetiva Cortnaota Oatad Gaptaabar 22, 19^1 PlXtd Saptaabar 2$, 1961 TraariascarBaln ooranaota k raatrictioaa on all lota in Long Laka Countr/ Club Addition (Saa lahibit ”A”. harato attaehadl 03/16/2004 11:30 FAX 0S24749SS3 03/16/2084 03:12 8297714943 CB BURNET XimU 3ILLV GROhOy CTH ^fiOOS/OUB case 84 EXHIBIT "A" TORRENS TITLE Doc. Ko, 669783 PROTECTIVE COVENANTS FOR LONG LAKE CUNTRY CLUB ADDITION WHEREAS, Conerol Realty Cp., c Minnesota corporation, it th«r owner of the followinQ described property, being the plat known as LONG lake country club addition, now of record In the office of the Regiatror of Titles in ond for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, which lote way be sold from time to time to individual purchasers, end WHEREAS, the said General Realty Co. is desirous of creating building restrictions for all the lots In said LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION, NOW, THEREFORE, the eeid General Realty Co. does hereby covenant end agree with the future owners of the premises embraced In said plat that AS such promises nay bo conveyed from time to time, the same shall bo .jnveyed subject to the following rcstrletiona, to-wit: Tho above daserlbed property is subjact tO the following covenants which shall run with tha land and shall ba binding on all persons claiming under them until January I, 1981, at which time add covenants shot I be automatically sKtended for aueoeeslve periods of 10 years, tir^laas by vote of a majority of tho then owners of the lots it Is agreed to change said covenanta in whole or In part* ^ If the parties hereto, or any of thois, or their heirs or aaslgna, ahall violate any of the covenants herein, it ahalI be lawful for any athar persons owning any real property situated In said dovolopment or subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or In equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to vlo'lote any auch covananta and either to prevent him or them from eo doing or to recover damagaa or other dues for auch violation. Invalidation of ony one of these covenants by judgment or court order ehalI in no wloe affect ony of the other provlaiona which shall remain In full force end effect. A. All lota in the tract shall be, known and described es residential ^n^y one rosidontlal building shell be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any residential building plot, auch reaidentiol building shall be ona detached single family dwelling not to esccod two stories In height and « private garage for not more than 3 cars. B, No building shall be located on any residential building plot nearer than 35 foot to the front lot line nor nearer than 35 feet to any side street line; no building except a detochod garage or other outbuilding located 35 feet or more from the front lot line ahall be located nearer than 5 feet to any aide lot line. Any dwelling aractad on Lots 2, 3* 4# and 5, Block I, shall face or front on Lakevlow Terraco. Any dwelling erected on Lot I, Block I, and Lot I, Block 2, shall feca or front on Lakeview Terrace or Brown Road. Any dwelling erected on Lot I, Block 3* ahall foco or front on Country Club Lane or Brown Read* 0, TNe ground floor area of a one atory detached single family dwelling# excluolve of ona story open porches and garages* shall bs not lass than 1,000 squoro feat. The ground floor area of a two story single feni ly •«# nn«»n oorcKss and oaraoos, shall be not 03/I S/2004 11;30 FAl 952474958 3 03/16/2004 03:12 8207714843 CB BIRNET MXTKA B:L_v 3fWAM TR CT9 21007/009 PAGE 06 LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION • . • I MAX *MI S6AU: r-lOCT ------ EGAN. FIELD G NOWAK ■ 1r M. P. JOHNSON SALXS CO. 7MA MWIMTOIHU tOUtf^MQ ------ DieLU8l¥E ABUTS ft BCALTOftS TILI»HOMe-ftC.t-WB MNMAMUin, 03/18/2004 11:31 FAl 9S2474BS83 63/16/2004 09:12 9297714348 CB BURNET HKTXA filLLV GRA-«W TR CTR I2l008/U0g PAGE 07 -1t%3 LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITK eoan« ncLD a % iummiiif OS/lt/2004 11:11 FAl 9BZ47418I1 83/16/2894 89:12 8287714848 CS BURNET lOmCA EILLV GRAHAM TR CTR •6R7T.O ... ilftU* QOOB/OOf W mee r e I W M I UIMt tt IhP u I If ' ■(•mmU •••■I •!«•••• ••• Sanaff •9|lt*r«r «r Tinea. k*b LMC ee-jB^t * CtM aOITIOfc mt tm ^ O—»* •Hfw** •• iar ^aila aM la^aa*. *■—»> wOBaaf MiiraaT mIc aarAlM^wt. laaTkM ■am laaaa •eeiaaia^it »• ••« Ma aaraar^a aaal ta M aaaaa««a aiilaaa mi«, f a.. •a araaaaaa ati i^laf^ar^ IM, .Qji • —■ ■ aaaalaa.t ^aa.lataal aaart>ary yaL;g!L»-.ag'* •tat« m Maaa mmn m «aBnai>>’ Ami la, tauJaLMf ^a alat «aa aa^a«a« ay iia^aaalat Canalayya a* iM VI Maya af anaMay .aaraa* aalV —iTP^Ttr a«uS(n«iSl^l.t. tin. Cftiaali it y^taa, aiwaaaia at a rayalw taMay Manaat_Mja talLZiCiaf at^7..^ ..ST.—. -------T------n 1--------------------- ' ^ n J/r/T^i2lMi ttaaaya^^^*, »T ■■ ilaTi iraa,-------- aaaaartaa at laia ytM .ay atMiarlaa at ma IfaMa tawyla *yaa aaaa aatyaaMtlirjs sBWi. *• Sstsrcis siiLssesnjc ••••' 4 leant *• lallM aiatt Tay yaiy haraay, ii D* Oirt and material excavated from any lot during construction oF dwelling and garage shall not be removed from said Addition without written consent of pletter of Addition, its successors or assigns, and any dirt or material so excavated shall be placed by the vendee or vendees on a location in said Addition to be designated by the plotter, its successors or assigns, and all such dirt and material shall he end remain in the property of the platter of this Addition, its successors or assigns. E. No trailer, basement, tent, shack, garage, bam or other outbuilding erected in the tract shall at any ti'"t* be used as a residence temporarily or permanently, nor shall any structure of a temporary character be used as o residence. All structures shall be completely finished on the exterior within six months after commencement of the excavation or construction thereof. F. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot nor shall anything be done thereon constituting a nuisance. G. The foregoing restrictions establish a uniform plan for the benefit of all lot owners in LONG LAKE COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION and shall continue as covenants running with the land In favor of all gronteos of said promises in said subdivision. lili c-l /r>'->. rr^ 'v3 e* % f y ■} ■ r •••. V“' .J^r- % ..- • •;".r . “ J-; •-.?* •t »rjf. .V .V t: *.:■ •• ;■ • ' •V- vr’Vv'' ill', 2 ■‘^ ■ u • ••• • • I .^. i '’i-i.i •■• :'X-•..V- irHl* •• ‘ -^i’ r>- '*V.i. 'L: €W Oft 1C.. v' ' ■^^‘.‘•V,v ■^m . r' • \t* # i ii : § c *:7v ?T7r^^^»-3?^PRiSSS«Ka89*'V 1 •V •:••'*■f.'i* .,' »• ■7“ ■.' V* '* • v.v•.»^w^ -\\■tKif> ..*■'.'rvv . '•'i. rmpWSIp I ^.•.» • **./ 4i*.N- W» • -L____ .•: / i 'n /(5(?i ’y. iTlf^rTT —*— V,*-.v I /«5j! V ~-r. -s*.!,* . •f‘ ’V'!'cv/ .... W-li /50t (•' i t ■I •■■\-.g,.-' /6P I iM '/ / ■•: r :'\i. ■ • •- /< - / ■•V '•|-'>10' Orai^gi^s^cr^ / •j*LJ / / '\? t / .. \ V 1 ^ \ \ \ Vr S' . — .. . y t / •• ^ V y' ^ -o / s V<£7 \ ‘'O.- < \ / • /?:,i ] ATSOfyAL WETLAf^DS U^JJTED STATES D£PA!^TJV3Ef^T O /^•/V iRCCnrORO • fi2 bOOi j^^PeMF y « fuaF^Tr"^—'■ T - -t V'\ PEMC--^ P£mC 1 c®* I . K * i) J ?"'■-• ; P£MCd — . f ^ ':'••* x=■ i i 1 /br.K •Lake'': * • V V T «•» *n ^ i'. .% ^x\ ocxIfA ' —^'• •^'’* •■^’ ’ '• ‘ Lrv • k“:-rN>r\ .• •. * /• •: •• ■ : • * X : V '>r ■: • « - •« v< •% m i"':- >> ■-‘ 6do )0P4 •• •• *• !•> •7. •• %’ * ^ vKSafFCS2T-’ 007 no Lak^ “w* r Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecolo|lcal Solution* to Environmcotal ChallenBci Laku * SouRU * Ripanan • ttlanOi * Watenhcdi 2116 Marquis Road Golden Valley. MN SS427 Telephone Taa (763) 545 0912 Bower Lakcvlew Terrace Site Orono. \linncM»ia .Mr, llaroTd Hower Welland Delineation Report November 18.2002 Number: 02120I1B Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecological Solutions to Eovironmental Challenges Lakt» • Strrjmi • RipAmn • U'etiindi • SV itmhcdt DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) n 16 MarjjM k.'a.* Golden ValUn. M\ 554;- Tclephcnc>a\ I6!li 545-0^:.’ t*fcjecvSite ^ t.^Xc .‘fu-r -1 Date t ' / *1^ / 0 V.-. . 4coi*carVOvirrer 0 0 J ^Courry: nvestisator i Slate. 25 Nsrmat C)fCun»s'^nces enst cr the s.te"* 5 the s.:# Significantly d•s^Jrced ,'Ar/ccai Situat.on)'* Yes No Transect lO 1 t ‘Jie area a peter: at Problem Area (e«p:a r cn back}’ Yes No vi P-ci .0 of* VEGETATION •c-L -7» S *k/- :>:-rant P'ant Scccos iSceniif-: Name}Common Name Slraium '■» Cc-.e* ■ • * -J i\' *- <-. A ; *r 7 . r ^Ttym ^ t0 tK.s 3 J <■.. ..- m ~i r>~\vr i .i .f M • ^. , / A X • • d .’v ^*•/•7-7 . f 'V • ’ ••*, ' ^ r.^r 7-‘5 J: -i / r f' •/vr-, f \ -V--r'.r-.M'i.-.. •J ___ •1 ■ '2 ^ "er:ert of Cerrmart Gceces trat are C2. rCCW cr FAC (eicxcr'j *^a C )D J• 1 ’emarks 9• 1 • HYCROLOGY Recorded 2a;a tCesat::e m nerrai^s;. j '<%«Uaru h^dro'cjy :ndi:j!C's ___ Stream. La»e. cr Tide Gau^e j Pr mary lrd.cotcrs ) ___ Aerial Pncicgracr'i ' ___ Other |_A No Recorded Data Ava«<aMe 1 ~.e'd Observations Depth to Surface Water (in) Depth to Free Water n Prt:V7 (in) Depth to Saturated Soil.(in) Inundated Sat'jra'ed <n L'eper 1J* Water Marks Onft Lines Sediment Cepcsas Drainage PaHems ki Wetlands Secondary lndi&atcrsi2 or mere '<c».red , ____ 0»»C .:ed Rcot Chanre s ^ccer r;*, ! ___ V;at#r.Sta>rv»d Leases ^ ____ Local Survey Data j ____ FAC-Neuuai Test ____ Ctrer (Eapiam in Remarxsj ' Rernarks Coer cass as a £er:entagc fl « 5 ■ 75-55S. 4 • 5D-75*i; 3 « 2MC^. 2 ■ 5-25*j * • C 5>, Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc. Ecolo|>ical Solutioos to Eouronmcoul Challcogcs Lako • Snear:* • Ripanat: • '^etlarili • Uiicfjhedi DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE V/etlands Delineation Manual) Z! I«> Marca’. R. a. CeliicnVjlir. ^^^ 554;• Telerhcncr4\ 54‘-'ja;; Prc.ecvSite f-* V , v»Cate U /«- /o*?-. Arsl-carVOwrer f-f^ ^ 3.**^Ccurty f-/1 .-<c»t-ga:rr ^ ^1j State _______ 7.: ‘icrmai Circumstances enst cn tnc $<i«’ Yes No X Corr..T.unitY ID ) i re s.te s15-.1fc.1nth/ disturteS (Ar/picai S'tuatxn)’ Yes No X.Transect ID \ ' \ the area a pctertia! Problem Area (e«pia<n cn bac^)'’ Yes No V _P!ct iO VCGETATICN < -.n--- . f- ra’-t ="jrt Sccces (Sccriifc Narrei Csmmcn Name Strat'jm 'i Cever _L _rr. _ ^0 Ji.✓• r •* > J —. *i.n. . . t • • . • : • • e « 3f Ccn;4raM Gpeoes tnal ate CCL. FAC‘*V cr FAC vOiCJutfirg FAC-). •Jor;jr«5 HYDROLOGY ___ Hecofcec Cata (Desente m Reruinis). j 'Aetand Hydicicgy ind'catsrs; Stream. Lahe. or Tide CauG* Aeral Photographs Cthc' ^ rg-j Oa'a Ava 'at'? ^<e:d Obsenrat:ons Cepth to Surface V/ater Depth *.o Free Water e> Pit Depth to Saturated Soil: ■7^ fm) fm) (in) Primary Indicators: Inundated Sj:«-jtcd n Lptcr *2* V/3*e» Va'Hs Drift Lines Sediment Deposits Oramage Patterns in Wetlands Secondary lndicatsrs(2 or mere recjired. ____OiidiaedPootCharne sC.'ccer ; Water Sia ncd ;; '-rca! Su*‘r?y T * • ___ FAC-Neutral 'n- • ____Other (Eapiam in f wks; ^ I Remarks' Cover ctasa as a percentage 6 • 95-1C3’«. 5»75-95’i. a«5C-75'i. 3«25-5CS 2 • 5»25’t *■ ■ 0-5’» ». . f • ffft t.N Bo'ur l.akexieu I vi rucc Siu* Natitiiiiil Wcllaiul Iii\ciitorv i s l i>Ii ami NN iUllilo Si*i \ici* • * ’ l.>v.i’. • rcoSolulion'*. Inc. / r • V. .’i • i. . J ' fo ■o -iX '(i::^-’'') ’ :*-'c:^. /. V. - - y • •-• * :*'v \( \ , ..-..''^A'S-^Vv. , , - . • * \ 4-v. '•* ’ ''■/ / t. * • I; ; \ 'V . •• V • *'**: •- .-• / .'V'' '• -'^A*.A.-- * . h / • . ' ■•'• ' ' ^} , > ^ ‘ ^ • OJ * ‘/ \A- 1 ."* •■'l u ' V 7r •' •C 'V >. . A- •-. •. . •: ‘.-v 'Ar\'^ . V y \ > ••'/ A 1 f <ONOlAKfc. / ,<y- 'A'.rr?l.c- >., / ~ ..'- '. ^ // r* < -• • r ’ J / in < .................... . .Natural Ucsourcv.s ( onscrvatiuii .Scr\icc (.MU’S) ir 4 M;lc SwMlw » — ...:•- :/{i: Baxter l.ake%iow Terrace Site Aquatic l-'.coSulutions, Inc. •Vm 'Ji/1 lJ Protected Watcrit Inventory of Hennepin County Minnesota Department of Natural Resources I I" l Milo Seale) Bo>«er Lakeview Terrace Site Aquatic EcoSolutlons, Inc. L L w W*V • ' ' • ^ ^ vT 'J ’oV *> t V ^ - v'‘ . .Md > - •-- --------.•.•.«! Approximate r.d'^o l.ocofiop I S (tculo^ical Siiru'v ' N T ' NaiiipU' I’uinl I raiiM*ci Bum IT l.ukc\icM rerrace Site Aquatic KciiSuliitions. Iiic. L RUNDATE:VaMN 31 ]Tiin34300n near AOOR i«j ctxiwniYCUiBRD OWNBtNAME GALFREOEEN TAWAYER OtEHNOALDCEFREOEtH NAME/AOOR ItUCOUNlRV club RD UN40LAKEMN SMM HENNtf'IN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST OF THE HEM<FJ»IN COUNTY SfflVICES DEPARTMOn^THE PAGE! 1 C) O ZONING REGULATIONS I 78-mo defined and esUblithed to be the low areas and floodplain adjoining and including any water course or drainage way or body of water subject to periodic flooding or overflow. These areas are divided into the following three protected area\^/ distnctr. (1) Floodway district (FW). The floodway dis trict shall include those areas designated as floodway in the flood insurance study, including without limiution the surface and shoreline of Lake Minnetonka below elevation 929.4 MSL, the surface and shore* line of other lakes, ponds and wetlands below the ordinary high water elevation, and the designated floodway of all streams and flowage areas. (2) Flood fringe district (FFD). The flood fringe district shall include those areas desig nated as floodway fringe in the flood in surance study, including without limita tion the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka between elevations 929.4 MSL and 931 5 MSL, the area between the floodway and the edge of the 100-year flood on all other lakes, ponds and streams, all designated sheet flow areas, all interminent streams, and ponding areas and all lands contain ing soil types classified as wetlands soils, whether or not there is water standing on those soils at any given time. (3) General floodplain district (GFPj The gen eral floodplain district shall include those areas studied by approximate methods and dcsignotcd as unnumbered A zones by the flood insurance rate map. GFP areas may include both floodway and flood fringe areas. De\’eIopraent of lands con taining designated GFP areas shall be contingent upon submittal by the devel oper of topographic dau (at contour inter vals of no greater than two feet) and/or other engineering analysis sufficient for the city to determine the actual extent of the floodway and/or the flood fringe. Upon such determination, the resthcticms of the FW and FFD disthcu shall apply (Code 1984, { 10.55(4)) Cross mlsieiice Dt&aitioot ftnersUy. 11-2. Sec. 78-1109. Official flood protection maps. (a) The boundaries of the floodplain and wetlands conservation areas shall be and are designated as shown on one or more of the follow- yu ing official maps: ^ (1) Those areas designated and shown as stream, lake, marsh, worded marsh, sub merged marsh, inundation area, intermit tent lake or intermittent streams by the United States Department of the Interior, through the Geological Survey on maps and supporting dau designated as Mound Quadrangle. Minnesota {N\W4 Lake Min netonka (1958)1 and Excelsior Quadran gle. Minnesota (N\V/4 Lake Minnetonka (1958)1. (2) Those areas designated and shown as wetlands soil types on the wetlands inven tory and classification aerial plat map overlays prepared by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District (June. 1975). (3) Those areas designated and shown as general floodplain, floodway or flood fringe by the Federal Insurance Administration on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps. Orono, Minnesota, and Flood Insur ance Rate Maps, Orono. Minnesota, dated October 17. 1978. Specifically included is the explanatory material and tabular in formation conuined in the Federal Insur ance Administration Flood Insurance Study for Orono. Minnesou, dated Apnl 1978 (b) The maps and studies designated in sub section (a) of this section are adopted by reference as the official maps for the establishment of the floodplain and wetlands conservation areas and are made a part of this article as if fully set out in this section. At least one copy of each ofTid.vl map shall be kept on file in the office of the cltrl^ administrator and shall be available for public review during all normal office hours. (Code 1984, i 10 55(5)) See. 78-1110. Zoning use districts. The zoning use districts as designated on the official zoning map shall remain unchanged with CD78;171 17S-1110 OROKO CITY CODE the adop^n of this artiele. The provieione of this article, including tha designation of floodplain and wetlands conservation areas, shall 1m in addition to all other provisioru of this chapter. Whenever conflicts occur between other provi sions of this chapter and provisions of this article, the most restrictive provision shall prevail. (Code 1984, f 10.55(6)) See. 78>1111. Regulatory flood protection el evation. The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elei^tion no lower than one foot above the elevatioo of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain. The regulatory flood protection cle>*ation within the floodway and flood fringe dis- tricu shall be established by adding 10 foot to the base flood water surface eleva tions within floodway listed in the floodway data table contain^ in the flood insur ance study. Regulatory flood protection elevations between cross sections shall be interpolated. (2) The regulatory flood protection elevation for Lake Minnetonka shall be 932 5 MSL. (3) The regulatory flood protection elevation within the general floodplain district shall be calculated by a qualifled registered professional engineer in accordance with procedures set forth in this article. (Code 1984, { 10.55(7)) Sec. 78-lllS. Dcvelopmeat restricted] probi- bitioa. Except as speciflcally permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hard cover, tempo rary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be al lowed within the floodplain and wetlands conser vation area; nor on any lands within 26 feet of such area; nor on any land within 75 fast of the ordinary highwater elevation of any lake shore line, nor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting the area if such activity upon those adjacent areas is incompatible with the policies expressed in this article and the preservation of those conservation areas in their natural state. (Code 1984, i 10.55(8)) Sec. 78-1113. Floodway district (FW). The following uses have a low flood damage potential and do not obstruct flood flows. These uses shall be permitted within the floodway dis- tria to the extent that tl^ are not prohibited by any other provision of this Code and provided all permits or authorisations are received as may be required by other provisions of this Code or reg ulation of other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, including without linuution, the Min nesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and the Lake Minnetonka Conser\*ation District. In addi tion. no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways or any tributary to the main stream or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system, and no use shall adversely affect the quality or quantity of ground- water runoff or the quality of the natural environ ment. (1) Permitted uses, when in confionnance with this chapter, are: a. Agricultural uses, such as pasture, grazing and wild crop harvesting. b. Fish and wildlife sanctuaries. Recreational uses, such as fishing accesses, unpaved hiking, biking, horseback or nature trails, and pic nic areas. Residential uses, such as lawns and gardens, provided no filling, grading or hard cover is involved. Seasonally installed residential boat docks for single-family dwellings. Natural stone riprap shoreline pro tection. Sand beach blankets meeting the requirements of the department of natural resources regulation 6MCAR1502IB. CD78:172 LAKE Nh’........ SO-TA.....J............... DUMV^ I urv 'ROADWAY iwuU RIM=< 1014.48) WV-i 1004.44 ‘ ^ ^ I • • . % t ■*"■1044--.^^KE v Q ... 1......-•■J r. kz2SO.Jo 4=75'’•JO' oq„ «T \s 4^ V t « ‘1013 X MU i* ..A- _WETLAN0S STAKE '' QE WETtiANP..^"^ neWW-^i^';^ M OELiNE TESTINQ* /6o.v ^^25, , J- ~ m.. -5o. V •/'-''-V/ / -f 0 / / I • • * •: -r ‘‘\:i XJSk=?>*<« #2 1:;!:::;;;v1DRAINAGE AND wTCST »^MU «s / '^^/o '<^r/r'D y / 25 ”1'.'1 :s \INAGE AND ,* ' v;^-:uTiuT^^ XINTRY CLUB ADDITION 87®34* 50" W 124.00 ocP Oio 2CSI ' ■ r. A y * dm'-^r fr'3olT So' / # . "■ J 7 j5> •04.3008 May 10. 2004 Pa(c2 af3 LUtofEkhibiU A. Application B. Existing and Proposed Surv ey C. Aerial Photograph D. 1970 Sewer Assessment E. Propeny Owners List F. put Map Background Steven Valck and Ralpli Palmer are the applicants and the owners of 4720 and 4750 Tonkaview, as well as the two separate tax parcels between their home sites. The applicants are requesting to rearrange two of the existing lot lines in order to ~ ake 3 lots where 4 currently exist. Lots 3 and 4 are substandard in both area and width however a single family home could be constructed on both lots - with variances to lot area and lot width. The applicants are requesting to combine these lots in such a way to make their home sites conforming to the Zoning District requirements and make one buildable lot between their home sites. Plattiog Proposed Due to the complexity of the legal descriptions, this rearrangement is being structured as a re-plat of the properly, which will result in simple descriptions (Lots 1. 2, and 3 of Bergquist & Wicklunds Addition to Bergquist 8l Wicklunds Park, Vacated Alley and in the NW V* of section 7-117-23J and will also result in the establishment of standard drainage and utility easements along the new lot boundaries. No existing easements exist along lot boundaries, and the City did not retain any casements when the alley was vacated in 1999 (Ref. Zoning File «2503). Because this is a re-plat that results in a reduction in the number of lots rather than creation of additional lots, no park fee or stormwater trunk fee will be required. Couformance with Zoning Ordinance Currently, out of the four existing lots only one meets the area and width requirements of the LR-IB Zoning District. AAer the re-plat, two of the three lots will meet Zoning Oidinancc regulations with respect to area and w idth. New Lot 2 w ill meet 80% of the lot area and over 80*/. of the lot width requirement. The following tabic lists the new lot specifications proposed by the applicants: LR-lB | 4750 Tories,New Lot 2 i Lot Area I.O acres 1.2 acres — 1.0 acres 0.8 acre 1 L«t Width 140*16S*245-l?5* Plat IU960 ‘ t'Parofl ’ 1500^ r.. 1000< 4000-^ «f 5000-^ •"6000^ '7000^ : ;o 4I9B0 *^75^ 4P,ooa I .'■'I ‘.; ■i “^dvo^* ^*2000 ^Oono '^ 4000*^ ^5000 6uu5^ . 200^ 'i-400^^ :. ! *607*< • ' '609^ ‘1000-^ . . • 1200-^ . 1400'* '. 1600^ •1,1800- , .U2210--- *-^2490< j. :^2600 ‘ I *-iL20OO . 3100- j 0400 •: 1600-^ ’ f WO-' 4930-^ .i.4950;; ' 5OOO-' . •4;* 5200-^ I- > *5400 ■ . 1:0600 ■ 6415^ , 6420^: .]l 6600^i j.|: 6800-' i ! • * !.. h^l . -fe* Afiqnnnnbl.n No, of l‘ootaR« Conn# 10i>,2 1 56.5 1 59-7 1 59.2 1 59.2 0 60.0 1 B/.T'*' '0 ’ 77.5 0BB.8 n 75.1 0 71.1 1 Itt ”0 1 0 1/2 1/2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 AeBrsogtent for Units 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 1270.00 0 1270.00 •■'-635,0(r' 635.00 1270.00 0 1270.00 ^ s Assessnent !; for Footogo : 028.36 440.70 . 465.66 461 461 ^..Asseasmant .-,ror|cpnn^i: 225.00Jii. ; 225.00 1270.00 1270.00 0 635.00 635.00 -50Bi0O-J^’*^'- 493.74 -508^00-^'*'»«* »■ 429.00 •508.0a W1.00 ^ 390.00 -50B,oa- isjoft. 390,00 ■5oaToa 39o_, 0 7Q0.0 423.34 423.34 423.34 1270.00 635.00 635.00 1270.00 1270.00 ay f ij tygteis r> rn rfsrrv 11S0.16 ; 22<.Q0 ^ ■ • MwtiS jn ^M> , ■ ,,. iLtn ao ftft'l'. i. • .J ;*39.92:! ia'*i.;v?25,00.]t. i j 418.08 i 112.50 ». Hi', if-Ji ‘ f, 475.80 : • iU 112.50 :‘V ;tr:•r :! 'f , 4%;)te is V375.25 '^- 1 . . ^ 0. ••• • *, 936.00 ’ r 225.00! \ , 710.00 : • 0 .i • ? ^ 1270.CO 635.00 635.00 635.00 635.00 1270.00 0 1270,00 1270.00 390.00 , 700.00 . 038.50-;.*, fii %^:?6 f 422.76 * f 1292.07 280.80 390.00 i,i- 225.00;|.jr r • m 1 OjlE^V ’ fill Hl'i * ■ 225.00'/«s 390.00:»|j|?i5:r r v , 4!|_ ^ •jS'-ii Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department %j' '» 0711723230010 ,.■ Hous* Number 38 - iC-,V. . SliWMIamb ADDRESS UNASOIONffi and data ItomOty. County. rntdStattnmimMtKxMinmtdcih^ioorm Date Application ReceUed: 4*2I>04 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4-21-04 60.Day Revies* Period Espires: 6-2(MM /O To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director Date: May 12.2004 Subject: d04-3009 James and Darcy LofTler, 1690 Shad>-vvood Road -Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot AreaAVidih: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Required ■ 0.50 acre (21,780 s.f) mm. area, 1(X)’ min. width E.xisung: a) Hennepin County Tax Records; b) 1986 survey - survev-or calc w/o 929.4: c) 5/1204 Staff calc, based on *99 surv ey: d) Submitted hardcover worksheet: 19.344 5 f (0.44 acre) 17.700 s.f (0.41 acre) 16.200 s.f (0.37 acre) 16.283 s f (0.37 acre) For this review, 0-75'“6,/W sf; 75-250-70,700 sf; total lot"!6,283 sf Application Summary': Applicant requests a hardcover \ anances to construct a nev* residence < the property. Other variances are needed for the proposed plan, however. The required variance: include: 1. Lot area (0.37 acre w here 0.50 acre required; does not meet 80% rule) 2. Lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16.3% w here only 15% is allowed 3. 75-250' Hardcover (Proposed - 4297 s.f /lO.lOO sf m zone = 42.5% where 25*/o is allowe4) Other items of note: - All existing structures to be removed • New house will meet average setback and 75' setback, as well as all other required setbacks. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1. .Approval of lot area variance. 2. Denial of any lot coverage variance. 3. Approval of some degree of hardcover va.»^ance in the 31 % range rather than 42*/* as proposed. 4. If the application moves forward w ith a recommendation to Council, a site grading and drainage plan should be submitted for review and approval prior lO Council action. List of Exhibits A - Application & Hardship Statement B - Applicants Letter of Request C • Existing Conditions Survey (1986) D - Existing Conditions Survey (1999) E - Proposed Site Plan (May 11,2(X)4) F - Proposed Plans & Elevations G • Hardcover Calculations K • Photos I - Plat Map J - Properly Owners List K- Neighbor .Acknowledgements L - 1992 Resolution No. 3066 (Var. never used) M - Airphoto depicting Average Setback M04.30M Mty 12.2004 Page 2 Pertiocfll Code Seclioas 1. 78-350: Area, height, lot width and yard requirements for the LR-IC District 2. 78-282 & 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shoreland District Background This ncdrl> conforming lot contains a modest home and detached garagr The existing residence and garage are in fair condition but are in nonconforming locations. The applicant recently purchased the property with the intent of removing the existing structures and constructing a new 2-story residence with attached garage. The property is served w ith municipal sewer and w atcr Lot Area Variance Required. Tlic im size is a factor not controllable by the applicant, and no additional land is av ailable for acquisition The lot area based on the submined luirdcovcr calculations is 0 3" acu**', not quite meeting the 80^o of'/j-acre exemption, and requiring a lot area variance Lot w idlh at the shoreline is 83' and at the 75' setback line :s SO’, meeting the SO*! i standard and not rcquinng a w idth variance. Lot Coverage bv S^ctxires. Based on the hardcover calculations submined (which do not match the sum of the hardcover zone areas used on the site plan) the allow cd lot cov crage by structures is 1 5" b of 16,28.'^ s.f or 2,442 s.f Proposed lot coverage including the house (1686 sO. garage (T20 sO. front cov cred stoop (104s.f)andrearcovcrcdstoop&porch(lSI s0 = 2661 sforl6 3%. There is no hardship to support a lot coverage by structures variance; the house can simply be made smaller. Note that the applica.n: has included open porches, but no open decks, on the lake side of the house. Hardcover Variance. The applicant's hardcov er proposal based on the 1999 surv cy is for 42.5% (4,297 sf) in the 75-250’ zone where only 25? b (2,525 sO is allowed Based on staffcalculations. the 75-250* zone is approximately 10.100 sf in area, not the 11.600 sf used in the calculations submitted by the applicant, From staffs perspective, there is some hardship to support approv a! of a modest v ar • based on th.; lot shape and the need for a backup apron to allow’ forw ard vehicle mo\ cment onto Shadyw ood Road. The degree of hardship supported by the lot shape is c,.lculated as follow s; 16,283 sf / 250* = 65.1* - optimum width for 75-250' Hardcover 65. r X 175' “ 11.393 sf x .25 = 2,848 sf-2,525 sf * 323 sf variance due to lot shape Also, the property should be allow ed a reasonable backup apron. The proposed apron is 261 sf, being 15* wide and 14'deepwith angled comers, allowing easy backing movement. Siaffcansupponihe261 sffor a backup apron. The driveway proposed at 13' wide and 73* long, plus garage apron, has substantial room for offstrcel parking, but could be narrowed significantly to reduce hardcover. \l. »040a09 M«> 12. 2004 Page 3 The other factor that comes into play is the length of the lot and the ncighbonng homes' proximity to the lake. While applicant proposes to place his home to meet the TS' setback, the homes on either side are located just 55' from the shoreline, so applicant would potentially be depnved of lake view s as he moves his new home closer to the road to reduce hardcover. Moving closer to the road also negatively afTecls the average setback line for both neighbors, changing it to make their homes less conforming. Planning Commission must determine w hether this potential reduction m view s and the npacis on adjouung average setback Imes, by moving the house nearer the road, is a hardship thatjustif.es the magnitude of hardcover variances requested From staffs perspective, quantifiable and justifiable ’■5-250' hardco\*er vananccs include 323 sfdue to lot shape and 261 sf in the proposed backup apron. Total allow able '7S-250' hardcover w ould then be 2,525 323 261 « 3,109 sf, (30.S%) as compared to the 4,297 sf (42.5%) proposed. Staff would recommend as a starting point that the drivew ay be reduced in w idth from 13' to I O' for the first 50' from the read, reducing hardcover by 150 s f Additional reductions in hardcov cr should be considered to bnig i-;.«; roperty nearer the 30.S% level. LOT AN.VLYSIS WORKSIIELT Lot Arca/>Vidth : LR-IC Lot Area Defined Lot Width Required 21.780 s f. (0.5 acre)100' Actual 16.283 s.r. (0.37 acre)80-83' Setbacks: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Sueet (West)30'(to be removed)69" Lake (East)75'(to be removed)75' Right Side (SouUi)10'(to be removed)17* house, 10'deck Left Side (North)10'(to be removed)10' Average Lakeshore No Encroac'nmcnt (All homes in line)No encroachment •040009 >U> 12. 2004 Page 3 The Other factor that comes into play is the length of the lot and the neighboring homes' proximity to the lake. While applicant proposes to place his home to meet the 7S' setback, the homes on either side are located j'j St 55' from the shoreline, so applicant isould potentially be depnved of lake news as he moves his new home closer to the road to reduce hardcover. Moving closer to the road also negatively affects the average setback line for both neighbors, changing tt to make their homes less conforming. Planning Commission must determine whether this potential reduction in view s and the mpacis on adjouung average setback lines, by moving the house nearer the road, is a hardship that justif.es the niagiumdc of hardcover variances requested From staff s perspective, quantifiable and justif able 75-250' hardcom vanances include 323 sf due to lot shape and 261 sf in the proposedbackup apron. Total allow able 75-250'hardcover would then be 2,525 323 - 261 « 3,109 sf, (30.8%) as compared to the 4.297 sf (42.5%) proposed Staff would recommend as a starting point that the drivew ay be reduced in w idth from 13' to 1 O’ for the first 50' from the read, reducing hardcover by 150 s f Additional reductions in hardcoN cr should be considered to br ug this property nearer the 30.8®* level. LOT AN.VLYhlS WORKSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth: LR-IC Lot Area Defined Lot Width Required 21.780 s f. (0 5 acre)100' Actual 16.283 s.r. (0.37 acre)80--83' Setbacks: LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Succt (West)30'(to be removed)69- Lake (East)75'(to be removed)75' Right Side (South)10'(to be removed)17’ house, 10'deck Left Side (North)10'(to be removed)10' Average Lakeshore No Encroachment (All homes in line)No encroachment M04-3009 Ma> 12.2004 Pag* 4 Stmrtiira! Coverage ; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 16,283 s.f (0.37 ac.)Allowed 2442 s.f (15.0 »/c) Proposed 2661 s.r. (16.3%) Htrdcovfr Calcutationv Hardcover Zone Total Area Id Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0.75-6.183* S t o*..900 sf(14S%)56 sf (1%) 75-250' 10,100* sf 2.525 s f (25%)2.126 s f (20 8%)4.297 sf (42.5%) Totals 16,283 s f 2.525 sf 3,026 sf 4.353 sf •siafT estimate Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement, and should also be asked for his testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tn contHtring mpplicuiotts fur varianet, tha Planning Commission shall eonsidtr the effect of the proposed variance upon the heaith, safety and neifare of the communit}-, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air. danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property tn the surrounding area. The Planning Coinmisslon shall consider recommending approtal for variances from i-e literal prosisions of the Zoning Code in instances tehere their urict enforcement nottld cause undue hardship Lecause of circumstances unique to the individual 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. Stair finds that substantial hardship exists to support the lot area variance. This lot has had a home on it for decades, is serv ed with all utilities, and is similar in size to most other lots in the neighborhood. Su rr finds no hardship that w ould support a vanance to the I i% limit on lot co\mge by snuemres. The lot is suiuibly sized and shaped that a subsuntial home and garage of over 2400 s. f footprint can be developed without ^e need for vanances. As noted above, suifT finds a number of hardships that might support a variance for hardcover on the site, including; - Lot shape (323 s.f. quantifuble) • Need for backup apron due to County Road (261 s f proposed is acceptable to stall) - Length of lot, relationship to lake setback of homes on either side (not quantified...) •04-3009 >Ur 12.2004 PiftS Issues for CousideratioD 1.Does the fact that applicant will be remov ing ^vo nonconforming structures (garage too near the road, house mostly iihin 75 ’ of the lake) have an>' bearing on whether a hardcover variance should be granted? To what extent, if any, is a hardcover variance justified based on the need keep the house relatively near the lake due to the location of adjacent homes which block peripheral lake views as the house moves further back toward the road? Is there any justification for a lot coverage variance? It appears applicant’s proposal mistakenly assumed the 75-250'zone was 1 l,600s.f in area based on thesur\e>-or*s 1986 numbers, which apparently didn’t account for the 929.4 ’ OfTWX but which also showed a lot size more than 1400 sf greater than depicted by today's survey. The property is relatively f it. wi;h a gentle slope from north ;o south Applicant has not presided a topographical survey nor a grading plan. The house elevation views and floor plans suggest a basement is proposed. This lot should not be filled to create a w alkout, as that w ould place it out of character with the sumoundings. By the same token, the basement floor elevation can be no lower than elevation 932.5*. City topography maps indicate lowest grade at the existing house is about 937'; if they arc correct, abasement could be placed about 4.5' into the ground on the south side. A site grading and drainage plan w ith existing and propo.sed contours w ill be required prior to Council action if this application moves forward. Should the proposed house and site plan be redesigned to reduce the extent ofhardcover variance and eliminate any lot coverage variance? Does the Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns about this proposal? *— I M4.300f May 12.2004 Page 6 Staff Recommcadation Staff recommends as follows: 1. Approval of lot area variance. Denial of any lot coverage variance, limiting the property to 15% of the 16,283 s. f lot area, or 2.442 s.f. of structures exceeding 6' in height. Approval of the degree of hardcover variance necessary to accommodate a house (and its essential amenities) that is conlorming in terms of setbacks and lot coverage; i.e., allow only the amount ofhardcover necessary to functionally accommodate the house, dnveway. necessary sidewalks, AC pad. etc. A 75-250' hardcover variance to allow 3,109 s.f. or 30.8% appears justified; any Planning Commission recommendation for additional hardcover variance should be accompanied by a clear hardship justification. If the applicatioo moves forward with a recommendation to Council, a site grading an drainage plan should be submitted for review and approval prior to Council action. The applicant should be provided w ith clear direction in terms of any revisions that may be required. OptioBt for Action 1. Approve per applicant's request. Approve or partially approve w ith conditions, forw ard to Council Table for submittal of revisions to be review nj at a future PC meeting. Denial. Other City of Orono Variance Application street Aaass - A;pi:;at!on * 2750 Ke ley ParKway C^TTrir oate Received ^ -‘Z.j Crcno VN 5£3Se va- £52-245-6=:: fax S52 -245-65*S Va.’rj Ac::ress P O EoxE5 Crys'^i Bay MN £5323-:C=3 Ansvr.t Pa:d j^fr CC^ sar; Fee . 56::___________ RerrA/al;S333 A*e*-tr.e-?act 2:: Dc j: e ^ee Th s aap'catoi fo-m rr.uat be ccrnc'eted " fj '. Ar; ca-t v* ce rctfed wiV'.n 15 days as ts tne stat.s of t^e appi caiicn Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; ______________ Property IdentTication Number (PIN);’ i *7 i IT — t- o o 1 rflATION: _ I Us^O ‘bkaclv^«AjQ jd (Attach legal descriptlcn to aop’.ication if net i-c -bed on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/yea'): fln4- □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels Present use of properly: ^Residential □ Ciner_______________________ Zoning District; l i C APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Cc'rsete legal r,a-es ard frar^sta^:s recuired »or eacn iPte'ested pary) Name nvA T^orry ^---------------- Phone (home); Phonfe (work): _____ t?Al4ri»^ I^ACl ^.^ Ud ✓y ^5T?if'7________Address Q4*^ Email: OWNER INFORMATION: (Cc-r.p*e:e legal names i-c rrama s;atu5^^^^?fo^eath^^eres•.^ Nam.e. _____ Phone (hom.e): Address: ___ Email: Phone (work): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the recuest in detail (attach additicnal sheets if necessary); _____________ ________cc..'W' t^df .• >.iXj✓y o iT c'j— _____________________ sTlO < Cc'y^Ls** f ( Ti r ^ ~fk^ <2^__________TM_________________^_________ / 9 .i-% AgrTfCt'/eV* \xvVA#U .S-^ftgVa iJ^ uv« L»^ti I rzi^-<c_ ra^wa/ U^/VAi'/n ropdir’jr^-ZiQ-c^ < tlcrn ^ JJL tn: , n ’!# o O <i.y '' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS; All of the following information must be submitted by the application dead.r.e date «r order *cr your application to be processed. ^ Pre-App 'Cation Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form V Completed Hardship Documentation Fo'm X Certified Property Owners List - owners w.thin 150* of the subject property, labels and plat map. ^ List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Departrr.ent of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6 ’*" Street. M nneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 d Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting a l the requi'ements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculaticrs Also provide ore copy 8 5’ x 11* or 11’ X 17* for reproductor. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). □ Topographic sur'/ey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5’ x 11’ or 11" X 17* for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of f.oor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11’or11’x 17’) □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project ’ APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the cr.ginal fee payment) ard/or consultant expenses incurred in review cf this application and certifes that the ir/ormation suppl ed is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request r^ardless ^ts potential merit. Applicant’s Sianaturei^^*^^^^^»^ ________________Date: Applicant’s Signature: ^ '' '' Date. OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: *The cwner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applcation and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner ’s Signature: Owner's Signature: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Ccmm.ission Meetings are normally held on the tnird Monday cf each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. k.* u ■* * .7.= Page I of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An app Icatior w.ii not be considered complete cr placed on ary meeting agendas until tf'is form is complete and submitted to the C'ty. ______________ ______________ Minnesota State Statue Section 3S4.27, SutCvision 7 requires that a hardsh p be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and rot the land owner. Personal and economic Sftuaticrs are no: ccnsidered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission anc City Council a ha'dsh.lp havrg mer.t rust be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis C*ty staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, adcress all the relevant points I sled below and answer them as c’earl/ as pcssible Since you are requesting the cede exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. Tne informal cn the City receives is what is used in detern.nng a den.al or approval recommendaticn If you leave som.elhin.g out it will not be considered. Please address each c* these hardship cr.teria as they relate to the request (som.e m.ay not apply) "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." 1. 2. "The plight o* the landcwner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." ^ 3. "The variance, if granted w'll not alter the essentia! cha-acter of the localih/.** "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." # p. n Page 3 of 3 12. *Tho granting of such variance will not merely serve as a conver^ience to t^.e applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty * Hardship Statement , Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be desaibed in the above criteria, descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventrg compjance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); o r*! f ■' ■rg’-A- .y. V. I7/ ^ w fci Property ov.-neT requests a hardcover variance at 1690 Shady Wood Drive. Rather than adding on to existing stnicttnrs the propeny otvner is consideing removing the ctirrem 19.2% hardcover within the 75 foot setback and the existing entry monuments and garage located within the roadway easement. Additionally, the property markers and current garage is located close to County Road 19 and 51 >vithin the city easement. Safety concerns. The highway is located on County Road 19 and 51 which is heavily traveled. The shape of the lot is such that considerable additional hardcover is needed for automobiles to turn around so they can safely drive forward onto the county road eliminating the need to back out into on-coming traffic. A hardship is created by the unusual shape of the lot angle w hich pu*.s nearly a third of the lot within the 75 foot setback. This combined w ith the angle and length of the lot requires a longer driveway and safety turn around. Under section 78-123 of issuances for variances, undue hardship also includes but is not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight. Additional hardship is created because the angle of the lot at the s'ueet dictates the garage should be on the south side of the lot to reduce the amoimt of driveway length needed between the street and the garage. Placing the garage on the south side would block the sun to the home from 12:00pm on eliminating substantial passive heating and lighting benefits as allowed under the code. The property owner will remove the existing structure wall and steps within the 0-75 setback (more than 19.2% including steps). In addition the large entry monuments and the garage will be removed from the highway $et back area. Homeowner puts a high value on the preservation of our lake quality and will make a conscientious effort to use materials that that will aide in the absorption of runoff. Property owner is requesting a reasonable hardcover variance to allow for a modestly sized home with a foot print of approximently 1, 700 square feet and a minimum amount of additional hardcover for a garage, driveway, walkways and decking. Thank You Jim and Darcy LoHler Jl tt I CERT.nCATE OF SURVEY FOR JACK F. RHODE OF LOT 10 AND IN LOT 11, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA jCr - ' VI- ij - •' L*t *e r« i*«i ••rl •• Ml »»!»»«»> Mr'V •• IM U« •* 1^ *•>» -(M *WI •« M« Ml IV BM M M •* &r«l> hr vw«a Ikarr* wi» »«•••• •• I • aMi** r«> •>•« W>«| rt«n«i U »wa !«• •' In* M*<« •« a**!** •< •• Mala* *•>•( vr*** an* •* an >ar«*a * *M* *tt aaaan •• ra> a-. *t<*r anri •*«*>aM •• l*<nnr^ *1 in* w* a*»trf *a «a'**' i« va S*«*ra*i *«wa •! Ma*M ** •mMm lati *iw I t*« aa-t I* in* «>»«• aa •• taa mi h r***'t». aa> •< 0 ■**»■ *< COFFIIUCROXBERC, WC: «u TmmMi aim. iM JMC « MJM ' CiiAA* *L-» V «iB^-••t mp^ »•«« ti Mi ^ w* «c•w* . 4 Mf w<M| m 9 < I «• M . <* aCMr W*J “»TT“ jet %5 |5 M0^arM4»□ H»fMH«t In • 1 ■ 1 l+.n. I|- 11 4!i_J il F • J □ .■TP ■:—5 HA^W“ n- *10 ?fl/HI/l i-—>1 T** 7e»>|ia “ t##f Mfu. ?rs» ■rrti *ffte HAI SETBACK ZONE: (ORCLEONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN /.ONE [R CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250* 250-500T SOO-IOOT A. House Langfft Wdtfi B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatkWDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic ^ - M G. Retaining Walls H. Other 7 •' s’'*.' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A W PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ungti B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dedc F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Retaining ____ KOther ____ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY^iREA IN ZONE HARDCOVER C SCTBACKZOfie: (CIRCLE ONC) O-TS* eoariMQ hardcover in zone K Houm X WORKSHEET 29G-SO(r SQO-1000* B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PaVo/Deck F. Landscapa Undarlain ByPlaitie O. Rataining WaSs H. Other 9S-i' X X X X X X X X X VAAif9 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -g I PROPOSED HARDCON/gR IN ZONE A. House B. Garage C. Driveway meciuL^ D. Sidewalk ____£ E. Pallo/Deck caat F. tarxtecape Urxlertain By Plastic G. Retaining Wala H. Ottier ♦ B X X X X X X X X X // ucrg* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ^ ZONE ♦ B IlhGD SF. S.F. 00 S.F. ;s.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SP. ___SF. A ___S.F. B I % S.F. S.F. 73.0 S.F. S.F .SF. ,S.F. S.F. _____IS.F. .SP. _________.S.F. 3C0 SP. whoo > • n xlOO ___8P. A ___8.F. B 3Al ; \-i I :ih ildrl ' I ■ -C:; lA » i^‘* • ^.•4 •v l:V: x-t ^ . ■* Jl^- ^ r :^'', -r. ^'J J " " I Honnopin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department -r' Parcel Information 10 ITliTMaiOOIT SS-T'*-* ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM l(w®), [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plaru for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at A 4*^0 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 neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. I (we) - »“ »\j [print name(s)k j hri"r hi of /"7/.0 /ii *oorl ?(V It name(s)Vy |^t address) have reviewed the plans for 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 conrirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Coundl approval. 7 T^Y'irCl' ratify Ownfer^ j Date / / / Property Owner Date If you have any infonnation 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. # A 'j I'Oi M CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3066 A.Major upgrading of the property will result in the following changes to existing substandard conditions: 55 ‘ 10* 61* 4. 1) Lakeshore setback: Required ■ 75’ Existing Principal Structure « Existing Accessory Structure - Proposed Principal Structure " , Proposed Accessorv Structure * 59’ (second level deck extends 2' beyond lakefront of principal residence) Variance:Existing Principal Structure -20 or 26% Proposed Principal Structure - 14 or 10.6% Existing Accessory Structure - 65* or 86% Proposed Accessory Structure « 16* or 21% (second story upper level deck) 2) Hardcover within the 0-75' setback area: Allowed ■ 0 s.f. Existing - 926 s.f. or 15.8% Proposed “ 812 s.f. or 13.5% Total Reduction ■ 2.5% B- The application involves no need for a hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area as applicant proposes removal of major portions or existing hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. C. The use of the existing foundation will provide less of an impact on the lakeshore property. D. The original structure was placed on the property prior to current standards for lakeshore development. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 /o o\'I i-i 'SV. ^ A-y CITYof OROXO ^esUo^ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3066 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and iritent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. COHCLOSIONS, ORDER AMD COMDZTZONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to permit the construction of a new residence structure using the existing foundation subject to the following conditions: 1.All hardcover scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the final inspection by the Building staff for the new construction. Please refer to Exhibit A of this resolution for hardcover areas designated for removal. 2. 3. Applicant to provide a Highway Department permit for the relocated curb cut to the site. Applicant or applicant's architect shall provide the Building staff with the engineering data or findings that confirm the existing foundation oan sustain the proposed 2-story structure at the time of application for a building permit. Applicant is hereby advised that, if for any reason unknown at this time, the existing foundation cannot be used, all improvements shall be installed per an amended plan that shall meet current standards of the City for development of lakeshore properties. If the amended improvement plan does not meet all applicable standards, applicant shall file a new variance application with the City. Page 3 of 5 I **.U 'VI CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3C65 3.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Coxincil approval, or this variance will expire on that date (January 27, 1993). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and coril^ions of this variance shall constitute a violation o£ the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adoj-ted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 27th day of January, 1992. Dorothy llallin, City Cl« Property Owneris) Cleric Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN The foregoing instrtsnent was acdcnowledged before me on this 27th day of January 1992, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Cleric of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. CASOU A. MASEIMN NOTMT nauB-MaeaeTA HSNNtMN COUNTY MV OOMMaCM OMO MMB Notary Public ' Page 4 of 3 —•x.—rr: •;;! CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL no._£^!1__ STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) S8. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) _ _ day of 199 befor«*8i« a Notary Public within and^for sa^d county, personally foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTJkHv^iuilUC - MtW.eSOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My eorv*»wfl« %*onn •-va-«Notary Public ” bTJffTE'Ot HiWIfciOiA T )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) before"me a Notary Public*^within and for said county, personally knoii?*to^ me to be the person(a) described in and wtio executed t^ foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. f kmaXi » •• f i ’>^- : * . *"m ./vv; / • • >f .-M! I '•* K •v;'.: ;. .« Y. •IT^4: :S: 5 • V* >S. as?** 4te i>\ '^4 \ ^ iP^^" ■v;^'4^ t-'T- . r-'-i\ t I.J V'V-. -;;4I DECEIVEO mat i / c\:.-5/l7L/of \^^/uO'/ \„^tZZiA^ ~l& :z/a£‘ ' ^a^^IkA!6 /7/C? \S^'tZefuUrms(7^ shj/of FlE •34.X‘2 ViyS 2904 P«e«'efS Date Appikatiofl Rccthcd: 04-21-04 Dale AppHcatkMi CoB»ider»d as Complete: 04-28-04 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 06-28-O4 To: Chair Mabusih arid Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cit>- Admimsirator From: Melanie Curtis. City Planner Dale: May 11.2004 Subject: 04-3012, Roger O’Shaughnessy, 1265 Brackett's Point Road - Variances & CUP - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre minimum Lot Area: 3.3 acres (144,491 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A hardcover variance to allow 550 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' zone in order to construct a 62'x 6’ boardwalk to the shore ending with a 205 s.f. landing. 2. A lake setback variance in order to construct a wire mesh fence along Bracken’s Point Road within 75’ of the OHWL extending to the northeast 56’ 3". 3. A conditional use permit and variance to allow grading, filling and retaining wall construction within the floodplain. 4. A conditional use permit in order to construct chimneys 40 ’ 8" in height where 30 ’ is allowed and a 5011» height increase is permitted by conditional use permit. Stqff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff r'*' ammends the following: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow himney heights of 40 ’ 8" where a 30 ’ maximum is normally allowed. 2. Approval of the variance and conditional use permit for construction and fill within the floodplain incorporating the recommendations of the MCWD and the City Engineer. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance for 550 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone 4. Denial of the variance to allow a fence within 75’ of the lake.________________ Pcrtiueol Zoning Ordinance Sections • Sec. 78-1112. Development restricted; prohibition. • Sec. 78-1114. Flood f^ge district. • Sec. 78-1117. Standards for floodway and flood fringe conditional uses. • Sec. 78-1279. (5) Fences, docks, reiaimng walls. • Sec. 78-1282. Stairways, lifts, and landings. • Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations • Sec. 78-1366. Height of structures FILE •04.30*2 Vay 3 2C34 Psga3of 3 LR-IA Required Proposed Rear 50*60*^ South Side 30*90*- North Side Street 50*200*- Lakeshore 75*80*-^ Stniclural CovcriEt; The lot is 3.3 acres; ihercfore the 15% structural coverage limit does not apply. Hardcover Cticijfations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 49.071 s.f.Os.f (0%) 550.1 s f. (1.1%) 75 - 250 95.420 S.f.23.855 s.f. (25%) 23.188 s.f (24.2 »/o) Lake Setback Variance Tho applicant has proposed a wire mesh fence within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka. The Shorcland Zoning Ordinance prohibits any fence w ithin 75* of the nnWL. Hardcover Variance The applicant has requested a variance for a 62*x 6 ’ boardwtuk and 207 s.f. landing in order to have access to the lakeshore through the proposed nati\c floodplain vegetation and transition from boardwalk to a dock. Flood Fringe District The applicant has requested a variance and conditional use permit in order to cortstruci an retaining wall and to fill within the flood fringe. Retaining walls, grading and a drain tile system have been designed to assist in managing the storm water which inundates the site from Brackett's Point Road. These updates require a variance and a conditional use permit under the Shoreland Overlay District. Conditional t’s« Permit Review Application of Section 78*1117 (Standards for floodway and flood fringe conditional uses) to this request. 78-1117(a): AH uses. No structorc (temporary or permanent), fill, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials, equipment, or other use may he allowed as conditional uses which, acting alone or in combination with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, adversely affect the capacity of the floodway or increases flood heights. FILE •C4-3012 May 3 2004 Page 4 of 5 1. No fill shall be deposited in the fiood\\ay, and any fill deposited in the flood fnnge shall be no more than the minimal amount nccessar>' to conduct a conditional use. Generally, fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way further obstruct the flow of flood waters. a The fill proposed for this application is the minimum amount necessary 2. Spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. a. Sot applicable. 3. All fill shall be protected from erosion by vegetative cover in the form of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the council. a The area to be filled and graded will be vegetated with native floodplain shrubs and grasses. 4. All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only clean fill. a This requirement will he monitored by the City Engineer Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tn coiuldering appUcatiotu for variance, the Planning Commiition shaii contider the effect of the proponed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, 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 Ptanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the tUeral provblons of the 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 approval only when U is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code, The Shoreland Overlay District allows stairways, lifts and landings in favor of major topographic alterations on steep slopes and bluffs and the City views the hardcover from such structures to be allowed within 75 ’ of the lake. However. Planning Staff finds that this property is very flat and does not require any topographic alterations for which to access the lakeshore and an alternative path could be designed which would not be considered hardcover. Additionally, the Shoreland Overlay District prohibits fences from being constructed within the required lake yard. As this property is a rebuild situation any existing fence would be required to be removed as it would have a nonconforming status and all nonconforming buildings/structures are required to be removed at the time of the demolition of the existing principal structure. Staff does not find a hardship for granting the variance to allow a fence within 75* of the lake. FILE i04.M12 May 3. 2004 PagaSofS SufT does find a hardship by which to grant the request to fill and construct retaining walls within the floodplain. This is due to the low nature of this property and a significant portion of the south half of the lot is within the floodplain rendering it unbuildable. The retaining walls and alterations are in pan to allow the property owner access to the property during wet periods and to control the stormwater run off from the street. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that a hardship exists due to the flat lot to justify granting the hardcover within the 75* lake setback to allow the boardw ’alk and landing? 2. Docs the security issue justify the 0-75 ’ fence request, or are there other options for demarcation and/or limiting pedestrian or traffic onto the property? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? SlafT Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the following; 1 . Approval of the conditional use permit to allow chimney heights of 40* 8 ” where a 30* maximum is normally allowed. 2. Approval of the variance and conditional use permit for construction and fill within the floodplain incorporating the recommendations of the MCWD and the City Engineer. Denial of the hardcover variance for 550 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Denial of the variance to allow a fence within 75* of the lake. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 • ____Completeci Application Form 2. ____Describe request in Oetaii. --------Cer.i*^ed Property Owners List of owners wuh n 350 ’ of the subject p'opeiy :abe:s and plat rrap. List. labels and nap nay be obtained from Hennepin County Depaament cf Finance. Govemment Center, A-603 3C0 South 6'-^ Street, f/ nneapolis. telephone 612-348-5910). --------Ce-tiflcate of Sunrey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. — Attach legal description to application if rot included on recji'’ed sur.'ey — Topograpnic survey (existing and proposed contours) f land a'tera*ions involve changes m elevation (graces) — List 0* the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an in-erest m the property. This would include rame(s) of appi.cant(s) if not current owner(s). — Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements), — As an addendum to this application, please attacn a seoarate list of any ct^er persons you wish nolired of this application. SUBMITTED. (Staff will require sca'ed drawings of ail docurrents. plans etc to be subm.tted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must s.gn this applicat on. Piease remember that your application is not complete f the above information has not been included Certification by Clerical Depart.ment that La-d Use Application .s complete Initials of Clerical Staff;___________________________Qgte 5. 6. 8. 9 APPLICANrS SIGNATURE The appljrant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered oy or n nai fee Applicant’s signr/.ure nj" mF* X* Da‘e OWNER’S SIGNATURE / . acknowledges and agrees to this ap/iication and fu-tner authorized reasonable entj^ onto tne p'operty by Ci^ staff, consuitants. agents, commission reauesY*’ ^‘emfce'S for p,ur;^s of inv^tigat^on and vorificafon of this Owner's signa^Jre _ _ ^ - App! cant rriisl have ail suP.-.S's into offices' Planning Commlssicn Vee*j>gs B'e "e d on the thirp “days befc'e the jnpay of each rro: Date 'a.nr.ng Carrrrlsson Vee*.>nj_ Applicants m.st be present* .............^ 0 9 9 3 3^ iTB \Tirz 0 63C at ail scheduled review rreet ngs of the Panning Cofi*niss:on and Co-j£cI if an aaoi.ca-n/^r'.nrt; attend a scn.eduied n-eetrg. please make arrange.rerts to have an aS^^zed a* en^d and advise the 3uiid.ng & or=e of th-s change pr or to the rrAug ’ ® ■f'14 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST APPLICANT; Roger D. O’Shaughncssy RESIDHNXE: 1265 Bracketts Point Road. Orono. Minitcscta The subject property is located in Zoning District LR-l A. Section 78-305 of the Orono Code requires that no structure or building in the LR-l A District shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or 30 feet ;n height, except as provided in Section 78-1366. Section 78-l366(a)(9) provides that the height of a chimney may be increased by conditional use permit by 50%. Under th«e regulations, the height of a chimney in the LR-l A District may be increased up to 45 feet in height. The applicant seeks to obtain a conditional use permit that would pennii construction of several chimneys at the Bracketts Road premises, none of which would exceed 40 feet, 8 inches in height, all as shown on the side view elevations. See, spccif.cally, the height limit diagram. a29S6464\l PI. '■V*i •7 XJ V -IL ife - ^dtik»T A City of Orono Variance Application StrB9tA:farBSs: 275C Key.ey ParVway Orcno. r.'N 55355 Main; 952-243.4530 fax: 932-249^616 M»iling.Addrass: P.O. Box 65 Crysia Bay. MN 55323-:-:55 Asp :at on 12. □ate Receive Staff: Amojnl Pi ivet?. UH U >\2Ju0 ^ Uot-i S600 Renewal: S303 After.t*ne-fact;5-.230 Dousig Fee This applicaton form must be comaie'.ed in f^^H. App'cant w'li be not fled w.r. n 15 Cays as to ‘J-s status o' tre application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 1265 Erackecca PoinctRoad Property Identification Number (PIN); 11-117-21-32-0010 (Attach legal description tc application if not fnc'jced cn the survey.) Date Progeny Acquired (month/year):K ay 2033 □ Yes. I ovm the adjacent parcels. Present use of property; □ Residential □ Otier Zoning District:LR-IA INFORMATION: (Complete !egal ne“es and marital status recuired for eac!^ inte'ested party) Name: Roger P. O'Shaughceasv (uniRarrled) Phone (home); Address. _________________________ Email: ccracygcardinalcorp. coc ___________________________ Phone (work); 10562 Eatate Drive, Eder. Prairie, KN 55347 (952) 935-1722 Fax: (952) 935-5538 OWNER INFORMATION; (Co.mp'ete legal names c.'d martal status recui.-ed for eacn interes-ed ca-y) Name: aane me above __________ Phone (home); Phone fwork): ” ------- Address: - Email; "— DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; Estimated Pro ect Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): 6^^ The Applicant seeks a variance from the Citv of Qrono’s Lakeshore Hard Cover and Land Alteration Regulations (Orono City Code at Section 78-282V That Ordinance prohibits excavating;, fillmg. hard cover. tempofarv or permanent structures within 75 feet of th loreline. The Applicant requests a vanance from this requirement to pemiit construction of 1) slatted boait, -/*• ecrrnit access from the house to the lake without disturbing an area to be reolamcd in native marsh an.' .• . md vegetation thus eliminating the sod: and 2) a fence paraUelip,g_Bracketts Point Road a; the south en: site In addition, the Applicant seeks a variance to allow grading and construction of retaining walls in the floodplain to facilitate r?*i^^ggntent of stormwater runoff from Brackens Point Road and the Applicanfs property and to ensure that the Applicant wil^ have access to his property during wet periods._____________________________________________ #3012 ; I required SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Pianne'. □ Completed Application Form C Completed Hardship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners Us* - owners v;itrin 150' cf the subject p-ppe-ty, aOs's a"d p'at mao. List, labe's and map may be obtained from Hennepin Ccunr/ Department cf Finance. Government Center. A-603 3C0 South S'" Street, Minneapolis, telephone 6l2-348-59t0 C Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meet.ng all the requirements listed within this packet, including ha.’’dcover caicuiations. Also provide one copy 8 5' x tt' or 11" X 17" for reproduction □ Completed hardcover calculation v/orksheets (as provided vwthin the variance packet). □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of foor and elevation views (provide cne copy 3.5" x 11 “ or 11 ” x 17"). □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on tne scope of the project. * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the cr.ginal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application and cerjf es that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/she Is solely responsible for submitting a complete ao^cation being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reJecO^ntjl it is^^mplete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless off typoterltial rherit. Applicant ’s Signature; Applicant ’s Signature: Date; Date. 4-129 OWNER ’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and a^ees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City paff.^nsultar^ agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verlf^f.o^f this freest. OwrerV.. Signature: Owner’s Signature: Data: Date: *4-I2 joIc4 Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Comm.isslon Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend In place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project -f! \ ach'.bN- ^ Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required tubmittal for ALL variarce app.lcatlons. app idi not be conldered complete c' p'3=ed on any meetrg agendas urui tr.s - - corr.plete and subT. tted to tne C:ty. ___________ St3 ‘ue S“ct'0n 39^27. Subdivis on 7 recuires tnat a ba'dsnp be demonstrated in order for a vanar'.ce to be granted. The hardship rust be property as varianeea run with me land and not me lard owner. srlJations are not considered va.'rd herdsnics. In '“f»" s)l the Planning Commission and City Council a hardsnip hav rg me t demonstrated. tees Cty a.af u.„ td.determire ,1 a ha^;P exists and how th.e variance wiH affect the surrcundu-g ccmrr.unpy. To P'®;;® ® address all the re'evant points listed below ar'.o answer t-em as clearly as pcss.bi- Snce you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden ^ variance is justified. Tne information tne City receives s what :s used n de.errr.nirg a denial or approval recommendation if you leave scretn ng out .t w«.l not be ccnstCered Please address each of these hardship chter.a as tney relate to the request (seme nay not apply): 1. -The propety in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used unoer conditons allowed by the official centre’s * See attached._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -The olight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to i" s p'oeerty not created by the landowner.’* The variance Is nade necessary by the unusual configuration of let espacially at its aouthern and together — elevation and route of Brac'aetts Point Road. ----- 3.-The variance, If granted, will not alter the essert a character of the local *.'/." The variance, If gran ted, will be consistent with the character_ of the locality. _________________ -Econctnic considerations alcne shall not constitute an undue ha-dsh-p if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. atraehad. _______________ ■- #30'IS Pags2of3 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances sha'I be granted for earth sneitered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section V.6J OS. Subd 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." _____Not apolleablc. ________ __ ___ "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter far property in the zone v^here the affected person’s land is located." !■ approerlaf ta applicable tcr.in^. 7. "The Board or Council may permH as a vara-ce the temccrary use of a one-family dwelling as a twa-famity dv^.el!ing " _Not •ppllcablt. "The special candtions aopiymg to the structu'e or land in q.eston a-e pec-..ar to such property or immed ateiy adjoining property." Stt attached. "The conditions do rot apply generally to ether land or struct-'es m the district in which said land is located.* "The granting of the application is necessary (or the prese-vat on and enjCyrrent of a substantial property right of the applicant." The variance. If granted, vlll provide access to the la’it^*, ensure driveway access during wet periods, aar.&ge srorxvater effectively, and will provide fer aafetv, security, and privacy.____________ •The granting of the proposed vaiance wll! not in any way impai' hea'tn safety, comfort, morals, cr in any ol"'er respect be contrary to the intent of fne Zoning Code.* HAitP^HIP STATEMENT 1265 Bracketts Point Road Boardwatk : The Apphcan: intends to replace ike sodded lawn currently :>mg within the 75 fool shoicUne set back area with a meadow consisting of native floodplain shrubs and grasses. The restoration of Uic shorcland setback area from sod to native f.oodplain shubs and grasses will provide a bufTer bordering Lake Minnetonka that will help protect water quality, stabilize tire lakeshorc bank, prevent erosion, and also assist in f.itering out nutrients, sediments and other pollutants from entering the lake. Tne Applicant also seeks to maintain access to tire lakeshorc from his heme. For that purpose, the Applicant proposes to cor.stnict a slatted wood boardwalk The boardwalk will be suspended above the ground surface. The ground surface beneath the boardwalk will be stabilized with erosion control fabric to prevent erosion in those areas where vegetation is not expected to survive. For most of its extent, the boardwalk will be no greater than six feet in width. Near the lake, ihe width of the boardwalk w i-1 b; .Treased up to 15 feet, to help facilitate transit on to a dock, which is to be constructed in the f.i\.r; and fu. •r protect the lestorcd natural vegetation from “staging** activities near the lakeshorc. If the variance were not granted, Uic Applicant would be unable to access the lakeshorc w uhout damaging ihe native floodplain grasses to be planted m the shoreline se: back area. The variance is necessary to preserv-e the enjoyment of a subsiantial propr.iy right of the Applicant, i e, access to and enjoyment of Lake Mmnetoitka, while encouraging the voluntary restoration of the lakeshorc area to nattvc floodplain grasses and shrubs. Given the substantial benefit that Lake Minnetonka will enjoy by this voluntary restoration, granting the proposed variance will not impair the public health and safely, but rather will serve to encourage such values. Fencine The Applicant proposes to construct a wire mesh fence along the por.ions of the property that fronts Bracketts Point Road and County Road 15. The purpose of the fence is to provide the Applicant with security for his property, privacy and safety for Applicant's grandcltildrcr. who will play on the property. Only that ponion of the fence that parallels Bracketts Point Road will encroach into Ute shoreline set back area. *ntis area is at the southerly end of the property and runs for a distance of approximately 56 feel. At the property lines that are “pcipendicular ” to the lakeshorc at both the north and the south ends of the property, any necessary screening from adjacent roads and properties would be achieved tlirough relatively dense plantings of native shrubs and lree«, rather than w'iih a fence. The requested variance is made necessary only as a result of the unusual configuration of Bracketts Point Road. To the south of the Applicant's property, Brackens Point Road encroaches into the shoreline setback area and closely follows the lake shore. To be efTective, the fence should not stop arbitrarily, but rather should be allowed to follow the entire length of the property as it follows Bracketts Point Road. Granting of the variance application is necessary ■S) •O •V: to provide the Applicant with substantial er.jC>Tnent of his property by providing privacy, security and child safety Retaining Wall and Grading. As shown in the topographical survey, the elevation of the southern half of the Applicant's property is below the surface elevation of Brackens Point Road. As a consequence, street stormwater has traditionally drained onto the site. To provide stormwater rate control and water quality control, the Applicant proposes to construct a retention area (i e , an infiltration area) in the southerly portion of the property. On the easterly portion of the infiltrauan area (i e., “uplaitd * or towards Bracketts Point Road) a stone retaining wall will be constructed to enliance the capacity of the infiltraticn area in a relatively flat ponion of the site A swale will be constructed to direct stormwater runofT from Bracketts Point Road and the propeny to the infiltration area. Because the topography in this area is extremely flat and only slightly above the Ordinary High Water Elevation of Lake Minnetonka, drain tile will be placed under the swale and retaining wall to provide minimal gravity flow (at 0.4Vb slope) into the infiltiation area. No outlet directly into the lake is being pioposed. Tire retaining wall w ill not encroach into the lakeshorc setback area, although the grading to create the infiltration area will encroach. The infiltration area and swale will be planted with native floodplain species and it is expected that the vegetation will provide some degree c f water quality treatment. In addition, it is necessary to elevate the area of the driveway in the floodplain so that the Applicant may access his propeny during wet periods or when the eIev.ition of Lake Minnetonka IS higher than nonnal. The mean high water level of Lake Miimetonka typically nscs by at least 7 inches during the spring and summer. The elevated area of the driveway will be held by two letaining walls on cither side of the driveway entrance from Bracketts Point Road. A culvert will pass beneath the driveway entrance and through the retaining walls to allow stormwater to continue to flow through the swale into the infiltration area As show'n by the attached Site Grading and Drainage Plan, the volume of fill in the f.oodplain will be compensated by the volume of the cut into the floodplain. Tlie holding capacity of the floodplain, thus, should not be diminished, as demonstrated in the enclosed f.oodplain volume calculations. The topography at the southerly end of the s:te ioge±er with tnc configuration of Bracketts Point Road as it travels south necessitates that stormwater handling be addressed in this single family residential dcvclopinciit. Tl'.e pioposcd variance will not impair public health or safety; but rather is expected to advance environmental concerns by handling stormwater runoff fiom Bracketts Point Road in an environmentally responsible manner. Finally, y constructing Lhe infiltration area together wdih the retaining walls and elevation of the driveway entrance, the Applicant ’s access to and enjoyment of his property will be enabled by treating and handling stormwater from the adjacent street in a controlled and environmentally responsible way. ■2950$41U #3012 Exhibit D Pace 3 district, provided all storage meets the requirements of the B-2 district. k. Other accessory uses not specifically listed when appro\ cd by the council, but no use shall be approved which will restrict or obstruct any flo^ flow or which w ill raise the le\ cl of any flood flow. l. All structures constnicted as conditional uses shall be constructed in accordance with the state building code. (Code 1984. §§ 10.55(9), 10.55(10); Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 3, 4-4-1998) Sec. 78-1117. Standards for floodway and flood fringe conditional uses. (a) All uses No structure (temporary or permanent), fill, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials, equipment, or other use may be allow ed as conditional uses w hich, acting alone or in combination with existing or reasonably anticipated future uses, adversely affect the capacity of the floodway or increases flood heights. (1) No fill shall be deposited in the floodway. and any fill deposited in the flood fringe shall be no more than the minimal amount necessary to conduct a conditional use. Generally, fill shall be limited to that needed to grade or landscape for that use and shall not in any way further obsirua the flow of floodwaters. (2) Spoil from dredging shall not be deposited in the floodway nor in the flood fringe. (3) All fill shall be protected from erosion b> \ cgctaiix c co\ er in *hc fonn of grass, natural ground covers, shrubs and trees as determined by the council. (4) (b) All filling and grading activities shall be performed with only clean fill. Struct .ra! work for flood control Structural work for flood control, such as dams, levees, dikes and floodw alls. shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of public wnters which will change the course, current or cross section of the waters shall be subject to the provisions of all applicable statutes. (Code 1984, § 10.55(11)) Sec. 78-1279. Placcncnl of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (1) Structure arui on-site sew-erage system setbacks fm feet) from ordinary i Exhibit D Paces standards of subsections (IMS) of section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed abo\ at or below grade. (Ord.Ko. 101 2nd series. § 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2-24-1992) Sec, 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impers ious surface shall be placed, locau-d or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, liOs, 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 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 OflWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. (Old. No. 101 2nd scries. § I(10.56(I6KL)). 2-24-1992) Sec. 78-1366. Height of structures. (a) The height limitations imposed by other provisions of this chapter may be increased by conditional use permit by 50 percent when applied to the following structures: (1)Church spires. (2)Belfries. (3)Cupolas and domes which do not contain useable space. (4)Monuments. (5)Water towers. (6)Fire and hose towers. (7)Observation towers. (8)Flagpoles. (9)Chimneys. (10)Smokestacks. Exhibit D Pate6 (11) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above height of the building. (12) Cooling towers. (13) Elevator penthouses. (b) Heights in excess of those allowed under subsection (a) of this section for the uses enumerated in that subsection may be permitted only by conditional use permit granted pursuant to the procedures as set forth in article V, division 2. of this chapter. b b u b b lLW "r -• ■i— ,-;'i-'b bflW< osssu^ ----------- ^*‘r •’ ««____________ »^?.ivt m^m *:• . ^ ■ :.'.i 1265 Bracketts Point Rd.Conditional Use Permit 4. 21 . 2004 -'* rr“^.r ! ■y............ ; ^ -------------- N'- / / / \ \ •• v^., v--^e''-* •\l ->,'A •^.r: * • C • • » I c • * lit !•••• IM|««« !:nH;’li!: asuuoMssv Rnidanci IdMMMrifenU ril'nBMUl PROPERTY PLAN DtAGRAM ^^^ t * - , wm tf^t 141 m» »in •9^ • nmnr ^ »V UMk»0 f » ^1^ I J : m»j* *«^vrv>-« » * -M A# ^ M mmm ^ mm r «an f%4 t«a. • i»• t««o k^m -« m immnmmm t# 30 I M •/.)tsrz,^ --W n «• trim ■ m0 •! « r.*raa r ■t>i r*a- *•* • •« ■» .«»* iTfcx « cMwi « «_w V iMW/«i M«ka «. A •'••• •« »i» ««r»fc uttm •» rfM ax*»» » ■ uti ■* • I* • «'*• «r«Tt NncMt • ■• jm*€^ no n) iBiii'ii'iii fr^ ~^l ......................?. . OM * ^ M »nr >»« 9 «• «» nc;r :«i > » w. « •«!• «• '< HEIGHT LIMIT DIAGRAM ^ t - - T -l+A I a* M w mu attdM « ■ n«i r '« «• vMit ij lac ««Mw » I •■< ■«■#•*« Mr • <« *«^ «*» •*<r>«l • •** MB » M M • ^ !>..««, ' ■ aiMla H WU na a t« rv * M ■■« Ml wMa M fWM M« ••%*«« ■mmsMiiaB i ^___ m mum mu»» ■ bt «r ■ too • • oua ua* ar*c «. ^xmj mm» raMs • ^ awEva a» ■ <c aai b ^J* '» M ••«»* fvai «*:«'■ ■ Ml CM I Btej ■ >f na •« I# tM 0VICINITY MAP f M* >■ •• ZONING INFORMATION A0.02 1 r%: rA^>i aam 'raw v«•n TT H)at ]-Ml 1^ □ 3 cmI an □ ‘MOM 9 *q 0PR^PERTy.;Y P^N DIAGRAM I rfm rnnmnr -r —rv-j----------------- r ’•■• OJill..........-1-=,,,. A« r> HEIGHT UMIT DIAGRAM ,-ts V^-rnr—----------------------------------^ I « »a* • * ■ «* <uMB <» »< CM mtt xt » -. icM » t CM «« xar ■ ^ an I <nB r*a •mx. • i % . i • oa ■nee » •• ym^~- . •«ll^ tMM JMM VM* ■> acil ^ ■•: 1 3*»c MC • a ^ «« I0« » V m tKT SCI » » cci« a m (rj /<■.■■■• r ym VM « <Mc:««» m «<• I «« wm m I» i I » CMB • M <1 J>€Xm « CM«« B ^ iBLiflU •« iMMAI BAM BM UMKM l«K «« ^ •• «M» V M «% TIITr M* VOtt |H ^ • il»AiR>« *C ^11 — AM Llm»m m ttfi l**>m ■ »tt» «W* ; :A£jhAB n m iim f '• a* I AtttM 9 OMft CKJMM 9 «iaA « «p «rvn «9iUA« • MW' no cni KMJ .Mr I (Mn I M ■ 9 Mr • M I :x«Q ar <!—■ >nc » jcm c wa a« aacai com Mcva ••_.■: act » m m a .»•**• xi . d. . .a c« m « cas.^ reran :»■« mc* ^ ** "^‘^ •**'*'*'•*^ *^'* •“*** ■*** ic a uai ■ *« aaaa rca a m av » m cm aa v cm *« res aa «aa * • < » a« tarci nc a • • « >^wa»>n >-«t m^tmt eao ■ a •« •« x ac I • • BA c* (( Ac Mx«i I ©VICINITY MAP /> • \;7j^ ■r:* • h SppS IH *M»«M aSHAUGHNESSY IlMklwiOi A •• UUMmmib4o MmcMC C,.- a>«» ,ia «t ZONING INFORMATION A0.02 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. HOjse ________________ L*ng» Cp^75.250*250 500*500-1000* B. Garagt C. Driveway D Sidewalk E Pat o/Deck F. Larvlscape Underlairt By Plastic G. Otner TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ________________ ♦ B , PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________________ X .*100 LanSLi B Garage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Palic/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. ,SF. SF. SF SF SF. A SF. 6 ,SF. SF S.F 550 1 SF. .S.F. .SF. S.F. SF. .SF .S.F SF SF. SF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 550 t________ -I. B S50.1 490710 49071.0 XlOO ____S.F. A ____S.F. B 11 % ^ 2 /■ . .•> ... ... GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC 445 N. WIUOW DR. LONG LAKE. MN 55356 ---------- - _____0.1 jy/4U(p//A^erx,r ------------------------ ______________ ^/r/^jfry^A/.-C^icr.________ .................................... . fr-zc-o*/........... ........... ..jTZU . /4Af4j ...................................... .. ___________________ ...cujtcc A/a./ SC * X Z* HO,/'At/C. - S7 r./T.. S.------ .lOMU AJO.Z S7'XZ'X O.S'At/O. T; S^ c./^, ................... xa./'Auc. ? .// C./^. . .......... . 2Y'x 2'X O.f' Mi/C. /.9 cr.................., .................... 2'>t 0.2S'/ze. - *f Cf. ...:.......... . 9/ c.r. =. MZ4U A/a. 3 /o'x z'X 0.7'au C. ~ C CA. .................. ........... Z*/'x Z'x O.C'Ai/c. - C.F. 93'x 2'x 0.2S'4Uc . - 2Z C.F. /'x 2' XO,/C'At/F. ~ / C.F...................... 7 OF. rar/c 9/ C.F. raT/i. Jf/AU AX*.*/ ys'n / 'x O.ZC'/UC = y OF a/ju A/o.s vr'xi'x o.is'ai /o:^ zt c .f .SCAM /. Ja'x 3'X a.V At/C. r /s C.F Scam Z . Zc'x 3' X 0.yxAC.^ /2 C.F .SAtt/C Aa CA ______________ ■ CCarM AACA Aa ACA. uaL _________ ...o' J/aa S.F. 97^ C.F.------------------ ^<2,^.1. . S‘,F. ^ ---------- ^fP __________ /Ol3 CF. z s^ C.F. rar/c r.. y C.F. A'ar/L " Zy C.F, rarac - /S C.F, F ft /l .=* /Z C.F. rarjc CCtT A AC A CO/rc*/ AAt4 ) AO C.F Fart u A23 7 C.F. TOTAL f ^-YC-c.r.---------- ACA t//AA€4 /afa . t/at A/CoaF,F. ^ /2J7 ?Sor.F. ------------------ tZ31 -fr/’. -T^4L - <‘ur ______^=1 Xc..x,h. ! RUN DATE 4/I4OTM ]| 101172)140012 PROP ADDK )l ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME R f BtIRWLLL A II F. DURWFIX TAXfAVFR RODNEY fDURWtU. NAML/ADOR 7901 XERXES AVE S t20l MfLSMN SS4JI J1 11117212)0009 fROPADDR I4B9SIIOREUNEDR OWNER NAME R K NEWKIRK A NJ NEWKIRK TAXEAVER RK NEWKIRK A NJNEWKIRK NAME/ADOR MI9SIIORfcirNEDR WAY/A7AMN SJ)9I II 111172)2)0016 fROE ADUR I4M GREEN IRLLS RD OWNER NAME CASMAIOU TAXPAYER CARL A SUSAN PLATOU NAME/ADOR GREEN TREES RD WAYZATAMN i))9l 31 111172)120016 PROPADOR )l ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME G M DANKO A N R DANKO TAXPAYER OEiJRCEM A NANC Y R DANKO NAME/ADOR DIOGREFN TREES RD WAYZATAMN 5))9I 31 111172)320019 PROPADOR I2W BRACKETTS POINT RD OWNER NAME )AMI5 V NYC EAlItVERI.Y II NYC E taxpayer iamcs V NYCEAILVEKLY H NYCE NAME/ADOR 1210 HRACKETTS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 53)91 HENNEPIN tOUNry PROPERTY INFOKMAIIUN SYSTEM PRCJPHRTV OWNERS LIST PAUb; 31 10II721I400I5 PROPADOR 1100 MilISTONRO OWNER NAME R P UURWEU A E F. HERWFI I. TAXPAYER RODNEY PBURWELl. NAMF/ADDR 7901 XERXES AVE S *201 IlLOOMINGION MN 55431 31 111172)2)0014 PROP ADOR 1520 GREEN FREIS RO OWNER NAME U D RVI.RSE )R A M 1. RYIRSE taxpayer DORANCEDRVERSE NAMF/ADDR l520GR:ENlRtESRD WAYZATAMV 55)91 )| ||||72J)200I0 PROPADDR 1265 HRACKE.nS POINT RD OWNER NAME ROCil R DOMIAUGIINESSfcY TAXPAYER R(K»ER OCTSIIAUOIINESSEY NAME/ADOR *05*7 tSIAIE OK I Dl N PRAIRIE MN 55)47 )| 111172)320017 PROP ADDR I )00 BRACKEnS POIN F RD OWNER NAME GEORGE S PILLSRURY ET AL IAXPAYER liEOROE S PILLSBURY NAMF2AOOR MAROUEHE AVE *26)0 MPISMN 55402 31 1111721)20020 PROP ADDR 1400 BRACKf.nS POINT RD OWNER NAME JAMES R A MARY J7UNDT TAXPAYER JAMES R A MARY JJUNDF NAME/ADDR l«» BRACKETTS POIN) RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 PROP ADDR OW’NFR NAME taxpayer NAML/AOIIH )l ||II72)2)0U0I 1491 shorfiinedr JANET CKIF.RNAN JANET < KRIER 1491 SHOREUNF DR WAY/ATAMN 55)91 )• 111172)2 )00 1 5 PKOP ADDR 1510 GREEN TRl I S RD OWNER NAME G M DANKO A N R DANKO TAXPAYER ClORGL M A NANCY R DANKO NAMI/ADDR I 'I® GRJ FJ4 TREES RD WAY/ATAMN 55)91 )B 111172)320015 PROPADDR Jl ADDRESS l/NASSKiNED OWNER NAME D D RYERSE JR A M I. RYERSE TAXPAYER OORANCED RYERSE NAMI7ADDR l»» GREENIREES RD WAY/ATAMN 55)91 )g 1111723)20011 PROP ADDR 1220 DRACKETTS POINT RD OWNER NAME JULt M IIANNAEORD IV ET AL TAXPAYER JUIE M HANNAFORD IV A SAMI/ADDR ILI/ABETH a HANNAFORD 1220 BRAC KEnS POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 )R im72))2002l PROP ADDR 1200 URACKEnS PT RO OWNFJl NAME JOHN C NOBLE TRUSTEE TAXPAYER JOHNCNOBLE NAME/ADOR 1200 DRACKbns PT RD WAY/ATAMN 55)91 4 5 *■ -J 0) i 31 IIII72J3200IJ PROP ADDR » ADDRESS UNASSKiNED OWNER NAME JOHN C^<^^ TRUSTEE TAXPAYER JOMPjOJ^LE NAME/ADDR 1260 BRACKETTS PTRD WAYZATAMN 55)91 iM 111172)320001 PROP ADOR 1200 BRACKETTS POINT RD OWNER NAME JOHNCflwCrfRUSTKE taxpayer JOHNClf^ NAME/ADDR 'M® BRAClttTTS PT RD WAYZATAMN 35)91 H 4 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM l(vw), [print name(s}][print address] have reviewed the plans foLthe proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ia.^s »MOKMTC>frk lso referred to as Land Use Application No Q1r «30/3L. I (wo) 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 Properly Owner Date a eewee >ee»eeeee»ee»e%»e 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 scheduled meeting date. L REC c JVEO «:av V i(v«) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [SSnTnameCsjj [print addn^) /^c'nc, iT'fr57 | CITY OFORONo i have reviewed the plans forJhe proposed improvement or proposed use of the pr^rty located at q^^KMTCfcft^tso referred to as Land Use Application No.OIr "3fOt!3L. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disappraval of the property or use but m^ly to confirm for the City Counal that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Prqper^^owner Date ^mperty Owner Date eeeeeeeeeeeeeeaeeeeeeeeeeee^^ee e»^^eeeeeeeeeee>ee»»ee»ee^eeee^e»eee»eea#eeeeeee»ee 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 scheduled meeting date. Honncpin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department I'1' ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS* ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (printnam^s)l ' ’ (^nt address) Zr!r?ftSfi pueI (we) undera ?r%m proposed proa juiod s»8)p^8poou pue (aouepis^ 83An ) lujod sus)pejg 09ZL P 9P!S MPOS atp uo ^AiaiRrfinjli^Tif ntiipirt tun »m laieM munis uiei fiiaing. (eouapised Pr^rty Owner AMau6neMS,0 paSSiioJd) lUjOd sua)pejg S92l. P Jaujoo iseaipnos aMl ejg jO uoipod pauMO umoi a^) 6uo |b a6eu|ejp oN ^ ajaiij. V ___ proposed improvement or proposed use of ilso referred to as Land Use 1 (we) use requires Council approval. le ^)pejg jo u<^( Zi )* pai»d^4|jMfOio fo lUMitaAONfuif p^todcjd oin JOi su9id q^fm uj9ouoo/9nssi /v/vuaio^ 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 scheduled meeting date. - oJbbcqjt-ic).. - C) C>- P O’. ■ t-- pA^-t c ^“vc Xa (^ w-r -• - ^ S. -a • c^. Rotfidal i99U9/concmm with plans for tfM propoMd lmpro¥9m9nt oi property loc9i9d at 12$5 Btwek9tts Point Road. Thaw It MO drainage along the town WNned portion of Bracketts Point Road at the southeast comer of 1265 Bracketts Point (proposed O'Shaugnessy Ratidenca). During rain storms water accumulatet in the prairie restoration area on the south side of 1280 Bracketts Point (Nyce residence) and floods Bracketts Point Road. Concern is that the relocation of the driveway phis locating a signiffcant portion of the house and patio to the south east comer of 1265 Bracketts Point w^ significantly increase water runoff and flooding of Bcackatls Point Road and ^ 4'sen PrmrVaWm Point PlmiQg ConuiuMiaq City ofOiooo M«y 17,2004 Pl«e2 nion meeting on uo our concerns. Sinceidy. JcMmlundt ^ Ktannapin Coumy, MN Click o.i map to view intbimoHon on adjoining pmpcniei Scroll down to see property address, vnlue & tax infoum-rn ^U'C rcUA_111 m MM 151 lajjlipi LmmMx V«»70C4a; I 00 PM READ LMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INF0RM.VT10> BELOW Property ID 11-117-23-32-0010 Property Addreas 13CS UmeURTf POZBT HD OKOao, m S9991 ApproxvMte Property Peciseter 1.913 fL Market Value f 2.770,000 Approxiaate Property Area 144.491 sq.fl. - 3.317 acres Total Tax (2004) $ 34.800.S4 Click on Property Infonxiation Button below to view mnm tax infonnation page for the property you have selected Tne data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records arxl maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed lano surveyor The perimeter and area (square footage and aaes) are approximates and may contain discrepancies The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee tre accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrep'eseniat.on of this information or its derivatives. Please report any map liiscrepanctes to Bob Moulder (Hennepin County Survey Division) at (61?) 346-2618 or via e-mail at Bob.MoulderfPco.henneDin.mn us The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting and is best viewed at 600x600 screen resolution This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2 01 or later version for proper operation ■04-MI4 May I7.M04 Pacclara Date AppUcatiOQ Rtctfvcd: 4-21-04 Data AppUcation Considered at Complete: 5-5-04 M-Day Review Period Expires: 7-4-04 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date: May 6.2004 Subject: #04-3014, Timothy Powers, 3210 Navarre Lane • Rear Yard Setback Variance • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/i acre min.) Lot Area: 0.36 acres (15.720 s.f.) Lot Width: 126.Sfeet AppUcation 5«iMiNa;>v Applicant requests the follow ing variance in order to construct a second story above the existing first story, and add two garage stalls: 1. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 24.5 feet when 30 feel is normally required and 24,5 feet currently e.xists (existing shed will be removed). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plans as submitted. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot w'idth and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obserx'ed; Lot Area (acre) Lot W'idih (feet)Fforrt Yard (feet) j Side Yard (feet)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 05 lOO 30 1 to 30 i 15 Lht of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Survey - Existing Conditions Exhibit D > Proposed Site Plan Exhibit E- Hardcover Calculations (Revised Calcs Reflecting Garage Addition Pending) Exhibit F - Proposed Elevations Exhibit G- Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit H - Photographs Exhibit I - Property (^Tier’s List Exhibit;-Plat Map Exhibit K - Opinion of Applicant's Structural Engineer •94.MI4 May 17, 20M Past2#r4 Backgroand The applicant recently acquired the property and has met with staff to discuss plans to renovate the existing structure. The applicant was versed on the differences benaeen a renovation and rebuild in terms of the Planning Department review process. All conversatiotu centered on the project being reviewed as a renovation, bearing in mind no formal plans were submitted until the actual variance application. The applicant was advised that the existing house has a non-conforming rear yard setback of 24.6 feet for the attached garage and 27* for the existing house, where 30 feet is normally required. The applicant has proposed a second story to the existing house, plus a two-stall addition to the garage, requiring approval to maintain the existing 24.6* and 27’ non-conforming rear yard setbacks. This property applied for a rear yard setback variance in the summer of 2001 for construction of an additional stall to the existing garage. That variance was never acted on as a current surv ey and hardcover calculations were never submitted. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHCET Lot Area/Width LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required ' 21,780 s.f (0.50 acres) Actual 15,720 s.f (0.36 acres) | 126* Setbacks LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Front 30*41’NO CHANGE Rear 30’ 24.6’ - garage 27’ - house 4.8’-shed 10 ’-deck 24.6’ - garage add ’d, bouse - no change shed - removing deck - no change Uft Side 15’39 ’NO CHANGE Right Side 10 ’ 42.5’ - garage and house 64’-shed 63.5’-deck garage -22.5’ house - no change shed - removing deck - no change Stmctaral Coverage Tocai Lot Area Total Stmctural Coverage 15,720 s.f. (0.36 acres)Allowed: 2358 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 1.623 s.f. + 460 s.f. (gar) - 2.083 s.f. - (13.3%) •04.3014 May 17. 2004 Page 3 ol 4 Hardcover Calculations Hardcover Zone 250-500 500-1000 Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover 2,655 s.f. 13,065 s.f. 796.5 s.f I30%J 4,573 s.f (35%) Existing Hardcover 300 s.f (11.3%) Proposed Hardcover 148 s.f (5.57%) 2,598 s.f (19.89%) 2,592 s.f (19.83%) • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds NOTE; These proposed hardcover nunibcrs do not include the two additional garage stalls nor additional driveway to serve them as shown on the proposed site plan. Applicant was advised to provide updated calculations pnor to the meeting to confmn that hardcover limits are not exceeded. Rear Yard Setback Variance The applicant has proposed to construct a second story above the existing first story. The existing home maintains a rear yard setback of 27 feet when 30’ is normally required. The existing garage is 24.6’ from the rear lot line, and is proposed to be expanded eastward at that same setback. In order to increase the envelope of structure in the non- conforming setback a variance is required. The applicant has proposed to remove the existing shed in an effort to decrease the non-conforming rear yard. It might be noted that a two-stal) detached garage could be located 10 ’ from the rear lot line, so the attached garage actually is less intrusive than a detached garage would be. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. In considering applications/or variance, the Fianning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed vatiance upon the health, safety and H-elfare of the community, 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 variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances n'here their stria enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indisidual property under consideration, and shall recommetij 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 there is a hardship in :he layout of the lot. This lot is a comer lot. In the case of a comer lot, the front lot line is determined by the shortest dimension on a public or private street. The shortest dimension on a public street is currently acting as the front. The rear lot line is opposite the front lot line. Due to the location on the home, as it relates to its required front yard, the rear yard amounts to approximately the last 25 feet of the lot. The adjacent lot to the north is the neighbor most affected by the non- conforming rear yard setback. However, the applicant ’s rear yard is acting as that neighbor ’s side yard, where a 10 ’ setback would normally be required (see the attached photographs). Therefore, a hardship exists due to the layout of the applicant ’s lot and its orientation to the neighbor's yards. •04-3014 May 17. 2004 PaC«4or4 Inaes for CoBsidcntloB 1. Will the most affected neighbor be negatively impacted? 2. Do the submitted plans reach the level of a ‘total rebuild'? The applicant has submitted an opinion that the existing foundation will support the 2*^ story addition. 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecommendatioB Approval of the plans as submitted, including removal of the existing shed. May 1T.20M Pa(c4«r4 Itsacs for Contidcratioo 1. Will the most affected neighbor be negatively impacted? 2. Do the submitted plans reach the level of a ‘total rd)uild’? The applicant has submined an opinion that the existing foundation will support the 2"^ story addition. 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommendatioo Approval of the plans as submined, including removal of the existing shed. >4. City of Orono Variance Application Srreef ACdr^ss' 275C Kelley Parkway Ororc. MN 55356 Main S52*2«9-46C0 fax. 9S2-249-4S16 Mailing Addrass P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55322-G066 Application # Of/* Date Received. UftJ fCi/ Amount Paid §LfOO cb Staff: ________ Fee:S6C0 Renewal: S3C0 After-me-fact SV2C0 Double Fee Mtion form must be completed in tjil. App'icani will be notified within 15 days as to the status of re I. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. ITY INFORMATION: ress;f\C;.OCv. V W n n~? loo^Identification Number (PIN): Hal description to application if not included on the surve/) Ksrty Acquired (month/year): □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels, jse of property; Residential DOj listrict: it__________ &.er \NT INFORMATION: (Ccmciete legal na-es ar^d mantal status .'equi. i tw. each interested party) ~ r\\ O*VV.'vi 0r>( ^_________t4-------------------- lome): pO 6Uj t ^pV'’ tL critv ^ * Phone (work); u? rf\i\ I . INFORMATION: (Co.-rc ete legal na.res Z'd mari-.s: s’Jtus requ red for each interestec party) £;wVCt:> iiome); i: v~?D St. PA v (S. ___Phone (work); rn.r» . rc: <IPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ B the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessary); Ofvo(^ c ymVwcxOYV, ( t t! Oh.L.V-\■ '*iW_ Cv\fJ_£dsa OJLhA. tAj>. ^i.VwgX'Oyv. (^t t! '*iW_ Vv\f V <.v‘r\C'i* y t4rt»vr > s \nXb vtTrt»\r > >> r»»n ____________ u~i- V.‘VA\^l« Q>-V 6 lI<V- I I .a/ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: apprcatio information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your d- Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form & Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners v/ithin 150 ’ of the subject property, labels and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6"*’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 6.12-34$-5^0- □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting alfihe'requirements listed Within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one coov 8 5" x or 11“ X 17" for reproduction. ' Completed hardcover (calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x IV or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. ' □ Sketishes or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11"or11"x 17"). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPLICANT’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: denial of the request regardless of its potential merit ^ Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature: Her)4/ OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ^ Date: Date: Owner’s Signature; Owner’s Signature: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Mee rng. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to assigned to X^“roier “® id City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-applicat on meeting *) Addrwss: 2750 Kelley Parltway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 Msiting Address: For Ofitae Use Only P.O Box 66 City Planner. _____ >/sta! Bay. MN S5323-C066 Meeting Date/Time: _ PC Da*^; ___/•It' y What Is the purpose of a pre^appUcation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; 0 f )/ // / f I i C,_____________________________ Property Identincation Number (PIN): ___________________________________________ Zoning District: LR-IC Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: ^ □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback XRear Yard Setback □ Front Yard Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage , □ Lot Area □ Lot Width □ Other: it ihfi i Applicant's initials: HARDSHIP: Appl.cant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form wiD be cornplete^y City staff. Applicant Signature: this fomywin be cori^lete^ Date: 7 #3014 Page 1 of 3 B HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27. Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be csmonstraled in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO 1 PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as dearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation If ycu leave something out it will not be considered Please address each of these hardship cnterla as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1.‘The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under coriditions allowed by the official consols.” n * *' n . ■> rJ VO? “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created byjhe landowner." , . , - o » j n t ir vA* CwTl 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." ~~T P \.0 AV CvVV r -OvnoiA nr> t "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use fcr the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ffr^.-. . - Tf" •/ •f ^ Page 3 of 3 •The flnnting of such variance wiD not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." -4 I *-'■ iAocr* Hardship Statement . . ^ ...... Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in ttie above criteria, desenbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance virith Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): 2- K.t?wc _. JL^wVt-C\L*tfv«*V ^ ^ ^ A..VS^AaC \.0 Ct/\ve-n»-A ^~T.V .XV ■lA. " .(t,./g \ r-v^c..f V'tk.1 6:/ ; V 1 JlMOTViy P<3v>/res ^-l€*o4 HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSJl££T SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HATtDCOVF-n IN ZONE A. House _____________ 0-75‘ UflfJi B. Garage C. Dnvcway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B PROPOSED Ha IIDCOVER IN ZONE A House _____________ Ltncik B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ B /'*V*-------- ----------^_ - 0*. - 75.25U’ <250-500) SOO-lOCO* ---------- 7 - 2. SF.-Mgt>5g X 100 U\aih xlOO Alt Jlb-^ -U-. \06 lev?Z6sr 'L nrs 10b s F 'SNITD SF SF SF !sf. STfPP'HS SF-yrd'^ITJ SF SF “OeckL !s.f. SF. SF SF . „ R£T»'«i/4Ct twAi , S F - HfltirM SF SF. V* SF SF. ‘SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 'SF SF SF. SF. ■ H / HA1U)C0VER CALCULATlOiN NVORICSUEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ 0-75* Ungih B. Girige C. Dnvevvay D Sidewalk E. Patia'Deck 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER CS ZONE A House _______ Ung-Ji B Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Patio/Deck F Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ^ B 75-250*250-500* WidJi X 100 Widih xlOO __..laiiAdiarfiteffLflaiia CJoo-ioo^ \f)Zt s F - n<?t;se 266 II.2-I \'b'i ii. SF ^**£0 SF 5 c .S£T<^<mih6 N£>T Te ' . SF-?'""'*i.-- SF • w SF S F •V'^u inVh SF - JfiTx: SF _ _ ee*MCrfirTC,SF - S Fg- Ml fn>v^S*< Otaeir SF - SF SF % SF SF SF SF S*' SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF SF. SF. % .J SECOND LEVEL SCALE 3/16"-r _ li A inc.iy iESion stuoio 4706 NicoBct A««iuc S. MINNEAPOUS. MN 5S409 col~z_ O-o- (r-o Li_- OESIGN DEVELOPMENT MAY 12. 2004 rriMOTHY POWERS JEFF OXLEY RESIDENCE 3210 NAVARRE LANE ORONO, MN 55391 SECOND LEVEL PUUS A1-3 ^"'j'l ‘^V i •' \ / . !/ *•• *^ * * * >»r •• r V .4^.fevi-S-iv ;^T,r:T ■■w:,'iT;'5t Sv* A *> rs'-» ■. > <TJ •H ♦’ V •:. r *•1^ ’ : JtH M r '|v:TV,[• *.• VJi^t W' ■ :.' ■■ •a ‘■1 i-S •c ^ i« i- I r 11 111 3f III III III III !ii liS .•■> *r V ^ -- i.* *.%» - •» : <■/ kUNDATt:«»2UM C l6im)U0024 PROTAOIM 31 JO OLD COUNTY RD OWNER NAME D R SWANSON * A A SWANSON TAXTAVER D R SWANSON R A A SWANSON NAME^ADDR 3130 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATAMN 53J9I n I6II73J3I0004 PROPAOOR 3167 UFAYtTTE RIDGE RD OWNER NAME MARY M FAULKNER TAXPAYER MARYMFAUIJCNER NAME/AOOfl LAFAYETTE RIOOE RD WAVZATAMN UJ9I 31 1711733410003 PROPAOOR 3140 KENWOOD WAY OWNER NAME CARLS JOHNSON TAXPAYER DONNA EKABANUK NAME/ADDR 13329 TIMBER LA W MAPLECROVEMN iiW 31 1711723410005 PROPAOOR 3i ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CLAIR T HOOD TAXPAYER CLAW T ROOD NAM&AODR 32I0NAVARJIELA WAYZATAMN 55391 31 I7II7234I0027 PROP AOOR 3310 NAVARRE LA OWNER NAME USA MARIE MARTIN TAXPAYER LBA MARIE MARTIN HAMEIADOR 3210 NAVARRE la WAYZATAMN 55391 31 I7II7234I0O3O PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME DONNA KABANUK TAXPAYER DONNA EKABANUK NAME/ADDR 12329 TD4BER LA W MAPLECROVEMN 55369 12 1611123320059 PROPAOOR 3121 OLOCOUNTYRD OWNERNAME RRRABOO TAXPAYER ROBERT PA ROBERTA LABDU NAME/ADOR JI260UiCOUNTYRDIS WAYZATAMN 55391 12 16112233)0019 PROPADDR »2 address UNASSIONtO OWNER NAME LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER LAFAYETTE RIOOE HOMEOWNERS NAME/ADDR POBOX4I MTKA BEACH MN 55)61 31 171172341000) PROPADDR 2150 KENWOOD WAV OWNERNAME JAYNE MARIE PAASCH TAXPAVIH JAYNE MARIE PAASCH NAME/ADDR 2150 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1711723410006 PROPADDR 38 ADDRESSUNASSKINED OWNERNAME ClAIRTROOO TAXPAYER CLAW T ROOD NAME/ADOR 3210 NAVARRE U WAYZATAMN 55391 38 17117:3410028 PROPAOOR 2180 KENWOOD WAY OWNERNAME JUUECOPELAND TAXPAYER lUUE COPELAND NAME/ADOR 2180 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I7II7234I003I PROP ADOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME DONNAEKUBAKUK TAXPAYER DONNA KABANUK NAME/ADDR 1 2329 TIMBER LA W MAPLECROVEMN 55369 82 16117231)0003 PROPAOOR 3171 lAFAYETTl; RIDGE RD OWNERNAME DAABJARNDT T/UPAVtR BRENDA J ARNDT NAME//U7DR 3171 LAFAYF.TTE RJOGE RD WAYZATAMN 35391 FT 31 I7II723410001 PROP ADOR 2130 KENWOOD WAY OWNERNAME DONNA KABANUK FAXPAYER DONNA KABANUK NAME/ADDR 12329 TIMBER LA W MAPLECROVEMN 55369 a 31 I7II7234I0004 PROP AOOR 2160 KENWOOD WAY OWNERNAME PMARKUSEN A J ERICKSON TAXPAYER PAUL MARKUSEN/JEAN ERICKSON NAME/ADOR f «»KENWtXJD WAY WAYZATAMN 55)91 ' V (. : 31 171172)410026 PROPADDR 38 address UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME O^IRTROOD TAXPAYER CLAIR T ROOD NAMI7ADOR 3280 NAVARRE LA WAYZATAMN 55391 CL' 38 I7II7214I0029 PROP ADOR 2170 KENWOOD WAY OWNERNAME DONNA EKABANUK TAXPAYER DONNA KABANUK NAML/ADDR 12)29 timber law MAPLECROVEMN 55)69 38 171172)4100)) PROP AOOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME D R SWANSON A A A SWANSON TAXPAYER DRSWANSONAAASWANSON NAME/ADDR 31 30 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATAMN 55391 RUNDATE;4/B^ ]■ I7II7234400S7 niorAi»R uis kenwoodway OWNERNAMB OAKUFICAALQKUMCA TAXPA YBR DAVIO KUYKA A lAJANN KUYKA NAMB/ADDR 2215 KENWOOD wav WAYZATAMN 5S39I 31 I7II723440IM YROY ADOR 3240 NAVARRE LA OWNER NAME CLAIR T ROOD TAXPAYER CLAIRTROOD NAME/ADDR 3210 NAVARRE LA WAYZATAMN 35391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OILNERS LIST PAGE 2 J« I7II723440OM PROP ADOR 1220 NAVARRE LA OWNER NAME ROBERT i RITCHIE TAXPAYER ROBERT! RITCHIE NAME/ADDR 1901 BEACH lA WAYZATAMN S539I 31 I7II723440093 PROP AODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKiNED OWNER NAME LAFAYETTE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER IAFAYLTIE RIDGE HOMEOWNERS NAME/ADDR POBOX4I MINNETONKA reach MN 55361 _JU1 StHE iESSiN CXJUKTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPAKTMBilLTOTllt 13F5T OFMY KNOWLEDGE ANDUEUEF^^^^ Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Pi^l ID 1711723410027 ( i:Houi« Nwntor 3210 ij, i Nilm NAyjUUIE.- '7^7 \9V9M VfAm# HAyAIUIE.»•• •*<• >1 -.;ws ft nd a,l9gafy nconM tr^.n lepTMents a eonpM^Jf WbrrtiMfon’: i^ data from Oty, County, ana StM road aufftoilOeamKl^oUmaou^^ 06/10/CM O6i00om P. eai K • «40 TlOOMDKRaaA TltAlk. KOCN ^MAiaiK, MINNCaOTA SSSA* anoAK I ••a*«aA<oaai rAK I 9S3'«a«-oaaa C'MAiki MaaaiaKNaVqwsar.NKT OAViD B. Morris PJ^■■ MAY 10, 2004 Omr or ohomo ^.a. SOK #66 OavaTAk B ay MN SS323 A ttbmtiom ! Jahicc DoPYi Tim fowaaa ® 17036 oaAva B ay BouLavAao, Waybava AND WAUO Cl. H indi ® B oom ind ., 4706 N icollet A vknub , MiNNCAACwia Raaj«.DTI 33 10 NAVANRE LANE, ORONn ON TuaaoAY, Aaaiu 27, I mct Ma. Powcaa and Ma. Ei. H indi at 3B10 NAVAaaE Lane , roa the auaaoac or viauALLV iNarEoriNB the emibtind aEVICWCD DNaiTC AND COMRAaCD TO THE CXIBTINO raAMINO. ADEQUATE iNroaMATioN AaouT THE ExiaTiMD raAMiNR wAa datmereo in droer roa me TO CONCLUDE THAT, IN MY OPINION, THE EXIBTINO BUILOINO rOUNOATIONB WILL IN DENERAL BE CAPABLE OP BAPCLV BUPPCRTINO THE NEW ADDITION. BPSCino ANO MORE COMPLETE rBAMINQ INroRMATION WILL OP COURBE BE BMOWN ON THE ORAWINDB THAT ARE IN PaODREBS. PLCABE CALL IP THERE ARE ANY QUEBTiaNR. BlNCERCLY, r*.,vio B. Mnaaia P.C. ■TftICTLY STRUCTURAL File »C-i-3:^8 Wj,9 3334 P»gt I are Dale Application ReceheH: 04-2I-04 Date Application Coniidered at Complete: 04-294M 60-Day Review Period Expires: 06-29-04 Fronr Dale: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Melanie Curtis, City Planner May 13.2004 04-3015, Robert Lund for William & Bonnioel Byars, 13S9 Orono Lane. - Variance & CLP - public hcanng Zoning District: LR*I A, Single Family Lakrshore Residential, 2-acre minimum Lot Area; 1.0 acre (43,713 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants arc proposing shorcland alterations to repair and rc-\ cgctatc an icc ridge, an exterior remodel, roofline alieraiion, dnveway relocation and attached garage resulting in the following 1. A hardcover variance to reduce the existing 29.4S% hardcover within the 75*. 250’ zone to 28.31% where 25% is normally allowed. 2. An average lakeshorc setback vanance in order to alter the existing rooflmc to cliange an ex ’siing low pitched roof to an increased pitch and incorporate a “witch’s hat” feature w ithin the average lakeshore setback. 3. An average lakeshorc setback variance to remove an existing deck on the lake side of the home and replace it with a garden and a much smaller deck. 4. A side yard setback variance and average lakeshore setback variance in order to add a balcony on the second story in place of a pitched roof set back 26 4’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required and 26.4’ cunently exists. 5. A conditional use permit for grading and filling within 75’ of the OHW1. in order to repair an icc ridge and create scoiment catching ram gardens Staff Recommettdation: Planning Department Stiff recommends approval of the i I conditional use permit for grading within 75’ of the lake, and approval of the side setback | and average lakeshorc setback variances in order to change the roofline and add a Icn-acc; i and denial of the hardcover variance for hardcover within the 75’-250’ setback in excess of 25%. I Hardship: There is a hardship in the existing location of the home to justify granting ! some of the variances such as side setback and average lakeshore setback. ho\%e\er. staff * does not find that a hardship is present to allow over 253^ hardcover w ithin the 75 ’-250’ I zone. I FuE «C4.3C1S 5 7004 P»g« 2 o' 6 Pcrtiacnt Zooing Ordinance Stetiom Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. rt)) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observ ed; 1 Lot Area (acre j Lot WiCih (feet)i From Yard '(feet) S:de Yard (feet)i Side Ya.-d Adjacent to 1 Srwi (fee;) Rear Yard (feel)IT ! 200 ii2 _______: 30 50 50 1 Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-1 A, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-2S1. 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. Sec. 78-966. Land Alteration; Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to build, alter or repair any seawall, retaining wall or oihcnvise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property without a conditional use permit issued by the Counc... c) d) Sec. 78-1286. Topographic altcratioas/gradiog and filling. (b.) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited w ithin 75 feet of the ordinary high w ater level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic >'ards or less shall require city staff review and peiniit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer Sec. 78-1250. Conditional uses. Conditional uses allowable within shorcland areas shall be subject to the review and approval procedures and cntcria and conditions for review of condit onal uses established in this chapter. The following additional evaluation criteria and conditions apply within the shorcland overlay district: 1. Evaluation criteria. A thorough evaluation of the w atcr body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site must be made to ensure; a) The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and afier construction; b) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; and The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safe ’y accommodate these watercraft. MjyS 2004 P«9t 3 o' 6 to the lakeshore thar the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairv^ 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 lake>s'ard protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (b) Bet>vcen 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWX, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet a.id 5GC 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 A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Sur% ey D. Existing & Proposed Elevations E. Photos F. Hardcover Calculations G. Existing & Proposed Floor Plans H. Lakeshore .Alteration Plan & Detail I. Lakeshore Alteration Cross Sections J. Property Owners List K. Plat Map L. Aenal Photo Background William and Doimibcl Byars are the property owners at 1389 Orono Lane. Currently, a 20’ x 40’ detached garage exists 4.5* over the rear property line into the right-of-way The applicants arc remodeling the extenor of their existing home, and as part of this project, the applicants would like to remove this noncunfomiing garage, construct an attached garage to their home, and leuricnt the driveway to serve the proposed attached garage. A considerable portion of the existing home is located within the average lakeshore setback. The applicants are proposing a roof redesign to eliminate a low-flat roofed portion of the existing roof on the southwest portion of the home and replace it with a witch’s hat style comer feature. The witch’s hat would encroach into the average lakeshore s ‘tback and by design will increase the height of the roof on this poriion of the home. The eastern side of the hone is currently situated at 26.4' from the property line w here 30 ’ is required. This project will not consist of removal or further encroachment into the nonconfonning idc setback; ntthcr the applicants are proposing to put a balcony above their existing sitting room a.od screen porch thus, slightly increasing the buildmg envelope at the nonconforming setback. Finally, the appl.ca.".*s are requesting a conditional use permit to allow lakeshore alterations to repair a built-up k? ndge along the shore, install np rap boulders, and create rain gardens to facilitate better sediment reduction into the lake. «nLe *04.3015 May 5.7004 Page 4 o* 6 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET T ot Ares/Width: LR-IA 1 Lot Area 1 Lot Width Required I 87.120 s.f (2.0 acres)200’ Actual 1 43.713 s.f (1.0 acre)1 144 ’ Sttfaicki; LR-IA Required !Existing Proposed Rear 50’- 4.5* exittmg garage 140 ’ existing home 115’ proposed garage East Side 30 ’26.4 ’26.4 ’ West Side 30 54.6 ’54.6 ’ t Lakeshore i 75’ deck 1 92* house 95 ’ Average Lakeshore 113 ’ tol73 ’fiom East to West 44 ’ (on east) 66 ’ (on west) 33 ’ (o". east) 60 ’ (on west) Structural Coveraee: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 1.0 acre (43.713 s.f)I Allowed: 6,556.9 s.f (15%) j Proposed: 3,594 s.f (R%) Hardcover Calc Illations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing | Hardcover 1 Proposed Hardcover jo-75 11,501 s.f Os.f (0%) 1 ' 72.5 s.t.- 1 (0.6 %)No Change I 75 - 250 1 26,545 s.f 6.636 s.f 1 1 (25%) i 7,826 s.f* i (29.48%) 7.516 s.f (28.31%) 1 250 - 500 1 5,667 s.f 1 1,700 s.f i (30%) 1,822 s.f* (32.15%) I 758 s.f 1(13.3%) 1 * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Conditional Use Permit Analysis A thorough evaluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetation and soils conditions on the site have been made, and are addressed by the following; The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; Steps will have to be taken to address possible soil F LE «C*-J3’5 Mays 2304 Paga S of 6 erosion during and after construction. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; Visibility of the steps u/// be minimized by vegetation plantings which will provide screening. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; Not applicable. The t>pes, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will gcnc'ate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft; Not applicable. The City Engineer has not had the opportunity to review the plans; however the Engineer’s recommendations should be incorporated into any approval language. Hardcover Variance The property currently has 29.48% hardcover within the 75-250’ zone, this is above the normally allowed 25% for this zone and also is at 32.15% where 30®/o is normally allowed within the 250’-500’ zone. The applicants are proposing changes to the hardcover consisting of removing nonconforming hardcover for a total of 13.37% within the 250’-500’ zone and making a slight reduction w ithin the 75’-250’ zone for a total of 28.31%. The proposed 75’-230’ hardcover consists of 3,242 s.f. of house and garage. 3,667 s.f. of driveway and turnaround, and 606 s.f. of miscellaneous patios, walls and terraces. A total of 880 s.f is the difference betw een 25% and 28.31%. Side Setback V’ariance The existing eastern portion of the home encroaches 3.6’ into required 30’ side yard setback. The applicants are proposing to change this part of the home from pitched roof to a balcony. Portions of the balcony and railing will be higher than the existing edge of roof, thus sliglitly enlarging the building envelope w ithin the substandard side setback of 26.4 ’ where 30’ is re “lired. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Approximately 75% of the existing home is located between 44 ’ and 66’ into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed changes to the structure will improve on the encroachment, however, the proposed balcony on the ca.'itcm portion of the house and the witch ’s hat and rooftine change on the western portion of the house will increase the structural envelope within the average lakeshore setback. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentauon Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In cuKsidtring applicaUom for vorianct, the Planning Commution $haU consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger ofjbe, risk to the pubUc safety, and the effect on values of property in PILE •04-3C15 May 5. 2:34 Pagt6o ‘6 iht sumumllng area. The Hanning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in inuances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only •• hen it is demonstrated that such actions wili be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there is not a hardship to justify granting the hardcover variance for 28.31% within the 75’-250’ zone. The existing garage is located at the road and the existing driN way hardcover is excessive as it is not necessary to access a garage and serv’cs as a parking area. Therefore as the property is currently over m hardcover within the 75*-250’ zone and the proposed driveway could be reconfigured to meet the required hardcover limit of 2S% by removing 880 s.f. or potentially the turnaround, staff cannot support the hardcover variance. Secondly, regarding the average lakeshore setback and the substandard east side setback, staff does find a hardship in the current location of the home on the lot, as this project is merely an extenor remodel. Technically, the railing and the comer plamcrs for the balcony are increasing the building envelope within the side setback however, as the applicants are not proposing to add enclosed living space as added square footage to the second story and the balcony will remain open, staff feels that this will not add to bulk and massing w ithin a sub^undard setback Issues for Consideration Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 2. Stair Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the follow mg: 1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variances in order to add a balcony to the second story of the eastern side, and to remove the front deck, change the roofline and add a witch’s hat feature to the western portion of the lake side of the home. Approval of a side setback variance in order to construct an open balcon> over an existing sitting room where roof currently exists 26 4* from the property line where 30’ is required and 26.4’ setback currently exists. 3. Approval of the conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations. Heavy duty silt fence w ith steel t-posts should be installed along the shoreline once construction begins to p. jtect the exposed slope. The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established. 4. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. With respect to the hardcover variance to allow 28.31% where 29.48% exists and 25% is allow ed Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny this variance and ask the applicants to reconfigure the proposed driveway (or other hardcover) to meet the 25% hardcover requirement. CityofOrono Variance Application Ji Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Man g52-24g-46G0 fax: S52-249-4616 Mailing Address P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Appuc5tion # 0 Date Received""' QU I (Q tf Ar.cant Paid 1/ib. Staff: A^^r/7 , Fee:rS600y Renewal: "'siuo Afler-me-fact Si.200 Douoie Foe This application form must be completed In full. App cant will be nclfjd within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not bo placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: /3S3 Property Identification Number (PIN): c>Z “ •ogqs (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): n/e>3 □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: CJ Residential ^ □ O-Jier Zoning District: __________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal ra-es and mariai status required for each interested party] Name: Phone (home): Address: _______________________Phone (work):039^ Email; /Z£>^bat. Lj^ r&cry . Fax: /^(Z) •fZ'9 ‘ e?3S-2^ OWNER INFORMATION: Name: (Complete lega’ names a-d mantal status required for each interested party) Phone (home): (9^^) Address: /3 &t^A£>rJe> Email; tvy/syv^/tgrP _______Phone (work): (p,/Z) J^/d> > ^^53 A/^~r2>% 7->? ^*53^/ Fax* 4-9^- f^2Ji DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost; %^f€>i>cco. Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets If necessary): rffg«gK//>^gy^^ /yyg ^vsr otyecMf/^G AAy£> AVrAtz^fA^ a o»4»e/«ag n» n-tc^ €>P 3/7eocTt>^cg. The A-CA^ wr>i>g ts ^gg*r x?»gat. nf€. p/^^^ensnr r^rtu. ma 71f^ 9S‘*~Z^C*ts S.r rHerjej>y»eSSV ReSr^MTro^ rfa /♦ T7t€ g^reitA^ *>Qg_ tfP TWg SAJCJtcAc^-fCS ^aj rrre 3£>' g/xag»7u»- r-» sersA<^. oaj rttA-r rjg>r /ajcjupasc AiruY ^^»s: Mcutr oms^ac.0/ /AJrt» rne. sti>eYA<j:> 1 K •• A!iV REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for vcur application to be processed. Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. □ Completed Application Form □ Completed Hardship Documentaton Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy & 5" x 1 r or 1 r X17" for reproduction. □ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). ^ □ Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 1 r or 11" X 17" for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x 17") □ Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. • APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered In the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so the stoff has no alternative but to reject It until It is complete or to recommend the reauest for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit Applicant's Signature: Applicant's Signature; Date: Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and veritotion of this request. Owner's Signature: /tv// (v'lUi^/ _________ Owner’s Signature; /'^ e-, Date: Da^ : j^plicant must have all subminals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Mee ing. Planning Commission MeeUngs are normally held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner 'V-:-rr O U 1 “ :j __ ; r: J. Page 2 of 3 5. “Undue hardship also indudes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered constAJCtion as defined In Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony w;*h this Chapter.* A/. A. 8. 11. ■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 * ■The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use cf a cn^amily dwelling as a two-family dwelling * ■The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.* ‘ Aa o^cTAvsT^ g>-r r&fG rne A^c? <^cz>AJo ser&i^>rC.^ ■•^e conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” ra rnts l^t •The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety Code^^' ^ respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning - - B(H16IT C>* CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILLIAM BYARS OF LOTS 5 & 6. HOMES ON BROWN' S HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA, tECAL OESmiPTlON QT PWmSCS : Lot* 5 tto^* O'* Brown* 1 Oof o : 4«>ol*i iron morh*r donottt •*i»ting spot olcvotlon. * ' moon soo l««*l oottjn - ^i»-danoto* oiialing conloor lirw. moon **0 Itvol ootwm : doootti oropostd < jnlour lint. (p*r orenil*cl) moon sto lawal dot»#n Ooarinq* ahown or* battd upon on ositmad dolun Thi* tufvay Inlond* to »ho« in* boundorioa of tht obowo deacribedboundorioa of lb* obo»€ oeacrtoeo ^ i proparty, tha locotion of on anating ^ houaa »>d ooroga. ond tha propoaed \ location of aa»arol propoaod oddillgn*. propoaad dtivawoy, atoop* di wolfc* ^ x^ tharaon. It doe* not purport to anoo ony olhar itTprovononlo or ancroochtronta . LAKE MINNETONKA BROWN'S BAY 929 4 CONtOUR IK moiriDi GnCRCHSSOCIATES.INC. Be I • laM*' ojnyr naif n« aiox tHtrotox oa amn ana a«p*M9 *r at oa itct* ar aaicf vMwmat «• oAt • M A Mf UEOCQ naniacM*. ocacn am um Mf« MB aa lAM • at sui • WUBU. acAU 1--W OAU CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILLIAM BYARS OF LOTS 5 & 6, HOMES ON BROWN' S BAY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. EXtSTNC HOUSE irrAi nfSCPIPTION Of PWMlSt^ : LoU S on«l e. Homii o« Brown'i Boy o : donoUt iron rorktr foMJt: dtnolo* oriitiria spot oltvoMon. mo'in too loYtl doti»n ji.. ,, Uooolot oiittinq conlouf I in*. ***' iraon ito l*v*l dolim ; donolts proposed contour I in*, HEH* (p*r orehll*ct) mson sao low*! dolwn Ooorinqi ohown or* boiad upon orr otsifrod dotun. This »ufv*y Inland* to show Ih* boundorla* of Ih* obov* d*scMb*d proparly, th* loco*. Ion oi on siistinq hous* ond Qoroqn. ond th* P'«»P°»«f locotlon ol **»*rol proposed addili^ns.proposed drIveaoy. stoop* dt walk* , tharaon. It do** not purport to show ony olhar inpro*«m*ntS or encroochrwnt* LAKE MINNETONKA BROWNS BAY ^’9 929 4 CONl!X« iK CCO oiCMP arw»i OATC KV3»roi •CROCRONBEECi ASSOCIATES. INC. acioCK, IM 9ddr»a * *«S H. *410* « lOMC LArt. •« 9^^73-4141 i«<H*T ojHrt n*»r nw* ir*t»c*i«»c o* *ikbt ma mrms *r « cw x»a» «' saici «***«» <w •wr I >M A nir lOreo r*«t*«M«. !><»«• •— cm 9M79 MU M U*S > *« S'A4 • yg. laM ILzrjL. SCAU I'-hr *AIC «-i>o* 04-11) 04-11) • - /•/ Existing Site Plan Scalr I •« 30 / f ,• -* Byais Residence 136} O»oa Lux MN RLA .\fchitects. Ltd. ApbI21.2304 CtW.^CAT^ O" SciRvfr POA WILLIAM BYARS O* lO’S 5*6. fiovts OK Cay nCKK'^K COk>M"Y. V KstSC’A *CQTO>*. »'««acO»W »■ C-e« »m »»« e Tt KX Til**"* C0>e»<««000»*fc«9 » 4 • » ■|i iiT^rm I , f ■< ■»s r>-,'.^&l-: ■ i..$-L''>-^..............—■ '*>? ’-h -r— Ww S■ i-i-m U? f •i'-j-.;-. »? ■ 1 ,1HVV a! 11^air) * B ««i; II i: i1 IIIIIIV. II II II II «itjw '*• -i’-' . d.. * ■ f ■ ■ ."•^< V ■„• V- . .. -f 1 r* " ■ ... .-v.'••:.■-.■.■.vw.vr?;- >.•-'• •VV.^k.., . ..V. - . • •fc * • • • * g3E-'K"-:« -e«3( t-KHieMT £■& lt\ar% U cm Jcikc 'Vli. rXrtrR)i*r S:- |3X*» Oroiio l.anr •• \\ji>/siu. MN Cr\^ l»rD pXK^Tl 1 M..X if> :---4 r : iAru "> 1, <rS^.* • A,' Photo 001 ® I:: ' •■' • .r'v'-*^'-- r Photo 004 , ■■ ,11 >,v ,-.'u'l -2 * <JU- \\\r: V;' Photo 007 k • “•' r*? •* i • J 1 ’:; "-^I L t Photo 008 »E'i ■;f. X U :■ i Photo 009 Photo 010 Photo oil Photo 012 ROBlHi n M) \SS<KI\I KS_ \K( HI IK IS. I I IK »':**L\S1 l XkMl\HKII I PVKkW V> MISSI M'Ol I** M\ *54'i'» ii.i:«* '’ •<•.!*" I \\ ".i:i •.:*.f*-N: t'uti«)\nu \\\'NSI«)!I \% il'iT* „.:.,*1*.**4., I Byars Residence IM9 OroMO Ijme - M\ Max IO.:004 • . Photo 013 ' -T’”'i. ' i/ • . \;*.v ’ Photo 014 Photo 015 C* Photo 016 Photo 017 kOBURT l.tM> ASSOd VIKS ARC IIITI.C“IS. I.l l). ■»x>I \si i.\ki. II\RRin PARKWAY Miwi Ai*oNs. \i\ 5.vi«« n.i:**<::.'*i0K* I P U »M)\ IIM WMWJJII. If»'x ,ivl•<•*•<***• I \\.M|i7:x-*4Th |^xKiib»*r F BYARS RESIDENCE 1389 ORONO LANE WAYZATA. MN SETBACK ZONE: 75’- 250* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE (as per calculations by Gronberg & Associates, Inc., Land Surveyors, dated 9-10-01) A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A/Bx 100- 2602 S.F. 38 S.F.(wood area near NE house comer) 60 S.F. (r.r. lies & wood edges) 83 S.F. 2813 S.F. (gravel driveway w/ wood edge) 314 S.F. (brick walks & stoop) 141 S.F. (stone walk) 811 S.F. (rear deck & steps) 167 S.F. (front deck A steps) 267 S F. (concrete walks & stoops) 76 S.F. (stone walls) 31 S.F. (wood steps at NE house corner) 179 S.F. (patio block: patio & walk) 7.582 S.F. (A) 26,545 S.F. (B) 28.56 % A. House PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (as per calculations by RLA Architects; confirmed by Gronberg & .Associates, Inc., Land Surveyors, dated 4-21-04) 2519 S F. 109 S.F.(west entry porch) 47 S.F. (garage connecting neck) 676 S.F. 3667 S.F. 62 S.F. (entry walk) 243 S.F. (s. deck and steps) 104 S .F. (east terrace off kitchen) 51 S.F. (stone wall south side) 38 S.F. (garage retaining w*all) B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A/BxlOO- 7,516 S.F. (A) 26.545 S F. (B) 28.31 % ir €»1 o BYARS RESIDENCE 1389 ORONO LANE WAYZATA. MN SETBACK ZONE: 250*-500’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 70NE (as per calculations by Gronbcrg Associates, Inc., Land Surveyors, dated 9-10-01) A. House B. Garage 635 S.F. C. Driveway 1187 S.F. (gravel driveway w/ wood edge) D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONT TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A/Bx 100- 1.822 S.F. (A) 5,667 S F. (B) 32.15% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (as per calculations by RLA Architects; confirmed by Gronbcrg & Associates. Inc., Land Sunevors, dated 4-21-04) A. House B. Garage C. Driveway 758 S.F. D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZUXE A/Bx 100- 758 S.F. (A) 5,667 S.F. (B) 13.37 % TOTAL RLL ADDED TO THE SITE - 4S0 CU. \T)S. fCALCULATioss ATTACHhn w ith SL'DVISSION. ACTUAL CALCUl ATIOS ■ 444 CL’ YDl cA Existing Second Floor Scilr i'-V Byars Residence 1 wT>ft«o \m: Wajmta, KIN HLA Architects. Ud. Ap^ 21.20M nr V- £\is ™T'-1 'i t*’ I —I'./rrrr First Floor Plan Soici/rM*<r •iif^V// Byars Residence 1^ Orono Ijinc Wiyun.MN BUS ArcfallfiCi.M4d. Apty 21,2004 C.; ^ )? tS W £ £ t::^' f^-^. 4>? ; * —.T- _•«.- ^- - J- -rf Q ? --. r:p>.- r“ ‘ Second Floor Plan sntr.i/r=rcr Byafa Residen ce I V(9 Ottmu |ju«c \XVir»». MN RLA ArcNtccts. Ucl Apiii2i.2nn4 a I* I. .'t •*: B *,'. '• ■,:i A L. r *1' •5 ;ii.{': ^ |j|^-Vj iMi ...—J gKHi&ir Lakeshore stabilization for Byars residence The situation at the Byars residence is that the ice has created a very shaip ice ridge at the shoreline. We would like to renovate a natural shoreline in a manner that v\il| be stable over time. The attached section drawings describe the existing conditions and the actions we will take to achieve that end. The lake and the shoreline wilt be piotected from erosion and sediment throughout the entire process. When complete, the project will provide a hybrid native solution tc assure protection from wave action and ice pushes in the future. To do this project we w ill need to add large boulders to the bank to stabilize the shore. These large boulders will be buried deeply in the bank and spaced about eight feet apart in two staggered rows. When the plantings get established, there will be little evidence of the large boulders, as the native plantings will cover them. In addition to the naturalization and stabilization of the shoreline, the client wants to redirect all the runoff that could enter the lake into the “Rain Garden" area vchcre it w ill be held and allowed to reinniiraie into the soil to replenish the ground w.ner Constmetion process: The first step is to protect the lake w ith the installation of a floating silt cuitain in the water. As materials are moved, they will immediately be stabilized and protected from runoff by erosion mats. This process of protection will continue thruiighuut the project. Steps illustrated by the attached drawing: Figure 1: Typical shoreline Figure 2: Effects of the ice push on the shoreline Figure 3- The existing “sharp" ice ridge will be re-graded to a more gentle slope. The soil from the top of the ridge will be used behind the existing ridge to be a more gradual slope. No materials will be added or removed with the exception of the large boulders that will be used for “Toe Siabilizaiion”. Figure 4: Stabilization and creation of rain garden infiltration basin. Figure S: Completion of re-vegetation with native plantings. This project will provide a naturalized shoreline with stabilization over time and the development of the Rain Garden concept w ill assure that the runoff from the site will be collected and reabsorbed into the soil. Dale A. Gustafson Gustafson Design, Inc. &M»tT H Typed Undfcaptd Shorehnt with Rip Rap P« 1 ^-0 2 »^-g 3 StsixikZition and Creation of Raingarden S-M* Ice RJdgp Forming ft Lakaalwra Rastoratlon riwm»i mm aniaew (inut gw % ai n . »• .^{ •iv:‘"i'^r >1 I?fi W-1* f f ■'■■•'•■'• -.'4',' fi> \^' ' V • . • • • 5? ♦ ,i»'f .* rvUm 1S4SW«MiranA¥« No CtotJonV*!*! MNJW/ Ti« (WiiM'WIS DjfvMMiMiM IMOrooioiLm OronOiMN. Scale: 1 inch s 10 feet May 11.2004 HCMJSU LAKE BROWN S BAY oucMinioN E0f BE v7 :RG & ASSOCIATESWI I«•€■» Snlf*Y IW n w IM iwmm o BV M OH UNOCN MT oMtrr wwj!vei«N we HINGENQNitHS^ lANO SUHVtYORS. SITE Pl^ n«..*«or -**>0.* r446N VWXOWOfl LONGLAKE.MW 5S356 K3-40-4141 » « AM A DULY UCtWl 0 WWM MO«»t t HOINriA *»« MMl wwjiy»m« NUNruTMatj nhijccmkmumhm __ acAU r-w OAtt 4 1J04 JOB NO 04-113 I Fig. 1 5 Before Fig. 2 I I Fig 2 After Ice Push Fig. 3 Fig 3 Regrade & Protect Fig. 4 5; L lUNMIf :4nV3QM MliNNEPINC^)U^r^Y PHOfER-nr INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPEJn Y OWNERS UST PAGE:I M (BlinJMOOQJ PROPADOR IIISORONOU OWNER NAME NCOU MARIE R THOMAS TAXPAYER PETER MR NICOLE M THOM NAME/AOOR IM80RDN0LA WAVZATAMN SSJ9I 3t 02II721H00M PROPADOR IJ17 0RONOLA OWNER NAME DOUGLAS C MOFN FT At TAXPAYER DOOOlAS R JUWTM MOEN NAME/AOOR IM70R0N0LA WAV/ATAMN S5W M ailTUMOOM PROPADOR I1I9 0R0N01A OWNER NAME W V BYARS JR • R S BYARS TAXPAYER OONHIBELSAWVBVARSJR NAJ4E/AOOR I7WOROMOIA WAYZATAMN S5»I Jt sniTUlAOOM PROPADOR IJtSORONOLA OWNER NAME NORWEST BX MPLS^«TL ASC TRST TAXPAYER IHOMASWaOJOm POS/TAXSERYICES IMIBOWENRDSfTlS ARUNGTONTX 7WI1 31 0211723)4000} PROPADOR I307OROMJLA OWNER NAME DANA M WELLS TAXPAYER DANA M WELLS NAME/AOOR U970RONOIA WAY/ATAMN 3)291 30 0211723340012 PROPADOR I300 ORONOU OWNER NAME DAMK3HNSUN TAXPAYER DOUGLAS D JOHNSON NAMNADOR 4194 CENTER BOARD la SB STUART IL 34997-4176 OfMYKNOWlEDCEAWDBEUEr^^ ^ s £ 10 iH H SSi,. ’ CO »fJI^RC3Ao^-*1Rr i*nP9R9%r4lldfEM9^lAt^*«44i.^.i i ecHifrir J I (we) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM D, ’XcyOC of (print name(s)] (print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at i^.9*) C Lgi»i<_a ‘ao referred to as Land Use Application No ________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (a'e) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for tne City Ccunc I that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval kir^OwOwner .Date Property Owner 4} H I [ 4 )ite I (we) ^ KN o^k ) of i:v^"l [print namfc,s)i ^ (print address] have reviewed the plar>s for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at » C J-r.n<. 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 conf rm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. tv OwneX Vii9 'Property Ownelj ^ /h7 C-^ Prop^ 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 scheduled meeting date. •; IPM-MU May 14,20M Pafe2 List of Exhibits A • Application & Narrative B - Plan Sheets: 1: Cover Sheet 2: Existing Conditions 3: Tree Preservation Plan 4: Preliminary Plat S: Preliminary Grading. Drainage and Erosion Control Plan 6: Preliminary Utility Plan 7: Typical D^ls 8: Typical deuils C • Site Map Exhibit D * 4/16/04 Letter from City of Long Lake re: Utilities E - 3/24/04 Letter from Schoell & Madson: Cultural Resources Review F - Excerpts: 4/21 /04 Stormwater Management Report; Existing St Proposed Drainage Maps G - City Engineer Tom Kellogg Comments 5/7/04 H • DNR/Maitha Reger Comments 5/12/04 I • Order of Judge Holahan Filed 5/5/04 J - Full Size Copy of Preliminary Plat K-PUt Map L - Property Owners List M - Airphoto of Site N - PRD Zoning Code Standards; RR-IB Standards O • CMP Excerpts re: Private Roads P • StafT depiction of slopes exceeding 18Vo PRD PROCESS The Planned Residenual Development process is available to land subdividers subject to Council approval, as an alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land. The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces, to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Land owners may submit land subdivision plans for any **R" District without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number of building lots, or dwelling units, shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. The dwelling units permitted may be. at the discretion of the Council and subject to the conditions set forth by the Council, in detached, attached or multiple family dwelling structures; subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. The City CouikII has broad discretion as to whether a property will be allowed to subdivide using the PRD process. The PRD should be considered when unique land configuration or natural amenities can be best protected and preserved by relaxing die lot subdivision regulations. MM.30H May 14,20M P*tc3 The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of the Planned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. The dedication and ownership of such open spaces may be through: (I) Homeowners Association: (2) Landlord Maintenance; (3) Special Service District; (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. SUBDIVISION REMEW 1. Coaformlty with 20M-2020 Orano / Manageoient Plan (CMP) The property is guided for single family resi^^.utial use at a density of I unit per 2 acres. The proposed layout contains 7 lots on 14.0 non-wetland acres. Based on the City ordinances that exclude road right-of-way from a calculable area, the only way the code density requirement could be met for 7 lots is via a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The property is located withm the MUSA and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer. The proposed use for residential purposes would be in conformity with the CMP as long as density standards are met. 2. Relationship to Surrounding Development The property is abutted on the north by the City of Long Lake, with housing of significantly higher densities than allowed in Orono. The south ^undary of the property abuts the Luce Line Trail. Property to the east and west is developed generally at a 2-acre density. South of the Luce Line, the Fox Ridge neighborhood is zoned for 2-acre lots but w as developed prior to the 1975 rezoning, with 1 acre lots. The proposed layout creates individual lots that range in gross area from 1.05 acres to 3.90 acres. However, the 7 homesites are proposed to be clustered withm an area rouglily 300 feet by 500 feet, on the high knoll in the westerly quadrant of the property. Setbacks from adjoining residential sites are proposed at 30' and 50', consistent with the 2-acre zoning standards of the RR-IB District. 3. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is in the RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential use. with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. The individual lots being proposed via the PRD process do not meet all lot size or setback requirements of the R-1B District. The developer's ability to achieve the densities and lot la>outs proposed relies solely on the City acceptance of the PRD development process, and relaxing a number of lot sundards. RR-IB Standards: Lot Area: 2.0 acres Lot Width: 20(r Setbacks:From: 50* Rear. 50' Wetland: 26' Side; Side Street: 30' 50* •04-MU May 14.2004 Fa|e« 6. Park/Trail Easements or Dedication Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that specifically require dedication ofland from this property. However, the southerly part of the property abuts the Luce Line and as an outlot, the preserved land south of the creek would make a nice addition to the trail corridor, with potential public walking access to the creek. This unique configuration should be looked at by the Park Commission to determine whether the dedication ofland could result in regional trail access to the creek. N^liile this might not be within the property owners ’ expectations Ux the property, the City does have an 8% Park Dedication requirement and the public benefits of such an access must at least be considered. Absent dedication of land for parks, the Park Dedication Fee w ould be expected to be the maximum fee which by ordinance is capped at S5.S50 per new lot. 7. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed The City will require Road. Drainage and Utilities Easements over the private road, which should be platted as an outlot as proposed, to be owned and maintained by a homeowners association. Access to Brown Road. The plat does not include the existing access corridor to Brow n Road, as that property is not owned by the applicant but by Mary Dunn of 20 Brown Road South. This 40 ’ corridor is an easement, and is the subject of ongoing legal action betw een Dunn and Van Eeckhout in terms of what rights are associated with the existing easement. In addition to the 40* easement, an additional I O'road easement exists along the north 10* of the plat o. 'illestad Acres, granting the City “an easement for ingress, egress, access, road and utilities purposes and uses”, hence the use of that 10' strip appears to be unquestionable. The total corridor width is SO, and the road should be located to make use of this width, although the current design shows it is primarily being located in the northerly 40 ’. The City will require that the cum-„ Jnveway be upgraded to City standards all the way out to Brown Road. The City Engineer has a^emmended that the eas • portion of the private road be platted. As of this writing, however, it seems unlikely that eith*** 'i^'oining neighbor would be interested in becoming part of the plat. This recommendation is noi r -.i essarily a requirement, but would result in a cleaner legal description. 8. Stormwater aad Drainage Improvements and/or Easements Needed [kvelopment of the property will require creation of stormwater management facilities. The applicant is proposing a runoff rate/quality control stormwater pond behind the building site within Lot 7 to serve the subdivision. The City Engineer has made a number of recommendations w hich the developer must adhere to (see Exhibit G). The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, esublished currently at $2700 per acre for the 2-acre zone, or SS4,000 for this 20-acre site. i04-30l« May 14,2004 Pate? 9. Utility Locations and Availability The properly is proposed to be served by municipal sewer and water from Long Lake. The lener from Long Lake Planner Jennifer Zterke indicates that these connections are possible, subject to agreements to be made betw'cen Long Lake and Orono. Staff supports the concept of development of this site as a PRD with sewer and water, even though it is w ithin Orono's defined Rural Area. 10. Utility Assessments or Connection Fees The developer will be responsible for any sewer and water connection fees required by the City of Long Lake, for the actual construction costs of any the lateral system serv’ing the development, and for any costs incurred by Orono (legal, etc.) as a result of the connections 11. Conformity with Shorcland Regulations The setback to the creek bank for Long Lake Creek for this sewered property is 75*. Wetland setbacks of 26' must be adhered to. The MCWD may require greater setbacks or buffers for this wetland, and developer should contact MCWD to determine this. The City Engineer has suggested that the plan need to show the OHWL and floodplain boundary for the creek, and that the developer submit the plans to the DNR regarding stormwater management. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The wetlands on the property were delineated a few years ago to help determine the amount of dry buildable area. The City will require a Flowage and Conservation Easement over all wetlands designated on the site, llie proposed grading plan appears to avoid any impacts to wetlands. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts; Steep Slope Impacts The site is heavily wooded with a vanety of tree specus. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-75' lakeshore and creek setback zone, where clcarcunmg and removal of trees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer has provided a Tree Preservation Plan (Sheet 3 of 8) which indicates the areas where tree removal will occur on the site. Tree removal and site regrading is proposed to occur in substantial areas of slopes ranging from 20*4 to as much as 35%. The proposal is to shave the top 4-6' of the knoll area and fill to create walkout- style building pads with 4:1 (25%) maximum finished slopes. Staff has determined that the areas to be graded do not meet the definition of^bluffs". However, the subdivision code definition of dry- buildable area excludes slopes of greater than 18%. The City has in many past applications not excluded such areas from the dry-buildable calculation, but has limited their development. An example is the Cristofori Woods subdivision on Bayside Road, in which “no residential construction or land alteration'' was allowed on slopes greater than 18% (Resolution No. 3069, Febrviary 1992). Exhibit P is a sketch of slopes exceeding 18% on the site. Imposition of such a limitation on this application will have a sever impact on the viability of this subdivision. L «04-301« May 14.20M Pact! Given the extent of grading, the developer should be required to provide boulevard trees along the private road as required by code. 13. Archaeological Site Proximity Study Applicant’s consultants have completed a cultural resource review of the site and has suggested that a Phase I archaeological survey be completed for the property. Issues for Consideration 1.Does Planning Commission agree with the use of the PRD subdivision method for this property? 2.Should the areas to be preserved via conservation easements, be in an Outlot. or merely as an easement within each individual property? 3. 4. What type of Luce Line access should be allowed (in terms of pathways, etc.)? Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sizes, configuraticns and setbacks? Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than 18% should be protected from land alteration for this development? If so. a very different layout might result... b Planning Commission comfortable with mo\ ing ahead with this review given that the issue of access to Brown Road is still unresolved? Any other issues or concerns? Staff Recommendation Planmng Commission should address the various issues noted above, providing direction to staff and applicant. Any recommendation for approval should address the issues noted above, and include the following: 1.Approval is subject to the standard Park Dedication Fee, unless Park Commission makes oAer recommendations. 2. 3. Approval is subject to the standard Storm Water Drainage and Trunk Fee. Approval is subjetc to provision of the standard Road, Drainage and Utility Easements to be granted over the new road outlot as well as over the 40* easement access to Brown Road. 0M-3O16 May 14,2004 PafcO 4. 5. Road to be 28' paved width, not 24*. Subject to recommendations of the City Engineer, except that the 40’ access cocridor need not be platted as long as it is covered via the required R. D. & U easement. 6. 7. Subject to MCWD approval. Subject to standard Conservation and Flowage Easement over wetlands and creek, and subject to some form of conserv ’ation/preservation easement over the defined conservation areas. ■ iiliW initfi aia'tlimiii i II City of Orono Subdivision Application A-l Street Address 2750 K«ll*y Parkway Orono. MN 55356 ii Renewal PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: Property Identification Number (PIN) Ma n 952-249^500 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Cfysta? Bay. MN 55323-0C66 This application form must be completed In full. Application# 0^-3Ol(o Date Received; .4^-2/ Arr.O'jrtPa.d. Staff ----------- Pee /a< ^.u^. ly loenuncaiion Number (PIN): o ^-T/-? - o 1 - . o __ Present use of property: H^esidenUal------F77^.? Abs. ac. or B^orrens. please check one Zoning District: flQ^ U ________□ Other Phone (home) Address: A. Email J ^Sfa, Phone (work) rUu 5rrtr. /v<»/ OWNER IMrORMATION: (Co^^P'«e^_.l r,rje5 marital .»,u. «,u«d to, „c. i„t.r..,«, »„y, .Phone (home); ----------------------------------------------------------- Address. t a r\ #1 ij—7---------------- (work) _ ____________ Email ------CifCm^n------UlS^ ,—CLt^^s <T*r xcc. EXISTIN'g LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: Development Size I Present Use (check one) Present Zoning District Ac es Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres TOTAL, all parcels Residentia:: Number of Un.ts O Other: (Specify) fl R - ± fK ---------- Proposal: □ Division for Tax Purposes— WIVI3IUII lu, I ax Purposes Number of Building Sites / Existing Units (a New Units Proposed Gross Density ~ y~ Unlfs^** ^ •<> « ^S«d UseTchecV, Other (specify) -10-# S O 1B T ntHijMwsas^n* MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY AOPLICATIOM 1 Payment of ftes (refer to ’application fees’ listed below). 2. Completed application form. 3 Prr ■ Tiinary plat information on Cert-fcate of Sjrvey ^ Certified Property Owners List of cwne-s withn 350 (you must otta n this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-€C3 300 South 6** Street. h*'nreapolis. telephone 612-3<B-5StC) - As an addendum to this appl-catior, pease attach a sepa*ate list of any otner persons ycu wish notifiec of this application WIS’iiytUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COVPLETE FiNAL APPL’CAT'ON 1. Payment of fees irefer to Pre im.nary Suoc'v.son App'ovat reso'ut on and park fees if apo’ catte). 2 Signed Certif cate of Survey or myiar copies of formal p!at. 3 Title op nion 4 Easements, covenants, etc 5 Developers Ag'eement and Letter o* C'eC.t APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Adrr nistrator to check (X) those wn ch apply) A. An'«iication Bast Fees: ____Sketch Pin Review (Class I. II & 111) $350 00 ____ Subdivision of a Lot Une Rear-angemant S600 00 Subdiv Sion Appiicalon (Class I & 11) $600 00 TOTALS Preliminary Subdivision Applicaton $750 00 ♦ $30 OCflot (Class 111 & all non-res dentiat) ___ Final Plat Appicatcn rr» m) 525c 00 ___ Legal Review and Filing Subdivision only $140 09 Subdivision w/easements and covenants, mirimjnn 5280 00 ♦ ary additional costs Park Fees (to be determined per Section 62-227) Legal and Engmeenrg Review Fees (as ircjrred) Renewa: of C ass i. II. & ill Subdivision and cf a Lot Line Rearrangement Application 5230 20 B. Special Improvement Fees ____ Proposed Private Roads $650 00 ____ Proposed Public Roads $950.00 ■ ____ Request for City to Acce r $ 50 per lineal toot. $ 50 per lineal foot. . Iin ft X 50 * S Existng P'lvate Road $953 00 Proposed Samta*y Sewt' Mam Extension $275 30 ♦ $25/stub Proposed Watemna n Extension 5275 00 ♦ 525/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) 5250 00 . Un ft X 50 ■ $ ____On-Site System, S te Eva uat on Rev.ew (applicab'e to ru'ai suDdivisions) 580/oer let x C. Flaxible Application Fees/Miscetlaneous Fees ____ Variance S6C0 03 ____ Vacation of Puoiic Road 575 oe* tene'‘ting p'openy (S60C mr.irrjm per appixat on) ____ Easement Vacation Associated with a Subdivision 5100 CO ____ PRD Aopi-cation witn Subdivision 535 03 per dwelling un t . new lots Tne applicant hereby agrees to provide ail inforrration required or requested by Planning Department Staff, City Engineer, City Attorney. Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further a^r^s to pay ali additional fees es ab'.ished by ordinance. . ______________________Date:Applicant’s Signature: Owner’s Signature:Date: Applicant must have a!! submittals into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the City Planner assigned to your project of this change prior to the meeting. -11-1 iR J 6«nt by: Eoina Rtalty Park Meat 04/20/04 e:a5PU;«S3B;Page 3/7 NARRATIVE FOR CREEKSIDE IN ORONO (120 BROWN ROAD) Wayzau Design and Development is interested in the deve’.opmeni of the 20-acre parcel located at 120 BrovkTi Road as a 7-lot Planned Residential Development. The existing home will remain on the site. In review of the site’s natural setting and surrounding amenities it was envisioned that an upper market single-family residential housing would be appropriate for the site. Tnis isolated area provides a nice residential enclave that is sunoundcd by natural and recreational enjoyment. The project is designed to create a central neighborhood that wraps itself with vast open space and scenic views. This proposal was based on the direction received by the Orono Planning Commission on March 15.2004. From the five-concept plan that were reviewed by city staff and the Commission a centralized cluster development was favored. The development incorporate the following design elements that were supported by the Planning Commission; 1. Dedication of over 12 acres of land as a conserv ation easement. 2. Preserving the upland along the south end of the site. This area is adjacent the Luce Line Trail and the dedication will mainuin the scenic atmosphere along the trail. This area was designated as a premiere buildmg site in all of the concept plans, but was offered as open space for the opportunity to cluster the lots. 3. Preserving the upland on the northern edge of the site. This area was also considered a premier development site. However, having a large open ^ace that separates this development fium the homes to the north preserves the natural views of the homes. 4. Clustering the homes minimizes the amount of road that is needed and concentrates the traffic impacU, such as noise and headlights, to a central area. 5. Preserves large tracts of open space for wildlife habitats and cco-systcms. 6. Provides efficient centralized municip U sewer and water service to the homes. This eliminates the need for septic systems near the environmentally sensitive wetland and creek. It also eliminates extending service lines to homes spread out throughout the site. 7. Preservation of trees. 8. A 30-fuul ftCibauk fi«kl lu;C uf iLc Iwu lula »OulL uf ill,c new rwTarfrThis will provide an additional 40-foot building setback and a buffer from the existing homes. 9. An archeological rev-iew was done and found no archeological properties on the site. As a PRD, this development will enhance the appearance for the entire area by preserving the natural open spaces instead of dotting the area with large homes. Allowing the homes to be clustered with the dedication of a conserv ation easement preserving the many amenities wathin the site, including wetlands. Long Lake Creek, trees, drainage ways, slopes, and natural corridors. As noted in the previous sketch plan report, it is staffs opinion t)^ this site is a candidate as a PRD neighborhood. Site Design The lots range in size firom 1.0' -xres to 2.04 acres including areas dedicated for conservation easements. The development pxw vides a 3S-foot front setback a lO-foot side setback and a 30- foot rear setback. A setback of 50 feet was incorporated along the west side of Lots 1 and 2 to create a greater buffer from the existing homes. Even though there is a 26-foot setback fixjm the wetland, the homes are expected to be placed on the knoll and setback much further than the required 26 feet. Although the homes will be custom built, the lots were designed to c:e J i PRELIMINARY PLANS FORi CREEKSIDE in ORONO ORONO, MINNESOTA PREPARED FORi WAYZATA DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT SITE ORADINQ, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN, STORM SEWER, STREET PAVING h-l TmC contractor SMAU RCRIUR or RCPtACC Tmc abovc wmCN OAMACCO OURMC CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO TH£ 0«N£R. SHEET mOCX S heet oescr;ption 1 title sheet 2 CnSTMC CO n OiTion S 3 TREE PRESCRVATK3N Plan « prcl 'Uinarv Plat » PRCwtUiNARY CRAOINC AND EROSON CONTROL PLAN • PRCLMNAffT UTEJIY plan 7 details a octnls I HEREBY CERT^rv THAT this PUM WAS PREPARED BY WE OR UNDER MY OiRECT SuPERvtSON ANO that I AM A DULY UCE n SCO PROPESSONA l ENCMCER UNDER Th £ LAWS OP ThE STATE OP WiNNESOTA. K«nA«Ut E. Atfotf DATE APRS. 21 2004 REC. NO. 1 2Q4R SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINEERS • SURVEYORS • PLANNERS SOIL TESTINQ • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 10580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5530S S54 THIRD STREET NW. SUITE 100, ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA S5330 ■/ ■u — PW)Wt MMH4I ttOT I W i RttCT fe ) ‘ ROCK CONSTRUCTION CNTRANCC •« fs#-i ' • ^ J //---- \ f t jswj: I- wac <»i 0*-ur *m (At n^tf* ttmt iM- M( mu CROIIOM CONTim FEHCI \ y \ Oi^ATCt SARS , S* •« < Sr ES p#<0 Kn'j?.j:5wnk'‘s:i‘h SA.0 KKiv; 1 '« ,■''1 a MNiasr'l1 a*t? *!«i 1' « 3 »a« rc:cisc 1 r to «• v» (£0 •Alft^ •AHStAta H m BEOOMQ iSBr^rSSr'^’ vRtta».| *-r:ii<it SKt S» •C9^l ut;%«N^ •• «8Ai1'K*f i#- ma 4*k «* ^ %«NCts y I wKV w*tts ■» or w V K S *tCvt &SOhNN I > Rio^Ct • KC» «R| 'Sfsn* A >C 'X* <i ••*} =i.=:V.^u“.= ’i^r»v’'^oic•U^S• • •mmjrn u»9 S' *Qi «• K»*r INC0(*U V tK» • or K»*« cscAtrt IM i« MS r Hr S'ts* u/ii STANDimo MAN»*OtE «c»:> <.4 M 1 ^___p. .—r-U .r—i B618 \ r-H5»-— i rjLj^ Cl*4kt-> *14' <«•• I.Kl> C l^I C u * K ’a ;. CONCRtTt CURR S (JITTER *«'-a«r^ I akXi 3>t**'*C ^ «.i-r I'MIMI t.^^tA| *0 II CMKt ACDk M* > CA^* lJ\.•iJl "1 U't *v»t «•! 4- UH »KwC •ti v'tw* ^•tt *«n e* fcgray kIkttl'iAKI ■S^l t U’C VKvtl aac vauici Wfta ^ »M4«*t ! ■ •«»n» Ikkaw 4t |>< ra(tg»* * f? s»v?^irpy^jyjyi^.^y “ * A^ac m,t H.ta m KMHI m CA-X-KI * t'AM IMU. K tl4MACll 1*(U 8TANDARO MTDNANT AND VAtVl e!>S°A"cl?^{* I JSn t • •/!* • t»' ■■.■•«»».« —m C mw y • :ui »«.»—«4 «MF tmw ■* - c«M t «4r»a«ii« m erm¥>At ■* - cam • «4ya4»<« ttM TVFICAL SECTION C- (• tH‘ k<* on«F^ »0i -~i :.'%’^s.■f^.i“‘........ B’bSK?s:i-t‘SSS&. ; \ • \ «cs4- • m ■» ■c>i<( c4»»c 4 c»it«* » \ ^ #-n'i cx«vi M*ic 4 :»nj*I V asrsFSsat-va;’' A«««u» ttot to or cwii *s\/Jj > Vr«<CN «• A s- 1 K 9T *•< Ri^t .^r - U-.t___rsai 5^: :'■<• ••ccai* myart exat'c u*! • a-iKa at tjauaa ia»at» *.at je^'l • aiaiOU 'S «a«t AMt >|at’t £a|< C»<«C<( aaaa«t.C tCC’iaa i \ ••CCal* Aaya* J-------4_>^aa-iKa at tJ>uaa . ✓ »: K A •«L.. I't»» <«(«M titau Aat’K at awit.ll ctbai. W 8( 4lC tacutl KC^Skt aK<««ca •mittu is%vjtr.;'%'*rva^,vt ’« —V• 'S’t-*'’» STANDARD STORM SEWER*IIANNOiE ^ ITiiiTlIILIIl*" ** *» aa • .o •n*«" •• At am 1 m, taw a'aaJli’^**** ii -------------- 1 t. .inia.___ •,> I— f^kScljSchoell & Madson, Inc.WAYZATA DESIGN A DEVELOPMENT ttT MANOwam aai. t_ aurn tM« . «■ AAAaaMtai aaa<i«a< lao MOWN ROAD OROWO. MM 04/H/04 TVRICAL DCTAILS M rr*,at1 t CREEKSIDE IN ORONO Orono, Minnesota STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT SUBMITTED BY: HENRY LAZNIARZ 1117 Marquette Avenue South. Suite 2509 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55403 Phone: 612-558-1491 PREPARED BY: w SchoeirSi Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Pianning _ Soil Testing • Environmental Services *»»•«*.jhoeMmadson.com *SSS0 Moyiote Bow a«o'd M-n>^«aoo ■ Mmrctoia SS305-^S2& pnox« (952) S«S-7fi0i - (e> (9^2) S«e-9SeS April 21.2004 7r JL r lOcweHw*/k 07 The proposed Creekside in Orono is a 20-acre site consisting of 7 residential lots consisting of a 24-foot wide bituminous street w'ith curb and gutter and storm sewer. The bouses and street will drain to catch basins in the proposed street and then to the proposed pond. The pond has been sized to not exceed the existing l->*ear and 100-year outflow rates for the site. Dead st' is provided for the 2.5” design storm. Cunently on the site is an approximate 2,400 square foot foundation single family home with a gravel and bituminous driveway to the house. An approximate 1,200 square foot accessory building is also located on the site. Wetlands are located along th* south, east, and north areas of the site. Long Lake Creek runs along the south part of the site. Soils identified in the SCS soil survey are predominately Hamel Loam, Lester Loam, and Marsh. The majority of the current drainage is to the wetlands and to Long Lake Creek. Brown Road is west of the site and Luce Line Trail is south of the site. Two sobcatchmenls were modeled for the proposed conditions. One subcatchment is for the proposed street and houses. This subcatchment is routed to the proposed pond. The second subcatchment is for die back of the bouse pads and the unchanged areas of the site. This subcatchment is routed directly to the existing wetland. The following summarizes the results; 1 l-yr.(2.30in)100-yr. (5.90 in.) EXISTING 1 0.99 cfs 14.16 cfs PROPOSED 1 0.79 cfs 13.73 cfs Pond Normal Water Level - 937.50 “Pond 100 -year elevailon = 939.00 Pood 1-year elevation “ 937.16 Attached are the associated hydrology calculations and drainage area maps for Creekside in Orono. ^ Otr 1 •/tUWtrroMMk M o>^ i Minnesota Department of Natural Resources H 9925 Valley View Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-826*6769, 952-826-6767(fax) May 12,2004 Mr. Mike Gaffron Planning Director-City ofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono.MN 55356 v;*i X vr Re: Land Use Application File ^<04-3016.120 Brown Road So. Dear Mike: Thanks for sending me the follow-up information regarding the above Land Use Application. I have reviewed the information with respect to the Luce Line Trail and have the following comments to offer: I) The DNR supports the idea of the conservation easement proposed for the development, especially the area adjacent to the Luce Line Trail. This will help serve as a buffer between the trail and houses, as well as create a larger area for conserv ’ation purposes, and wildlife habitat. 2) I’m not sure what form/wording the conservation easement will take, but please note that wc would prefer that lots 2. 3. and 4 be aware that private accesses to the Luce Line Trail through the property, are not to be constructed. We are trying to eliminate'minimize private accesses to the trail as they create potential trespass problems, erosion problems and interrupt habitat preservation projects that we continue to try and manage. If there were to be a “private access" we would prefer some sort of consolidated one be designed into the development, but because of contours, etc in reality we would prefer to see none. 3) We are concerned about potential drainage issues from this new development and want to be assured that the development will not rapidly increase flows to the creek, thus creating problems at the culvert and downstream against our horse trail. Is there any sort of detailed drainage plan that show s where the excess runoff will go and rates at which it w ill occur? If so w e w ould like a copy of that information to assure a slow delivery of water to the creek and downstream areas. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review* this. If you have any questions, or need additional clarification from me on anything please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Maitna J. Reger r IJ. Reger Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor martha.reger@dru ‘.state.mn.us DNR Infomutioo 65I-296-6I57 • 1-888-6^6-6367 • TTY: 651*296-5484 • 1-800-657-3929 An OppoftiMi)Prinwil on aec>clcd CMiainlni 4 u< ^0^ P»«4.CMMinwT Wjur STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FDLi©DISTRICT COURT MAY 5 2004 FOURTH njDICIAL DISTRICT ■HENM.CO. BIST CT------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Petition of Charles E. Van Eeckhout and Susan L Van Eeckhout, Petitioners, Mary and John Dunn, AOMiMSTRATOn aCRi' Court File No. A-3 M 531 DEPUTV FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT OF EXAMINER OF TITLE’S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED ORDER AND MEMORANDUM EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN Respondents. The above-mentioned matter came on for de novo review before the Honorable John L Holahan, Judge of District Court, on Petitioner’s Motion to Adopt Examiner’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law. Including Memorandum and Recommended Order dated December 2,2003, on April 21,2004, at 3:00 p.m. Judge Holahan appeared for the assigned Judge Ann L. Alton. Petitioners seek this Court to adopt the Title Examiner’s findings in its entirety. Respondents seek this Court to adopt the findings of the Examiner with modifications. Richard SchiefTer appeared for and on behalf of Petitioners and Jeremy S. Steiner appeu^J for and on behalf of Respondent Mary Dunn. All parties submitted documents supporting their respective positions prior to oral arguments. Judge Holahan look this matter under advisements by agreement of the parties on April 21,2004. This Court adopts and incorporates herein the Referree’s findings of Fad. Conclusions of Law, Including Memorandum and Recommended Order except as X modified. This Couil, hiving received the evidence submitted by the parties and having considered arguments made by counsel, this Court makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Respondent Mary Dunn is the owner of land, Tract G (Certificate of Title No. 1090376), which is subject to an easement for driveway purposes that was entered on August 23,2002, by the Registrar of Titles. 2. Petitioners are fee owners ofTract II (Certificate of Title No. 1035711). which has an easement over Tract G for driveway purposes entered on November 5. 1999, by the Registrar of Titles. 3. Both Certificates of Title Nos. 1090376 (Tract G) and 1035711 (Tract H) contain an easement for the installation and maintenance of utilities over Tract G. Both tracts of land are in the City of Orono, County of Herutepin. State of Minnesota. 4. Tract G has a width of 40 feet, its westerly boundary abuts County Road 146. and its easterly boundary abuts Tract H. 5. Tract H is a 20 acre parcel of land that does not abut County Road 146. Tract G lies between Tract H and County Road 146 6. Tract G was conveyed to John and Mary Dunn in the early 1960 ‘s subject to an easement for driveway purposes, which was already in use and existence. 7. On May 31,1971, the Dunns conveyed to Pelilionen an easement across Tract G for purposes of installation and maintenance of utilities to the home Uicy planned to build on Tract H. At that time. Petitioners requested only an easement to serve their personal residence. driveway easement to third parties for purposes of construction, reconstruction, maintenance and repair is beyond the scope of the easement. 7. The Referee's Findings with reject to the driveway easement were erroneous as these Findings go against the weight of the evidence. 8. This Court finds that Petitioners attempt to create a public road easement out of the existing easements is outside the scope of said easements The parlies intended to create appurtenant private driveway casements and single residence utility easements. The parties did not intend to create a public road easement. 9. The Court rejects the Title Examiner's proposed Conclusions of Law I (c) and 2(c) at pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner's Report. The Examiner's findings that Petitioners have the authority to grant rights in their appurtenant easements over Tract G to third parties who do not own any part of Tract H is speculative and not supported by the evidence. 10. This Court agrees with the Findings of the Title Examiner except insofar as modified. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The Report of Examiner of Titles Including Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order, in addition to the attached Memorandum dated December 2,2003, is hereby adopted except as to the following: a. Conclusions of Law, ^ I (c) is hereby VACATED. . b. Conclusions of Law, 12(c) is hereby VACATED, c. Memorandum, tf 21 -27 are hereby VACATED. Li 2. This matter is referred back to the Examiner of Titles pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 508.13 for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Dated: . 2004. For Judge Arm L. Alton Judge of District Court r 17MH oaoNocmrcoDe 9. Tb« applicant shall dcixMnstnte by providinc a coveraft/lntcr- faranoa analyaia and capacity analyaia prapartd by a ragis- tarad proftssional angineer that tha location of tha antennai as propoaad is nacaisary to meat the frequency apadng needs of the paraonal wireless sen*ice sysMm and to provide ade quate portable personal wire- leas service eoverafe and capac ity to the area. (Coda 1984. M 10.2(X2), 10.26(2); Ord. No. 161 2nd series, t 7.6-7-1997; OnL No. 226 2nd series, f 1. 5-27-20C3) S«ata law laSireace —Suu penaioH Muia Sut. I eaiUT. i«U. 7 Sac. TS^IR. Coeiditional uses. Within any RR-IB one-famOy rxiral residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (1) Public schools and parochial or private schools which teach a ctirriculum similar to a public school, provided no building shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district and a fence is erected IS feet or more from all street lot lines where the abutting use is for open play, and nursery schools provid ing SO square feet of playground space per pupil. (2) Uses accessory to a hi^ school. The fol lowing uses are accessory to a high school use and require a separate conditional use permit: Indoor ice arenas. All such facilities and structures shall be located on the same tax parcel as the principal high school use to which they are accessory. No sudi struc tures shall be located 1m than SO fret firom any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district Such facilities shall not be sepa rated from the principal high school use by a public road. All such facilities shall be owned and operated by the sdiool district, or by a nonprofit organiution under a land lease arrangement with the Supp Ns. 1 CD7870 school district The developer of such a facility, prior to final conditional use per mit approval by tha city council, shall demonstrate financial capability to com plete construction of the facihty, by pro viding suitable documentation that at least 80 percent of the estimated project costs are in the control of the schod distria or nonprofit lessee. (3) Churches, including those related struc tures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, and convenu or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site, pro vided no building other than a residence shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district. (4) Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimming pools serving more than one family, scout camps. YMCA camps. YWCA camps, church camps, or private nonprofit parks, playgrounds and other similar uses. The principal structure for any of these uses shall be 100 feet or more from any abutting lot in an R district, and accessory structures shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any lot lice. (S) Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings, such as telephone exchange sta tions. boosur or pressure regulating sta tions, wells, and plumbing stations, ele vated tanks, lift sUtions and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located erithin 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general wel fare. Public service structures that have been approved by the city at required public hearings for public improvements prqjects shall not require a conditional use permit, but such structures shall be sul^ect to all other appropristc standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving doeign and/or ZONING RZGIOATIONS I7M1S plactmcnt of thtM itrunuret will requiro written notice by th<r dty to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adop* tion of the amended plans by the council. Personal wireless services and commer* rial broadcastinf antennas and towers shall not be considered public service stxuc> tures. (6) Commercial greenhouses, provided all out side storage is ienced in such a manner so as to screen the stored material firom view when observed from the public street or adjoining lot. Commercial greenhouse structures shall not be located in a re* quired yard area, and are subject furher to the general requirements of this chap ter pertaining to accessory structures. (7) Private gun clubs, archery ranges, and ski slides, provided the area is fenced and no part of the principal use is less than 150 feet from any lot line. (8) Guest houses and nonrental guest apart* reents. a. CutMt houses. A separaU dwelling constructed on an existing undi vided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, induding their domestic employees or their nonpaying guests All regu lar lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. b. Sonrtntal guett opartmfnt$. An apartment within the pnncipal res idence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, mcluding their domestic employees or nonpaying guests. There sh^ be at least one acceu door to the apartment from within the prin cipal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apart ment. Application (or auch a guest apartment shall address the con- cama of parking, sewage treatment, antryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have util ities metered separately (rom the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. (9) Planned residential development. limited to detached single-family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of division 10 of this article. (101 Apiaries. (11) Farms (stock), pnnnded the area is ten or more acres. (12) Stables and bams, public The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not owned by the property owner or resident. Such use must meet the requirement of section 78-74 Further, no such structure shall be lo cated less than 150 feet (rom the nearest lot line. (13) Riding academy. Any such instruction maintained as an accessory use and con ducted by the owner shall meet the re quirements of subsection (12) of this sec tion. and no such instruction shall occur less than 100 feet from an adjacent resi dence or leas than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. (14) Hoapitala for human care, sanitariums, rest homes, nuning homes, provided that all buiidinp arc located 100 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an R district The site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated. (15) Nonprofit libraries, pro\’ided that all build ings are located 50 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an R district Screening and signage requirements shall be determined wiih each individual con ditional use permit lI6) The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal aanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatmeat system derigned to hsndle the Sues. Nai CD7871 171^11 ORONO CITY CODE antidpattd flowi from tho buUdlef plumb ing. Approral shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detnmental to the residential character of the neigh- borhood The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the lound^ use of the accessory building. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. The accessory building is conform ing in location, size and height. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the acces sory buildiing will not be: Used for a home occupation un less specifically approved by the dty or if allowed by this Code. Used as a dwelling unleu a guest house conditional use per mit is obtained. Rented, leased or otherwise pro vided for use as a dwelling un der any circumstances. (17) Personal wireless service antennas. Per sonal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure other than a water tower may be allowed as a condi tional use if they meet the following cri teria. Such antennas must be in compli ance with the dty policy regarding the use of dty-owntd property for wireless telecommunication anten nas; Such antennas must matt the condi tions listed for peraonal wireless ser vice antennas as a permitted use in the LR-lC toning districL Such snUnnss may be located in the following locations: 1. Co-locsted on an existing nty emergency warning siren tower. 2. Co-located on a rcplsccmcnt dt>* emergency warning siren tower, with a height not to exceed 75 feel. Co-located on a new dty emer- gancy warning siren tower, at a location that meeu the dty's emergency warning needs, with a height not to exceed 75 feet Such antennas shall meet the follow ing performance standards: The antennas must be located or. the existing emergency warn ing sirens poles, unless the hei^t of the czistuic pole, or the capadty of the existing pole to support both the siren and the antenna(s) is inadequate to minimally meet the needa of the carrier. In this case, the carrier may be allowed to in stall a replacement tower that will accommodate both the emergency warning siren and the telecommunications anten- na(s). The existing emergency siren towers can be replaced with towers with a maximum height of 75 fcet, wjth the con dition that the tower accommo dates both the emergency warn ing siren and the telecommunifitione antcnna(s) The dty may also require the tower to have tha capability of accommodating ont additional carrier's antcnnals). A new tmtrfcncy warning si ren tower loMtion. selected by the dty to meet iu emergency warning nseda, could also be used as a telecommunications antenna siu through oo-loea- tion of the warning siren and Sepp Ko. 1 I L CD78:72 ZONING UCLUCIONS I 7M19 8. ameana. The standards se: out in 1. above also apply to a siren tower in a new location. The hctf ht of a tower can be no higher than the minimum height required to address a gap in coverage. The setback of a tower from a property line mu«t. at mini* mum. be equal to the height of the tower, except where an ex isting emergency warning si ren is located on a site that does not enable this setback too be provided. A carrier must demonstrate through an engineering analy sis that there is a gap in cc\*er- age. At the cit/s discretion, a tower must be designed to structur ally enable co-location by an other carrier, and the carrier must agree to allow co-location. The carrier must provide com puter-generated photos show ing the views (as selected by the dty) with an without the tower. All consultant analysis and le gal analysis related to the tow* era and the lease of the towers shall be paid by the carrier. The carrier is required to pro vide coverage maps to demon strate the speciSc gap in cover age and ne^ for an additional tower and antennal s). and to demonstrate there art no exist ing tower options within a ra dius of two miles thst could accommodate the carrier's an- tenna needs. The sixe of the csbmeU on the ground natded to house the sup port equipment for the anun- nas is limited to minimum necessary size, as determined by the city council. Appropr;ate vegetative screening of ground csbmets shall be provided by the carrier, subject to approv^ by the dty eoundl. The councU at its discretion may allow the use of non-vegetstive screening methods such si berming. fenc ing, etc 11. *Suslth'-typ« antennas (cylin drical) vs. an array of panels, ii required if the technology is svsilable. 12. Only monopole towers are al lowed. (Code 1984. $9 10 20(3). 10 28(3); Ord. No 145 2nd series. { 1. 3-11-1996; Ord. No. 161 2nd series, ff 3. 4. 6-7-1997; Ord No 179 2nd senes, i 2. 10-12-1998, Ord. No 226 2nd series, { 2. 5-27-2003) Sec. 78-419. Accessory uses. Within any RR-lB one-family rural residential district, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses; (1) Private garages and parking space. (2) Private swimming pools. tenn» courts, and paddocks. (3) Home occupations, as defined in this chap ter. All home occupauons shall comply with the provisions of section 78-1376. and the licensing previsions of section 26-76, when spplicable. (4) Signs, as regulated in tlus chapter. (5) Buildings temporarily located for pur poses of constructing on the premises for ■ period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. (6) Gardening and other horticultural uses, including aviaries and decorative land scape features. (7) One roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produced on the premises, provided such stand does not exceed 200 square feet in area and is located at least 30 feet back from the public right-of-way. Supp No 1 CD78;73 I7M19 ORONOC3TYCODE (6) CosunuaicatioariotptionArani vicM M foUowB- Aec€»$ery anttnnoM. Aectssoiy anten nas shall ba Umitad to ra^o and taltvision rectiving antennas, satel lite dishes. TVROs. and amateur shortwave radio transmitting and receiving aaiannas. Accessory anten nas that art accessory U the prino- pal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all toning districts provided they meet the following con ditions: 1. Height A ground-mounted ac cessory antenna shall not ex ceed 20 feet in height from ground 1 d. 2. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the re quired front yard setback, cor ner side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street 3. Roofs. If vegetation or obstruc tions interfere with satellite sig nals at a location in uy allow able placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any autho rised structure on the premises. 4. Loeation. Accessory antennas shall not be locat^ within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horisontid dis tance DO less than the maxi mum height of the antenna 5 Building permits. A building permit sh^ be required for the installation of any accessory an tenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit ap plications shall be accompa nied by a site plan and struc tural component data for the acoeaaory iru-inding de- liasion de- tails of anchoring. The building offlaal must approve the plans before installation 6. Lightning protection. Each ac cessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against nat ural lightning strikes in con formance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 7. Electrieai code. Accessory an tenna electrical equipment and connectians shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electncal Code as adopted by the city. 6. Color/confear. Accessory anten nas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. b. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers. Amateur shortwave ra dio antennas and towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all toning districts, provided they meet the fol lowing conditions: 1. Heiglu. When an amateur short wave radio antenna is mounted on an anunna tower, the toul height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. 2. Yards. Amateur shortwave ra dio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. 3. Setbacks. Amateur shortwave radio anunnas and towers shall not be located within any re quired setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antemna and tower fium the property line. (9) The keeping of domestic animals for non commercial purposes, including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises. A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclu sive of one acre for the principal building, Supp. No. 1 CD78.74 O Rartl mldcBlial dcvcIopmcBts ^HI ntiUzc private road feeders to supplement the existing pubUc road grid. Because of topognphical limitations, the historic shape of rural land divisions, and the low density of rural land use, most new lural residential lots are best preserved by short dead-end roads running off the existing street system. The low number of dwellings on each road, the dead end configuration and the scattered road locations make public roadway maintenance excessively costly compared to any public benefit. Therefore, most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. New public streets will be accepted where a "through" configuration provides a general public benefit and/or where the number of residences justifies public maintenance expense. Private rural roadways will be constructed to rural duign standards. The City will regulate private road design standards to ensure environmental protection and adequate all weather access to all properties. The type and width of road surface required will vary with the numbw of residences to be served and hence the amoimt of expected vehicle usage. The length of dead-end roads will be limited for public safety purposes. Private rural roads and cul-de-sacs will be designed so that emergency vehicles such as large fire trucks have adequate space to operate efficiently and effectively. The City will guarantee reasonable maintenance levels and public access on all private roads. In the process of approving rural subdivisions, the City will acquire underlying public ingress, egress, and access casements over all private roads. These cascmcnls will ensure legal access of the public to all properties served by the private road. Development contracts backed by acceptable forms of financial responsibility will assure that all private roads are designed and constructed according to City approved standards and specifications. The City will fiixther guarantee that all private roads are maintained to reasonable standards at all times through required maintenance agreements and/or homeowner ’s associations, and that failure of the private group to so maintain their private road will be cause for the City to accomplish needed maintenance and to assess the benefitted properties for the direct cost of such maintenance. City of OroBo CoawuBity BfaMteamt Flan S*(Xt«b«r 20M raft 4A-20 •044017 Miy 17.2004 r«ii I of s Date AppUcfttioa RcceHred: 4>21-04 Dau Appikatioa CoBildcnd as Cooiplcte: 4-2144 60-Day Rcvkw Period Eipires: 6-20-04 '0 To: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From; Janice Gundlach, City Planne^^ Date: May 5.2004 Subject: (t04-301 7, Spruce Hill Properties, Inc., 3775 Bayside Road - Hardcover, Street Yard and Lake Yard Setback Variances - Public Hearing Zoaiug Dbtrict: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.94 acres (4 1 .220 s.f.) Lot Width: Approximately 460 feet @ Shoreline; 420 ’ @75 ’ Setback Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to do an extensive remodel which consists of renovating the first floor and re-construciing the '/: story above; 1. Hardcover variance to permit 3.8% hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone when »'»•* is normally allowed and 3.9% currently exists (removal of 7.5 ’ x 2.5 ’ chimney shaft). This hardcover, when added to the 75 ’-250 ’ zone allowance yields total hardcover of 30%. 2. Lake setback variance to permit structure w ithin 75' of the lake. 3. Street yard setback variance to permit a 22’ setback when 50 ’ is normally required and 22’ currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plans as submitted due to the hardships inherent to the configuration of the property. Pcrtincnl Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-IA, LR> IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary ’ or permanent structtires 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 shorePne. there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. 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 L M4-30I7 Miy 17.2004 pM>4«rs Lake Yard Setback Variaoct This lot has lake access at the north end of Stubbs Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The required lake setback on all lakesbore lot is 75 feet from the OHWL. The existing house is setback 60.5 feet wth a deck and patio setback of 56* and 50 ’ respectively, all within the required 75 ’ lake yard. The applicants have proposed to renovate the existing building keeping these setbacks. This requires approval of a lake setback variance. Hardcover Variance (0-75 ’ A 75*-250 ’ xones) The property has two hardcover zones; the 0-75* zone and 75 ’-250 ’ zone. 1,150 square feet of hardcover currently exists in the 0-75 ’ zone where 0 s.f. is normally allowed. The applicant has proposed to keep 1,131 s.f. of this hardcover with removal of a 19 s.f. chimney shaft, wWch requires approval of a 0-75 ’ hardcover variance. Also, 2.298 s.f. (or 20%) hardcover exists in the 75'-250' zone where 25% is normally allowed. However, in order for the entire property to be within allotted hardcover allowances the 0-75* hardcover gets transferred back bringing the hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone to 3,429 s.f (including removal of 19 s.f chimney shaft) or 30% requiring variance approval. Hardship Statcmcat Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibits B & C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tit comUtriHi mpptktthna/or vtHtnet, tkt Commbshn akmtt eomaUer Ik* *ff*ct of tit* propoaed mHonee upon Ike kemitk, apfetj cod wet/or* of Ike commootiy, extailog and anrtdpaied trejfk eomdkhma, l^ki end air, domgee e/fhe, risk to the pttbUe lofety, mod ik* effect oo values of property kt Ike tmrrouodiog mrem. The Ptmoolog Commiuioo skmll consider recommending approval for vmrlmoceafrom die IllermI provisions of Ike Zonlog Code In liuionces nkere ikeir sirici mtfdrcemenl mould cause undue kordsk^ teeouae ofcireumsimncea unique lo Ike Individual property under conaldermdom, mod skoU recommend opprovni only mken ills demontirmied ikai suck oertona mUt be In keepint mbk Ike apitU and Inient of die Orono Zonkig Code. Staff finds a hardship exists in that the lake yard setback and front yard setback overlap resulting in no buildable area. The location of the house sib in the most conforming location on the lot meeting the 30 ’ side yard setback. If the house were moved more towards the road to meet the lake yard setback the house would have almost a 0 front yard setback at the most northwestern comer. A smaller house could possibly be more conforming, however the applicants have not proposed a rebuild but rather a renovation. Staff however, feels that the Planning Commission should discuss removal of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone possibly parts of the patio or deck, which amount to 580 s.f or 5% of the total hardcover on the lot. If this hardcover were removed the lot would essentially conform at 25% when the 0-75 ’ hardcover is transferred back to the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. Staff is not suggesting that the applicant’s not be allowed any kind of deck or patio but reductions could bring the property closer to conformance. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. □□□□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the subject property, labels and plat rr.ap. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Aso provide one copy 8.5* x 11' or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation vwrksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one coov 8 5" x i r or 11" X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x11"or1l"x17") Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project" APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) anc/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certrfies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recogniaes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit □□ □□ ai>^M^Oate: c£x=L^3te:O,. Applicant’s Signature: ___ Applicant’s Signature: OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authcries reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for pufposes of investigatio^nd verificatiopof this request. Owner's Signatur^: Date: 44 -C Owner's ^...Date: ^ /» ^plicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting, Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend In place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. ' #3017,J City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form CThis form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting •) Str—tAddnss 2750 Kelley Parkway Oror^o. MN 55356 Mailing Addrass: P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 ^^ain. 952-249-4600 Fax; 952-249-4616 For Office Use Orly City Planner .jAf\ifLF Meeting Oate/Tixe A PC Dale n. too What Is the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION:. Site Address. ^7 75' fio Property Identification Number (PIN); ___ Zoning District: Ut-lA Size of Property:/. Y73 aC4 AS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: /ifB Average Setback S^ardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Other LAtf □ Side Yard Setback JBl ^■s^'Yard Setback ■rfoTV □ Lot Area / c , -rto □ Front Yard Setback □ Lot Width rf b.ti H rfAA±_4- ApplicarjfS;^^ lnital^^^[^^v___ HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: _________________________________________________________ ‘Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature: L #; 7 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this fcrm is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394.27, Subdivision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land cwner. Personal end economic situations are not considered valid hardships. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having rrerit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists ar>d how the va.hance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is Justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will net be cons dered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (sene may not apply). 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." 'Tti^ ^ao ovtALA.p KvmiiA/ CP . "77V£/gg /s a>^t a l^^e^£ S/7g on/ TUa 2 "The plight of the landowner Is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." lHlt£ SHAL4x\,v LfiT /-fg/»1g> Aeg Mc-rr With -TTHtS 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality " '7P£ Uu.L A / -s' SrvCy c/o iTAs. fTtOL'AJoA'rieA/ TJUs wicl fiB/yyiiu A f7k/t^ic,y 'R£.Sip£/vc^ .__________________________________________ "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* ’TVS seTB^s 170 /ufeT7~ Af^ f^£r^£L or ry^ AefO "This 3^ sm^Torcc fteov*tias A*fO fZtsmire____________________ #3Of A Vi v»1 \ iL ^ Page 2 of 3 "Undue hardahip also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered ccnitnjction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.C6, Subd. 2. when In harmony wHh this Chapter." , . ___________ Ay. A-. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not perniit as a vanance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located * _______________________AJ A. 8. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the terrporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling ’ —___k) . •The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar fosuch property or immediately adjoining property.* 'fVCi LAJO^ Af^O RcAp '7T//5 U»T •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures * the district in which said land is located." ormea in -lue pc T\£i TV T^rg SHAtLX*v^ ^HAPB cF jjaT 10. "The granting of the applicabon is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." -TT/rS /5 rA/ A>ee?p J^BCeifSA/ fS AX^r A S/7g «W 7?^ ------------ 11.•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 _ va^iAax£: fs me^L.y a i^6rwoe.L of 777^ _gK/5y/v«g --------------------------------——------------ 1! “7# a u " • Page 3 of 3 12. "The granting of auch variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty * go'-r-fJATvjee i^T ir- 719 K^/77/ gATyrg/r g.v4i9 oC■iff ■7P&' o/e^i^F. Hardship Statatnent Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria. descnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements In the following lines (attach add.tional sheets if necessary): ^ , M o iPnir ^7 L. EXHIBIT C HARDSHIP STATEMENT For 377S Bayside Road Orono Due to the conditions that are specific and unique to this property, a variance would be required to do any remodel of the existing home that alters the character of the exterior. The existing home sits on the most conforming location possible, with no adjacent land available, but the shallow nature of the lot makes it impossible to comply with either the road or lake setbacks, as they overlap. It should be noted that only a sm^l portion of the existing house sits within the 75 ' lake setback, while a larger portion is within the road setback. TSt cuoent home is 1 'A stories, with a narrow, unsafe spiral staircase to the upper floor. It -i- '^ 5*year-old structure, with design faults (particularly the flat roof area) that have IK to water damage. The house therefore requires redesign and repair. We propose a of the existing structure, replacing the roof system and the upper floor living vitc^c \Tne remodeled structure will remain a 1 'A story house, on the existing footprint, anil y^.vcide adequate access to the upper floor, while conforming with building heigl^. gui.lf^ies. Finally, oa'proposal does include removal of the exterior fireplace shaft attached to the existing house, which represents removal of approximately 19 square feet of hardcover within the lake setback. Therefore, our proposal for remodel creates a more conforming house than exists now. C' ; Tf •:■* j ••V Ci EXHIBIT D SCALE IN FEET » EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(990O) « PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ^ « D irection surface cranage EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS TOP OF FOUNDATION =942.5 LOWEST FL00R=935.0 NOTE EXISTING FOUNDATION TO REVAIN verify and use existing ELEVATONS PROPOSED TO F.T EXISTING FOOTPRINT BENCHMARK TOP SAN MH O ELEV = 939.9 o I5 3“ -S e '£oz«^t ♦ ui -^001 (O ui EXISTING HARDCOVER 0-75 HOUSE = 570 SF DECK = 395 SF PATIO = 185 SF TOTAL = 1150 SF <75 HOUSE =1538 SF STEP = 40 SF WALK = 120 SF DRIVE = 600 SF DESCRIPTION: T OF LOTS 5.6.7.S.13.15.16.19.20.21.22.23 AND 24. OTTOVILLE ON LAKE M'NNETONKA HENNEP’N COUNTY. M?vl. LOT AREA TO OHW= 41220 SF/ 0.9^ AC lot AREA<75 SETBACK = 11430SF/0.26 AC X 25% = 2857 S«^ allowable HC PROPOSED HARDCOVER 0-75 HOUSE = 550- SF DECK = 395 SF PATIO = 185 SF TOTAL = nae-SF \\t?\ SF <75HOUSE =T5dG SF STEP = 40 SF WALK = 12c S" DRIVE = 600 SF § sa) Q- Q:i Q, TOTAL = 2298 ”SF (20.0%) TOTAL - 229&-SF- (20.0%) TOTAL = 3448 SF(30.0%) TOTAL ^ ^SF(|^) it {o' ftI i IQ I THORP REMODELING iL iiittddliBitiyh t o I -Vl r.■» » i fi ft Iftjiiuppjill I III Hi a •■I ^ f fV. d* J •*i.\ 0k ;,. r ■ -^iu ^vi^#i|p ■ ’ ? ->4-;.. j^.. flL^m- -W5 r! ^^-'■ >?y'.i'. if- Ir> '1ifl iMIffiM * -< ,7 /rfn ’S ^1 •irV;-^^;v . :-?/;'-^^;e^.... ... V.ivir'tri;v ,:. ■ •>•■ . I,: vt^\*>-iT/»(|% SffW<!WR^U (;0V6FA^ .-;-:-vv -. . .-..a;-•• • ’ ■•v..- .-•• • .' BUNDATC:4fMaB*HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST ICERTIFY THATTte FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTA'nONOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATBONTHE RECORDS OFTHE rt-NNEPIN COUKTYTAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMOfT^TOTHEBBT OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE lERVICESDEPARTMOfT^TOTHEBEST y ^ ' (7 MGE;1 I \m •.7r-v.u7? h t 1,/ Id e Memorandum From: Date: Subject: Chair Mabusth and Planning Commission Members Ron Mcorse. Ciiy Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director Melanie Curtis, City Planner ' Janice Gundlach, City Planner May 6.2004 #04-3021. City of Orono, Various Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Public Hearing Planning Department staff is proposing several Zoning Ordinance Amendments in an attempt to uf^te the Zoning Ordinance on cunent department and Planning Commission policies and practices. Exhibit A - Amendment to Section 78-1405, Entrance Monuments Exhibit B - Amendment to Section 78-72, Administrative Approval Exhibit C - Amendments to Sections 78-281 to 78-300, Deletes Duplicate Language Exhibit D - Amendment to Section 78-1279 (6). Administrative Approval Exhibit E - Amendment to Section 78-1432, Accessory Buildings Below is a brief summary of the changes proposed and the rationale behind those changes. The attachments illustrate how the language will appear in the written text of Chapter 78 of the City Code. Seaton 7S-1405 This amendment is proposed in an attempt to fomially regulate entrance monuments throughout the City. Entrance Monuments are becoming more and more popular with new construction on larger lots due to the rural Orono context, especially in the 2 and 5 acre zones. Standards do not currently exist specific to entrance monuments, although staff has been adapting pieces of the Ordinance pertaining to fences in an attempt to regulate them until now. Because entrance monuments can have a visual effect from the road as well as an effect on how emergency \ehicles respond to the properties, the Planning Commission requested that language be fonnally drafted. Planning Department staff incorporated current policies for reviewing entrance monuments based on current practices. This language would appear under the non- encroachment section of the Zoning Ordinance, directly following the fence regulations. Seaton 78-72 This amendment is proposed due to the level of tear down and rebuilds that arc occurring in Orono. Many of the existing lots were created prior to the current zoning district lot PROPOSED REVISION See. 7S-72. Lots of record. (a) A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the register of deeds or the registrar of titles for the county prior to January 1,1975, and after approval by the council if required. (b) A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in an R district, which does not meet Ae requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single- family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council or administrative approval bv the Planning Director, such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: (1) In R districts of one acre or less and with public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which docs not meet the requirement- . f this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council appro\’al if the area measurements and width of that lot are within 80 percent of the requirements of this chapter. However, the lot of record shall not be more L.tensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. (2) In R districts of greater than one acre and served by pubiic sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R district in the city in excess of one acre which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes ^ administrative approval if the Planning Director oow mh I finds that the following conditions arc met: a. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; b. It is served by public sanitary sewer, and c. It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other applicable Code provisions. (3) In R districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R district in the cjty not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of this chapter and shall not be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval. .Administrative approval mav be granted for a lot of record not meeting the lot area and width reouiiements if the Plaiming Director finds that the following conditions are PROPOSED REVISION See. 78>1279. PlaccmcDl of itnictures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows; (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level: Public Water CUuin^on Tnbuury Setbacks Siructurc Unicwcred 100 Sewered Sewage Treatmeni Svitem (2) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, reg.'*rdlcss of the classification of the water body: Scibxk Trom Setback (in feet) Top orblufT 30 Unplatted cemetery 50 Right-of-way line of federal, uale or county highway and local puMie and private roads 30* * Except for detached garages on lakeshore .ats as regulated in section 78* 1435 and except for structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. Bluf(impact zones Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. Uses without water-onented needs Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of doc^ located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (2. W4-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT IIMT 12AVILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT - ConllDUcd) Chair Mabusth asked if stafThad any problem with the lot coverage issue on the site. Gaffron stated the lot coverage is similar to other commercial properties and is a Planning Commission decision if it needs to be addressed further. He cited the example of Snyder Drug in Navarre, which is over 20*o. As this is a new- use and along Hw-y 12. Chaii Mahusih inquired if office uses need a lot coverage variance. Staff reported on recent pies that did need lot cox erage vanances but cited the dental office on Ilwy 12 and Kelley Parkway did not because it was on a 2.S acre site Rahn expressed his reservations about granting a lot coverage variance because residential lots appear to be held to strict interpretations and this commercial site may be granted a vanancc. Also, he noted that an existing conforming lot is bc*coming two non-confonning lots, w Inch leads to lot coverage issues, a little bit less parking and, also. tra.sh enclosures that arc an unknow n presently. Chair Mabusth asked if trash enclosures are included in lot coverage calculations. Staff explained they were expecting an enclosed brick and mortar design with four sides, which would count for lot coverage accounting for about 100 s.f., less than 1% s.f and not a significant amount. Gaffron ,<auirmcd the Walgreens structural coverage is at 19.9°o and the westerly lot is l6.l‘!o. Rahn asked for a description of the trash enclosure locations. In reply. Gaffron expects there to be at least two trash enclosures but it is unknow n until the applicant provides this infonn.ttion. Ms. Van Dell clanfied the trash enclosure locations, with three trash enclosures. Rahn emphasized the need to know the exact dimenstons of the trash aiclosurcs as a part of the lot coverage. He reiterated his reserv ations about making a confomiing lot into two non-con*''Tiiing lots and then increasing lot coverage. Gaffron pointed out that appiving B-6 standards whii' ? primarily for office rather than retail uses results in the setback variance with the trash enclosure w ithin the 33’ setback, and. technically, a parking variance being 6 spaces short of the Code standard, too. Upon question from Chair Mabusth, Gaffron stated that the total of parking spaces proposed is 167 if all proof-of-parking spaces are used in the calculations; it results in about 24®o greenspacc if all proof-of-parking is built out when the goal 25*o. Bremer commented that she did not have a problem w ith the lot area or lot w idihs but questioned having the trash enclosure too close to residential areas for noise concerns. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that is not required by the Orono Code but could be looked at os part of the reguiding from office to commercial to incorporate trash facilities w ithin a building. Mr. Trauiz responded the applicant prefers not to enclose in the buildings, as hav ing it outside w orks easier for the trash hauler. Also, there will be berming and a fair amount of screening to mitigate the noise to nearby residents. Chair Mabusth indicated it will be very helpful to have the applicant ’s elevations for subsequent discussions. * Page 6 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p m. (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE,” N\V QU ADRANT IIWY I2AVILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAI. PUD DEVELOPMENT - Continued) Chair Mabusth commenced polling the Planning Commission members on the Summary of Issues to Address. There was con:>ensus the list of allowable uses reflects the Planning Commission's inte ic. this site. Chair Mabusth summarized the lot w idth requirement is met but lot area and lot coverage are not met. restating the Plamiing Commission goal of 25® o grcenspacc for the site also is uiunct w ith 24% grccnspacc when the proof-of-parking is utilized. .Also, the westerly building only meets a 20’sclback not the 35'setback requirement Kempf asked Gaffron to review the terrace proposal on Outlot B. Gaffron desenbed the terrace or pedestrian feature is on top w ith a trail system to be developed aboxe the retaining w all at the pond Kempf stated he had no problem w ith the lack in setback at the pond as it t\picall> protects an adjoining property or packing buildings in too tightly which is not a problem on Outlot B He commen'..'l ‘Mt he felt residential standards should be treated differently for property protection but if this S’tc w orks and is functional he found it to be less problematic than in a residential area Kempf continued by stating that screening is very important due to the blank building w alls. loading docks and trash receptacles. He supported as much year round screening os possible and noted that due to the across-thc-street housing being higher in elevation than the subject site he supported really substantial trees put in initially for effective screening in the llrst years. Leslie asked staff'if their recommendation w ould change if MiiDOT does not approve the terracing on Outlot B. Gaffron agreed that it would change if MnDOT docs not accept the improvement. He explained the applicant wants to maintain building si/e and chose to move the buildings closer to the comer and to the pond. Leslie asked if staff support is conditioned on .MnDOT supporting the terracing and w ould not approi c the setbacks; Gaffron agreed. Leslie reiterated Rahn’s concern about the number of structures on the lot and the reason for the discussion is because of the building sizes, resulting in too much building and too small of lot si/e. Chair Mabusth requested clarification of the ow nership of Outlot B Gaffron explained the outlets were part of the MnDOT taking for the original regional pond in the Hwy 12 improvement project. The outlots were expanded with Outlot B and C to account for accommodating the pond. He stated the initial agreement and approvals included an ov erlook feature and trail, therefore, ’he expectation is that .MnDOT will not have a problem with applicant’s proposal, flic applicant is trying to contact MnDOT and hopefully will have information for the next Planning Commission meeting. Berg asked for clarification of a proposed grecnspacc aiea. GalTron explained it was widening between buildings with shmbbery but was not the patio, which he indicated on the overhead map. Page 7 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (2. #04-2974 RELIANL: DEVELOP.MENT COMPANY. LLP, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE.” QUADR.VNT H\W I2AMLLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PLD DEVELOPMENT - Continued) Mr. Trauiz indicated that Kelley Parkway would be the pnmary w ay to access Walgreens and its drive-through, with some traffic from Willow. Gaffron explained that the anticipated traffic volume would be small enough to not create a traffic-crossing problem at the Willow access to the Walgreens dnve-through. He described traffic turning at the Willow access and how it is being designed to encourage safe vehicle turns Mr. Trautz stated that without the right-in and right-oui access it would no longer be a viable retail site. Chair Mabusth concurred w ith Berg regarding the interrelationships of lot coverage, parking and greenspacc and that maintaining key requirements for parking and for hardcover at 25Va may mean reduced a building size. This w ould be key to her approval of the application. Jurgens stated his primary reaction to the application is that the site is cut up. .Mso, he expressed apprehension w ith the type of access at Willow. describing his experience observing drivers trxing to make turns not permitted by design. Specifically, he asked .f Walgreens absolutely needs the double drive-through feature. Mr. Trautz replied that Walgreens builds w ith a package of requirements but as requirements are not pemiitted. such as the front-door parking, it becomes less viable to Walgreens. Jurgens explained that he asked the questions because w ith the double drive-through, the turning radius crowds the building to the west. Ms. \'an Dell stated that Walgreens has one large truck Ix.'week that will use the Kelley Parkw ay access on off-peak times but the rest of dcli\cries should be able to go to the front door when not busy. Gaffron also pointed out that because of proof-of-parking there is a need for a larger w idih for backing out. Bremer asked if the applicant considered combining the two smaller buildings into one. acknowledging tliat the Planning Commission oAcn comments on preferring smaller buildings but in this case it may appear to be one longer building an>-w ay. Mr. Trauiz replied that this had been looked into but they heard very strongly from staff that the w cst end adjacent to the pond was not to have a drive-through so they decided to split the building as a compromise for the dnve-through and pushing the west building up to the pond property. Further, placing a dnve-through on the east side of the building will create vehicular stacking problems. Berg reiterated her reserv ation w ith the Willow Drive entrance and exit and cross traffic problems. Chair Mabusth interjected this is a change from the earlier site plan and the City Engineer has not had an opportunity to review and comment to date. Page 9 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. a iNM-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLf,-STO.\EBAY MARKETPLACE,** NW QUADRANT HUY 12AVILLOW DRIN’E, COMMERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT - CoatioMcd) Though a final engineering report is not available. GafTron advised the City Engineer provided staff with a preliminary response indicating conceptually the City Engineer has no problem with the proposed exit/entrance design on Willow Drive and cross traffic, but he does want to make certain the curve works and that this is a positive right-out with no leA turn possible. Chair stated that Issues to Address and #4 have been addressed in the preceding discussion, so opened polling discussion on Issue related to proposed building heights. GafTron advised the Planning Commission could regard the Walgreens entrance comer featUiT. at 32'6" that exceeds the 30' building height standard, as a visual design feature like a parapet. He reminded the Planning Commission that approval was given to the second medical odicc building for its similar crenellations. Chair Mabusth pointed out the Planning Commission already discussed enclosure and screening of trash facilities in Issue #6 and will await the applicant'^ submittal of elevations for further review and comment. Issue was introduced by Chair Mabusth who stated she was wary ot trees getting too near the intersection and asked what kind of shrubs are proposed for the Willow Drive and llw y 12 frontages. Ms. Vicki Van Dell explained the comer feature w ill be a bemi w ith a sign on top of the berm and coming off of the ber.n will be a 3' shrubbery hedge on the west side and along the north on Willow Drive. Rahn pointed out he could better respond if he had an elc\ aiion to view . Bremer expressed her opinion to not have too many trees in the frontage and preferred low shmhbcry. Gaffron illustrated the tree locations, sign locations, comer feature w iih the overhead map noting the 30-dcgree sight triangles and the trail location. Chair Mabusth expressed her view preferring to have low-Iy »ng shrubbc.y define the properly instead of many trees in the frontage area. Leslie asked for clanfication of the quantity of signs proposed on site. Ms. Van Dell and Gaffron confirmed there would be two monuments signs, one for Sioncbay Marketplace and one for Walgreens, and one retail sign for the site, os w ell as tenant building front signs. Bremer asked for confirmation there will be no signage on Kelley Parkw ay. Page 10 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXIISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPME.NT CO.MPANY. LLP, “STONEBAY MARKETPLACE,*' NW QUADRANT I2AMLLOW DRIVE, COM.MERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT - CooIuim O) Chair Mabusth asked if Walgreens has an electronic sign at every one of their facilities. Mr. Trautz replied that it is and it could be a manual or electronic sign. He advised that in discussions with Gaffron of manual reader boards as allowed by Code and Gaffron’s reservations with them, Trautz suggested a static electronic reader board that would not scroll and therefore meet the ordinance intent. Bremer inquired about the sign’s size as an electronic reader board. Mr. Trautz described the sign as having a total of 60 s.f. w ith about half of it as reader board. The monument sign is 10’ tall and 10’ wide and the upper 3’ is the sign for Walgreens and the next 3’ is the reader board. Cliair Mabusth stated she has a problem with an electronic sign on Hwy 12. Leslie commented that one big difference between electronic and manual reader boards is how much light is actually emitted; electronic boards can emit larger amounts of liglit titan the manual reader boards. He asked the applicant if they are envisioning a reader board that is os bright os a scrolling reader board. Mr. Trautz indicated he was not aware of the light level specifications but will find out for the Planning Commission. Gaffron inicijectcd it w ould be helpful if they w ould provide detailed plans and photos of the proposed sign. Bremer asked for the applicant to provide information about near-by Walgreens locations to visit to sec an example of what is being proposed. Chair Mabusth postponed polling on the signage plan until the applicant provides the requested detailed signage plan for all building and for site monument signs (issue #13) for the next meeting. Ch.*iir Mabusth stated applicant’s plans for building-mounted lighting and parking lot fivturc designs (issue #14) are to be provided for the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Mabusth indicated the Planning Commission were already polled on the questions w hether the combination of building proximity visual impacts, the pedestrian terrace amenity placed on the adjacent .MnDOT parcel, the ov erage in lot coverage. ^ other site factors suggest the need for further building dow n-sizing on the west lot (issue ^15). Gaffron questioned if it was the Planning Commission consensus that if the site plan meets the 25% greenspace standard and the proposed parking plan is adequate with the inclusion of the proof- of-parking spaces, then it is possible that no building may need to be made smaller, but if the building ne^ to be smaller, then so be it. Page 12 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, **STONEBAY MARKETPLACE,'' NW QUADRANT HUY I2AMLLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT - ConUoued) Bremer concuired but pointed out it all is conditioned on MnDOT’s decision regarding use on Oudot B. Chair Mabuslb moved, Kcmpf seconded, to table Application #04-2974 Reliance Development Company, LLP, NW Comer of Willow Drive N. and Hwy 12 (Outlol A, Slonebay), PUD Rczonlog, Conqirehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and Commercial Site Plan Review nntil the May 2004 Planning Commission meeting when ail of the above-mentioned Items will be prov'ided by the applicant with adequate time for city consultants' review and comments prior to the Planning Commission's May 2004 meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. #3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEU') CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (7:15- 8:00 p.m.) Mike Keaveny. applicant, representing the Richard M. Keaveny Trust, was present. Gundlach reported the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II restaurant (with liquor) and a number of variances in conjunction with the required Commercial Site Plan review. This application was brought to the Planning Commission at its January. 2004 meeting where it was tabled so the applicant could work with staff on a numb/cr of issues related to the site plan, including parking, loading areas, signage. lighting, the amount of green space required along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, and also, general landscaping. A hardcover variance is also one component that is somewhat inevitable due to die existing non>conforming conditions. Since January 2004 the application has been on hold pending a public hearing for a liquor license. I he liquor license was denied on March 22.2004 by the City Council due to a number of issues, including the liquor license applicant and the proximity to the adjacent residential neighborhood. She advised that the restaurant operator has indicated that a new partner of his will be appl>ing for a liquor license and that is the reason for the continuation of the proposal at the Planning Commission. As stated at the January, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Gundlach reiterated the Planning Commission's role in reviewing this site as it pertains to alcohol is not whether alcohol is appropriate or not (as this is a City Council matter) but rather what particular issues arc appropriate and how the site is affected if liquor is served or not. She referred to the January 20. 2004 Planning Commission minutes and March 22.2004 City Council minutes, which were attached to the staff report for reference. Gundlach stated staffs opinion is that the City Council will not approve a liquor license for a restaurant regardless w ho applies for it due to proximity to a residential neighborhot^ to the south. Gundlach recommended denial of the CUP request and associated commercial site plan review w ith variances primarily based on two factors: I) City Council will not approve a liquor license for a resuurant on the site as it is too close to a residential neighborhood, 2) operation of a Class II______ Page 13 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3. 04-2977 MICHAELK£AVENYONBEHALFOFRlCHARDM.K£AVENYR£V. TRUST, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .VND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Contiayed) restaurant on the site may not be able to handle the additional levels of noise, irafTic and activity that accompany a liquor establishment. However, she slated it was vitally important to discuss what uses will be appropriate for this site taking into consideration the e.xiting lay-out and adjacent residential ncighboihood. Several variance approvals arc inevitable because of the existing non-conforming conditions. She referred to ihc B-1, Retail Sales Business District standards attached to the staff report that w ill aid in the discussion. Gundlach noted the existing townhouse development to the south was an allow ed use due to the location and its proximity to the business district. In conclusion. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss the items highlighted on the staff report as w ell as the Issues for Consideration section. Also, she notes the neighborhood comments received by the City were in the Planning Commission agenda packet and represented in the March 22.2004 City Council meeting minutes. She suggested Planning Commission comments pertain to the use of Ihc property. The Chair asked if Mr. Keaveny w ishcd to add any comments for the record. Mr. Keaveny stated that Gundlach had been very helpful in getting through all the various aspects of the application. His one remaining major question related to what can be allow ed as a use for the building, noting that his lower level renter has been vacant since June 2003 representing a large lack of income for their family. Keaveny explained he did not have a desire to have alcohol on the site but a restaurant tenant chose to request it. lie repeated his interest in finding out what he can actually put in the building to make it a viable business. Chair Mabusth clarified that Mr. Keaveny was interested in knowing if a Class 11 restaurant can be added to the existing bow ling alley use. She asked the applicant to desenbe w hat tvpe of license is held by the bowling alley currently. Mr. Keaveny responded the license held for over 55 years by the bow ling alley is for 3.2 beer and set ups. He explained the prospective tenant, Mr. Ode, w anted a full liquor license in order to control the amount of alcohol consumed there. Mr. Keaveny added that Mr. Ode might still be interested in a beer/wine license. He repeated his question of w hether or not a restaurant is a viable thing to put with the bowling alley. Chair Mabusth asked for comments .'rom the public on the Keaveny application. Mr. Thomas H. Goodman, w ith the firm of Segal, Brough, Bruckner, Duffy and Foster, was representing Charles N'adler, Austin Evans and a number of neighbors, some w ho were in attendance. He stated he review ed the application, spoke briefly with staff and the city attorney and looked at Orono's Zoning Code. In addition to the issues presented by City staff, Mr. Goodman stated that he had other issues for the commission to consider. Page 14 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#1. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. 1 RUST. 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRI\T, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Coatinued) Mr. Goodman proceeded to outline his points, beginning with the point that the application assumes a liquor license that has been denied by the City Council. He commented that the application should be denied because, as applied for, it cannot be granted. Secondly, Mr. Goodman pointed out the bow ling alley is a non-conforming use and is not permuted in the B-1 District. According to the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes, he reviewed a statement by Mr. Ode representing the operation to have a common entrance and to have the restaurant function with the bowling alley. Mr. Goodman expressed that this situation is the opposite of what the City intends with its Zoning Code, meaning that the City has legislated against more bowling alleys. To enable the bowling alley to be more viable or more profitable is not the intent of conditional uses and, Mr. Goodman continued, this is the opposite of w hat should be done with conditional uses. Further, he stated that conditional uses should actually ‘die’ so that a conforming use will replace it. He emphasized his belief that bowling allc> s arc illegal in the context of the Orono Zoning Code. Thirdly. Mr. Goodman explained the proposal for an integrated use with a common entrance, as a modernization of the bowling alley is illegal as it is an expansion of a non-conforming use, w hich is not permitted under the Orono Zoning Code. Citing Section 78-71. Mr. Goodman read into the record language regarding ‘do not extend or intensify* the non conforming use. Mr. Goodman advised that his opinion, as presented to the City Council with his letter of March 22, 2004 and included in the Planning Commission agenda packet, is that the expansion of the bowling alley by permitting a Class II restaurant (with liquor) would be illegal. He encouraged the Planning Commission to do what the B-1 District allow s, i.e. neighbornood scr\ ices and retail such as video rental and not to attract others to a destination spot. In summary. Mr. Goodman stated that to the extent the application requires a conditional use permit and variances, the application should be denied and not be allowed to expand. Mr. Goodman continued by adding that the vanances being applied for w ith this application are not because of the site layout but because of the plan for the site. Citing the Orono Zoning Code, Mr. Goodman referenced the language regarding granting of variances when 'practical difficulties or particular hardships' exist. He asked where is the difficulty on this site, commenting that he believes the site is over-designed therefore necessitating the need for variances, emphasizing the plan therefore needs vanances not the site. Mr. Goodman recommended denial of the application. He emphasized the proximity of residential neighbors who need to be put at rest regarding the application, referring to Exhibit N in the staff report to illustrate how* close neighbors are to the bowling alley or to a possible new parking lot of a proposed restaurant. In conclusion, Mr. Goodman emphasized it was not the Plaiming Commission ’s job to see how to make the proposal work as the B-1 District calls out what uses are permitted and not to expand non- conforming uses as per the law.__________________________________________________ Page IS uf 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3423/342S SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Cootfamcd) Berg expressed her viewpoint that a Class II restaurant would not be approved and that there were other potential uses for the location. She mentioned there could be less gravel and blacktop and improved landscape on the site. If there is going to be a bow ling alley there. Berg stated she w ants to have the upper area fixed up, including the landscaping. She recommended that if Mr. Keaveny undertakes improvements, she would expect a ‘softer’ look to the site with improved landscaping. Mr. Kea\eii/ replied that green spaces, a new retaining wall, striping of the parking lot and building upgrades had been part of the proposal w ith Mr. Ode. Berg repeated her position to oppose a liquor license and restaurant but did not oppose continuation of the bowling alley use. Bremer asked Berg if she thought that same about a 3.2 beer license. Berg did not answer, as it is not the role of the Planning Commission to decide. Mr. Keaveny asked Berg if she thought a restaurant without a liquor license was a good use. Berg replied that she did not think of a bowling alley with a destination restaurant but rather had a snack bar instead. Mr. Keaveny indicated he has received expressed interest for league bowling in the last nine months. Berg restated her opposition is not to the bowling alley but with the other use intensification and other issues with green space, parking, upkeep and site appearance. Mr. Keaveny commented his whole intent was to get the whole site fixed up acknow lodging that it has been a while since it w as well cared for. In the past year he has attempted to get busy w ith improvements. Chair Mabusth inquired if any other Planning Commission members had any comments. Bremer asked if the Planning Commission should review the parking and hardcover issues. Chair Mabusth commented that hardcover remains the same at 90% as the application proposed paving over existing gravel, which is still considered hardcover. Structure is being added with the new entryway, going up fiom IS% to 16%. She noted the application docs not quite meet the parking code requirements so a variance is needed. Chair Mabusth acknowledged that going over any of these issues applies only if this is an triplication that will be approved. She concluded that without the liquor license there is no point in going over the specific planning issues. Mr. Keaveny acknowledged he received a list from staff listing the conforming uses applicable to his site and has heard so many comments from the nei^bors and would like to hear their suggestions. Page 17 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVF.NY REV. TRUST. 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW - Coattaucd) Chair Mabusth continued that Mr. Keaveny does have fhendly neighbors who would be happy to work with him to have the bow ling alley come back but definitely oppose the liquor license. Mr. Keaveny staled he understood they have major issues w ith other license establishments but that this should not necessarily be thrown into his issue, and that there should be a way to deal with tlic Narrows. Having heard from her ncigtibors. Berg indicated the major issue is that Navarre does not need another restaurant w ith liquor. Mr. Keaveny stated he has heard this. too. Berg concluded that she als ^ would like an upgrade of the building itself and a tenant that is less IrafTic intense, with no Class II restaurant. Chair .Mabusih moved, Rahn seconded, to deny Application ii04-2977, Michael Keaveny on behalf of Richard .M. Keaveny Rev. Trust. 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit and associated Commercial Site Plan Review with X’ariances for hardcover, structural coverage and signs for a restaurant with liquor (Class II) based on the negative impact of the operation opening up onto adjacent residential properties, the additional traflic and actis ity concerns, that it is an issue of public health, safety and welfare, and includes the stafTs findings of fact. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Chair .Mabusth cncuuragcd Mr. Kca\cny to work wiih stafT. Mr. Keaveny iiidicatcu that he will and stated the staff wa-s very nice to work with 4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, .MORSE ISLAND PARK (120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR WETL.VND ALTERATION - CONTINU.vriON OF PUBLIC HEARING (8:00-8:20 P..M.) GregGappa, Public Services Director, representing the City of Orono. applicant, was present. Gaffron explained the applicant request was tabled at the Planning Commission’s March 15. 2004 meeting to allow for a meeting with Big Island residents to review the proposed access plan and to allow Greg Gappa, Orono’s Public Services Director, to be present for questions and comments. He illustrated the application’s access location, a second access location w ith steep grades, as well as one additional potential westerly access location. GafTron rqx)rted the City Council’s position, as identified at last w eck’s City Council work session, is committed to upgrading the application’s access to the lev el of use as it had in the past until the adjoining property owner closed off the portion on their property. Further, the City Council was not interested in reviewing a third access at this time, leaving it for a future determination, noting there is no budget for it now. The City Council also indicated its intention to limit the number of access lanes open on Big Island to the minimum number necessary to provide minimally adequate access, rcaultipg to minimizing the amount and impacts of motor vehicle usage on Big Island. Page 18 of 49 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (4. 404-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 A 39, MORSE ISLAND PARK (120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR WETLAND ALTER.\TION - Coatiiaed) Gaffron summarized Ihc current proposal is to merely replace the 90’ public nght-of-way for the long-established access that was recently eliminated from the adjacent property. The proposed wetland and floodplain impacts are minimal and the City expects to meet MCWD requirements. Further, the City recognizes an obligation to re-establish this access w ith the least impact method given the limited options. Gaffron indicated the wetland alteration and floodplain impacts were scheduled for the April 22, 2004 MCWD agenda. The proposed access improx cmcnis do not expand the access nor provide more access to Big Island. Gaffron recommended approval of the variances and the conditional use permit requested by the applicant. Gappa concurred w ith Gaffron's summary, emphasizing that the request is basically for a replacement to an access that was there. There is no intent to expand the access from what had been there before hut to leave the status quo of tw o access points. The access is 10' w ide and pushed w ay to the south to minimize wetland impacts. Gappa anticipates the .MCWD will require mitigation of the wetland buffer impacts so that a 16.5' buffer around the entire wetland w ill be put in place which is fine as the City's intent is only to build the road access with no other development activity on the site. He emphasized the application is a replacement of an access that for many years w as thouglit to be on the public riglit-of-way but recent survey records indicated it was not the City ’s. The City Council's intent is to replace an existing access and not to provide more access to Big Island This access is neeued as it serves several land-locked parcels, too. Chair Mabusth asked Gappa if he was present at the City Council work session on April 8. 2004. Gappa responded that he was not in attendance at that work session but has read the meeting minutes and discussed the City Council ’s position w ith Gaffron. He briefly summanzed the access issue background since a Big Island resident meeting in March 2003 and subsequent City Council and Planning Commission discussions of the matter. He confirmed that the City Council has no plan for additional access points on Big Island at this time or expanding vehicular use or tree removal, but is open to future considerations, w ith the current focus on this particular access replacement location. Chair Mabusth asked for clarification of efforts to minimize site impacts within the 0-75 ’ shoreline area and the wetlands w ith the limitation of a 10’ width. She questioned if the City is follow ing all the MCWD guidelines or if there are other review ing bodies. Gappa confirmed that the MCWD is the only other review body. Chair .Mabusth asked for public comments. Cheryl Uran, 120-140 Big Island, stated that last time she was present, the Planning Commission had listened to them and gave a good solution that would work by gening the Big Island residents together to decide what to do. She believed that matter was taken out of their hands and returned to the Planning Commission. She expressed her disappointment in how the process had worked. Page 19 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (4. «04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39. MORSE ISLAND PARK (120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, V ARIANCE FOR WETLAND ALTER.VTION - Continued) Ms. LTan repeated her comments from the March IS, 2004 Planning Commission meeting: 1. This is not a replacement access. There was nothing there as people were driving on their private property sometimes w ithout asking them for permission. 2. The City has looked at no other accesses because they have not been surv eyed for cost comparison. Grading costs versus filling in the w etland via barge costs docs not make sense. The work done this winter in the w ctland was done by two private citizens. Urans were not consulted about the impact upon their land Uran docs not like the feeling of having no inp . the decision. This access is the furthest point away from the land-locked lots and will result m more back and forth activity. 3. 4. 5. 6. Uran concluded that the Planning Commission reconsider the access but expressed her disappointment that it w ill be approved anyway. She apologized for repeating her comments and Ihanked the Planning Commission for listening. Rick Parson, 280 Big Island, conimcnied that the access Ms. Uran referred to does not work for their propeny but that they could use the Bay Place locaiion. He explained their property has quite a few steps up from the lakeshorc and they have carried 8S sheets of plywood up the steps for their new building, and canning construction materials by hand lengthens the building process making it tough to complete a building project in the two year time permitted by their building permit. Mr. Parson c.xplained there is no way to get equipment in to build the sewage system coming from the access, as it does no( connect to the access behind them. David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, indicated he purchased his property on Big Island in the late I990 ’s and at that time he understood he did not have lake access but that he had always had legal access. He w as aw are he could ask the City for a peniiit at the end of the platted road, and at that time. Bay Place was probably the closest. How ever, there is a dock already at the end of Bay Place public access and he understood that only one permit is allow ed there and if he asked for a permit, the existing dock pcniiit would be rescinded Mr. Lovelace believed his option was limited and was not ‘neighborly* so he took the one offered him at a greater distance. He acknowledged that he and others were aware the access used w as on Uran ’s property, and that most of the Big Island residents have tried to work this out among them, but are here because the informal agreement ended and requested help to resolve the issue. Chair .Mabusth asked Mr. Lovelace to indicate w here he was allow ed to put in his dock and if he received an administrate e permit to put the dock there. .Mr. Lovelace replied that he did have a dock permit for that location. However, until he was granted pedestrian access with the dock permit, he was forced to trespass to get from his dock to get to the road. He explained that the City advised him to remove an old building on his properly before a building permit w ill be issued and observed that getting equipment in to remove the building is very difficult. Page 20 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN-NING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2u04 6:00 o’clock p.m. (4. 404-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, .MORSE ISLAND PARK (120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL LSE PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR WETLAND ALTERATION - Continued) Chair Mabusth commented that she remembered the earlier Planning Commission discussion, which occurred without benefil of much background of this acces' issue and apologized if the City let them down. She stated Gappa was present this evening to give them the necessar>- background on this application. Gappa explained that with a City project, discussions oflcn occur first at the City Council level because of the tax dollars invohed. He acknowledged there ha\e been past Big Island meetings and residential input but the City may not be able to satisfy all the varied interests on Big Island, lie described a potenttal project on Big Island would have to go through the City’s Capita) Improvement Project process for funding and the Planning Commission w ould then look at the zoning aspects of a potential project. He concluded that the City Council is now clear r n this m dter. Mr. Lovelace asked if a resident could come to the Planning Commission and ask the same questions with the same process as he did four years ago. Chair Mabusth explained that a permit for a dock is handled through an administrative permit. Gappa concurred but explained further that if residents want to do other accesses, such as Bay Place, they likely involve the Capital Improvement Project process and city funding decisions, w hich begins with the (Tity Council, not the Planning Commission. Mr. luivelace restated his understanding that there is nothing preventing a resident from talking to administrative stalT, the Planning Commission or the City Couneil in the future and asking to take another look at other public access issues on Big Island. Chair Mabusth and Gappa agreed with Mr. Lovelace’s statement. Gerald Walsh. 180 Big Island, explained their property’s location, noting the site is about 65’ aho\e the water level w ith a 20’ drop to the water, making it virtually impossible to access the property from the water. When their property was purchased there w as a recognized access by virtually everyone on Big Island, even to the extent that Mr. L’ran would plow and clear access up to Walsh ’s properly. About 1 ’/? year ago, Mr. Walsh learned it was a prixate access, held numerous discussions with Mr. Uran and the city, was given pennission to use the access, then later refused permission, and later xvas offered to use the access for S2.500 by .Mr. Uran. Then the Urans infomicd him thai no c.rie was pemiitted to use the access and subsequently Mr. Uran developed it into a grass knoll making it impossible now to use the property without damaging it. He emphasized that w hen they used the property it was for limited access for building matenals. .Mr. Walsh stated there is no access to his property from the other side of the island without crossing other private property or without a steep grade. Chair Mabusth asked if there was a steep grade also at Bay Place. Page 21 of 49 Li. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 o:00 o’clock p.m. (4. #04-2997 Cn^ OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 A 39, MORSE ISLAND PARK (120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. VARIANCE FOR WETLAND ALTERATION - Cpollaucd) Mr. Walsh indicated he did not know where the Bay Place access is on the lagoon but it may also have a substantial steep grade. However, even if the Bay Place access w as open. Mr. Walsh stated there was no way to get to his property without going across Mr. Lovelace's property. Mr. Lovelace commented the road access coming up from Bay Place currently is wooded and it could be opened back up but is not dnvable now. Ms. Uran inteijected that she thinks there are currently two conditional use permits for docks at Bav Place. Chair Mabusth stated the Planning Commission appreciates all the input but the City Council directed that the access be improved and is undervv.’v through the permitting process Mr. Uran asked what the existing wetland in the public right-of-way is connected to on the west. Gappa responded that there may be culverts from up stream and Uiat an ice ridge barrier traps the water draining down the hill to form the wetland, but acknowledged he did not know exactly what is to the west. Mr. Uran indicated the ice ridge or barrier has been there for over 28 years, as long as he has li\ ed there. He stated that there arc culverts on the w est side of the low land but they do not w ork anymore due to chunks of concrete being put in the roadway for stability by people who used the roadway. He commented about the amount of tralTic coming off the ice this w inter and asked if the riglit-of- .vay has been surveyed and. if not. the city is allow ing the public onto Big Island without knowing where the roads arc. Gappa agreed it w as a valid point and that not a lot of road sun ey has been done on Big Island. He acknow lodged there were many issues with respect to Big Island but the City's intent is to re establish an existing access. Chair Mabuilh moved, Berg veroaded, to recommend approval of Applicalioa #04-2997, City of Oroao, Access Between Lots 38 A 39, Morse Island Park (120-140 Big Island) granting variances and a conditional use permit to allow wetland alteration and a driveway coastmetioa pro|rct, inclndiag filling of a minor portion of the wetland, excavation within 26*of the weHand. and niMag mad hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per the revised plan, subject to establishment of a Conservation and Flownge Easement over the wetland, and subject to the .MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Chair .Mabusih recessed ihc Planning Commission at 8:20 p.m. for a short break and reconvened at 8.30 p.m. Page 22 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONT)AY. APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. «5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (8:30-9:20 p.m.) Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, (he applicants, were present. Gundlach explained the applicants* request for a conditiunal use permit to operate a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant at 2377 Shadywood Road. In conjunction with the conditional use permit a commercial site plan re\'iew is required. The application was originally heard at the March 15,2004 Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled so that the numerous drive-through plans could be reviewed by the City Engineer and so the architecture of the proposed addition could be further refined. The applicant submitted two plans, one iih a drive-through that has been reviewed by the City Engineer, and one without a drive-tliraugli lane feature. She advised that variances are inevitable due to the site's existing building and the orientation on (he lot to the City-owned parking lot. Gundlach summarized that at the Planning Commission’s March IS, 2004 meeting support w as indicated for the building setback variance so the applicant can construct an addition. However, the extent of the requested variances depends on the incorporation of a drive-through on the site. With the drive-through plan, an additional front-yard parking setback variance and a hardcover variance are required. Without a drive-through feature, these variances could be avoided. Gundlach advised the Planning Commission to discuss the two plans, what approvals are necessary for each and determine what plan to approve or not to approve. Gundlach reported that the applicant was required to submit more detailed plans of the proposed exterior finish and was encouraged to incorporate a pitched-roof clement to the proposed addition. The submitted color renderings were displayed for Planning Commission review- and comment. Gundlach advised that the applicant is proposing to keep the brick on the entire front of the facade and extend the stone along the bottom of the (wo sides and rear. Two different patterns of hardy board plank siding arc proposed for the rest of the facade finish in a tanish-brow n color to complement the w hite stone. She advised that a pitched-roof now has been incorporated. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss these elevations, the materials and color scheme to determine if they arc appropriate for approval. Gundlach recommended denial of the plan incorporating the drive-through due to the unnecessary variances required to achieve it. Staff maintains that a drive-through should be allowed only if the site could support it. She advised staff would support the plan without the drive-through; how e\ er, the screened porch should be removed in an effort to decrease non-conformities. With the drive-through plan, Gundlach noted the applicant is prepared to tear down the three-season porch to facilitate the drive aisle around the building, but wants to keep the porch if the drive-through feature is not permitted. Gundlach explained her basis for recommending removal of the screened porch is that the building will be extended to a non-confom'ing setback to the property line. In allowing the building extension, staffbelieves it is an appropriate trade to remove the screened porch because it adds to the excessive non-conformity of the side street building setback.______________________________________ Page 23 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERILS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERftllT - Coaliaucd) Gundlach rcrerred to the following Issues for Consideration: 1. Can the site support a drive-through? 2. Should vanances be granted merely to serve a drive-through? 3. Is the addition acceptable? Is the roof-line? 4. Are the extenor finishes accepuble? 5. Is the Planning Commission comfonablc w ith the on-site parking stalls exiting into traffic? 6. Are there any other issues associated w iih this application? In conclusion. Gundlach advised staff is recommending denial of the drive-through proposal. Staff docs support approval of the plan without the dnvc-lhrough feature, which includes approval of a conditional use pemiit. building setback variance and rear >'ard parking setback variance, if the screened porch is eliminated in an effort to decrease the non-conforming side street building setback on the site. Chair .Mabuslh asked the applicants if they had any comnieius to add to the staff report. Christine Valerius stated they want to keep the three-season porch with the plan with no drive- through as they arc already giving up the shed. They intend to update the porch and make it as nice as the rest of the house. She asked when she should explain w hy they tliink they have a hardship w ith the drive-through plan. Chair Mabusth responded that she thought the Planning Commission had unanimously given the applicant direction that the Planning Commission was not m favor of a drive-through. Ms. Valcnus replied there was a third plan that needed to ha\e City Engineer review and comment and follow ing his review, she believes the drive-through plan works, referring to the statf report and plan illustrations. Mr. Fisk agreed that they wished to focus on the drive-through plan w ith the horseshoe, as it does not hinder traffic at all. He stated a hardcover variance is required and referred to hardcover at adjacent properties, including the building next door (Dagmars) and across the street (Snyders Drug), and in the Navarre commercial neighborhood as a whole, which push the limit on hardcover. Mr. Fisk indicated that even w ith the proposed hardcover they are proposing greenspacc extensions to the rear property line and are trying to make the most amount of grassed space around the horseshoe design. He stated the drive-through is vital to the success of their proposed business Chair Mabusth inquired of the applicants to explain the removal of the three-season porch and if there are no parking spaces to be added, w hne on the plan are the grassed areas proposed. Ms. Valerius explained two parking spots and pointed out they also have access to the city-owned parking lot that is behind the propeny. She indicated that this is enough parking for the business. Mr. Fisk and Ms. Valerius illustrated their parking and greenspace plans for the site without the drive-through feature. Ms. Valerius pointed out the plan with the drive-through and the two parking ^>aces and a one-space turn-around lane allows vehicles to not have to back into the parking lot She Page 24 of 49 ~ L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS. 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD. V.KRIANCE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CoatioMed) also stated the hardship was created by the loss of property to the city-owned parking lot and making the lot smaller. Chair Mabusth expressed her opinion that the property is quite small and difllcult to consider a turn around. Chair Mabusth invited public comments. Mark Pfleghaar, 3509 Ivy Place, asked for information about the percentages fo." the property, and secondly, pointed out pedestrian use in the parking lot from city park users. He believed that more tiafTic would be in the parking lot when Irving to use the proposed drive-through lane or on-site parking spaces, which will be an increased hazard to pedestnans. Berg clarified the existing in/out lane and curb cuts will be used at the entrance of the parking lot. Ms. Valerius acknowledged the property next to them also has parking on site and has about hardcover. Rahn asked for information regarding the greenspace, hardcover and structural coverage amounts. Gundlach advised that both proposed plans meet structural coverage requirements, noting the plan with the screened porch is about 1% more. The plan with the drive-through is nearly 56^'o hardcover when 35% is normally permitted in the 500’-l000’ zone, and then assumes the remainder is greenspace. The plan without the drive-through is 34.4‘!'o hardcover and meets ihc 35?o hardcover requirement. She illustrated the two plans' differences in hardcover and greenspace Ms. Valerius requested the hardcover percentage for Sn>dcrs Drug across the street from their property, mentioning that the Snyders Drug site has a very small amount of greenspace w ith a drive- through. She also referred to the previous discussion with Reliance Development who is proposing two drive-throughs w ith less greenspace as another example of dri\ c-throughs in Orono w ith smaller amounts of greenspace. Chair .Mabusth acknow ledged that there were structural excesses on the Snyders Drug site but eould not recall the hardcover/greenspace calculations. Gundlach clarified the Stonebay MarkctplaceHeliance Development proposal is not w ithin the Shoreland Overlay District, which is a substantial reason for the different, comparative hardcover requirements, as w ell as meeting a 25% greenspace requirement and that the application is a PL*D. Ms. Valerius suted their application does meet the 25% greenspace requirement. Chair Mabusth asked the applicants to discuss the plan without the drive-through feature. Ms. Valerius explained it basically is an alternative plan if the drive-through is not allowed. Page 25 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#S. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIt'S, 2377 SHADY>« OOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL L*SE PERMIT - Conlinucd) It incorporates a walk-up window on the north side, with three on-stie parking spaces and proposes to keep the three-season porch and make it structurally sound. Chair Mabusth concurred with staff to support removal of the non-conforming three-season porch because it needs major structural repair, which would be adding more structure within a substandard setback. Ms. Valerius responded that in keeping the three-season porch the plan is 29% hardcover and the shed will be removed. Mr. Fisk acknowledged they understood the non-conforming setback issue. He reiterated they prefer the first plan as it meets some of their goals. Chair Mabusth invited more public comment. There being none, she opened the discussion to Planning Commission members. Kempf expressed his belief that the lot does not support a drive-through because of safety issues about cars turning in from Lyric and slacking up, even out to Co. Rd. 15 and has not seen an\ihing that addressed the safety issues. Aesthetically, he observed that it would look bad due to the extent of paved road all around the building, and could not vote to support it. He felt less strongly about the screened porch but as a non-conforming use it should be removed. Kempf repeated he had not seen an>lhing that works for the drive-through. Leslie slated there is no basis for allowing the drive-through feature on the site w ith many of the reasons to oppose a drive-through already mentioned in prior discussion. He is in agreement with the removal of the screened porch if the proposed addition takes place, and referred to Planning Commission continuity in requiring non-conforming elements to be removed from other applications that had major improvements or additions. Rahn agreed with the staff recommendation. He stated he did not think the subject lot is conducive to a drive-through feature, and also, he supported the removal of the three-season porch. Jurgens asked the applicants how strongly they wanted the drive-through to work and that he believed there is always some way to make something work. He did state he did not want to see curb.'gutter/bIacktop, as it would look like a giant parking lot extension. Jurgens suggested one option is a very well built paver system for the drivc-througli other than using black-top. then it would not look like a drive-through. He pointed out that was an opening on another building side to re-locate the screened porch instead of rebuilding it where there arc setback issues. Jurgens stated he had an issue with the asphalt in the rear and asked for information about how it had been paved and if there is an easement over it. Gundlach explained the City look casements for the drive-aisles in the parking lot but how the 5’ chunk got overlapped on the property line w as unclear. Its purpose appears to be for residential tenant parking. Ms. Valerius responded that they own the S’ area. Page 26 of49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. {MS, 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS. 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Coattevcd) Chair Mabusth asked for confirmation of the City Engineer's recommendation on the latest drive- through proposal. Gundlach stated some of the same traffic issues remain but are less of an issue than on the luimer plans. She referred to the City Engineer's comments included in a former letter, explaining the City Engineer received a fax copy of the final drive-through plan and his comments did not change. Ms. Valerius and Mr. Fisk noted the staff report indicates that the drive-through layout will work. Gundlach agreed that it functionally works for vehicle maneuvering but the safety issues at the city- ov^med parking lot still exist with this plan. Chair Mabusth expressed concern about vehicle slacking and asked what the City Engineer's comments were. According to Gundlach, the City Engineer did see the plan now being shown to the Planning Commission. He did not comment further on the slacking issue. Ms. Valerius expressed her positive interest in pavers and no curb and gutter, as it would fit into what are the applicants’ ideas for the site. She reminded the Planning Commission she had mentioned she preferred a softer look on the site at the last meeting. Chair Mabusth observed that the City has not accepted the paver concept to dale. Jurgens advised that interlocking pavers are used on industrial sites where bituminous and concrete will fail, with a much softer look than a solid hardcover surface. He indicated that pavers are more expensive and must be correctly designed and installed. Ms. Valerius stated part of their project is receiving some financial assistance due to the relocation of their current business in Mound, w hich may offset some of the pavers’ additional costs. Mr. Pfleghaar asked for further clarification of the traffic flow, stacking issue and parking lot/pedestrian issue. Berg explained that the ordering w indow location should mitigate much of the stacking issue by providing more drive-through lane. Gundlach pointed out the primary issue is traffic pulling-out from the site and. according to the City Engineer, that issue is the same as in pre\*ious plans. Berg brought forward the issue of the two parking spaces pulling into the turn-around space as an additional hazard compared to just pulling straight back from the two parking spaces. Rahn concurred and stated cars will likely not use the turn-around space but will pull straight back from the patting spaces.________________________________ Page 28 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#S. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Coatinued) Mr. Fisk illustrated how the Narrows parking patrons back into their properly already. Berg thought this fact creates even a bigger parking problem and expects the apron to not be a solution because cars will not use it. Rahn inteijectcd that it may become another parking space instead. Berg suggested the apron be eliminated. Ms. Valerius stated they would ercate more greenspace if the apron was eliminated and the drive- through granted. Derg expressed her concerns for approving the site but believed the business may need the drive- through to be successful and does not know if the business fits there. She acknowledged she liked what the applicants were attempting to do with site and it looks like the applicants have spent time on the concept, the building itself looks good, but still has reserv ations about approving the plan. Leslie commented that the only reason the Planning Commission is discussing a drive-through is for the economic viability of the business, w ith or without a drive-through. He pointed out that economics are not a reason for hardship, which may mean that this site should not be a coffee shop with a drive-through. Leslie indicated that the viability of the coffee shop should not be taken into account in evaluating a drive-through at this location. Ms. Valerius responded that neighboring businesses have drive-throughs and may even have less greenspace than proposed on their lot, referring to in the Hardship Documentation. Mr. Fisk stated they clearly have not tried to use economic reasons. He stated their business is going to be a coffee house with or without a drive-through, but that a drive-through is a convenience to their customers. He expressed that the key thing needed is to receive a hardcover variance and that is why they are pointing out other adjacent sites that exceed hardcover standards. Mr. Fisk emphasized they never claimed an economic hardship. Leslie expressed his interest in the business being successful but from his perspective he did not see any justification for a drive-through other than economic, which is nut a basis for granting a variance. Chair Mabusth commented the Lake Country Coffee business was successful in Long Lake and it did not have a dnve-through. Ms. Valerius agreed and added their business in Mound is successful w ith a drive-through. She stressed they had never brought up economic hardship through the entire process. LetUc moved. Chair Mabasih tccMdcd, to rccomrocad denial of AppHcatioa MH-2993, ChrUtiBC Valerius aid Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover and Bnilding Setback Variances, CtmdiHooal Use Permit to convert the Page 29 of 49 ~ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («S. CM-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - Continued) eibllaf residence Into a cofTee sliop1)tkcr>7reslanranl ns the site cannot support the requested drive-through which also creates the need for approval of an onnecessar>' front yard parking variance and hardcover variance. \'OTE: AYES 4, NAYS 3. Jurgens indicated he thought the site could still uork with a drive-through and that a traffic study is needed to assess future traffic volumes for safety concerns. Bremer indicated she thought the plan is consistent with the neighborhood adjacent properties and even is more environmentally aware than its adjacent properties, like Snyders Drug and the comer gas stations that arc primarily all blacktoppcd. She could support the plan w ith the use of pavers for improved aesthetics. Berg indicated the plan is like the neighborhood it is in. Chair Mabusth declared the vote is to recommend denial of the drive-through plan. Leslie moved, to recommend approval of Application M04-2993, Alternate Plan that does not Include a drive-through, Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover and Building Setback Variances. Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakcry/restaurant, stipulating that the three season porch be removed in an effort to reduce non-conformities. Bremer asked for an amendment to the motion to allow the applicants to have their choice of permanent removal or moving the three-season porch to a conforming location on the building. Leslie accepted the motion amendment. Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2993, Alternate Plan that does not include a drive-through, Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover and Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permil to consert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant, and to allow the applicants to have their choice of permanent removal of the three season porch or to move it to a conforming location on the building. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Mr. Fisk asked for direction of w hat information to bnng to the subsequent Cit> Council meeting, such as the paver concept. Berg suggested a drawing showing less hardcover with no curb and gutter. Chair .Mabusth suggested the applicants ask for the additional comments from the City Enginea*. Mr. Fisk and Ms. Valerius thanked the Planning Commission for time spent on their application review. Page 30 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. NEW BUSINESS 6. M04-2999 GEORGE AN D MARILYN MILELSNIC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (9:20-9:25 p.m.) George and Marilyn Mileusnic, applicants, were present. Curtis introduced the application requesting a hardcover variance in order to rebuild the 483 s.f. deck which is rotted and to ^d a screened porch beneath the new deck. The property is located in the LR- 1C, Single Family Lakeshore Residential district. '/i acre minimum. She stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance for the 7S’ -2S0' setback zone, noting that the deck reconstruction and the addition of the proposed screen porch would not increase hardcover or structural coverage as it currently exists. Curtis explained that the current deck is located in the average lakeshore setback from the neighboring deck setbacks. With the proposal to screen in the area beneath the porch the average setback would be measured from the nei^boring houses rather than the decks, causing the dcck/porch to be slightly ahead of the average setback. However, due to the topography of the lots and setback from Lake Minnetonka, the deck affects no lake views. Curtis referred to photos 2 through 5 for illustrations of the neighboring lake views. Curtis recommended approval of the requested hardcover variance as the deck exists currently and the applicants are requesting to replace it in kind, there is a hardship to justify the variance. The variance is requested to maintain the square footage that currently exists and to be able to repair the rotted deck. Also, she noted the proposed deck would meet the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the request is for a hardcover variance of 31.05% where 25% is normally allowed and 31.05% currently exisu. Further, neighboring lake views are not affected by the proposal, she recommended granting the average lakeshore setback to allow the screened porch to be built under the deck. Curtis also recommended a stipulation to remove all of the fabric and plastic liners in landscape beds that account for about 1% of the hardcover. Ms. Mileusnic commented tliat the deck needs repairs as it is not up to Code and that both neighbors on either side are thrilled the deck is being repaired. Rahn observed this application is an example of the on-going discussion about decks as hardcover or not. He rrcommended this should be a matter for further discussion with the Plaitning Commissioners and staff to finally determine whether or how* decks should be considered in the hardcover calculations. Kempf noted he view ed the property, realizing that crushed rock is going to be replaced w ith concrete for the deck. He concluded that the deck is hardcover when compared to greenspace that is visually more attractive. Chair Mabusth commented that one might argue that a properly spaced deck is even better, but that the City takes the position that a deck is 100% hardcover._________________________________ Page 31 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (6. MM-2999 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSMC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE • CoattaHcd) Kempf mentioned that the site is a steep tot and the landscaping and side\^ alk widths were very appropriate to minimize run-ofT tow'ard the lakeshore and the hardcover percentage seems appropriate. Chair Mabusth inquired if there were additional comments. There were none. Chair Mabuth moved, to recommend approval of Applicatioa W04-2999, George and Marilyn Milentnlc, 3243 Casco Circle, granting a hardcover variance of 31.05% where 25% is normally allowed and 31.05% cnrrently exists to rebnild their 483 t.C. rotted deck and to add a screened porch beneath the new deck with the stipniation that the applicants remove all plastic and fabric liners in landscape beds, understanding there will be a very slight encroachment of the average lakeshore setback as measured from the principal structures. Curtis advised that it was very difTicuil to measure the amount of encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, as it was virtually undetectable from the neighboring properties. Mr. Milcusnic pointed out the neighbors had signed the Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledge Form. Chair Mabusth indicated the infomiation w as in the Planning Commission agenda packet. Kempf asked for clarification if the motion included the stipulation for removal of landscape fabric and plastic liners. Chair Mabusth responded she had moved the motion according to staff recommendation that included the landscrq>e fabric and plastic liners removal stipulation. She asked when Utc applicants arc asked to remove this material. Staff replied the applicants are asked to remove it at the footing inspection. Rahu sccoudcd the molioii. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 7. 804-3001 STEVEN AND MARaA TIFFANY, 1325 REST POINT LANE, VARI.\NCE, PUBLIC HEARING (9:25-9:35 p.m.) Steven and Marcia Tiffany, applicants, were present. Curtis presented the applicants' request for variances for lot area, lot width and side street setback from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new. geodesic dome, single family residence. She referred to her rev ised report that she distributed to correct errors in the Planning Commission agenda packet reporu. Curbs reported the subject property is .35 acre in area where 1.0 acre is required. 75' in width where 100' is required and setback is 29* where 35* is required. The applicanu are also requesting a 6* variance from the required 35' required side street setback, due to a platted right-of-way along the Page 32 of 49 MINUTES OF THE OROKO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (7. M04-3001 STEVEN AND MARCIA TIFFANY. 1325 REST POINT LANE. VARIANCE - CoBtiaocd) southwest property line, which serves as a private driveway for the property owner to the northwest. Curtis illustrated the alley location noting that the alley is paved and a wooden retaining wall blocks the alley from through traffic from North Shore Drive. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, finding there is a hardship to justify granting a street setback variance. Hardcover and structural coverage area are considerably under the allow ed limits, and the fact that the lot was assessed for sewer makes the lot width and lot area variances a formality in this situation, and the lot size is similar to that of many other developed lots in the neighborhood. Chair Mabusth invited comments from the applicants. Mr. Tiffany stated that most of the hardcover location is in the 250'-SQ0' hardcover zone location, and at \A.9% are not even close to the hardcover limits for the 7S*-250* range. Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none. Rahn questioned the applicants if they had 10’ side setbacks on both sides would they still have crowd^ that side or would they have placed the building differently. Rahn indicated he walked the site and wondered if a more centrally located building site would help with surface water run-off. He suggested consideration of not limiting the SW side setback to 29' allowing more encroachment to improve drainage. Mr. Tiffany stated they would welcome the option to locate the home more centrally on the lot and the neighbors on the side opposite the alley would probably like having the building moved more towards the middle. Rahn commented that the side yard setback is really adjacent to an alley but it is really a dnveway used by only one property owner. He suggested situating the building w'ithin a 10’ and 10* side yard setback. Chair Mabusth explained that on her site visit she wondered if the alley could be used by the subject property. Mr. Tiffany responded that initially they. too. w ondered about its use but aOer observ ing a vehicle maneuvering on the steep alley, they w'ere not interested in using it. Rahn asked Gaffron for his opinion on what recommendation to make to allow the building location nexibility. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission determine a specific dimension to recommend for approval. Rahn inoved. Bremer seconded, to approve AppUcatloa #04-3001. Steven and Marcia Tiffaay. 1325 Rest Point Liac. grandag variances for lot irca, lot width, aad side street setback from aa Page 33 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (7. «04-3001 STEVEN AND MARCIA TIFFANY, 1325 REST POINT LANE, VARIANCE - CmMliMd) alley rl|kt-of-way la order lo bund a new siagle famHy reshleacc oa a lot 15,425 i.f. (0J5 acre) hi area wbcrc 43,560 t.f. (I acre) b reqaired, 75* ia width where 100* b required aud tide yard setback of 20* from the alley where 35* b required, stipulatiuf that there will no other changes lo the resideace footprint (with a 36*diaineter) when allowed to more Deiihly locate the hnUdlng between the side yard setbacks. In discussion. Chair Mabusth asked if a limitation on the footprint is needed, asking the applicant if they understood there could be not change in the residence footprint, even while allowing it to be more centrally located. Mr. Tiffany indicated there would be no ciurTges to the footprint. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 8. M)4-3002 CAL LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (9:35-10:15 p.m.) Gundlach explained the applicali . is for a variance to allow an existing non-confimung 2-levcl accessory structure, know n as a boathouse and located at 10' from :hc 929.4 elevation, lo remain on the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of the principal structure. Structures within the 0-75’ /one arc not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance nor does the boathouse, acting as structure and hardco\ cr within the 0-75* zone, meet requirements set forth in the Zoning Code. In the City's view, Gundlach advised the lot is being rebuilt and is therefore subject to all standards within the Zoning Ordinance. This requires removal of the non-confomiing boathouse that contributes to excess structure and hardcover w ith the 0-75’ /one. Applicants arc proposing lo meet all other standards of the Zoning Code, including structural coverage and hardcover. She explained the applicants have contributed the hardcover associated with the boathouse to the 75’-250’ zone and meets the 25% hardcover for that zone. Gundlach stated that during rebuilds staff has consistently recommended these structures be removed, as it is the only opportunity to eliminate a non-conformity. She recommended the Planning Commission discuss the hardships presented by the applicant consisting of topography and damage to the sewer line. Gundlach referred the Planning Commission to her wntten suff report in w hich she addressed the applicant's hardship claims. She summarized that she did not find that the applicants have any valid hardships and recommended denial of the requested variance to allow the boathouse to remain. Further, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission should indicate if the easement along the shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in conjunction w ith a building permit to construct a new home. She confirmed the Public Works department docs need to get down to the manhole and sewer line that runs along the shore past the boathouse. Page 34 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (I. #04-1002 G * L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE. VARIANCE - CoBCiaucd) Chair Mabusth asked for information about the types of public works equipment that are necessary to service the manhole and sewer line. Gundlach reported that she spoke with the Public Works Department and was advised there are only two places where a truck can be brought to clean the sewer line, one of which is on this lot. She pointed out a defined access pathway from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope has existed for many years. The other location on North Arm requires a tow-truck to remove the truck after it is niled. Mr. Tim Guilfoil, 740 North Arm Dr, reminded the Planning Commission that they are substantially reducing the hardcover on this property. He disagreed w ith the idea that the boathouse, which is 6S*!ii concrete, could be removed without heavy equipment that may not be able to travel to its location. Mr. Guilfoil stated they will need to get equipment down to the boathouse and cannot work from above due to its steep slope, requiring them to work on the sewer line that is 6’ deep. The boathouse precedes the sewer line by at least 10 years so it seems heavy-handed to force the applicant to remove the boathouse and hold them liable for any subsequent sewer line damages that may occur. Mr. Guilfoil stated the above-mentioned factors are viable hardships. He advised the neighbors are not opposed to this and that the boathouse is charming, docs not block anybody's long view of the lake and they intend to do some improvement to it. If the boathouse is allow ed to remain. Chair Mabusth asked w hat improvements are planned for it. commenting that it is not a very altraciive structure now. Mr. Guilfoil explained the boathouse exterior would match the principal structure. He stated it is a long way down to the lake if you take the long p-ih or if you take the steps. Chair Mabusth pointed out the steps are in need of repair. .Mr. Guilfoil indicated they would fix the steps, as they are a safety hazard now. Chair .Mabusth asked Mr. Guilfoil for his opinion about staffs recommendation that a structure could be built at the top of the 7S' setback. Gundlach clarified a new structure w ould have to be placed behind the house to meet the average lakeshore setback requirement. Mr. Guilfoil remarked that a structure there w'ould not really solve anything. If it could be plat -J at the top of the slope but then it would be in the 75* zone. Chair Mabusth explained that allowmg the non-conforming boathouse to remain is against the Planning Commission precedence with presnous applications w here new construction occurred and non-conforming structures were required to be removed. She indicated she appreciated the applicant ’s concerns about the und^ying sewer line but expects the City would work somehow w ith the applicant and miew how it would be done.____________________________________ Page 35 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY, APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (8. M04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE - ContUHcd) Mr. Guilfoil responded that they cannot reach the structure with equipment without driving over the buried sewer line and that it is not very economically viable to sit on a piece of property until winter, urJess the City would permit construction on the residence before removal of the boathouse in winter. Chair Mabusth believed that Mr. Guilfoil's suggestion might be possible. Mr. Guilfoil stressed they do not want to take on responsibility for potential sewer line damage. Chair Mabusth pointed out that any damage to the sewer line would be the applicant's responsibility. Rahn suggested the boathouse removal could be a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Guilfoil slated he liad no objection to this suggestion. Berg asked if an access easement along the shore should be pursued at this time. Chair Mabusth indicated the issue would be discussed, too. Bruce Hagberg, representing Florence and Einer Hagbcrg who resided on this property for S4 years, spoke in favor of allowing the boathouse to remain and to be improved along w ith the site. He stated the boathouse is and alw ays has been a legitimate structure built w ith the City's guidance and comment. Mr. Hagbcrg requested a courtesy to allow him to review the significant volunteer involvements of his parents in the City of Orono. He cited three illustrations of their commitments to Orono: a. The Hagbergs organized neighbors to donate fill for the approaches to three bridges. b. The Hagbergs sur> eyed a potential roadway connecting North .Arm Drive immediately west of Hwy 151 and Co.Rd.l9 that became West Branch and organized neighbors to sign the petition, which was presented to Orono. c. The Hagbergs aided the installation of the mandated Orono sewer s>'stem by allowing their legal road to the lake to be used to run the sewer line down to the lakefront. This road was faithfully maintained by the Hagberg's for over 54 years, and by allowing Orono to construct the sew cr line under the existing boathouse instead of having to go around it. Mr. Hagbcrg slated the applicant is now- bringing the properly up to the new statutes and is simply asking for the boathouse to be allow ed to remain on site. Mr. Hagberg informed the Planning Commission that he designed and built the boathouse with a floating, monolithic concrete slab with reinforced steel ard it has sur\ ivcd over time and even through an 11-inch rain. He indicated it w'ould not be easy to remove it. It also supports the hillside from erosion problems and also protects the sewer line. Mr. Hagbcrg advised that removal of the boathouse might be opening a Pandora's Box of problems. Finally, in honor of all the volunteer work done by Florence and Einer Hagbcrg for the City of Orono, Mr. Hagberg asked that the boathouse be grandfathered in and allowed to stand in honor of Page 36 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6.00 o'clock p.m. (8. #04-M02 GAL LAND INVESTMENT. LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE - Coattaacd) the volunteer work of his parents for Orono. He cited the example of the decision to allou the Noerenbcr^ boathouse to remain, and as other boathouses have been allou ed to remain, he asked for a decision to allow the Hagberg boathouse to remain, also. Chair Mabusth asked for Amher public comments. There were none. Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had further comments. Mr. Guilfoil declined to add any further comments. Chair Mabusth asked for Planning Commission discussion on the matter of the boathouse removal. Kempf commented that from standing on the lot and looking across the bay and from a boater's viewpoint, is the best argument for removing boathouses at the water's edge. There is a stnng of one aAer another at the lakcshore. He addressed Mr. Hagberg by saying, with all due respect, the boathouse and its condition on this property are not worthy as a monument foi Ilagberg's parents' contributions to the community, acknowledging that the Noerenberg boathouse has unique architectural and design elements and he is pleased it is there. Kempf pointed out the boathouse is actually two parts, one as a block building that is fairly unobtrusive and the second, which is a protruding feature on lop of it that is obvious from the water. Further, he speculated the future residents will probably use golf carts to travel between the house and the shoreline. Finally, he stated his support for not permitting boathouses within the 75'zone and indicated he will vote to have the boathouse removed. Kempf expressed his opinion that the boathouse is not a visual addition and it will be a small impact to the owners because they will be able to deal with it in another way Leslie expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hagberg's comments regarding the contributions made by Hagberg's parents. As a volunteer body. Leslie stated the Planning Commission understands the importance of citizen activism and providing contributions on a volunteer basis. At the same time, given the precedence set by requiring other properties to remove non-conforming structures, Leslie indicated he w ould support requiring the removal of the boathouse, not to ignore the Hagbergs' contributions but from an entirely different context. Rahn agreed w ith staff recommendation to require removal of the boathouse, and concurred w ith the comments of Kempf and Leslie. Jurgens concurred with the prior comments, as well, conunenting that it is important to adhere to the City rules and be consistent. He stated he appreciated alt the work Hagberg's paraits did in the community and hoped he can make as big of contribution as they did. Bremer added her concern that removal of the boathouse may create more problems on the hillside. She observed that by allowing the applicants to wait until winter to remove it will provide enough lime to investigate issues involved with the removal, such as the retaining wall, and fmd solutions. A prominent issue for Bremer is access easement for the manholes. Page 37 of 49 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONT) AY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE - CoBliaaed) Chair Mabusth and Bremer agreed the Planning Commission can not determine easements but acknowledged it would be good to have an easement as sew ers need to be maintained and access is needed to the manholes. Chair Mabusth stated she w’as uncomfortable with making an access easement a condition of application approx al. Mr. Guilfoil responded the slope is a challenge and without the boathouse, the slope will be even more of a challenge and suggested some discussion can be initiated that would help the City get to the manhole and help the properly owner keep the dirt out of the lake and maybe a compromise is there somewhere. With the boathouse, he expressed concern for that end of the lot. Chair Mabusth advised Mr. Guilfoil of other instances where the City has w’orked w iih property owners with steep topographies. Berg urged that there be engineering involved in detennining if it is more detrimental to remove than to keep it there. Noting there is already erosion problems. Rahn agreed that engineering is needed and speculated that some type of retaining structure may be needed on the steep slope. Mr. Guilfoil expressed frustration w ith Orono's position on decks hardcover calculations, and not wanting to be penalized by having to remove ihe boathouse, leading to putting up some retaining wall to manage the slope, which is then a problem because the boathouse is remox ed and that it w ill be counted into the hardcover calculation. A public member inleijecled that there are any number of boathouses that continue to exist and it is just not true that non-conforming boathouses are not allowed to remain. Also, he slated it is unconscionable to require the property ow ners to remove the boathouse and to force them to dnx e equipment over the buried sewer line that could be damaged despite their best efforts and hold them responsible for the damage. Chair .Mabusth asked staff if these issues can be separated and to get engineering advice on the feasibility of the boathouse removal and impacts on the sewer line. Gundlach advised that in the past, for example on Casco Circle with a lakeside deck, the City Engineer was unw illing to make feasibility type recommendations but recommended the applicants hire an engineer and provide the engineering comments to the City Engineer for review . Her advice is to hire an engineer to provide comments to the City xvith the Planning Commission tabling the matter until May. 2004 or the Planning Commission could go forw ard with their recommendations with engineering comments being brought to the City Council meeting for their consideration. Leslie inquired if there is any precedence for the City assuming responsibility for damage to the public sewer system in the process of a building removal. Chair Mabusth responded that staff presented the City’s position that the City holds the pcrson/applicant responsible for sewer line damage.__________________ Page 38 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MO>n5AY, APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (8. #04-3002 GAL LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE - CoitiBiied) Gundlach confiimed that was the answer she got from her inquiry with the Public Works Department. Gaflron agreed with Gundlach's report that the City Engineer will only review another engineer ’s report on the risks. He indicated that it is probably not usual for the City to accept responsibility for damage done by someone else to City property, this might be a unique case and one that ought to be brought to the City Council for resolution. GalTron recontmended the Planning Commission limit their recommendation to whether or not the boathouse should be removed with some caveats that the City Council, the City Engineer and others may need to look at what the ramifications and impacts are of having the boathouse removed, or the Planning Commission could uble the matter and await the engineering information before making a decision on the application. Chair Mabusth requested the applicant to express his opinion on whether to have the Planning Commission make a decision with or without the engineering risk assessment report. Mr. Guilfoil responded that he was not in favor of tabling the matter and would like to keep the process moving forward. In the meantime he would like to initiate a dialogue with staff and would like to have input into the final City Council decision. Rahn mentioned that it is an industry standard for demolition contractors to be insured for damage/repair issues and provide a bond to the City prior to commencing work. Mr. Guilfoil noted that two contractors have already passed on providing a quote for the work. Chair Mabusth asked for information about the condition of the wall that is into the slope. Mr. Guilfoil explained it was not a freestanding wall but part of the boathouse structure. Gaffron clarified the Chair’s question by asking if the back concrete wall of the boathouse is viable to support the slope. Gundlach referred to a photograph that shows how the boathouse sits in relation to the slope bottom. In her view, a small retaining wall may be necessary after the removal of the boathouse and staff can work with the applicant. Rahn believed there was about four (4’) of foundation sticking up beyond the grade. Mr. Guilfoil asked for a procedural clarification regarding whether stafTis empowered to work this out with them or go to the City Council. Berg indicated the matter will always proceed to the City Council. Mr. Guilfoil suggested the Planning Commission move forward with the moUon on the boathouse and then he will work with staff to come up with a proposal that could be recommended to the City Council. Chair Mabusth asked for any Airther public comments. There were none. Page 39 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (S. #04-3002 G & L LAND INV ESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH AR.M DRIVE, VARIANCE - COBliBHCd) COlir Mabiuth moved, Raha secoaded, to rccomaMad dcaial of AppNcatloB #04-3002 G4L Laad lavcetmcat, LLC, 740 North Arm Drive, to allow the existiag aoa-coaformiag accesson* •tractarc, kaowa as a boathoasc, to remaia oa the lot la coaiaaciioa with a rebaild of the priaclpal stractare, to sapport aeqairiag aa easeaieBt aloag the shore from the propcrt>- owaers as beiag beaeflcial, aad to have suff work with the applkaat ia the removal of the boathoase to iasare that the iacreased poteatial for eaviroaaieatal damage is assessed aad respoaded to ia a maaacr coasbteat with prcccdeace for other sev ere slope sites. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The applicant thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration and time spent on the application. 9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE \V. STICKNEV, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING (10:15-10:50 p.m.) George Stickney. the applicant, was present. Gundlach explained ilie applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create three (3) lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell Bay Estates. The lot is cuncntly about fourteen (14) acres and conta;ns one house w ith approximaiely o.SO ’ of shoreline. She reported the site was given preliminary approval by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2003 for 6 lots w ith a private roadway. This application was withdrawn d.ie to the neighborhood resistance, however, prior to its withdrawal, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet review’ was petitioned and the City Couneil detennined there were no potentials for significant environmental effects per the resolution included as Exhibit J of the Planning Commission agenda packet. Subsequently, the applicants submitted an sq)plication for three lots all to be ser\ cd by a pnvatc driveway and all exceeding two (2) acres, meeting the LR-1A lot area requirement. The lots have lake access and meet the lot width and at the lake and at the 7S’ setback line. Gundlach advised the City Engineer has not yet reviewed the proposed drainage plan specifics although he has approved the general concept. Il.e City Engineer and staff believ e that any of his comments will not change any lot layouts or their overall functionality. Gundlach illustrated the proposed two dry pond areas w ith a small berm and drain tile on both interior lot lines. She stated the drainage plan achieves the rate control requirement for the new lots, with the runoff rate control to be the same post-development as pre-development and easements w ill be taken over the dry pond areas. The City Engineer comments will be provided prior to City Council review. Gundlach summarized the major Issues for Consideration is: 1. Should the applicants be required to use the septic site located on the street side of the proposed house pads rather than the sites on the lakeside even though they meet state standards? Page 40 of 49 L MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONTDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (9. 904-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3290 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION -Coatinucd) 2. Should proposed lot 3 be required to use the existing driveway that exists outside the private gates of Fox Street? 3. Should a temporary casement, during the interim period, be permitted for the current mound overlapping onto proposed lot I? Chair Mabusth invited the applicants to comment on the application. George Stickney. 2590 Counti^-side Drive, representing Bruce and Kns Paddock. 3250 Fox Street, expressed their excitement as well as the nei^borhoods with the current enhanced application. He explained they would route driveways Ihrou^ the wooded areas to avoid tree removal in keeping with the estate-like setting. Mr. Stickney illustrated the septic sites closest to the lake, noting they were approved on the former 6-lot subdivision application. He stated the applicants do not want restrictions placed on choice of septic sites as all sites show n meet both City and State requirements. Mr. Stickney mentioned the existing mound septic system is in good coi.Jiiion and the existing house will continue to be lived in until a new house on Lot 2 is constructed over the next year or so. He stated agreements are in place to make sure the transfer of ownership goes smoothly. Chair Mabusth inquired if the applicants were aw are of fees that will be collected. Mr. Stickney acknowledged they were aware of it. Chair Mabusth asked for public comments at this time. David Maass, 3175 Fox Street, asked if a house could be sited anywhere on Lot 3 as long as it is within the 75* setback. Gundlach clarified a structure must be behind the average lokeshore setback and meet the 30' side yard ’’etbKk. Mr. Maass illustrated the surface water runoff pallems occurring on site and w ondered if the drainage plans adequately address this issue. Mark Gronberg explained the proposed drainage plan w ould redirect flow with the construction of a swale and driveway, thereby reducing the acreage diaming on the Maass' property from 4.76 acres to 3.28 acres. Also, there will be drainage that wcit to the west and arc diverting to the other dry' pond. Gaflhm recommended the drainage plan should becom: a covenant to be attached to the property title. Maass staled he would like to have his engineer review the proposed drainage plans before the City Council final approval action. Gundlach confirmed the scheduled date for approval of this application is the .May 10,2004 City Council meeting. Page 41 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEFTINC MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o ’clock p m. (9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CoaUniied) Chair Mabusth directed atter ’ion to the several Issues for Consideration. Guiidlach explained the issue of requiring septic sites on the street side of the proposed house pads came about through the EAW process. Leslie asked the applicant to clarify their concern over using the street side septic systems, as they had beat identified for use on the six (6)-Iot proposal. Mr. Stickney responded numerous great septic sites are on the property but they do not want to be limited to a choice of sites when all septic sites identified meet septic guidelines. Leslie further asked if the applicants had any specific concerns w ith the septic fields identified on the street side. Mr. Stickney replied there were none. Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if the septic sites near the street arc appropriate for conventional systems. Mr. Stickney stated there w cre two on Lot 2. Gaffron interjected that the recommendation of Matt Bolterman, Orono ’s On-Site S>’stems Manager, to use septic sites furthest from Lake Minnetonka should be used as a guideline and not as a condition because all proposed septic sites do meet state standards. Replying to a question from Mrs. Maass. Gronberg stated that no retaining walls arc envisioned on Lot 3. He explained that the majority of surface water run-off on Lot 3 will be going towards the Maass property but because of the proposed diversion, the overall amount is less. Chair Mabusth directed attention to the issue of the use of the existing driveway on Lot 3. It was a consensus this issue had already been discussed Kempf inteijectcd that he would like to talk about the topic of driveways, and at his site visit, obse^ed long driveways, over 800*. through the pristine wooded properties. He recommended using only one curb cut on Fox Street and one driveway running in for 400' along the lot line, then splitting at a point further in. It would reduce the amount of pavementhardcover and disturbance to the area is less, only one curb cut on Fox Street; it would require the owners to cooperate on driveway maintenance. Berg responded that such a driveway design creates a bigger issue for neighbor cooperation, including association issues, and it still has a long driveway. She believed a driveway weaving around the property is workable on a small plan such as this, and there are also police and fire response issues, too. Page 42 of 49 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. 9. M4-3003 BRL'CE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - Coatiancd) Kempf replied that lake areas often have shared driveways. Rahn concurred with Berg that such designs become an Oullot and can actually create more hardcover. Kempf confirmed he would expect the existing driveway that goes down the edge of Lot 3 would remain. There are two driveways running next to each other on Lots 1 and 2 and these he suggested could be revised. Bremer advised that the new property owners could provide easements to each other to accomplish it. Berg stressed that an Outlet would have to be created with an association for maintenance. Gaflron indicated there were other examples in Orono where two property o^^iters provide easements to each other for driveways without the need for an Outlet but the thr^old for Ouilots and associations is at three lots. Leslie asked Stickney if he had any objection to the City restricting Lot 3 to using the existing driveway. Stickney stated they had no objection to that requirement. Kempf asked Gaffron if staff objected to combining driveways in this setting. Gaffron responded that in cases in the past when there were good topographic reasons, shared segments of driveways have been approved. He stated he thought it would be up to the developer as there is nothing compelling from the Code standpoint to require a shared driveway. Kempf clarified if the applicant proposes a shared driveway, it could be approved. Gaflron repeated that Code allows for two lots to share a driveway. Bremer moved, Chair Mabusth seconded, lo approve Application it04>3003, Bruce and Kris Paddock and C« orge W. Stickney, at 3250 Fox Street, recommending Preliminary Plat approval to crest.' three (3) lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be knowa as Maxwell Bay Estates with the foil >wi.tg stlpnlations: 1. Only two new driveway ’s are proposed on the prh’atc section of Fox Street and proposed lot 3 must nsc the existing driveway that exists outside the Fox Street gates. 2. Proposed lots I and 2 should ntilixe the septic sites on the street side of the proposed house pads rather than the lakeside sites. 3. The average lakeshorc setback line shown on the preUmlnary plat shall be the Uae used to detenniae Che average lakeshorc setback for all 3 lots, aot aa average setback that is detenaiaed by whea which lots coastract houses. Page 43 of 49 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3290 FOX STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CoatinHcd) 4. ir Ike cxhikii monad te proposed lo slay dvrlag tkc lotcrim period, a temporary eaicmMt, cxplriag at tke time of site grading for proposed lot I, may be permitted but only by approval of the City*. 9. In^tlementatioB of tke recommendations of the City' Engineer. 6. Implementation of the recommeadatioas of tke .Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 7. SnbmiuloB and approval of the final plat t. Payamnt of standard fees and dedkadon of required easements. 9. Review by the Park CommIssioB prior to City Council review. VOTE: AyesT.Nay^O. 10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 7S-1466 AND 7S-1468 REVISIO.NS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (10:99-11:00 p.m.) Curtis presented the application for revisions to the Zoning Code, City Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468 to revise definitions for pylon and monument signs, as well as amendments for signs allowed within the Business and Industrial District. She explained as the Highway 12 corridor is developing more rapidly than the planned update of the current sign ordinance, the proposed amendment is an interim solution, or tool, for the City to use when faced with the inevitable upcoming monument sign proposals. She reported that at the last Planning Commission work session the Planning Commission discussed amending the Sign regulations (78-1466). Out of that work session it was determined that the code sections regarding sign regulations do not address the monument signs which are becoming increasingly pioposed by developers, businesses and sign contractors. Curtis advised she incorporate the Planning Commission's comments from the last w ork session into the amendment language. This proposed amendment will allow the City to provide developers with the City’s standards for monument type signs and provide for a smoother permit approval process. Curtis recommended the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for staff to bring it forward to the City Council at their April 26.2004 meeting. Chair Mabusih asked if a definition for the three various sign pans be developed for clarity. Gaffron suggested that a diagram or picture with labeling could be added to the amendment language. Chair Mabusth accepted that suggestion. Cunis asked if the Planning Commission w'ished to see the diagram or picture prior to taking the amendment to the City Council. By consensus, the Planning Commission indicated it did not need to see it prior to staff forwarding the amendment language with the diagram or picture to the City Council. Page 44 of ^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN'NING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-1466 AND 78-1468 REVISIONS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE - Coatinaed) Chair Mabusth correcled the proposed amendment language to reflect accurate section numbers, from (9) and (10) to (10) and (11). Berf moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Application tK)4-3005, Zoning Code Revision, Cit>* Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468, addteg definitions for pylon and monnmenl signs and amending langnage for signs allowed within the Bnsiness and Indnstrial District, Inclnding a diagram or photo of sign parts, as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows: (9) Pvton Sign. A sign supported bv a post or posts so that the sign and supports are finhhed to grade bv encasing the posts in a material consistent with the sign and where the base width dimension is a minimum of 10% no to and including 50% of the nreatest width of the sign. (10) Momimrmt SitmM. One monument sign, limited to two (2) faces is allowed per frontage per property, with a masimnm of two (2). The areas of sign base, the supporting background structure, and the sign copy shall be combined for determining the total square footage and the height of the monument sign. n. The total allowable square footage shall not csceed 100 square feet per side. The base and supporting material shall constitute at least 25 percent of the total square footage. b. The base width dimension is SO*/* or more of the greatest width of the sign. c. The sign copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 Inches above ground level. d. The sign copy area shall be completely enclosed w ithin the monument materials. e. No portion of the sign or sign structure shall exceed 10 feet above ground l£ve!, f. The monument sign base shall be constructed of materials similar In appearance to those of the principal structure and shall consist of brick, natural stone, stucco, testured cast stone, or integrally colored concrete masonry units. The structure surrounding the face of the sign from the base to the top of the sign must be solid, continuous, and consist of the base materials or eorapleroentarv materials that match the appearance and color of the principal building. g. The 200 square feet of ground area around the base of the monument sign shall be landscaped with shrubs or perennials. Section 2: .Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1468 is hereby revised as follows: Page 45 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-1466 AND 78-1468 REV ISIONS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE - Coaliaucd) I dbiricts.Sec. 78-1468. Slgai ia B Wllhia the B aad I dbtrkls, a a mra laie ai aa e. wall tad reoaumcat tlaat a a d haa hiew •ifae arc permitted subject to the followins regulations: ScctkM 3: Thb Ordiaaace shall be pnblbhed in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. VOTE: AYES7.Na>i0. Jurgens asked if there are luminance standards in the Sign Codes. Curtis advised that there are such standards in the Sign Code currently. 11. 404-3004 BERNHAGENDEVELOPME.NT, 1535 BOHNS POINT ROAD. SKETCH PLAN Staff advised that the Sketch Plan was withdrawn from the agenda. Chair Mabusth asked staff to contact the properly owners to handle the three dogs on the site if they want Planning Commissioners to view the site. Leslie asked if the site required a land use notification sign. Gaffron replied none was needed. Gundlach advised she will contact the applicant and determine the status of the application. 12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COU.NCIL MEETING MARCH 22,2004 AND APRIL 12,2804 Chair Mabusth repotted she attended the March 22.2004 City Council at \^hich meeting .Mr. Ode was denied a liquor license and Reliance Development Stonebay Marketplace received Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She advised that Marc Frilzlcr attended the following Council meeting and as he is not present this evening, a report is now unlikely. Jurgens informed the Planning Commission that he had attended the Apnl 12.2004 meeting ir> of Mr. Frilzler and reported that the Reliance Development Stonebay Marketplace application wa.* reviewed by the Council, as well as the moratorium discussion. Gaffron reported that on the April 8,2004 City Council work session there was concern expressed about the kind of town home developments being built in Orono. such as construction quality and density issues. There was a consensus to look at the standards in the RPUD for multi-family, attach^ developments. He advised that Council has placed a moratorium on all development of properties for densities of 2 units per acre or greater. Later it was realized that this would include Page 46 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19.2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (12. REPORT OF PLANNI.NG COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2004 AND APRIL 12, 2004 - Cootinucd) most of the '/a acre zone so there will probably be an amendment to the moratorium to revise it to exclude any development in the '/a acre zone. Gaffron advised it is the intent to spend a few months establishing some standards. re\iewing current City standards and putting new standards in place if deemed necessary. Chair Mabusth asked if the Planning Commission would be involved with this efTon. Gaffron indicated that it will be an agenda item at the Planning Commission work session. Berg asked how the moratorium will affect development on Old Cr> stal Bay Road. Gaffron reported the City Couneil specifieally addressed the issue of accepting applieations during the moratorium. It was concluded that no Preliminary Plat approvals or subdivisions will be granted during the moratorium but the City may take Sketch Plan applications. The Sketch Plan application for the site of Old Crystal Bay Road site with 4 units per dry buildable area is set for the May 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting based on contact with the applicant on April 19. 2004. Berg asked for background on what brought on the moratorium discussion. Gaffron replied that there had been recent observations about the look and density of recent construction projects and this led to more discussions of the need to step back and envision the results of the other areas guided to higher densities. Berg stated discussions about density occurred in the past discussions for guiding higher densities. Rahn asked how many potential properties are covered in the moratonum. Gaffron indicated that about 10-12 properties are guided for the higher densities. Chair Mabusth questioned if there any of the discussions related to Stonebay and what w as approved. Berg commented that Stonebay is being developed in phases. Gaffron explained that of the two phases that include the type of units under eonstruction now. the City has approved one and the other is not final plat approved, and the lolls also w ill return to the planning Commission for final plat approval. Berg remarked there is an opportunity for Planning Commission input. Jurgens advised that there is an example in Woodbury of affordable housing with a large wetland that may be a model for Orono to examine, noting the land there is as valuable as Orono's but there is just a lot more available. Page 47 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONT>AY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (12. REPORT OF PLA.NNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING !VIARCH 22,2004 AND APRIL 12,2004 - CootiDUcd) Berg asked GafTron for his reaction to the Stonebay Marketplace/Reliance Development's decision. Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission was clear on its parameters, and MnDOT's decision on Outlot B improvements will be important to the site decision. Berg expressed that her concerns for traffic circulation at the entrance of the Valenus application foi the coffee house in Na\ arre is the same as her concern tor the entrance exit on Willow Drive in the Stonebay Marketplace development plan. She expressed resen ations about the entrance exit trafTic going into the Walgreens dnve-through. Rahn stated his concern for the Valerius application was that the dnve-through exit was twelve (12') from the paved road or less than one car length. Berg stated she thought it vs as a similar issue w ith the entrance exit on Wjtlow Drive. 13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION There were no other issues for discussion. 14. APPROVAL OF MARCH 15,2004 PLA.NMNG COMMISSION .MINUTES Rahn asked for three amendments to the Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004: Page 9, item tt4, line 2. paragraph 7. the word "including" was changed to "excluding.* Page 21, item <t9, paragraph 3. the word “and" w as mserted betw een "renovation" and "clearly.** Page 21, item tt9, paragraph 3, the word "not" was stricken as follows, "...clearly a re-build." Berg moved, Bremer secoaded, to approve the Minutes of Hie Marca IS, 20(M Planning Commission meeting as amended. %’OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 3. 15. SELECTION OF REPRSENTATIVES FOR Cm COUNCIL MEETINGS O.N APRIL 26 AND MAY 10, 2004 April 26, 2004 • Jim Leslie May 10,2004 - Ralph Kempf Gaffron announced the next Planning Commission workshop is set for Wednesday, .May 5,2004 at 5:30 p.m. Page 48 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Bert moved, Bremer lecoaded, to adjoiin the PlaoBiag Commiuioa auedag at 11:15 p.ak There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adioumc ’ at 11:15 p.m. Jeaaoe Mabasih, Chair ' ! Page 49 of 49 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. APRIL 19,2004 6:00 o'clock p.xn. AOJOURNMCNT Bert amcd, Brener eecowied, toad|o«ra the PlmnUig Connissioo ncctiag ot II:1S p.i There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adioumc' at 11:15 p.m. * Jcaaoe Mabusth, Choir Page 49 of 49