The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-15-2004 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday November 15. 2004 6:00 PM 2750 Ke1lr%' Parkwtv - CoancH Chamben AGENDA Council Representative: Lili McMiilian AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for tbe public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the appikalion. The Planning Commission is an advisors body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the December 13,2004 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 1104-3069 G & L Land Investments LLC. 2665 Mapleridge Lane, Vanance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) OLD BUSINESS 2. K04-3052 Eric Vogslrom. 2618 Casco Point Road, Variances (Staff Melanie Curtis) NEW BUSINESS 3. W4-3022 Philip and Karen Sktxig. 280 Tonka Avenue, Variances (St.ifr Melanie Cunis) 4. #04-3056 Dennis V. and Evelsii N. Bruce. 3435 Livingston Avenue, Variances (Staff: Melanie Cunis) S. #04-3057 Don Henderson. 560 Big Island, Variance (Staff: Janice Gundlach) 6. #04-3060 Michael and Donna Ebert/. 1220 Tonkawa Road. Ancr-Thc-Facl Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie t urtis) 7. #04-3064 Douglas and Deborah Ingvalson. .3460 Birch Lane. N'ariancc (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 8. #0 3065 D. Mark and Bonnie H—ior. 326^ Carman Road, Variance (SiUit. Melanie Curtis) 9. #04-3066 William and Anita Rouse. 4051 llighwood Road, N’anances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 10. #04-3067 Lecy Construction on behalf ofDcnnis and Amanda Walsh. 1354 Rest Poiul Laue, Variances (Staff; Janice Gundlach) ____ PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 1 . Rq>ort of Planning Commission rqjresentatives attending Council meetings October 25. and November 8,2004. 12. Other issues for discussion. 13. Planning Commission approval of minutes for October 18 and November 3.2004 14. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on November 22 and December 13, 2004. ADJOURNMENT i Public A ttendance McETiNr.DATC [I-IS 00':1 □ C ouncil □Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Otiilk____________ NAME (please print) PLL VSE FILLOtTTilt IM ORMATION RCQl CSTED BELOW rOROl RCIT\ RECORDS. ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.Cif- it j) L 5^0 A/t ^7c> c'‘/-SP^'7 4.('Ws'i CH- ?c '' 5. 6. u' I llW.. j X r — '5V/C''. C. Avy»va.i\ C**/ '*<7 i~'-7 7.-7^^ f-T CZ 8. —.—^^-------------e/*-'—*■—^--------------------- 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. James W Ogland 325 Fenidale Road Wasrau. Muincsoia 55391 November 13. 2004 To All Orono Planning Commission Members Re: 043057, Don Hendefson. 500 Big Ulaad. Record Lot Size \ ariMce From James Ogland, Senior Past Commander of the Minnetonka Power Squadron (large property owner on Big Island), author and local historian of Lake Minnetonka, especially Big Island, resident of Orono for over 60 years, owner of property at 200 Big Islarid since 1981. former chairman of the Orono Park Commission, licensed real estate agent and listing agent of this property Dear Members This property was purchased in 1957 by Henry Henderson, and has been owined by the Henderson family for almost fifty years It is small by some standards, yet is one of the largest undeveloped parcels on Big Island According to Hennepin County tax records and Orono records, its 3 33 acres consists of 1 43 acres of high, dry land and I 9 acres of wetlands Of the 61 Record Lou on Big Island, il b the I9ih largesl properly on the bland. Its western boundary at 300 feet is the length of a football field • It meets or exceeds all of the requirements for a buildabic lot • It has acceptable sites fur three septic drain fields (more than required ) • It meets all setback requirements including the 73 fool lakcshorc requirement • It meets the wetland setback requirements • There are no bluff issues • It has a recent survey indicating the above • It has had a wetlands delineation survey and report identifying the edge of adjacent wetlands For the most part the property is distant and totally isolated from its adjacent neighbors to the north and east, and only minimally visible with its neighbors to the west The recent moratorium on wetland docks should not be an issue, as placement of a shoreline dock will only traverse a few feet of wetland, and would be in keeping w ith DNR recommenda* tions Construaion of a seasonal dwelling on this property should have little or no impact on the habitat or wildlife in the wetland area This property is a desirable building site and will be an asset to Orono and the Big Island community As aac oTlhc largest ku •• iIm blaad, it ccrlaaaly qualified aad sboald have beta graated Record Lot Suias iweaty years ago, aad oidy by aa ovenighL was aoL Sincerely, James Ogland 560 Dig Island History 'Hk * propcrts \%asorigtnall) pua'lvtscd b\ my lather. Henry Ci. llenderMin.tm July 24.1957. on a contract tor deed from the Olds & DanKs families. The sale also included a ItH tm West Piunt Henry \%as the person \sho made decisions on the puahases and sales of properties. On May 6. 1979. the lot and the island property uea* S4>ld u> Bn»co. a general partnership, on a Contract for IVed. On l-ehruary 24. I9KI. hn»co sold to James A Norma llUimherg. Ihe C'ity of Orono declaa*d a moratorium on any building on Big Island on No\ember 9. |98l. The Blombergs could not build t>n ihe island and signed a Quit Claim IVed reluming the Big Island pn»perty to Henry O. Hcnderxin on September 27. 1982. TImCH) ofOrMMiC'haacniLot Sicclo5 Acm. On December .10. 1982. the City ofOrtHio pavsed Oidiminee <<246. A letter was sent to the Blombergs by Ihe (*ity t»f On»no on I ebmary 15. 1981 stating th;it they were grandfathea*d in for building on a lot that was less than 5 aca*s. Hlomberg axei\ed the letter tiH) late to build and ne\er contacted Hendersitn. On September 8.198.1. Henry (i. Henderson and Ruth A. Henderson in planning their estate signed a quit claim deed to their children. IXm Hendcram. James I lerulcrson and Sharon Sclabassi. On Maah 10.1986. the C'ity of Omno sent a letter to Don I lendervin informing him that his pntperty was grandfalhcn.*d in to build on a pntperty less than 5 ucras but he hud to fill out a Ibrm and ralum it to the city. IX>n Henderson never saw the letter but 18 years later found it in an old lik on the property. L L 4 HAWKINS TREE & LANDSCAPING. INC. 1776 Canterbury Road ShakopeeMN 5S379 (952)445-1611 (612) 366-5566 A November 8,2004 Dear Council Members and Department of Natural Resources Officials, Eric Vogstrom hired Hawkins Tree & Landscaping, Inc. for clearing his lot for construction of a new house. While doing this I observed large groupings of Dutch Elm diseased trees down by the lake, which my pictures will indicate. In discussing these trees with Eric, I told him they were in unstable condition and could not be climbed and they had to be dropped. We also discussed the fact that they may damage other trees in the process. I didn't realized that I was In Department of Natural Resources territory. I am sorry that this matter happened but I will ¥vork with the Department of Natural Resources to restore the area. Respectfully submitted, Mike Havrkine^^ / < c c 1 MEMORANDUM To: From: Dale: Chair Rahn & Planning Commissionera Mike CafTron, Planning Director November 12,2004 Files M2974 and #3062 - Update on Stonebay Project There are a number of recent developments with regards to Stonebay of which you should be aware: - After Walgreens turned down the Outlot A comroocial site. Mr. Dunbar and Mr. Trautz approached CVS Drugstores. As oflatc October. CVS has also turned down this site. Dunbar and Trautz no longer have a purchase agreement for the site, and Stonebay representatives have met with staff to discuss possible options, which may include a bank and/or other ofTice related uses. At the moment, nothing has been presented for our consideration. - Steve Johnston of Landform has verbally requested that we put the Lofts project on hold until further notice; that is why it's not on this agenda. I expect a written request shortly. - in a recent shakeup with regards to the Stonebay development team, we arc advised that Terry Dahlstrom is no longer involved with the project. Council lUpicscnUtivr 'i . M;Mr.liin ALDIENCt Mt.MUt RS; PIfaic sign in for the public record »: (he from podium if >ou wiili (o address ilie Planning Commiskion. Applicants ssill be asked to move lo ilie front table to answer questions ssben the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisors body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they ssill he scheduled for the December 13, 2UU4 City Council meeting unless ulhei ssise nutrd by the Chair. I a(M-3069 Q&.L Lind Investiv.cnU LL( . 2665 Mapleiidge I ane, Vasianee (Staff Jomcc CundUch) OLD BUSINESS 2. #04-3052 EneVogstiOm, 2618 Casco Point Ro.id, Variances (Staff Melanie Curtis) NEW BUSINESS 3. #04-3022 Phihp u id Kiucn Sk jog. 280 Tonka Avenue, Variances (Staff Metar.ic Curtis) 4 #04-3056 Denn.s V and Evelyn N Bruce, 3435 Livingston Avenue, Variances (Staff; Mctamc Curtis) 5. #04-3057 Don Hniderson, 560 Big Island, Va.'iancc (S:a:T Janice Gondlach) 6. #04*3060 Michael and Donna Ebertz, 1220 Tonkawa Road, After-The-Fact Conditional Use Permit (Suff: Melanie Curtis) 7. #04*3064 Douglas and Deborah Ingvalson, 3460 Birch Lane, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtia) S. #04*306S D. Mark and Bonnie Hector, 3265 Carmaa Road, Variance (Staff: Melame Curtis) 9. #04-3066 WilUim and Anita Rouse, 4051 Higbssood Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 10. #04*3067 Lccy Construction on behalf of Dennis and Amanda Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Lane, Variances (Staff; Janice Gundlach) ■•4-3019 N«**aih«r 19.20M Paft I of 4 Dale ApplicalhMi Rtccivcd: IO-21M)4 Dale AfpNcatioB CoMidercd •« CoMplrte: iMIay Review feriod Empires: I-7-05 To: Chair Kahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Adminisuator FroM: Janice Gundlach. City Planner V' Date: November 10. 2004 Siubjcct: 04-3069. G & L 1-and Invcsimcius. LLC. 2665 Maplcridge Lane. - An crage Lakeshore Setback Variance • Public Hearing Zoaiog District: LR - IB. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Ares: 1.6 acres (70.216 s.f.) Lot Widlh: 137’ (a shoreline. 156' (a 75 ’ setback Application Snmntary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to permit construction of a pool in conjunction with construction of a new residence on an existing lot; I. Average lakeshore setback variance to permit the proposed pool to encroach 45 feet into the required average lakeshore setback. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the plans as submitted Pertiaent Zoniag Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1279. Placement of structures on lots. (6) Average lakeshore setback No principal or accessory* structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this dues not apply to stairways, lids, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots Lbt of Exhibits E.xhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F - Proposed Elevations Exhibit G - Photographs Exhibit H - Property Owners List Exhibit 1 - Plat Map • 1 •04-Mii Ko*«Mbcr IS. MM Pagt2*r4 Backfroand The applicants have met wth sufT on several occasions to discuss construction of a new residence on an existing lot at 2665 Mapleridge Road. The applicants have indicated they will meet all setback, lot coverage and hardcover standards for the new residence but would like rc\icw of an average lakcshorc setback variance for construction of the proposed pool. LOT ANALYSIS WORSUEET LR>1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.560 $ f (1 acre)140* Actual 70.216 s.f. (1.6 acres)137* (d shoreline 156* ^ 75* setback LR-IB Rcqvind Exbtteg Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear 30*210*140* Left Side 10*25’13 ’ Right Side 10 ’46’15’ Lakeshore 75’125’-deck 160* - house 150' - house 118'-pool Average Lakeshore 175’ - 155* running cast/west from shoreline 21' encroachment - house 50’ encroachment - deck 45’ encroachment - pool Slrvetaral Coverage Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 70,216 s.f. (1.6 acres)Allowed: 10,608 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 4,730 s.f (7%) IT MM-MM No«cmb«r 15.2M4 Pat*3«f4 Hardcover Zone Total Area io Zmm Allowed Hardcover I'xisting Hardcover Proposed liaHcover Os.f 0 s r*Osf 0-75 12.048 s.f.mo)(0“/»)(0%) 75 - 250 33.125 s f.8.281 s r 8.903 s.f*8.280 s.f (25%)(26.9%)(25«o) 250-500 25.043 s.f.7.513 s.f. (30%) 1.082 s.f* (0.4%) 1.082 s f (0.4*/o) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscajMr beds Averace LalutlMrc Setback Variance The applicants have proposed a pool olT the lake side of the home and orienicJ towards the eastern half of the shore. In orienting the pool this way and w ith the pio| sed home pushed all the way to the average lakc.shore setback line, an average lakeshnre setback variance is needed for the pool The p<wl basin wt>uld encroach 45 feel and the pool decking would encroach 52 feet inlo the required setback Hardship Statement Applicant lta.s provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exlilbil B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Anaivsis_________________________________________________ In contUtriNft appUcationt for x-ariance, tht Planning Conuttiuhn thall contiJer Iht effect of the propoitd variarKe upon the kemMi. lofety and wetfore of the commnnlty, exbting and anticipated traffic condMont. light and air, danger offlre. rhk to the pmNk tafety. and the effect on talnet of property In the tnrronndlng area. The Planning Commiuien %hatl contUer recommending approval for variances from the literal provaionx of the Poning Code in Instance* where their itrict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances nnigne to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approsal only when it is demonstrated that such actions will he In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that there arc hardships in order to grant the average lakcshore setback variance. 1 he primary intent with the average lakcshore setback requirement is to protect any views of the lake that neighboring properties may have In the past, variances have been granted to this requirement when it can be demonstrated that vievss will not be impacted and usually the evidence relates spcciallv to the land and hardships are found. The uniqueness of this property is that its shoreline almost creates a small point causing a home to be constructed almost 150’ from the shore in order to meet the average lakcshore setback when the neighboring properties houses arc only 90-95 feet from the shore. This means that the only alternative for a conforming pool Kveation would be to move the proposed house closer to the road, which severely impacts applicant’s views to the lake. It is also worth noting that the existing house and deck currently encroach into the average lakeshore setback and the proposed pool would not increase the existing encroachment .Also, the neighbor most impacted, to the east, has a pool in the lake yard winch is much closer to the lake than the applicant's proposed pool. But due to the mtm9 Kc*ta.*«r IS, 2004 orientaiion of Ihe houses to the shore no direct lake vic\%'S are impacted because* lake views are straight out. Isaacs for Coasldcrattaa 1. Are any views negatively impacted? 2. Does the small point create a hardship inherent to the land? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccoauaca4alkNi SufT recommends approval of the average lakcshore setback variance request to allow a pool to encroach 45’ on the required setback due to the orientation of the shoreline creating a small point. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Sfreef Address 2750 Kelley Parkway Orof^o. MN 55356 952-2^9-4600 fax 952-:49-46l6 f/aJirg AdJress PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. WN 55323-:C66 Appl'cat.cr' * Date P.eceived jo 2c. cw Amount Pa d < Staff Fee S600 Renewal . <V|A iC<^ S300 A*ler-the-fact S1.2DC PcLt e Fee appi.caton form must be completed m fun Ac: cant wll be roMed wiinm t5 days as to me status of me app!.cat.on Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: % | , y P . iv.y Site Address. __________ 2»U5 -----LJi------------------------------------ Property Identification Number (PIN). _____1 1» ir- ~ ---------------------------------------- (Attach legal description to application if not me uded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year)i T □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. P«:esent use of propertyi B Residenlia'. □ O jter _____________________________________ Zoning District _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete.lega' ra-es ard manta! status rcouired for each rterested party) Name: _____G >-L ^Lcc ---------------------------- Phone (home) __ Add'ess %i'>'________^ Email _______tii*--<^ Phone (work): S i 3 *r *) OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names mantai status 'equired for each interested party) Name ____^g>.». g 0.1 uLjog- —----- — — Phone (home). _______________________ Address______________________________ Email_____________________________ Phone (work). DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: .$ ------- Oeser be the request in derail (attach additional sheets if necessary); <v c vo*v-vfc«.»wj ^ L.*n .■&: O f A Q, REQUIRED SUBMITTALS; ^ ^ All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. jd Pre-App'ication Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form u 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 hsted within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8.5 ’ x 1 V 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 * 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 staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is compleU> or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit Applicant's Signature: Apolicant’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 verification of this request ____________________Dale. Date Owner's Signature Owner's Signature; Jl/iiM r 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 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. City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form fTh s form is to be completed by a City Planner during you>- pre-appi cat on mect-"g *1 Street Aciaress: Ma hr^g Address For Q»f.ce UyeOnj^ i. . ^ 2750 KeHey Parttway PO Bex 66 City Planr*er ____ 0'onoMN5S356 Ciys'.a Bay, MN 55323-0066 Meeting Date/Tirre fC-t L L PC Date /S' Mam 952-249-4600 Fax 652-249-4516 What is th€ 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 rhiit, Property Identification Number (PIN): ________________ Zoning District Size of Property. / (r DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: )^Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback 'D Harocover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot A^ea □ Other _______________________________ □ From Yard Selbacx □ Lot Width 5 (\ HARDSHIP; Applicant has received the Hardship Documet :tation Form. Ol' understands it as it has been explained to them and is aware that it must Applicant's Initials i -------------------------------------------- . be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application OTHER INFORMATION: ____ 1 L EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form Is • required submittal for ALL varlanee 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 te 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 economic situatior^s are not considered vs' d hardships In order fer an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having ment must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? „ This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determ ne if a ha dship exists and how the variance w.ll affect the surrounding ccmmunlty To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer inem as dearly as possible Since ycu 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 m determining a denial or approval recommendal-on. If you leave somethrg out it will not be considered Piease address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (sorre may not apply) “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls * _________________________________________________ “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowrter.“ 4-ou>jk g A U^V •The vanance. tf granted, will not a'ler the essentia' character of the locility ’ C. ________________________________________________________________ A., . ^ ... Xa '. ^ cV\.V **4.' Jlu . VJUu. a -4W L^Vc<. 42*- “Economic considerations alone shali not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the te.nns of the Zemng Chapler.“ K/ j/v^________________________________________________ f _ r Page 2 of3 •Undue hardahip also includes, but is not lin^ited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for tolar energy tystams. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd 2. when in ha/mony with this Chapter.’1 -------------------------------- •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may rwt permit as a vanance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property m the zone where the affected person's land is located ' j lA______________________________________________________ •The Board or Council may perrr.l as a vanance the tempor-ry use of a one-famt'.y dwelling as a Iwo-family cJweiling * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. ‘The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such proper <C 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 ' jj(vA •The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property nght d the applicant * . Co t %•fc-Up •The granting of the proposed variance vw!l not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning CojJe ’ uo <- /? o . ' * .V 1^ Page 3 of 3 '^T*vu< :?,5Tu? .8 necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty “ W Uvl^ W..,LU- f- =i. ^ 5*02?)^*leeHhl"hardship cwnM tSiy be ?escnlid in the above cntena Oeswot me unique hardship, practical difticuly or unusual property P'®""J"® with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach addi.ional shoe.s it necessary) \ :.' : ./■-' rd* s,aawsAattailliiaiiiaii EXHIBIT C _____ O:ce =N EXISTING HARDCOVER Lot Afo X ef Hort^e*»r 0-75 fomi I 12,046 So n o.ox 75-230 foot B!dg.A^>4<f 2,454 So.rt Dccif/'Pot.o/P'orchAfoirB t.BSS Sq.ft Orhm 4,56J SoJl Total Nortfcover 8,903 Sq.fT. Lot Aroo 33,125 Sq.R X o* iiortco^OT 76 9 * 750-500 foot on^ Let Area X o' Hortfco^rr 1,062 Sq.ri. 25.043 So.rt 0.4 X Tctat Porcef A.'oo 70,316 Sq.fl PROPOSED HARDCOVER 0-75 feat Lot Area X of HorOee^r 12,046 So.n oox 75-250 feol * . , Hoxrio/Carago ^ Deck/Potio #•01 Orivo/kfoUi Total Hordcoror Lot Afoo X of Herdcavor 4730 Sq,rt. 1.750 Sq.ft. 1600 Sq.ft 6,280 Sq.ft J3.T75 Sq.n. 25X 750-900 Hat Dfiyo Lot Aroo X of Hardcover 1,082 Sq,Ft. 25.043 Sq.fL 0,4 X Tote ®orco? A-ea 70,5• 6 Sq.ft EXHIBIT E »>v . • i*• *; •V.V\? % . • “V-'i \ . “4, / *»* Jr: .#.KTMk9>3«rt^ ■«> « * .*. .. ? 5-' r I V'-I ‘I a;, I ^ fWpnHil tnHumnwr .»w ? 1 m«iim<wo 2 0 0 4 fU «I3 M5 4#0« ------------- I 3 •r k \i'^fl^ -^^4^-.A,a;<?53SZ/a i Ttt «i»3n.*no TAX »U iO «»W ' \ t~r -■■tv'vViv '■ ■ ».*4 ilt i i S') il F * w »T«“'IsM -^. .. - v;'ir-?’ ^ <rr •J'\ - !f-•..':*;v. jr'X'. \■..*4. ■—«rrM|r^ * /^■*i* * tl ,.'*, \*v ‘ ' ’ -^ ■ araftr-Tjey ■<4. -s!.v -ri/fv ' ' <s’ U»V^. < . i' * ♦ ! i yif ‘i I x'r .#•> . ■V^e.Av: J A / '■•■ ? y !-.v.;-c; 4.'-V' ^ - •■':*'I it A ' r iDi ^ %i • V' : f Jr , 4 -i<- c; '>< ;• ;*r*‘ , < , ....................................................."■.'ii' •*-i»»W' '.^ . ■* . > } Jim • . o' r UNDATF. IQQI/3P0t 31 2111723210004 OTADOT 2M5 MAfURIOOfLA VNBIHAMR OALLAMOlHVtSTMENTSLLC JCPAYE* OALLANOIKVESTMEWTSlir MBAtXM ••SfGMATWATWSAirOVC EOCN PRAIRIE MN 3S347 M 3III72S2700IM OPAOOR 240* OLD beach RD VNCRNAM6 OKCARLSONBOMCARISOH »XPAVER CERALD R a 04ANE CARISON XMBAnOR 24960LD BEACH RO WAYMTAMN 55391 HESSrPIN COtlVrY property information SYSTVAi PR<»*tRTYO\\NFR-Sl.l?*T pace I )« Jill723210005 PROPADDR 2«)5 MAPLFRIDCr LA OWNER NAME ERICH PAULSON TAXPAYFR fRCH PAULSON name /aoor ?m5 maple Riocf la EXCnSIORMN 55311 31 2111723720007 PROP AODR 2510 OI O BEACH RO OWNER NAME TW40THY F OLSON TAXPAYLR 1WOTMYFOLSON NAMryAOOR 1510 OLD BEACH RO WAY7-5TAMN 55391 II 71117732211005 PROP AOOR 2490 OLD Bt ACM *» OWNFRNAME R A LU7AICH10 L LU/A1CII 1AXPAYFR RICHARD A A GAIL L LI /AR M naml /ador 7490 old BFACHRD WAYZAIAMN A5I1I 3R 7IM77322000* PROP AOOR 2550 01 D BLACH RD OV7NIV 4AME LAURELPARTRinOI SFAUBLV TAXPAYER lAURFLPARTRIDGFSTAllBLV NAMFADOR 7431) old BFACHRD WAY/ATAMN 5MOI 31 7111723220009 top AOOR 2540 OLD BCAOl RO ^NERNAME dm SCHNEIDER RMH leaf \XPAYER DMSCHNCIOERRMHLEAF AMBADDR 2540 old beach RD WAVZATAMN 55391 3 SlIlE^irNStPlN COUNTY TAXPAWR StRVICXS DEPARTMCNT,^ THE BFS OF MY KNOWIEDOE AND BtUFF____XrJltfO^ . [jlDATE CO I.: © wXsw H S FILE •04-30S2 10 20C4 Paga 1 of 2 D»U AfpUca(^*Date A^lkatloB CoMidcrcd IS Cospldc: 09-I3-4M M-Day Rc^tew Period Etpires; 01-13-05 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Conunission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis. City Planner | f November 10,2004 I 04-3052, Eric Vogstrom, 2618 Cascc Point Road, - Variance - public hearing ZouUig District: Lot Area: Width: LR-IC, Oac Family Lakeshore RrsklentiaL 'A acre/100* 0.47 acre (20,561 s.f.) 100' parallel to the shore 80' @ 75’ setback AppHcuthtt Smuotmo * application was denied at your October 18 meeting. Since that time the applicant has proposed reductions and has been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for review of the revised plan. The revised application consists of the following. 1. A hardcover variance for 36 8% hardcover within the 75* - 250* setback zone where 25S is normally allowed and 27.1% currently exists (45.8% with the addition of the 2,652 s.f area used as the gravel driveway in the right-of-way); and 2. An average lakeshore setback variance to encroach S' nearer to the lake than the property to the south. The applicant has submitted a tree and vegetation restoration plan for the property which staff is currently reviewing.______________________________________ Stq£f Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance; and should the Planning Conunission find that there is a hardship inherent to the land supporting a hardco\er variance an appropriate level should be determined._________________________________________ LUt ofExUbiU A. Survey revised November 8,2004 B. Council Report as of November 4,2004 I \ / X V J* J VI. V-' \ 5 'Puif £kfi Stump t * yoS r rth find of Bloc*, 7. wA- mtsh^ Portt 2nd Addition \ dO f j-^ ncrdc J/worr>s /W V i II %’ Ook . tump Agh 5U s- X939 Ret Won f IJ/7V> I 4" tdaph Stump X947.1 7 nJ2‘ Spfueo Stump ^ x94r g^ J ^ ■ / 161 IS S 89‘2Jl00'‘ E / / 6-Spruce • mpmcMmt N m. f^not lidd ^ \!k^j / /4' f/m fS/pmp 2* Ash free stump locution shomn os por ctiont not fiotd vonSed 2' Om nuo stump location shown 05 por diont not Md voriRod V V 0 Ha5ZCG ’T3. C4I-C-"1aT:C>’ WC:C<5iiilT r.>;::r I;«^ S-* V'/C- /r (*;%cr INS S-Z SJ. 5». 2>f / SJ. SJ. SJ. S-% SJ. SJ. ,S-F. s^. SI. 5J. __________S.7. A t -r^ ss. B ? *7./_____.H SJ. SJ. SA s^. SJ. ICCr 55. .55. 55. 5.?. .55. 35. [SJ. 55. Date Appttcattoa Received: 0»-li4M Dale ApflkatiM ConpkU: d*-l3-04 60-Day Review Period E&unsioa Expiration: 01-13-05 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 4, 2004 Item No. DcpartMCRl Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis j | Title: City Planner ^ Adminiftralor Approval:Agenda Section: Item DcKription: «04-3052 - Eric Vogstrom - 2618 Casco Point Road - Variances Zoning District: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, '/j acre/100* width Lot Area: 20.561 s.f. (0.47 acres) Lot Width: 100’ measured al a line parallel to ilie shore & 80* at the 75* setback List of E&hibiu: A. Notice of Council Action (Tabling) dated 10-26-04 B. Council Report of October 20.2004 C. 60-Day Review Period Extension Letter D. Tree Removal Violation Letters dated 10-14-04 & 11-03-04 E. Letter from Mr. Vogstrom ’s attorney dated 10-22-04 F. Revised survey dated 10-25-04 detailing most of the uees & vegetation removed Application Summary: This application was tabled at your October 25, 2004 meeting. Please refer to the Council Memo dated October 20. 2004 (Exhibit A) for the most recently revised plans and hardcover. Planning Commission Recommendation ^ This application was first heard by the Planning Commission on September 20 and was tabled al the applicants request in order to reduce the level of hardcover variance requested. On October 18. 2004. Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Bremer and Rahn cast dissenting voles) to recommend denial of the hardcover and setback variances based on lack of sufliciem hardship. The two dissenting voters would have offered the applicant a tabling to allow him time to provide a further revised plan. PlanRhig Suit Recommcadalion The applicant has proposed to Council a plan with further hardcover reductions but still requiring variances, Council should refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Refer the application back to the Planning Commission in order to review the revised plan, or direct staff to draft a denial resolution for adoption at your November 22"^ meeting. H « R>» T / CITYOFORONO 27S0 Kdky Parkway P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249>4600 ZONING FILE 04-3052 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 26.2004 TO: Eric Vogstrom 20840 Channel Dr Greenwood, MN 55331 COPIES:Timothy J. Keane Leonard, Street A Dcinard 150 South Fifth Street Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: October 25,2004 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Motion: To table the application as requested by the applicant. Your application is hereby ubled to the November 8*^ City Council meeting If you have questions please call Melanie Curtis, City Planner, at 952.249.4627. Dalt AppUcati«a Rtccivtd' OS-18^ Date Applicatton Compltlc: 09* 13*04 ftO-Diy Review Period Expirattoa: 11-13^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: October 20. 2004 Item No. DepartMcnt Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis I Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Item Description: #04-3052 - Eric Vogstrom - 2618 Casco Point Road - Variances Zoning District: I.R-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, '/i acre/100' width Lot Area: 20,561 s.f. (0.47 acres) Lot Width: 100’ measured at a line parallel to Uie shore & 80’ at the 75’ setback List of Eahibits: A. Revised Plans & Revised Hardcover dated 10*21-04 B. PC Action Notices dated 09-23-04 & 10-20-04 C PC Memo & Exhibits of 09-13-04 & 10-14-04 D. Minutes from PC Meeting 09-20-04 & 10-18-04 (Draft) E. Letter to the PC from Neighbor at 2648 Casco Point Road Application Summary: In conjunction w'iih a proposal for construction of a new 3002 s.f. home, the applicant requested variances within the 75’- 250’ setback zone for 57.9% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 10’ nearer the lake than the neighboring home and a side street setback in order to encroach 5’ into the 15’ setback from the unimproved right-of-way At their September meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted to table the application stating that they would like to see the applicant revise the plan to reduce hardcover For review at the October 18* PC meeting, the applicant redesi^ed the plan to a request for 38.9® b hardcover within the 75’ - 250’ setback, a variance for a 5’ e-Vfo.^'..mcnt into the average lakeshore setback, and a side street setback variance for a 10’ setback fr ’he ight-of-way where a 15’ setback is required. As of October 21, the applicant has revised the request for a 75’-250 setback zone hardcover variance of 36.8% for construction of a 1,884 s.f house and an average lakeshore setback variance in order to encroach 10* closer to the lake than the neighboring home. This revision shows the proposed house meeting rear, side, and side sueet setbacks. L PUMiag Coombiioi RccoMnicadatioB This application was first heard by the Planning Contmission on September 20^ and was tabled at the applicants request in order to reduce the level of hardcover variance requested. On October 18, 2004, Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Bremer and Rahn cast dissenting votes) to reconunend denial of the hardcover and setback variances based on lack of sufficient hardship. The two dissenting voters would have offered the ai^licant a tabling to allow him time to povide a further revised plan. Planning Staff Recommendation The applicant has proposed to Council a plan with further hardcover reductions hut still requiring variances. Council should refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Refer the application back to the Planning Commission in order to review the revised plan, or direct staff to draft a denial resolution for adoption at your November 8“* meeting. STTS aCCIOU fC3C12C>— :-T .CriATIOr* WC?I<SHZZT "5-l£C ISv-KS* A. HlUt_____________ •-rsra 3. C-=ii; C Sri^»37 D. S:dr»^ c. Pidoucat F. Lfiuscut C.,'C^< Uodriaia —----------L By PUnx - O. Otber PlrirA^t; r X total R^aDCOVS IN 2CNE TOT/a^^PEKTY AA£A !N ZONs^^ -X ICO - IN ZQS3 A. Hou»e -------------------- *wtea B. Csn{s C Driveway 0. adrwai E. Ptfc/Dedt 7. Uodsrisa: 3y Pjsa e c*2T X ICO - rv.::: W :J !J. :J. 5J. ?>^-7 SJ. S-*. A 1C.i_-. S^. S.7. SJ. _SJ. 7,0 Zb"T ^ ~7 V s.?. s-- S-7. SJ. ’SJ. C^^lO; S.r. SJ. AO SJ. SJ. \AA-SJ. ■ S.7. AX. 'SJ. Z9>ZA SJ. A -I ^ ~7 ^ SJ. 3 M m.E«0«-30S2 OCMWU.2004 Pag«4or4 that an increase of almost 12% hardcover on a redeveloping lot already having excess hardcover would be completely inconsistent with past practice. Staff finds that no hardship inherent to the land exists to allow a hardcover level above 2S% or 1.918 s.f. as this level allows for a 1,500 s.f. house and 418 s.f. for driveway, sidewalks and patios or decks. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccomnendatiou Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variarce. Planning staff also recommends denial of the side street setback variance, and demal of the hardcover variance. Additionally, staff recommends that any variance approval for this site should be conditioned upon the submittal and Council approval of a restoration plan to remedy the vegetation removals conducted on the property during the week of October 11“’. has3C0"*t3. CAi.c^LA■^c^' 5E73ACX Z0>3: (C3CL2 0?O -v-y «• TS-tfOV ISS-KO* T-r^—-i?Tp vT^ TV rev- 5-i^ A. Hr.a* •jays 3. Ctnss C C«i'i»*7 ' X C. Slcswiji r. X f.^CTcf* Uedeiaia By Ptvtx O. Other ^Iantb*- TOTAL KARECOVEa. W ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B ■X too •nnpfygyp wAaprovra IN tone A. Hcia. ------------------- * & Gecx|« C Dcivmy D. Sidewalk E. Pa^yOedt F. U=d9?=r» Uederiaa 9y Ptesc a c±K i TO ;al rl^ROCCVI?. IS rcsE TA- PROPERTY AREA IS ZC>a • 3 ___ L. BwarTti- r:o-:::y 5--. SJ. SJ. -SJ. ___s^. 16 sx ;sjf. _s^. _s^. /fe7> S.?. A SJ. B /r/> SJ. .SJ. .SJ. i SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. !sj. SJ. 3J. ’SJ. SJ. Jifg/•SJ. A ■ SJ. 3 % ■a jtti &-V MESTTES OF THE ORONO PLAN>XNG COLMISSION MELTING Monday, Scptenbcr 20, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jurgens staled he is opposed to the approval te;ajse he Joes not see a hardship for the sarianccs 004-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POIN T ROAD - VARIANCE Erie Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesung a number of vanaiKcs in order to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The variances being requested are a hardcover variance for 57 9 percent hardcover within the 75'-250* setback zone where 25 percent is normally allowed, a variance for a side street setback of 10 feet where a 15-foot setback from the adjacent nght-of-way is normally requued. and an average lakeshore setback vanance to encroach 10* nearer to the lake than the property to the south. Curtis staled the current home on the property is set back approximately 86 feet from the ordinary’ high water level, with the applicant’s proposal showing a 75-foot setback Curtis indicated the new of the lake from the property to the south should not be impacted by the applicant's proposal. Curtis suted borderuig the applicant's property to the nonh is an undeveloped public ng'nt of-way The applicant's property is approximately SO feet in width. Allow mg for a lO-f^oot setback on the south ard a 15-foo! side street setback on the north leaves a 55-fool wide buildable area I: is Staff s opinion a reasonable home can be constructed w’uhm this area The applicant is proposing 57.9 percent hardcover for this lot, with a 3,002 square foot footprint to essentully ma.x out the 15 percent structural coverage amount based on the total dry land area. The total property area is 20461 square feet; however, Uus includes appro.ximately 4,000 square feet separated PAGE 20 MLNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, September 20, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (;t04«3052 Erie VogtCrom. Continued) from the building site by an inlet of Canrjn Bay The contiguous land area :t approxiir.atc’.y \ 6.400 square feet. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total nonconnguous parcel above the 929.4' elevation. Neither the lot coverage ordinance nor the Zoning Code definition of “lot area" clarify whether the lot coverage percentage should be based on contiguous area. Tne definition of minimum lot area found in the Subdivision Code w ould disallow- noncontiguous land to be credited tow ard lot area. Curtis staled the applicant is proposing a 3,002 square foot footprint. 1,225 square feet of driveway, and 215 square feet of sidew alk to make up the 57 9 percent haidcovcr. There arc no patios proposed and only one 18* by 11* deck on the la’Kcside of the home. Curtis noted the driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb and would need to be substantially reduced overall to bring the hardcover down to a reasonable level. Stair finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land that would justify t.ie side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed Staff believes that the 55-foot wide building en.elope IS very reasonable and that a sctbac’K variance to the side street is not justified If the Planning Comimssion concl-ades that the .vTilicant should get credit toward ±e structural coverage for the dr> land on the norxontiguous portion of the property, there may be some appropr-.atc level of hardcover variar.ee to support some reasonable level of development of the site Staff recommends approval of the average lakcshore setback variance and recoirur.ends denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcov er variance Staff also recommends removal of the existing grave! driveway within th,e city right-of-*ay and restoration of the area back to vegetation as pan of the redevelopment of this lot. Cur.is noted the grading and drainage plans have been revised since the issuance of the letter by the City Engineer, and that the applicant has addressed the grading and drainage concerns that have been raised. Vogstiom noted the road is unimproved to the north and requested the Planning Commission allow the rncroachment in die nght-of-w ay. Vogstrom stated the existing structure encroaches into the nght-of-way by 14 feet. Vogstrom explained the existing hardcover calculation does not include an.vthing for a pad and driveway, w hich exists on the nonh side. Vogstrom indicated at the present time there is no w ay to access the garage w ithout going over the right-of-w ay. Vogstrom noted the current snuctute is located 21.8 feet away from the street and is nonconforming Vogstrom indicated he would be willmg to restore the nght-of-way at his expense if the city u w^.Ilmg to work w-ith him on the hardcover Vogstrom stated in his opinion he has a hardship due to the amount of water on his property and the fact that his land is not contiguous. Vogstrom stated in his opinion the proposed residence conforms more w^ih the rest of the neighborhuiod than w hat currently exists Vogstrom noted the property at 2601 Lafaycne Road was granted hardcover in excess of 25 percent Vogstrom stated the current structure is 11S4 square feet and is figured at 26.4 percent hardcover. PAGE 21 MI>XTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO>L\nSSION MEETLNG Monday. September 20,2004 6:<M) o’clock p.m. (#04.3052 Eric VogMrora, Continued) Barbara Essen, 2648 Casco Point Road, stated thry have spoken >Mth the applicant regarding the issue of drainage and that the applicant has indicated he ts more than wiliing to ensure that drainage fror. this lot will not affect their lot. Jeff Essen stated the first plan did not show a swale, with the recent plan showing a swale Essen stated the applicant has also indicated he would be installing gutters and downspouts, which would also help to allevute their concerns regarding runoff Barbara Essen stated they are not opposed to the larger dn%cw^y since parking along Casco Pom: Road IS ■ problem at times Essen indicated the applicant has also expressed a willingness to preserve the nicer trees on this lot, noting that a number of larger mccs were lost as a result of a storm in 1997 Vogstrom stated the preservation of the trees is also ore rc-»son why he would like to have approval of the lO-foot encroachment into the nght-of-w ay Vogstrom stated the major.ty of the trees are located or the south side of the lot Alan Greene, 2645 Casco Point Road, slated he is located across the street from this let, and that in his opiiiicn the proposed hardcover for this lot is excessive Greene stated his residence is approximately 1200 square feet on a lot that is approximately *he same size and that the lot in quest • ii is being overbuilt. Vogstrom stated Greene’s footpnnt ts 1374 square feet and his garage is 695, for a total footpnnt of over 2,000 square feel Fntzler suted he does not sec the need for the 5'’.9 percent where 25 percent is allow ed and 26 4 percent carrcnlly exists Fntzler stated he does not see ihe hardship for the increase in the hardcover Fr.tzler stated he is also opposed to the 10-foot setback. Bremer inquiicd what number Fntzler would li’ne to see for tlus lot given its restrictions Fntzler stated he would be willmg to approve 27 percent hardcover for Uiis lot, but that he does no: sec any justification for the additional hardco' . r or encroachm.en» Kei.qjf stated he is in agreement with Fntzler and ‘mat the plan appears to have been laid out w nhout any consideration for the hardcover restr.ctions Kempf inquired whether the applicant would be adding a deck or patio m the future VogsL'om stated a deck is m<.;uded m his current plans and that he does not intend to add a patio m the future. Bremer mdicatcd she feels the 27 percent is low given the ressictions of this lot Rahn commented he also feels this is a hardship lot but that it does rot justify the 57 9 percent hardcover being proposed. Rahn stated m his view more effort needs to ue made to reduce the hardcover and that the structure could also be reduced to eliminate the need for the side street setback PAGE 22 acHifcir Vu MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18, 2004 6:00 o’clock pan. Gaffron stated StVHus noi conducted specific inveniwto deternune that, buU^lhe few msuncei^ they are awaj^f the lots are gen^^ly large enouglj^fet they should be abj^^ meet a 50-foot setbacl It i^s the consensus oUne Planning Com^sston to leave the 50^t setback as is ^Bremer recommend the second poy^ul in (cX2) be el.ir.i^d and the axpers^ between wear and tear be ^^ged to the wore Rahn na^ed, Frltzler sec^f^ed, to recommend anproval of the propg^d amendment to Secitan 78-1577(c) redfrding exterior storag^R Districts, cslaUlUhing a onc-tiinc permit^ pre-existing useryn continue the storage^large vehicles u^r certain conditions. VOTE: Aye^NaysO 3. #04-3052 ERIC VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POLNT ROAD - VARIANCES, 6:17 p.m. - 6:36 p.m. Enc Vogslrom, Applicant, was piesent Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its September meeting and was tabled to allow the applicant lime to redesign his plan in an effort to reduce hardcover on the lot. Since that time the applicant has submitted another plan and is now requesting a hardcover variance for 38.9 percent hardcovxr wuhai the 75-250’ setback aone, a vanincc for sidr street setback of 10 feet where a 15-foot setback from the adjacent nght-of-way is nomully required, and an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 5 five nearer to the lake than the property to the south. Curtu St *td since the tune of the last itieeimg the appSdcanl has also removed a number of tiecs from the property without city permiL Curtis noted the adjacent neighbor has submr.ed a letter regarding his conccmi with this proposal. PAGES L., MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM>nSSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. Suffreconunends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side street setback variance arid denial of the hardcover variance as proposed as Ciere are no hardships to support the smanccs as requested. In addition, Staff :s recommending approval of any variances be made conungent upon approval of a restoration p’rn to remcd> the vegetation removal or. the property. Rahn asked for public comment concerning this aprl.cation Jeff Essen. 2648 Casco Point Road, indicated he had met with the applicant poor to last month’s Planning Commission and discussed his onginal plan and the concerns he had legardir.g diamage. trimming of trees, protection of established trees, and oil street parking Essen stated Vogstrom indicated at that time that he was agreeable to installing gutters and downspouts, dram tile, and construct a swale between the two properties Essen stated he agreed to wot’k w ith Vogstrom on tnmmmg his trees in an effort to improve Vogstrom s view of the lake. Essen stated last week Vogstrom had a tree service come in who illegally took down two mature trees on his property as well as other trees and vegf.alion on h:s own property Essen indicated based on those actions, he no longer is m support of this proposal until such time as a restoration plan is approved and the damage has been adequately addressed. Paul Raster, 2600 Casco Point Road, stated he is the neighbor to the north and at the last meeting w as m favor of the vanance to encroach on the fire lane. Raster indicated since the applicant has now clear cut hit lot. he would like to withdraw his support of the vanance. Raster staled he now has concerns regarding erosion since the vegetation has been totally removed. Vogstrom stated he is in agreement with his two neighbors regarding t'neir concerns and that the tree company was hired to remove a couple of trees that wrere dead. Vogstrom apologized to the City and his neighbors regarding the removal of the vegetation, noting that he w as not aware the tree company was going to remove as much vegetation as they did. Vogstrom indicated he did ask the tree removal c>mipany to contact Staff regarding this incident, but that he accepts full responsibility for the mistake. PAGE 6 ft 1*' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. P'^hn noted the applicant has made some hardcover reductions but that the proposed residence is stiU 10 feet from the nght-of-way where 15 feet is required. Vogstrom suted on one side he is 13.5 feet and diat the residence can be slid over somewhat to the souUi. Vogstrom indicated at the time the plan was drawn up he was trying to protect some trees in that area and that it was his belief the trees enhanced the lot. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission should act on this matter tonight given the 60-day time limit. Jurgens stated m his opmion the hardcover still needs to be reduced further, noting that there are drainage issues that also have to be dealt with on this lot. Vogstrom noted the City Engineer had signed off on the drainage issues under his original proposal at the 58 percent hardcover. Vogstrom stated Staff informed him that the City Engineer did not have any issues with the drainage. Vogstrom indicated the property at 2S00 Peasant Road was approved in mid August 2002, which is a lot that had a very similar situation where two-thirds of that lot was in the 0-7S'. Vogstrom noted two*thirds of this lot ts also m the 0-75'. Vogstrom suted the Planning Commission at that time found that while the 25 percent standard is feasible, such a limitation would result in construction of a residence that would not be in keeping wiih the character of the neighborhood and sunuunding homes. Vogsuom noted a hardcover variance was allowed in that instance at 39.2 pement hardcover. Vogstrom indicated the proposed footprint of his house is approximately 1100 square feel, with a three-car garage, which is not out of character for this neighborhood and does not constitute a large house. Leslie inquired how many of the neighbors have three car garages versus tw o car garages. Vogstrom suted it is appro.ximately half and half, with the newer homes having the three car garages. Vogstrom indicated he was attempting to address the off-street parking by constructing a three car PAGE? MLM7TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION >ffiETINC Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. garage. Vogstroir. noted the current residence is also located on the property line, which makes U nonconforming, and the amount of hardcover on the lot is also being reduced wi*h h's proposal from what currently exists. Winkey inquired what impact a reduction to 25 percent hardcom would has-e on the design of the house. Vogstrom stated he ts better off going with the 1500 square foot footprint plus a small amount for a driveway and a sidewalk, which would bring the hardcover to around 30 percent FriUler commented that in his %ncw the size of the lot should give the applicant ar adequate building pad and that he would be opposed to granting any variances. Fnlzler stated he would like to sec the hardcover reduced to 25 percent. Jurgens staled based on the time limits, he would like to make a motion denying the application. Jurgens moved, Lcsik seconded, to recommend denial of Application #04*3052, Eric Vogsiront, 2618 Casco Point Road. Rahn noted the applicant does have the ability to sign an agrcemeni extending the 60 days. Bremer stated she does not feel the Planning Commission should make a motion based solely on the fact that the 60-day time limit is about to expire. Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover should be reduced to 25 percent and that there is no need to grant any vanaiKes based on the size of the building pad. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Rahn and Bi emer opposed. Rahn suted he believes the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise his plans again but that he is m agreement that the hardcover be reduced. Vogstrom inquired whether he could utilize an end-loadmg garage Jurgen* stated the applicant does have that option but that a new application w ould need to be tubmined. PAGES r L KKHieiT F I Oa 1/2004 Nls Melanie Curtis City Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Re Request for Variance at 2618 Casco Point Road Dear Ms Curtis. After speaking with you and the City Adminisuator today I feel it necessary to prepare this letter and have it included m the public record of the Planning Comnussion meeting of 10/18/2004 The owner of 2618 Casco Point Road. Mr Eric Vogstrom has applied for a hard cover and side yard set back vanance 1 have expressed the following concerns to him and you > Drainage between his proposed home and my home > Trimming of trees to enhance his view > Protection of established trees > Oflf street parking Mr Vogstrom and I discussed these issues and he agreed to install gutter, downspouts buried drain tile and a swale between the properties to conir d drainage He also agreed to work with me on tree trimming to enhance his view, and to protect existing trees Last week Mr Vogstrom hired a tree service, which in addition to illegally cutting trees on his own property and neighboring public property, came onto my property and cut down mature trees that impacted his view without a permit or my permission These trees were cut down even after I pointed out to Mr Vogstrom and his tree service exactly where the property line was located (survey slakes were dearly visible) Ai$ a result of his actions 1 do not believ e he w ill voluntarily honor any of his previous commitments regarding drainage or tree preservation and 1 am strongly against granting the requested variances. Additionally I request the City Engineer make note of these concerns during his review of the Vogstrom site plan and drainage plan as part of the construction draw ing review process to protect neighboring property owners. Sincerclyr^ ------------------- 2648 Casco Point Road Orono hfN 55391 o o CITYoT ORONO Municipal Ofrict* Strati Mdrau. 2750 H*"er Ctono. MN 55356 Mailiai Mdrttt PO Boi 66 Cf>$U! Bai. V\ 553230066 October 25,2004 Eric Vogstrom 20840 Channel Dnvc Greenwood. MN 55351 RE: 60-Day Review Period Extension Appikation M 04-3052 Stale law provides that Cuics shall make decisions on zoning requests wiihin 60 da>-s from the date of application, and th:: this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on August 18 and was considered to be C'-mplete on September 13. and the 60-day review period would end on November 13. 2004. However, due to tabling the earliest potenlia! date of final Council action for your application falls near the 60-day period expiration. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to January 13, 2005. Please contact me with any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, City of Orono Melanie Curtis City Planner U«phMt(fS3)24M6M . fta(f52)24i-4414 f 11^ O « i \ I CITYofORONO Munkipal Omccs Strttt Address: 27i3 He.ier Orero. MN 55356 Veaing Address PO B3sS6 Cfjsti' 3jy VN 55123 0056 November 3, 2004 Eric J. k E. A. Vogslrom 20840 Channel Drive Greenwood. MN 55331 RE: Restoration Finn 2618 Casco Foiiit Road PIN 20-117-23-24-0038 On October 14. 200-1. you were issued notice th.it illceal vegetation rcmov.i!s wetc conducted at the ahosc property within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka and the adjacent wetland without City permits. Vegetation removal and tree cutting within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and within a wetland requires an inspection by City Staff and a tree rcmov.nl pemiit issued by th.e City Inspector. Hawkins Tree & Landscape (your contractor) lemovcd trees and brush from your property w ithin the 75’ setback, on the neighboring property to the south w-thin the 75’ setback and on City property The City provided a deadline of October 2l“ for submittal of a restoration plan; to date we have only received a partially complete survey. City staff h.ns mch.ninarily reviewed this most recent survey detailing most, but not all, of the tree and vegetation removal conducted by your contractor. As of today, the following previously requested Hems have not been satisfactorily completed; 1 . Your immediate placement of erosion contiol and soil st.nbilizaiion mctl .»..ds; and 2. Submittal of a suncy fioin your suivcyor showing the locatron, rliamctcT, .nnd species if disccmable for all vegetation and all trees regardless of size cut by your contractor on >our property and adjacent property, and In addition, a restoration plan completed by a MN Stair licensed Landscape Architect must be submitted for review and approval by City Staff and City Council. This restoration plan must indicate the re-establishment of the can^'py and ground cover in order to restore the property to its pre-existing condition Fiulhcr, the landscape plan should provide the following: IVlcplMmc (W2) 249-4600 • F« (952) 249-4616 «r wwxLonmoJnnatf Pt. GITYof ORONO Municipal Oflkcs Slrttl ACdrtM. 2750 F»rt*aj Crone. MN 5535S Mailing MM’cu P 0 S3I 66 Crjita' Biy. Wt 55323 W65 October 14,2004 Enc J. &. E. A Vogstrom 20S40 Channel Drive Greenwood, NIN 55331 RE: Illegal Vegetatioo Removal 2618 Casco Point Road PIN 20-117-23-24-0038 On October 12,2004, a "stop work ” order was posted at the above property as vegetation retuoval was conducted within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka and tlie adjacent wetland without City permits. Vegetation i-rmoval and tree cutting within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and within a wetland requires an inspection by City Staff and a tree removal permit issued by the City Inspector. The soil disturbance caused by the tree removal activity may also require review* and approval from the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed Disuict (MCWD) Removal of individual trees of 6" diameter and intensive vegetation clearing writhin 75’ of a lake or on a slope greater than 30% is strictly prohibited withcul pnor City approval. Orono Cii>‘ Code 7S12SS states: (aj A'o live tree v^uhin 75 feet of the shoreline or wtlun the bluff impact zone v^ith a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inches in citcum/erence or greater} measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed VKithout first obtaining a permit from the City provided that at least the equnalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those remo\ed (b) Intensive vegetc'.on clearing uithin 75 feet of the shoreline on steep slopes orvuthm the bluff impact zone wuhtn the Sf-oreland Overlay District is prohibited Limited clearing of shrubs and uea less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of t'-ers of any size is aVov^ed to provide a view tc the Mater from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf on conditions, is not substantially reduced -raeplMNlc (9S2) 249-4600 • Fai (952) 249-4616 wiTM'xi.oroiMUBa.iu VoQStrom 2618 Casco Point Rd 14 Octooef 2004 Page 2 The vegetation removal on the above referenced propeny (and apparently on your neighbor ’s property at 2648 Casco Pomt Road, and potentially on City hght-of-way) is in violation of the above referenced codes Violation of City Code is a misdemeanor and this matter has been forv^ arded to the City’s Prosecuting Ahomey for issuance of a Formal Complaint Resolution of this matter will begin with the following: 1. Your immediate placement of erosion control and soil stabilization methods; and 2. Submittal of a survey from your surveyor showing the locauon, diameter, and species if discernable for all trees regardless of size cut by your coniractor on your properly and adjacent property, and 1 Submittal of a restoration plan from a landscape professional which must be approved by City Staff and City Council. This restoration plan must indicate the rc-cstabhshment of the canopy and ground cover in order to restore the property to its pre-existing condition The updated survey, landscape restoration plan and restoration schedule must be received DO later than 4:30 pm on October 21, 2004 in order to avoid legal action and to ensure that it may be reviewed and approved by the City Council in a timely manner City Staff will be inspecting your property on a regular basis to ensure that the erosion control methods are installed and remain ra placo until the rcstoruiion is complete. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated Please contact me at 952 249 4627 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melanie Curtis City Planner c;Thomas J. Barrett, City Attorney Sgt. Kurt Enckson, Orono Police Department Jesse Carlson, District Compliance Officer, Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct Mike Hawkins, Haw’idns Tree & Landscape, 1776 Canterbury Rd, Shakopec, Nfs’ _- r £yM t LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD FRlXlktlONAl AllOCIATIOM CiCI 2 5 cvtJ> October 22,2004 Timothy J. Keane 612-335-7192 tim.keane@leonard.com Via Fax (952-249-4616) and U. S. Mail Ronald Moorse City Administrator City ofOrono P. O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323-0066 Re: Eric Vogstrom Variance Applications - 2618 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. Moorse; The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that City Council agenda item 8 referenced as ^04-3052 regarding the Eric Vogstrom application for variances at 2618 Casco Point Road be continued to the City Council meeting of November 8, 2004. Should you hav. any questions, please contact me at 612-335-7192. Sincerely, LEON/\RD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association Timothy J. Keane TJKvn cc; Eric Vogstrom Ito South ritTN $T*IIT Sutti a)oe MiNNiAroui. Minniiota iS40i Til Sii-uftioo Fax Law OiriCIt IH MIHMIAfOLII. lAtHT fAUl. MANBATO, lAIKT CLOUD AHO WAIHIMCTOH. D.C. WWW IIOHABB COM 1 ADVANCE SURVEYING R ENGINEERING CO. Mot H. I* ««■■>■»»> M»««m M.vr^VOGUE HOMES V im >if »n>k M «Vf » *H Ml III >!MI» Vi(>K l» :••»>■ .Mai-«Mi >rtfj. M. I' • Mi« «0k*ia«UKj MM. ilkia.Mi^v mI M M. hi*> t »’ MS !< »aM M>kMH.Mm !■; >I>1" VIMMMI 111 J«llk ■lliyi ’ 4M.imiWmi. Mii mJL Mi. «' ^mi » , I III V It* ^ v»«f r»i vm«i Wm •k^. kti « tK •• •• « kiM* m0rnn rfc^4 4^ II ^ MU ««#• «u« ••• mM* m* w •M •» u*. ^ ^ »» I-4 4 »■ Am 4« •« *•«• S*«* 4« ^ H«%* «• •«kU • *« <««*• 4h. »••• ^4 ».*••• • •» «to*« I.M «• M «• (!*.•.« •!« MM» p44f». •% M« M *l 4ia »« <• •»>»*»>». yit'kPUPiil #• IS, « «•« >i» ,M»IW M <» ^ «||« »«w t»«lU |1% to'Pipkf «•«.* •^•4^ *4»*«H* MMIlk 1»M, |1I*^IPW .><,l 4 k««r» 4 •«. *««*^*» »•*.««% «4 ^ •’4S MtOi« «44->«v»o tmAkm Kb^mh* «IS«» ««» WA*, vStaM %lii\n4<!1 SMU » A t t»SV| \ t«»s» '♦ • * : »li S*iii^»«:M ii,. • ,«M* Hm fU* f4M l|4» •* mmJLi ^ i«ii I tmm ■W*im»J W»*bP w4t lU !«•««< 4^ ^Mk, Sl««lki ........r^WtM 4 1*4 V <!• F.L6 •04.3022 S NOv«»r&tf 2004 P«3« 1 Of 3 Dale Application fUcci^cd: 05-13*04 Date Application ContMcrcd at Complete: 10-26-04 60-Day Rct icw Period Expires: 12*26-04 To:Chair Ralin and Planning Commission Mcmbc'i Ron Moorsc, Ciiy Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis, City Planner November 8,2004 04-3022. Phil & Karen Skoog. 280 Tonka Avenue, - Renewal Variances - public hearing Zonins District: LR-1 A, Siagle FamiK Lakeshore Residential. 2 aeres/200* Lot Area: 0.54 acre (23,809 s.f.) Application Sutnmary: The applicants arc requesting renewal of variances granted m 2000 for a rear >atd setback variance in order to construct a dining looin addition to the existing home Additionally, a 500’- 1000’ /one lurdcover vanance is requited based on new information, unless the plastic liner is removed from the la;tdscapc beds_________ Staff RecommenHation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance if the Planning Commission feels that the substandard lot size is a sufficient hardsl^.____________________________ .. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard rcquircmcnu. Lot Area (acrcl Lot Width ifeeO Front Yard (fetO Side Yard Ifeeil Side Yard Adjatenl to Street (feet* Real Yaid (teet) 2 200 .'0 30 50 50 Sec. 78*1288. Hard cover limitations. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL. there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no grea;.r than 35 percent hardcover. LUt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survcy/Sitc Plan D. Hardcover Calculations by Surs’cyor E. Resolution No. 4531 F. Survey & Hardcover Calculations from 2000 Variance Approval 0. Property Owners List H. Plat Map file 0O4 3O22 t Novenioef 2004 Pag«2af 3 Bickgrottod The applicants arc requesting renewal of variances granted in 2000 for a rear yard setback variance in order to construct a dining room addition to the existing home. At the same time a variance to the front yard setback was granted in order for construction of a two- stall detached garage. Upon variance approval an attached garage was constructed and the rear yard setback variance was allowed to expire. In 2000, the applicant supplied hardcover numbers based on the premise that the entire lot was within the 500' - 1000 ’ zone, however upon receiving an updated sur\cy it has been deiemtined that pait of the property is within the 250’ - 500 ’ zone thus requiring the hardcover variance for the proposed addition. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 acre (87.120 s.f)200 ’ Actual 0.54 acre (23.809 s.f)189' ■Setbacks: LR-IA Required Exisliac Proposed Front 50*33’33’ Rear 50* 57 5’ (hou!ke) 41.5' (deck) 17* (pool & decking) 46.5* (new addition) North Side 30’36.5' (house) 9 3’ (shed)No change 30’70’No change Structural Coveraae: Total Lot Area Total Slnietural Coverage 23,809 s.f. (0.54 acre)Allowed: 3.571 $f (15V.) Proposed: 2.803 s f (11 7%) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area la Zoac AUowcd Hardcover EaisUng Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-500 13.633 s f 4,090 s.f. (30«/.) 1.511 if.* (11V.) 1.576 s.f. (115%) 500-1000 10.176 s.f.3.561 s.f. (35S) 3,404 5 f.* (33.5%) 3.418 sf. (33 5%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds RLE I04-3022 a Nov#ms«r 2CC4 P*gt 3 cf 3 Rear Yard Setback Variaocc In 2000, the Skoogs received a front yard and rear yard setback variance in order to construct a garage and kitchen additions to their existing home. Upon approval of the variances the applicants constructed their garage addition, but were not able to construct their kitchen addition within the onc-year time period and the rear yard setback variance expired Hardcover Variance During the 2000 variance review the hardcover calculations were incorrectly based on tlie entire property being located within the 500 ’- 1000* zone. With the renewal variance request staff required an updated survey and revised hardcover calculations to show the newly constructed garage and the addition of a pool. Those revisions were submined by the applicants and reflected portions of the property within the 250* - 500 ’ zone. Currently the 250* -500* zone is within hardcover limits but including rock lined with plastic the 500* - 1000* zone is c.xcecding the 35% limit. Hardship Statement Applicant lias completed Uie Hardship Documentation Fonn attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analysis /« centidtrlng appUealiaits for variance, the Planning Comminlon ihall conilder the effect of the propo%ed variance upon the health, tafety and welfare of the community, exhting and anticipated traffic condillom, light and air, danger of fire, rhk to the public lafety, and the effect t»/r vainet of property in the turrounding area. The Planning Conimiition ihall coniider recotntnendlng approval for wrlnncet from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement wouid cause undue hardship because of circumstances uttitpte 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. Staff finds that due to the size of the applicants* lot and the other lots in this neighborhood and the 2-acre zoning district setback hmitations there may be hardship to justify granting the rear yard setback variance, however, the existing home is currently confonning with only the deck encroaching into the 50* setback. With respect to hardcover, upon removal of the plastic liners in the rock beds the property is within the 35% limit for tltc 500 ’ - 1000 ’ zone. Issues for Consideration Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation If the Planning Commission feels that the size of the lot within a 2 acre zone is a significant hardship then Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance for the kitchen addition. Additionally, the applicant should be required to remove all the plastic liners in the landscape beds to eliminate the need for a hardcover vanance. city of Orono ^ Variance Application Street Addrtss 2750 Kei!ey Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Main. 952-249-46C0 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:C€6 ^^ Appircaton 0 0^^ fg, I -V . Date RecalveC Amount Pa-d Staff: Fee S500 -^Renewal: S3CC After-the-fact: St 200 Pout; e Fee Tms application form must be completed in f^ii Ap; cant w:il be notified withm 15 days as to the status of the app cation. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: Property Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (rr^th/year): \L[C\ | □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of propertyj a[Re^ential ‘ □ Ouner _________________________ Zoning District: APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal na.~es and mantal status required for each interested party) Name: I'' _______ _________ir - r: •. <T^( ■ <v - / . - Phone (home); •; Address; *.- Email; Phone (work);? 7 r n . OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names 8”d marital status required fo."each interested party) Name; P-- . I-. _______t ' ■ -i o jgu <' Phone (home): ■) y. ^ -A Address: o r A J Email: Phone (work): ___j_____________ f r J. • * ' If T Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ 7 r<-u Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________________ ck QQ^iwc^ ________i ^ ti t.Ar fc^ .•'f Sj^Q Iv 1C., ll f111 ‘ t Li «-l e'^ A YU n Jc^K f c 5 y. 1^^ vYftCf y-r #3022 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 Q Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Ov;ners 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), m.eeting 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). -Topographtc-survey - Including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8 5" x 11" or 11" X 17* for reproduction. ' i>Kelcrtcs-or plans of floor and elevation viev/s (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. * □□ ia" 'APPLICANT S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff tim.e 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 knov;ledge The applicant recognizes that ho/sho is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the suff 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; Date: Date: 4^-r -dV "t ~ / OWNER'S ACKNOWLEOQEMENT: 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. Owr4er's Signature; Owner's Signature;V'/-cL^-c/-f 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. #30 oo Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will rot be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is compete 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 iand and not the iand 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 ment must be demonstrated. HOW 00 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 cemmunrty. 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 w<l! 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.’ & I “ t U. AJ V\ ^ n •The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properly not created by the landowner.' l~i..I e V.V ^ vt*______I \ m* J 'The variance, if granted, will not a ’ter the essential character cf the Icca ’ity.' ________^ t?____«wV) . f ^____X-' t* I u... ^ A u .J- r.tf m r i7iiv'Economic considerations alond shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." u i/ •:: r Page 2 of 3 'Undue hardship also indudes. but is not limited to. inadequate access to d rect sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered constnjction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* - y.Li 6. *The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may net 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 cr Council may permit as a vanance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a t.vo-family dwelling.* 8. *The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.* t «•( <rs‘,3 «- t' f » ^ 1 9. *The conditions do not apply generally to other land or stnjctures in the district in which said land is located.* 10. ‘The granting of the app’-cation is necessary for the preservation a.nd enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.* C. t\ C«v fcl ng Cl _____________ 11. *The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way Impair health, safety, wmfort, morals, cr in any other respect be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning * '*■ «>. . V ■) f\0 V. -.i'";V V . Page 3 of 3 •The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty * Ck. f — tic, ««a v' Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the urrique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions pre 'snting compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary); ▼ ^ te -fK.. 1 C A +1 t ••\»r Y ^ H i -vj r T - K « T Cl., i \ A ft <"1 r c.r if 1 k* 1 m r m fc c«r ar i •2. r t' C.- ( I'A ffc /I I'Xf. L. u ( ».(A W C Vt^ . »VA.i V- S i‘ > 1 fl *\ <( t K--- |<4,; 1 1-f 1 %• h V| ■*.* ki «o./ 1 J 4-0 A-A ft A 1 i«^ » V"\y KA'fcr P/'-rs. L-i C < ••• J w-------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 I o r"- k r ■'i rr wnwrp HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER TS ZONE A House ____ B. Oaf«|c C. Dnswsy D Sidevra'Jc E. Patio/Deck 1*^^" oge.ic F. Laadicape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other 0-75*75.250’500-1000* fese SF. WtAh 46^-PogcfAtfL out - TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ______ X 17. ^33 xlOO -1' SL L»n(tH B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatioDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabne 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B xlOO - SF SF SF SF. SF A* Jp fppyc eai/,p. ,Sf-DS£4<SfPc% , S F - SF SF S p -•ape^ ew ,SF. - SF SF H U>S«U5 >VvP A B .PC3^0*.CO ■ /'CWiTiOrt MCT e^ni SF SF SF SF .SF SF SF .SF .SF SF SF SF SF !sf. H.ARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Koust ______________ Ufifih •7.7 B. Oarage C. Driveway D Sidewalk E. Pailo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain ■By Plulic Or Fabric 0.1 0.75* K X X X X X X X X ’ X X X X 7S-250’2SO-SOO‘ W.4-J1 7,5* I 0 OOier^d 6BLT.<g?- 20 ° x TOTAL HARDCO\TR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ______________ X X too Unflh B Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Pla«ic Or Fabnc 0 OLhtf / 1 ^f O -r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ • B xlOO - ^100^ iM?_SF ISii ZOZ \0,I7€ /Wo' (ft i<bn IW /€' SF -5w£i2 SF ■ 5 p _Suri*JA ifT cc.or- SF SF - !sf SF-Ii'‘:<. .SF SF SF S F - A>’t sF-'rrT-®- SF SF V i A B 5P FinfiTf0 SF SF *'7 .SF SF !sf SF .SF SF .SF SF SF SF SF SF. H p><riifrrr gr 7385r.32 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. - •___________ A RESOLITION GR.\NTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.27. SUBDIVISION 5(B), FILE NO. 2608 v 'HEREAS, Philjp A. Skoog and Karen S. Skcog, (hcicin.-irier’*ihc appI-c-’-nts"*) are the ovvneti of • propcrt>' located at 280 Tonka Avenue ’Nithi.; the City cf Oronn (h-ir.r.ifte: ‘the City") and lcgau> 'lesenoed ab foliows; Lots 9 and 10. Block 2, Lot 18. Block 5. ‘ Baysidc Adda.cn to Lake Mir..nctonka ‘, and that pan of Hill Street vacated which lies between the Southerly extc.nsions of the East and West lines of said Lot 9. Hennepin County . Minnesota (hercituficr "t'ne property"); and WHEREAS, the applic.ants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a rear yard setback of 39‘ where 50 :s icquircd for a dining room addition to the rear of the residence and Municipal Zoning Code Section 10 27. Subdivision 5(B) to allow a front yard setback of 43' where 50' is required to allow a two stall detached garage to the south side of the residence. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesot.i Statutes und the City of Orono Zoning and IM.nnning Codes, the Orono Fianiiine Commission held a public hearing on September 18.2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Miar.cscta; 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Otono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File ^26CS. The property is located in the LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, where 2 acres or 87,120 s.f. is the minimum lot area The property consists of approximately .55 acres or 23,750 s.f. The Orono Plaitning Conunission reviewed this application on Sepicrabcr 18,2000 •;rVHtrO Page I of 5 *s;Nrie'‘ . KOV £‘i ZKfl CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.4 ' i and re-ommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact; A. The '/j acre lot is small compared to the LR-IA zoning district 2-acr< standard. B Hardcover in the 500-1000' zone will incicasc to 1 remaining below the allowed 35%. C. Structural ^ werage on the f:open>' will incre.ase to 9.9%, remaining below the allow cd 15%. D. The residence was built pnor to cunent roning standards. E. The neighboring icvdencc adjacent to the proposed setback encioacKir.eats arc sufficiently distant so as to be not negatively impacted by the encroachment The City Council finds that the conditions c\ sting on tins prepeny aic peculiar to it and do not apply •jtenerally to other property in this zoning district, that granting ihc variance will not adversely affect tratTic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fito hazard or other danger to neighboring ptoperty; would not merely serve as a con\ cnience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonsuablc hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and C.'^mprehensive Plan of the Cir - The Cuy Council has considered this application including the findings and rcconuncndations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Cit>’ Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a rear yard setback of 39' where 50* is required for a dining room addition to the rear of the residence and Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 5(B) to allow a front yard setback of 43' where 50' is required to allow a two stall detached garage to the south side ol the residence. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant anached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require funhei Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities gra.ntcd by this variance run vvith the property not with the applicants, but arc pennissive only and rr.u't be e.xercised by application for a building pennit w ithin one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (October 9,2001). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a v iolation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any aulhorit>' granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf cf themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. 3. 4. Adopted by the City Council of the Cit) or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of October, 2000. Page 3 of 5 /o> o\ &Im CITYof ORONO Mf A“^ A.} f/. < lP.5UUaS?y^;t:ttyClerl <*.r *, Propert>’ OvsTier (s)} STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) M COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9ih day of October. 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vec. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a N!innesota municipal corporatic n and said insU\imenl was executed on behalf of the City. j// A^k. /// Ji C u C /-i \n Nota ry Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ^ “ ■---------------- - ■ - -COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I ^Qt *%t- **«*•- MBBtiSTWIIWmw IaacKiTa I imctim I OnLhis_Zl day of -'*•.. 2000, before me a Notary Public within and - r • •• ’• . / .a knowTtfor said County, personally appeared :------1_:—........ ............ . to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and ackno Wicdged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. V Not STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUin*Y OF HENNEPIN ) 161B WBMVPMUB-WMlQra I On this day of.2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ------------------------------------------^^----------------- known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged tha. he (they) executed the same as his (their) free Kt and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 RUN DATE y I VMM 31 0)ll7im00}| mOFADOR 195 TONKA AVE OWNER NAME M M SOIMITZ A K SCHMITZ TAXrAVrR MCNAEL A KATHERINt SCHMIfZ hame /aodr To tonka AVr. LONG LAKE MN 55556 31 05II725I30050 mOrAOIMt 295 TONKA AVE ^OWNERNAME MART KAV MCCARTY J"TAKPAYPJT MARY MCCARTY C naME/AOOR 245 tonka AVE ^ long LAKE MN 55)56 HENNEHNCODNIY PROPERTY INF^IATION bVhitM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST I 31 051177)140022 PROP AOOR 265 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNER NAME SUSAN MCCAROIY taxpayer SUSAN MCCARTHY NAME/ADOR 265 CRESTVIEW AVf LONGIAKEMN 55)56 3S 051172)140025 PROP ADOR 205 CRESTVIEW AV£ OWNER NAME SANDRA J NCCUM taxpayer SANDRA I NCCUM NAME/AOOR 205 CRESTVIEW AVE long LAKE MN 55)56 )0 051172)1400)0 PROP AOOR )l5CRtSTVItWAVE OWNER NAME R A EDOINGTONA J EOOINCTON taxpayer ROBERT A TAMARA EOOINGTOM NAME/AOOR JI5CRESTVIEWAVE LONG LAKE MN 55)56 )0 05II72JIJ0029 PROP ADOR )• ADOKI-VS UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME FSTHER M ADDISON TAXPAYLR ESTHER M ADDISON NAMPyAODR DAYSinr RD lOfR.LAKLMN 55156 )0 05II72H 40020 PROP ADOR 245 CRISTVItWAVE OWNER NAME CI RRY ) IRAINOR TAXPAYER GERRY ) TRAROR NAMfyADDR CRESTVIEW AVE LONGLAKI MM 55)56 )| 051172)14002) PROPADDR 225 CRrAIVIEWAVE OWNLR NAME HAROLD R HANSON ETAL TAXPAYER HAROLOR HANSON NAME/ADOR 275CIU3rVltW AVE lONCLAKEMH 55)56 )f Q5M 72)140020 PROP AOOR 250 TONKA AVE OWNUl NAME CLRALl> L BRIGGVWFNt BRIGGS taxpayer GERALD a IRENE BRIGCS NAME/AOOR 250 TONKA AVE IDNGIAKEMN 55)56 )| 0511)211400)1 PROPADDR )25CRISIVIEWAVE OWNER NAME. WIIUAM L SULLIVAN TAXPAYER WIUTAM SULUVAN NAME/ADOR 0417 REGENT AVE N .105 BROOKLYN PARK MN 5544) 30 051172)1)00)0 PROP AODR )400 BAYSIDC HD OWNER NAME DASESTERS taxpayer DANIEL a JiANDRA esters NAMiyAODR )400I)AVSIOERD long LAKE MN 55)56 31 05II723I4002I PROP ADI7R 255 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNERNAME STEPHANIE REIMAN TAXPAYLR STEPHAMtE REIMAN NAMI7ADDR 255 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55)56 ]| 051I72JI40024 PKOP ADDR 205 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNERNAME SANDRA J NCCUM TAXPAYTR SANDRA I NCCUM NAME7A0DR 205CRFXTVIEWAVE lONTiLAKEMN 55)56 )« 051172)140029 PROP AOOR 2)6 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME DMARCUSSEN A M MARCUSSEN TAXPAYLR DANIEL A MARY MARCUSSEN NAMI/ADOR 669T01S0NMEX0I^LH^WY CWLDEN VAliXY MN 55427 )| 051172)1400)9 PROPADDR )40 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME PATRICK JSKLIE TAXPAYLR PATRICK 2 SCEIE NAMI/AODR 5710 north ARM dr mound MN 55)64 c % 30 05II72JI4006I PM3PADOA 200 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME PAAKSSKOOO TAXPAYER TIIIUP A KAREN SKOOO NAME/AOOR 200 TONKA AVR LONGLAKEMN SSJS6 30 051172)140062 PROPADDR ))0 TONKA AVE ____ OWNERNAME BRUCESINOtRAUNOASINGER taxpayer BRUCE SINGER a UNOA SINOtR NAME/AOOR )M TONKA AVE LONGLAKEMN 55)56 - FILE M4-30M 11 October 2004 P»0«lef4 Date Applicatleii Rtcalvcd: 09-20«04 PVitr Appikalion Conildcrcd ■« Complete: I0-29-O4 60-Day Review Pertod Eipiret: 12-29-04 Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Curtis. City Planner j\f/ November 8.2004 04-30S6. Dennis & Evelyn Bruce, 3435 Livingston Avc, - Variance - public hearing Zoning Dbtrfct: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshorc Residential, 0.5 acrc/100* 0.15 acre (6.747 s.f.) 50’ ________________________ Api^iemtioH Summary: The applicants arc requesting a variance in order to construct a 20’ X 30’ detached garage closer to the street than their existing home. The application consists of the following: 1. Lot coverage variance for 1,291 s.f. or 19% structural coverage (691 s.f. house, 600 s.f garage) in order to exceed the 15% lot coverage limit; and 2. Variance to allow an accessory structure to be closer to the street than the principal structure. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the location variance provided the new garage be constructed no closer to the street than neighboring homes. Planning Commission should consider whether this size garage with this orientation that masks the principal residence is appropriate in the context of this neighborhood._______________________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance .Sections Sec. 75-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for nil lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by priiKipal residence and garage structures. Sec. 78-1435. Locntloa. 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 78-3S0(b); except that detached garages may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turnaround is vatifirrr FILE i04-3056 11 October 2004 Page 3 0(4 Hardcovr Cakwlafiowit Hardcover Zone Total Area in Allowed Exisling Proposed Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover SOO-1000 6.747 s.f.2.361 s f. (35%) 2.307 s.f.' (34%) 2.387 s.f. (35.4 %) AAcr exclusion of fabric or plastic*lined landscape beds Front Yard Setback Variance The applicants' existing home is set back 105 ’ from the front property line. The lot is 50 ’ by 135’ and there is no location that would be conforming with regard to the principal structure. The proposed 20 ’ x 30 ’ garage will meet principal structure setbacks and will not be located nearer to the street than adjacent homes. Additionally, the garage and alterations to tvalkways and driveway as proposed will be 0.4% over the allowed 35% hardcover allowance for this property. The applicant shares a driveway that is partly on the adjacent property to the we.st. There is a cross-ea.sement for this shared driveway, although the shared portion extends outside the easement. llardahl|i Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Uxhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tn eomtUtrbtg mpplkmtkms for wertenre. fkt Ptmnmfmg C«mmh»hn eoittUft the effect »f the prepoted emrtamce upon the kemttk, ufeiy end wt^mre ofOte coemmtmlty. exbtimg end mnttctpmted trtffic cemdkhmt. tight mmd mlr, dmmger of fire, rhk to thepmhtk lofety. omd the effect om raluet of property in the SMtromtrdtng oreo. The ftormlmg Cormmhslott shot! eomtUer recottmendimg opprov^ for variances from the literal provtUons of the Zomhtg Code I* liuimaees where their ttrkt enforcement would comse undue hardship heeause of clrcurrrttorKes unique to the htdlviduol property under eorulderatlon, 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. If the Planning Commission feels that the setback location of the existing home and the size of the lot arc hardships there may be justification for granting a variance in this situation. Issues for Consideration 1. This garage will substantially remove the applicants’ house from view from the street All you will sec from the street is the garage. While there arc other 600 s.f. garages in the neighborhood, they are normally to the side or the rear of the house. Wilt this garage, as oriented, be out of character with the neighborhood? 2. Would a 600 s.f. garage with the narrow end facing the street be more acceptable? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? FILEf04-30M 110d«Mr3004 Pl0t4o(4 SUIT RcconacadatioB If the Planning Conunission finds hardships to grant variance approval for the proposed garage to be constructed closer to the street than the principal structure; planning staff recommends the proposed garage be located such that it is no closer to the street than neighboring homes and the applicant remove an additional 26 s.f. in order to be within the 35% allowed within the SOO’ - 1000 ’ zone. Plaiuiing Commission should address whether the propose orientation is acceptable. City of Orono A Variance Application________ Street Address 2750 KeHey ParVway Orono. MN S53S6 Mam 952-249-4600 fax; 952-249-4616 Mailing Address P O. 00x66 Crystal Bay. MN 5S322-‘:066 Application a Dale Received Amount P Staff ______ Fee. S600 Renewal 5300 »atd; U'AlAl- After-the-fact 51,200 Double Fee This application form must be completed in full App cant will be notified withm 15 days as to the status of the appiicauon Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: r ^ f rJ *a J^ ^ ________ __________________________ Property Identification Number (PIN); / V // i _____________________________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year) V □ Yes. I own the adiacent parcels. Present use of property; ja Residential □ Other _________________________________________ Zoning District: _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complate legal na~es and marital staiuyrquired for each mleresled party) Name: _______________________ Phone (home), i ^/7/~ 7t t/V Phone (work): ___________________________ Address: 4.^ _____________________________________ Email __________________________________________ Pax: _____________________________ OWNER INFORMATION; (Complete legal names s'd mental status required for each inleresled party) Name; /7^'/,vj/s // /s e'e- /k /A/ 'V IjC u c ________________ Phone (home), r V?/- 7d»i/7______ Address: Email;_______________________________ Phone (work). DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost. Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _________ To ry>i.LfS W e\^tLc,t.r /Lcrm JCAL-Ty /CyJLf^. /irtl- 'f'O JOr>/\/ l^rU/Ajr.^7c/y #30 56 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: . . ^ , All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order tor 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 map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the reouirements 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 sur '"/ - 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 * 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 ho/sho 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 tho request regardless of Its potential merit. Applicant's Signature ^ ^ ____________Date ~ ^ Applicant's Signature ^ 7 / ^ D *e V- /(y- e 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 Owner s Signature Owner’s Signature. I ^ f 4 1' Cf I .i Date. Dale;Wz < <7 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 Plannei assigned to your project. r\ r I.”.\ * ^iBir 6 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page 1 of3 This form is ■ required eubmittal for ALL variance applications. An application win not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. _____________ Minnesota Stale 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 economic situalions are not considered valid hardships In order for an application to be heard t>y 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 ail the relevant pomls 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 m determining a denial or approval recommendaticn. If you leave something out it will not be considered Pleare 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.* •The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." , c 7f /aS a js^c 7 ^_________ /irsamir’ nL r h //O/n e / t. W7 t/u /rs^A-____ < •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality * Aj'f) •Economic cor •■'derations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship If reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* #3 ^ \ .o ') 'w .* • * I • •Page 2 of 3 •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 construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Secton 116J.C3. Subd 2. v.tien in harmony with this Chapter/ •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Counc.l 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*famtly dwelling as a ^vo•famlIy dwelling ' 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.' T/i- t\ AJ C b in: t' i/ft/i-it 'jf 1A£ y t L t yit. 7 //L* tV.- i'/iL 9. ‘The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.* to. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." ______^_____________________________________ •The granting of the proposed vanance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning L Page 3 of3 -The granting of such variance WiW not merely serve as a convenience^ applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. to the AJ o Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions with Zonina Ordinance requirements in the following lir.as (attach additional sheets ifwith Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following necessary): ^ . > i ^ ^g. > j£r\ . Y y/c iAt Jl <• V /• /? r.A,.> V* /.i e. tv 7- c 4^ c-_ ■JJ J e^tti6irc Livingston Avenue ✓ y ✓ ✓ ✓ Drw. No. 041211 r ______»hiimtc> Livingston Avenue S 89'JJ'50“ E --49.90— COMMON \S£MENT PER . 5133128 I—50.00 1 5 89V0'50“ E rm0>a f/7* ^ ’ ////yy ^APHIC SCALE e 10 10 40 ( IH FEET ) Drw. No. 041211 Sr^3ACXZ^^•2i (CISCLS O*) O-TS* * CKHierrDTTryrvs r ■i.a!‘gg’»Tjt t >~ tc ^t A. Kr^ ~iS 2. Cstft C Drf^rwxy C. S£m3c c. fziefSKk a F. LastfOTgg Untisrisis By PlastSc C. OTh*r TOTAL HARCCOVFR-IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE* a ___s ICO yaoposgo KAWPCOvga in zone A. House B. Gusfe C Driveway D. EJdrwsai E. P=£cH>edt r. L'r.=trt8s Sy P!ai£s a C±sr total karoccver ns* zOi total rRCFERTY AREA D» ZONE * o_ _ “^Kw-iicc;.- s^. -5^- £-7. /^-74' -5®. 5^. S_“ S^. s^. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. A s *: B . \ H 6^/ ST. S.F. SJ. s.r. ST. SJ. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. A ST. B % 1 e-^£.820>^L#-2S6 fufi;«Auns aouvApy •92*01 ¥0 20 f^ou .JM. M04-30S7 Ne«««ber 15.2004 Patt2*f4 Exhibit L - PUt Map This lot has remained vacant since prior to adoption of the current RS, Seasonal Recreation District standards. At the Ume the Big Island ordinance was adopted the property owners in ownership of lots under 5 acres were given the chance to apply for ‘‘record lot suitus" which the owner of this lot did not do. Had this been done a lot area variance would not have been required to build on this lot. Now, the current owner wishes to sell the lot as a buildable lot. and a lot area variance must be granted under the current practices. No specific house plan has been submitted, but the applicant has indicated that all pertinent setbacks, etc. will be proposed. No specific footprint, footprint size, or footprint orientation will be approved with this application. The footprint information included in the materials herein is intended to illustrate what footprint size and orientation the lot could potentially support. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET RS Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres)Depends on Size of Lot Actual 145,054.8 s.f. (3.33 acres)~380 feet (compliant) RS Required Exbling Proposed Front N/A N/A - Vacant N/A Rear 50 ‘N/A-Vacant 50 ’ Uft Side 50*N/A - Vacant 50 ’ Right Si J*N/A N/A - Vacant N/A Lakeshore 75 ’N/A-Vacant 86' Average Lakeshore N/A - no adjacent structures N/A - Vacant N/A - no adjacent structures Slruclural Coverage This property is in excess of 1.99 acres and therefore not subject to Lot Coverage restrictions per Section 78*1403 of the Zoning Ordmance. Hardcover CalculattoBS (these calculations are a rough draft; final calculations will be required with submittal of a building permit) •04-3057 No>cmb«r IS. 2004 Ptt*3or4 Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 82,000 s.f.Os.f (0%) Os.f.' (0%) Os.f. (0%) 75-250 63,000 s.f.15.750 s.f. (25%) Os.f (0%) 1,200 s.f. (2%) • After exclusion i of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Variance The applicant wishes to develop this lot with a seasonal cabin. The existing lot area is 3.33 acres with approximately 1.1 acres of dry area. As stated in the background section of this report, a lot area variance reviewed under the current standards is proposed as the owner didn’t take advantage of the automatic “record lot” approval given in 1984 when the current Dig Island ordinance was adopted. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Fonn in l:.xhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaahsis _____________________________________________ /• contUeriHg appUcMtJoH$ Jot variance, the Planning ContmHihm 3kall consUke the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the eommnnlty, 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 where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approtal 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 the hardship exists to approve the rcque.sting lot area variance. This lot should be subject to the same standards of which all other lots of substandard si/e in Orono arc held to: If setback, hardcover, lot coverage and septic requirements can be met then approval shall be granted. The Planning Commission and Council have consistently approved lot area variances stating that the lot was legally created and therefore should be allowed to be developed under specific criteria (being the Zoning Ordinance). However, the City Code requires that 5-bedroom septic sites be required for all new development and the Code does not distinguish a different standard for lots on Big Island. Because only 3-bcdroom primary and alternate sites are available, the septic inspector has the authority, and has exercised his authority in this case, to grant approval of the smaller sites. The Planning Commission may want to discuss the issue of approving lot area variances when S-bedroom sites cannot be constructed, and if Big Island should be held to a different standard than the rest of the City. Lastly, wetland within this property almost directly follows the shoreline. It is unknown exactly how much wetland exists landward of the 929.4 ’ elev'ation or lakew*ard of the 929.4* elev ation. Because of the amount of wetland and its proximity to the shoreline, it •04.3057 NovtMbrr 15.2004 is possible that access to a dock would be required traverse the wetland above the 929.4* OHWL. Currently, the City is under a moratorium for any wetland alterations or alterations within 26* of a wetl-md, as a new Wetland Ordinance is being drafted. Th^ore, the City is unable to determine what, if any, additional City permits would be required if access to a dock is needed through wetland. Staff anticipates this would be allowed under the new ordinance but is unable to revie\v or approve anything at this time due to the moratorium. The Planning Commission should discuss if approval of a lot area variance should be granted wthout knov^ing the status of dock access. An alternative walking and possible vehicular access to the site could be via the platted undeveloped road abutting the northwest comer of the property, and then leading south to the lake west of Lot 19 (sec plat map). This lake access point would not, however, be suitable for a private dock to serve the applicant’s lot. Issues for Consideration 1 . Is the Planning Commission comfortable approving a lot area vanance without a clear understanding of how a dock will be regulated within any wetlands? 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable allowing this lot to develop as all setback, hardcover and lot coverage standards can be met? Is the Planning Commission prepared to grant the same rights to other vacant properties on the island under th>* 5 acre standard? Are 3-bedroom septic sites appropriate give a S-bedroom requirement and the approval of the City’s Septic Inspector? Would a covenant recorded against the property restricting development of a stnicture to a 3-bedroom septic site be adequate in disclosing tlte level of buildability to future property owners? Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? 3. Staff Recommendation Approval of the lot area variance stipulating recording of a covenant that would restrict development of the site to a structure no larger than 3 bedrooms. The applicant is al.so on notification that a separate land use approval may be necessary to access a dock through delineated wetland, and a dock cannot be constructed until the existing moratorium has lifted and standards are in place and no specific footprint size or orientation is approved with this request. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A Street Address. 2750 Kelley Paricway Orono. MN 55356 Man. 952-249-46:0 fax 952-249-4616 Malting Address P.O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55325-!Cc3 Application # 0Q “ DateReceivea __ Amount Pa d ____ Staff. J/'-'i'.r.ir Fee; S bDO 00 S6C0 Renewal: $300 After-tne-fact: 51.200 Coua e Fee This application form must be comp eted m full App cant v; ti be ncttfed w.thin 15 days as to the status of t“e appi cation Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; Site Address: ____________ —- to 7 7.-\\1- 7-^ > 3 I -Property Identification Number (PIN); _ (Attach legal description to application .f not inc ‘-ded on the survey ) Dale Property Acquired (month/year): □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: □ R^idenbal ^Other ______I Zoning District Vfc c > APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legai-rjc-cs and mantai status requ red fer each mte'esled parly) Name. tAu.wrs/r., M. . _____________________ Phone (home) - A^ V^H'nne (work): Address. ____ p ' _____________^ _____ OWNE Name EFUNFORMATION: (Complete icga^•arr.es i ' » status repu red for each irtc'ested party) ___ ________.___________ Phone (home) ‘H^iwQtk) Address _______ Ernail ^ hd:^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; Describe the^quest in detail (attach additional S".e^ if necessary): n -n-iAT" ofhr /WcLivS ■ iv^ Esiirrated Project Cost pr C , 'TT^ , #3057 City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This forn is to be completed by a C<ty Planner during yc jr pfe-acpiicat'sn mee! rg *) Sfreef Addrtss. 2750 KeRey Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address P.O Box 66 Crysta! Bay V.'J 55323-0066 For Qf*ice Use On>y City Planner jAAt'Cr Weeting Date/Tiire _ PC Date />•/ /. Wit Main 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 What is the purpose of a pro^application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal. ir.'o'’m them of the procedures and requirements of the oty code, and ioentify policies or regu’atiors that create opportunities or problems for the proposal PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address '' Property Identification Number(PIN) ________ Zoning District: _______ Size of Property; c h OO') DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST; □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback □ Front Ya'O Setback □ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage pd.ot Area □ Lot Width □ Other; _________________________________________________________________ Applicants /I,, r\ HARDSHIP; Applicant has receded the Hardship Documentat on Fo'm. Illlk) understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it mustInitials. 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 v/ill^^e completed by City staff ^ ,:_3kApplicant Signature: rtilLhe completed by CMoofA oo.Date:d4- r t ........................ n •M4»m EXHIBIT B Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An appltcat'on will not be cons dered complete or placed on any meet.ng agendas until this fc'rr. is complete and sufcm.tted to the C.ty _______________________________ 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 p'Operty as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situat'ons are not considered valid hardships in order for an appl.cation to be heard by the Planning Commissiort and City Council a harcship hav.ng m.erlt must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This *orm has 12 points cullnirg the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the vanance wt:l affect the surrounding community To prove a hardship, address all the relevant ponls listed below and answer them as e’eahy as possib'e Since you are requesting the code exception you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The irfcrrr.at on the C ty receives .s what is used m cete-mir ng a denial or approval recemmendat on 1» you leave semetn rg cut it wll net be considered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they re’ate to the request (some may not apply). “The property in queston cannot be put to a reasonable use •! used under jtrols" ____________VSi__L conditions allowed by the official con '~TV^ pF" / XU Meg" •The plight of the landowner is due to circurr.sta".ces unique to his property net i-pr^l hwjirsPf—r •The plight O! me lanoowner is out created by Jb^ landowner ’ ii'um" V/ATvy'V^Af g* ■ !*•/I ^ f- •The variafice.'if^ranied. w^not a^ter the essent^cha^acter cf me ‘cca’Ty" nrr»OT S:7^^ Ai/VTt^ Cl/Tm^K Tn^ JLiU. •STy<* y nrt Sit “Economic considerations alone shall not censttute on undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exist^under the terms cf the Zoning Chapter." Tf^t?if=L i/vic* Kt^ r!:r/j.’stg><w\c _______ , O r rr c R*7 1 5. 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 earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this ' ^ •The Board of Appea's and Adjustments or the Council may not perm.t as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property m the zone where TT^ffected person's lard is located.' ______OfefNTvi i A__________ - \/P/ \jrQ Llu 7. ••The Board or Council may permit as a vanance the terrporary use of a ore-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling * •The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property OHfyrnediately adjoinina property ' ^ StZiL ^<StT.v/gyfc <r TTj lfh< “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located » —7 . Y^fxxfo“The granting of the applicaticn is necessary for the preservat on and en oyment of a sotetantial property right of th»appiicant' % ^ TC , 1 > r r-> >A- Uj \f TTk •The granting of the proposed variance w ll not in any way impair hea th. safety comfort, morals, cr in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zon.ng Code." IT" TU^ LArtoiT) •»- /Mg- ■A^ TUf_ (^oiT) •>- #P-057 *ei\T2t___ .1- number in the left-hand column of subsections (4), (5), (6) and (7) of this section. Each such record lot shall include all land identified by all tax parcel property identification numbers (PIDs) grouped together following the record lot number. Within 60 days after January 13, 1983, the owner of each record lot shall be notified in wTiting at his last recorded address of the classification of each record lot, including all tax parcels determined to be included m such record lot. All existing uses in the RS district arc identified in the record lot inventory, subsections (4). (S). (6) and (7) of this section, and all such uses have been deemed to be seasonal in nature. The notice shall provide that in order to recave the benefits of the automatic lot area variances granted by subsections (6) and (8) of this section, the owner shall on a form provided by the city acknowledge the record lot and shall apply for combination of all separate tax parcels pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. Any record lot owner may appeal the record lot classification or use determination to the council with no application fee required within six months of the effective date of this division. Tlic record lot inventory shall be considered accurate and final for all properties except those found on appeal to have a demonstrable cause for change or adjustment. d. Notice of record lot establishment shall be filed by the city in the chain of title of each property. e. Future changes in lax parcel property identification numbers caused by combination of parcels for tax purposes or for any otha reason shall not alter the establishment of record lots. New record lots shall be created only by council approved subdivisions pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, or by combination of two or more complete record lots. Tax parcel combination required. No new building permit, variance or conditional use permit shall be issued for any purpose on any record lot composed of two or more tax parcels unless the owner of such record lot shall apply for a formal combination of all commonly ow ned properly into one parcel. If contiguous, all property shall be combined into one tax parcel. If separated by public right-of-way, a special *-1 combination fomi shall be executed and filed in the chain of title of each separate parcel. Subdivision of record lots. All record lots established in this section shall be continued in common ownership and shall not be subdivided, sold in parts, reduced in area, leased or otherwise separated without ^plication for and council approval of a subdivision in accordance with chapta 82. Such subdivisions will normally be approved and additional new record lots created only if all resulting lots are each S.O acres of dry-buildable lot area or more. No existing record lot shall be divided or reduced in area to less than S.O acres of dry-buildable lot area, except as follows: a. Lot line rearrangements between abutting properties that do not create an additional building site will normally be approved. b. Separation of platted lots divided by public rights-of-way may be approved provided the separated lot is combined with other abutting property to enlarge the property without necessarily creating an ^ditional substandard building site. (4) Subdividable record lot inventoiy. The following record lots are established, each of which is determined to have a dry-buildable lot area in excess of 10.0 acres per owner. Therefore, each of the following record lots may be subdivided into two or more lots in conformance with the minimum lot area requirements of this section, subject to subdivision application and approval pursuant to subsection (3) of this section and to chapter 82. Record lots are identified by record lot number, and each includes all properly identified thereaher by the listed tax parcel property identification numbers: Record Lot No Location Tac Parccli in Common Oianeiihip Combined Dry Acreage «)Big Ikland 14-117.3) 34 0001 2)-n7- 23 21 0001 23-117.23 22 0001 44.5 2)Big laland 22-117-23 1)0003 0004 | 22-U 7-23 14 00010003 j | {2J-117.23 2: 0014 0015 | 3S 3 ))Bi| Island 22-117.33 24 0001 j I7 6 I a)BigUIand 122-117.23 13 0001 0005 1 1 22-117.23 42 0001 | 19 S (5) Conforming record lot inventory. The following record lots arc established, each of which is determined to have a dry-buildable lot area of S.O acres or more per owner. Therefore, each of the follow ing record lots arc in conformance with the minimum lot area requirements of this section, and may be used for any one-family permitted or conditional use m the RS district, subject to all perfomiance standards and approvals required, including tax parcel combination pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. Record lots are identified by record lot number, and each includes all property identified thereafter by the listed tax parcel properly identification numbers. "SD'* means permitted seasonal dwelling; "SR" means permitted seasonal recreational use without structures; "CLT" means conditional use permit: Record Lot No 1 Locattcr:Tac Pa.-cels in Common Combined Dry Acreage Eaitrng Uie IiOw-nerthip 1 Big Island Big Island Big Island 14.117-23 34 0001 23-117. 23 21 0001 23 )17-23 22 0001 22-117-23 13 0003 0004 22-117-23 UCOOi 0003 22-117-23 22 0014 0015 22-117-23 24 0001 Big Island I 22-117-23 13 0001 0005 t 22-117-23 42 0001 CUP Os anight Cainp CUP Park SO & CLP ! I9S Big Island B»i Island 22-r7-23 14 0002 22-117-23 31 0001 I CUP Deaing Island I IS-’.I7-23 3IOOOI (6) Substandan! biiildable record lot inventor} The following record lots are established, each of which is determined to have a dr> -bui1dable lot area of less than 5.0 acres per owner, which lot vea is substandard pursuant to the minimum lot area requirements of this section. However, based upon individual lot surve>'s and existing lot development patterns, the record tots listed are granted lot area vanances and are recognized by the council as buildabic lots. Each of the follow ing record lots may be used for one-family seasonal recreational use or for a single permitted seasonal dwelling, which may be either the existing dwelling, a replacement dw elling, or if vacant, a new dw elting, without further council action or reNiew, subject to strict compliance with all setback, hard cover, on-site sewage treatment and other perfonnance standards for development in the RS district, including tax parcel combination pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. Record lots arc identified by record lot number, and each includes all property identified thcrcafier by the listed tax parcel property identification numbers. "SD” means pcmiitted seasonal dwelling; '’SR" means permitted seasonal recreational use without structures; "CUP” means conditional use pcmiit. Record Lo< No Location |Ta« Pa-ccls n Common j Ownership | Combined Dry Acieage Existing Use 8)Big Ulaod 23-117-23 23 0001 | | . ..i 23 0002 1 1 SR 1 9)Big Island 1 22-117-23 24 0006 \- (i 24 0005 f J ’ 1 __________1 10)Bii Island 23-117.23 22 0002 |36 j SD ’ II)MalitMyva Island i 22-117-23 13 0002 3 4 I 12 __________1 12)Bit Isloid I 22-117-23 42 0019 31 1 SD ________________ 13)Bit Island 22-117-23 24 0009 JJ ______________1 SR 14)Bic Isirsd 22-117-23 42 0001 1 27 ’SR 15)Big Island 23-117-23 32 0028 0029 1 0046 0047 004S 0049 25 SD 16)Big Island 23-117-23 32 0001 0002 0013 0014 0015 0044 22 SD 17)Big Island 23-117-23 32 0030 0031 00320033 0041 20 SD IS)Bii Island 23-117-23 22 0018 18 SD 19)Big Island 22-117-23 42 0004 0009 OOlOOOll 0012 0013 0014 0015 0016 0017 0018 1.7 SR 20)BII Island 23-117-23 32 00420053 1 5 SD requirements shall be observed for all new structures and for any addition or alteration to any existing structure, whether temporary, seasonal or permanent; (1) Minimum setback from lakcshore, all structures, including decks, fences, retaining walls, wells, on-site sewage treatment systems and land alteration of any kind, 75 feet. (2) Minimum setback from designated wetlands shall be: a. Wells and sew age treaunent s>-stems, 75 feet. b. All structures, land alteration or hard cover of any kind, 26 feet. (3) Minimum setback from platted street rights-of-way, all structures, 30 feet. (4) Minimum setback from internal side or rear property line shall be: a. All sti-uctuics on lots 200 feet or more in w idth, 50 feet. b. All structures on existing record lots 100 feet or .uore in width but less than 200 feet in width. 30 feet. c. All structures on existing record lots less than 100 feet in width, ten feet. (5) Minimum setback any building to any other, ten feet. (Code 1984, § 10.31(8)) Sec. 78-571. Lakcshore bard covei regulations. Within 75 feet of any shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 2S0 to 500 feet of Ute shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. (Code 1984, § 10.31(9)) Sec. 78-572. Building height Within any RS seasonal recreational district, no structure or building shall exceed 2 |/2 stories or 30 feet in heiglit e.xcept as provided in section 7S-1366. (Code 1984, § 10.31(10)) Sec. 78-573. Buiidiog construction standards. Within any RS seasonal recreational district, all new buildings or structures and BOUNDARY & TOPOORAPHIC SURVEY FOR DONALD HENDERSON IN LOT 4. KITCHEUS SUBDIVISION OF GOV*T LOTS S & 6, SEC. 22-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA EXHIBIT E mIpiiIp111! U Safi t ! Ife 04.351 I I kxiiibit g I 3 1 n I I I f 560 Big Island Orono, Minnesota Prepared by Svoboda Ifcological Resources fo'': Don Henderson r ^ >h -y Welland Classilication. Ideiiiil'i- cation, and Delineation Sei\ ices. GPS Services Project No. 2004-‘'12-1)3/7! September 14. 2004 AWaru/ (<r»4>6fTyi ^ Env^ij^eniat' j H.V . ■ \ V ;*‘’7Shitf>wrtcJRcad • Excelsatr. MN 55J3I i?i:)47i.nai • i95:i47i.coo7ir.i\i ■ ■ « ■ m ■ a SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ■ m H m ■ Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & Environmental Consulting September 14. 2004 Don Henderson 5018 Normandale Court Edina. MN 55436 RE:SER Project Name: 560 3ic Island - Orono SER Project No: 2004-312-03 Project Location: Lots 5 & 6. Section 22. T117N. R23W, City of Orono. Hennepin Couniy. Minnesota Project Description: Wetland Classification. Identification, Delineation, & Slaking Services; GPS Services Dear Mr. Henderson. As requested, Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) visited the above referenced property on September 14,2004 to examine the site for the presence of areas meeting wetland criteria. Criteria for determining jurisdictional wetlands arc as described in the 1987 U S. Army Corps of Engineers IVetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) as recfulrod by the Min.nesota Wetland Conservation SITE DESCRIPTION The subject parcel is approximately 1.5 acres consisting of a wooded upland area and a depressional marsh area. The topography of the site varies significantly; perpendicular to the lakeshore a.nd marsh area the property abruptly rises in elevation to the rtorthwest at roughly a 1:4 slope. The northwest portion of the property consists of a forested lot w-hilc the eastern portion of the property is domindied by wetland. Lake Minnetonka borders the property to the south (See Figure 1). The surrounding area land use consists of singfe-family housing and forested lots. METHODS National Welland Inventory (N\M) maps (Figure 2). Soil Survey of Hennepin County maps (Figure 3), Minnesota Protected Waters maps, and 2003 aerial photographs were reviewed prior to the site visit to identify* areas that may be w etlands. Areas illustrating evidence of wetland conditions w ere exam-ted in greater detail during the field survey. Vegetation, soils and hydrology were examined (as outlined in the 1987 Manual) and used to characterize wetland types and determine wetland boundaries. Sample transects were established in representative wetland-to-upland transition zones in order to characterize the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site. Transects consisted of representative upland sample point(s) and representative wetland sample point(s). Information obtained from the sample points can be found on the field data sheets located in Appendix A.C' 2477 Shadywcod Road (952) 471-1100 (OfTice) Excelsior. MN 55331 (952) 471-0007 (Fax) .McLamiii I aUiMILtUWJ W DATA SOURCES Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory Map. Hennepin County. 1983. Soil Surety of Hennepin County. April. 1974 U.S.D.A. 159pp. plus appendices. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Welland Inventory Map - Excelsior Quadrangle. 1991. (Taken from May 1980 aerial photographs). Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle - Hennepin County, Section 22, Tov^mship 117N, Range 23 W. uses. April. 1991. ■ ■iT'- O I i] I II 1 II II II II ill II II II II It It . . . V •.. -.v'rj- -rV. 'V •••-*' '• i, .■V" ■ v:*'> y ■'.- r__________________________________ National Wetland tnvento -v •ri'/'^rlavsd on "^OOD Ae'ta* F -**’* V I I it 11 lit lit 1:1 ti K iiiif ifjWjynB r: :'0:‘!R Prbt ’r. Wrtcr? t« ' v 4. « 5. d I I n II II n II II rt II III III III III Hi 11^ V •>. : ' • ■ • -I 7 A5/ > • •: V '*t ePW!KI7 ’ <• • >-v ■•* S'. GFS Wetland Bo*.inda»'y or. 200? A'^ri*=.l Ph'>*■4.C' m i i i i i Bl d II SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL* RESOURCES Wvtlunds Inventory Jt DtiUneation -herics • Wtlditja • Natural Communtties 5fen Big l«!jrJ DMflArri B.Kin I tn»vv>gJM«< BPC_________ OtK S r<»n to Ct«nmu'>t* TjfH !<■ I00-* SP M WET Tvn ) • PL\tF OtiwbcU C>'«<i4l■^e' V>.t Kju «c «f 0i«(i<rt>jx%c VEGETATION PcfTi.ntr.tl • K»»it t*Ntfn-Jyninartj Scsui ,4irr nnfu/n/fi Sioiiia bal,u!t''Sii Ov s T OBL « V i© ■ H V $ T ■ H V S T ■ H V 8 T ■ H V $ T ■ H V 8 T 5.iai%» Lafv'fyu St! Hats Sufig Ov 8 T FAC^V Ithunfui cal^u'lltn ©V 8 T ■ M V©t" ■(2)v 8 t‘ H V 5 T ' H V 8 T' ’ H V 8 T ODL FACL» ODL >!0S cf Dor-i.wB FAC or •tistf • ✓ Yci____No >S0S of De-> f AC w OBL trAC-rwat sorj ✓ Yw v«i Hf rhaccoui. thr-b. and tree spciei obaerved ai mnpte ’.ocatisi______________________________ SOILS County S«41 Sunry Map Unit Maoh ✓ Seit Scnti tt oit Naito-ai HyOnc So<t Usi ✓ A/ta mappeO ai aeptettea or «n apor on Surncy Firid Qtacfvaiiff a Hy4ix aeii aaiiM'^O bcti^K punn irt OBL as4 FACW png *ctUn4 bOwMafy ti aPr^ ✓ M.nefalSoa HeoiiQnT3cpth 0-6'_________ 6-12‘___________ 12-16:^_______ ^ CttHM Sol Matrix Cotof I0YK2M lOYR ?/l lOVRA'i Tcxtu« Oreamc (Heir.:c) Orgaric Loam Sand _________ Ftar>»rti Conmor.Pts'.ir.ct 7 5Ml 4 '4 Roc* Char.re'.i ££nijTi£IklL£ni£LlL2.tXB.i.i-12*M—— MfOnc Sc"! Ftoert’ */ Na _____So Noact *lron Oxide Soft Mut (lOSM) Lh»a»rc-w ecS iPTunary ir-dicatan (P) Secordary md-cron (S~ | D(p(*iof aa.Tp:in| 16 Inchca Ir^ndaed. Depth of Waur (P) HYDROLOGY ^ Fftt «aicr m feorttcic. Depth fren Sxrf^t Water htarha. tie»ation if)_______ ' Drift Linea or Sediment DepoeiU |P| Mydiotofy CoienoB Met’ ^ Yea K# Other Ohaervaiioiu ____ OtidittdIlMiChannctttnUpper 12 iMhet(St ____ Oamaie Paittma lO WalanduP) ✓ Watniiarsed'earn (8; ✓ Local 8ea Survey Dan (SI ^ FAC-Neutral Teal IS) WXTLAND DETERMINATION It die Sampk Fomi m Wntontf* Y» ✓ Ho_____Undetenmntd_____ 0>atafKe from Ddiaeatcd Ed|t |Q ft H. A^ Koiea Wetland <dt« bated en vegetation. toiU, and topctraphic line a a a a i ID SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL'RESOURCES Wctlundx Invvniwy A Dalincation • Ftxhenex • WddUfe • Natural Sm; N*«» 560 Dm l>ljnJ n4».n\Arta t l««<at.^jt4in BPC_________ 0»hab«.-«l CotiU'ihW' Vn Njiutcttf 0<»turt)4nce 10 T||v U. 2(K>J SP l-l LP l/p'.'.r.il vegetation Dominanti i*:o*f bi*4io»i«f.»Up.cfJst»Non-demi*ianti Stuthg n V s(J) H V 8 T H V $ T M V I T H V 8 T H V 8 T H V 8 T FACU icaia Ti'ui uitmtu^j ^tiiimnui c *-i T\C’J H V $(f) FACL H v(S)t ■ H V 8 t' M V 8 t‘ M V 8 T' M V 8 t‘ H V 8 T' >50^bef Oeniiupu TAC of •*ct«r ’Ym ✓ Na >50^b ofOemiiijiMs FaCA'. CBL (FAC-*CrfUal lert Y{» i/ N* N«<r» and tree species observed at sample tocatic SOILS Covnty Soil Survey Map UuU Hrvdenloim Vt*M ntwfTvaiiam H>U/.« s«<l SUumed pbitu t«« OIL wid FACU’ «p4 ^ Ukoati Sc.i OrsaaK SeU 8»l Senes II on NsMenat H)«tc Soil Uv Arta traapee as eepreuiM or i»tt ipet on Se<l Siirvcy Hortzon/Deplh O-IO’ Matrix Color lOYR 3/2 iMlttft Loam fcatuKi 10-16*lOYK 3/1 Clav Loam CommonD.it.r.ct Depl. Few Distinct lOSM 16-24-lOYK 5/1 Sandv Clav Loam Few Dis’ir.ct 2 5YTI ^'6 tOSM. Carbonatrs HjUne Soil Frtseni’ (✓ Yes No Ufldtttrminrt Notts ’Iron Oxide Soft Mass (lOSM) (Prtwiafy ind caws (P) Secondary ird<ators (S) | Depth of sair.pl leg 24 Inches limndaicil. Depth of Water (F) HYDROLOGY Free *0101 la botthok. Depth from Su’lstt Water MarU Heraoen (Pi______ Onft Lines or ScOimcm Deposits IF) Cniener. Me* Yes ^ Ns Otter Cbscrsstions Nc free maier obtersti wiih.n borebote Os dited %oe« Charnels in Upper I! inches (Si Dramaic Fanerrs ih WeLaaCa (FI Aaiet-stauica leaves (S) Loea) Soil Survey Data (8) FAC • Neutral Test (81 \>XTLAND DETERMINATION U the Sample Fomi HI WetSanur* Yes N# ✓ L'mktewnacP Oistanct from Odmeared I4|t i(J ft N/A Wetland edge based on vcietation. soils, and tcpoifaphic line <! I I I I 1 I 4 4 4 INDICATOR CATEGORIES* Obligate Wetland (06L) - Occur almost always (estimatedprobability >99%) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) - Usually occur in wetlands (estimatedprobability 67% - 99%). but occasionally found in non-wetlands. Facultative (FAC) - Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% - 66%). Facultative Upland (FACU) - Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimatedprobability 67% - 99%), but occasionally found in wetlands (estimatedprobability J% - 33%). Obligate Upland (UPL) - Occur in wetlands in another region, but occur almost always (estimatedprobability >99%) under natural conditions in non-wetlands in uhe region specified. If a species does not occur in wetlands in any re^on, it is not on the National List. I 1 I I a a Onicial Series Desertpuon • HAYDCN Senes LOIATION HAiCEM I’djIC I »»l .» r-iti.iA Established Senes Rev ELB 05/1999 HAYDEN SERIES The Hayden series consists of deep v.^11 drained soils that formed in calcareous loamy glacial till on glacial moraines and till plains Tnese soils have moderate permeability. Their slopes*range from 2 to 40 percent. Mean annual precipitation is about 28 inches, and mean annual temperature is about 46 degrees TAXONOMIC CLASS: Fine-loamy, mixed, superactixe. mesic Giossic Hapbdalfs TYPICAL PEDON: Hayden loam with a 6 percent convex slope on a terminal moraine in a deciduous forest (Colors are for moist soil unless otherwise noted.) A-0 to 2 inches; very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) loam; weak fine granular structure, very friable, about 5 percent coarse fragments, neutral; abrupt smooth boundary. (1 to 4 inches thick) E-2 to 9 inches; dark grayish brown (lOYR 4,^) light loa.m. weak thin platy structure; very friable; few very dark gray (lOYR 3/1) worm casts in upper part, about 5 percent coarse fragments, slightly acid, clear wavy boundary. (0 to 12 inches thick) BE-9 to 14 inches, brown (lOYR 5.0) fine sandy loam; weak fine and medium subangular blocky structure; friable; many distinct coatings of clean sa.nd and silt particles on faces of peds, about 5 percent coarse fragments; medium acid; clear wa\7 boundary. (0 to 8 inches thick) Bil-14 to 28 inches; yellowish bro\sm (lOYR 5/4) loam; moderate fine and medium subangular blocky structure; firm; few faint coatings of clean sand and silt particles and few faint dark yellowish browm (lOYR 4/4) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent coarse fragments; stronglv acid, clear wavy boundary. Bt2-28 to 38 inches; yellowish browm (lOYR 5'4) loam.; moderate fine and medium prismatic structure parting to moderate fine and medium angular blocky; firm, many distinct dark yellowish brown (lOYR 4/4) clay films on faces of peds, about 5 percent coarse fragments; few prominent black clayey fillings in root channels; strongly acid; clear wavy boundary Bt3—38 to 43 inches; yellowish brovsn (lOYR 5/4) loam; few fine prominent reddish brown mottles; moderate fine and medium prismatic structure; friable; few distinct dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4) clay films on faces of peds; about 5 percent course fragments; slightly acid; abrupt wavy boundary', (Combined thickness of Bl horizons is 12 to 30 inches) C~43 to 60 inches, light clive brown (2 5Y 5'4) loam; few fine faint grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) and light olive brown (2.5Y 5/6) mortles, massive, friable; and 5 percent coarse fragments; slight effervescence, mildly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION; R;cc County. Minnesota, about 4 miles north of Faribault; 1.920 feet east and 30 htto;//ortho.flw nrcs usda aov/cci-bia'osd/osdname CKi?-P 9 14 2004 r m n q q q q q q q q OiVicial Series Deseripiion • llAYDCN Series feel north ol the southwest corner ol see I, f 110 N 21 W. I’uije 2 ot' j RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: Solum thickness anJ depth to free carbonates range irom 24 to 54 inches Coarse traements of mixed htholoey comprise 2 to 8 percent of the volume of the control section The A horizon has hue of lOYR. value c:2 or 5. and chroma of I or 2 The Ap horizon has value of 4 or 5 and chroma of I or 2 and value of 6 when dr> The E horizon has hue of lOYR. value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 1 or 2 The A and E horizons tvpically are loam. si!t loam, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam, but include clay loam, if eroded. They are neutral to medium acid The Bt horizon has hue of lOYR in the upper part and lOYR or 2 5 Y in the lower part, value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 3 through 5 Mottles arc present in the lower subhorizons in some pedons It typically ;s clay loam or loam, but sandy clay loam is in parts in some pedons. The argillic hor-.zon has 18 to 35 pet'cenl clay and 30 to 45 percent sand. It ts slightly acid to strongly acid. Some pedons have a DC horizon. The C horizon has a hue of lOYR or 2.5Y, value of 4 or 5. and chroma of 3 through 6. It is loam or day loam It lacks moulcs in some pedons It has 15 to 25 percent calcium carbonate equivalent and is mildly or moderately alkalikne. COMPETING SERIES: These are the Amandi. Belrafini. S-Cimoje. Cb?DUu}i. Chdi. Cog&an. CcQMtoga, Do-vids. liU^SLa. Qi»lim4D. Oidliojo. HRbt«D. Hickoiy. Higb_Q.ap. Us'.lin&qr, KaliniozM. KAoavyha. Kcndallyillc. Kosciusko. LcRo^. Lcioit. Undlsy. Mdicoiv. Ma rtinsville . Miami. MilfliO. Miliiio. Ngdin?, Norden. QsJilcy, Qvyossfi. Recaioiuca. PmifieiffX). Rav vson . May. Rsnfiyji. Rishkad. Ridiilcs. Rcckbiidg?. Roseville, SiiSfijQ, Siiayyo, S.mrLQiuyiUc. Teanawa y. ThctSSa. Wawasee. Westville . Unalan . and Woodbine soils in the same family Amanda horizon soils have more illitc in the B and C horizon; Belmont soils have redder hue in the B horizon Belmorc, Chili. Kalamazoo, and Ockley soils formed in glacial outwash and have sandy or sandy- skeletal 2C horizons. Chenault soils have chert fragments in the solu.m and are underlaid by limestone bedrock Coggon. Gallm.an, Hickory. Pccatomca. Renova. Riddles, Summutviile. and Westville soils have thicker sola. In addition, Coggon soils have low chiom.a mottles in part of the B2 horizon. Conestoga, Kcndallville, Lctort, Richland, and Rockbridge soils have m.orc coarse fragments. Douds. El Dara, Kidder, Sisson, and Wawasee soils have less clay and m.ore sand or silt in the lower part of the B horizon and in the C horizon. High Gap. Hollingcr, Mandcville. Mifflin. Military , Norden. Roseville, Viltalan, and Woodbine soils have bedrock beginning bc:v.ecn depths cf 20 ar.d 60 inches. Grcllton, Hcbion, Lindlcy, a.nd Ravvson soils have more sill or clay or both in cither the lower part of the B horizon or C horizon or both Kanawha soils are formed in alluvium from acid shale and are in an area of higher rainfall. LeRoy and Strawn soils have thinner sola. McHenry and Miami soils have more silt or clay, or both in the upper pan of the solum. .Martinsville soils have redder hue in the B horizon and formed in stratified outwash or lacustrine scJimcnl-v. Nodi:ic soils have thicker sola which is more stratified and leached of free carbonates to greater depths Owosso soils have more sand and less silt or clay in the upper part of their sola. Princeton soils formed in aeolian sediments and have stratified C horizons. Relay soils have hue of 2.5 Y or 5Y in all parts of the B horizon. Teanaway soils have firm, sandy clay loam C horizons with redder hue. Theresa soils form.ed partly in loess and have 2C horizons with 40 to 60 percent calcium carbonate. GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Hayden soils have plane or convex slopes on gently undulating through steep glacial moraines of the Des Moines and Grantsburg sublobe of the Late Wtsconsinan glaciation. Their slopes range from 2 to 40 percert and mostly are 80 to 300 feet in length. These soils formed In calcareous loamy glacial till. Montmorillonite is the dominant clay mineral m the glacial till. Mcnn http.//ortho liw nrcs usda gov/cgi-blaosd'osdname.cgi?-P 0 14 2004 Onicial Series Description • HAYDEN Series Page 3 of3 annual temperature is 45 to SO deijrees. and mean annual precipitation is 27 to 33 inches. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: These are the Ames. Dundas. Hamel, Luther, and Ncssel soils which are members of a toposequence with the Hayden soils. Moderately well drained Nessel soils have plane or slightly convex slopes. Poorly drained Ames and Dundas soils have slightly concave to slightly convex slopes with gradient of less than 2 percent. Poorly drained Hamel soils are on toe slopes. Organic soils are common associates in some places. DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Well drained. Runoff is medium and rapid. Permeability is moderate. USE AND VEGETATION: Mostly cleared and cultivated to com. soybeans, small grain, and hay. Native vegetation was deciduous forest of maple, basswood, oak. and elm. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: Southeastern Minnesota and in central Iowa. Extensive. MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St. Paul, Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Hennepin County. Minnesota, 1929. ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to Minnesota Agriculttiral Experiment Station Central File Code No 967 for results of some laboratory analysis of the typical pedon. I National Cooperative Soil Survey U.S.A. hno://ortho.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/cgi-bin/osd/osdname.cgi?-P 9/14 2004 I'lKMO I: | !UI, C . * Ii.i» *. ! xtif f.i.if I r« !rti’i Wk»r icnjf.t! «•• Tfu Ki jt l*h >ti Liiv-* •• Swptvm‘vr. \ '•? .il'*’ , Miv lif.. l•t.!:l !. !.iIa Ktnl i.iU.i l it*?*-:.-** ^•J.»**•••• a’i.! '. I'.'’ iit.i;':. fa^*K* *•*.; rii0|02: I'lMiTi. vH'tpI. r>*ni ’t.s.f»i.r I’ti*:-- n 2“'*i ' ■ J P rilCIlO X: In.iv. ..f li..-— I !k ‘: n.••t^ !•..•• ^ 1 .1*1. \*iii*‘,-Vi*iK.i IMi**t.« l.ik*t If S* j**v« tv'. .'••••• Ii.i'?*' i!i*!i :ni\«! t*> w.ilf i*' ■‘Pv.U' • t-y» 1 ‘linio 1 0(. ui M11 1*. exhibit h o o *1 >• \ ^ GlTYoTORONO Muniripil Oflkts SIritt iMniti 27bO Mdlcy Partoty Orow MN SS3S6 Maitoi AMrvu: PO Bot 66 Ctysta: Bay. IM 5S323 CC66 Janice Gundlach ■JFROM: Matt Bohemian.On-Site Systems Manager ,,\jj DATE: November 8. 2004 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 560 Big Island This lot has two septic sites large enough for a three bedroom (300 gallon, type 2) cabin. The sites lye along the sidcslope of the hill and meet setback requirement to the lake, property lines and proposed cabin. Access for the construction of the cabin must be 10 feet from the drainficld sites. A full design must be approved before any building permits can be obtained. 1 recommend approval based on septic concerns. (9S2)24MMt • raK(f92)24M6ia J ll/0»/20b4 11:43 FAX 7034418176 water labs ii ECO SYSTi^S 2002 Mil Miller Environmcnttl Inc. Pmow».763-370-5961 Fax: 763-441-9176 353 Eaix Main SltttX • Elk River. MN 55330 November 8,2004 Palm Propcniea Mike Palm 2311 WayiaU Boulevard Mlnncq>oUs, Minnesota 55405 Subject: Site lavestigaiion for Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) 560 Big Island, City of Orono MEI completed 4 Mil borings on November 5. 2004 « the approxinute loMtioiB indicated on the attached figures. The soil profile descriptions arc attached to this conespondcnce. TOepu^seofthe Mil investi^n was to generally detenmne the type of Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) that can be anticipated to serve the new residential home. The resulU of the soil borings indicate the site is underlain by loamy glacial deposits Clay loam textures were encountered in the soil bonngs to approximately 3 feet, underlain by olive brown swdy loam soil rich in calcium carbonate and shale deposits. The soil borings completed within the dram field area were on slopes from 4Vo - 18% with a dense cover of oak, aspen and njaplc frees. Slope measurements were taken in three locations; 1) along the entire drain field area. 2) along the area of the primary site and 3) along the area of the secondary site The three measurements had an average slope of just less than 18%. Evidence of a seasonal water table was not obscr\’ed in soil borings 2-4, the area of the proposed S drain fields. The attached figures give the drain field calculations and area requirements ^ well as identifying the proposed area for the drain fields. It is anticipated that a three bedroom type 2 home will be constructed on the site for an estimated average daily flow of 300 gallons per day. With a subsurf^e drain field using an equivalence of 12 inches of sewer rock will require two dram field sites of 528 square feet each. Three foot wide drain field trenches are shown along the contour of the landscape on the attached figures to meet the area requirements. At the time of designing the OWS for the residence, percolation tests arc required by the City of Orono as well as a complete OWS design with data sheets and material specifications for permilling. If you have questions, plcase&d free to call. Designer 1MPCA Certification W2262 Cc: Man Dolterman; City' of Orono 11/01/2004 11:43 FAX 7834419170 HATm LABS k ECO SYSTEMS PROfOftO MHLMNO. DAMN RBLDt 4 WUOttlO FIAN DONALD HENDERSON IN LOT 4, KITCHEL*8 SUSOMSION OF OOVT LOT! B 4 •, 8CC. 22-117-tt HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (2i003 SCALE 1- = 50' / JK' WAIN riCLO <M7> CALCULATIONS' y y 300 0*Won» ptr day <Qpd> » S-l / sn / 3 ft • iTfc (in€«l e-t tquarr feet <*f)/0Pd » tO • Af/df reet un/ar required Frmory tfrairt field ere® IS7 If k 3 ft • WJ *f ] Se<o«Hlory drain field oreo= I7i If * 3 ft » S34 if ^ Sd Baring lake MINNETONKA Milin Fjivirmunmlal. Inc. S33M«InS(nct BkK«..»«5ino Soil Profile DescrIpJion Dilc Cumplel«l: ll/snoM___________— ^ Completed By: Peter Ci. Miller. P.S.S. I.iccnsc No. 42636^ Project; 560 BI r Uland Equipment: Rnckel Auger Limiting luiycr Depth: 2Q" LandscafK Posilion: 2>4% Toe slope Vcgelalion: Wooded Parent Material: (iiBcial Till IICHUZOPi Dcmi END flNrilES) Elevation: MATRIX COLOR texture 934 STRUCTURE- CONSISTENCE REDOXIMORPIIIC FEATURES OTHER SOIL SIZING FACTOR* 10 I0YR2/I city Loam 2.2 30 lOYRin Clay Loan 2 2 41 2.5Y5/2 Clay Loam Many. Fuic. Di»lincl lOYR 5/6 and 10YR6/2 NA — - wfcctp«-a»0no oar day wilh re ------------------------- - Pbonr 763-37(W96l Fax 763-441 9176 Milci Unvtionmctuid, Inc. Main .Sued Elk RKtr.MN 55330 Soil Pronic Description Date Complelcd: H/S/2Q04 TwiPiU 3 Complelcd By: Peter C. Millei. P.S.S. I.iccnsc No. 42636 Project: 560 Bin Island Equipment: Bucid A mect Ijuidscape Posilioo: 18% Side Slope Mapped Soil Type: Lealcf Limiting Uyer Depth: NcK Observed Vegetation: Wooded Parent Material: Glacial Till UOlUi^ DEPTH END (INCHES) Elevation: MATRIX COLOR ADproaimaieiy texture V4/ S'rRUCTURE- CONSISTENCE redoximorpiik : FEATURES OTHER SOIL SIZING FACTOR* 1 I0YR2/2 Loan 2 34 IOYR4n Clay Loan Shale Gof^cnlt 22 60 2 5Y 5/4 Sandy Loan Violent elferveKiKe fi«n CAC03 depusU*. 5YR *i'6 Fc Coocrefiont 2 —•%ittItanerKsH lUaaM t<rw>ith aatk look elllociU_______________________________________________________— • ►- 52 I fnlkf«ii«uuuiJM.nial&nin rrnn Phone 7aS-370-SMI Fm 763-44 ’ -9176 S oo VMtf Emironmctiul, Uur. aUMainSlrm ElkRivrr.MN55J30 Date Complelod: 11/5/2004 Soil Profile Description Tea Pit* < ConpIclcdBy: Peiet O. Millet. P-5.S l.lcense No. 42616 Project; 560 Big Island Landscape Posilion: 4-6% Sht ulder Mapped Soil Type: LcsIct h'quipment: Bucket Auget Limiting LB>-ef Dcnlh: Not Observed M Vo N* O so none 76S-S70-3961 Fan 76S-44I-9I76 ii V,V" -• 0 X*>/v: ^ V' - V"■ >‘v ✓ ' /.V >v C \ ' *.* «r ^•>% % X • '• m :*■ .fA SUBJECT PROPERTY | f, .* ♦•;. , r » ' . •’> , r . ■7'’■fe' • 3^ < 'x-. , -v:^ v#r U niversity of Minnesota EXHIBIT J TmimCU0tCmmn»Ontaonfloa-Htmi «.V«rft 5wr^ lions Sii Instnmsitmol Htaring Center Hedittl Schott October 13.2004 MoroMailCtUSH 423 Offanort Snea S g. Mtnneopohj. MX JWJ5 612-€2S-32DQ rtJ^ SI2 i2S-2l0t O^cts: Sth Floor Fhitliiu.Wentensutn BuiMing SJSDtUtnan Street SE. Mlcbad P. Gaifron Planning Director City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkv-ny PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 FAX (952)249*4616 RE: «04.30S7, Don Hendenon, 560 Big Island Dear Mr. Oaffron. As one of the immediate neighbors of Mr. Don Henderson on Big Island. 1 am very concerned about providing a variance for a permit for construction of a seasonal cabin on the described lot. While it is reported that it is a 3.3 acre size, in reality, much of this property is not usable or consists of a marsh. That marsh serves as a home in the spring for a great deal of wildlife particularly rodwing blackbirds and in the summer for herons. I am concerned, not because of the home construction, but because of the possible septic system and possible entry or disturbance of that marsh by development of the area. During the summer of'04, there was a For Sale sign on the property and it was advertised in the Lakeshore Weekly News as a buildable lot. WTiere the new dock would be for this properly is another area to be discussed as it would have to pass through a portion of this marsh. The new owner of this property should be auarc that the 75 foot setback still places the home in the lowland part of the island. Other homes built on the lowland portion of this aspect of the island are built on pilings, specifically the Webb Hill and Tom Lapping properties. This is because in the spring of each year this area is associated with the spring runoff and is urderwaicr. Additionally, on the higher portions of the property there is an embankment leading down to the area of the marsh. It seems to me that this property would be best served to the state, the people of Minnesota, and Lake Minnetonka by declaring it a natural preserve. If however it is deemed a buildable lot. then 1 would hope that the new builder would be made specifically aware of these circumstances and that they would need additional penniis for a duck, a well, a septic system, and for clearing trees. Sincerel; L. Adams. M.D. Proftsaor and Head TOTRL P.01 Erlekson 852-473-4055 P» I FROK FACCRE k BENSON (WED) 11 10* 04 14;06/ST. 14:Q3/K0.4863S47942 P 2 Kov«niberl0.2004 PUnnias ConoaUsuM City ufOrono 2750 Kcll«y Parkway, P.O. Boa 60 Crystal Bcy.MN 55323 Re: »04.3057.VviaDce Request-560 Bis Island D cm - Members orUic Oruou Plaaniiig Coenmission You Should lecomawnd denial of the variance in case #04-3037 -160 Bfg Island for a mmiber of reasons. 1 am fkniliar «Hth the prapeny since 1 own the large pared ihal abuts it to the north. 1 have owned thu property for many years and have taken greM interest in the aooiiig history of Big Island. Oruoo has put a S acre oiinimum lot si/c roquiremcot on Big Island for good reason ReasoM for the 3 aoe mlnimuin lot size prominently Include protection of the critical environnwot for waste neanncnt sod for access. Is the application before you both issues dictate a denial. Until access is dewnniiied, this ipplicaiiOQ cannot be granted. At the very least, it should bataUaduaiUilMMocaioriumie over. Siaca you may be under the gun of the 60 day rule, the lack of access and dm mduence of the Moratorium are reason enough upon which to base a dcniaL Cities uniformly deny appIkaiioDS that are submiciod in the face of a Moratorium. If access h« not been determioad. you csnnol nuke the findings required in your ordinance. If the applicant granu you an extension of the 60 day rule, table the matter. If ynu do not get an extension, you must deny based on the Momorhun. The second reason for a denial is that this lot is too smaU to handle wsste disposal. It is contrary to Orono's policies to give varianees nrhere this threat caisrs You must Bod ‘Niadua baedship** befose you can gram a variance. Ttiere is much property on Big Island that k nnhuildshir There is nothing new about that. People still enjoy the banaAtt of owniag and uaiag die propoly. Kodung in reality, nothing in the law dictates that just because someone o%voa property nmens Ih^^ can put a buildmg on it Tharo «a plenty ofusas this propmty can be pot to. A variance to pot op a home is otu of them! SiBcmaly. Ml iinMI.il mjNOATt. iwi/xo* u NNIPIN COUNTY PRO^IV SYS1UM PROPi:RTYOWNI.RS MSI n 221172)240001 nOfAOOR 720 BICISIAND UWNCR NAME CEIALD A EROCSOH JR ET At TAXPAYER CERALO A ERICKSON JR NAME/AOOR 4J07AMERCAHBLVDW MNNEAPOUSMN 554)7 M J21172)110001 ntOfAOQR 550 Die ISLAND OWNI.R NAME fAUS FAMILY INVESTMENTS U» TAXPAYER FAUS family INVISTMLNIMJ* NAME/ADOR JIIOVORKAVtS MPUMN 55410 M 221172)110007 PRO. AUOR MO BKi ISLAM) OAXI R NAME DON HENDERSON ET AL TAXPAYER DONIIENDLRSON NAMC/AOOR MIINORMANDALFCT MPLSMN 554)4 Jt 22II72))I0030 ntOfAOOR SWBKJISIANO OWNER NAME JUNE M REOER TRUSTEE TAXPAYER JUNE M FIHJER NAMC/AOOR atrium way R)24 MINNETONKA MN 55)45 )t 2)11721)10024 propador 5m bio stand OWNER NAME lOOIE R VARGAS ET AL TAXPAYER SI-LOEN THOMPSON ROBB IR HAMCMDOR MlOMANnOURO EXCELSIOR MN 55)11 u 221172)1100)1 propador 5W BKiSLANO OWNER NAME lUNEM f lEOER IRUSTEE taxpayer junemficcer NAME/AOOR UMI atrium way 4)24 MINNEIONKAMN 55145 M 221172)1100)4 propador 400 BIOSIANO OWNER NAME CCORCELR DONNA I. ADAMS TAXPAYER OeOROE L R DONNA 1. ADAMS NAME/AOOR »5R1 VIRGINIA AVE BUOOMINCTON MN 554)1 OF MY KNONSILDGE AND DEUEF^^^^ /j -/>o/ qy * Ac<^ // Ikk. '5^1 V a w Xs 5 H X EXHIBIT L I h'tuirpin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Pare*l ID 2211723310002 Houm NumbM'BOO •iTMt Nam* me ISLAND Thi$ i» net a Itgafy ncordtd map. It rapnaanta a compUabon of information and aata from Ofy. County, and Stata road aulhortlaa and athar aourcaa. PtLE«04-3060 B Nov«fn£)*f 2004 Page 1 of 4 Date Appticalion Received: 09-22-04 Date Application Considered u Complete: I I'Ol'Od 60<Da)‘Review Period Eipires: 01-01-0S To: Chair Ralm and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, City Planner Date: November 9.2004 Subject: 04-3060. Michael & Donna Ebertz, 1220 Tonkawa Road, - After-the-fact variance and conditional use permit request • Public hearing Zoulug Dbtrict: LR-IB, Single Family Lakethorr Roideotiak 1 acre Lot Area: 1.07 acre (46,7 1 0 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant is requesting aAer-the-fact approval for the follo\%ing: 1. A conditional use permit in order to construct a boulder wall, le-giade the lake yard. 2. A hardcover variance is also necessary due to the change in the hardcover percentage proposed. The applicant is proposing to increase the hardcover within the 0-75* zone from 7.84% to 8.7%. Sia/f Recommendation: Staff recommendation is for approval of the application subject the following: 1. Submittal of a plan which shows the elimination of the upper tier of walls to the greatest extent possible; and 2. Compliance with the City Engineer’s recommendations; and 3. Any additional conditions or revisions Planning Commission mav wish to add. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-966. Land Alteration; Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to build, alter or repair any seawall, retaining wall or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakcshorc property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. 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 preveruon of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; b) The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is 1 FilE»0*-»60 9 Nov«'nd«r 2CC4 Pagt2ol« C) d) 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 ate compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Sec. 78-1282. Stair^vays, lifts and landings. Stain^-a>'s and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Sec. 78-1286. Topographic alterations/grading and ftlling. (b.) Grading, fillmg or excavating of more than ten cubic >'ards is prohibited wiUiin 7S feel of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and pemiit and be subject to other pertinent sections of this chapter. Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. b) Between 75 feet and 250 feel of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1.000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. LUt ofExkibiU A. Applications B. Hardship Documentation Fonn C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Landscape Plan and Contract from EvBek Lawn and Landscape dated 09-01-04 Letter from City Engineer dated 09-28-04 Letter from City Engineer dated 11-9-04 Letters from Suff dated 10-04-04 Si 10-26-04 Inspection Photos Aerial Photo Memo from Orono Planning Director dated 11-10-04 M. Property Owners List N. Plat Map F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Bickgrouiid During September 2004. in an effort to stop the erosion of their lakeshore, the property owners hired a contractor to re-grade the lake yard and install boulder rip rap and boulder rock walls without City permits or review. Upon receiving notice that City permits were required, the property owners applied for an after-the-fact hardcover variance and an afia-the-fact conditional use permit. The applicants were unable to have a survey P1.EKO4-3C60 9 Nc-emtw 2004 s>a;e3of4 conducted or a landscape plan prepared in time for the October Planning Commission meeting, and have now submitted the information in time for November review. LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIEET LR-IB 1 1 Lot Area Lot Width 1 Required 43.560 s.f. (t acre)140^ ! Actual 46.710 s.f. (107 acre)200 ’^ The property IS located on a peninsula. | Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardco\er Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover |0133.320 s.f.Osf (OV.) 2.612 s.f.' (7.8%) 2.904 s.f. (8.7%) 75--250*13.390 s.f.3.347 5 (25%) 4.137 sf. (30.9*/c)No Change * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lmed landscape beds Hardcover Setback Variance Appro.ximately half of the existing home, decks on the home, and decks at the shore, and wood walls within the 0-75 ’ setback zone constitute the existing 7.8% hardcover, TIk proposed boulder walls and re-grading of the yard were conducted in pan to eliminate a sloped area at the shoreline which was eroding and to allow for a flat yard area between the home and the lake. Hardship Analysis ht considtHng appticaiions for rotiance, the Ptannlng Commlttlon shall consldtr the effect of the proposed rariaiice upon the health, safety and H-elfare of the commumty, existing and anticipated traffic eauditians. light and air. danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect an values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approsal for variances from the IHerat provisions of the Zoning Code in Inuanecs nhere their urict enforcement nould cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the indiiidual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only nhen it is demonstrated that such actions hUI be in keeping with the sphit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Should the Planning Commission determine that a hardship exists due to tlic challenging lakeshore ponion of the lot potentially requinng the boulder retaining walls and the location of the home with respect to the 75 ’ setback then a hardcover variance mav be justified. Conditional Use Permit .Analysis A thorough e%aluation of the water body and the topographic, vegetauon and soils conditions on the site have been made as required by code, and are addressed as follows: FilE<4.30« 9 *«Oy«<nMr ?0C4 P«9l4of4 The prevention of soil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction; The property ow ners ha\-e taken steps to address possible soil erosion during and after :onstruction Silt fence w ill be provided until all disturbed arcus have been completely le^vegetated. The visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters is limited; The submitted plan does not propose any screening of the lower boulder wall from the lake. As designed, the lower wall system is too close to the rip-rap to allow for shrubbery screening. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site sewage treatment; Xot applicable. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these wateicraft; Xot applicable. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the site and has provided staff with a recommendation based on the most recently submitted plan (the letter is attached as Exhibit H). Plaiming Director, Mike Gaffron, has provided a memo suggesting that the upper retaining wall be omitted in favor of a graded slope that will appear more natural (see Exhibit L). Issues for Consldcnition 1. Docs the Planning Commission feel that the boulder walls os proposed will ha\ c a minimal impact on views of the property from the lake, or should additional vegetative screening be utilized to shield the boulder w all from the lake? Should the upper wall be eliminated? 2. Ate there any other issues or concenu with this application? Suff Rccomnendatlou Planning Department staff recommends conditional approval of the proposal subject to the following: 1. Submittal of a plan which shows the elimination of the upper tier of walls to the greatest extent possible; and 2. Compliance with the City Engineer’s recommendations; and 3. Any additional conditions or revisions Planning Commission may wish to add. r i I ■ City of Orono 0^ A Variance Application Street Address 2750 Kelley Pa^way Orono. MN 55353 Main. 952-249-4600 fax 952-24g-46'i6 Ma-hng Aaaress P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:066 Asot cation U O Date Received 4 - ? 2 -c.t-i Amount Paid Statf Fee I 2.CD ■ c’c kA/iC^K. ic. ___ S6C0 Renewal. $300 Afi'r-ine-fac: SV2C0 Ccuc • Fee Th.s application form must be completed m full. Apc cant v/'!l be rtotifled witnm 15 days as to the status of the app! cation Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: __ Site Address: I ^c20 l^ILK d vV>«.!___________ ______ Property Identification Number (PIN) Ci ~ c rO I_________________ (Attach legal description to application if not mci-ded on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): wj □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: ^Residential □ Outer __________________________________1 Zoning District: /-^p\ / /b________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Comp ete legal ra-as and marta! status required for each interested party): Name: f ■ lU ■ t? Phone (home), its ■) • ^ Address / TV. iVL,~. Email: ________ ____ Phone (work): OWNER INFORMATION: (Comolete legal names e*d mental status required for each interested ca.-ty) Name: ^_____________________ Phone (home): _______________________ Address: ____________________________ Email: ___________________________ Phone (work); tZpT DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Descril?e the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary); A iV7.fl pr)(D\ ^ * 1} 'T—. It/ / > ✓ ^ Estimated Project Cost; •APjAA COiyryaCiXi / h^l/iCdJ/t. /jjf. J ^LaI -ft? p ^r >V! ~ riA>7 'i-. Lr£-^U.,LL'V'-:> filiJu ^ruK *=>lSp ti taJLi^ ^ A/t Q94^i\‘C't\^ AU\i/) il^cK a A J4 ^7 /7 nw ixJ TZ‘ i fal6 T>-e77 -.I f'CJi.'i Ajd^aric'^^j ojxd ryu-^>- f-miy'^1 jvyacUJm^ ujc wria/ etlji Vo (i/y coh/^ -T-uJ^reJeuiiJA^ -fuAKu^ prurc^e^Si^ cUO'^ tOM /aJafjtTiyf- . ^ %/ • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. V ^ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documenlatio.n Form COf C|fttri^d PropertpOvmers List - Avithin 1 S^^STt^subj^pfoperty. labejs-an^ p^at .^^vernmeoH^ter. A-60S400 South 6*” Street. Minneapolis, telephone'&l2^348-59 10 " □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting a!I the requi'ements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculat.ons. Also provide one copy 8.5‘ x 11“ or 1V X 17* for reproduction. □ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the vailance 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 t^e scope of the project * > vi.1 /1 r ( k' r li t u r r f ^ \APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: } ‘ The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additionaliees (staff time not cohered in the original fee payment) and/di. consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information supplied is true~ariarco~r?ecno the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/she is solely responsible for submitting a completo application being awaro that upon faituro 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'potcntial merit. tJi'\ ________Date 7 ' t., jc f__________ *> Date: Applicant's Signature. Applicant's Signature: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonaole entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission 8i Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. * iCw. X ________Date Date: Owner’s Signature; Owner's Signature; 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, p'ease make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Bqa CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# OH-30UU Date Recelved^^^^l^^/ Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCAT ON Site Address Type of Application to be Filed C»->V.L<. fi jiul! '.iuj rCi>iL,.r_______ Property Identification Number (P.1.0.) r \ t/‘i - a t H .1 ~ C'(. / APPLICANT ^ _____. , Name____i (littia-i-/ .1 t(-\ .To Phone (home^^Lr^ ^ Phone(work) > ) V. < ’ > /f, i Address ... t _____City 6^ - v Zip -s v.- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________________ Phone (home). Address_____ Date Property Acquired Phone (work) _ City_______.ZP, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - (month/year) $600.00 Residential Accessory Use $600.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $600.00 Guest House/Guest Aparunents $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use , $600.00 Land Alteration + Permit ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and fil'ing - 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-lhe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (•♦• consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$6C0.00 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* rr rj,..- ih~' f! J \j u REQUIRED SUBVITTALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 8 S. Z2L A.'f? Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. f ^ \ \ Certified Property Owners Ust of owners withinnSO^f the subject property, labels and plat rr.ap. Ust. labels and map may'lse^btained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6** Street. Minneapo’is, telephone 612-348-5910). . Certificate of Su. ^ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) • refer to handout for survey information. _ Attach legal description to applicaticn if not inc'uded on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations "involve changes in elevation (grades). ^0 ^ _ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interestin "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, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The App'icant and Property Ovm.er must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certfication by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;_____________________________Date__________________ 6d by the ><*• *<•> APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requeue Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee paym.ent) and/or unusual expenses, incurred in review of this appHcatiorr, and certif.es that the information supplied is truy^ and corxect to the best of his/her knowledge. ^ ^ Date 11 ( k/Applicant’s signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE Tne owner hereby acknowledges and agr<^ s to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by y staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council memb^ for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature »\\\AA____ _ r—^_____________Date Appli«fant4fjyst have all sObiruhals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Cc'nmis4on Meeting. PianniM^^ramlssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppHcanti must be present at all 'sMtediD^iraview meetngs of the Planning Commission and Coundt If an applcani is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this dianjje prior to the meeting. ITl •-t hiicbatl J. Bbtrt:^ M.D. Donna R. Ebert;^. Eiq. i::0 Tixiumc Rm^, On»’9. MS SJJS6 (952)471.3427 September 22,2004 VIA HAND-DEUVERY Orono Planning Commission 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. NiN 55356 Attn: Melanie Curtis Melanie: Pursuant to our discussions and meetings, attached for review and considc.atlon by the Orono Planning C>:nission are the following: (1) Variance Application, and (2) Application for Conditional Use Permit. Also enclosed is the SI200.00 application fee. As you are aware, we aic seeking to preserve our lakcshorc from ongoing eiosio:i. To do so. we seek to add to existing boulders along approximately 25 feet of lakcshore Further, we seek to level a small portion of land (between our deck and the lake drop-ofi) and plant perennial vegetation there (as this area of land has been unable to grow grass due primarily to erosion, lack of sunlight and lack of proper seeding/vegetation). In addition, we would like to add small retaining walls to further prevent erosion along our lakcfront. Our landscaper, EvBck. has prepared an illustration of the proposed work, along with a vnitten description in the form of a bid/proposal, both of which arc enclosed for your review. In order to complete our application, we have requested a Certified Property Owner's List from Hennepin County. A list, labels and map will be mailed directly to your office within a few days from Hennepin. Please forward the 525.00 invoice to us (which Hennepin County will be enclosing with the information). Should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above telephone number. We appreciate your time and consideration. We are optimistic that the City will resolve this matter in an efficient and fair maimer. Sincerely, Michael j)Ebcrt2, M.D. ' Donna R. Ebertz, Esq. PJ V J ex. 6 Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An appl<cai.on wtil not be considered conplele or p aced on any r.eet rg agendas until this forr-. s cofTplete and submitted to the City. Minnesota Statj Statue Section 394 27. Subdivsion 7 requires tnat a hardsn.p te 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 economic silualons are not considered valid hardships in order fer an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having mer.t must be demonstrated. HOW DO 1 PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the bas-s City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding cammunity . To prove a hardship, address a'.l the relevant po.nts listed below and answer then 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 m determining a den.al or approval recommendat ’on. If you leave someth.ng out it will not he considered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (su.ne may not apply); 1.-The property in question cannot be put to a reasonab''- use if used under cqnditicns allowed by the official controls * d hf/fy It I- C'U I f/i r,ft Ci'l ,'J di lL l t Ia. Jh {'( I > t'%. |-> I/Izvi C t'l,'il /I rui L t fi'd 7i i.V C y/.T>c 1 / -Th5 plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to hiS prope.ny not seated by the landowner.* t U ^ V jv .• nlb Vi I Aft TUj'i. I' 1Ji i A- Wi-uL^r r h 'ni Ti ■}) aJ___lie I. ^CL-i ^A L L l'--' t. I "The variance, if granted, wi'.l not alter the essentia' character of tne 'ocality " . ‘ f'l»* T>'.. \fd i'lii i'JU! j'l r* /i.i y' uv c i; L i J. lH-i / ^ 1Ifi *-' \ /'.11/ /U n rl A I t> i, —................ . .. ldtAu\. tx> f't.ciy 4.1 -Economic considerations alone shail not constitute an undue hardship reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." ff fLO~A OLfn?\iC€^hU ._________________________________________I .y.\Page 2 of 3 ‘Undue hardship a'so includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Vanances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harm(|ny with thi^ Cha^^r.' 6.•The B.ard of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vanance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone wh.?re the affected person s land is located * 4-u, h-c I f.'i i/.t ('*. i-cm f 4-t Vhf •.> /> /•«, firu, i 16 vu )■ n y . uL -^- cf -fi'U Wtt WiUUv. •The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwemng as a two-family dwelling * : l.i.f .______________ •The special cond tions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property * S/< >-i /< i-1iJ (I’fvf i-Ti; ;i i'n'i-f>cuu> A<T,l ■ /~U.UvO>LLrtt^ K r> , (^(Ai t .1 hut r 'l f‘\ i "' I: ■ •- i ■' /v. J •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located * ^ I i- iiii ‘ 't i 't > t V //L>^« •Tne grant ng of the application is necessary for the preservation and erpyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.^ / . . ■ ^ r< .Wf fit- ift .>-r- ■ ■ /.. s yi:. \1 ILixi /V A.Hi- (A i \ L‘0 /W y/fe /t:________ e h c r i.rZM^'rs 11. //(./vX e h /Vx'A- c'r •The granting of the proposed variance wi.l not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning ^'Uy/dltvu. iu'i 1/ /vtltig hu,.^ aiLwt i^h pLi gi inriiu ;uhi ijiui jVti K^LiL/ ,jfj ^ i r-^r .TUrMTu-ta U^'tgr ■I’ff'W Page 3 of 3 “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a conven ence to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrabla hardship or difficulty ” I ty'iir/wf U;/i| ___________ ^ ///f ul .-tu 1^1 fc'« : O-Vu Vo g t di-rro/vu-t \£t^ c^c^^JL a/u*f Cv»V.^iL iX tcO/il^^C Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be descnbed in the above criteria, aescnbe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance vrith Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following knes (attach additional sheets if ' ,'^r t J^frA '^'LiL /(Vv h/L»^ hnKj: W/I iTi J a I'd'zl a zcV/ /1'>!.■/> ;vt-- (I ^ l9yxVl/V>n. Kf' ^^ Ia W- 0 V t'tI lAa n/'i zt.**> 7^ [fn/IIIf f^ ^ )( t.<.r7y7ri -•Tlf (r ^TYiJy ni A.t ( -hi ft in rf' "7*^^ /r^.;- <it Vc.of.^rit.>t / /■ ^ »j ^ ' ritiir / Gui .ca .*H( cl’ /i(,nd /a tc^ncyj AS. C'l 1 nu^ .w sa^ :R na. liT.'^T WJAilLAA H SnAW .-n '1'^. ivr-^1. a.pi7nc^J SfJoi A re^oi.avv> -P> 'fU./S/tU'l Ja ^Ixlo J UU-’tro-t. ctj^v'iiTU-iU- 1-A •n ••. V c.--. ... UJ smti * N 68® 18'20'' E f MICHAEL & DONNA EBERTZ N LOT 9. AUO. SUB. NO. 217 hennepn county , MNNESOTA tM MINNETONKA » - »«rM. •••• ••••» Project ORONBCRO AND ASBODIATCB, INC. ' ga~‘g'=» fOt 111««»art U0n&* «>ifi — !«• i>^i«i tmt < WA««f »**cmn s n_Mir *>•£.. • Aai>^i ftA -A^**tmi « •fi»*rr %-o.A- 1 I ■—>■■*■■■ aa ippll •nr J ^lAUr 4**6. «ic«»rr 9»*.PLA4/r .jM ^.■■I i1 — 1 —ai ■HhJI ••■lAmMllM ICM.PUA mT* I** »£. *■■■—■■ H0«TA ,'A^_II n>wr M** •(.. *4M *AiAu*r MflOU' mtrr^l^-Ok •AUAU^T-.M.J-1 CAC.«»ruAijr «4 ‘»« Hfc 'a^nt. ■"»! iTn* Mawnk T jf t— ■ t^ii MntrCAAl vt^»»i*rnM 'Vl0^*4'V ■ M..•n>wr *••*. •r H awimu #.. viviiTiiiamjufc •A«*.o n.Mrr M'aa ( Oo^MM t$£gTi r / V &C.B HARDCOVER^LCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______________ Ungdi (gp X 75-250*250-500* OCCiC B Otnge C. Driveway D. SuSewallc E. PtUo/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _______________ X Zt9-cxKesii>e crot X ICO B. Garage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ B I'*' uu t » SuB zn 500-1000* 683 SF. I2i8 33.320 1.9't 1 l { i- Tin nn SF. SF. S.F. _ _ OiAcuroP , * Oiix^Cu^f SF ,S F.-CTMc.ti^Mur S.F.-Pf^ SF -Oax$ 47 SM0I ’SF-Oftirs SF S.F SF _ _ u n>yr4wc A<sa , a f 7>Uet4 SF SF H SF. SF. SF. .SF. .SF. • SF. !sf. SF. 'SF. O Z--. I-V >F. 200^ /, j'.O xIOO V.-? SF. "SF1.% AIikc f DcTKiri/^ fcee^r^-f Muo ^oi Zt’ HARDCOVER CALCULATlQ21\VORKSUEE T SETBACK ZONE: (CERCLE ONE) 0-75* ^S-2Sjp 250-500’S00.1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A Houm ______________907 SF-HgvS£ lt.6 I 03 B. Garage C. Oriv-cvray D Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck L.T^ 2.S' F. Landieape Underlain By PUst:c Or Fabric G OLher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • B X 100 v*.n PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NT A House ______________ B Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deek F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B xlOO SF SF 'SF .SF Sf s F v««.bK SF .SF -OCCKCtSwf .SF -0CC4*«^ SF SF SF SF SF. % SF. SF. SF. SF. SF SF SF. SF. !sf SF. SF. !sf. SF. SF ' H I .1 \\ n .^4. .1 nilSI a j»i‘ 763-577-0575 PROPOSAL SUBVITTEDTO: : PROPOSAL-CONTRACT INSTALLATION y ^ • BRICK FAVER PATIOS Hjip ________ • RETAINING WALLS LICENSED & .NSUREO WORK TO BE PERFORMEO AT-_______________________ CJH^H aodaess C.TV. STA’£ OMbOFi>kAMS 77i^^ ^a ',i , Pt. <rA .f=T. £rj^/<rhsJ3- ijJirT4 C:i4-fuT?i^ A/a-n^fli cT////ra.O •XS ^70 /^.^i ^/yHW6^______ «A- tAJ*<rA-n Siyr/y: ^ z^. _________• jAJ_________________________ yC f,\ i ./2:£Ar^#^ Y77. ^'•o ~ ^E.LJi/^J^ O'O' M YBsTl^i yj^ •^r>ij p/j^TTPOK-jG^n/iS^^/H\tAC^ ^ / Aj <r7— '■^ 'Z^f' v'- ‘O'; Aa material la guaranteed to be as sp«c.l<. and t^e above work to be comp'ctcd ir a substantial wcrkmani.iit rnaan«r ____________ ______________________________________Dollars (S ^ ^ ~ ^ prHh paymertts as toiiows- A ^ __________ Landscaping M»n>ani at C4.a ai eompwiion of ,«o u»vm eean«sa scao'ad An» Og- asaraaora or oaviaton bom spocrcaiens fvoi«*^ e*»a ccsa »« BO aMcutae on^ upon ■naan ordar. w<d w* bocorna an atoa eftarga otm and aao»a »» aaamasa as agraamants cenungam upon avisas. ao odan a or OMys tnono m con«’a< ACCEPTANCE OF CONTfUCT The above pdeee. ipeoMicaiiorts wtd eondKiont are satfrfactory and are hereby aooepled.Xbu are authorized to do the work as specitod. Ptaymanti «■ be nude as oudlnad above. The proposal does not become a contract until ail parbea have agreed and signed. Data ________________________ Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- vjoa fii>^*^'.\^< ^!rip■•■'«•' '■ -f c Cp *V''**®^ ,lj, .. /i.AP 2 6) Q <S) ? o 9 f ' - . . '^■■(P - ■ ^ ^ <’•* (•?) A ^ ©• lU^oirx^* /W^ir»A . . . Q - /l-o^A 6ut£. //vp4H«J6^>;|(? ©(j) (27 ® '£• • '■■i:v(p/' <g)- .,V»&'--^ ’ (9 ■ <*• "® <5* ® y ^ i'.■"' ... / (g7-i,:.i.r<3^_) Vk«<J5 ....... yy^ ;»• • ^ ,0 _ 0^0'^,0.3[^ ©Q.O O ^O' ^ ^-o \© ® (P © '.;; ! \ __, \ t<;V' r '• 'V'W‘’"V'‘\ ///av A'/ Qr\,-KrofO 0“ C'S-TA'cAl fYlA/JS^ ®' (,rfUsS /)h'^f^^- (5* Q ^4' (M'ftk^S Q'dc^t^L. yUcr^'j Q *Vlc*^ V*VMl^r/rn&o :Ufrtft u'j ^lij #fl060 J^Bonestroo ^^Rosene Anderfik& I Associates Enginvtrt 4 Af«h»i*ct» H' 2335 V/lejt Mig*iw^y 36 • Si PauI. MN 55»I3 Office 6SI-636-46<W • Fjik 651 636 I3!I ift »vvv Dc/'<i:'c a eo*n ex.ei 'Ui*Sqjtember 28.2004 Ms. Melanie Cums Planner City ofOrono Po<: Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1220Tonkaw'a File No 139^«H) Plat No. 04.3060 Dear Melanie: We have reviewed the sketch plan for the proposed grading and shoreline tmpros ements to the property located at 1220 Tonkaw-a. The proposed improvements include the construction of retaining walls and associated site improvemetusi »Ici%g the lake side of the home. We have the following commenu with regards to engineering • Thr ^ajcscd sketch does not provide sufficient detail for us to comment on A detailed plan .should b' that includes existing and proposed contours extending SO-feet be>x>nd all lot lines The ,:^ii j ^curately show topography including all lot lines, exuting trees, buildings, reuinir - wails »n>' other structures and hardcover. • Die p*V.-4houli include at least three sections showing existing and proposed elevations between the lake ana the hope across the frontage of the property. • Additional rttainmg wall information should be provided with the revised plans. At a minimum the proposed wall type should be identified as well as the proposed top and bottom of wall elevations. The plans should clearly identify existing and proposed walls. Any walls that exceed 4-fcet in height require a separate engineered design and detail submittal. • The plans should include erosion and sediment control details and detailed planting and restoration lnfcrma*inn. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTRCK). ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Oappa, City of Orono • St Ptul St C!Oi 5. e^c^eIrer. Wiitmar. MN • Milwaukee. W( • Cnicago !L am .^«i ,• Op»*«lb' Implvyvt 0*r.*a Bonestroo f?osen® Anderfik& I Associates Engineers & Architects 23S5 \West sgnw^y 36 • St Pj*ul. MN 5S'I3 Office 6SV636-460C • Fen 65]*636*l3n WWW oonettroo coir NOV 1 0 2001November 9.2004 M». Melanie Curtii Planner City of Orono Post OfRce Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1220Tonkawa File No 139-04-000 put No. 04-3060 Dear Melanie: We ha\-e reviewed the final plans for the proposed grading and shoreline improvements to the property located at 1220 Tonkawa. The proposed improvements include the construcuon of reiaming walls, plantings and assoaated site improvements along the lake side of the home. The plans arc acceptable from an engmeenng perspective. Erosion conuol measures should be installed, inspected and approved by the city pnor to any w otk on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK &. ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg 41^ Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono St P«J|. St Cloud. Ifocheiter. Wiilnar. MN • Milwaukee. Wl • Cnicago. IL • narntf Oe»Wt«n«y M 0»nM r E)c. I o o GITYoTORONO Municipal Omccs Stmt AMrttt: 2750 Kei^ fjrtiMj Or»no. MN 55356 MiiliRI Mdrtis; PO 3st 56 C*>stal Bay. MN 55323 0066 October 4, 2004 Michael & Donna Ebertz 1220 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUBJECT: Zoning A|iplicaliou 1704-3060 The City of Orono is required to notify you within fiflcen (15) business da>-s as to the status of your application for aAer-the*fact variance and conditional use permit for propetly located at 1220 Tonkawa Road. 1 have enclosed a copy of the City Engineer’s picliminary commcr.ts based on your submitted materials In addition to the items requested by the City Engir.ccr, below is a list of itciv.s the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: ^ Original survey, (certificate of survey, signed by licensed surv eyor) indicating existing and proposed topography. ^ All existing and proposed hardcover shall be calculated on the hardcover w orksliccls tlut are enclosed. The hardcover calculations must be completed by >‘our surv eyor. Application #04-3060 is incomplete. If y-ou wish to proceed with your application please submit the Items requested above by Friday, October 8, 2004 to remain on the October 18, 2004 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at 952.249.4627 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Melanie Curtis City Planner end TcfoplK»«(9S2)24M600 • Fu9S3)24M616 www.ctociMM.aim.iH o o .r GlTYof ORONO Municipal Oflkca SttMt IMmt: 2750 Wkt Par%»»i Orono. MN 5S3S6 MaHiag Miriti- a 0 Bn 66 CiYJtai Biy. VN 553230C63 October 26,2004 Michael & Donna Ebertz 1220 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION SUBJECT: Zoning Application 1^04-3060 The City has received a survey of your property from your survxj-or and based on our preliminary review Uic City is requesting the suney be revised per the following list. The survey should show-; I' contoun of existing and proposed topography, and ^ Elevations of the bases of the trees involved in the scope of the project; and Elevations of the top and bottom of the rock wall; and ^ Elevations of the top and bottom of the rip rap. Application ^04-3060 is incomplete. If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by Thursday, November 4, 2004 at noon in order to remain on the November 15.2004 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at 952.249.4627 should >ou have any questions. Sincerely, City of Orono Melanie Curtis City Planner Muk Gronberg, Gronberg & Associates • Fax(fS2)24M4U www.cLoronoAii.ua r'. fe itt" m IS: W r .'•* ‘ X ««#• ^.■".'V_S; &.f>^';' i£3&^ I - -VP»>*; ^ O' r*.VMU)l^ NT t' .• # K •f. ‘ ■'Mm , •.*-' 'V-- i^*, X, r'; . ■ ' A', I (jmmM m ' •ijy .1 NT ‘V '^'^O'r \ - •"'' .. /' '^'C - -f -r-V El 'iSSaMfy TmT''X.1S i\i■ i ■; ii rr,>^lf?^'!#i»l7^^r'.: |%K' h fv ■i** >\ . ■w - ..■'*r ■r y /»J ‘ V. j »• *- • * • . "x 1^7’' i' ^\'*' ^ / 'iJ'mJt/^ ■ P >,.v .*s ti >r'-^ , ■ h; >^\* ’* •:. ••> >';V-.i^v<,-. . ■ • '.'• ^ '‘■.y' '. .*• • m.\ U^. y iv .,•>;i\ . %iii MEMORANDUM From: Dole: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Commissioners Melanie Curtis, City Planner Mike Gaffron, Planning Director^}/. November 10, 2004 File #04-3060 • Lakeshore Laud Alteration at 1220 Tonkawa Road I >\-ould offer tire following comments regarding history of the site and what I bclie\’c should be City goals for the site; 1. Fred Gutlonnson and Chic Dwight owned this property in the 1990's. In 1995 they applied for variances to replace the existing S’ x 24' deck on lire lake side of the home, and to build a screen porch unda it. This involved e.xcavation and retaining walls adjacent to tlic east end of the liousc in order to have the floor of the screen porch level the full width of the house. That application also proposed some boulder retaining walls betw cen the house and the lake, perpendicular to the shoreline, to stop a drainage and erosion problem purportedly caused by lack of ground cover in this area. The result of their request is that they were approved for the deck and poreh. subject to hardcover removals around tire property, but were fonnally denied (Resolution No. 3 6 11) the ability to place rock w alls and borders lakew aid of tlie house, because at that time staff found no eridence of erosion that w oitld lra\ e required such substantial w ork. They w ere ad\ iscd to establish lawn in the areas betw cen the house and tire lakeshore bank, w ithout dunging grades or removing vegetation. Further, at that time there was a substantial grow th of mature trees and underbrush on the 'hump' between the house and the lake (see attached photo from City files), which acted to screen the cast wall of the house from the lake. Tliis was considered as a plus by the City, since tlie house is so close to the lake. Drainage was an issue for the Guttormsons, as the 'hump' area drained to the south rather than toward the lake (this drainage pattern is also visible by examining the photo, and (rom the Cit>'s 1992 topography map). Tlicy were concerned about drainage entering the screen porch area. They were advis^ they could establisli a shallow sw ale just east of the dak to channelize the flow to the south. I don’t know whether they did this or how cffccuvc it was. In 1997 it was found that the Guttormsons had gone ahead with the deck replacement and screen porch without permits, without executing the variance resolutions, and without completing the required hardcover removals associated with that 199S approval. A new afler-thc-fact variance application for this work was filed in 1997, in conjunction with a request for a new detached garage. While this new application was never finali^ and the garage w as not built, Guttonnson did eventually remove the hardcover areas originally required to be removed. F 1220 Tenkawi SkortHnc Alicratioii November 10.2004 rage 2 This summer we found ihal ihc applicants without the appropriate City appro\ als had done significant work and grading to the slioreline in the area of the ‘hump ’. This included rip-rapping ihc shoreline; construction of a 2' high boulder all directly above and adjacent to the np-rap, and grading the enUre area of the hump, lowering it approximately 1 -2’ in my estimation upon visiting Uk site. Tlicre was virtually no understory remaining in tlve area graded and pre-existmg vegetative and topographic screening of the house from the lake was substantially reduced 1 have no doubt that the shoreline required i ip-rapping The bank at the shore is fairly abrupt, and erosion of the bank was a concern. The problem w ith the current plan is that while it may protect the integrity of the bank with a 2'boulder wall directly above the rip-rap, there is no flat area between the top ofrip-rap and this low er w all to plant screening \ egetation. Tire view from the lake is essentially a 4*-5 ’ higli w all of i ock. about 40* long. Screening this low er w all w ith some type of vine, rather than pushing the w all back into the hill to gain flat planting space for sluubbery in front of it, maybe appropriate. The proposed upper wall, yet to be placed, is in two diverging sections; one to hold up the bank at the north end where tire hump was removed; tltc second being parallel to the shore. 25' in Icngtlt, and about 5* back from the initial wall. These second w alls are proposed to be approximately! .5' in height. The proposed screening with shrubbery bcpveen the lower and upper walls may help to screen the upper walls, but I question w hether they are necessary, as opposed to starting at the top of the lower wall and rd}uilding the hump with fill, establishing 3:1 sloptt, and then sodding or establishing some other deep-rooted ground cover on the hump to eliminate surflcial erosion This w ill yield a more natural looking shoreline than the additional retaining wall. The applicants’ project as proposed, and as evidenced by the submitted cross-sections, is intending to create a gently sloped law n area between the house and the lake that will tend to drain to the south, away from the house but not directly to the lake. This is not an unreasonable goal, as long as all the remaining trees arc preserv ed and substantial natural vegetation between the house and the lake can be preserved or re-established. However, this plan does not re establish the hump to the hei^t at w hich stafTbelieves it previously existed, and therefore the topographic screening of the house is compromised to the extent of 1-2'. The Orono Comprehensive Plan discourages the use of retaining walls. CMP Part 3 A, Ihc Environmental Protection Plan, in the section titled General Policies for Natural Resource Management. Policy 9 states: "9. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserv ed insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcuning will be prohiliited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged." 1220 Tonkawt Shorcllnt AtUration N««cmbcr 10.2004 Page 3 In ihe section titled Urfain Area Policies for Natural Resource Management. Policy 2 states; *‘2. Retention of natural vegetation svill limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heiglits will be limited to less than the topical tree hciglu. Minimum green belts will be prosnded with prohibitions against clcarcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Naniral vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in 'vhich case they will be screened with natural vegetation." bi regards to the upper wall, the City Engineer has indicated that from an engineering standpoint the proposed plan is acceptable. Howev cr. from an aesthetic standpoint, eliminanon of the upper wall will be less visually intrusive. Tire Engineer has indicated to me verbally that the upper wall s>stenr could be eliminated as long as a 3:1 or flatter slope was maintained above the low er wall, and natural vegetation with a strong root system was established at that location. My lasic issue with the project is loss of the natural grade of the shoreline, replacing it w ith the upper retaining wall that may not be strictly necessary', and replacing the natural \ cgctalion w ith contnv cd plantings and a garden-like view rather than a natural look. A more natural lot^k could could be accomplished by eliminating the upper wall and replacing it with a gently s!op:d hill -id? a 3:1 or flatter slope. The primary area where excavation occurred to lower the *hump’ is betw cen the nv o sets of n.aiurc black oaks showm on the recent survey. It is my belief that the slope previously was uni fomi betw cen the bases of those two groupings ofoaks, whereas after the grading it seems that just south of the northern group :s a significant cut (which the submitted proposal would reinforce w ith a wall) and then a flat area to the base of the southerly oak group. This area currently has an clev’ation of 936 ’-937*. whereas our 1992 topography and the actual surveyed tree base clc\ aiions suggest it should be a gentle slope 6om elevation 939’ at the north end to 936.6' at the south end. The wall and stairway perpendicular to the shoreline extending from the south end of tlie house, is of lesser concern to me but might be unneccssan if addiiioiul fi 11 w as brought in to taper the grade further south. Tliis w all will only be mimmally visible from the lake. Applicants' cross scctioi. A1-A2 is the primary area I would change if the intent is lo rc-cstablisli the ongiiul topographic screening. It could nsc from the bottom ofthe steps (937 0) toward the shoreline U* to a point with elevation 938.0, then drop to the top of the lower wall (933.6) in a distance of approximately 18’, for a final slope of 18:4.4 or about 4:1. Tltc slope parallel with the shore should be unifonn in a line betw cen the two definitive oaks, and that line becomes the drainage divide. The only area of concern is at the north end w here this grading will have to blend in w ith the more precarious slopes remaining on the neighboring property. Conclusion:I believe a grading plan can be devised that substantially restores the origimd topography without resorting to an upper retaining wall, allowing for a more natural looking shoreline, allowing for replanting of screening and bank stabilization vegetation to reduce the visual impact ofthe home ’s dose prorximity to the lake, and that is more in line with the City’s policies. J t Zoning File #2049 i August 14, 1995 Page 2 The existing house is 42’ from the shorchne. The existing deck is 34* from the shoreline. The proposal would increase the bulk of physical structure encroachment in the 0-75* zone. In order to construct the screen porch, applicants will be excavating under the existing deck, which may result in the need to replace footings under the cast end of the house. The proposed screen porch would require perimeter footings. Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level wir.dows at the southeast front of the house with a glass door, requiring excavation to create the ability for a walkout. While this excavation is minimal in the number of cubic yards to be removed, it docs expose a larger portion of the facade to the lake within 50 of the shoreline. Although applicants have suggested that this excavation plus a boulder wall adj.iccni to the main entry are to prevent erosion, there is no existing erosion problem, and the grading is merely to create the ability for a walkout door on the south facade. Applicant additionally proposes a scries of low boulder retaining walls between the house and shoreline. Tlierc are a number of manire trees and some underbrush within 15’ of the shoreline, but the slope is not so great that any significant erosion is occurring. The slope is certainly maintainable as it exists without boulder walls, and any excavation or fillmg to establish the proposed walls might have a negative impact on the existing trees and vegetation. \ Hardcover Issues There is some accessory hardcover in the 0-75’ zone, including a 10 ’ x 14 deck adjacent to the lake, sidewalks adjacent to the house, and a gravel driveway loop which appears recently upgraded. Applicants* survey indicates an 8* gravel driveway that previously led to the lake has been removed, as have a 10* x IT shed and an 8* x 10 ’ shed. (See survey. Exhibit D.) A faint sketch on the 1970 survey apparently used for the original building permit, as well as 1989 City air photos, suggest that a loop driveway and access drive to the lake has existed for many years. The portion leading to the lake (noted by surveyor as 800 s f ) has recently been removed, but is not revcgcuicd. The loop driveway has new gravel and sod boundaries and is clearly defined. Most of the loop is within the 0-75’ setback zone. A liardcovcr analysis of the property is as follows: I. 0-75* Zone (Area » 33.050 s.f) Existing Proposed House 770 s.f. Deck (attached)216 s.f. Deck (at lake)120 s.f. 1.106 s.f. House 770 s.f. Att. Deck/Scr. P£h.270 s.f. Deck (at lake)12£LlL 1,160 s.f. (3.35%) ----------di' (3 51%) . - _ ..-.4 • • • I \ Ai*A<-B 'A** I 'P* g.E^|g>lJ ^ scALe-- '/&"■'''<5 ^Ei>T|tpM Ci-C^ 6>CP^' RUN DATE Vn/NM HENNLHIN COUNTY HKOPERIY INFORM AI IU,> A« j PROPER! Y OWNERS UST }■ OIII7}JI}0005 PROPAOOR 1200 TONKAWARII OWNER NAME L OUTCMER R L R KOENIG TAXPAYER LYWKOENIGflXONDIASUUTrMLK NAME/ADDR «»0 TONKAWA RD LONGUKEMN 5SiM Jl nil72)1)0011 PROPAUOR 120) TONKAWA Rll OWNER name NASMITH* THSMfl II TRSTES TAXPAYER THOMAS H * NANCY A SMITH HAME/ADUR 120) TONKAWA RD LONGIAKEMN ))))6 )| OR*-72)420011 PROP AOOR ID) TONKAWA Rl) OWNER NAME lAMESORTNOlR TAXPAYER JAMES 0 RENDER NAME/ADOR )I20EOINA INDUSTRIAL OLVO EOMAMN ))4J9 & 1 ___i_l:i IS OIII7J)I)OOM PROP AODR I IN» TONKAWA RO OWNER NAME R t f NCitOKETSOK CT Al taxpayer RICHARD E ENOEDRETSON NAME/ADOR I MW 10NIC\WA RO lONGLAKEMN DD6 PROPAMUR )| OSIII2)IXXl07 1160 TONKAWA RD OWNERNAMb P laSRSTF' *S TAXPAYER PAT RICK T * SUSAN K STEVENS NAMF/AOOR 1100 TONKAWA RD LONGl-AKEMN )DX« IS OSIIT.V'I.'OOOI PROP ADOR I220 TONKAWA RO OWNC^.NAMt MKHALUFBEKI/ TAXPAYER MKniALUrJlERT/. NAME/ADOR 1220 TONKAWA RD lONOLAKEMN ))))* )S OSII72)4;000) PROP ADOR ))66 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER name STATLOI MINNESOTA tAXPAlER ONR REAL ESTAlE MGMT NAME/AOnR ArTNOIODIECA/RlIN 5«jO LAFAVETfF RD STPAULMN 5)1)5 » ORII72M.XJOI: PROP AOOR 1)1) TONKAWA RO OWNER NAME JAMES D RENDER TAXPAYER JAMES D RENDER NAME/ADOR 1)1) lONKAward ORONOMN ))IYI OFTICHEM-'EPIN COUNTY TA)iPAYT.R SERVICES DCPARIMENT. TO THE BEST y // OFMYKNOWLEXEANDBCUEF. ,■ ^- DATE ’ F 1----- IKM-3064 Novtinbcr I?. 2#M pMf« I Qf 4 Y Dale Application Received: 10-1 5-04 Date Application Con«ldered at Complefe: lt-27-04 60-Day Review Period Empires: 12-26-04 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cily Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner Date: November 10,2004 Sttbicct: 04-3064, Douglas & Deborah Ingvalson, 3460 Birch Lane - Hardcover Variance • Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1C. One Family Lakcshorc Residential District ('/j acre min.) Lot Aren: 0.43 acres (1 R.^OO s.f.) Lot Width: 100’ (W shoreline and 75 ’ setback Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to construct a new, larger covered stoop: 1. Hardcover vjrriancc to permit 53.19% hardcover in the 75 ’-250* /one when 25% is allowed and 53.05% currently cxjsts. Sttiff Recommemiatkm: Staff recommends approval of the request with the following stipulation: 1. Ihc applicant should be instructed to remove, at a minimum, the new square footage proposed in order to maintain lire current hardcover level. ’ This would constitute removal of at least 16 s.f. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1288. HaH cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lil\s. landings and lockboxes as rep.ulatcd elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the 01IWL. 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 feel of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. Lbl ofEsbibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Applicant’s Narrative Exhibit C - Ha^ship Documentation Form Pagt2of4 Exhibit D - Existing and Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit F - Proposed Floor Plan Exhibit G - Proposed Elevation Exhibit H - Photographs Exhibit 1 - Property Owners List Exhibit J-Plat Map Background The applicant has recently received a building permit to conduct interior renovations. In coi\iuncUon with the renovation the applicant would like to construct a larger, covered entry. The applicant would be allowed *o re-construct the existing stoop under the current building permit, however because the applicant wishes to construct something larger than existing, as well as construct a roof over the stoop, a variance review is necessary as the property exceeds the allowed 25% limitation witliin the 7S'-2S0* zone. LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIEET Lot ArcaAVidth LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Retfuiced 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acres)100* Actual 18,790 s.f. (0.43 acres)100 ’ Setbacks LR>1C Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear 30 ’ 52’ - house 10’ - detached garage 50’ - roof of covered entry Left Side |10’13 ’No Change Riglu Side 10’8 ’No Change Lakeshore 75’85’ - deck staircase No Change Average Lakeshore See aerial photo Conforming No Change MM-3044 No««mb(r 15.2004 r*gt 3 of <1 ToUl Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 18,790 s.f. (0.43 acres)Allowed: 2,818.5 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,442 s f (13%) Hardcover Calculations —— --------- Hardcover Zone Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover Kxisting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 7.510 s.f.Os.f (0%) 113 s.f.* (1.5%) No Change 75-250 ^11,280 s.f.2,820 s.f. ^ (25%) 5,984 s f* (53.05%) T.boo s.f. (53.19%) Hardcover Variance Hie applicant has proposed lo construct a larger front stoop in conjunction with the remodel project currently underway. Hie applicant has also proposed u> cover this cntiy with an extension of the roof and pillars as shown in the submitted elevation view. Because the property is currently at a non-conforming hardcover level. 5.9R4 s.f or 53.05%, a hardcover variance is requested to construct an additional 16 s.f of hardcover to accomplish the covered entry and a hardcover level of 53.19%. Ilard.ship Statement ^ ^ , , ,, . Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation form in E.\Iiibit C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anab'sU /« eomlilerhig applications for t-arhince, the Pianning Commluion shail consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the heaith, safety and welfare of the comnumity, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to thepuhUe smfetv. and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approsal for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique lo the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions win he in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code._________________ Staff finds that there is no hardship lo grant approval of an additional 16 square feel in order lo accomplish a larger, covered entry. I he property is currently excessively over on hardcover and should not be i>cmiitted ti» increase that percentage, regardless of the project. However, staff docs find that the request is reasonable and a covered entry is something that should be permitted. I hereforc. staff would recommend approval of the covered entry with the stipulation that 16 s.f. of hardcover somewhere else on the property be removed so that the hardcover square footage and pcr». cnlage do not increase. N04-J064 No»(mb«r IS. 2004 Past 4 of 4 IssMCt for ColuidcratioB 1 . b a covered entry a reasonable request? 2. Should the applicant be required to remove 16 s.f of existing hardcover so that the hardcover level remains unchanged? Should some reduction (i.e. removal of more tlian 16 s.f.) b • required, given the high percentage of existing hardcover? Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?3. Staff Rcconraciidatioii Approval of the plan as submitted with Uic stipulation that removal of 16 s.f., of the applicants choosing, is required so that the total hardcover level on the property is not increased. City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A 0\\ Sfreet Address 2750 Keney Parkway Orono, MN SS356 Mam 95?-243^50C (ax 952-249-«5‘.6 Matting Address P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 5532i-:ce6 Application# __ Date Received Amojnt Pa d Staff: I \ lCy‘ Fee S600 Renewal ,1300 _______________ Aftcr lhe-(5Ct 5V200 Doupic Fee Th.s aoDiication form must be completed m (o« Ape cant v/.ti be rot.f.ed w.iti.n 15 days as to the status of the application incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; . Site Address. h,rcl\ Property Identification Number (PIN).Property Identification Number (KIIN). (Attach lr»qal description to application if not included on the survey ) Date Property Acquired (month/year); 6 /V 7^ O Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property. ^Residential t3 Other ---------------------------------------------------- Zoning District arrt mar Ml status required for <*ach mterpst^ party)APPLICAhn INFORMATION: (Complete legal rs-es^ ^ V (• t P> IT r^ . r;vci« I , //1f^ i \ ^ iAddress Fax 'aT- ^ ^Vy OWNER4NFORMATION: (Complete leg^ names r-d mantal status rpqu -ed for each interested party) Name A . -1- ~i w'n/< \ ---------------------------—-----------------------_ .r*-*—TTZrt i r. DH/nno /winrW)Phone (home) Ulh {'^1/7 ^ (work)" Address: l^inis Lc) ^ H' .) ■://- Email _______ -__________________________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estirr.aled Project Cost S /.4i:.C Pesenbe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessar/): , ...--------------------------------------- v^c-c rrfu,c /VfN-r cn /C (t^ fC^t------------------------------------------------------- T #3064 ' it REQUIRED SUBMITTALS; AH of the follov.ing information must be submitted by the applicat on deadline date in eder for your application to be processed. Q X JQ.Id plat map □ a a Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form ^ Certified Property Owners List - owners withm 150' of the subject property.^feoeis anc List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6'" Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-591 0_., Original Certificale of Supyey (signed by a license-i surveyor), meeting all liie requirements listed Within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide one copy 8 5 “ x 11' or 11" X 17” lor reproduction Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet) Topograph"- survey - including existing and proposed elevations Provide one copy 8 5" x 11“ or 11"x i» for leproduction. Sketches or plans of Iloor 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 Plann ng 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 infoimuhon supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that ho/sho 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. i(f-- / <•________ Date // '// Applicant’s Signalure Applicant's Signature -T Data Date OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT; The owner tiereby acknowledges and agrees to Ih.s application and further auttionzes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation^rtd venficatioyof tht^ request Owner s Signature Owner's Signature 72 •/. I' lU- Date /v/N ky Date // s///r/ T Applicant niust have all submittals info the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commissior Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on ttie third Monday of eacn month Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission ant Council, if an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements ti have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planne assigned to your project. o\ City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (Tivs term .s 10 se coma^led by a C.ty Planner dur.ng ynuf prc-anplicalion mgel.ng^. Slr8«I/>a*«s p'o'’Bot66'” ------- 0.“oTn 653W crystai Bay. MN 553J3 0066 M^og^Da ten ,n,o ------SgCT — Mam 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 ;v/»af is a compicle proposal, .n'orm them of the opportunities or problems for the proposal PROPERTY INFORMATION; , . Site Address '^iWO Ivl V ^ Property Identification Number (PIN) zXg Disurct ___Size of Property: description OF REQUEST: , v ,4 c«.h-.rw □ Average Setback □ Side Yard Setback O R«;Yard Setback ^ Hardcover ^ 7r>) □ L ot Coverage □ Lot Area Mother _________ _____________________________ □ f rent Yard Setback □ Lot Width Applicants Initials. HARDSHIP: ApiPeanl has-ecciveP P« Ha:ijsPp_Docpm^^^^^^ application OTHER INFORMATION;------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ^vill NOT be accepted without a pre-appHcat meeting during which this^rm will by:om{jJeted by City staff Applicant Signature: A —Date:/i/C . - •• •\ ,v''^ /a \ I’I- ■^L'tt^lidfcAfcMirT-i —^Ti 1 EXHIBIT B /o/f*/o^ (Prono {frcy^o Q,"f^ (Ccu^ctl 'fT^ls a pplfc.A.'tlb-n s’u^rMiH^c/ cdc\^ */-o /^^’LArk. />€.c,€our^ T^e ^yc^ry ///"fj /V\^ /voy^C^ dc^s ricT^ f^ee,i~ yV iC- hc<tf</tA^ tod^. “7^€ 3“^<?op pAddhr/vi yj dlDO 77^rr^i^O c*( ^ A. hqz.Ar<L(;UJ St~ft^<'h^\ -/V r \//'jC )-f-u 0/H^ ^u^rfs. -Ac;^ 0^''Me ff^'^-Pc^/^ ri deep Stfi" C^\d<., f'/tij sf^ce. ts 'f^r sov^^eone sf'a't^d <9*^ 'M* doer OPCM. diy«2. -<e*t'f'rt^ cl^oy a O' viJi-fi/rj "+<? sdep dpiAJ^ J-h W bc?dk. 4^? (jr'T 5Tt)<:)^ '//re_ ^1 -I'yt ~ fatJ fi <a pch’c viciim e^n<^ /'fAC /learlii pAlk^ c/iijr ;j o pef\-€ d -fhy Iac Jc o-P<^ SCAC2 'pc ^ AH.d /u*S i\ffic*^l'fy ^(j tvY' Kov*ve_ i-^C-CKAf^ O'p '^uS [\Ci'Lfir <Laus C^^d.i'hcJy] . kdiii ^cc<9*t*J(y, my s-f^pJ ciLc? ^\c'^ vit<L€^ d/<e fcM)(Jii^«| <'ode. t^\€ -frffm nirbt' A't' ^eco^<s^ oA 7/v " S-ke ct+ lyz*' <1*^ ^4^ lArf'c& ^l4 ^ tvCfi; coy^//MCC-r"7^'J ^JvvrAly rvs^r irsu.^ Or9- -QW-f-iH^ Co^^c/At^ Jrlici^d l\c<Ay( b-e-e^ corred^d'fy "tke ^r^wOfcj^ OOH^T, si^ ^rot/p^K c(«ih;‘>ij (5V' S><n(>(; ^l\OQi^\i Cd*i«c4t6r^ r€ra|4 “. r- Page 2 of 3 *Unduo hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Vanances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J 06. Subd. 2. when In harmony with this Chapter" A' 'a_____________________________________ •The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may nol permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where ttys affected person's land is located' fJ/A ___________________________________ •The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a tv/o-family dwelling “ A//A_____________________________________ •The special conditions applying to the stiucture or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property "ich 9. ‘The conditions do not apply generally to other larKf or structures in the district in which said land is located “ ________________________________________________________ •The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly riohi of the applicant* » , j / /} >. ' ' ih c sic^xi\ < •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 • r 1 / • / , ^uJC* •> 0 ■}i)t»' 6 . -l . A, Ll Page 3 of 3 Y-g^^ n I rf>y------ EXHIBIT D LAKE MINNETONKA NORTH ARM CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FC DOUGLAS S. INGV. IN LOT 19. LYDIARD' S PARK. LAKE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNF.SO LXxift lNfrV>SL5C?M /c~n~o*i LYOUW>OS EXHIBIT E UARDCOVERjQALCULATlOiN WORKSUEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A H oum ______________ 7S-250'250-500'500-1000* tMigih WidJi B. Gv«se C. Dnmviy D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Lifidiea^ Un\^in C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B 7510 xlOO I.*70 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A. House ______________ X Ltitgih \V.dih B. Oarsfe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deek F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Oihcr SF. SF. SF SF SF SF S? ,SF-OCCK^?« SF SF SF S F - FIRE R»m v/C^OS p P'PffAP SF SF.n SF. SF SF SF SF SF ’SF SF!sf SF. ;sF. SF. SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A H oum _____________ HARDCOVER CALCULAnOilNVORKSHEET 0-75*<25-2 Sjj/ 250-500 ’ Lnfdt WAh *5.3 500-1000' 2l7g s F - HCtfie U_____SF-S"S‘-o?S'.’ B. Cvige C. Driwviy 72.1 7.0. I D. Sidewalk 103 10*7 E PatioA^cck ZPj - Off rao^4ta oA &A0, "T.l’y F. LandKape UfMicrlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other RflAlM h6 10“ W/«L4,S__7D ^ BWcQgC TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - B 5^84 U X100 -5^g PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A House _____________ X VIMt fiyrtty B. Oaraia ■ C. Driveway __________ 7.TS S/ - r •A D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastio Or Fabric O Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ __ * B SF -PaviT«2S ME. to .SF guAU*rpf00f e c .c0ri<..SF d’09O H.Z80 xlOO n r =-: • rC"'•i S F-wAixArt'*V*’ . S F - oecN .s F.-eatX SF. SF. *SF ON Pcft^TiC . S F -tMNuyOVoi SF. SF. H SF SF. SJ. S.F. SP.“ SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. ^1. I *> SF. .SF. _% ■F!MTMfin BUB mss'mM m rr Xss H :) HUNOATt wn/xw M 0tll72)43000< PROf AOOR 3470 BIRCH LA OWNEFNAME TWBERNARDALKBERNARD TAXPAYER THOMAS W BERNARD NAME/AOOB >470 birch la WAY2ATAMN 45301 j| OBI 1723430004 PROP ADOR 1444 BALOUR PARR RO OWNER NAME taxpayer 3ME WELLSWOOOCROUP LLC N a ME/AODR 9A37ANDERSONLAKESPKWY •106 EOENPRAIRIE MN 55344 }| OSH 723430013 moF ADO* MKl NOATB SI»«E 0« OWNEANAME BAUCEANIBBAUM tAXFAVEB BEUCEANUSBAUM N»«I-AOO« mbnobibsiiobedb WAY2ATA MN 55391 )| 0911723430020 PROP AOOR 3442 NORHI SHORE DR OWNER NAME GERALD J RAY ETAL taxpayer ccraldjray NAME/ADDR 3442 north shore dr WAYZA7AMN 55391 31 Oil 1723430023 PROP ADDR 3450 BIRCH LA ?a”' 1ow«d“ BiSStsOUE kam 'aod , «».«chia WAYZATAMN 55391 31 Oil 1723430026 PROP AOOR 3460 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME RONALD TRUMAN CLOUO tAXFAYEB BOHAIDIBUMANCIOUO NAME/AOOB WAYIATAMN S539I PAL A. I ]| Ml 17:3410002 PSOPAODR ?490 •»•:»€ M LA OWNER SAME ELIUtQUSTASLttJEQUIST taxpayer eric j A smelly RUUEQLIST NAME ADOR 3400 birch la WAYZATAMN 55391 31 08II733430005 PROP ADDt 1*40 BALDURPARR RO OWNER NAME I T OUNSMORE A E A DUNSVORE TxPA yT WSEPHAEIUABEIHDUNSMORE NAME/ADDR • *«0 8AL0UR WAYZATAMN 55)91 )| C8II72J430OI4 PROP ADDR 3400 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME JOHMRIONES Ta VPAYI.R JOHNR)0NtS NAME/A03R 3400NORTM SHORE S WAVZATAMN 55391 )S 01117234)3021 PROP ADOR 3450 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME WILLIAM C OOOEN TAXP a VLR william C OOOEN W»NO.IIISHO«EM WAYZATAMN 55391 3S OSI1723430024 PROP ADOR 3441 north SHORE DR OWNLR name j a m r Rl er Taxpayer eames a marv erler NAME/ADOR 3441 NORTH shore dr WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0*117234)0027 PROP ADOR J4I0 BIRCH LA OWftBKAUE OSBOKNOVAIMS TAXFAYM XUOlASBDtBOBABnXJVAUW. nam E/AOOR 3460 BIRCH LA WAYZATAMN 55)91 \t ti»u7;)4lOO03 PROP AOOR I444 DALUURP a RRRD OWNER NAME J H A M R lAWRENCE taxpayer ;a VH a MARUSR LAWRENCE NAMEVADOR 1445 OAIDUR park RD WAYZATA MN 55391 )i 0»r 723430012 PROP ADDR 3470 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME HAROLD J BROLEUEnE taxpayer HAROLD) BROUEULTTE NAMC/ADOR 3410 NORTH shore or WAYZATAMN 553*H vO 31 0111723430015 PROP ADOR 347* north shore DR OWNER SAVE KH CARLSON A DLCAR^N taxpayer KENTON ha DIANE LCARLSON NAMI^AOOR 347S north SHORE or WAYZATAMN 55391 IS oil 1723430022 PROP a OUR 3U4 north shore DR OWNI R NAME WILLIAM D ROBiSSOS taxpayer WD ROBINSON NAME/AODR 3444 NORTI.S-OREOR WAYZATAMN 55391 \3 cy ina=™ PROP ADDR )| oil 1723430025 _______ J4SI north SHORE OR o7ne"r NAME M C LINDOLOOM B D LINDULDOM DEAN A MARY LINDRLOOM )4<| north SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 31 0111723430031 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FOREElTtD UNO taxpayer cityoporono NAME/AODR ^ ® BOX 66 NAME/ADD ^.^^sta L BAY MN 5)323 5s £ M lUNDATl WWJCD* fAGE 2 slS===Siii’^!i:y/ »■■■ ■ OF MV KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF.^^^^ y, ^ ■ /^tcA^/(A^ L- y FllF tM-soes e Nov«frter ?OC4 Pagel9t4 Dale Application Received: 10-19-04 Date Application Contidered n< Complele: 11-01-04 00-Day Review I'criod Kspires: 01-01-05 To: Chair Ralm and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis. City Planner Date: November 8,2004 Subjccl: 04-3065, D. Mark & Bonnie Hector, 3365 Carman Rd, • Hardcover Variance - public hearing Zoning District: LR-ID, Single Family Lakrshorc KcaidcnliaU l-acrc/140* Lot Area: 0 36 ocre (15.679 s.f.) Lot Width: 95* ApplU ation Sum$»ary: The applicant is requesting a structural coverage variance and 0- 75’ 7onc and 75’ - 250’ zone hardcover variances in order to rebuild and reconfigure a lakeside deck on the existing hoinr ____________________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning De|>artmcnl SiufT recommends approval of variances to rebuild and reconfigure the lakeside deck with the slipulalion that the previous levels of structural coverage and hardcover not be increased with the rebuild.______________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinnnee Sections See. 78-330. Area, hciglit. lot width and yard requirements. 1.04 Area (acrcl l.4rt Wulth (fcril 1 tool Yard tftcO SmIc Yard AJjaertU In Afrolher l.o4 (fc*l) Rear Yard (reel) i Side Yard Adj. w I l»i Street (feel) tj ---------140 10 )0 1 35 See. 78-1288. Hard cover liiuiUiiu.ns (a) No hard cover or impervious suiface shall be placed, located or constructed w ithin 75 feel of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, lifis, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the 01 1 Wl., there slmll be no greater than percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feel of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. B'rlwccn 500 feel and 1,000 feet of the OHWI. there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. See. 78-1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed IS percent of the lot area. Lbt ofEihibils A. Application B. Ha^hip Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations FILE«M-306S 8 Mo««mbef 2004 P»gt2of4 F. Resolution No. 4644 G. Photos H. Aerial Photo - Average Lakeshorc Setback I. Property Owners List J. Plat Map Background Mark and Bonnie Hector are the property owners at 326S Carman Road. In 2001, the previous owners were granted variances in order to construct a garage addition to the home. The Hectors would like to repair their rotted deck and in the repair they would like to reorient the deck's layout to m^e it more functional to their use. LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIEET Lot Arca/WiJth; LR-IB Lot Area l.o« Widib Required 43.S60sr (I.Oacre)140’ Actual 15.679 S I. (0.36 acre)95* Silbasku LR-IB Required Exbtine Proposed Lake 75*89'^ (house) 67’i (deck)No Change Rear 30-40-No Change North Side to*7.7*No Cliangc South Side 10'11 *(house) O' (deck)No Change Average Lakeshorc The proposal does not encroach into the average lakcsliorc setback (see Exhibit II). Structiiriil Coverauf: Total Lot Area Total Slmctural Coverage 15.679 s.f. C0J6acre)Allowed 2,351 s.f. (15%) Approved in 2001: 3.280 s.f (20.9%) Proposed; 3.474 s.f (22.1%) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Total Ano to ABowod EsistiM Previoaiaiy Hardcover Propoacd Z4MC w Mi Zoae Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover FttP MM-StKS 8 No««mb«r 2004 P«09 3 of 4 7,070 s.f.Os.r 412 s.r*288 s r.474 s.f. 0-75 (oy.)(5.8%)(4.07%)(6.7%) 75 - 250 8,610 s.r.2.152 5 s f. (25%) 4.780 s.f.* (54.6%) 4.501 s.f. (522%) 4,783 5 f (55.5%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds During the review staff was unable to replicate the exact hardcover and lot coverage levels as were approved in 2001 Staff was able to verify however, that the structural reductions which were required with the 2001 approval were completed, as were the hardcover reductions with the exception of the plastic liner under the rock and landscape beds If the liners were removed, they have since reappeared. Therefore, the numbers used for this current variance request arc the result of the most recent survey and hardcover analysis as updated on October 19,2004. Structuml Coverage Variance In 2001, a structural coverage variance was granted in order to construct an addition in conjunction with significant removals from the lakeside deck. Tire applicants are requesting to increase the stiuctural coverage level 191 .s f. above that uhich was approved in 2001. Hardcover Variance In 2001, variances were gronted to allow hardcover within the 0-75* zone am! 75*-250 ’ zone to exceed the allowed levels, 'lire applicants are rcquc.sting variances to exceed the previously approved limits by 2R2 s.f. in conjunction with the rebuild and reorientation of their lakeside deck. The plastic liner in the rock landscape areas was to be removed as part of the 2001 variance approval It appears from the most recent survey that the plastic is still there or has returned Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Fxhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analysis /n considering applications for variance, the Planning Commixtion shall consider the e/Jcci of the proposed vmrionce upon the health, safety and welfare of the commanlty, existing and antkipated 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 Canunhslon shall consider recommending approval for variances from the lUermI provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under eonslderorton, and shall recommend approval only when il h demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code, Staff finds that llrerc is no hardship by which to grant hardcover variances in excess of the 2001 approval. Additionally, there is no hardship for inaeasing the already excessive level of structural coverage on the properly. The deck and pool could be rearranged to utilize the previously approved hardcover and structural coverage levels. 1 FILE«0«-306S B November 2004 Pag* 4 of 4 SlafT has received a faxed proposal for hardcover and structural reductions from the applicant, at the time of this report staff has not had the opportunity to provide the Planning Commission with a detailed numerical analysis of this revised plan, but one will be provided at Monday’s meeting. Isaacs for Considcratioa Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccommciidatioB Planning Staff recommends approval of variances to rebuild and reconfigure the lakeside deck, but only at the previously approved structural coverage and hardcover levels. Plans should be revised and submitted for Planning Commission review. Options are to table until your January meeting pending receipt of a revised plan; or approve conditioned on stair review and approval of a revised plan meeting Utc prior requirements. City of Orono Variance Application_____ StTMf Addnss. 2750 Kelley Parkway Ofono. MN 55356 Main 952-249-4600 fax. 952-24g-4616 Mailing Address P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55322-0066 Appt'cation# Date Received~7g(;^^;^ Amount Paid , Staff: iVifU Fee: S600 Renewal 6300 mtlhcL After-the-fact 51,200 Double ree This application form must be completed in full. App .car^t will bo notified within 15 days as to the status of the application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; Site Address: C A ft lO Q, D Property Identification Number (PIN); ________________ ___________________________________ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (monlh/yeor): »*-/ □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: Sjf Residential □ 0;ner --------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoning District: _______________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal nares and marital status required for each interested party) Name: (> ^ kjX t:____fV<^c TcV_S. Phone (home): V1* 1 '> Address: ri ic. ^-T r' >a fn n.- _ I '^c fy Email: pr\ Phone (work); 7/.^•^lr} ?^iboi Fax:ii ■ A iC.J OWNER INFORMATION; (Comp'ete legal names s*d mantal slalus required for each interested party) Name:______________________________ Phone (home): _______________________ Address; _____________________________ Email: ______________________________ ___Phone (work); Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost. $ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets^if necessary). ^ rV.C t«\>- •« Im, t*rVr^ . ** ij'b A q, Kcuve\jjo). T ix t-\*i c v-*CXUX.\; f o f j! r'- D> REQUIRED SUBMITTaLs: All of the following informa.ion 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 map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance, Government Center. A-603 300 South 6“’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-340-5910 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 sun/ey - 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. * 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/sho 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: /r -! - /i -l~----dV i Date: . V ''t' Dale:i‘) I/ It / OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properly by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: j f. >Date: Date; Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commissior 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 anc Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements t< have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planne assigned to your project. *? ■?••• Ir^' HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page 1 of 3 TWs 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 demonstrated in order (or 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 bo heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO t PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if a hardship exists and how the variance wirill 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 not be considered Ptease address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply). 1.■The property in question cannot bo put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." f\(.V -Ui.-4? ,*!> i . \ ’V > •The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.*^ ^ . ________ _ ^ Cv^V. U _____________________, , ■The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." iktjLt- Vox. L i.v- ^ ^ V.. .-»( . i l-iT i I'n .Uf c*.VV •Economic considerations alone shall not cortstitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." __________________________________________ /;//<s___ a- 6. 8. 9 • .V'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 earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06, Subd 2. when in harmo^^wth this Chapter." 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 ’ fO h__ "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." ____fO A •The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." tt- V. ;■ \n. V:; (>i » V.■lai •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 substantial property right of the applicant." ('• M/ Ki—t—-------- -—^ ------------- . > ■ ^ ^ r_>.^wwv-w>.-'0 V -- .t c. ^ . Li»T_c.viAs cf V-J.V. A • vt" . . I ■* f.Nv C v'rC /\A .. <k %T.. . / . .. . • The graWing of the proposed vanance wtll not in any way impair health, safety.' ., comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning (V W ’X'\.<K liNii l». Page 3 of 3 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicartt. but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be described in the above cnteria. describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if rv«xcv>»> (-/ ‘...-r rr* •. ic’’*^*-* I I •: »• i V • --------------------------------------------------------------------------j— Cvvj>.‘• \.vvv .-V r'< •<« • i«v '» -tW«l IN/-L V / A •* * t. v%*v ■ Cvf.^ n V tr- __h i .‘it ,W \ ,, -\ ... ^\y- ■ Nr\ >.ws.T .. rtl k ■ r« . V. V V\v.»« *1. |*V y- ' ~v J. ^ r.v * f Vv r\c> I 4-wV«^v \ IXv r'V- f V \V I 'V f u r-J- H^ iKV^.v.^ctfr .t \Vj. >.^,Av| r^. C'vjf v*AvcV. ex.o ' . .. j-. . ... . ■/ '? .rl Oiiiick 'feport Inspection Address: 3265 Caiman Road Orono, MN Buyers Name: Bonnie Bohn and Mark Hector Date: 05-14-04 Issues: • Minor mold stnins on the noith and west walls of the family room are an indication of past moisture penetration throuph the foundation. Considei adding a ptofessional dram tile system in this area of the basement. • The wood fireplace in the family room has damaged fircbuck in the burn box. a cracked masonry lining in the plenum, a cracked brick wall in the main furnace room and spalling bricks at the top of the chimney. A brick mason should be contacted foi icpaiis Tlw ixrp up damper cable should be adjusted to close properly. • The railroad tic retaining walls at the west side ofthepiojTcrty are at end of life and \ should be rebuilt i * • Tlie lower deck and pool deck have areas of wood lot Total replacement is needed. Eroded soil under the deck should be improver'. . ^ • A cracked and loose slate tde at the front entry should be rcpkaccd • The dirty gutters should be cleaned. • ITtc flexible steel gas line at the clothes dryci should be changed to flexible stainless stcc’. • The GFCI breaker that supplies power to the pool area docs not trip when tested. This should be replaced and proper wiring to all pool equipment verified • GFCI protection should be verined at the master bathroom whiilpool tub. • One outlet at the south wall of the office has a weak ground. • lire furnace humidifier docs not function. • The elcclror.ir air cleaner is inoperative and is now being used as a standard filter. • Ask the seller the function of the blower in tire ceiling of the lower bedroom • The exhaust fan in the upper level hallway has low air f.ow. • Minor caulking is needed at the bathtub in the upper hall batiuooin • This is a beautiful home'! 1 Inspector: GaryVancss .V / j r % r- V* \ e»da>i£Me^ MiS^> -i^ Vy, fML/«^=roe<3 ' » 1 - • ' ,’ / -■■ y A*X^/«'/^ '' I '■ ‘ * f ■•' • . •; V - ■ 1 . .-• . . ;: tf^. ■' ; V* • • ' . • • - ■•.* ^■r ' • -. A i; • • ^ . ; I''; v-V^ •.;. ••• -V* : , * .•■ ‘ .*. ‘/-a. '.••- »5C*v • ' ^ • . • . '/.•• . _• \ - ‘ • '*' ^C/'^ ar^ Ly -a-^-oAK..--^ ^^aL<A.vA o • ,-X>\X* ‘,^- c . ^ , V • V * ’jL- ‘ t^:*^ " nr,c^\a^t*P r ................................... . owr** I t*" PrWOi^ a- ‘ &' FENte 1 PEO^ 5TEFOifs##s#ss£r-»“ i £- "as-* ■• i? ‘ W...V- «-s—-" * V Ffi^£CT TITLE M>w 6ARK€N RP ^1?^, KM 56^ UW?S6^ PLAN LANP66APE ^ •MU ORMl »Wrff* tM « i.€>r 3 C/i£MAN COV301. E HARDCOVER^LCLLAHUiN WUKKSlitltr SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^sj> 7S-2S0’ 250-SO0 ’ H/t/cii, 500.1000* EXISTING HARDCOX^R IN ZONE A. House • _________ WidA B. Garage * C. ‘ Driveway D. Sidewalk _ E. Patio/Deck D€C,t^ F. Landscape _ Underlain _ By Plasiic __ Or I abric ZiO C. Other WPU.A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ^ 4/2. * B .7^70 7i>7c> X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House LuifA Widdi B. ‘ Oarage C. Driveway <Vu/r. P*P D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Piaiiie Or Fabr!e B.83 S TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE £7±^ B 7^70 S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. S.Fi S.F. • i. 707C a 100 m S.F.' S.F. '% hf^ATO/Z, HARDCOVER CALCULA StTBACK-ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ FVISTINC HARDCQ\TR IN 7.0NX fUiUfilVWOKKJ>tlbl!.T * 250.500*500-1000' A. House • WidOl B. Garasc * C. ’ Driveway D. Sidewalk £. PaUo/Deck ^^x>*-3E£jC. * F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other 7w /9 l.o 2 0 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- 3e>S3 + B . 3^ 33 . ■ X./ X 100 - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Hoose Un|ih Widti) : B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk - ^ E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Uodcrialo By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3/oA ^ B ,xlOO - /9^o S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. /2/Z.S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -I:?: 3t>SiM S.F. S.F. ft S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /2/Z.S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /33/ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. JS/0&S.F.‘ S.F. ' ft ©1. F 1 3'134S7r CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.______^ 6 4 4 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03. SUBDIVISION U (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION I6(L)(2) FILE NO. 01-2664 V CJs WHEREAS, Mitchell D. Olsor and Kimbcricc M. Olson, husband and wife, OicrcinaAer "the applicants-) are the owners ofil« properly located at 3265 Carman Road \>rthm the Cit> cfOiono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follow.^: Lol 5, Block 1, Carman Cove, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property”); and WHEREAS, the npplicents have applied to the City for varianees to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivliion M (C) to allow 3.280 a.f. (20.9%) stmetural lot coverage wheie 3 416 s.f. (21.8%) calm and 2,352 s.f. (15%) is allowed; Section 10 22. SuMivision .and Section 10.55. Sutjdivision 16(LX2)to allow 4.501 s.f. (52 2%) hardcover m the 75-250 setl«k area where 4.685 s.f. (54.4%) exists and 2.152 s.f. (25%) is allowed to retmtt construction of an attached garage on the street side of the residence. WHEREAS after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planntng Codes, the Otono Wanning Commission held a public hearing on April 15.2001. at which linte all peisons desiring to be heaid concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Metro Legal Services Inc. FINDINGS Box 491 This application was reviewed as Zoning File HOl-2664. This property is located in the LR-IB Zoning DisUict, where 1 acr- or 43,560 s f. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .36 acres or 15.679 s.f. Page 1 of 6 Minnesota: 1. 2. t/' ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^B4 4 The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 16.2001 and recommended approval by a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact; A. The structural coverage on the lot is decreasing from 3.416 s f. (21.8%) to 3.280 (20.9%). B. The hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone is decreasing from 584 s.f (8 3%) to 288 s.r (4 07“/.). C. The hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is dccieasing from 4,685 s.f. (54 4%) to 4.501 s.f. (52.2%). D. The proposed reductions in hardcovci and structural coverage are in addition to the areas which were to be removed ny a prior owner under the terms of a prior variance and which the current applicant has agreed to remove. E. The lot is extremely undersized for LK-IB. F. Massing is not an issue. The garage addition is on the street side of the residence and tire two adjacent properties will not be ad\crscl> affected by the addition. G. The residence was built prior to cuiicnt zoning standards being adopted. 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 variances would not adversely affect ualTic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and Page 2 of 6 r /oiL ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ______^ iX 4_ recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and svelfaie of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) to allow 3.280 s f (20.9%) structural lot coverage where 3.416 s.f. (21.8%) exists and 2,352 s.f. (15%) is a lov^. Section 10 *’2 Subdivision2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to allow4,501 s.f. (52.2%) hardcover in the 75-250* setback area where 4.685 s.f. (54.4%) exists and 2.152 s.f. (25%) is allowed to pemui construction of an attached garage on the street side of tire residence. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the appl icants attached to this resolution ns E.\hibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. *». A suitable drainage plan shall be submitted by applicant and approved by City staff prior to issuance of a building permit. All landscape fabric/plaslic on the property and decks (as shown on Exhibit A) shall be removed prior to final inspection Upon completion of the project the hot tub shall be located on the deck adjacent to the pool so as not to constitute a separate item of hardcover. 3. Authorities granted by these variances run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (April 23,2002) 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of these variaiKes shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the Icmts of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 6 /b f-KOto ClTYoTORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.______6 4 y Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on ihe'23rd day of April, 2001. Property Owner (s) Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor I * I t t. V I »^ ^ V v_ V ^ (■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of April, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said inslmraent was executed on behalf of the City. 4 RACHaOOOGE I ti worrwwwuc.Mia TOtt I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) V ./ -' V* ' Notary Public On this.^ day of -r * f 2001 , before me a Notary P ublic within ■ ' i “/ */ Iand for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrumerand acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ” 4% fucHaoooQi NorMv wc.MMroia . r./ / ^^•v^ Notary Public Page 4 of 6 L GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ______4 r.://, EOF MINNESOTA ) ) M (*0^ IN ry OF HENNEPIN ) On this,day of.2001, before roc a Notary Public \>iihin,and for said County, personally appeared _J_i.- * ) , n . know-n to roc to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknosvledged that he (they) e.\ecuied the same as Ws (their) free act and deed. / ‘ Notary Public Page S of 6 . L. «stii ' .-’•r w imw 1 ' • • r V ' ^ * -- » H V y *'»\ f ' i' 1 ’ ■'^ * \v ■;:. v- rSt -^>v. ■ • If./: ^•^'.■i' -v't ' \!'^' <f.-/\\ ■''iL m fw' '^t^\r ? 7 ■"■E.* ^ '■ -• ys. m • . V ,j.sr^fY7xr^‘*^iT liUKS-rr' ' " : - -,< ■ I 1 ~ ^ I ■ Tl wn ;?r in - ■ '.r- m .'itll ' •'* • I'Li RUNDAU «B/2(»4 31 20II7Z3I4000T rROTAOOR 2M7R£LLYAVE OWNCR NAME CARRY E MORRIS TAXPAYER CARRY MORRIS A TATTY MORRIS NAME/ADOR 2W7KEU.YAVC EXCELSIOR MN SSJJI 31 20II72JI400I0 PROTAOOR 3745 CARMAN RO OWNER name JSNICUENAKRNIEUEM TAXTAYER ions a WRSTENR NIELSEN NAMEIAOOR 3245CARMANRO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3S 20II723I400I3 TROT AOOR 3215 CARMAN RO OWNER NAME LRMOLSATHERALOSAILEE TAXTAVER LRMOLSATMER A LO SALLEE NAME/AOOR 3215 CARMAN RO EXCELSX3RMN 55331 31 20II723I400I6 TROT AOOR 31 ADDRESS tINASSiCNLO OWNER name village OFORONO TAXTAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/AOOR ** crystal BAY MN 55323 31 2III72323004I TROTAOOR 2*« KELLY AVE OWNER NAME DALUTHOFF TAXPAYER DARYL LA LUCY SUrHOfF NAME/AOOR KELLY AVE excelsior MN 55331 HbNNtriN VVA/r.1 1 »••*« v rT.TVproperty OVW<ERSUST II 20II773I400N TROT AOOR 2W5 KEUV AVE owner name C D SIMPSON A R SIMPSON TAXTAYER CHARLES 0 SIMPSON NAME/AOOR 2M3 KEUY AVE EXCELSIOR MN SS33I 31 2011723140011 MOT/iOOR 3243 carman RO OWNER NAME OM HECTOR ABK BOHN-MECTOR Taxtav er d m ark hector NAME/ADOR BONNIE KBOHN-HECTOR 3765 C ARM AN RO excelsior MN 55331 31 201172)140014 TROTAOOR JWCARMANRO OWNER NAME T T LOWE A R A U)WE TAXPAYER THOM AST LOWE NAME/AOOR 32M5 CARMAN RO EXCELSIOR MN 55331 31 3CIIT21I403I7 TROTAOOR 24V3KEUYAVE OWNER name MARILYN H MCCLASKEY TAXPAYER MARILY'N II MCCLASKEY 31 2111723230041 trot AOOR 31 ADDRESS LNASSIGNED owner name environmental TLAKNINC wc TAXTAYt* ENVIRONMENTAL TLASNINC INC NAME/AOOR CENTER MPLSMN 55402 31 20II72JI4000T TROTAOOR 3225 CARMAN RO owner NAME DC A V A HOUCK TAXPAYER DAVID C HOUCK NAME/ADDR 3225 CARMAN RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 J| MIP2)I4«0I2 TROTAOOR 3275 CARMAN RO OWNER NAME MITCH OLSON A KIM OISON TAXTAVER MITCHAKLMOLSOM NAME/ADOR 3275carman RO excelsior MN 55331 31 20II723I400I5 TROTAOOR 3300 CARMAN RD OWNER NA-ME 70AN E MEISEN taxpayer JOAN E NIELSEN SAME/ADDR 3300 carman RO excelsior MN 55331 31 2011723140025 TROTADDR 2455 KEU.Y AVE OWNER NAME J W EtOSTER A C M EUCSTCR JACK EUOSTER-CAROL M ELGSTER 2655 KELLY AVE excelsior MN 55)31 taxpayer NAME/ADDR 31 2111723230049 TROTAOOR 31 address UNASSICNEO owner NAME DALtrilOFF taxpayer DARYL L A UXTV S LTMOTP NAME/AOOR 29” KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 35331 .o i 3 MJNOATl VanOM MENNETIWCOUNIT l*nurcni i »■»■ rUCPEKTY OWNERS LIST Of MY KNOWUDOEANDBEUEF.^^^^ /gf .. ^ ~ '1. i . \ . ^1: Mteu FlU •04-3080 8 Nov^'now 2004 Pag«lor4 Date Applk»lk>« Rcctived: 10-19-04 Dale Ap^icatloa ConsMertd •• Conplete: 11-05-M iO-Dey Review Period Eipircs: 01-05^ To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis. City Planner ^ Dale: November 8. 2004 Subject: 04-3066, William & Anita Rouse. 4051 Highwood Road. • Variance request • public hearing ZoRiug Dbtrki: LR-IB, Orc Family Lakcahore Rctidcntlal, 1 Rcrc/140* Lot Area: 22,215 s f. ( 0.5 acre) Lot Width: 90 ’ @ OHWL / 95’ @ 75 ’ Apptiauion Summory: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. Side setback variance in older to reorient the roof of the house and the garage within the 10* side setback; and 2. A lake setback variance in order to add a second-story over a portion of the existing home within 75* of the OHWL. __________________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the side setback and the lake setback variances as requested in conjunction with removal of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ and 75 ’-250* setback zones as the Planning Commission deems appropriate. Hardship The iocaiion of the existing home and garage ^ith respect to the 10 ‘ side and 75 ‘ lake setbacks. PcrtiacBl Zdohig OrdkuiRCC Sections Sec. 78-3*>0. Area, height. lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in an LR-IB district shall exceed 2 1Q. stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following irunimum requirements shall be observed: L FILE *04.^068 I Nev«fT*«f 2004 P»g«2o'4 LUtofEiblblti A. Application Ha^hip Documentation Fonn Existing it Proposed Surv’ey/Site Plan Proposed Plans and Elevations Submitted Hardcover Calculations Aerial Photo Illustrating Average Lakeshore Setback Structural Analysis by Instant Testing Co dated 11-05*04 Resolution No. 479S Permit Record List from Property Street File Hardcover reduction propose from applicant Property Ch^iers List Plat Map B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Background Bill and Anita Rouse are the current property ow-ncrs at 4051 Highwood Road. They are proposing to add a second story over a portion of the existing home, and reorient and raise the roof of the home and raise the roof of the garage to match the renovation. Due to the location of the home and detached garage uith respect to the side lot line, variances are required in order to increase the building envelopes \4ithin the substandard setback. Additionally, the shoreline has eroded since the home N^-as initially constructed resulting in the home now eiKroaching into the 7S* lake setback. In 2002, a Resolution (Exhibit G) was passed to grant approval for the owners of ^051 Highwood Road to use and maintain a portion of the planed alley for driveway access to a garage located on their property as long as the garage and home remain on the property and the garage doors remain oriented toward the alley. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidIht LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560(1.0 acre)140 ’ Actual 22,215 s.f (O.SOacre)90 ’ @ OHWL 95* ® 75 ’ LR-IB Required Eiittlai Proposed Rear 30 ’18.6’No Change West Side 10 ’ 9.3 ’ (garage) 4.3 ’ (house) 21.7'(guest house) No Change Ea^Side 10 ’ 70'e (garage) 24.8 ’ (house) 11.7' (guesthouse) No Change Lakeshore 75 ’70 ’± (house) 55 ’±(deck)No Change Averaic Lakeshore Meets the average lakeshore setback. FILE t04.30M S Novwnbar 2004 P»8*3 oI4 Total Lot Area Total Stroclural Coverafe 22,215 s f. (0.50 acre)Allowed; 3,332 s.f. (l55o) Proposed: 3.441 s.f. (15.4 V,) naraciPVKr Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Eibling Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 7.610 s.f.Osf (O*/.) 989 s (12 9 V.) 989 s f (12.9 •/•) 75 - 250 14,605 S.f.3,651 5 f.5,317 s.f (36.4 •/•) 5.317 s f (36 4 V.) • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lake Setback Variance The current home was constructed to meet the 75’ setback from the lake. The deck was originally constructed to encroach 14 ’ into the lake setback. Since that time there have been additions to the home and the deck. Additionally, the shoreline has eroded significantly resulting in the home encroaching on the 75’ setback where it was once conforming. Side Yard Setback Variance Although the w estern property line abuts an alley, the western lot line of this property has historically been reviewed as a side lot line rather than a side street lot line. Therefore, in order to reorient and raise the roof of the home and raise the roof of the garage to match the new 2"^ story addition, a variance to the side yard setback of 10 ’ is required. Hardship Slatcmcnl Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /«! considering applicetiens for variance, the Ptanning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed vorience upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire. r/jlr 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 (*r literat provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Indhidual property under consideration, and shaU recomme nd approval only when It is demonstrated Otat such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff fmds that due to the location of the home and garage and the erosion of the shoreline there may be hardships to justify granting side setback and lake setback variances in order for the applicants to constnKt additions to the existing home and garage. uWiN PILE f04.30M 8 Nevamter 2004 P«0«4er4 In addition, there is a significantly high amount of hardcover within the 0«7S’ and 75* - 250 ’ setback zones. The applicant has proposed to remove the wood and rock borders, all of the plastic landscape liner, and repl^ the concrete between the garage and the home with stepping stones which will result in a reduction of approximately 2.6H or 792 s.f within the 75*-250* setback and 31 s.f. within the 75* setback (Exhibit J). Issues for CousideracloB 1. The Planning Commission should discuss whether or not any hardcover could be removed in conjunction with granting variances for this property. 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recomuicudaliou Planning Staff iccoauneiids ^)proval of the setback variances as requested in conjunction with hardcover removals in both the 0>75* and 75'-250* setback zones. City of Orono b ^himta Variance Application Street Address 2750 Kel.ey Parkway Orono. MN 55355 Van 952-249-46:0 far. 952-249-4618 f\/ailir,g Address P O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MM 55322-:066 Application # “ ^0^'^ Date Recei-veO. [L'lnrQ A.*nount Pa id y>fAn\ ^ Staff Fee SSC3 Renewal. S3O0 Afier-ine-fact 51.230 Cous-e Fee Th>s application form must be completed In full. A?; cant v/ii: be rcl-fed within 15 days as to the status cf tne application Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address; v VV \nc «v\ Property Identification Number (f^) (Attach legal description to application if not irc >ded on the survey ) Date Property Acquired (month/year); O^joH □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: C9 Residential □ Otner _____________________________________ Zoning District; _____________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Comp:e:e legal na-es ard ma- tai s:a*js requ red fcr each interested caiy) Name; ______C Phone (home); TUA ’^on-*tn\A Address uv.wv. Email; o vv v g? co Phone (work); ___ \ Far OWNER INFORMATION: (Comc’.ete ega names «*d man*.a: $tat-s requred fcr each interested pahy Name; r Q.o-xSvt. _________________________ Phone (home);___ Address; VteTX-yo yO. Phone (work). L.va Email;~ c*- cvcV Cav DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost; $ ^ Describe the request in detail (attach additional sneets if necessary); A c \ so rt.vN ,Ack.>V..-o-N.. e A-Val. W«A> c‘- CJW« <-V W -•fcC . ^ . AA Vm», rv V .Ain «■t'V.V ■ *\OC i Ns w .A-. «■- ♦Vo.L.i fpr.-n.. \W -s. wJ -VW n x. VVji_ y,>A Act! WAL ..'r <tV TcoV O*..ikt rV Vv*/'. W.? .<*vg, «>.> y *‘*cVV^^.vV. V*w-v yw. «vV\ LJ<- U j^.-a V €»\vto V.Vc-\c. <,V>*wy_ V*>4^ Cw<»V Ac. \A_t L \t . . n.rrS eV Cwvl‘t■v^V* >*J.VW.n. KV.g % r^,«0 ^*K>*^*^*%. Vn.Ws.'-^c.e. C.V VW<VW6%\* w:VrV;.«^ *T*5‘ V \W1|» c. .lit o r« tC-? ,c:j / • ....... .V .;• '.. . Vi-.. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date m order for your application to be processed. □□ □□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Cr>mpleted Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Forrr Certified Property Ownef-s List - owners w.th n 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 612-340-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed Within this packet, including hardcover calculat.ons. Also provide ore copy 8.5' x 11“ or 11“ X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topograph'.c 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 * APPLICANT'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide ah information required or requested by the Plann.ng Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the ongmal fee payment) and'c' consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the information suppl ed is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that he/sho 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. Applicants Signature: Applicants Signature. Oate 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 verification of this request Owner's Sigrature. Owner’s Signature £A Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commissicn 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. # V.' ■ ’■tJ-■Cs o t Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An apolicaton will not be consicered complete cr placed on any meet rg agendas until tnis form is complete and submitted to the C.ty. Minnesota State Statue Section 394 27. Subdivision 7 requ res tnat a hardsnio 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 and economic situations are not considered valid hardships in order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commssion and C*ty Council a harcsh p 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 v/ill affect the surrounding community To prove a na'dship. address ail the relevar't points listed below and answer tre.m as clearly as possible S nee you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is v;hat is used m deter.rming a denial or approval recommendat on. If ycu leave som.elhing out it will not be considered P'ease address each of these hardship criteria as they relate to the request (some may not apply): 1 ‘The prope*ty in question cannot he put to a reasonable use if used under co nditions allowed by the official controls ‘ •A TL;■___ •The plight of the landovner is due to circumstances unique to his propeny not created by the landowner." \v.<^ ..Qtf IV .i t vV L»ivv f fc, ^ A .t r. VVwU- I ^ V. - V^___• r-^ ttisV.c... , V»—* *\*v* c.^ yv « V'A C’A* * * , •The variance. If granted, will not alter the essent al character of the locality. \,«..j‘.«.>-» .\v mmA ♦•A v*-'? c^»«.t~i?i>~.>^ co--v« r«v\vc •V, •.v.V,^ nail ^c. « V»«. «Sc.. •Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." v«s^ fvtf. Vo AV uv . VS^-fOs. v t-Si'A'.\»i r.h" Vu.r»r V V c^tWu«N. nA\.fcf>s. v k, V- rtt V ^<VcA<vt.v\ ^<.1 Page 2 cf 3 ‘Undue hardsh'p also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Vanances Jhail be granted ' ea .n shelte'ed construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Sect.on 116J 05 3 ubd 2. v;hen in hannory wlh th.s Chapter." T •The Board of Appeais and Aa;ustments or the Council may rot perm t as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter fo' prcoerty ir^ the zo-e where the affected person's lano is located * •w-L Vc*^ ^ f_iN»t T V.--?A .V\ •The Boa'd ?' Cctnci. nay permit as a vanance the temporary use of a one-fam.ly dwelling as a two-famiiy dweil'ng ’ s. k < vii.\V I . /Nv. \ k". ... vv Vv A^l * w r A,->-VV>*l^'vA TT •The special cond tions app'yns to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to s^h proper.y or immediately adjoining property “ L V.*- t*. . «\ ^ »«■' ♦ K— »i • «V- f ; \S*»' li-- - • V‘. _tvi I V it «.« \ o -vVi'•. * *-»• wA w- (1*., N» < V..*.- »'»* t ^ \V<- .\V -* ^ L«vV<.‘ •'At'»• W.\ ik. n«*»V-y.. r •! V«. *. Ve* V<. ■ V^»"v *\n ’ I •*,. •The conditions do rot apply generally to other land or structures in tne district »n wh jh saio land s Icoated ' -1^ 10. ‘The granting of tne application is necessary fer the presen/aticn and er oynent of a substantial property nghl of the applicant * V -A„Vg » A.. \.,:kv.x .. V .V .<-* K ^A.«V.v .J vV ^. 1... V .Vxc .1- •The granting of the proposed variance will net in any way impa r heain. safety, comfort, morals, or in any ether respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning f»«- ..tU... • »,-v> .^w, o...* A. "f* / .rA'^z- L ' S ';/"’•r u V * *JUi •<C-£>f ---------—A.. Page 3 of3 “The granting of such variance will not merely serve at a conv^ience^ to the applicant, but is necessary tc aliev«ate denr.orstrable hardship or di^iculty ^ ^-AV «v\V^ >0- c-W<v _ VVi. ^S«Vo V,^ ••wV<. Vv^.*^Vt.A.V.r» * V iTT^vc. Shouw'you feel the hardship cannot fui'y be described in the above cntena. describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in tne following lines (attach addit onal sheets if Vo;* V»--^ with Zoning Ordinance requirements necessary) ~~Tv>. yvc. I •----------V - . VVl^ w-W’fcV V. X.C . L.s.t w V^.'* ,VAs.Aj X V-y-V v~-*--Y«~-1.» -* < \ VVy.Xsr ______.• Vv«..f -Vt:- V>.. -«T«»^V W-t- t W»« • V... A.^VvV t-\ .V, t c-t- V V >. “VV^<ts A«^V<-fV. ■-.. W.v».,L X r- . .• AV vV». , \. ).«1t vV xc-» ^ 11.*.. r-H ^ 4.^ V\.. w’ \V»\‘«A.IS,. W 1 W •Vr.t. A > .V % V*V% j inr^ ■*-**>*^»t«n, <MI iMiM ©^&irc sV.o.wX^ ■icW.iV.'v*'-'^ Vv-Vt C*r".irAcato cf S’in’^7 r.M- OrviLl-i Orirar CJ A, U*vii».»uvd lAV^ £ur/*--y »Fr. l/,rr .'•jT n«;.l.i C-. r.t; , :il..ni5:ta T •■.•sr*.*'y r.fi'.'y ♦. yt : f.n*«x .r.J i,--f.rr''•t r-:. r*jrjC*.V*ticn . s’iiv-fy c!‘ t*<-, b::Ui;0 rl* r of rr-j.-’- A, 7\.$iut.T * -irJ / r\-;y « •. . UU, '':i; n.-r'.- tJ ir cf Titl'*; , ' <•; {.Ar. vr.d U.' Ill* oj ill b* il l».t . t.Vori‘vi . 1*. • fc* c«'.r,:crt ir.r i • r* a* w-Ttc or '^u': T V. < 1‘? •".♦r. CCKIC!J K. ccmil CC., IJT. _______ •yjT n 1 . Co f:' i ft il': f^ . C 4 Kr*riC J. Ovcr.Urr Rn . !! .l-7C’S :/.uA3yviri /I ir::» r' LKv, 1" r 40' '■»-3C-EJ Iren wnrkor 3 \'- i . /..I >”*r>. » ' * • / , •■ • - i -% V.;- > r. - f exHiftiTC • • CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY WILLIAM R. ROUSE OF TRACT A. R.L.S. NO. 1420 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA WEST ARM iCCAt DCSCRPTK3N Of PffEM«S : TfocI A. R«q.stefed LorwJ Survey No. 1420. 14e« of Kegistfor of TiUe». »lennep«n Counly. Minnesolo o denotes iron morkor («»)l <!•«>'« SN..X »« ««n oo dolun, Au w "■"■iL £—— j fSusat«Miu:va>^^~Hjmx%w%at'^ fesBurc- ja«, J wirtaMu T~^^tr^:3 ii.S w B*qpq®*isiit iiiriW“r ®-«WM>«- ©CWpM-g^— """ util b’CT ‘il—W. •nw4*i«a***‘sauKir— •aivK?a«:a4*^“ • BRnsjiisrvcavuc^• swssvsvr>saf.tttsr •S3ic;w|pt ‘!f«r* •swssar*—““““ L“ijmu. m 111SB SHWL. »BC«' ^mmr H cowcn'T SRi mir -tysu ^ HUMMI—(I) fffT *'"*** III 1111* SW HI J .S; G.Al CxHifrrr &\ViILUAM Q.00%£??LS 1^2^ HARDCOVER CALCULAT]O u \\VORKSHEET setback ZONE: (CIRCLZ ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House LmrJi 20.L B. Cvage C. Dnv-eway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck 3:.s* AC occ*citfC-;» ^3* Tfl F. Undseape Underlain By Pluiis Of Fabric Viec^ 0-T5‘ \IIOu\UC 05.250^250-500'500-1000* 9 ill SF 32a^SgLiS:S;s.. 209 7^6 I IBS Q. OtherOD«o«^ 240i..r o’ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _______________ UnfUi P Oarage C. Driveway D. Sideivalk E. Pf’ic/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other TOTAL HAPXICOVER ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ ^ B 4*1 a 12»'QotlC i€tL ■\o& I'4-. 60S X \C0 2*^ 2 7 vvidilk SF SF. S F -BU-xOirAS- , 5 F - Oijiyt .SF CfNiC. BCT^r . 5 r !it**cOn-*C>; .SF !sf cr_C'<'e PuAS-r^c , _ atccb f s F - a^Aaeiis SF SF SF. SF. SF SF .SF SF. .SF SF .SF SF. SF. -SF *100 - SF. SF. % /‘y ^J • ^o«. 5. 200A 12:33PM Ancfior Block KSP (JP exrtiR>crei U 4055 P. 1 To: Melanie Cnrtis City Manner CityOfOrono Faz#95M494616 From: BUI Rouse Phone « 612-812-208S Subject: 4051 HIghwood Road Property Pages: 3 Engineerini Report Melanie, As yon suggested in your 10/20/04 e-mail, we had an engineer evaluate the home’s foundation to assure that it will support the weight of the proposed 2*^ story ou the property. This testl^ firm worked with one ofthebnfldertwhoUlool^atdolBgsomeoftheworkfor us. The attached report is similar to the verbal comments that we have had from other people. Flt'ase let me know if there is anything else that you need from me at this dme. Thanks for your help on this. BiUR'mse Nc». 5. 2004 1004 ll/OS 11:23 FAX OiOBOIS 3'o:« VS? I5STA.NT TESTINC/ALLIEO V:.4C55 ?>. 2 aooi IT = = CO INSTANT TESTING COMPANY Mtm) BEAV; D'VJ? ORIVF • BAG AX MV 55121 PH0N£ fiS.*4SA«3S44>FAX 1998 November 5, 2004 Mr. Perry Hordel 4080 Grainwood circle Prior Lake, Minnesota SS272 1 esmsc------«------------- __1 |PIM. mm l-iM 1 1 Re: 405X aiohweod Road (1111 i Anita Rouse Residence) Orono, Hennepin County, N:.nneBots As requested, a site visit vaa conducted on Novciaber 3, 2004 at 12:15 P.N. to evaluate subgieile soils and atructural aspects of a existing residence, (or a pro::osed oretnodeling projoct. A building plan prepared by custom Design A Drafting, Inc. dated October 1, 20C4 was convayad to ua prior to tba. inspaction. The existing raaidanoe, located on a lakeshore lot, occupies a "L” shaped foot print and coo:iiits of a original section in the vest and a east addition completed in later years. Access to view supporting eompenenta of the ireaidenoe was provided through a interior crawl space opening, a small access door on tbs vest side snd a vant grate In the east. Although the viewing area was limited, some aspects of the structure! ooitponents, per foundstion plate 4/Al of the building plan ware notod. Observations msda through the west access door, nssr tba RW corner of the structure, provided a inutcd vigu of the west foundation wall. The foundation in this nrea was cempeised of non-uniform components consisting of solid masonry brlohi snd eenersts blocks forming a wall of undetermined width. Floor joist configuration appeared to be of 2'* x €" at :!4*' O.C. , with the 1st joist parallel to the foundation, supported tiy concrete blocks. No determination could be made on existing easl./vcst beams or other piers and footings providing support. The east addition lndic.ited 2" x 12" floor joists at 16" O.C. and n eaatral eaat/wast laminated beam. No piers or footings for tha bea:i were notad in viewad area. Based on tr.aasur«nents taken through th<r east ventilation grate ve, would assume e 8" oonerete block foandation for the newer addition. Based on the Hennepin County rurfical geology map, soils within the area are classifletl aa DTC - clayey till, fine loamy to clayey colluvium. These naturul occurring subgrada soils are normally considered acceptable for construction. To evaluate the relative bearing capacity of ibt soils below the atrueture, s dynamic cone penetrometer test was conducted within the interior orswl space on the soils at fnotlng elavation. The dynamic cone Xc». 5. 2004 ;2:33PV A*chof BiotV XS? U? 2004 11/08 11:28 P4Z II0II88 INSTAKT IBSTtNC/ALUED X: 4055 3 ^002 ptnttrometttr (DCF), a sight kilogram (17.6 pound) hainmtr to dri«« a 20 mlllimatar dianetcc conioal point into tha aoil. with tha panetratioa raeordad in millinatars per blow. From tha DCP readings, a per blow, panatration average was recorded and a n-value derived. This R-valua. is ar enipirieal relationship ua have established to agusta tha dprvric cone data to tha more familiar blows per toot (BPP) standard, penetration soil boring tost. Dpnamio Cent Panatromatar Test DCP Pa»th Per Blow ?.'a. / K-Valua Eetimetad Load SSS NM (13.2") 16.S HM / R-21 7000 PSP Eiterior and interior observations of tha rasidanoa indioatad no appacaat structural stress based on soil atrength or elements of the aaisting foundation or svpporting structural mambars. Whila some of the components, per plan 4/kl could bo verified, many details such as beam dimensicis and supporting plera could not be fully sddreeead during this i'^pection. Althovjgh tho original (west section^ 1. expeotad to carry less loading for the now construction, soma sactxons of tha foundatisn aay lack uniform capacity and the struetural cemponents appear to be leas aubatantlal than thoae observed within the newer eas: addition. No would therefore anticipate the installation c{ additional floor joists and supports, ns already recoimended by the contractor. tn our opinion, based on the iforemantioned teat snd observations, tho eubgrada soils below the residence would be expected to meet or exceed the losdbssring regultemants for the proposed construction. We would however anticipate the addition of aoine atruoturel elements, primarily within tht west section of the reaidonce, as part of the new oonstruction. Also, we would recomnend a review by a structural engineer as part of the overall eonatruetion plan. Sincerely, Instant Testing Company ^ Gary 8|fudlsh / Senior Bnginoorin^Xnspoeter CC: Perry (Pax: •52-473-3396) #701 - 1 / #605 - 2 / #306 (H DCP / m2 - 53 J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL __ -------4rfrg A RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMISSION FOR A driveway ON A PLATTED ALLEY IN THE KIGHWOOD LAKE MINNETONKA PLAT WHEREAS, Alexander G.. Vongries and Edith A. Vongrics as trustees of the Alexander G. Vongrics Trust, an undivided ‘/s interest in and to Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1420 County of Hennepin; and Edith A. Vongries and Alexander G. Vongrics as trustees of the Edith A. Vongries Trtist, an undivided */i interest in and to Tract A. Registered Land Survey No. 1420 County of Hennepin, (hereinafter "the app’.icar.ts") are owners of the property located at 4C51 Highwcod Road within the City of Oror.o and legally described as follows Tract A, Registered Land Surv ey No. 1420 (hereinafter “the subject property”) WHEREAS, the applicants have requested permission from the City of Orono to continue the use of an e.xisting driveway located on a 20 fool wide platted public alley that is located between 4051 Highwood Road and 4075 Highwood Road in the Highwoed Lake Minnetonka Plat Minnesota: 1. 3. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TD by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS The Highwood Lake Minnetonka Plat was established in 1917 and the streets and alleys in the plat were dedicated for public use forever. The subject property Is adjacent to a 20 foot wide planed alley in the Highwood Lake Minnetonka plat. The residence on the subject property was constructed sometime prior tol970 wiUt a single car garage that had driveway access from Highwood Road Since this lime, there have been several building permits issued for renovaticaand icmcdeling of the residence. On October 21, 1983, the City of Orono issued building permit number 5152 for removal of the existing single car garage and construction of a new three car garage. The surv ey with the building permit shows the garage doors facing the platted alley' with a 10-fooi setback from the property line to the front of the garage. Page 1 of 5 CITYof OROXO lyujui RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ----------------- 5. 1. 2. The locaiion of the garage doors with a 10-foot setback from the edge of the planed alley definitively shows that a portion of the driveway needs to be located on the alley to provide access to the garage. A survey of the alley that wai completed in 2002 for a proposed storm water project show s a portion of the driveway for the subject property on the platted alley. , The driveway shown on the planed alley is an appropriate use, as one of the * functions of planed streets a.nd alleys is to provide access to private property within the plat. The driveway on the platted alley does not adversely impact or create an obstruction for public use of the platted alley, as the public can easily Uavcl across the driveway to access the alley. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER ANT) CONDITIONS Based upon one cr more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants approval for the continuation of the use of a portion of the platted alley for driveway access to a garage located on the subject property, at 4051 Highwoed Road subject to the following conditions: The existing driveway can remain in use across the platted alley as long as the existing house and garage remain on the property ’. In the event of future removal of the house and garage for redevelopment of the property, the City reserves the right to terminate the use of the drivev\-ay on the alley and require driveway access &om Highwood Road to serve the property. Maintenance and repair of the driveway are the sole responsibility of the property owner. The sole purpose of City approval of the driveway aaoss the platted alley is to allow access to the subject property wdiich is a legitimate use of a planed alley. City approval of the driveway on the alley expressly does not infer or grant any additional property rights to the subject property over the planed alley. Page 2 of 5 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO ________4 7 9 Approval does not create any obKr\::tion or restriction on .he public use of the planed alley. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono. Minnesota at a regular meeting 'held on the 22nd day of April 2002. ATTEST: •/ Linda S Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Alexander G. Vongries Trustee, Alexander G. Vongries Trust v ^ t)rz Alexanaer G . Vongries Trustee, Edith A. Vongries Trust ^ Edith A. VongriesEdith A. Vongries Trustee, Alexander G. Vongries Trust Edith A. Vongrtes D Trustee, Edith A. Vongries Trust STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 5S COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a M*nnesoia municipal corporation and said insirumeni was executed on behalf of the City. ^ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 479& . STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this.<Uy of., 20__, Alexander G Vongries and Edith A Vnnories. T^<teea of the Edith A. Vongries Trust, personally appeared before me, who is personally kno\\n to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of. whose identity I proved on the oaih/afiiimation . witness a credible and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 II O O 'A I' \ > s'. ' A '/ ClTYoT ORONO Municipal OfTlces Strtat tddrctf: 2750 K«i>ey Piiwiy C'ora. VN 55356 Maiting Iddrtti: PO to £6 Cos-.ji Bay 55323 K6S March 28,2002 Alex & Edith Vongries 4031 Highwood Road Mound MN 55364 Dear Mr. & Mrs Vongnes; We have reviewed the situation regarding the location cf >our garage and associated d:i\euay. A ponton of your driveway is located on the 20’ wide platted alley adjacent to your property Ime Building permit number 5152 was issued on. October 21. 1983, by the City of Orono for the construction of a new 32’ x 24’ detached garage and demolition of the existing garage. A copy of the building permit and associated survey are attached to this letter. The approved property line setbacks for this garage, are 20' from the front lot line, and 10 ’ from the side lot line. The survey shows the garage doors facing the platted alley. The location of the garage doors 10 ‘ from the edge of the alley definitively shows that a portion of the driveway needs to be located on the alley to provide access to the garage Approval of the building permit clearly intended to allow construction of a portion of the driveway on the City alley. This is an appropriate, and typical, situation as this alley was platted to provide access. This is no different from driveways across platted street right of ways to allow driveway access to the City street pavement Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4621 should you have any questions. Sincerely; Gregory A. Gappa Director of Public Services Ttlcphooe(9S2)24M«0 • Fu (9S2) 249-MU wwwxiawiii — ■! t/OSI Mijk. C*rtlfictit« cf Svrvey for OrvllU Crines of Trtft Af Kcciii’.crod Land Survey K-. 142^ .Her.ne;in County, Kdmescia THIS ITEM HAS BEEH MICROFILMED I herely rcMify f iat this is o trua and corr»'ct re^rcscr.tation or $*;rvcy of t^e Lx>ur.ci.'.ric3 cf “ruct R.*i.tetor*;': Lar.i £ur'/oy i c. 3.41 filca of -r<»r cf TiilC!’., C*^x;rty r,f Jler.r.cpir , : r*d tl:c Iftcatior. cl -11 cxistinc b’-iljir.cs tharco:.. It ccec r.ct purport tc fhtv ether i-.prevc- rcr.ta or cr.crctrhAtr.tr. OCRLCN R. COFFIN CC., INC. Cordon R. Coffin Rt^TN^Tt^ Karr. S. Crenbere ?.C£. *;o.ir.7C;5 Land Sur'veyors and ?lanr.*r£ Long Ulctf, Kir.nescla Scale: I* = 40' Date : 9-30-83 o t Iron Barter PERMIT RECORD £erBlt_M^ 5/67 79 6 “b 73-71 fa/7 ^■c vox. Date 5-^1-73 -?2> lo -3/^ ? -^3 Type of Perait. iA^JUL a; ?y /»/, /;^ -//r -m3_________ -fl/.i.d.^--------------- 7-^->?V ________ /• ■■?> ‘ /t-' .^.J, - .?3 //> .1 ■ </ /■■ /2--t7-C-3 /C. bi\u^. .Tv rk /ZjijZrc '‘ 7^ Page 1 of I exmeir J M«tanl« Curtis _ _ __________________________ From: Rous«r123@aolcom Sent: Tuesday, November 09,2004 4 35 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Rouser1234Baolcom Subieci: 4051 Highwood Property Melanie. After talking wrth you on the telephone today. I went back and reviewed the survey and hardcover catcutabons Hopefully you were able to go out and look at the property today, and have a better idea of some of the things that we discussed. Here are the changes that I believe should be made with the hardcover on this property, which could be some substantial reductions O' - 75' Setback Zone - Remove the landscape underlain by plastic (5 sq ft) and the wood borders (26 sq ft) This would be a total reduction of 31 sq. ft This would reduce the total hardcover m this zone from 994 sq ft. to 963 sq ft. which would give us 12 65% hardcover vs 13 06% 75* • 250* Setback Zone - Remove the cor>aele between buildir>gs (466 sq ft). remove the landscape underlain by plasbc (418 sq ft), and remove the wood borders and rock border (108 sq ft) This would be a total removal of 992 sq ft I would then add back in a walkway between the driveway, house, garage and wood walk using some type of stepping stones I would estimatt this add back to be no more than 200 sq ft In total, the net reduction would be 792 sq ft This would reduce the total hardcover in this zone from 5 735 sq ft to 4,W3 sq ft. which would give us 33 84% hardcover vs 39 27% Hopefully as you look on the sun/ey and the hardcover calculation worksheet, my terminology above will make some St. je If you have any other questions, or need more information from me. please contacUt^ I will be out of my office until Thursday afternoon, but you can always reach me on my cell phone.^"^^^“ Thanks, Melanie. Bill Rouse RUNUATL IQCW1U4 Mi.NM riN I ^ ‘:vI’ROl'IJirY HS UST I ««*t »•*•••••••••••■ mt )« o;in:H4wio> PROPADDR 4017 NORTH SHORE DR OWNtR NAME TREOI RCK A KJIIMSON TAXPAYER ERFDA JOHNSON NAMEJADOR 4017 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN SUM II 07II7.M440009 PROI ADHR HK.HWOOI RD OWNJ R NAME R S PRO« HNOW .t S B PR(K HNOW TAXPAYI K ROU' R f S R- R PROCHNOW NAMI7.MXJR 40JMJIOHWOODRD MOUND MN ^^^64 11 0711771440010 PROPADDR 407'J HKiHW(X>D RD OWNER NAME JOHNT SANBORNtIAL taxpayer i 'SASUOHN NAMlyADDR 40N HK.HWOOD RD mound MN '11S4 IS 0TII77M4O0II PROPADDR 4041 HRWWOOORO OWNERNAML F1.XMIKSON A OI.IOSS TAXPAYER FREDERIC JOHNSON NAMC/ADOR 4041 HICHWOOO RD MOUND MN 1MM IS 07II77U40M: PROFAODR 40U NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAML MANCVI.MACOlWION TAXFAVrA nancy I. MArCIHBON NAME/AIRJR IIWOIlMBIMINtRO MINNI lONKAXIN 1M9' IS OTII77M4O06! PROPADDR 4044 NORTH SIKIRE DR OWM R NAME T C OEOCENDORF tl AL TAXPAYER TIMOTHY A LE ANN EX OCENOORf NAMUAUDR 4r*40NORTHSIK)RFDR MOUND MN SMM IS U7IIT2l44(irKi4 PROPADDR 4040 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME T O DLCr.ENIXJRI CT AL TAXPAYER TIMOTHY A U ANN D»CCrNDORI NAMDAOOR 4040 NORTH IKIRE DR MOUND MN >S1M M 07II7.M44«0<|1 PROPADDR 4044 NORTH SHORE UR OWNER NAME f C. DinClNDORF I I AL TAXPAYI R IIMOIIIV A LLANN DLOCLNDOHr NAMTyAlXJS 4040 740RTM SHORE DR M(N;sdmn JS 07II77M4(K)7(i PKOPAUDR 40M HIGIIWOODRD OWNI R NAME I. A VONtiPH-S I T At. IRUSTIIS TAXPAYER WILLIAM HA AND A M ROUSE NAMI7AI70R I67M4STHAVEN ri.YMOUTHMN iUU. It 07II7M 444B7I PROPAOOR 4041 north SHORE OR OWNERNAML DASMLXURTJV TAXPAYER OAU: I MCCURDY NAME/AODR 4041 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN SST64 II u7ll77M4tiOIS PROPADDR 4064 NORTH SIKJRE DR OWNERNAML D H PMIFPS/J M OBRX.CWlTSni TAXPAYI R OANIEI M PHIPPS NAMfyADDR 44)61 NOR III SHORE DR MOUND MN 511M U 07II77M40CS6 PROPADDR 4104 HIGHWOOURO owner name GUNABEVtRLYSAUER TAMAUR ClINABEVtRLVSAUCR NAME/ ADDR 4104 lllf.llWOOORD MOLNDMN MWM "'1 OKTlU: itKNNUMN COUNTT' TAXPAYER Sf RVIC? S ^ ' or MY KNOWU lXii; AND BEUtE^^^ ^ \(^l2^l/D rr Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Pareellntbnnadon ^ jfarccl ID 071172344007S Mou— Mwnbw 40S1 Mtrmt Hmtnm HIOWNOOD RD i Thi$ a not a l9g»B/r»expd9dttmyttraprntnt$s companion at tr/ormshon md atm itomOty. County, and Staf rota tuMbta and atntTMOurcM. NM-3067 Notcmbcr 19.2004 P*S« I ar* Date Applkation Received: 10-2IMM Dale Application Considered as Complde: 11*5^ OO'Day Review Period Cspircs: 1-4-09 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Ntembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundbeh. City Planner Date: November 10,2004 Subject: 04-3067. Lecy Construction on behalf of Dennis & Amanda Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, Hardcover Variance, Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - 1D. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.72 acies (31.200 s*f.) Lot Width; 124’ (ft shoreline; 121’ 75’ setback (140 required) AppUcation Summary: Applicant requests the following variance in order to tear down I tire existing wcsicrly addition and rebuild it: . 1. Hardcover variance to permit 29.89*i hardcover within the 75*-250’ /one when 25% is allowed. 44.9l*o currently exists and 29.9*i was approved by variance m 1999. I Staff Reconuiiendation: Staff recommends approval of the hardcover request to permit I 29.89% hardcover within the 75'-250’ zone with the following .stipulations: 1. The wood chip area located in the southeast corner of the lot and following the eastern lot line (not shown on the surveys), shall be re-vegetated with grass or the fabric liner shall be removed to allow water infiltration. 2 The wood timber walls and rock borders that have appearca since the 1999 variance approval shall be removed as shown on the removal plan attached as H.\hibit G. 3. The landscape rock shown on the proposed surv ey and labeled as “not hardcover” must be removed as the existing rock has become compacted The applicants may install new decorative rock in this location but no fabric or plastic may exist under it and it must be landscaped in a way to prevent vehicles from parking or di c ing on it 4. The existing wood platform located a* the shore shall only be allowed as a temporary means for dock storage. This structure shall be removed when the applicant’s dock is in the water. 5. The applicants are advised that upon re-construction of the lake yard staircase, all encroachments must be eliminated and the two existing decks existing within the staircase may not be rebuilt; nor may any plaifornu, e.xccpt one 32 s f. in size, be permitted. 6. Due to the intense vegetation removal that has occurred on the bluff, although not recently, a bluff restoration and preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy fo> the proposed addition. ■04-3WT Stntmhtr IS, 2004 Pag«2or( Pertinent Zoninc Ordinance Sections See. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. . ^ ^ (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, except for stairwuj'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 percent hard cover. Between 250 :eet 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. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Applicant NarratiN c (regarding lake access & wood platform) E.xhibit C - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit D - Existing Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Worksheets Exhibit G - Removal Plan Exhibit H - Proposed Elevations Exhibit I - Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit J - Approved Build ng Permit Plan from 1989 Exhibit K - Resolution »<4272 Approved in 1999 Exhibit L - Photographs Exhibit M - Section 78-1285 Vegetation Alterations Exhibit N - Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledgment Form Exhibit O - Property Owners List Exhibit P - Plat Map Background The previous owners of the property received a building permit in June of 1989, which permitted the combination of two lots and construction of a large addition that connected to the existing structure At that time, hardcover was required to be removed in order to meet the 25% allowance within the 75*-250* zone. It is unclear whether all the hardcover that was required to be removed, was in fact removed. Then, in early 1999 the same prior owners filed for an after-the-fact hardcover variance to permit approval of an already constructed lakeside deck. That variance was approved and the findings can be found in Resolution #4272. attached as Exhibit K. ate LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIEET ■04-3047 No*taib«r IS. 2004 Pa|t3«r4 LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s f. (1 acre)140* Actual SUOOs-f. (0.72 acres)124’ ^ shoreline 121* ® 75' setback LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear 30’42’ - cast half 88’ - west half 42’ - east half 75’ - west half Uft Side 10’20’10’ Right Side 10’128’12.8’ ■ Lakeshore 75’ 98’-cast half 88’ - west half 85’ - decks 98’ - cast half 85’ - existing deck 93’ - proposed porch 105’ - proposed addition Average Lakeshore 106’ - 78’ going west to cast 13’ encroachment No encroachment Structural Covcracc 1 j Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 31.200 s.f. (0.72 acres)Allowed: 4,680 s.f. (15%) 1 Proposed: 4.179 s.f (13.4%) Hardcuver Calculations Hardcover Zone Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9,250 s.f.Os.f (0%) 632 s.f (6.83%)No Change 75-250 18,700 s.f.4,675 s.f. (25%) 8,398 s.f* (44.91%) 5,590 s.f. (29.89 %) 250 - 500 3,250 s.f 975 s.f (30%) 79 s.f* (2.43%)No Change Compacted, drivable gravel is included as hardcover and non-impacted, landscape rock NO4.3067 November IS, 2004 Pb|c 4 of 6 is not included as hardcover. Hardcover Variance j u tj The applicant has proposed to tear down the west half of the home and rebutld an addition behind llic average lakcshure setback line and meeting the side and street yard setbacks Hou-ev'cr. the property currently exceeds the 25% hardcover allowance for the 75 ’-250 ’ zone, and although a net reduction in hardcover is proposed, a hardcover variance is still required as the property exceeds the allowed 25*/o The property also contains an excessive amount of hardcover within the 0-75 zone No hardcover changes arc prop, sed within this zone, however hardcover has illegally appeared since a 1999 hardcover variance approval and the hardcover must therefore be reviewed. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analysis /n conttdertng appUcattoH% for variance, the Planning Conmiuion \hall contUer the effect of the propoted variance upon the health, tafety and welfare of the comniunify, exlulng and anticipated tr^fflc 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 Comnihslon shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under conslderatlou, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code.___________ Staff finds that the hardships and conditions found and noted in the resolution approved in April of 1999. attached as Exhibit K, remain valid and staff therefore recommends approval of the hardcover variance request. The applicants have proposed 29.89®'o hardcover in the 75*-250* zone and therefore meet the 29.9® 'o allowance of the April 1999 variance resolution, with a net reduction of 3 s.f. proposed. Howrver. staff noted that a wood platform at the lake has appeared since the April, 1999 approval. Staff finds no additional hardships to allow this wood platform to exist within the 0-75 ’ zone. The survey used to approve the 1999 hardcover variance did not include this structure and it therefore has been illegally erected since that time. Because variances run with the property and not with the owners, and no additional hardships have been presented, the structure labeled “wood plaifonn ” on the survey should be required to be removed in conjunction with this proposal. The applicant hu expressed his desire to keep the wood platform for a place to store his dock. Staff finds that the applicant has the right to use removable dock sections for storage of a dock in the winter rime only, but no structure may be permanently allowed and nothing should exist in this location during the summer when the dock is in the water. mi ]g|T November IS. SOM PafiS*r« Staff also finds that additional hardcover in the form of compacted rock, timber walls and rock borders have been constructed on the nroperty and were not included in the hardcover variance request from 1999. These liCms shall be removed in accordance with the removal plan that is attached as Exhibit G, as landscape hardcover has typically not be allowed to be traded as structural hardcover for the purposes of granting hardcover variances. Staff also finds that the Planning Conunission should discuss the existing encroachments within the 0-75 ’ zone. Because the applicants have proposed a substantial improx-ement to the property and the applicants themselves have indicated the safety hazards associated uith the staircase; it may be appropriate to discuss the elimination of the encroachments and rebuilding of the lake access in conjunction with a hardcover variance. As a minimum, staff would recommend that any approval resolution document disclose that rebuilding of the lake access staircase require a building permit and the two existing deck sections within the staircase would not be alloxvcd and the encroachments must be removed. Lastly, after a site inspection it became apparent that intense vegetation clearing has occurred over the years. Some mature trees remain, but many smaller (less than 6" in diameter) trees have been removed and only stumps remain Staff finds this to meet the definition of “intense vegetation clearing*’ outiuied in Section 78-1285 (D) Understanding that the current owners may not have conducted the Uce removal, nevertheless a bluff restoration and preservation plan must be implemented as must of ilie bluff is exposed and the Icaf-on conditions have been substantially reduced. Staff recommends that the applicants be required to submit this prcscrvaiionrestoration plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new addition. Staff would also recommend that this plan be implemented prior to the end of next summer (September 2005). Issvcs far ConsidcratioB 1. Do the hardships and findings of the April 1999 variance resolution still hold merit witli the current goals of the Planning Commission? Is enough hardcover being removed? How could the property get closer to 25®/*? Should the wood platform be eliminated when the dock is in the xxater? How and/or when should the non-conforming staircase be addressed? Should a bluff rcsloralion/prescrx ation plan be required? Are there any other issues or concerns xxith this application? Staff RccomncBdatioii Approval of the hardcover variance request for 29.89®/* hardcover within the 75 ’-250* zone when 25% is normally allows and 29.9®/* was previously approved, stipulating the following: 1. The wood chip area located in the southeast comer of the lot and following the eastern lot line (not shoxxn on the surveys), shall be re-vegetated with grass or the fabric liner shall be removed to alloxv water infiltration. N«vtMb«r IS. 20M Page* ofi 2. The wood timber walls and rock borders that have appeared since the 1999 variance approval shall be removed as shown on the removal plan attached as Exhibit C. 3. The landscape rock shown on the proposed survey and labeled as "not hardcover” must be removed as the existing r^ck has become compacted. The applicant’s may install new rock in this located but no fabric or plastic may exist under it and it must be landscaped in a way to prevent cars from parking on it (timber borders, etc.). 4. The existing wood platform located at the shore shall only be allowed as a temporary means for dock storage. This structure shall be removed when the applicant's dock is in the water. 5. The applicants are advised that upon re-construction of the lake yard staircase, all encroachments must be eliminated and the two existing decks existing within the staircase may not be rebuilt; nor may any platforms, except one 32 s.f. is size, be permitted. 6. Due to the intense vegetation removal that has occurred on the bluff, although not recently, a bluff restoration and preservation plan must be submitted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed addition. ie/lS/04 01:S2 Thl »52»4»106g LeeI BKUs numes City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A w Stroot Addrois 2750 Kouey P»rtw«y Oro-'M). MN 55356 Main 952-249-4500 fax 852-249^15 M«*i9 AiJdrt SI P.O.Box 66 CrytUi Bay, MN 55323-^6 Application# □ate Baraived~ tJILO AmoenlPa'd ___ Staff. Fee 96G0 Atnawai S300 Afttf-tne-*acr 51.200 Dous e Fee property INFORI«^OH: ____________ Site Address; - Zoning OWricl. --------------- MWJCANT IMPOWIIATIOM: ,c»npw. »9- •-■« '■*«' '«>'■'«'*■=»’ Nan... I FT'-i' ^ - ^44-M4^ Phone (hortie);^ Address; V tWa,4-l3-------- Email ____________—----------------------- OvmER INFORMATION: jCorWa .;3 pCb ■ ■ — Address ----------------------------------------------- Email; ------------------------ " description OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost; $ "."i!SSL?5~aS;S2! L‘‘, • O •■ “'• .1^ --------1^1 jt:Mjr4X •SnuiHI LEcy IMS MM L P. 97 (2oos REQUVIEO SUBUnTALS: ■T uBl ■Mon?rTi*fH^ ^ by th« MMotVon de«5nn« date In Ofder lor your □□□□ □a □□ Pf».Appiieteion MMing Form, compteted by a City Plarnar. Completed Applicatton Form Complated Hardship Doeumontalion Form coumy OBpmmm of Finance » «ii»I.M>in>ipoll«. lrt«phoi» 612-348 S810 *»y ■ m6«n9 •« MW fWluiwniMts 1V^ 17^ tlpiSSeSoir^^ *»»6oo««r caloiMiont. AIM piouMe 0«w copy 8 J’ * t r or Cr»iiip>o>oohpi6oBweplMlMono»t»tat>oo(t(o«pfe><ldo6ii»l8ihttipvariMMaMitM L‘'W?Ri°.:Sr!^.!::y'** o^««on^ PravW, o5TSS «5-. otevatJon slaws (provlda ono copy 8.S" a 1 r or 11* x m AddWonal Hams may bo rormaated by CHy Staff dapendino scope of ir APPUCANTS ACNNOWLSIOEMOiT: Tha appic^ baraby ogrooa to proUcte al iniermation requirod or raquestod bv th« Piannirwiaa?^‘.aaa^^ danlaloltharaqiMtiogp^jlaaa^teoolafdlalinarit ^ " **• Appieanra Signaturo; Applicanra Signature; -nr^~iTS »»«yp^.y**UTT**""^** patenM mant fhJLsSi OWNER'S ACKNOWlEOOeMENT: Ownar*a Sigrwitjre: Owner's Signature:Date Date i: lo/w^oy CouncM. P an appnoani is unable to attend a eeheduted niil*IIL^*^"*"!L®**"**’*****®" •"** have an eutoortaad rspiesenteSve attendin "«^ypftec to assigned to your prefect ■«*•*"* •dviae toe City Ptorwar ■teste City of Orono Mating Form '•"•'■"---•ip--— Fo' Qff'ce U^f ?*^'|'®50*k 1"?T. M,0„gAair,s, Md<n D/^Ma.n 952-249-4600 Fa*. 952-249^616 -------------------------------------------- PROPERTY INFORMATION* Site Address <^/ 4- or- s zXrDi's“'^Cf‘^' (PiN)-'^-^ -------°'"OPerty: _ j/ 7,-,, - ^ —---------------._ description of REQUEST; ^ ^ ^ ^SaK'"’*"' °'^«-Va-0S.,b.ck& Other; ° ‘•®' Coverage □ Lot Area 2 Setback □ Let W.dth Applicants Initials:^ un^S Z1,Z: SnSiS* °--Pn,a.„ i,. EXHIBIT B 11/2/2004 JankcGoBdlach Citvof Orono 2750KelkyPvkwiy Onmo. MN 53336 Wood platfonn ai 1354 Rest Point Circle Dear Janice: I hope that tone of the (acts belon will help lay out the reasons we find it neoessan to haxe a platfonn on our propem for the puipoaes of hoMtni our dock and iu support itnictefcs. We are requestutf a \anance to keep this stnienue in place The wood plarfbnn on the hill b% the lake is for the purposes of holding all of our dock pieces Without it there u no placeiopiiioar dock. The hill is approx a 34 foot drop firotnihe lop of the hUL and it u about a 43 degree drop to the lake. B^tise of this slope there is nowhere on the hill or shore to store a dock of am size The pieces of the dock are as follows: 1. 16 docks wetiom of 3 feet by 8 feet 2. 12dockaectionsor3 Sfeetby 8fect 3. S3 vertick metal suppon poles 4 100-200 metal horizontal support poIcSl S. 20 support poles for a dock canopy If wo are required to tear down the storage platform we will lu\« a hardship. Lem ing the dock in the water would destro) tt To replace the dock would be m the S23.000 00 range We are not looking to ha\e any more room than enough to adequately store the dock and tlie support structures tiLit arc needed to keep the dock in place during the use in the tummeittme This platform ts about the smallest that is necessary to hold all tiK pieces My wife is on the board of the Lake Minnetonka As$oc. and we are sery* concerned about the look of lire lake and any erosion issues that could impact the lake. We base recently np rapped our shore line beca use of wa\e erosion and the slope that could gi\e way if we did not Ikm adequate measur es to ennic the integrity of the shore lute The stairs yw«g down to the lake are a hazard and will need to be addressed in the future as we base had people (all down the suirs already. It is sery steep, and we are commined to sohe this mer time, but it costs a lot of money and we are suing for it We only want a safe walk down to the lake with adequate room for dock storage and nothing else. In our new liouae plans we ha\e pulled the bouse back from itie lake, and are reducing the hard cmer as well This should show our good intentions in woiking with the aiy of Orono We appreciate your considention of our request for a \anancc to keep this platfonn for the necessity of storing our dock and lU suppon pieces in the winter time Denny A Amanda Walsh 1334 Rest Point Circle Orono. MN SS364 612-414-S05S Top of the stairs looking down to the lake i ■ —■ V!»- t' i ■£«“ V*Vf.v My Album The view up the stairs % . , * frofi a'lrj tti(- {il.itVjrn, V *-j y ' ^ * » H # # -- k:\ 1"*' 'ifi - ■ * . ' ‘ t*^ '^l-s. •*• I «-*w ■^5: r- tO/18/U4 uw:«« fAA VaSWWlUBS LAbi anua nwauia Page I of 3 EXHIBIT C HARDSHIP OOCUMENTATIOM FORM complete and subir.itted to tho City ________________—— Minnesote State Statue Section 394.27. Suodivislon 7 requires thrt a •mAMBiratad In Order for a variance to ‘ a granted Tne hardship must be unique to the a^^ria?Ss mn IrJJ Si land and not the land cvwrer. Personal and econonc in order for ^ ^ the Warning Commission and C.ty Counci a hardship having irent mus. ta demonstrated ■rSriomi'lwt*2%*rJ»'ouJ^ mo baeis City »ia« uses to detenni-e '* den.al nr approval rcccmmendalion. If you leave scnethrg out it wi»’ not te cons cored Please address each of these hardship criiena as they relate to the request (some may not apply) 1 -The propefty ir. ques'.on cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls * • ' y K • . \ ^ U ^ I*.'t w t' -IS ■ >- i- cUC 1 ( . I ■. ' ' '■ ■' -LL -t :±. t\ \ I'L' Illrv______^ iv ■ It J tr* _______-fr rl . t . (I >r->A ‘I- (' nv-.. IC.. ' ■ ;A/.. Y\-t )v f rv:.vv i»\:w\ ------ V \ b 1 •The p’jght cf the landowner is due to orcumslances unc-’e to r.s property r>ct ^-nn-r V- r f^il fwiV"/'•. ^ r ■ ' - ■ . ' ■ ' 7 - , . . , • , it' created by the landowner t I . . j _____________:----------- l-'ii it). ^ U<-UL__iLi_; r*.-V /-iV fv/r- ^ r '.'I i I n''- ■ .1 r^< . -I 4 n%-'l ■ L-i < i '» . f l~'f I .1 /V,. Ci .-K Q Anr <CTCL{J ':ktK>:h Ecooom'c consKjerettons alone sha’ not corsttute an undue hardship rf reasonable use lor the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapte'. V rKtrVAic^ ii-' /V n r^uy^ . I ________________________________ ' V urn.a* tKk uici anu» avaas «ooe Page 2 of 3 Undud hardohip also Inciudat, but la not limitod to. inadequate access to di'oc* sunlight for soiar antrgy systems. Variances shaJ be granted for earth sheftered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J 06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.” 6. *The Board of Appeals and Adiustmenta or the Council may net 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 locked.* ■The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwlrellir^g as a two-family dwelling * 757 ”The spe&'al conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or Immediately adjoining property * ^ il._______ li'.tiy I \ •> 0« ■ xt V I : , -.1:1 rA . - r V, -u 'A, K. -■ I ■>. A C tv \ ■ «. ..J a-.-r.:r.t 1-^: 'f?- *The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the d strict m which saw land Is located." r i' A i/ W, T.c. • f 7 >7^ y T’f ■ L / /(I /V- /« 7 A !■ ti-t-T v / /■> ■/ ilWk. iiiT ( I Or ‘The granting of the appitcalion is necessary for the preservation and enjoyir.ant of a substantial property rignt of the applicant.' ^ f fi f t l' i ~ -I ■ js ] V/v/' ^ ^ I ir. (l\ ' ( f\S( t i 'a / fi v/-I r V7. ^7 r. I)-/( , / ,cy • • •> ‘ >-n J A » GXx11. *YheQrantin y/.i,- *) CT-in, /*lv.Kic(vV'.{/'’* ■‘-/iiV'v/h-* o'/-ine granirig of the proposed variance vM not in any way impair heattn, safety 7. *"7^ L comfort morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zonj^ ^ ^ Code.” l\:,l 0. >vS4- i'A ^.1 •jrr-J ’ VM- ^ Cp7 •^w'/ Il ( -L- Il/lg/ot 0t!«s FA3t 9SXt4tlOM LECY BROS BOieS «037 Pige3of3 ■ : I k*' .-n' / 1 I M r''-' ry'i ' , ■ .. I I q/. /Wtcx -U JU'i'w. r-L^;-;. f ^ Ci^. ?> i^,-». J t ^ ^ Hardship «»' tb* »*xb« cntsba describe the necessary): ___ w* r ri >. r*:): Amaiooa \/vAush HARDCOVEKjLALCULAllUiN wuKKbllblil * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCO\TR TN 70NE A. Houte . .. Lingili B. Garaie • __ Z: Brivtwy _ *■ A I > < /• 2 D. Sidewalk E. BaM3eck tsst^a,4> 0>3 f?f X X X X X X A X X X 75-2S0* WMih 14- • 7 I Sdia^ *1' ISO-SOO*5OO-IO0O* ss /o 7 0/'7/fl4- EXHIBIT F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. iF. O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - • A - n ^1^0 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House_____________ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk •» E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape UBderiaio By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other Widdi X 100 - 92SO A/p yA»^c>r^o TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A :_____________ ♦ B .X 100 - S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F* >.F. S.F. S.F. ' % 0^-soe> hardcover CALCLLAllOiN WUKKbKt^ir StTBACKZONE. (CIRCLE ONE) O-JS' 7M50> SOO-IOOO i9fz>^0A tJ»(uiA/cr^ L -:'• r *r. 0! bJi “l ___I L i ------ -m r\ j . ! ! I m tr ' > • 1 ri^sr^— H » fAWn.T WOOW<g^JSQfig-, ■iiilll 0j ^*T fr<fs OT1 waT^ ©-5S•fcwiEeaea- r\ 11 Cerimcateof Survey for C.J. WalUn Homebuilders of Lot 13. Rest Point Park and lot 11. Subdivision of Lot M. Rest Point Park Hennepin County. Minnesota • S«aV»I^ as 5MCJW/0 AS /^CCCSSAitf 'TP IVAIMTA/W HeAlUts&e fiec-At^tS IMfTW A>0 AhtlTL nfiAiAiAcse TO etiop&iT/es. (At^io se^ House gie/AT7P/vj^ 0/5 15'Z50 >/5o tfoooiifn 3t5o-sffi Z4S!s^A I446is^./f 0 r.56%M7%o Z4SiSf^i ^•50% 0 /X-0 /w<nr<M»rr_____^ ______________ . ficrvt^c^ HA<t>c:»/eA 5cnr«'v!-‘'Crp^'^^® - 2y.rr» (f.v'rj\ove ofi- oiMir /roHS iKi ' »■' ' ' ' ■■ !■' J ff r 4M>. MN.; X 3.ISP''^SS:gpl.« • i a:’i .'A'vcu J^Ar'^ROvto vvliii ntvisiorib BY DATE 3B3C IAK£ roA//(A f I hereby “’’‘iJ^ini^u^REST'poiHT'^MRK'^Art'^MlWETW n,*-R«rPomt'p4rk’Henncpln Co.. Minn.' be ”?Oln^ti;j:^n™^lt does not porport to show an, other l.pro,e-ents COFFIM * GROWERG. IMC.or encroachments. Date : 11»1B~8B %pouJ940mts ikrintti'eJc. .tddt^ 7144517 EXHIBIT K ,--r - orr*. i'. TVr-y tr.’ .,. *. •.^ Jiui-TA ccr • •' •■•7W nr-rjL 13 fii 1=25 .7144547 . , • • ;,f3 fit:. ------=^-Sv..„ RESOLUTION # STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Linda S Vce, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in Ihe Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on April 26.1929 -------, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting In Witness Whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and seal this ----Ifllh----- day of _______ABlil_________ 19 99 - Linda S Vee. City Cleric V * ■-■.'■•.virEP; EfOERED I 111 VFHMOOU/TV r A)tPl>yW SECWm CITY off ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 _______ A RESOLUTION GRANTING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2) FILE #2444 WHEREAS, Brim Scheblcr md Sustn Schcblcr (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1354 Rest Point Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot U, Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park Lake Minnetonka and Lot 13. Rest Point Park. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"), and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Pla-nning Commission held public hearings on March 15. 1999 and April 19. 1999. at which times p.'.l persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS, the applicants have appUed to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10 22. Subdivision 2 and Section 10 56. Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit an after-the-fact variance for a I2'xl6’ lakeside deck to exceed allowed hardcover in the 75- 250' lakeshorc setback. The hardcover is 5.593 sq ft (29 9%) where 4,675 sq. ft (25%) is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TD by tite City Council of Orono. 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2444. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 sq ft is the minimum lot area. The property consisu of .72 acre or 31,200 sq. ft. Page I of S mm J PI ClTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A ________ The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1999 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact A Much of the existing hardcover on the propen>' could be removed, however, the rock is not underlain by any impervious m.v»enals Also the rock located around the driveway protects this portion of the property from erosion as much of the drainage in the locality follows the slope Planting grass would create a maintenance problem as a steep slope exists B The rock on the lakeside of the home (all outside of the 75' setback) is located in an area that does not receive any sunlight, preventing grass from growing in that area. C The gravel parking area located on the north part of the propert>* benefits the locality as it is used for parking by the homeowners and provides an area for snow storage The applicants have slated plowed snow is stored on their property Rest Point Circle is a narrowly planed road and no storage area is available along the side of the street D. Existing landscaping and the location of the house will screen the deck from adjacent property owners 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to H and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning dis’rict, 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants, and would be in keeping with the spinl and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City! 6. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments Page 2 of 5 ill CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ •^'_________ -----^by the eppUcants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CON'CLUSIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10 56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit an after-the-fact variance for a I2 ’xl6* lakeside deck to exceed allowed hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback The hardcover is 5,593 sq ft (29 9%) where 4,675 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed Approval was subject to the following conditions 1. The Planning Commission will not look favorably on granting future variances for additional hardcover on the property 2 Authorities granted by this variance run with the propeny not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 26, 2000). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor 4 The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and ptcign<, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 /61 -O^' % CITYof ORONO # RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ _______— /"vi Aclopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of April,1999 . ATTEST:; *•■•■ / V . ^/ /'• 'd. Lindl SCity Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor ■ \ Property Owncr(s) STATE OF MI^*NESOTA ) ) COLWY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of April,us.=;„‘=s.s.r£3.ss ”' ■ '/O.^ \% STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ii. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 ________ , , I99_i before me a Notary Public wthin and for said county, personally appeared ! '■ ^ On this > */••> day of. known to tiie to be the pcrson(s) described in and who executed the foicgoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as h;s (thc:r) free act and deed ’ marya.nvjoh\:on •y .■ '■i^yrr NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Onlto.iC!i.«l>y<>f 199i;b«fot.in« I Notary Public witliin and acknowledged that he (they) executed the sa.T.e as his (their) free act and '* .ed ;; MW ann JOH^so•i [} ^No:a«iYFL'eic.vi>;>t£;'a 1 ' \/U NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 '.r '•V> V.: ■■;V'\ ■" S ■ . ■■ > ■> ■-■ • /\>' . V'* ; *.'■;■■ ^ i v ■ vV ■'■ <-'• - ^ s% ' ■*.' ' / . %- . > rf. ••■ miitoi i :., A)-,-, . ,i '(yll^-LJ _____ / 1 i iM m>':m sm : i «r^ U \I7 .... -»■ 1 /Ht^ir CAMvefttep ip lA^MiAPe ‘ BE Immoe PBlVCAeUb.fliPCK 4^Jm^, v» *• - . ^ •ie; ii -.B m 7 ' ;;'TV •»>»■• -:s»^’'y5w-;-,:T. unP5 r- \'V'v,-..ifT*/;•....••••' V. ‘“" r"^ i .-. .7.^, . • •• » A -• -* T 1m '■-1 ■;i'i. V' .. / M ‘ >r;^'T:m:-!^I.’ ‘/• ^ c*w?s ^ftM : -'X :v-v - • - .t.,^*v < I . Arf-'iv-.. t! PWKTBUKXS-^;^ . •>•••■ W ^•:.L-::-v.-.?! • ^ ;.^, 4LSSS ■V^;>.ri^-'-"/'.: '■i4c^v, •■vv'^' ‘ -v: • :[\ mmk '< .-' » •■ *^.?*''^!.V, '•■f'V"'^ ■''. . *■<- ■ -■’ ■-’.' - • rrmi"; ~^»>i||ij ~ 1^1 » s \ \ 'v \ ^ ’7 V- i* '*%V *• " k y •« ■'*. .■'■ ..ii.''-.*‘ .- . ; *^'- .. .., ?-.^ •. <», *ri.^ V V * •*' A .4- ^ •* ■ >, •5^ • • ®Elill,'i -.- sii / k4^*: isS.ie''f r • • i r-f*' 'tvr,„.-.'';,3rri' >‘ \ 'i —*•. .*%•- C' ' A- ; ^ - • -vC' ■'-‘•'S'-*? ■'^i"«-« km i:'?i'>yT---:'. Of IbtUff <.v :■ r jX*:-. iST*^’sm r«/ v';5-^.:?- fefL^ ■»ii3j-::'J> \K iNargrigy EXHIBIT M See. 78-1285. Vetcution •IteralioM. (a) No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline or within the bluff impact rone with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff, provided that at least the equiv'alent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptajle to the staff are planted at the same setback from *Jte shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the council. Removal of trees that arc dead shall not require a permit, but such trees must be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. (b) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feel of the shoreline, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone wnihin the shoreland overlay disuict is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permined stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assumiitg summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series. § 1(10.56(16)(1)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 12? 2nd series. § 7,7- 11-1994) EXHIBIT N I (we) ADJACENT PROPER^ OWERy ACKNOWLEDGEMENT F^M ^ J Nt4ip~s<fja ^t>d\-we/c (print name(s)l address] nave revie»«ea the P'?n& for the proposed improvement or proposed use c- ••-e orepeny looated l!ryjc,.h !,r a'so refemed to as Lard Use Aep cation No --------------- I (we) understand that in executing this acKnowleogement, I (we) am 1“'®) use requires Council - /(/- t/ VrTJtJSf^y'Own ••••••eees I (we)^ u* A- ^~1 .r / A . a. / /2JL Ipriri aedress][print name(s)l 3lans ter the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locatoo I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledser-ent ' declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to cenf.rm (or the City --^hc. that I (we) am (are) awaie of the Improvement plans and mat the proposed neignbc^ » u.qect or use requires Council approval. Date y/<>4- Property Owner Date If vou have anv informatiort that may assist the C-ty in the review of this Land Use .. Application, piease submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 0 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. riiat 'vV .• ; - - .3 ‘. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNINC COMMISSION WORK SESSION Wednesday, Nnvemher 3, 2004 __________________5:30 o'clock p.m. ROM, The Commission mcl on the above njcniional dale wiih the following members present; Chair David Rahn. C» iimissioncrs J. Marc Frii/ler. Jim Leslie. C>-nthia Bremer. Ralph Kempf. and Travis Winkey. Alternate Commissioners Sandra Smith and Jule Hannaford were also present. Representing SfalTwere Planning Director Mike r.jfTron. and Planners Janice Gundlach and Melanie Curtis. Chair Rahn c died the meeting to onler at 5:35 p m. OI.OnUSINESS I. M04-3063 WJM Properties M.C - 2605 West Wayzala Blvd. - Minor AniendmenI to CUP and Industrial Site Plan, 5:35 p.m. to 7:02 p.m. GafTron described the parameters of the revisctl lighting request, noting iliat the requested additional submittals to support the request have been provided m tlie packet. He indicated that the City Engineer had reviewed the plan and his commenls iiulicatcd this pro|H)sal was in compliance with the lES (llliiminaling Engineering Society) standards for a parking lot. including a max-lo-min foolcandle ratio of 15:1 or Ic.ss and an average footcamlle rate of appro.ximatcly 4EC where the standard would be 2-5 FC. GafTron also noted that the lighting level at the perimeter of the lot was generally in the range of 0.0 to 1.5 FC, and that it would he virtually (M) at all lot boundaries. GafTron also noted that the applicants had rcviesvcd surrounding properties for possible visual impact, and the tw o nearest homes, many hundreds of feet distant from the site, were screened by existing vegetation, topography, existing non-residential buildings, and proposed Highway 12 walls and herms. such that the impacts to those properties would he very minimal. Leslie indicated he fell the plan is rca.sonahle given the intended and approx al uses of the property. .Smith questioned whether and to what extent the lighting plan was inili.-illy reviewer! when the original CUP was being considcrexl. Peter Johnson, speaking on behalf of the applicant, briefly noteil how the legiilalory issues regarding this site had slowed the project down. He noted that lighting was probably not given the level of attention by the applicant or the City that it miglit in retrospect have deserved at that lime, as the variety and nature ol proposed uses of the site was the more pressing issue at that time Gaffton concurred, noting that while the height of the light poles had been reviewed and they w ere reqiuircd lo be lowered, a review of ligliting intensity or a foolcandle analysis was not contemplated at that time Only when the applicant this summer proposed lo add lighting to the site did this become an issue. Rdim closed the public hcanng at 6 55 p.m. General discussion ensued regarding the proposal. It was noted that the vegetative screening along Highway 12 was incomplete, and would be finished in the spring of 2005. Commissioners also suggested that the a recommendation for approval should establish Page I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Wcdacsday, November 3,2004 ________________S;30 o*clock p.m. that this proposal should represent the maximum ligliting that will be approved for this portion of the site, noting that other lighting previously approved for the front of the building w ould still apply. Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, lo approve Ibe Hgbliag plan for WJl^l properties at 260S West Wa)’zata Bonlevard as proposed sabjeci lo complelioB of ail re<|airrd screcaing planliags in the spring of 2005, and sabJecI lo Ibis ligbliag plan being considered the flnal plan and no nddilional ligbling for the east parking lot is likely to be approved. VOTE; Ayes 0, Nays 0. 2. Review of Signage Ordinance Definitions. Planner Melanie Curtis reviewed a list of potential signage ordinance definitions with the Planning Commission. The discussion included whetlier certain included definitions were needed, noting that additional definitions miglit be added once the text of the ordinaiKe is under review. Commissioners discussed the variety of signage types that might be aiiempicd in the City and how to address them Planning Commissioners eoneludcd that a visual review of signage l>pes would be helpful Curtis suggested that stalT take pictures of all existing signage in the City, plus signage elsew here, for review and analysis at the next work session, lo allow the Commissioners to decide w hat types of signage are appropriate and which arc not. GafTron noted this would also provide a chance lo do a complete inventory of the existing commercial signage in the City. 3. Review of Nov ember 1 5 Meeting Agenda StafTbriefiy reviewed the items that would be appearing on the upcoming agenda for November 15. 4. Joint Meeting regarding Rami Oasis Stady Gaffron noted (hat the joint meeting w ith Couneil w ould likely be held in December rather than November. 5. Other Kempf gave an update on the recent Council meeting regarding the Large Vehicle Storage ordinance. Gaffron added tital the final version w as slightly changed from tlial recommended by the Commission, requiring only that on easement be in place for shared driveways rather than approval by all parties. There being no additional business lo discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m David Raba, Cbair Page2 MINt TES OF THE ORONO PtANM.NG COMMISSION MEETINO Monday. October IV. 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commjssion met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present; Chair David Rahn. Commissioners J. Marc Fntzler, Jim Leslie, Ralph Kempf. Roland Jurgens. C>'nthta Bremer, and Travis Wmkey. Representing Staff were Planning Director .Mike Gaffion. Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach. City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. CONSENT I. 004-3053 B.\RT .AND BETSY BCTAER. 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCE Rahn moved. I.rslir seconded, to recommend approval of a lake setback variance to pernill structure within 75' of l.akc .Minnetonka for the property located at 2625 North Shore Drive. VOTE; Ayes 7. Nays 0 OLD Bl'SINESS 2. #04-3024 cm* OF ORONO. Cl’P FOR VEHICLE STORAGE - CODE AMEND3IENTS, 6:02 p.m. - 6:16 p.m. Gaffron addressed the IMannmg Commission regarding the profsoscd zoning cihIc amendment to Section 78-1 577(c| to allow for a permit option to address large vehicle storage Gaffron noted the Planning Commission liad reviewed this matter a number of limes in the past in connection with the granting of a conditional use permit to allow large vehicle storage on residential property and the disadvantages associated with allowing this type of use under a conditional use permit. GanVon slated currently the proposed vehicle storage ordinance allow s parking of vehicles in excess of 14.000 pounds when the following conditions arc met the property owner is the vehicle owner or operator of the vehicle, the vehicle is set back 50 feet from property lines, the vehicle is not visible fiom neighbonng properties and public streets, vegetative screening is provided when necessary, mainicnance of the vehicle occurs w iihin an enclosed building, the vehicle is not considered a nuisance at any time, and a minimum lot size of five acres is met Gaflron stated the Planning Commission has looked at the ordinance in terms of ensuring that the ordinance is clear on the mient of tlic ordinance and what the potential impacts arc if this ordinance is approved or not approved. Gaffron indicated language that has been added to the ordinance includes the potential to create negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, such as noise from operatran as well as maintenaiKC of large vehicles, vibration, glare, odors, salt or water comammaiion from w-ashing of the vehicle, hazards to pcdcstnans. especially on private roads, the wear and tear of roads, the propensity to off-load cargo on the property, and the visual incompatibiliiy with the character of the nci^borhood. Gaffron stated it is his understanding the Planning Commission has concluded such uses might be acceplab*e under certain conditions where lot areas are two acres or larger. PAGEl MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday. October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#04*5024 City of Oroao, Vehicle Storage, Coaiiaard) The Planning Commission and Staff have also looked at the advantages and disadvantages of granting a vanance, a conditional use permit, a license, or permit to allow this type of use w ith the idea that no new such conditions would occur but that the existing ones could continue as long as they meet the permit conditions. Under Item f. minimum lot size of 5 acres, the following language has been added ••For any property at least 2 acres but le^s than 5 acres m area, where it can be showti that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis pnor to and after January I. 2004, a V'chiclc Storage Permit may be granted if the above conditions a through f. are met. subject also to the following limitations; 1. A Vehicle Storage Permit may only be issued for proiKrtics within the RR-ID, RR-IA, and LR-IA zoning districts. 2. Such i>ennii shall be granted only to the current property owner and only for the specific vehicle applied for. The cunent owner ma\ replace the vehicle in kind, but shall not add other such vehicles. Any replacement vehicle must be registered w iih the City w iihin 30 days to transfer iis pemiittcd status. 3. This permit shall not apply to subsequent property owners. .Subsequent property owners shall not be considered as having a grandfathered permit by virtue of their predecessor’s permit.” Rahn called for public comments. There wctc no public comments concerning this application. Leslie inquired w hether StalT would be going through a re-permitting process periodically to determine whether the projierty owner still owns that vehicle and is complying with the conditions. Gaffron stated it was the intent of StalT to have a onc-time permit be issued without the need to ha\c it be renew ed and to deal w ith any issues as complaints may arise. Leslie asked whether it is SlaflTs preference not to have the permits renewed. Gaffron stated he w ould prefer Staff not have to issue annual or three year permits. Gaffron stated since there arc very few instances where this ordinance would apply that it probably would not be an issue unless a neighbor has complaints, which would then be co\crcd under the nuisance section of the ordinance. Rahn noted this ordinance only applies to existing conditions. Leslie inquired whether a person could discontinue this use and then re-apply for a permit after a penod of ume. Gaffron stated a clause could be added that says if the use is discontinued for a certain penod of time that they no longer qualify for this type of permit. PAGE 2 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLA>TM>'G COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (804-3024 City of Orono, Vehicle Storage, Continued) Bremer suggested that type of language be included in g (2). Leslie stated his comments «ytc directed more at staff and whether they w ould like to see periodic inspections. Gaffron indicated he would prefer Staff not be required to conduct periodic inspections unless absolutely necessary. Bremer inquired vshether the S0>foot setback could be tc\*iscd slightly to take into account lots that are not as w ide. Gaffron slated there might be a few lots that could not meet the 50-foot setback, but noted that the minimum lot size is five acres in order to store large vehicles without a permit. Leslie inquired whether there arc any such lots that currently ha\e large vchiclc.s that would fall under this ordinance. Gaffron stated he is not aware of any lots that would not be able to meet the 50-loot setback that currently base large vehicles. Jurgens inquired whether language could be incoiporaicd into the ordinance that would address that issue should the need arise. Rremer indicated she personally it not aware of any lots that have large vehicles that could not meet the 50-foot setback, but that there might be one or two that do rust Jurgens pointed out the intent behind the ordinance is to try to phase out storage of large vehicles on residential lots. Jurgens stated that issue could be dealt with if it should occur and that it may not be necessary to revise the 50-fool setback. Kempf commented the person could also come before the Planning Commission and ask for a vanaiKe to the 50-foot setback. Rahn inquired whether it would be bctia to include language that lots less than 200 feet in width meet a setback of 25 percent the width of the lot or 50 feet, whichescr is more restnciisc Gaffron stated m his opiniim it should be left as is because you would basically end up with the same result follow ing that method and that the real issue is if there is a lot that is less than 100 feet. Bremer inquired w hether all the vehicles that Staff is aware of would be able to meet the SO-foot setback. PAGE 3 J MINUTES OFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18.2004 6:00 o'clock p.ni. (804-3024 Chy of Oroao, Vehicle Storage, Coatinaed) GafTron stated StafThas not conducted a specific inventory to dciennine that, but m the few instances they are aware of the lots arc generally large enough that they should be able to meet a 50-foot setback. It W’as the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the 50-fool setback as is. Bremer recommended the second '‘poieniiar m (cH2) be eliminated and the ampersand between wear and tear be changed to the word * i”. Rahn moved, Frilaler seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to Section 78-l577(c) regarding exterior storage in R Districts, establishing a one-time permit for pre existing users to continue the storage of large vehicles under certain conditions. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 X 804-3052 ERIC \ OGSTRO.M, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD - \ ARIANCES, 6:1 7 p.m. - 6:36 p.m. Enc Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its September meeting and was tabled to allow the applicant time to redesign his plan in an cfToil to reduce hardcover on the lot. Since that time the applicant has submitted another plan and is now requesting a hardcos ei variance for 38.9 percent hardcover w iihin the 75-250' setback zone, a variance for side street setback of 10 feet where a IS-foot setback from the adjacent nght-of-way is normally required, and an average lakeshore setback variance to encroach 5 five nearer to the lake than the property to the south. Curtis staled since the time of the last meeting the applicant has also removed a number of trees from the property without city permit. Curtis noted the adjacent neighbor has submitted a letter regarding his concerns w ith this proposal. Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance and denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover variance as proposed as there are no hardships to support the v'anances as requested. In addition. Staff is recommending approval of any variances be made contingent upon approval of a restoration plan to remedy the vegetation removal on the propert>'. Rahn asked for public comment concerning this application. Jeff Essen. 2648 Casco Point Road, indicated he had met w ith the applicant prior to last month's Planning Commission and discussed his original plan and the concerns he had regarding drainage, tnmrmng of trees, protection of established trees, and off street parking. Essen slated Vogstrom indicated at that time that he was agreeable to installing gutters and downspouts, dram tile, and PAGE 4 L MI.MTES OF THE ORONO PI.AWING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (aO4-30$2 Erie \'og«lroin, Contianrd) cunstuKi a swale between the two pruperttes. Essen stated he agreed to work with N’ogstrom on tnmming his trees in an effon to improve Vogstrom’s view ol'thc lake Essen stated last week Vogstrom had a tree service come in who illegally took down two mature trees on Essen’s property as well as other trees and vegeution on Vogstrom’s own property’. Essen indicated based on those actions, he no longer is in support of this pru^xisal until such time as a restoration plan is approved and the damage has been adequately addressed Paul Kasier. 2600 Casco Point Road, slated he is the neighbor to the north and at the last meeting was in favor of the variance to encroach on the fiie lane. Raster indicated since the applicant has now clear cut his lot. he would like to withdraw his support of the variance. Raster stated he now has concerns regarding erosion since the vegetation has binm toully removed Vogstrom stated he is in agreement w ith his two neighbors regarding their concerns and that the tree company was hired to remove a couple of trees that were dead. \'ogstrom a|Hilogi/ed to the City and his neighbors regarding the removal of the vegetation, noting iliat he was not aware the tree company was going to remove as much vegetation as they did. Vogsitom indicated he did ask the tree removal company to contact Staff regarding this incident, but that he accepts full respon.<.ihiIity for the misuke Kahn noted the applicant has made some haidcover reductions but that the proposed residence is still 10 feel from the right-of-way where 1 5 feet is required. Vogstrom stated on one side he is 13.5 feet and that the residence can be slid over somewhat to the south. Vogstrom indicated at the time the plan was drawn up he was try ing to protect some trees m that area and that it was his belief the trees enhanced the lot. Jurgens noted the Planning Commission should act on this matter tonight given the 60-day time limit. Jurgens stated m his opinion the hardcover still needs to be reduced further, noting that there arc drainage issues that also have to be dealt with on this lot. N'ogstrom noted tiie City* Engineer had signed otTon the drairuge issues under his ongmal proposal at the 58 percent hardcover Vogstrom stated SiatTinformed him that the City |•■ng^nccr did not have any issues with the drainage. Vogstrom indicated the piopcity at 2800 Peasant Road was approved in mid August 2002. w hich is a lot that had a very’ similar situation whae two-ihirds of that lot w as m the 0- 75'. Vogstrom noted two-thirds of this lot is also m the 0-75'. Vogsnom suwJ the Planning Commission at that lime found that while the 25 percent standard is feasible, ^uch a limitation would result in construction of a residence that would not be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding homes N’ogstrom noted a hardcover variance was allowed m that insUrwe at 39.2 percent hardcover. Vogstrom indicated the proposed footprint of his house is approximately 1 100 square feet, w ith a thrcc-car garage, w hich is not out of character for this neighborhood and docs not constitute a large house. PAGES MLNLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMdav, Oclobrr IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. I i (k04*3052 Eric Vogtlrom, Coniinutd) Leslie inquired how many of the neighbors have three car garages \xrsus two car garages. Vogstrom stated it ts appro.\imaieIy half and half, w ith the new er homes having the three car garages. Vogstrom indicated he was attempting to address the off-street parking by constructing a lhrcc<ar garage. Vogstrom noted the current residence is also located on the property line, which makes it nonconfonning. and the amount of hardcover on the lot is also being reduced w ith his propi>sal from what currently exists. Winkey inquired what impact a reduction to 25 percent hardcoser would have on the design of the house. Vogstrom stated he is better off going w ith the 1500 square foot footprint plus a small amount for a driseway and a sidewalk, which would bring the hardcover to around 30 percent. Fntzler commented that in his \icw the size of the lot should give the applicant an adequate building pad and that he would be opposed to granting any \ ananccs. Fntzler stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 25 percent. Jurgens staled based on the time limits, he would like to make a motion denying the application. Jurgens moved, Leslie seconded, lo reconuMud denial of Application «04-3052, Eric \’ogslrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. Rahn noted the applicant does have the ability lo sign an agreement extending the 60 days. Bremer stated she does not feel the Planning Commission should make a motion based solely on the fact that the 60-day time limit is about to expire. Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover should be reduced to 25 percent and that there is no need to grant any variances based on the size of the building pad. \'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Rahn and Bremer opposed. Rahn stated he believes the applicant should be given the opportunity to revise his plans again but that he IS in agreement that the hardcover be reduced. Vogstrom inquired wheihcr he could utilize on cnd-Ioadtng garage. Jurgens staled the applicant does have that option but that a new application would need to be submitted. PAGE 6 r .MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI^NMNG COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04*3052 Erie Vogstrom, Continued) ~~ ’ Rahn slated he would not be m favor of any cncruachinent mto the right-of-way. Kahn com.'nenicd the Planning Commission docs not have the time to discuss the applicant's various options concerning design of the garage and residence but that the applicant needs to make those design decisions. Rahn noted the Planning Commission has denied the application and that this matter would go before the Council. Bremer inquired whether denial of the average lakeshore setback variance w as also included in the motion. Jurgens indicated the motion was to deny the enure application Bremer stated she w'ould bas e been in favor of granting the average lakeshore setback variance but that the hardcover needs to be reduced on this lot Btemer indicated she would be willing to consider hardcover in the higher 20’s since there is a lot of lake>h»»re on this property and that there arc some citcuinstances where that could be considered a hardship. Bremer noted she i% not in favor of the side yard setback variance. Vogstrom noted the e.xisting 27 percent hardcover on this lot does rot include a driveway. Rahn noted this application would move forward to the Counctl. and suggested the applicant consider revising his plans in an effort to further reduce the hardcover pnor to the City Council meeting NEW BUSINESS 4. #04*3042 PHJ.AR HOMES ON BEIIAUE OF ROiiER & CAROL ROVICK.I625 BOHNS POINT ROAD-AFTER*TIIE-FACT CONDITION a I. I SE PER.MIT.6:37 - 7:20 p.m. K.C. Shermack, Pillar Homes, and David Tupper, Land.scapc .Architect, were present Gundlach staled the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact conditional use permit to allow 3.940 cubic yards of fill when 1.650 cubic yard.s was approved at the issuance of the building permi t, ITie City currently requires a conditional use permit for fill in excess of 500 cubic \ards The propertv is located at 1625 Bohn's Point Road. Gundlach indicated a building permit for this site was issued approximately oi.c year ago. with :he grading permit approved by Staff and the City Engineer at that time. Ilie grading permit showed 1,650 cubic yards of fill w ould be used. Gundlach noted Staff did not realtce, us the fill w as spread out oxer a large area, the need for a conditional use permit at the i-me the grading permit was applied for. Near the end of the project additional fill was brought in beyond the approved grading plan'and it became apparent that the amount of fill exceeded what had been approved and Staf f informed the contractor that the fill would either need to be removed or an after-the-fact conditional use permit applied for. Since the contractor had the home scheduled to be tn the Parade of Homes and they were ready to lay sod. Staff decided to allow them to place the sod for the parade and to apply for an’after- PAGE7 MINI TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. October 18, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («04-3042 Pillar Homes, Continued) ihe-fact conditional use pcnnii to seek approv-ai if the excess fill was nut going to be removed. The home w as issued a temporary certificate of iKcupancy w iih the removal or approval of the fill as the only outstanding issue Staff IS requesting that any approval be contingent upon implementation of the City Engineer's recommendations, which includes repair of the swales along the north and south property lines. Staff IS also requesting the Planning Commission discuss whether the additional fill creates a negative visual situation for the directly impacted neighbors to the north and south and also on the neighborhiKHl as a w hole. Gundlach noted the City Engineer ts available tonight to answer any questions Shermack. Pillar Homes, stated he oversaw this (^oject from start to finisti. Shemuck indicated he was not informed of the need for a conditional use permit in the fall when he applied for the grading permit. Shermack acknowledged that the amount of fill brought onto this lot is over the limit allowed by the City w ithout a conditional use permit. Shennack stated his mam concern at the time of construction was the water level of Lake Minnetonka and that all of the fill was brought to the off- lakeside and has nothing to do with the east side, the west side, and the lakeside. Subsequently the home was consuxteted. with e.xtra caulion being taken to ensure that the home was being conslnictcd above the high water level of Lake Minnetonka Shermack stated in his view the important factor m constructing this home was the lakeside portion of the residence and not the front of the residence. Shemuck stated the fill was prinurily brought in for the driveway. Shermack indicated the home was constructed according to the survey, with periodic ins|Kctions Knng j>crfomicd by (.'ity Staff on dilTcrent aspects of the house. Shemuck indicated the homeowner over the winter requested to meet with a land.<cape architect and specified certain landscaping features be constructed as part of this project. Follow ing that meeting w ith the landscape architect, additional fill was brought in Shemuck pointed out this property is a large parcel and there is plenty of room to grade the extra fill in Shemuck stated the fill w as brought m to help achieve access wnh Bohn’s Point Road in accordance w uh the property owner s wishes. Shermack stated during the off-season the homeowner also requested some very key trees be removed because of dead growth towards the bottom of the trees. The removal of the trees afTccted the original grading plan. In addition, the property owner asked that ihc grade be raised and that new pmc trees be planted. Shermack stated the fill w as also requested by the homeowner in an effort to make the driveway more acceptable in their opinion. As the end of the project neared, the landscaping plan was submitted to the City. Shennack noted there was no attempt to dcceiv-e the neighbors dunng this project or the City. A number of open houses and socul funcuons were held at Urn residence, wnh the neighbors being kepi appnsed of the project. Shermack stated the one resident that has complained is a fairly new resident to the neighborhood with the home being purchased m Apiil. Shemuck noted this particular resident has not yet moved into the property at the present tune. RAGES MIM TESOF THE ORONO PI.ANMNC; COMMISSION MtETIN(i Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (464.3042 Pillar Hornet, Confiaued) Shcmiack Mated he did not apply fur a conditional use pcmiil for the excess till because he was unaware of the City’s requirement. Shcrmack indicated he is now apiKanng bcfoic the Planning Commission to request a grading permit based on the excess fill that was uiili/cil on this site. Shcrmack stated he would also like to address the City Hngincer’s comments, rust. prn>r to the landscaping plan being submitted to Staff, at least two site \isits were had with members of Staff who advised the landscape architect on what steps should be taken S'ocnnack pointed out there is a two- foot trench with drain tile and rock on lop. Shemiack stated the survevor was not insiiucicd to dig down to the dram tile and so the elevations depicted on the survey rellcct the top of ilie stone placed in the swale along the pool. Shcmiack stated tlicy attempted to be very pio-acme in their appiivich to address the drainage on tins property and met with staff a number of limes to discuss issues icljimg to drainage. Leslie inquired where the dram tile dis« haigcs. Tupjicr stated the dram tile discharges at about the 938’. 937’ contour to tin* west Rahn inquired whether there wcie any public comments legardmg thts applicutiuii. Thae were no public comments. Tutiper stated the construction of the swale liegins at the 941 elevation at the block ictaming wall, which IS m iIk northeast comer. Tupper slated the 941' is the high |Hunt. w nh the swale l»cing constructed five feet from the center point of the swale to the propwty line and with the swale being sloped towards the lake. In addition, a trench was dug about two feet wule and two feet deep with dram tile on the b«»llom. which was llien filled with rock to the lop of iIk trench I upjKr staled the rock on lop is more of a cosmetic feature to make the swale appear like a creek bed l upiKT Maie*l it is their understanding .sonK of the elevations were shot on lop of the riKk instead of where the soil line was. Leslie inquired w hethcr there is also dram tile m the eastern portion of the swale as it approaches the pond. Shcrmack slated there is not. Rahn inquired whether the home was constructed at the elevation approvTd. Shennack stated the home was constructed at the pro|H-r elevation Jurgens inquired what the building permit specified for the elevation Jurgens staled he would like to see a copy of the building prmiil. Jurgens noted the lop of foundation w as proposed at 943.8’. Jurgens inquired what type of joist was ulih/cd PAGE 9 arCXCV-SfU---wim m MIM TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mo>da>. October 18.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (O04->042 Pillar Homev Continued) Shenmek staled two-foot floor joists were used. Jurgens noted the upper garage was proposed at 943 S* and it is clearly depicted at 945 5 and perhaps 946* according to the contours. Jurgens inquired why the garage is higher than what was proposed ShermacK stated one of the things that was done ditTctcnily on this residence that was not shown on the first sursey but was depicted on the submitted plan was on the three sides where the grade was idv.Mtcal. the walls were poured at a ninc-foot heiglii and two-foot floor trusses were set on top She..-a- k indicated the portion facing the courtyard area was actually done with what's called a top cord h.^. . mg truss, which means that the wall was p«iured IS 'nehes to two feel higher and the truss hangs ’ ’op of it Shemuck stated he constructed this house identical to the plans that were submiUiJ to the City. Shermack stated because of the top cord hanging trusses, the grade in the courty ard area is automatically higher. Shermack stated his attention wv . again focused on the bottom walkout level to ensure that there was no water seepage into the house. Rahn stated if the house has been constiticlcd at the approved elevations and per the approved plan, w ater should not come into the basement Rahn stated the mam issue he has is the visual impact of the neighbors and not the drainage. Rahn stated in his view it U>oks like there is cvccssixe fill on the street side and not a smooth transition to the home Rahn staled m his opinion the drainage issues can be resolved. Kempf inquired whether some of the fill is to accommodate the parking circle Shermack staled that it is. Leslie questioned the as-built retaining wall abutting the ps>o|. I.cslic noted the grading plan docs not depict a retaining wall. Leslie stated it appears that the drainage i.s being pushed towards the ncighKir to the north and creates an issue w ith runolT. Leslie commented he is more concerned about the drainage issues than the visual impact. Shermack stated the retaining wall is approximately two feet high and is constructed with interlocking block to make it narrow- and visibly unobtrusive as possible Shermack indicated Staff suggested building a retaining wall in this area as well as con>truciion of a swale with the dram tile and rock alongside the pool. Shemuck stated the retaining wall is designed to help direct the water dow-n the w all and into the dram tile. Shemuck noted Staff recommended the nujority of work constructed m the pool area. Leslie inquired whether the purpose of the block wall is to catch drainage from the pool deck Shemuck stated the block wall is a transition from the pool to another area. PAGE 10 MINI TKSOF rilK ORONO pi.a>mm; <ommissio>- Monday, October IH. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M4-3042 Pillar llomev I'onlinned) LcnIic sUlcd »n |•..^hlblt C there apireiis to l>e a MX-t*H>t or sevcn-liHit gap beloeen the jhh»1 lUvk and the projicrly line that allows for a swale t«> be coi structed. Leslie stated with the bl«Kk lelaining wall. It iinpacts the amount of room available fm the drainage swale. Leslie inquired wK*iha that is the reason for the claim df water runoff mto the neighbor's inopcriy cuncntly Tup|Kr cuncurreJ there is less space for the swale, but that iIk* swale lus been iiMintained at the p«iiin required by the C ity and still functions exactly as it should I eslic inquired whether llic landscape atchitect wouUI eontest the claim lhal iheic is ineieinciital lunoff as a result of the construction Tupper staled he would. Shermaek (xniilcd out that water seeks the lowest jHiint. which would t>e the .swale with iIh* tiraiii tile, and can be verified by the engineer. Shemiack slated it wa^ his understanding they complietl with every thmg they were requested to do based on what tlicy weic told by the C'lly I rigitwer and Stall Tiqtper staled they did ask Lyle Oman to visit the site piior to llie srul iK-mg laid to have the swales inspected, fupper indicated lie was infoniKd by Oiiuit tiul he lud iiersimally ins|iecled tlic swales and had approved them. Rahn inquired how a building ins^clor is capable of delerminiiig whether a swale is ctuisiiiKied properly Ralm suggested ilic ( ily consider requiring hcforc and alicr surseys to avoid these iv-pcs of problems flipper suted he personally spoke on a mimlicr of iK'casions with Hnice Vang and L>le Oiiun alniut these swales as well as llie ('ily Lnginecr. with the eoiKepl foi this lv|ic of swale with the dram tile and riK'k being anivcd at between the four of them I iip{vi indicated Stall' inloiiiK'd him pilot to construction of the swale that this would Ik: ap}irovcd Kahn inquired w hether tlic contractor is agieeabic to iiukc any changes recommended by the City Fngmeer. Tupper staled they are. Tom Kellogg. City l nginecr. noted he was on site one time only with Urucc Vang a day or two before the Parade of Homes commenced. Kellogg stated one of iltc problems with the pl.m -s that ihac is nothing that identifies the dram tile, so w ithout that iniomuiion. Ins assumption was lhal it was a walking path. Kellogg staled the plan that was submitted fur approval clearly .shows another defined swale and pome grading to divert the wata. Kellogg indicated the as-buill grading plan d«*cs nol agree with th* tviding permit grading plan, particularly along the north lot line. Kellogg staled tlie PAGE 11 i MINITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o ’doefc p.m. (M04-3042 Pillar Hornet, Contlnaed) intullal'.on of ihe dram tile, along wuh ihe other additional information that has been pruxidcd. appears to be an acceptable solution to the drainage for this properly. Tupper stated the position of the pool and the pool deck is not any different today than what is depicted on the sur\xy. Jurgens inquired why 938* is shown around the front of the pool and now- it is 942 and a 943*. which is four or five higher than what was shown on the original plan. Jurgens stated there is a substantial hill in that area and it appears the piMil is higher. Tupper stated F.xhibil C docs not contain any elevations for the pool or the pool deck, but that it is clear the pool could not be constructed without some type of a retaining wall around it because of the contours of the surrounding ground Jurgens noted a retaining wall was not constructed and instead din was hauled in on three sides. Jurgens stated the basement is higher by seven-tenths, with the ht>u.se as constructed being one f»nit higher than it should be. with considerably mote fill in the front Jurgens slated there also is a swale that appears to have been constructed across someone else’s propeny. which also was not proposed onginally. Jurgens inquired what the hardcover was at the time this application was approved Gundlach indicated they did not e.xceed the ma.\imum allowed for hardcover. Tupper suted according to his calculations the hardcover was at 24 $6 percent. Jurgens staled in his opinion it appears this lot is over the hardcover limit. Jurgens requested the hardcover be v-enfied as well as the building height. Shcrmack staled the height of the roof did not increase. Tupper suted the hardcover that is on record is exactly what has been built wiihm the 75-250* zone Gundlach noted in the 250-500* /one they arc at 14.5 percent Jurgens noted a letter has been submitted regarding the swale, v. htch needs to be addressed Shermack indicated he would be w illmg to resolve that w ith the City Engineer and requested that it be documented that the end grade of the swale was pre-existing grade Shermack indicated the water automatically went that direction pnor to eonstruetion. Jurgens inquired what should be done w ith the e.xcess AIL PAGE 12 MINLTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. October IS, 2004 6:00 o'dock p-n. (W04-3042 Pillar Homes, Continued) Shemuck stated he had proceeded lorMaxd with the ptujeci ba>ed on good ethics and business practices and was not informed of a requirement lor a conditional use permit. Rahn stated in his siew the drainage issues can be resolved by working with the City Engineer and that the visual impact needs to be considered. Leslie commented the irony of the situation is if the contracior wants to lessen the impact of the hill, more fill is needed. Kenipf inquired w hether public comment had been requested. Rahn indicated he did ask for public ctMnmcnt on this application and no one stepped forward Shemuck stated he has lud numerous meetings with tlie majority of the neighbors during tlie various stages of the construction and that in his opinion they would be here if they were opposed tt» this project in any way. Shemuck stated it is his understanding that the majority of the neighbors are not opposed to this project. Kntzler stated in his opinion more and iimhc fill was added in an altcnipl 'o improve the a|ijHrarjiue of the lot and that appro al should have been obtained before the additional till was brought in Jurgens staled in his opinion ihe I'latining Commission needs to addiess this situation and send a message lo other lesidcnts that prnpcity ownets are not allowed to do whatever they want on tlwir lot without checking to sec whether they need approval Jurgens not. * he is a surveyot by profession and that as part of his job he is requited to vetify that the requirements of the City arc being met Shemuck indicated he would be willmu lo nuke a contribution lo the Park Fund, but that in his opinion he was following what he w^ directed to do by City Staff. Shemuck stated he attempted to go far beyond what was e.vpccted in order to imkc everyone happy and that he simply was not told about the need to obtain a condniotui use jviinil Leslie moved, Keropf secoaded, to recommend approval of e04-3042. Pillar Homes on behalf of Roger and Carol Kovick, 1625 Bohns Point Road, granting of an aftcMhe-fact conditional use permit lo allow 3,940 cable yards of fill, subject lo the Cits Engineer approving any modifications to current grade lo ensure no excess or additional mnoff occurs from this property lo the neighboring properties. \'UTE: Ayes 5. Nays 2, Jurgens and Eril/ler opposed. Jurgens indicated he feels that coniractois need to be nude accountable for what they do I'nuler stated due lo the amount of excess fill that was brought in. it was not a small error and the conuactut should luve known that approval by the City was required. PAGE 13 MI.NLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p jn. 5. #04-3054 JON AND GAIL BLACKSTONE, 4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING VARIANCES, 7:20 - 7:36 p.m. Jon Blacksionc. Applicant. «a$ present. Gundlach stated the applicants are proposing to construct a neu- residence on an existing, vacant parcel and are requesting a lot width sanance to permit a lot width at the public roadway of 110 feet when 140 feet IS normally required and a variance to permit the e.vistmg accessory building to remain on the lot in a locanon closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house. The lot consists of .886 acres and lies within the LR-IB zoning district. Gundlach sut^ 112 feet is required to meet administratise approval aitaia for lot width. The applicants have met the administrative requirement for lot area and also mee» setback, hardcover, and structural coverage requirements. A variance to permit the existing accessory building to renuin on the lot is required since City Code does not permit detached prages or other accessory buildings to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street. Gundlach noted any accessory building would need to be located behind the residence. Gundlach stated although the accessory building has existed without a principal strucrarc for quite some time, which is prohibited, it should not be allowed to continue since the two lots are being combined, the property is being redeveloped, and all nonconformances should be eliminated w ith the new construction. Staff finds that a hardship inherent to the land exists in order to grant a lot width variance. The lots prior to combination were only 55 feet in w idth and a house existed on one. I he new combined lot width IS mou* confonning at 110 feet and would be one of the n>'st conforming lots in the neighborhood. SiaiT finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land to suppoit approval of a v anance for the accessory structure. Gundlach stated the grading of the lot is being substantially changed for construction of the new house and the lot could potentially support an accessory building in a different location. Staff maintains that accessory structures do not have to be permitted at ail if they cannot be constructed in a conforming location. Gundlach noted City Engineer approval of the grading and drainage is needed prior to approval by the City Council. Blackstone stated the cxistmg shed is located approximately 17 feet from the road and that he is unsure of the distaiKe from the neighbor's lot line. The shed itself is 16’ by 12* and 11 * high, with a new roof and paint put on the shed last summer at a cost of over $2000. Blackstone noted the shed has existed on this lot for over 20 years. Blackstone suied the proposed locauon of the new residence and pool u designed to minimize runoff and disruption of the topography, w ith the lot containing numerous mature trees, including some maples that are over 100 years old. Blackstone stated the current use of the shed is to store snowmobiles, snowblowers, nding lawn mowers and other items. The proposed location of the house PAGE 14 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Ocfober IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (N04-3054 Joa aad Gall Blackstoac, Continued) and the pool eliminates access from the back of the lot to the front of the lot Blackstonc suted they have positioned the new residence further back on the lot to avoid removing fill and disturbing existing trees and to improve the ability of the builder to make revisions to mlnlml^e runoff. Blackstone stated because of the width of the lot and the position of the house and pool, the access from the back of the lot to the front of the lo* nas been eliminated, which in his view constitutes a hardship. Tim Lembke. 4445 Forest Lake I anding. staled be docs not have a problem with the variances but he would like the runoff in this area addressed. Lembke requested the Planning Commission address the issues w ith runoff in this neighborhood, noting at times he has a nver running through his yard and that he has suffered property damage as a result. Lembke commented in his opinion there w ill be some issues with erosion during construction that also need to be addressed. Maggie Enkson. 4455 Forest Lake Landing, staled every year they experience sani and silt and mud runoff in their dnveway and that the hardcover being proposed on the lot at 4475 will only increase that runoff. Enkson noted their property also siu lower than this lot, and w ith the proposed house being located further back on the property, that would mean any runofTihat is not managed from that house would head to her house. Enkson indicated it is her understanding the applicants do have plans to deal with that. Blackstone staled he is unsure whether it is possible to relocate a shed that 5iae and again noted that it w ould not be acces.vible if the .structure were located behind the new residence. Fntzler noted the survey depicts the shed being located 8 feel from the propeny line in one comer and 8 6 feet in the other. Friuler stated since the ordinance docs not allow accessory structures to he located closer to the street or front lot line than the proposed house, he would not be in favor of the variance and would follow Stall's recommendation for approval of ibe lot width vanance Fni/lcr recommended the shed oe relocated. Bremer indicated she is in agreement with Staffs recommendations. Uretner encouraged the applicant to see if the shed could be relocated. Jurgens staled he also is in agreement w iih Staffs recommendations. Jurgens inquired whether setback variances would also be required if the shed w ere allowed to remain in its present location. Gundlach indicated setback variances would be required. Jurgens staled in his view the shed could be moved Rahn noted this lot u long and narrow and slopes sideways somewhat. Rahn noted the residence is bemg proposed for the flattesl most portion of the lot. which is w ay to the rear of the proper^ Rahn inquired whether there is a conforming locabon for the shed behind the proposed residence. PAGE IS MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M4-30S4 Joii aad Gail Bladutoae, Coatinoed) Gundlach suied if the acccssor> 'tructure were to be located behind the new residence, there would be an issue with excessive hardcosci in the 75-250’ zone Gundlach suted the design of the house factors into w hether there is a hardship and ihat the current design of the house does not allow the accessory structure to be located behind the proposed residence. Rahn stated in his opinion it would be difficult to meet current setbacks due to the sloping yard, and inquired whether the Planning Commission would be recepme to 100 percent screening of the shed and allowing the shed to remain for its usable life with no structural repairs. ‘ itilcr indicated he w ould not be in fas or of allowing the shed to remain in light of the new construction occurring on the lot. Kempf stated in his opinion the shed cannot be screened given its close proximity to the >trcei. Kc«pr aMved, Fritikr seconded, to recommend approval of a loc width variance to permit a tot width at the pnhiic roadway of I !• feel when 14# feet b normally required, nnd to recommend denini of the s^rinnee to permit the eiiviing accessory bnilding to remain on the lot in a location closer to the street or front lot Hne than the proposed house for the property located at 4475 Forest Lake Landing, with the understanding the shed must be removed if if cannot be relocated in a conforming location. VOTE: AyesT, NaysO 6. «04-J0SS DR. MARTHA bPE.NCER. 1005 WILLOW DRIVE SOI Til - VARIANCE Martha Spencer. Applicant, and Mark Riticr. Exterior IXsign Sl'idio, were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo within 150 feet of the ordifury high water level on a natural environment lake and a hardcover variance within the 0-75* setback zone in order lo construct the gazebo and paved walkways. The property consists of 2 2 acres and IS located within the RR-IB district. rurtiv Slated the proposed hardcover in the 0-75 setback zone is 11.7 pacent where 7.7 percent currently exists. In June 2004 the applicant was granted lake setback and 0-75’ hardcover variances in order lo cu.istruct decks oxer existing patio hardcover resulting in a slight reduction in hardcover w iihin the 0-75’ /one. The applicant has advised sialTthat ihc cuircni request was intended to ie part of the previous varance application but the City did not receive any of the information regarding this pnruon of ihc proposal. TT.e applicarn is also requesting a lake setback variance to allow a gazebo setback of 22 feet where a 150 feet structure setback is required and 45 feet currently exist. The existing home is located approAimately 50 feet from the ordinary water high level and the newly constructed decks are set back 45 feet. FACE 16 MIMTF.SOI lili: tMCONO Pl.ANMNC COMMISSION M» KTINO >loaday. Orlobcr m. 2004 6:00 o’clork p.m. (N04*305S Dr. Manka Spcaccr, t'aallaiifdl SuitrccomiiMmiling dcnul of tlic vatuiucs icquc>tril a% ihae is no h4i*l%hip picscnl to Mippoil ihc request Ritter stated tliere are ^adc changes in the real ol tlic yaid tliat tlKy are aticniplmg to accoiiitiHKlaie in order to allow the property owner access to her rear yaid. Ritter stated the pro|Hrrty is located on a sw’amp, which makes the property almost unusable during the suinniertiine due to the mowjuit»ics Ritter staled they arc attempting to make the hack yard I'unctioiul and usable Rahn noted the pnifietly owner is allowed a pathway on a dewendmg shi|v to ilie wetland Rahn inquired why one of tlie decks could not he scieeiied in Spencer pointed out if the deck was scrcciKd in. it would olisliuet her vicss from the h mse and cut down on the amount of light that is allowed in. Rahn stated according to the elesations, it appears the roof of tlte ga/cbo wmild he at alHMit e\e level. Ritter pointed out the law requiring a 150-f«M>i setback was not pul into effect until with Mrs. SpctKcr residing in this properly for 20 years. Iliere wac no public cummenis cuncrmiiig this a|tplicalion Kempf staled he has loured this pro|K*r1y and also fell the deck could he sciceiicd m. Kciiipf stated iw underslaikls that does limit the light into llie residence sotiKwhat. but ilut the afiplicant iiuisl nuke a choice on what type of hardcover she would like m order tu help |iruiecl Trench I ake. Ritter reiterated that that law was not implemented until IW4. w ith Ins client residing in that lesuirnce fur ten years prior to ilial. Curtis slated the 1094 law that Mr. Ritter is discussing is the adiiplion of the SlkNclaiid (Ivcilay Ordinance that identified FreiKh fjke as a nalurai cnsiioiimeiil lake ic.|uinng a IM) loot scilui k ('urlis suicd the amount of allow able haidcover in the 0-73’ setback /one was not changed at llul lime and has icnuincd llte same since the laic I97()'s. Jurgens noted there currently is a variaiKC for Ihc harikuvcr on the propcity Spcnca pointed out that the cjusting hatdeover is less than what had existed |ireviously on llie property. Jurgens inquired whether the applicant would be willing to trade a deck for a ga/cbo Jurgens stated the applicant is allowed a certain amount of hardcover but that he would not be in favor u| iiKieasing the hardcover that currently exists on the properly siikc lime iloes nut appear to lie a hardship PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMSIlSSION MEETING Moaday, October IS, 2(MM 6:00 o'clock pjn. (MM*30S5 Dr. Martha Spcaccr, Coatiaued) Winkey questioned *hy the gazebo was not pan of the onginal plan. Spencer stated the gazebo w as pan of the original plan. Ritter stated the plan for the gazebo for some reason w as never submitted to the Cit> and only the deck was approN-ed. Cunii stated at the time of the preuous application there was a phone conversation between the applicant and staff concerning the gazebo but that no information w as ever supplied to the City dunng the original application Rahn pointed out one of the conditions for the hardcover v'ariance was tliat the hardcoscr in the 0-75* setback zone shall not be increased above S percent. Curtis indicated the gazebo w as discussed at the time of the application for the decks but that no information was ever supplied to tlie City. Bremer inquired whether any hardcover could be removed in the 0»75* zone. Spencer suted there u a cement dog pen. Jurgens noted the dog pen is not shown on the surv ey but is located closer to the shoreline Spencer commented they have removed as much hardcover as possible. Fritzler staled he does not see a reason to increase the liardcover in this area and would not be in favor of a gazebo at this tune. Ritter inquired whether the walkways would be permitteu. Fritzler stated he is not in favor of the hardcover increasing. Curtis inquired whether the pathways are actual steps. Ritter indicated they are a combination of walkw ays and steps to enable the property owner to access her back yard. Ritter noted the walkway was shown on the original plan. Curtis suted the suuway as proposed is to get around in the yard and not to access the lakeshore. Rahn pomted out the only hardcover that is allowed to encroach in the 0>7S* area w ould be a pathw ay from the home down to the lake. PAGE 18 L MINtTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock pjB. (i04>30S5 Dr. Martka Speaerr, Coatiaacd) Spencer commented that would be more detrimental in her view than a gazebo located further away from the lake. Kempf stated the gazebo is located approximately IS feet from the existing deck and that he docs not recall the area being that uneven. Spencer indicated the ground in that area is uneven. Ritter stated there is a hill on either side of the house that makes it difficult for his client to access the back yard from the front. Kempf inquired whether the area where the gazebo is proposed to be loeated is fairly flat. Ritter stated that port of the yard is flat. Ritter indicated the patios were designed to be transition areas so the property owner could access the back yard. Ritter stated it is his understanding a property owner has the nght to make their back yard functional Jurgens stated a gazebo is not necessary to make a back yard functional and usable. Ritter noted the property is located on a swamp. Jurgens stated there might be some reasoning for the pathway to the hack >ard but that the portion where the gazebo is located is flat and a pathway is nol needed to access that poition of the property. Jurgens indicated he is not in favor of the cunent design or the amount of hardcover being proposed. Ritter reiterated that the reason for a variance is to make a back yard functional and usable Rahn indicated he is not aware of that language being contained in the code. Gundlach indicated she also is not aw are of that. Leslie stated the two plateaus in the back yard do not prohibit the applicant from enjo>ing the back yard. Leslie stated the property owner has access to the back yard tl^ugh the lower level of the house and acceu to the front yard from the upper level of the residence. Leslie suted the back yard is being used today and m accessible. Leslie stated in his opinion the absence of a gazebo does not make the back >'ard nonfurKtional. Ritter inquired what demment there w ould be to the environment or to the property if a gazebo w ere constructed as proposed. PAGE 19 MINVTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMay, Oclobcr It, 2004 6:00 o’dKk p.m. (#04-305S Dr. .MartlM Speacer, Coatinacd) Leslie stated the City has a community management plan that the applicant is welcome to uke a look at that addresses the intent of the oidinances. Leslie staled basically hardcoxTr restnettons are designed to preserre the water quality of the lakeshore in question. Ritter commented that the residence is located quite a distance from the lakeshore. LcsHc MOTcd, Jargens sceoaded, to reeoainread deaiol of Appttealloa #04-3055.1005 Willow Drive Soath, lor a lake setback varlaacc to allow a gaicbo wiihla ISO* of the OHWL on a aataral aaviroaaMOt lake and a hardcoscr variance within the 0-75* setback rone la order to eonstraet a gaiebo and paved waikwavs. VOTE: AyesT.Nav^O. 7. #04-3050 TLMOTIIY ZWART, 3970 NORTH SHORE DR1\ E - \ ARIVNCES, 7:54 - 0:12 p.ai. Timothy Zwart. Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting vanances to hardcover, lot area and lot w idth in order to construct a new 1,350 square foot single family home on a tot consisting of 10,000 square feet in area and 50 feet in width located in the LR-IC District. The applicant is requesting 36 percent hardcover in the 75'-250’ zone where 25 percent is normally allowed. The proposal is for a front yard setback of 112* from North Shore Dnvx for the new residence with a 10’ by 12’ shed. Curtis noted the shed is conforming and the 25O’-50O’ zone meeu hardcover restrictions. StafTrecommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission finds that there ts a hardship present to grant a hardcover vanance. the appropriate amount of hardcover should be discussed. Curtis noted the mam reason fur the hardcover vanance in the ?5 ’-250' zone is the length of the dnveway. Rahn mqutred w hether there were any public comments regardmg this application. 'fhcrc were no public comments. Zwart indicated he has nothing to add to Staffs report. Rahn commented he basically is in agreement with Staff, w ith the issue being the dnveway. Rahn stated in his opinion the drivew ay coutd be reduced somewhat. Rahn suggested the applicant consider widening the dnveway for a short distance in order to achieve a tum-around. Zwart suted in the southern spot there is a sUirway that goes to the first level of the house and that the driveway is wider in that area. Leslie inquired whether this is a tuck-under garage being proposed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Moaday. October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.ni. (804-3058 Tinotky Zwarl, Coatioocd) Zwart stated it is. Zwan sutcd there is a door underneath the stairway into the garage. Cunts Slated she attempted to redesign the dm-eway and mclude the suirw ay hut »a$ not very successful due to the lack of eles-ations being proxided. Zwan staled the stairs go up to a deck. Fntzlcr inquired why elesations were not included. Zwart stated he did not realize he needed to submit clesations. Rahn noted if the stairway is located over tlic dn\ euay. it would automatically be a part of the hardcover calculation. Jurgens inquired w hether there is a deck on the back of the building Zwart suted there is not. Rahn stated in his view the drivcw ay could be reduced somew hat. Jurgens concurred that the dnveway could be reduced somewhat Leslie inquired w hether the location of the house is due to a setback requirement Curtis stated the location of the house was because of the 25 percent hardcover m the one zone. Kempf stated if the driveway were diminished in size, it would be nice to have space to park near the residence to avoid cars havmg to be moved when someone wanu to leave. Rahn pomted out the width of the dnveway by the residence is almost the width of the building, which IS 30 feet, with a stairway in the middle. Rahn slated the stairway is going to project 12.14 feet, with sufTicieni dnv eway on either side of the stairway to allow for a buili-in turnaround Rahn comnvented he does not believ*e i separate turning or parking area would be needed. Fntzler recommended the applicant consider his options for reducing hardcover. Fntzler staled it is difficult to visualize the stairway w ithout a plan. Fntzler noted if the footpnnt of the residence is approved at 1.350 square feet, the applicant would need to stay within that when designing the house. Zwart staled the footpnm would not change. Rahn inquired whether language could be included in the motion basically approving the application but with the condition that the hardcover be reduced. PAGE 21 MINtTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October IS, 2004 S:M o'clock pjn. (S04>3058 Tlmolky Zwarl, Cooliaocd) Bremer suggested hardcom be reduced by a percent or t^»o. Bremer suggested 35 percent hardcuser. Rahn stated m his opinion it \sould be difTicult to reduce the hardcover by a half a percent. GafTron noted one percent in the 75*>250' /one would equal 62 square feet. Gundlach stated a reduction of 200 square feet would equal three percent or just under. Leslie stated he is mclined to table this application to allow the applicant time to reduce the hardcover. Bremer indicated she would be willing to approve 33 percent. Kempt inquired whether the applicant would be agreeable to tabling his application. Zwart stated he would like to start construction m the near future, noting the house is approximately 100 years old and is beginning to show its age. Frilzler pointed out that the applicant would probably be restricted from adding any further hardcover on this property given the (act that U is currently over the amount allowed in this zone. FrHikr moved to recommend approval of Appikatloa #04-3058,3970 .North Shore Drive, graatiag of lot area and lot width variances and the graatiag of a hardcover variance not to cacecd 33 pcrccal. Winkey inquired w hether the applicar.i would need to come back if he is imable to reduce it to 33 percent. Fni/!er staled no. but that he would like it reduced. Winkey inquired if the hardcover is not reduced to 33 percent, w hether the applicant would need to come back before the Planning Commission for a hardicover variance. Cunis noted the applicant w ould need to reduce it to 33 percent if that is wkat is approved in the motion. Fritier amended hh motioa, Raha secoaded, to recommend approval of Applieatioa #04-3058» 3970 North Slwrc Drive, graaliag of lot area aad lot width variaaccs, and gyaatlag of a hardcover variance, wMh the coadltloB the hardcover not exceed 36 percent. NO VOTE TAKEN. Rahn stated the motion docs not allow the hardcaver to exceed 36 percent. PAGE 22 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 18,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MU-30S8 Timolliy Zwart, Conlinncd) Fnuler stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to whatever works out but less than 36 percent. Rahn noted the motion basically approves the hardcov er percentage that the applicant was requesting, and inquired whether the Plaiuung Commission would like to sec the driveway reconfigured. Fnuler stated in his view the driveway should be reconfigured, which would result in a reduction in the hardcovxr. Fntzler staled whatever amount the hardcover is reduced to is what would be allowed. Fnt/ler noted a reduction in the driveway of 300 square feet would reduce the hardcover to 33 percent Curtis mquired whether Staff could approvx the redesign of the driveway at less than 36 percent Rahn stated yes. Curtis inquired whether Staff could approve it at 3S.9 percent. Fritzler stated he would like to sec the driveway reduced to less than 36 percent. Bremer suggested the applicant bring his draw mgs and hardcov cr numbers at the tinK he appears before the City Council. Rahn uiquired whether Fnt/ler's motion is basically to approve the hardcover variance not to exceed 36 percent with a dnveway redesign that would still service the propert>‘. Fritzler stated in his opinion the redesigned driveway for the projicrty will reduce the hardcover somewhat and that he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 33 percent if at all (xissible Jurgens inquired whether the applicant would be approved if he came hack with the same dnveway. Fntzler stated he would like to see a reduction in the hardcover. Fritilcr amended kis moHaa to recommend approval of AppHcaHoa MM-3058,3970 Norlli Shore Drive, graaiing of lot area and lot wMlh variances, and graaiing of a hardcovc' variance, with the coaditioB the hardcover not exceed 33 percent. MOTIO.N DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of AppliemioB #04*3058,3970 North Shore Drive, grantiBg of hardcover, lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new 1,350 stpiare foot single family home, with the condition that the hardcover not exceed 36 percent within the 75**250* setback zone. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler opposed PAGE 23 MINtTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock pjn. («04*3f58 Timoiby Zwart, Coaliaacd) Fritzler stated he is opposed because there is no incentixe to reduce the haidcover below the 36 percer : to come closer to the 25 percent sundard. 8. 804.3059 JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONKAWA ROAD - CONDITIONAL I SE PERMIT, 8:13-8:26 p.m. James Render. Appltcant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the easterly roof peak of the residence. The proposed cupola w ill have a peak elevation of just under 9S3’. The bulk of the proposed .*uu-e will ha\r a peak at 966’.%7’. or 3’ below that of the existing house just to the east. The other adjacent residence to the immediate west and slightly uphill from this property has a continuous peak elevation of 978’. The City Council recently reviewed this application as an appeal of the administrative decision regarding the applicant 's onginal roof proposal at their September 20'* meeting The Council concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest window and the peak was valid and appropriate. 11k Council also concluded that the lower measuring point for this lot should be established at 940*. w hich matched the onginal grade at the west side of the current lot before the adjoining home was ra/cd. Further. Council had suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the height code and applicant could make rev isions to the peak feature and apply for a conditional use permit for a cupola Oaflron explained Section 78-1366 does not contain any specific standards for approval of a conditional use permit, but does reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards which states; (a) *rhe Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditiorul use permit as the use permit w as applied Ivm or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evideiKe submitted, the City makes the following findings: (1) That the pro^xiscd locatim of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this Chapter and the purpose: of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; (2) *rhat the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under w hich it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injunous to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and. (3) That the proposed conditional use w ill comply w ith each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. Gaflron indicated the comprehensive plan stales building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Staff estimates that typical tree height in the neighborhood ranges from 40’ to 70’, with a few mature trees probably in the 80’ range. The canopy elevation as viewed from a distance PAGE 24 MINITES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNINC COMMISSION MEETING ^loHday, October It, 2004 6;M o'docfc pjn. (#04-3058 Tlmoihy Zwart, Coatiaaed) FnUlcr staled he is opposed because there is no inceniixe lo reduce ihe hardcover below the 36 percer; to come clover to the 25 percent standard. 8. #04-3059 JAMES RENDER, 1335 TONKAWA ROAD - CONDITIONAL I SI PERMIT, 8:13 -8:26 p.m. James Render. Applicant, was present. GalTron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the easterly roof peak of the residence. The proposed cupola will have a peak elevation of just under 983*. The bulk of the proposed will have a peak at 966*-967*. or 3* belmv that of the existing house just to the east. The other adjacent residence to the immediate west and slightly uphill from this property has a continuous peak elevation of 978 ’. The City Council recently reviewed this application as an app«*al of the administrative decision regarding the applicant’s unginal roof proposal at their September 20* meeting fhe Council concluded that the height measurement policy using the average of the highest window and the peak was valid and appropriate. The Council also concluded that the lower measuring point for this lot should be established at 940'. which matched the original grade at the west side of the current lot before the adjoining home was ra^ed. Further. Council had suggested that the proposed design could be revised to meet the height code and applicant could make revisions lo the peak feature and apply for a conditional use permit for a cupola Gaffron explained Section 78*1366 does not conuin any specific standards for approval of a conditional use permit, but docs reference the general Conditional Use Permit standards which stales: (a) The Planning Commission may rcc.^minend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit w as applied toi or in modified form, if on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the City makes the following findings: (1 ) That the projvoscd locainn of the conditional use is in accord w iih the objcctiv cs of this Chapter and the purpose: of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plaru (2) That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under w hich it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicuuty; and. (3) That the proposed conditional use will comply w ith each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. Gaflron indicated the comprehensive plan states building heights will be linuted to less than the typical tree height Suff estimates that typical tree height in the neighborhood ranges from 40’ to 70*. with a few mature trees probably in the range. The canopy elevation as viewed from a distance PAGE 24 .MI.NirrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:M o'clock p.m. (iNM-3059 JaoMS Render, Coaliaaed) probably is m the 970'-990‘ range. The lot ibclf is somewhat open, such that from certain angles the peak may be more stsible than from others. Gaffron indicated the visual impact of the height of the cupob will be somewl at softened by the higher namral topography of the surrounding neighborhood and by the higher trees in the immediate neighborhood. Sutf concludes that from a d <tance. from most angles, the cupola peak will not extend higher than the general canopy of the “tica. although from certain angles it may be visible through openings in the canopy GatTrun noted the majority of the proposed residence is below the !<U' height restriction. Staff rccoirmends approval of the conditional use permit to allow con>tructu»n of a cupola extending 6.7 feet aoove the peak of the house per the submitted plans. Render commented Gaffron in his opinion has done a great job. Rahn inquired whether there WTre any public comments concemi: g this application. James Erler. 3448 North Shore Drive, indicated he is here tonight to try to understand the applicant's proposal and asked if he could w ithhold any comments until later. Rahn indicated that would be fine. Kempf inquired what material the cu|iola would be constructed out of Render indicated there would be cedar shingles on the roof with some copper flashing Fntzlcr inquired whether there is an actual roof undenKaih the cupola Render indicated there is Leslie commented m his view it would be difficult to unagme this house w ithoui the cupola and that the sole purpose of the cupola appears to be to continue the roof line. Lc'lic stated m his mind the reason a conditional u.se permit exists for a cupola is to allow a small struciure relatixe to the entire peak of a roofline and that this is clcaily a continuation of a roofline. Leslie stated the cupola serx es the purpose of finishing the roof and i* gainst the purpose or reason a cupo'a exists as a conditional use permit. Jurgens noted he was in ancndance at the Council meeting when this matter xvas discussed and that in his opinion the cupola is a reasonable compromise based on the issuc.x involved with this application. Jurgens indicated the applicant's architect did not have the benefit of staffs policy used in determining height of a structure and that U'ey relied solely on their mterpretation of the code that they found on the City's xveb site Jurgens noted the policy, which further defmes the code, is not found on the City's web site Jurgens stated the optio t ,'t incorporating a cupola mio the design was amxed at PAGE 25 MINUTES OF IMF, OIIONO Pl.ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October II, 2014 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M04-3059 James Reader, Coalinaed) as a mutual compromise. Juigcns indicated there were also some issues insolvmg the grading and elevatiuii on this site. Fritzlcr stated in his view this still constitutes an extension of the rooHine and that he is not in favor of the conditional use permit. Rahn commented that he also had the impression that it w as an extension of the rooflinc but that it appears to be an in between method to achieve the design that the applicant is luting for. Rahn suted in his opinion the Planning Commission also has the option of calling this a cupola. Render indicated it was his understanding the Council had directed him to pursue a conditional use permit Bremer moved. Rahn seconded, to recommended AppHcalion M14-3059, 1335 Tonkawa Road.granting of a conditional use permit for a cupola extending from the easterly rook peak of the rcsidcace. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 3, Fritalcr, Winkey and Leslie opposed. VVinkey slated in his view it is an extension of the roorunc 9. GARY HANSEN ON BEHALF OF BILL ANIl ROBIN c;R1EKSO.N. 1919 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES, 8:27 p.m. - 8:47 p.m. Gary Hansen. Hansen Home Tech, and Robin Gricison. Applicant, were picsent. Curtis staled the appli ants arc requesting a 75’-250* hardcover vanance in order to construct a 35’ by 14* addition to the existing home. The lot consists of 21.217 square feet and is located in the I.R-IC district. Cunts stated due to the location on the point, only 4.762 square feel arc located outside of the 75' setback. Curtis stated the proposal is for a comer of the proposed addition to be constructed within the 0*75* setback resulting in 52 square feet of additional haidcover in that zone, and a hardcover vanance within the 75'*2S0' setback for 52 percent hardcover after subtracting all of the plastic-lincd landscape areas. Curtis noted 43 jx*rccni currently exists in the 75’•250* setback zone. Staft' feels that the cuneni plan could be redesigned to meet the 75* setback. Additionally, the sur show s a patio located within the 75’ setback, which could potentially be removed or reduced if li Planning Coiramssion feels that would be appropriate. If the Planning Commission feels that the nature of this property on a point is a significant hardship, there may be some justification for some level of hardcover vanance w ithin the 75'-250' setback. Curtis stated she did a calculation showing the request for the 0-7S’ setback on the west side, which is currently at 7.3 percent. Curtis indicated if the addition is removed and the entire patio is removed PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (Bill and Robia Grkrwn, Cootloord) except for a four by four foot landing, there *ould be 4.1 percent in the 0*75 ’ zone. Curtis stated the applicant is aware that Staff is recommending this change. Leslie inquired whether the 7.3 percent excludes the patio. Curtis stated the patio is included in the 7.3 pa cent. Curtis explained she subtracted the patio and the addition and added in a small landing for the dcor, w hich reduced it to 4.1 percent. Curtis stated she is recommending that option rather than the 7.8 percent hardcover being proposed by the applicant on the west side of the residence. Hansen stated on the side of the proposed additio i there is a jog there that ideally would work out aesthetically for the addition. Hansen stated the a iplicant is more than happy to remove all ihc rock and sacnfice the patio pavers m order to accomplish the addition Bremer noted this vsould reduce the hardcover amount to a number other than the 4 1 percent and the 7.8 percent. Curtis Slated it would be 4.5 percent. Hansen slated onginally in the 0-75* setback the hardcover was at 16 pacent. Bremer inquired w hat the hardcover would be in the 7.V-250* setback and what the hardship is for granting a variance. Han.sen slated the current garage is not very deep and is barely able to fit two cars. Hansen pointed out they arc not requesting a three-car garage. Grierson stated the previous owners at the time the additum was constructed located the furnace in the garage. Gnerson stated there currently is no place to put the furnace in the house. Grierson indicated the house is approximately 100 years old and has very little closet space. Griason stated if they are able to extend into the 0-75* setback, they could possibly use a portion of that for a utility room. Grierson indicated she would prefer having the furnace loc::ied in the house. Rahn inquired whether any hardcover is being added to the front. Gnerson indicated they are not increasing the hardcover in the front. Rahn commented his first inclination is to recommend the patio pavers be removed, which would give the applicant 347 square feet. Rahn suggested the applicants consider reducing the size of the rear addition. Rahn noted the garage is less than 20 feet deep and tite applicants do have some issues with storage. Rahn stated he feels there is somewhat of a hardship but that the proposed hardcov er exceeding 50 pacent is too excessive. Rahn mdicai.d he would prefer a redesign of the addition. PAGE 27 MLNtTES OF THE ORONO FiJiNMNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October IB, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (Bill and Robia GricrMB, Coatlaued) Leslie staled one of (Hr questions in Suff s report is whether there is a hardship associated w ith the fact that this property has lakeshore on tw o sides. Leslie stated if it is assumed that the lake w as not on the front side of the house and that this w*as a single lakeshore property, w hat effectively w ould happen is the 0-7S' west would stay as is and the 0-7S* east would become a part of the 7S'-250’ zone. Leslie pointed out under that scenano the allowed hardcover would be 0 percent in the 0-75’ west, 1.346 feet in the 0-75 east now reclassified as 75-250’, and 1.190 in the 75 ’-250’. which allow s for a toul of 2,536. Leslie noted the current hardcover is 4.232. which is substantially over the amount that w ould be allowed. Leslie inquired if this property w as any other lakeshore property, w hether an expansion of the footpnnt would be allow^. Jurgens stated in his view the hardcover does seem to be excessive, and inquired whether the applicants have explored the option of adding onto the front of the hou.se. Hansen indicated the client would prefer not to add onto the front of the house to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Curtis sta.cd an addition off the front would also encroach on the side yard setback, w hich is currently conforming at ten feet. Gnerson indicated she is not interested in adding to the front of the house due to the impact on the neighbors. Grierson stated if the addition w ere constructed in the back, it w ould not impact any of the neighbors. Fntzler stated the proposed 51 percent is excessive in his view and that he w ould like to sec the size of the addition reduced along w ith removal of the patio paxers. Gnerson stated the home is unique given the fact that it is 100 years old, but that there arc also a number of inadequacies with the structure Gnerson indicated they hax'e spoken to a number of builders who have suggested tearing down the structure and constructing new. Grierson stated she w ould like to retain the character of the cunent residence but make it more efficient for today’s w orld. Fntzler inquired w hether the height of the garage w ould be raised. Gnerson indicated she does not believe so Hansen stated some bigger floor trusses would be installed in the garage. Fritzler noted currently the garage does not have an 8-foot door. Hansen stated it is a 7-foot garage door. PAGE 28 MIM IIM»^ TIIE (iKONori 4>MMissu»i mkmim ; tMubrr IN. 2UIM ^:0U oM«H-k p.iii. (Hill and Holiin (^rirrMia, (unliiiMnl) Kdlui nulnl llwic is i’iiitiMiil> li\mg span- alv*i uIhisc Uk- k-*'**^** l-ril/ln stjird it tlic Ming llui gtics In iIm* iitulli li«»iii llir litnil iI«h >i In the rtlgc ol iIk * gjU(T is laisrti III clrvaliiMi, loin iltmn irlHiill, tilimisl lull ii| llir li«»iisi* Ik * iimU'i t oiisliik Iuhi iiiirisoii sljicd llu*y die iiol pldiiMiiig oi. U'diiiig lIul |'•>ltll•ll <•! llie house >l>ioii Cidilioii iiu(iiiiej vliellu'i llul |h»ilioii moiiM lie idisetl ui rirsdieil lidllsoil sidled ihe lioilll Mali is going lo In* kepi, ihr lioiil oall is going lo U- kepi as lai as lotalioii hul llul llH'ie Mould Iv an eslriisionoiil llie lioiil aikl a U'dinal iIm* * I llul Mill • aiiv llie esisliiig liud 'O llul cats ean eonliniic «rii lliioiigli ilirte miiIhmi I an> Mall Kahlt lliuseil lo moilinirNil Hp|iM»si»l uf Aiildiention NIM ilNil, I*IK*> l-dgri iirss I'iiIn I Muad. lui a kanleos vr varlaner lo alloM Ihr frool roliy atlililiiiN as |iio|iosr<l aoil lo allun llir irai addilloo, nilli Ihr i'oodilitiN Ihr hatdcosrr im»I rurrd ihr iriioisal ol 147 S4|uair Irri iil palOi past-ts In ihr 0>75* sriliark and wllh Ihr fnilhrr ruadllioii Ihal Ihr aildilioo lir in a tuuluitnlog hualiou Miihhi Ihr 7S’-2W selliaik. Jill gens noled llieie alieady is luidtovei in the aira Mlieie lliey aie pio|MiMiig llie addilion. mIiu li eoiisisls ol a deeV Hansen staled llieie is an Ml Mpiaie loul deek Juigeiis siiggrslctl adding llie M sipiaie leel In the 14/sipiaie lei I |oi iIh * liaid«ovri Im mg iiiiioiid Kahn anrrudrd liU iiiulhm lo irtoimnnid apinosal of .-%|i|»liialiuii HIM .IIWiI, I'IN*I kagritiiss Polnl Muad. for a hardrosrr taiianer lo alhm Ihr lioal raiiy addilion as pio|iosed and lo allots Ihr rear addilhia, ssiih Ihr luadllion (hr haidiosn aui rserrd ihr inoosal ol 42N si|uair Irel ol |ialio pasrrs and drrk, and ssllb Ihr Indhrr lundilton Ihal Hie addilloo lie sums Iioiled lo a ronforming loraliun, l.r.,l>rhind ihr li-75' liar. I mils mi|iiiied mIu I si/c lail>'"i}' Mould i>r alloMed Kahn slated they lypicaliy aie allnwed a loui liy Itau Iini I laiulaig Hansui staled ihe 4JH si(uaic Icrl is in die /one, with llie enliie aildiliiHi iM-iiig 4'Xi' liiciiirr staled Ihc iimiIioii also leipities the addilloi) *n lie Loiisllialcd iH-hiiid ll»c 0 hnr Hrrmrr srtondrd Ihr alwvr mollon. VOI E: Ayrs 7, .\a>»0. PACK 29 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Octob«r It, 2004 6:0ta*dacli pan. II. M04-9003 WJM PROPERTIES LLC. 2605 WEST WAYZ.VTA BOl l.f \ ARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDME.NT, S:4S p.m. - 9:20 p.ai. Peter Johnson. Monries Automolivc, a as present GafTron staled the applicant has had a number of discussions with Staff os-er the summer regarding drainage issues, w ith the option of redesigning the parking lot discussed. It w as determined that a central drainage way was needed to accommodate site drainage, and Staff has approved ihis reconfiguration. Gaflron stated issues relating to lighting still remain. The applicant had ongmally proposed replacing the four existing 4S' high light standards w ith 25’ poles, and is now requesting the plan be modified to allow for 12 twin head poles. 25' in height, using 1000 watt bulbs. GafTron stated the additional lighting IS being requested from the applicant's insurance company, but no written information has been provided regarding the extent of the need or the msarance company’s minimum requirements. Staff feels the lighting study is incomplete and additional information is needed before approval can be given. GafTron noted the applicant has been working w ith the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District related to wetland buffer and easement requirements. Based on their discussions with the MCWD. the applicant was granted an extension of the prior approvals and was allowed to temporanly place a fence in place of the berms and plantings at the north end of the east parking lot. Staff does not ha\e a problem w ith extending the approvals to December .11,2005 GafTron suted Staff would like. one. a dcUiled request from the applicant's insurance company specif)ing in detail what minimum level of lighimg is required; two. detailed specifications on the t^ of lighting fixtures proposed, including st> Ie and shielding; three, an analysis by the applicant's hating company of oU ict optioiu for lighung. includmg but not limited to varymg the watuge of the fixtures, varying the height and'or number of fixtures, and var> ing the placement of fixtures; and four, information on whether any building mounted lighting is proposed. Gaffimi noted a cross-section of the parking lot clev atioas as vnew-ed from Highway 12 to the hack of the parking lot has been provided. Johnson noted Staff w as provided some detail on the light fixtures a couple of >*ears ago. which has not changed. Johnson stated he was unable to locate that infunnation in his files. Johnson indicated he was only able to locate information that states that the fixture is a downcast fixture, which to his understondmg was ipproxYd for the north lot and for four lights on the east lot Johnson stated they arc not proposing to change that type of future at this tunc, but that the future would be mounted on 25' foot poles rather than 45' poles Johnson stated at the time this project was commenced, they were not contengilatmg changing the eastern face of the bunding, but as the project progressed. U k architect recommended refacing that entire side. As a result, instead of the outcast lighting being mounted on the building, the lighting has been changed to dow-ncast lighting. Johnson stated some parking lot lighting has been lost as a result of that change. PAGE 30 MnstTESOF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, October IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.in. (404.3063 WJM Properties, Cootimed) Johnson noted the lumen study shows that the amount of lumens on the ground with 1000-watt fixtures drops to below .2 in almost es'cry case with the dovsneast lighting versus the outcast lighting. Johnson mdicated in essence what that means is that the outer edges of the parking lot now have a lot of shadows and very little light. Johnson stated their conditional use permit allows for 250 new vehicles to be stored in the parking lot and their insurance company has expressed a concern that the site should be better lit to protect the srhicles on the lot and the personnel that would be on site after the sun has set, particularly in the w'lntertime. Johnson slated the lighting that is being proposed is situated between the buildmg and a seven-acre drainage pond and the golf dome on the other side. Johnson stated in his opinion the additional lighting would not affect other property owners in the area. Johnson indicated he is willing to provide a letter from the insurance company concerning the lighting. Johnson stated they also explored the possibility of instaiii.ig more fixtures at a lower elevation, but concluded that there would be too many interruptions in traffic flow and more obstaclc.s for cars to avoid as they drive around the parking lot. Johnson slated the 25’ poles in his opinion is a good compromise to achiev*e the additional lighting as w ell as reduce the number of obstacles in the parking lot Itself. Johnson pointed out the approved lightmg is located along the second row of parking away from the building and that the new lighting is situated between that lighting and the building and not along the perimeter of the lot. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application There were no public comments. Rahn noted car dealerships arc not allowed in Orono. and that his greatest concern w ith this application is that it started out as a conditional use pemtit and that the lighting has increased from four to 12. Rahn stated he docs not want this property to slow ly turn into a car dealership. Rahn stated if the lighting is shielded, the lighting might be a non-issue. Johnson stated the berm has been constructed, w ith the existing trees between the highway and the parking lot being presers’cd. Johnson staled a five-foot high opaque fence has also been added Rahn inquired whether the change in lighting is being driven by the insurance company. Johnson stated it is driven by the concern for the property that will remain in the lot all night and the personnel that will be on the site. Bremer suggested the list of items outlined on page three be gone through by the applicant. PAGE 31 MLMTESOFTHE ORONO PiJiNMNG COMMISSION MEETLNG MoMlay, October It, 2004 0:00 o’clock p.m. (004-3003 WJM Properties, Cooliooed) JohnsoQ ftoled he is confident he can obtain a letter from the insurance agent that would hasKally say the insurance company would like lighting in the parking lot to presen’c the x-alue of the property and to protect the personnel coming in and out. John^ staled they have submitted information concerning the style and shielding of the type of light being proposed, which was approved w ith 25* posts two years ago. Johnson stated an analysis of the lighting options was conducted, with a study of the l(XX)-w’att being submitted to iff. Johnson suted they did not submit the study on the 400-wati lighting but that he does have that mformation av-aitable. Bremer inquired whether any lighting on the building is being proposed. Johnson staled the only lighting on the building that they arc proposing is what currenily exists on the building, which essentially lights the side of the building and is downcast. Fntzler inquired w hether any security people could be brought onto the site. Johnson stated the primary security is the fact that it is a well-lit lot. Johnson stated there would be employees on the site who will also keep on eye on the property. Fntzler noted the front dnveway is secure. Johnson suted the front driveway has a gate that closes across the front of the entrance. Fntzler inquiied whether there would be employees on sue at 2 00 a.m. Johnson stated the potential exists that no one wtnild be on site m the early morning hours uA also the potential that truck dnvers would be on the lot in the early morning hours. Fntzler staled one option is to have a pnvate secunly force patrol the property at periodic times. Fntzler inquired w hether the w hole penmeter of this property would be fenced in. Jtdmson suted the whole penmeter of the property is not fenced m. w ith the fence going from the comer of the building on the north side out to the end of the parking lot and down the eastern boundary about 75 or 80 feet. Bremer mdicated she has a concern that there is not enough information concerning the lighting before the Planning Commission tonight. Bremer suted she would like to see the letter from the msurance company requesting the additional lightmg. Bremer commented Orono has a rural character that they would like to mautUin, and one way to do that is by limiting the amount of lighting. Johnson pointed out that this facility is different from a pnvau residence and will conuin approximately 250 new cars that are attractive to thieves. PAGE 32 MLNirreSOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mosdav, October 18,2004 0:00 o'clock p.M. (»04.30«3 WJM Propcftict, CoMloocd) Leslie inquired why the enure penmeter of the property would not be fenced ui. Johnson staled the paimetcr is 1,200 feet on the side and 900 feet on the backside. Johnson indicated MN DOT might be fencing in the backside of the propert>- with a 2S>foot high retaining wall. On the west side a sesTn-acre pond is being constnicted. w ith an open drainage ditch on the east side. Kempf staled in his view lighting is essential when there is a substantial amount of property silling out and IS a good deterrent to crime. Kempf pointed out this property is not located m rural Orono. Jurgens stated the property might not be located in rural Orono but that the lighting could possibly be visible for a numb^ of miles. Jurgens stated he re.sides in rural Orono but still has a clear view- of the golf dome and all the lights that are currently there. Jurgens sUted with the addition of more lights, that area will be even more lit up and »ill impact the rural character of Orono in other geographical locations. Jurgens stated he would also like to know w hat the impact would be on the other side of new Highway 12. Jurgens pointed out that in addition to the downcast lighting, there will also be rcflectivT light coming from this property. Jurgens staled he would like to have more information than what has been submmed. Johnson stated a lumen study has been submitted, and to his know ledge the lighting near the pcritixier would be .1 or .2. Jurgens staled that lighting could still impact areas further away. Gaffnm commented Orono ’s lighting code specifies that a person should not be able to see the source of the light from outside the property lines GalTron stated he is unsure whether this plan meets that code, noting that the code does not address reflective lighting and does not include lumen limits or requirements. GafTron stated he would prefer the City b'ngmeers review the plan to allow them to make some recommendations. Gafliron stated the rmnimal amount of commaciai development in Orono has not required Staff to review and revise the code, but that this is a situation that could potentially have a huge impact on the neighboring properties if not handled appropriately. Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Staff. Johnson noted their site plan only depicts the north side of the site because the south side of the site is 10 acres of grass and trees. Johnson pomted out Midw ay 394 and the railroad are in close proximity to this site and that the rcsidenu would probably be impacted greater by those two items llum by the lighting on this property. Johnson suted he would like the Planning Commission to work with him and to move the application forward. Johnson noted they arc delaying moving the inventory onto the property until the lighimg has been msulled. PAGE3J MINUTES OF THE ORONO M*ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoM4ay, October It, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (004.3063 WJM Propcrtlet. Cootiooed) Leslie noted a lengthy period of time has been spent trying to addreu the issues on this site, but that 'k personally does not feel that enough infomution has b^ supplied. Leslie stated if the true intent of the lighting u secunty, a fence coupled by perimeter lighting, leaving the center darker, might be a way of preventing mtrusion but would sull restnet the total ambient light from being as great as it is un^ the proposed plan. Leslie stated he would be willing to discuss this in detail at the next Planning Commission work session so the applicant can mos-e forw ard Gaffron noted the next w ork session is scheduled for November 3*^. Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Leslie and that a more detailed study needs to be submitted. Winkey inquired whether other options for secunty have been discussed for this property outside of lighting. Johnson sttied the primary reason for the fence is not for secunty but is there to help screen the parking lot. Johnson stat^ the pnmary reason for the additioiul lighting is to provide protection for the property as well as the personnel that will be on the site. Johnson stated he is not prepared at this time to discuss other possible secunty measures that could be token Lcsttr moved, Kempr sccomled, lo tabic AppHcaltoa #64-3063, WJM Propenies, LLC, 2605 West Wayzala Boulevard, for a coadHioaal use permit ameadmeni, bat to recommend granting of the extension of the dcadiines for constmetion of the approved site to l>eccmber 31,2005. Gaffron inquired w hether this matter w as being tabled to the work session. Bremer stated it is. Leslie inquired whether the Planmng Commission would be able to approw it at the wixk session. Gafh^on indicated because it has been publicly noted at tonight’s meeting and this maner is basically being adjourned to the work session, that they could approve it at that time if the issues are resolved. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 (Recess token fram 9:20 lo 9:2S p.m.) 10. 604-3062 JOHN TERRANCE HOMES, LLC, 26XX KELLEY PARKWAY (OUTLOT E, STONEBAY) - RNAL PLAT AND PUD SITE PLAN A.MENDMC.NT, !«:21 - I0J2 p.m. Steve Johnston. John Tcirance Homes; Pete Villard, Architect; and John Hassler. John Terrance Homes, w ere present PAGE 34 1 MIMJTESOF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINC MMday, Octabcr It. 2M4 6:M o’clock p.M. (MM-3062 JoliB Tcmwco Homn, CoatlaMd) Gaffron tuted the applicants are requesting an amendment of the Stonebay RPUD for changes to the condominium (“Lofts**) building and site plan, final site plan and building plan approvals as well as final plat approval for Outlot E as a single 2.5 acre lot for the condominium building Gaftion noted a couple of years ago the entire Sioncbay project was granied general development plan appros-al with some clauses in the development agreement requinng that a certain process had to be followed in the event of modifications. Gaffron noted some areas of the project have never been finalized. The pnmary changes to the Lofts building include 1. Main building peak height is higher than originally proposed and is currently proposed somewhere between four feet and potentially as much as seven feet above the approved peak elevauon. 2. The two buildings previously connected only by the underground parking level have been connected above ground by a central core which provides space for a vanetv' of facilities and amenities for the residents. The applicants are now proposing a single L-shaped building The central core includes a tow er with peak height of 1084.4* or 10* above the peak of the mam rooftine. 3. The originally approved building was 80 feet from the west lot line with porches 72’ from that line. The new plan has ihe building and porches at 74*. 4. Ilie elevetion plans have been revised significantly to incorporate different amounts and locations for the usage of cultured stone, hotizonul lap siding and other facade elements. Gaffion stated although the plan has been modified, the same number of units are being pro(X)ved and the shape of the building remains essentially the same except for the connection of the tw o buildings While the Lofts remain at a total of 62 owner-occupied units, the building now w ill have a visual front (south) facade of 370’ and an east facade of about 236*. The southeast comer will include a tower feature extending 10 feet above the mam roof system peak. The building w ill also have essentially flat facades with three-level deck bump-outs, providing some visual relief. Gaffron indicated the central cote area provides space for a number of amenities not prov ided in the original concept. The site eirculation has not changed, with access to the garages and the exterior parking layout remaining as onginallv approved. Retaining walls are still being proposed along the north wall of the west wing and the n thnly three sides of the north wing. Gaffron indicated these w-alls are necessary to accommodate walkout access and an extenor pen meter sidewalk Gaffron stated the Lofts building was originally granted a vanance to the 30* RPl'D height limit, allowing a 38* defined height. The new proposal has a majority of the overall roof peak at an elevation of 1074.4* or about 7.6 feet higher than what was ongmally approval This is due in part to the increase in ceiling heights from 8* to 9* on all three levels of the building and the need to have a minimum garage floor elevation of 1020* as a result of final gradmgMormw ater system overflow parameters for the development. The applicants have suggested grading three feet higher against the south facade. Gaffron stated he has concerns regarding the area betw een the parkmg lot and the PAGE3S MIMTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMlay, October IS, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. («04-3062 Joba Terraoce HoMct, Coatiaacd) building and what happens between the parking lot and the street w ith this grading change. The Planning Commission should determine whether the visual appearance of the building as a result of the added height is positisvly or negatisTly affected by the maeased length of the building. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission ensure that the building materials ard w indow s depicted on the plans be utilized in this plan. Gaffron staled he is very satisfied with the landscape plan for this development, but noted the City's landscape consultant will need to review the plan. Gaffron noted the developer would need to submit a lighting plan for this development as well as a signage plan. Gaffron stated the developCT is one parking stall short and will nc^ to define where the additional sull will be located. Gaffron stated the impervious surface coverage in the RPl’D District is limited to 50 percent. NN'hile the Lofts site has 52.7 percent impervious area, the Stonebay project m its cntirct>' has an im|Krvious area well below the 50 percent limit. Gaffron noted this approval process is basically approval of Phase 2 of the Stonebay residential development. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the acceptability of building expansion and its visual iinpacu. the increased building height, the proposed building materials and building design, the acceptability of the location in relation to the west lot line, and issues relating to signage, lighting, parking and landscaping. There were no public commenu regarding this application. Johnston pointed out that in a lot of w^ys the loft or condominium building was basically an unknown at the time original approval was grant^. Johnston indicated they had a basic concept of what they w anted to build at the lime of original approval but have since m^tficd the plans to include some amenities that w ill help make the pnxluct n .ore nurkeuble. Johnston noted at the time of original proposal assumptions were also made concerning the size of the units and other items. Johnston stated they are addressing the Planning Commission tonight regarding a better*defincd H»i • !: a new architect being brought in on the project who deals with residential developments. JuhnMon indicated the architect made recommendations dealing w ith the mix of the units and Uk marketability of the units. Johnston stated guest ixxims. a hobby room, a business center, a family dining room, community room, car w ash, library and e.xcrcisc room are some of the amenities that have been added to help increase the marketability of the units. Johnston stated the two buildings were connected to accommodate the proposed amenities and to address the waierproofmg issues they would encounter with a portion of the undaground parking garage being located below turf Johnston stated m his view the proposed building is a more attractive building, but acknowledged that It u a change in the visual appearance of the sue. Johnston suted the biggest difTcrence between the two plans IS the elimination of the gap betw een the two buildings, w ith the visual impact being most apparent along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated the view of the proposed building from other angles PAGE 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, October la, 2004 o’clock pan. (M04-M62 Joba Tcrroacc Homn, Coatioued) remams basically ihe same, wiih the L«shaped building bemg screened somewhat by the other buildmgs in the area Johnston stated there have been a number of discussions regarding the height of the building, with the original concept bemg a height of 1016.5' and with the approved height being 1020'. Johnston stated due to drainage issues, the height of the basement needs to be at 1020' based on recommendations from the City Engineer. The onginal plan also called for front porches, w hich has been modified to allow for the grade of the parking lot to essentially come up to the patio grade. Johnston indicated the building should have a very similar height-appearance from the sidew alk level, w ith the peak of the building bemg increased mainly due to the ceiling heights being increased and the need to raise the building to addreu water issuer on the lot. Johnston noted he does not i:ave any concerns with the recommendations of the City Engineer and that those changes will be incorporated into the plan. Peter Villard. Architect, addressed the Planning Commission concerning the <^ieps he look in redesigning this building. Villard noted he was faced w ith designing a building on an existing pad, which presented a number of challenges os well as issues relating to subsurface w ater issues that required the building to be raised. Villard stated the tw o buildings w ere combined essentially to improx e the marketability of the units and to allow for more amenity choices and (lexibility in price. Villaid indicated the si/e of the units was increased to accommodate some of the amenities that w ere not included in the onginal pro(>o^l Villard pointed out each unit w ill have their own laundry room, underground parking stalls, a storage am. and without these types of amenities, the marketability of the unit w ould be greatly diminished. In addition, a number of community amenities have been added, including a business center, family dining room, activities and craft rooms, a library and an exercise rt>om. X'lllard noted these amenities w ere largely added to the central core proposed betw een the two buildings, and as a result of the central core, the two builc ngs became one building Villard slated in an effort to minimize the visual impact of Ihe building, different color textures and siding were incorporated as well as the addition of dormers and balconies to break up the building somew hat. Villa^ noted the mam entry is clearly defused by the cupola, with the rest of the buildmg having Its own identity. \ ..lard displayed the building materials that are being proposed for the building. Villard noted Ihe khingles for uie building have been changed to a neuual gray color, w ith different sty les of siding and color shades being utilized on various elements of the building to make the building more attractive Villard indicated he recommended eliminating the plaza due to the maintenaiKe issues associated with that type of structure. Rahn inquired w hether any consideration w as given to reducing the number of units in an effort to avoid the need for one long building. Rahn noted the w est end of the buildmg was onginally stepped down one floor to reduce the massing and this plan is now increasing the mass. FACE37 MINUTES OK THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p,ni. (•04-3062 Mia Terraoce Homm, Cootiooed) Rahn suggested addressing the seven bullet points contained m suff s report. Rahn noted Item No. I deal vkiih the acceptability of the building expansion and the attachment of the central core. Rahn stated he understands the \isual impact from the difTerem angles but that he has a concern about increasing the size of the structure. Jurgens noted the butV of «hat is being fiUcd in within the units is not amenities but rather just an increase in the size of the units. Jurgens stated he would like a breakdown of the amenities being added and the increase in the size of the uniu. Johnston suted there is a letter to Gaffroo dated September 2r that addresses the amenities and the size of the units. Johnston stated some of the units isere increased but there w ere also a number of mid-size units that were added. Johnston pointed out the w idth of the hal'.w ay has also been increased. Jurgens reiterated he would like to see a breakdown between the anKnitics added and the increased size of the units. Vitlard stated in his opinion the breakdown between the two is probably 50 50. Jurgens stated another comment he would like to make regarding this application is that the we>t end of the building was onginally proposed at two stones, and that he would prefer lo see the west end of the building again reduced to two stones, w hich would help to balaiKC the building. Villard stated once >’OU start reducing things in one section of the building, the rest of the building would also be impacted. Villard staled issues regarding egress and ingress would have to be re evaluated. Villard indicated the number of units was not decreased due lo financial considerations. Leslie inquired whether the increased value of the units and added amenities would allow .or a reduction in the number of units. Johnston staled the cost to construct the units has increased with the amenities bemg added. Leslie slated in his opinion if economics are the driving force for the amenities, the economics would become more fax-orablc with fewer units. Villard stated the size of the units help ofTscl the cost of the amenities that are being added and not as many amenities could be added if the number of units is decreased. Villard staled they also do not want to compete with the ramblers and the two-story residential strucnires constructed w ithm the same dc\«Iopment. Bremer commented in her \icw the amenities w ill help to sell the units, but she has a concern w ith the sisual impact of the proposed building. Bremer mdicaied she was not aware of the underground parking being connected between the tw o buildings and the potential issues associated with having the area above ihe underground parking being open space. Bremer noted the stepping down of the PAGE 38 L_ MINi TES or THE OltONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^lEETING Moadey, Oclob«r IS, 2004 6:00 o’clock p.ui. (S04-3062 Jolia Tcrraace Hoaict, Coallaacd) building (o two stories was discussed in depth as a way to reduce the visual impact and that she would like to see that with this proposal to as-oid this building being out of character with the other structures on the property. Bremer stated in her opinion the drainage issues can be resolsrd but that the massing needs to be addressed. Bremer inquired whether the underground parking could be separated into two garages as well as going back with the concept of tw*o separate buildings. Villard stated he is unsure whether this site will allow the appropnatc ingress and egress for two separate parking garages due to the wetlands and other topographical features. R ihn inquired whether the majority of the amenities could be included in a separate building. Villard stated that design is typically used more in the south where there is not severe weather. Rahn suggested an enclosed walkway linking the buildings could perhaps be included to help offset those issues as well as the massing. Winkey noted the size of the building was increased to accommodate the amenities as well as allow for an increase in the size of the units. Bremer stated the only way she would be in fa\or of the L-shaped building would be if the drainage issues related to the open space above the underground garage dictated a ^ ''jcture in that area and if there were no other design options available for two separate underground parking garages. Bremer commented she would prefer the mne-foot ceilings and tlut the higher ceilings in her opinion would make the units more marketable. Bremer commented she still has concerns regarding the amount of massing ard t'.K visual impact with this building Kempf commented tall trees in front of the structure would also help to dimmish the impact Rahn stated he would like to see an elevation side view showing the building in relation to Kelley Parkway. Villard noted there is not a lot of residential m this area and that in his view the sight lines w ould be diminished by the other buildings m this area. Villard noted the original RPL'D approved 62 units. Rahn inquired w hat the ceiling height of the garage is. Vilbrd stated from floor to floor ms 11 feet and that Ihetc arc codes that rcqunc a ‘IS-mch clearance into the door to allow for access by a \^n Kempf commented he personally prefers the building being proposed tonight based on the consideration given to vary the bcadc of the building. Kempf suggested the applicant look at PAGE 39 MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANMNG COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, October 18,2004 6:00 o’clock p.m. (004-3062 Joba Tcrraacc Hoatei, Coatiaacd) dropping the roofline as it approaches the common area, i^hich would help to so(\cn the impact of the building. Kempf suted he likes t!.e drop in roonme on the left side of the proposed building and would like to sec that on the other side of the buildmg Rahn commented a drop in the rooflme might also accent the comer facade. Fntzler stated he w ould like to sec the mzc of the building reduced. Johnston requested the application be tabled to allow for some modifications to the proposal. Rahn stated he would like the building to meet the 80-foot setback Fntzler commented he would like to see the same building matcnals used on this project that have been presented tonight and not replaced w ith something else. Villard inquired whether thr color could be changed somewhat if they become aware of a new product. Fritzla suted he would like to see the products \aried as has been discussed Bremer commented the Planning Commission would also like to see the sar>; .«p«r o( w-ality used on this building as has been presented tonight. Raba HMved. Leslie seewwied, to table AppMcatloo #04-3062, Joba *1 ecraact 9)n>ics. LLC, 26XX Kelley Parkway (Ootloi E, Stoaebay) Final Plat and Pl'D bile Plan Amendment, Jtnail revised plana at e snbmHied by the Applicant. Gaffron inquired whether this item would be discussed at the November 3'^ work session. Rahn indicated he is not opposed to discussing this item at the upcoming work session if all the matcnals ha.e been submitted. VOTE; Aycs7,NayaO. PLANNING COM.MISSION COMMENTS 12. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Conncil mectinp September 27 and October 11,2004 Kempf suted he attended the September 27* Council meeting and noted a recap was already giv en at the previous w ork session. Rahn suted he attended the October 11* Council meeting, w ith the only zoning item being the i ersian PAGE 40 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moad«y,October It, 204M 6:00 o*deck pjm. (Repurt of Ploooiag Comniuioo RcprcMOtalivn, Coolioocd) •ppkcaiKML Rahn indicated Persian agreed to reduce the size of the building to meet the recommendation of 1200 square feet by the Planning Commission but that he also needs to obtain the approval of the homeowners architectural committee. Gaflnm noted the housing moratorium was extended for another six months. 13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCI SSION None 14. PLANNING ai.MMISSION APPROVAL OF .MINXTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20. 2004 Rabn moved, Leslie seconded, to approve the minutes of the September 20.2004 Planning CommisaiMi meethig as mbrnMed. >'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Winkey abstained. 15. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON OCTOBER 25 AND .NOVE.MBER 8,2004 October 25 - Kempf November 8 - Fntzler ADJOnUVMENT Rabn moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn tbe planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the mccung was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. David Rabn, Chair PAGE 41