Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-20-2004 Planning Packet■V ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday September 20,2004 6:00 PM 2750 Kelley Parkwav - Council Chambers AGENDA Connell Representative: Jim Murphy ALUlK.NCi: MEMBERS: Please linn in for the publie record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants ssill be asked to mose to the front table to answer questions when the Chair anaouaers the application. The Piannimt Comtnissian is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on ans items on ibis agenda, ibes will be Kheduled fur the October II. 2004 Cits Council meeting unless olherwiu* noted by the C'hair. CONSENT 1. 1104-3047 Drucc Mcese and .Maureen .Murphy. .M35 Casco C'ircle, Variance Renewal (SlafT; Janice Gundbeh) 2. H04-3050 Mike McClelland, 2170 Minnetonka Avenue, Variance (Staff: Mcl.inic Curtis) OLD BUSINESS 3. M02-2830 City of Orono. Building Heights. Code .Ainendnienis (Staff: Janice Gundbeh) 4. 1(04-3024 City of Orono CUP for Vehicle Storage, Code Amciulmcnt.s (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 5. A04-3048 Steven Persian. 1005 Hunt Farm Road, Variances (Staff; Janice Gundbeh) 6. 804-3049 Wooilliill Country Club. 200 Woodhlll Road. Conditional Use Permit (Staff; Mike Gaffron) 7. 804-3051 Kevin and Jjlic Fit/patrick. 356 Westlake Street, Variances (Staff: Janice Gundbeh) 8. 804-3052 Fric Vogstroni. 2618 Casco Point Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) PLANNING CO.MMISSION COM.MENTS 9. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings August 23 and Sept' ber 13.2004. 10. Other issues for discussion. 11 Planning Commission approval of minutes for August 16. 2004. 12. Selection of representatives for Citv Council meetings on September 27 and October 11, 2004 ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance MctTiMi Date 'T-«?0 Zcril □ COINCIL GT PI.ANMNG C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other____________ NA.MK (plea»c print) PLE.\«iE HLLOL TTill: IMOR.MATION RCg« CSTCO BELOW lUKOLRCnV KECOROS. ADOIUISS PRKSKNT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NL.MBKR 1. ^ .1^ It^ Vrt^|%Ar.cl/____I \ k V* /ij fj____O 7 ~ ^ / 2. T7tviT ^ F:\cTK lLt‘. tt^-1 Q^'k- _________0^ >3C ‘4 ^ ^yi) L J.j> jr 5. ('s*^jr\ \v Iy/ Vi.c^V 0/ - /nw U\a ’y/ ^ /4sa,j (\\rr L C [n\\Xr• ^________lfiL| • :\( <r^ J y*\Z _ . . r J . ^ > / n.- 12-. 13. _ 14. _ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION >l0Qda> September 20, 2004 6;00 PM 2^50 KeHe^ Pirl,»»i% - Conacll Cbambert Council Repreteoialitc: Jan Moiphy AGENDA AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Pleaic tipi in for the public record at ibe front podium If >ou wbh to addrcti the Planaln; Committion. Applicanit will be atkrd to mote to the front table to antMcr qiictliont ttlien Ihr Chai announce* the applicaiioa. The Planniog Committion b an adtitor^ body to ibe City Cauocll. I action b taken on any litnu on tbit agenda, tbrt mIH be ubedulcd lor the October II. 2004 C'tr Conned meeting onictt mbeettite noted bt the Chair. CONSENT ; S04..VX47 Bruce Meese and Mauretc Murphy. JIJSCatco Circle, Vanir.ee Renewal iS'aff Jaruc Gundlach) - *0l-.IO5O Mt'ce .McClelland. 21 **0 Minnetonka A'cnuc, \'anar..:e (Staff Mflame Curlit) HI D BUSINESS ' O02-28.I0 City of Oict.o. Building llrighit. Code Amendments (S;jfT Janice Gan JIach) 4 «<l4-3024 City of Oior.o CUP for Vehicle Siorase, Code Aittetiimen't iS:afi .Mike Clifton) NEW BUSINESS 5 n(M 3048 Steteit Pettian. 1005 Hunt Farm Road. Vanancci (S'-iff Janice GumSIach' 6 n04 .101*1 Woodh II Ccuiiiry Club. 200 W oodbill Road. Conditional Ute Pemiit (Staff .MueGiffion) 7 004-3051 Ketin and Julie rurpatnek, 356 M rtilakr Street, Vanancci (Staff Janice Garailach) 8 004-3052 Enc Vogtticr.j. 2018 Catro Point Road. Vanatwe (Suff Melanie Curiit) PLANNING COM.SIISSION CO.M.SIENTS 9 Report ofPlai ninjroiTCTiition icptetcrtaiivet a ’er.dingCoww;: meeting* AugasI 23 and September 13.20N* 10 Other itsuci for diKuttion 11 Plarjiing Conimusion approval of mmuies for August 16,20C4. 12 Selection of reptnentaiivn for City Council meetinp on September 27 and October II, 2004 ADJOURNME.NT Sffptenbtr'^UM p«t«2orz Background The applicants received a number of variances in late 2003 for construction of a new home. The applicants have not started construction of that new home within the aliened one year which variance approval provides. The applicants are requesting that those variances be renewed an additional year. If granted the applicants would have until September of 2005 to apply for a building permit. Staff maintains that the conditions under which the 2003 variances were granted still exist and therefore the renewal should be approved. The findings under which the previous variances were approved can be found under the ''Findings of Fact” section of both resolutions (Exhibit C and D). Should the Planning Commission and Council approve the renewal, the resolutions attached as Exhibit C and D would be amended to reflect the 2(X)S deadline and the code sections uould be updated to reflect to re* codification that has occurred since the 2(X)3 approval. Issues for Cousidcration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the conditions under which the 2003 variances were approved still exist? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council renew the variances approved in September and October of 2003 consisting of a lot area, lot width, 0 - 75 ’ & 250’ - 500’ zone hardcover variances, and a lake setback variance stipulating that a grading plan must be finalized prior to final City Council Approval. The resolutions shall be amended to reflect a September 2005 deadline for building permit submittal, as well as the updated code sections to reflect the re-codification that has occurred since the original approval. City of Orono Variance Application StT99t Addross: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4603 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Addresa: . P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 553234066 Application # 0^ — V----- Date Received: i-'lLo- 2CX>1 Amount PaW: jJoo. <>o Staff: ^C4.n ^ ^'Renewal: S300 J -S6Q0 Aftcr-tne-tac^ 1^/00 DouPte Fee This application term must be completed in fiill. 4^; cant vrni ba appi4«Son. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: _________ -------------------------------------------— Property Identification Number (PIN):rTOpeny lOOnuiicaHun nuiiiwai ^u./i r \ ■ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Property Acquired (month/year): t jZiOOZ- □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: ^Residential □ Other ------------------------------------------------------------- Zoning District: __________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Complete legal nares and manai status required for each interested pa-ty) Name: tbriAft. ^MAyr^ir\ MurptH. PhOTKPhdnePho^wfk): Jhji Address; rjiruL’ , /ifdno. SS^I---- ____ ^ Fax: 0 4K 73W Email:______ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete tegal names ard marital status requLxd for each inte.osted party) Name; _______‘,AT»K AS A&OVE' Phone (home):____________________ Address; _____________________—-— Email;___________________________ Phone (work); Fax: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ ^ifXiVOQA Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary). ncrPAl^iD/J np Mikt: !aJ Qa. bF JO OPT. dF 7J00^ - fO ' ZOC^__________ L.IWH WB/«8d IBM # S'j'oo iiBtsmsB*oioso « "8f-to rcot-et-ithf REQUIRED SUBIUTTALS: ^OfWT Afai/T /NPO.A^ VJG A(J.c^i AU of the following Infbrmrtlon mutt be submftted by the appBcatlon deadline date In order for you* appHeation to be processed. P Pre-AppHcatlon Meeting Form, oompieted by a City Planner. D Completed Application Form □ Completed Heirship Documentation Form □ Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150' of the subject proporty. labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet. Including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5" x 11* or 11" X17" for reproduction. □ Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). D Topographic survey - mcluding existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5' x 11" or 11" X 17" for reproduction. □ Sketches or plans of floor ar>d elevation views (provide one copy 8.5"x11’orirx17l. □ Addltlorwl Items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project " APPLICANTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/cr consultant expenses Incurred in review of this application and certifies that the informaUon supplied Is toie and correct to the best of his/her Knowledge. The applicant recognizes that ha/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no attemative but to reject it until it Is comploto or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of Its potential morit Applicant's Signature: Applicant’s Signature: Dater Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this appPication and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Coundl Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. >k Owner's Signature: Owner's Signature: Pate: Date: g. //f^/ V ^ /'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 schedukjd meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative atterkf in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project rr, n.. A ^ \ -JT!—.'i; At lZ9-d rQ0/C80 d ilM Slimzzsh rc«-:z-i«rr -1 fn fJuruix^- “OoiZidTtZ.b.i.'j, ^.-f. l•'=^0' TO (£,__ A-£A\0Vgp A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.2S SUBDIVISION 6 (b), SECTION 10.22 SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16 (I) FILE NO. W05-2936 WHEREAS. Bruce F. Mecsc & Maiu^ccn E. Murphy (husband & wife), (licrcinaftcr “the applicams”) arc the owners of the properly located at .^1 .’5 Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lol 41. that part of Lot 64, that part of vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and that part of the tract of land between said avenue and the ihore of Lake Minnctonk.i. all described as beginning at the Northwest corner of Lol 41. which point is maiked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 1633.‘^; thence South along the West line of Lot 41 and its extension, a distance of 219.07 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 16333; thence continuing South along said extension to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Easterly along said shore to its intersection with the southerly extension of the East line of Lot 41; thence North to the Northeast corner of Lot 41; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 64 distant 30 0 feet Northwesterly from the most Easterly comer of Lot 64. thence Northwesterly along said Northwesterly line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 24.00 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles from the Northwesterly line of Lot 64 and its extension, which a point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 16333, tliencc Southerly a distance of 5 1 35 feel, more or less, to the point of beginning, all in SPRING PARK, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. (hereinafter the “property’*), and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 Subdivision 6 fb). Section 10.22 Subdivision 2, and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16 (I) to rebuild a home on the existing lot. Page 1 of 6 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by ihc City Council of Orono. Minnesota. 3. nNDINGS This application wzs reviewed as Zoning File «03-2936. The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which req .r\ a nunimuni lot area of'/; acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. Fhe applicants’ property is .49 acres and has a width of 60 feet. 'Fhe Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 18. 2003 and recommended approval of the lot area, lot width and 250-500* zone hardcover variance based on the following findings; a. The property is .49 acres in size when .50 acres is required b. The property has a lot width of 60 feet at the shoreline and 75’ setback w hen 100 ’ is required. c. Because the lot is being reviewed as a rebuild, the lot must conform to current Zoning Ordinance standards or a hardship shall be presented. d. Due to the configuration of the lot. minimal area exists in the 250-500* zone, hence a variance to allow excess hardcover for the pioposed detached garage is not reasonable. e. Because of sight visibility problems on Casco Circle, a turnaround is necessary to safely exit the drive. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property’ in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic Pi^e 2 of 6 conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\c as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficultx; is necessary to preser\ e a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be m keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Co^le and Contprehcnsi\e Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or moie of the above findings, the Orono City Couned hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 Subdivision 6 (b). Section 10.22 Subdivision 2, and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16 (1) to allow a lu*u<e to be rebuilt on an existing lot, subject to the following conditions; 1 Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Hxhibii A. An> amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review 2. Approval for hardcover amounts in the 75-250' and 250-500* zones arc based on the hardcover amounts listed in the planning report. 22.4% hardcover is allowed in the 75-250 ’ zone and 37% hardcover is allowed m tlie 250-500 ’ zone. 3. The excessive hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone will be reviewed separately tnd isn’t included in this resolution. A resolution addressing the decision on the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone will be drafted once a final decision has been made by the City Council. 4. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone shall be limited to 2.369 s.f or 22 4*» per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A Applicants are advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of cxisting'approvcd hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcov cr. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approv*al. or the variance will expire on that date (August 25.2004). Page 3 of 6 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. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants* heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to <he recording of this resolution m the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 25'*' day of August. 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) Page 4 of 6 ___4* ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF MINNESOTA COLJNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of _______, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City of Oiono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument w as executed on behalf of llie City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF 1!EN2^EPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of __. 2003 by Linda S. Vce. City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on K-half of the City. Notary Public •1 STATE OF MINNHSOTA CObTvTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this . day of. 2003 by. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HEN’NEPIN 1 his instrument was acknowledged before me this day of. 2003 by Notary Public Page 6 of 6 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282 AND SECTION 78-1288 (B) FILE NO. 03-2936 WHEREAS, Bruce F. Mecsc & Maureen t. Murphy, husband and wife (hcrcinaAcr “ihc applicants’*) arc the owners of the property located at 3135 Casco Circle withir the City of Orono (hereinaAcr the ’*City") and legally described as follows; Lot 41. that part of Lot 64. that part of vacated Lake Shore venue, and that part of the tract of land between said avenue and the shore of Lake Minnctoitka. all described as beginning at the Northwest comer of Lot 41. which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 16333; thence South along the West line of Lot 41 and its extension, a distance of 219.07 feet, which point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 16333; thence continuing South along said extension to the shore of Lake Miiuicionka; thence Easterly along said shore to its intersection with the southerly extension of the East line of Lot 41. thence North to the Northeast comer of Lot 41; thence Northeasterly to a point on the Northeasterly line of Lot 64 distant 30.0 feet Northwesterly from the most Easterly comer of Lot 64. titence Northwesterly along said Northwesterly line to its intersection with a line drawn parallel with and 24 00 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles fiom the Noithwesterly line of Lot 64 and its extension, which a point is marked by a Judicial Landmark set pursuant to Torrens Case Number 16333; thence Southerly a distance of 51.35 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning; all in SPRING PARK, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County. (hereinafter the “property ”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and Section 78-1288 (B) to allow a lakeside deck and adjacent retaining walls to remain in the 0-75' zone, such deck and retaining wall c:?nstiiuiing structure and 6% hardcover (excluding allowed stairway access) when no structure and 0*/o hardcover is normally allowed. Page I of 6 NOW, THERFFORE BE IT RESOLVED by ihc City Council of Orono. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2936. The property is located in the LR - 1C zoning district, which requires a minimum lot area of '/j acre and a minimum lot width of lOU feet. The applicants’ property is .49 acres and has a width of 60 feet. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 18, 2003. The City Council reviewed the application at regularly scheduled meetings held on September 8 and September 22. 2003 and granted conceptual approval of the hardcover variance for the 0- 75' zone based on the following findings: a. The nature of the property in the 0-75 ’ zone is steep slopes being supported by retaining walls. b. Currently, the e.xisting lakeshore deck is bolted to a concrete retaining wall which is supporting 8’ of earth. c. After engineering reviews, the interdependency of the wall on the deck is inconclusive; however. Council action to require removal of the deck may have unintended negative consequences. Should the deck be required to be removed and detached from the retaiiting wall, there is the potential tlut the retaining wall may fail, subsequently causing slope failure. The existing conditions of the retaining wall and attached deck support the slope. e. Absent the unique conditions noted above, the lakeshore deck would normally not be allow'ed to remain, as it is a nonconforming structure and the property is undergoing a complete teardown/'rebuild of the principal structure. Page 2 of 6 ii -.1 addition to the lakeside deck The existing lattice u*ork below the deck shall be replaced by vegetation. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the construction of the new house within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (October 13, 2004). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms aiul coiulitions 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. The undersigned applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 1day of October, 2003. ATTEST: Lindas. Vee. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor Propeny Ownerfs) Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal co poration and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of6 w m State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknoNsiedged before me this , by Bruce F. Mecse, husband of Maureen E. Murphy. day of.^2003 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this by Maureen E. Murphy, wife of Bruce F. Mcese. day of..2003 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 File (KVl-MM Sfp*.«nt)*M ?0W P*g« « of 3 Date Application Received: 08*17-04 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 08-31-04 60-Day Rr« iev» Period Eapires: 10-31-04 From: Dale: Subjrcl: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Ntelanic Curtis, City Planner ^ September 1. 2004 CONSENT 04*3050, Mike & Jeannie McClelland. 2170 Minnetonka Avenue. * Variance • public hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential, 2 acre/200* Lot Area: 0.56 acre (24,397 s.f.) Lot Width: 138' :$ Briar Street/175' $ Minnetonka Avenue Application Sununary: The applicants are requesting lot \sidth and lot area \ arianccs in order to rebuild a new single family rcsideiKe and detached garage on their 0 56 acre property within the RR-IB. 2 acre 2one. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances as requested. Hardship The \vidth and area of the lot are an existing situation, there is no land available for the applicants to acquire in order to make their lot conforming _______ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78*420. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. Lot Aiea (jcrcfi | Loi Width (feet) Ffom Yard SidcYaiJ 1 Side Yard AdjACcni to (feel) StreeUfecI) Rear Ya'd(teei) 2 hoo 50 30 150 50 List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/'Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submined Hardcover Calculations F. Resolution No. 4694 (Fence within 50’ of right-of-way) 0. Property Owners List H. PiatMijp FILE •04-3C50 V 20C4 Pas* 3 Of 3 along Minnetonka Avenue measures 175* in^^idth. RR-IB Standardf The proposed house and 988 s.f. detached garage meet all setback, lot coverage, and hardcover standards of the RR-IB district. Driveway **curb cut** The proposed angled driveway, while 20’ wide in section, is about 28 ’ in width where it crosses the lot line and will have to be slightly modified in width or orientation to meet the 20’ limit. Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form attached as E.xhibit B. and should be asked for additioital testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaal>‘sb In amstderlng •ppfkmrtom for vmrhmce, the Ptamtlng Cemmhthm skmtt eetitUer the effect of the propotetl Yorionce upon the heohh, to/eiy and welfare of the conrnmnhy, cxlttlng and anticipated traffic eonditiont, light and air, danger of fire, rbk to the public %afety. and the effect on valuet of property in the surrounding area. The Hanning Conunission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provbhms of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it b demonurated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that os the lot is similar in size with the lots in the immediate neighborhood, and that there is no odditional land for the property owners to acquire in order to make their lot confonning in area and w idth. Issues for Consideration 1. Although a variance was granted, docs the Planning Commission feel that the accessory building located within the right-of-way should be removed as part of this review? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommeodation Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances with the following stipulation: 1. The new construction will be required to conform to the hardcover, lot coverage, and setback regulations. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address 2750 KeHey Parkway Orono MN 55356 Mam 952-249-^603 fax- 952-249-«6 ’6 Mad ng Address PO B ok 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323- Acp.caticn « Date Reoe.wea ff- i7-0-i AxrcuntPad ^^(Jf•CO’ CO Staff Fee * Re-cwai S600 S3C3 After.tre-*act S1.20C Dcj=!e Fee :o6s Tnis app^icalon form rrust be ccrrpieted in fun. Ap: can w?ti be roti^.ed wthin 15 days as to the stat-s tne aopt cation Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION:. Site Addreis ^ ._________________________________________ Property Identification Number (PIN)-_____________________________________________________ (Attach legal description to application .f not me'^ded on the survey ) Date Property Acquired (month/year); flag HaO □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: D^esidentia!^ □ Otner__________________________________________ Zoning District; _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Como'ete egai rs-es and r-.an(a status 'ccuired for eacn interested party) Name (YUil^ D fpClcKOm CSeoniA Phene (homeT Address ppr> rvi4i^<n . Email; Phone (work) Pb-cjcC <^15 2 Zo:5 MOSS C * OWNER INFORMATION: (Corroiete legal na.mes c*a na-^i status required for each interested party) nyrJeltut^cJ Phone (home)! Name Address 2 HQ Email _______ Phone (work): ___________________________ Pr\ B qx| , FWi ^5.^93 _ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost $ llO.CCCl( Describe the request in detail (attach additional sneets if necessary); AdLirp.'i V4<jii.'^a 0^4^ )A|r>une fjpnrt ^ I mtv’Yirl ~tonn^/»nq K O City of Orono Variance Application /O.V o\ street Address 2750 Keiley Parkway Orono MN 55356 Mam. 952-249-^600 fax- 952-249-4616 Matitng Address P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323- Acpiication 4 Qt-( - Data Received p- i7-0-i Amount Pa d Staff Fee »(jp CO» oo M^C<.»vrC- S600 Rene-wal- S3C0 _____________ Afler-i^e-fact S1.20C Doude Fee :0€S Tnis app'icalon form must be ccrrpieted in fuH App cant wii: ce noti'iea within 15 days as to the status of tne aopi cat.on Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION; . Site Address: ^Oo iTkfyirrvitfrUCc*^ f\\ye ._______________________________ Property Identification Number (PIN)- ________________________________________________ (Attach legal description to application if not inc'uded on the survey ) Date Property Acquired (month/year); Aua □ Yes. I cvm the adjacent parcels. Present use of property: O^esidentia! ^ □ 0:ner _____________________________________ Zoning District: _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Como'ete legal r.£-es and manta: status required for each interested party)APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Como'ete legal na Name: (Yliilf DleCieKQnci Phene (home). Address. Ppm rvi4»^ri . Email: Phone (work): 95 2 ^o:5MQev5 Pr>. rV)xra<r Ain. <7533.:^ OWNER INFORMATION: (Comoiete legal names s'd mantal status requ.red for each interested party) Name fTieCJeHur\d Phone (home)^Phone (work): Address: 3 HQ rryVfqp . P r^ E qq , mn f75.S93 _____ Email: ^x: ’ ' DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost S llO.CCC)( Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): ___________________________ r>rt fva %n.nnri “tonnifin^i T^rrfiWi ylr>ttne K O REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitteo by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner 0^ Completed Application Form 0^ Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certifed Property Owners List - owners withm 150 ’ of the subject oroD^y labg!^ ar^ plat .map List, labels and map may te obtained from Hennepin County. DepartmenT^'-'^rarce. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6*'’ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 > □ Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). meetiiTCL_a:]_^^_quirerents listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations Also provide cne'eopy 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. Provius ore copy 8 5 x11' or ir X 17' for reproduction — S? Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8 5" x 11' orir 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 Plarrrg Department, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered m the original fee payment) and cr consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the nformauon supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knov;!edge The applicant recognizes that hc/she is solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so. the staff has no alternative but to reject It until It Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Applicant's Signature M Applicants Signature, CL/ 9. _ (T Date: Date: OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further auti rizes reasonab'e entry onto the properly by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's Signature ^ Jy\^r /. J Ovmer's Signature; / Date Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comm.ss on 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 cTty Planner assigned to your project. Page I of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application Will rot be cons-dered complete or p aced cn any mee: ns agendas jn.M tn.s fern s conrptete and subm.tted to the City Minnesota State Statue Section 394 27. Subdivision 7 resu-res that a ra'dship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted The hardship must be unique to the propely as variances run vi/ith the land and nc* tne land owner. Personal a *d economic situations are not considered va'id hardships in oruer fer an applies; on to be heard by ;ne Planning Commissten and City Council a ha'cship having ment must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the bas s City staff uses to determine if a hardsn.o exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address a'l the re'evant points listed below and answer inem as clearly as possib'e Since you are requesting the code excection. you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The informs :on the C.ty receives s what is used m determining a denial or approval 'ecommendation If you leave sometrurg out it will not be cons aered Piease address each of inese hardship criteria as they re'ate to the request (some nay not apply). 1 "The properly in question cannot be put to a reascnacle use if used under conditions aMowed by the official controls " 'The plight of the landowner is due to c rcumstances unique to ris property not created by the landowner.* “The variance, if granted will not alter the essentia! character of tne locality." '/J A, 'Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 1 Page 2 of 3 * foT«?a?.fe««“ ■’ ccnstruction as darned In Minnesota Statutes. Sect.on® ?6?06 L®lf2*Svnharmony with this Chapter.' Where the affected person's land is located.' »’« US. or a Js^chl^penT^ '’“'a"®'’ P'Puliar Sh“a"d la°no ",°o7,':S •" ,n the district m of a sSbstart^l prope^rty^r ghfoMhe^app^ presen/atcn and enjoyment ________________ Pl't rf rh:n*c: *‘f‘r CV.rltTs r. — of ’-x>tn I, 5, -^r^. MccV. f, Mrt- rcy cn : ii-'.cVtnV^ ’*»»rnc'-3r. C''‘nty, Vi iill £jC^^G! r^ A )' (> rU‘’3'-i.V or :v-« r: ; ,4,* 1 rfrtjfy lV-*t IM.* Ir a Iru- end ccrract renrataM^uen 01 9 fun’-v o ’r the l-cundtricc of Ix)U 5, i»r.d 6, Block 8, KenUr^y on r.U.rotonVji , »nd of tho lorstjon of ell Iniilclnra thore^, and aJJ. viaJMe errrt-ichnar.ts, if any, fron or on n.-id larJ. Thia »«ncy ia race only In ccr.nertlcn with a rortfnre Iri.n row ’t^lrc placed cn vhe ororartv; and no liability i» asauned ***rort to tM hcldar of aurh nortran? or any other Int/.rant amuired b/ rraern of a^ch «rtra»o. It la unrerrtrod and bfroed no nonuprrtf have t-»er rl!*<*ed fer the puraoao of aet^-bllahlnr lot llnea or hr\^:-ry Sralti Ikta t 1- = in.U-75 -croon ’I. Coffin 6C<>4 *«nd Surveyor and Blar»ner Lone Lnlca, KiruioaoU JEAJNlrj _ i-rr-r-»r-\y kilKIKlCIN LOTS 4. 5. & 6. BLOCK 8, MONTEREY ON MINNETONKA o : denotes Iron morker (961.8)'. denotes existing spot elevotion, mean sea level dotum denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown ore based upon on assumed datum. Lot areo = 24,200 sq. ft. I Q This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described prooerty, and the proposed location of o proposed house thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encrooc hments.____________ ------------------------------ ------- — in r-30'BRONBERG AND ABBOCIATEBt INC. CONBULTINO CNOINCCR8, LAND auRvevaRa. AND aiTE RLANNCRa 445 N. WiaOW DRIVE LONQ LAKE. MN. 5538 9S2-4734141 I hembv certify Ihel Wi uirvey we« pcepered by me or undw my direct tupervleian, end ttial I am ■ duty registered Civil Engineer Land Surveyor utMler tie lews of the Stele of M<nr>esots Marts Gronbeig MinnesflCk License Number 12755 OATt 8-16-04 J06NU 04-337 .* I h f. y .f-o f I vIeamiC A^£.CLeL\jeu40 IKl /VWWiV 0N SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Ho^ _______________ UfifJi HARDCOVER CALCULATION \VOlU<SHEET 3 Carige C Dnxeway D Sidev.alk £ PiuaDeck F. Landicspc Undtrlain Py P!«uc Or F»bnc G Other 0.75* R X X X 75-250* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _______________ - B PROPOSED TURDCOVrR IN ZONE A House B Ctrsge C Dr.vcMity D Sidewalk E Pat;o/Dcck F- Landscape Underlain By Plasuc OrFabnc UnfJi G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN 20N*H A _______________ ♦ B 500-1000* X 100 • 27^ JSO, dJSO xlOO : - IS lf.7f SF SF SF SF !sf SF SF SF SF ’SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF .SF SF .SF SF .SF SF SF SF SF SF ‘ % f I- SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVEB IN ZONE A. H0U1«______________ JCAHlC A1c6tfLLA»40 HARDCOVER CALCULATlO:i\V0RKSHEET Q5-250J MiKTfAcT 0*» Alt 0-75'2S0-S00'SOO-1000’ LtnjV'WiOh B. Garaie C. Driveway D SidewaUc E PatioOeck F Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric C Other TOTAL HARDCO\'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A H quk UngUi B Cange C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc 0 Other TOTAL HARDCOVER INZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - B xIOO 120 , iCc' xlOO II ?6 SF SF SF SF SF SF 'SF SF SF SF. SF Sr SF SF SF. SJ. SF. SF. SP. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF SF. % fo 0\\ M CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIMSION 15 FILE NO. #<01.2708 NVHEREAS, Michael McClelland and Jeanje McClelland, (hereinafter The applicanis’) are owners of the propert> locaied at 2170 Minnetonka A\er.je within the City ot Orono (hereinafter ‘The City") and is legally described as follows Lots 4, 5. and 6. Block 8. Mon:ere> cn Minnetonka, except the North 12 feet of said Lots 4. 5. and 6. Hennepin Countv. Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"), and \\T1EREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 17. 2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak therecn, and NMIEREAS, the applicants applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03. Subdivision 15 to permit a 6’ p.'ivacy fence to be constructed within the 50' side >ard adjacent to the street setback where a 3 fence is permitted NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cit> Council of Orono. FLNDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2708. The property is located in the RR-IB (2 acre) One Family Rural Residential Zoning District The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 17. 2001 and recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 2 for a v ariance based upon Uie following findings and hardships: .Minnesota: I. Page 1 ofS £: CITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 A 6' fence was consinicted in 2000 lo replace a 6' fence (hat had existed on the propeny line. The City had notified the property owners the fence could not be replaced in the existing location because the fence was nen- cctifonning due to the 6 foot heigh: in a street yard B.Fences are not pcrmir.ed to encroach into the public right-of*wa>. The variance application does not include a request to locate the fence off the property The Municipal Code permits fences as a r.on-er.croachmenl wi’Jun required yard areas, however the height of a fence cannot exceed 3 ' • feet if located in a street yard The applicants’ propeny is defined as a comer lot with two street yards. Properties in the RR-IB zoning district have a required setback of 50 feet to the property lines. A 6 foot fence could be constructed but only if constructed 50 feet from the propeny line. E.The fence is located adjacent to a street that is partially undeveloped. The Minnetonka Avenue right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south. There are no plans 'oy the City of Orono to extend or further develop Minnetonka Avenue. The City Council has made the following findings to suppon a hardship to permit replacement of a 6’ fence along the south propeny line The fence is replacing a fence that had been located along the propeny line for many years. The fence received damage when a tree had fallen and destroyed several panels of the preexisting fence B.The fence is located adjacent to a street that is panially undeveloped and not open to vehicle traffic. The Minnetonka A\cnuc right-of-way separates the applicants’ lot from an adjacent lot to the south and the right-of-way functions the same as an interior lot line. Page 2 of 5 CITYof ORONO %RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 C. The total width of the Minnetonka Axcnuc right-of-way is 40'. The fence will be located no closer than 40' to the propeny located to the south of the subject lot. D. A portion of the preexisting fence is still located on the property. E. The lot is unique by the fact it is one cf only a few lots in the Cr>$tal Bay neighborhood that is located on a comer lot with one of the two streets being undeveloped and the City of Orono does not use the street for public utilitv purposes. In addition the City does not intend to open Minnetonka Avenue to extend the road Minnetonka Avenue can not be extended because the French Creek lots are planed without the provision to extend the right of way in the future 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propeny arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propeny in this zoning district, that granting the variance would not advetselv affect traflic 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 nccessao' to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; a.nd would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6 The City Council has considered Lhis application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City s*aff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safetv and welfare of the community. CONCLtSlONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above flndl'^f.l ‘he Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section ’vf! .ubdivision 15 to permit a 6 privacy fence to be constructed within the 50 side yai*. *■..* nl to the street setback where a 3 ‘/i’ fence is permitted, subject to the following conduit ; 1. No portion of the fence shall encroach into the Minnetonka Avenue richl-of-vvay Page 3 of 5 CITYofORONO \\ 2! fence shall be constructed with the finished side of the fence (the finishei RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 9 4 side is the side of the fence without structural suppons) towards the right-of- way. Authorities granted by this variance 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 this variance will expire on that date (September 24, 2002). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zc.ning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5.The undersigned applicants have read, understand 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 litis 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 24th day of September, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S Vcc. City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor APre -7,;/ /^<>/,//. roperty Owner (s) Page 4 of 5 li ^1' /o. !i V1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) S5. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) GITYofOROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO ___4 6 9 4 The foregoing instrumenT was acknowledged before me on ihis 24^ da\ of September, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S Vee. Mayor and City Clerk of the Cii> of Orono. a Minnesota municipa! corporation and said instrame.nt was executed on behalf of thc_Cil5L‘Wmm0 RACHEL DODGE NOTAJW wme • MNUE r or* l%Canr«i«nE«pimJv< 3' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of C^ Notarv Public 20 before me a Notar% Public within and for said countv. personally appeared a.<i ^ Ic’t Lnown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acL-.owlcdged (their) free act and deed ' " RACHEL DODGE NOTARY Puaic-MMN£^U III CmMW ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COLTsTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this .ylllday of “^C l'»1.1 said county, personally appeared >- ID<. r, C-^ Notary Public . 201 * before me a Notarv Public within and for .. t c-c-vfx ,cr ( t f- I f~i fi__ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) c\ccuted the same as his (their) free act and deed RACHaDOOGE Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) c y L.i'C /^l y 5..- Iprint narr^e(s)l [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use the property located at 111/} M'.JiiitTfKtKi A\f also re'e'red to as Land Use Applicat on No ________ I (v;e; understand that in executing this acknov/edgemeni. I (we) am (are) rot asked to ceclare approval or disapproval of tbe property or use Out merely to confirm for the Cly Cc jrc.l that I (we) am (are) a^rp^ the igrTprovemert p'ans and that the oropcsed neighbor's project or use 'equiresX^ncITaJjBJroval PropeYty-O^er ' w/Date Property Owner Date I (wc) < /:) 4. i r'/Vivliij of L=i n..- < (pr nt name(s)][print address] have reviewed the p'ans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at____________________also referred to as Land Use AXpolicaticri No _________ I (we) understand tnat in executing this acknow’edgenent. I (we) am (are) net as<ed to declare approval or disapproval of the prooerty or use but merely to confirm forme City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the prooosed r.2ighb0'‘s project or use requires Council approval jc'i Date ' Property Owner Date f I'If you have any infermat on that nay assist the City in the review of this Land Use I Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days I prior to the scheduled meeting date *■ <r \ I r RUN DATE IW200I II 10117712)0004 nor ADDR )• ADOI^^J» I JNASSIGNfeO OWNER NAME CLAIR J WtHMIlW tl At TA)»AYKR SMARON * Cl ARK WINSLOW NAME/ADDR llOURtNCHl KkkKlIR WAYZAIAMN S1V>I )l IOII72))l(lO«a rr6i^«nnR i2touriarst C A-llR ►;RMF. lOUNC RAMik Ta »> ^ f RANG® NA^«.MnR r ODOR 105 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55)2) II IOII72))I002) ntl> < OR I245 ARIM»RST OV».<V( KAMk KARI N li nJl.RKFNO TAXfAYlR KARhNtBJERKtNO NAMb'AOOR ARIKJR ST WAY/ATAMN 55)01 )l 101172)11009) rROP AODR 2170 MINNhlONKA AVE OWNER NAME M A i MC C l II I ANU TAXPAYER MKIIAllPMCCLLLIANO NAME/AOOR .'170 MINNI.IONKA AVt N PODOX45 CRYSTAL HAY MN 55)2) U 101172)120005 PKOPADOR 22)5 IRISVHC KTEKCIR OWNER NAME OSAJSIKKA TAXPAYER l»AUII A JASWINOER SIKKA NAMUADOR 22)5IRlNCIirRinKCIR WAY/ATAMN 55)91 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROFFRTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PRCPtRTYO\5M:KS LIST )l 101172)24(10)0 PROPAtMJR I2))HR1ARST OWNER NAME T L TRANR A D I I HANK TAXPAYER THOMAS A IIAHHARA ERANK NAME7A0DH l2m»HtAKS! WAY/AIAMN 55)91 )■ I0II72))«0U)9 PROPAOOR 12W DREAR SI OWNER NAME LAURIE A Pf ARSON TAXPAYER lAURU A PEARSON NAMI7AOOR 1250 BRIAR ST WAY/ATAMN 55)91 Jl IOII72))I0074 PROPADOR 1224 BRIAR ST OWNER NAME JAMES E IIILIIE R TAXPAYER JAMES EIIIUJER SAMb ADOR 1224 BRIAR Sr WAV/AIAMN 55)9! )l |0II72)U0IU2 PROPADOR 1251 BRIAR ST OWNERNAME R J ROIH A T QUAST TAXPAYER ROBERTA JUN ROTH NAMT/ADDP. PO BOX 159 CH5STAI IIAYMN 55)2) U 101172*2400)1 PROPADIMt 1115 ARIR»RST UWNlRNAMh SARCARISON TAXPAYER SIEPHENCARANOUCARLSON NAMIVADim I )R5 ARDOR ST WAY/AIAMN 55)91 )S |(|II72))I«)42 PROP ADDR 1261 BRIARS! OWNER NAME C.& L PRINIliP TAXPAYER GARYMPRINIUP NAME/AOOR PO BOX 104 CRYSTAI OAYMN 55)2) U 10II72))I0075 1212 BRIAR SI - jOklE KAJKIEMIN TAXPAYER RKIIAKOTKILMEN NAML/AOOR 1212 BRIAR SI WAY/ATAMN 55)91 )S tOII72))2fW4 PROPADOR 2220 ERENCMIREIKUR OWNER NAME ROBERT WIAYEIEID TAXPAYER ROBERIWlAYflHO NAMI/AOOR POBOX)4 MPUSMN 55440 o CO OF TEC HFTIEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SFJlVICtS W-PARTMQIUP TIIE BpT OfMYKNOWUUObANDBI-UEF Hennvpin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department :reek 10-117-23- I (30) tn -<o- r^rjr i® ■f7j; . * P , •« a' ^ I* «4C i--5.“77/i • M/W BTONKA AVE ^^—a L”"'* /i ® » , >MJ* .i j, mn~ * ' *« ■' L r • »n:w^f»t * » ■ k. t «ki» (3v *. CO [r:;.^j^ si .' j »«»J > a »' f • * (<71 3 ^(39! * ? tJ3’ ■ QC ' ^ 'tear >•* * .BAY, .f^.* 1?'^ *. - ■■•«—L§ig5jc _!/-•»«j-‘J ■■ I ! ' . «at) < I 9^f*4 -I ^ MM » « •«»' ' •••^•*, •' ___J?; ■■!«.:] 'JUl'i- * CRYSTAL AV^ 5 fiTj If nt) i| 'JlSQin:Information ID 1011723310M3 He«w* Kumbw 2170 StfMt Nam* MINNBTONKA AVE This It not B Opoiy noordtd map. It nprmtenu » camfitMion ct MonfmOon and data from Cdy. Coun*y. and SWe road authontias and atharaouxat. «02XU0 Sv^nbcr 20.2004 f»|t I of 4 To: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach. City Planner^ Dale: September 16,2004 Subject: 02-2830. rjiy of Orono, Building Height Code Amendment • Public Hearing AppHcation Summary: Hie City of Orono is requesting that the current building height code be amended to reflect the current policies which have been in place since 2001 or earlier and which have been written as a policy statement since November of 2002. The proposed new building height language will clarify the following: 1. Height shall meet the 2-Vj stor>- limitation AND the 30 ’ limitation. 2. A definition for haIt-stor> is added, and 3. The measurement of the highest point is clarified where dormers and wind(»ws exist w ithin the roof system. Staff Recommendation: StalT recommends the code amendment be adopted in an attempt to clarify for the public how building height is determined and because these current policies are already being enforced. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections A number of code sections arc affected by the amendment. Section 78-1 which contains Utc building height definition w ill be amended to include the 2 main policies which have been in efTect since 2002. Secondly, each zoning district section where building hcigltt is clarified will be amended to state “...shall not e.xcced 2- ': stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height..." rather than the current language of “...shall not e.xceed 2 '/: stones or 30 feet in height...’’ Ihis is a change from including this clarification in the building height definition. Staff feels this method is a better “fix" as it would be clarified in each zoning district section of the Code rather than only in the definition section. Also, note that the language for Section 78-825 (d) lists a height of 40 feet. This is not a txpo as this section regulates the Industrial District which allows for 3-'«torics'40 foot height. Stair thought it was appropriate at this point to clarify the 3 stories and the 40 feet restriction. New language in Section 78-1 w ill define a half story . The current code allows for half stories however, staff has been struggling with what defines the actual half story-. This definition was compiled from other published half story definitions and written to most accurately reflect the discussion on this topic by the Planning Commission oxer the lost two years. September 2t. 2004 Pete 3 af 4 Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Heighi. No structure or building in the LR-IC district shall exceed 2'/j stories eo and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-370. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR-lC-1 district shall exceed 2'/j stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-395. Area, heighi. lot width and yard requia*ments. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-1A district shall exceed 2'/* stories ep and shail not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-420. Area, heighi. lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height, No structure or building in the RR-1D district shall exceed 2'^j stories tef and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-444. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR-ID-I district shall exceed 2'i stories m and shall not exceed 30 feet in heighi except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-502. Ileighl. No structure or building in mulliple-familv planned residential (MFPR) project shall exceed 2'/j stories c*p and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-572. Building height. Within any RS seasona. recreational district, no structure or building shall exceed 2'/: stories er and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78- 1366. Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (i) Heighi. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/3 stories er and .shall not exceed 30 feel in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-672. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in any B-1 district shall exceed 2/'i stones ©p and shall not exceed 30 feet in height. Sec. 78-707. Area, height. >ard, setback and design requircnienis. (n) Heighi No structure or building shall exceed 2'/i stories op and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-736. Area, height, lot width, yard, setback and design requirements. (i) Heighi. No structure or building shall exceed 2'/i stories ep and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. L rae>4of4 Sec. 78-766. Area, height, lot width, setback requiieinent and design requirements. (i) Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2V, stories ef and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. Sec. 78-797. Area, height, lot width setback requirements and design requirements. (7) No structure or building shall exceed 2'A stories or and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78*1366. Sec. 78*825. Area, height, setback and design requirements. (d) Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or and shall not exceed 40 feet in height except as provided in section 78*1366. issnet for CoasidcrathNi 1. Does the Planning Commission have any issues with the proposed amendments and their impacts on development? 2. b the Planning commission interested in establishing a peak height maximum of 40 feet, to be included in a future amendment? 3. Ate there any other issues or concerns with thb application? SUIT RccomBMndation Recommend the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Sections 78*1, 230 (a). 255 (a), 305 (a). 330 (a). 350 (a), 370 (a). 395 (a). 420 (a), 44 (a), 502, 5V 646 (i). 672 (a), 707 (n), 736 (i). 766 (i), 797 (7), 825 (d) to clarify for the public how budding he ghi b determined. Staff would also recommend that the Planiting Commission continue to discuss the building height issue at work sessions in an attempt to possibly adopt a maximum peak height as well as additional height restrictions on substandard width lots. Draft revbioni <o 7&-1S77 re: vehicle storaee c>'i Section 7I-1S77. Exterior Storage in R Districts. (c) Vehicle Storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and cuneiitly licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in '*R'* districts is regulated as follows: (1.) Parking of vehicles other than recreational vehicles, with a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 14,000 pounds or less is allowed in all **R’* districts. (2.) Parking of vehicles in “R‘* districts in excess of 14,000 pounds GVW has tlie potential to create potential negative impacts on the surrounding neichborhood. These impacts may include noise (from operation as well as maintenance of vchicici: vibration: glare: odors: soil/watcr cont.imination ffrom dripping, washing. eic.V hazards lo pedestrian s bv wav of proximity, especially on private roads: wear & tear on local or nnvate roads: propensity to offload remainim^ cargo on site at end of dav: and visual incompatibility with the character of a neighborhood Such use mav be acceptable under certain conditions in zoning districts where lot areas are generally 2 acres or lancer. Therefore, parking of such vehicles requires each of llie following conditions be mei: a. Minimum lot size of 5 acres. For anv property at least 2 acres but less than 5 acies in area, where it can be shown that prior to the effective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a regular basis prior to and after January 1. 2004. a Vehicle Storage conditional use permit mav be granted subject to the conditions established for such conditional use permit if allowed in the respective zoning district in which the property is loca ted. b. Property ow ner must be vehicle ow ncr or operator. c. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. d. Vehicle Mmust not be \ isible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. e. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur w ithin an enclosed building. f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time; and g. In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all current driveway users. Drift iMgmgc for CUP cntr>’ to be iddcd to approprlote retIdcotiil dbtricts (RR*1B, RR- 1 A, LR-IA, Le. the 2-icre aid 5-icrc zoocs): 78-XXXX. Conditional UsM. Vehicle Storage. The storage or parking of one or more vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW^ in excess of 14.000 pounds on a property at least 2 acres but less than S acres in area, where it can be shown that prior to the cfTective date of this ordinance such a vehicle was previously stored on a reyulir basis prior to and aAer January 1. 2004. Approval shall be conditioned on the following: 2L ]L Si L & h. i. No such ii«e thall be allowed on a lot than 2.0 acres in area. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle mini be 8ct back SOf?^ feet from prooertv lines. Vehicle Mmust not be visible from neighboring nrooerties and public streets: veyetalive screening is preferred. Mainlenince of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. The vehicle ihall not constitute inuistuice at anv tlmei and In a shared driveway shuatign. ^hs must have on file an a^ bv all cuirent driveway users. iLliffiSl liaw «- MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Rahn and Planning Conunissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director\ August 26,2004 ' ^ ^ M04-3024B Proposed Zooiog Code Amendment: Section 78-1 577(c) - Consider CUP for Large V'ehicle Storage on Residential Properly Attachments A - July 9,2004 Moorse Memo to Council B - July 7,2004 MPG Memo to Moorse C • Zoning Code Section 78-1577 (as amended 11-24-03 via Ordinance i?4, Tliird Series) D - Excerpt on Conditional Uses from "Advanced Zoning" by Jolm Shardlow of DSU. Inc. Discussion The City Council in July review cd the Planning Commissioifs recommendation to not rc\ isc Uic 5-acrc minimum lot size requirement for storage oflarge vehicles, under the recently revised "Exterior Storage in R Districts" ordinance. Council took no fonnal action on a zoning .uncnJmcm.but directed staff and PlaruiingCommissioii to consider the pros and cons of, and potential performance standards for, allowing Large Vehicle Storage as a Conditional Use m residential zones, and whether this could be limited to just existing users. Basis for Current Ordiaance The current ordinance establishes a minimum lot size of 5 acres for storage of a vehicle in excess of 14,OCX) lbs. G V\V The 5-acre standard w as put in place to ensure the ability to provide adequate separation, buffering and scrccningof large vehicles from adjacent properties. Tire code as written requires that such vcliiclcs stored out.sidc must meet a 50* setback from lot lines, must be fully screened ("not \ isible’*) from adjacent properties and streets, and any maintenance of the vehicle must occur w ithin a building. The basis for the current ordinance is to protect our neighborhoods from the noise, v ibraiion, odor and general visual intrusion and disruption caused by the comings, goings and storage of \ cr>' large vehicles. Conditional Use Applicability Aconditiorul use is, by definition, a use that is permitted in a zoning district if certain cslabMcdcondiuons or 'performance standards* are met A conditional use might not be appropriate generally within a zoning district, but may be allow'ed with appropriate restrictions established by the zoning code if it is found that 1) the conditions detailed in the code arc met; 2) the use conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; and 3) the use is compatible w iih the surrounding neighborhood. Lirfc Vehicle Storage CUP August 26,2004 Page 2 If the performance standards established by code are met, the Council generally must grant the CUP. Therefore, to ensure that the possible negative impacts of a given conditional use are addressed and accounted for, the performance standards must be carefully crafted. Also note that CUP*s arc issued for a particular use, not for a particular person. If a property owner is granted a CUP, the CUP goes with the property and a new oxsner can continue the use if all the original conditions arc met. We have not to date considered ' large vehicle storage* as a ‘use*, but merely as an ancillaiy activity that occurs along with the principal use of aproperty. Establishing 'large vetiicle storage* as aconditional use may open up a Pandora's Bo.x of unanticipated consequences and resident expectations. An amendment of the code to permit large vehicle storage as an allowed conditional use in the 2*acre and S-acre zones will send the message (and likely be legally construed) that such storage is generally acceptable in those zones, subject to meeting the performance standards But if the performance standards then provide limitations so stnet that few properties can qualify for the CUP, perhaps we shouldn't be allowing the use vi a CUP. The risk is that we will be pressured to grant variances ftom one or more of the perfonnance standards. For example, we probably should not allow storage of large vehicles in the 2-acre zone via CUP if one of the perfomunce standards is to have a S-acre lot, since a majority of 2-acre zone properties won ’t meet the S-acre standard. Can such a CUP legally be made available only to existing users? We will be requesting a legal opinion on tliis question. If a conditional use (read “permined use xxith conditions") is established with a limitation that prohibits any new users, that suggests the use really is qsI appropriate in the district, and should not be a conditional use because it is not available to any property that meets the established conditions. The bottom line may be that a use >ou beliex e is generally unacceptable within a zoning district should not be listed as a conditional use. **.. .the question about the right to the use is basically off the table. It is a matter of how the use may be modified, or its adverse characteristics may be mitigated'* (Shardlow). Conditions or Performance Standards If “Parking or storage of a vehicle in excess of 14.000 lbs G\*W" is listed as a conditional use in the 2-acre and 5-acre zones, any property which meets the listed conditions for such use would have to be granted a CUP. In order to atuch appropriate conditions or performance standards to this use, w e should first identify tl^ potential negative impacts of the use on the na^ibtxhood. These might mclude the following: - Noise (from operation as well as maintenaiKe of vehicle) - Vibration • Glare • Odors Large Vehicle Storage CUP Augttit 26.2004 Page 3 - Soil/Nvatcr coniaminalion (from dripping, washing, eic.) • Hazard to pedestrians by way of proximity, especially on private roads • Wear & tear on local or private roads • Propensity to ofiload remaining cargo on site at end of day • Visual incompatibility with rural character The conditions under w liich staff feels tliis use might be acceptable are generally those conditions listed in the existing ordinance. Suffbelieves that opening up the possibility of large trucks being stored on 2-acrc lots w ill become more problematic for our neighborhoods as time goes by. Tlic 5 -acre lot size mmimum provides some assurance that a neigliborhood of 2-acrc lots won’t be invaded by dump trucks. It also increases tlie likelihood that separation and screening from adjoining properties will be feasible. Tlic conditions currently in the Code for storage of a vehicle o> cr 14,(X)0 lbs. GVW aie as follows: a. Minimum lot size of 5 acres b. Property owner must be vehicle owner.. o*/c.w. *r c. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet d. NTust not be visible fiorn neighbonng properties and public streets, vegetatix c scaxrang is preferred. e. Maintcn.ir.ee of said vehicle shall occur w ithin an enclosed building f. The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any lime. (Note: "Public Nuisance" is defined in the Municipal Code. Section 70-4, as follows: I .Maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safew. health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. 2. Interfering with, obstrucling or rendering dangerous for passage any street, public right-of-way or waters used by the public; or 3. Any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance.) g. In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed by all current driveway users. J Larfc Vehicle Storage CUP AugutI 26.2004 Page 4 Staff Rccommcadatioo StafTis satisfied with the current code as-is. Howe\’cr. in response to the Council ’s direction. Planning Commission should review the infotmauon provided and consider whether it is appropriate to make ‘large vehicle storage’ aconditiorul use in the 2-acre and/or 5-acre zones. If so. Planning Commission should make a recommendation as to what specific conditions or perfomiance standards should be required for such use to make it acceptable at the allow able locations. The potential for a large vehicle storage conditional use applicable only to existing users is still under itiv csiigaiion, and suff will provide >ou more information as it becomes available. MEMORANDUM To: Ron Moorse \ From: Mike Gaffroi:. Planning Director ‘ Date: July 7, 20C4 Subject: «04-30243 Large Vehicle Storage Zoning Antendmcnl On June 25 Council tabled the Laigc Vehicle Stoi agc eiv.ev.dir.cnt to allow staff additional t.ine ta ir.vestigaie alternatives Under the City ordinanecs existing pr.oi to Dcceiv.hcr 2003. r.aff ;nte.'pie»*d the code to mean that one large vclucic was allowed to be stored ou’side on apiopeity\.ith fewrcstnctions. Under the cuirent code adopted in December 2003, the ability to have a large vehicle stored on a propertyis not a guaranteed rigb.t.nor IS it an 'existing use* that can be "grandfathered" or recognized as a legal non-confcnning use The new ordinance established pcrfonna.KC standavds for storage oflarge vehicles, and to date tltat ordinance docs not contain any language that allows pre-existing storage simations to contuv.ie in a manner that is not conforming While * grandfathering’ provisions could be added to the code, staff is generally againrt such, an action because it requires inv cntoiymg and lecoidkeeping, and docs not solv c p: e-existmg problem situations which the new perfonnance standards were attempting to resolve Thci z may be a small variety of options fer allowing large vch.clcs to be stored unde: cen J.itc:t5 that do not meet the currently cst.'iblislrcd perfoniunc e standards E.xch opfor lias pro's and con’s Tire sc opt.uis may include. 1) revising the perfonnance standards, or 2) granting of a variance to a peifonr.ance standard where the Council f.nds that an "undue hardship" is ptcser.t, or 3) establishing higc vehicle storage as a conditional use with required pciformance standaids, it ccu’dbe wntten st.ch that the perfonnance standards might be relaxed if the negative impacts of such relaxation can be mitigated or are found to be minimal or inconsequential o To date, Council has not revised the performance standards, as there has not been a majonty of Coancilmembers who believe the code should be changed. c With regards to vanar.ces, the Council may allow a property to be used in a m.anner othenvise prohibited by the ordinance by varying one or more of the performance standards of the ordinance, if *ihe Council determines t’nat the lest of "undue hardship” has been met. The statutory dcfiniticn of Undue Hardsltip is: **Undue hardship"... means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the L Ron Moortc July 1,2004 Patel landowier Is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the tando' -< r, and the variance if granted will not alter the essential eharaeter of the locality. The Council has broad discretion to grant variances, but may not gram a vanance for any use not permitted m the zoning district In this case, the ‘Use” is aenvate earaeecroarkina space, which a a listed accessory use in the R districts Use of a private garage or parking space to store a large veliicle on residential pjoperiy IS allowed subject to meeting the performan'e standards established for that use in the code. □ With regards to conditional uses, a conditional use is, by definition, a use that is penmned in a zoning district if certain established conditions or ‘perfomiance standards* are met. If the perfcnnance standa.'ds established by code ate met, lire Council generally must grant ilic CJ?. Tlierefore, to ensure that the possible negative impacts of a given conditional use are addressed and accounted for. the performance standards must be cat efully crafted Also note ilia: CUP’s at c issued for a panicular use, not for a particular person. Ifapi operty owner is gi anted a CUP, that CUP goes wii’r the property and the new owner can continue the use if all the original conditions arc met If Council chooses to proceed toward an amendment of the code to allow large vehicle storage as an allowed conditional use in the 2-acre and 5 • acre zones, we would be sending the message that such storage IS generally acceptable in those zones, subject to meeting the perfonnance standards. But if the performance standards then provide limitations so stnet that few properties can qualify for the CUP, we shouldn't be allowing the use via CUP (or we should be ready for more vanance requests). For examplr, we probably should not allow storage of large vehicles in the 2-ai re zone via CUP if one of the performance standards is to have a 5-acre lot, since a majonty of 2-acve zone properties won ’t meet the 5-acre standard. However, if the CU? would be made available to only existing uses, Uien we would not be opemiig this up any w ider than necessary to deal with existing suuations Please let me know how you think we should proceed, and whether this item should be placed on the council's July 12 agenda I- i ,tN- co„ The City Council of Oror.o ordains as follows Section I: Munie.pil Zoning Code Sector. 78-1491CrO is >.e:eSy revised « for.ows. tiailei in excess of 10,000 oo’.mds GVW shall be parked or except when leading, unloading or rendering a service. es<cpl Ui . - . air »tMagg- or n.'nuuemt>al vohigh"i nor for opm <i»f-TV*f4«tag-for busmeorr-fKtfiK . Section 2: Munici-a: 7 -ningCode Section 78-1577 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1577. Exterior storage In R districts. In all R districts, all recreatianal vehicle^, mcbi'.e hcmes^can-.p’.ng trailers., met ox homes oickur rrpvrl trailers, special mobile e_quiEment, and utility uai^s.shah meet the reoS^cn-.ents of this epd^ Additionally, all mobile matc:ia.s and equipment sltall be stored within a building or fully screeaed^so as not to p.operties, except that utility uni----------^ ^ttin.^oTf of tho house-and-^ I •es«iefle-i-&t5^^t'e^!V-afty-u4;aec«t-let. (aV Deftnitiops: RrcreationaI-4;afpmnfeVeVicle_^Mofei.^g and.rgcrpoii^Lfgg^ vehicle include the following def nitions. ar.d snail not include any ma^actured ho’USing unit bearing a State of Minnesota mgnufactiued housing seal or ceitiEcate, for uses including but r.rl.Um:*_g_dt . to those listed below: The almkatt language Is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page I of 6 r £ rgfrcfrr trnt!g^ mear.s a fcldine stmcr^re. rr.3ur.ted on wbee!.3_ and ripc'Sjned for trave!- regreaticn and vacation usgs, also called a pt^p-u?. cirr.per ^ Afcr^:r >:orr* n-sans a portable, tgr.porarv dwe'/.lng to be use! fcr travel, recr^aticn ar.d vacation, constructed 15 an integral rar. cf a pronelled vehicle Pickup ca*nger means a strucTure designed to be ir.O’>inted_.c>5. a tr.ick chassis f*'*’ use as a trippcrarv dwelling for triivfl. recrcav.or; tr.i vacation ^ Travel rrciler means a vehicular, portable strucrore tu:lt cn a chagi:;^ designed to be used as a temporary dwclUne_for URve;, recreavlo.’^a; and vacation uaes, permanently idcntiHed as a travel tra-igt- by tr.e maniifacUirer of the trailer (2.) Special Mcbile Fruiomert means e^'crv vehicle r.ct designed or u«ed nrl-marilv for the transportation cf persons cr praeertV ar.d_ Q-Jv incidentally opeiated or moved over a highway, including but ngt l:_rn:tcd tO' ditch dic*ping eauinment. moving dollies, pump hpists an d sther drilimg eauictr.er.t. street sweeping vehicles, and othtr r.achir.ery such as asphalt spreaders, biraminous roivers. bucket loaders, tract ors other than trjck-ttactois. ditchers, levelmo. graders. ftnishLnz macKn^—QlSlDl praders. road rollers, scarif.ers. earh-ntv^ving eauinmen: The_:ei^,_do;i pot include travel trailers, dvtntp trucks. tmck-.riO’jnted transit mtxers. ^ruck-tr.o'.mted feed grinders, or othci motor vehicles designed for the transnortation of persons or croaenv to which ma chinery has beer, ar.ached Urilitv Trailer means ar.v tr.otjrless vehicle, other than a boat trail*: r: personal watercran trailer, designed fo* carrying of sno»>>‘n;cb:.e?, motorcyxles, all terrain vehicles, or piopertv cr. its o^^T. structure and fc; Ireinp drawn hv a tnotrr vehicle but shall not include beat trailers, a trailer dra\\Ti by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxtharv axle on a motor vehicle which carr.es a poiiion of the weight of the motor vehicle ta which it is ana~hed (h_> Parking of recreational vehicles, mobile home; and utiUty trailevs shall be regulated as follows. n.^ It is unlaw^^ for anv person to park a mobile V’A-'rr.e or recreational a anapto g vehicle unon public nrorertv for h’oman habitat ’.oa? (2 ) It is fyr anv person to park cr store a titilit\* trailer. r*.ob*,le_^.;:~e, The stmkMk Ur-guage Is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 2 of 6 ilA recreational vehicle ir. ar.v pes44eft^ “R** d:sTrict_for_m5re than 2hs-ors. except In a side or rear vzjd at least five fee: front anv rrorertv lina, It is unlawful to tise a mobile home or recreational vehicle for human habitation on anv srivate orocenv fcr rr.sre thm 72 ho ’^s without a permit from the cirv (c ) Vehicle storage. All vehicles parked or stored cn ar.v orooertv withir; tr.*_Cltv shall be operable and currerttlv licensed. The carkine of vehicles, ether than tecreationa'. veh:cie5. in “R" districts is regulated as follows: (11 Parking of vehicles, ether than recreational ver.icles. with 3 maximum Gross Vehicle Weight fGVW^ of 14.000 pounds or less is aUoNA.ed in all *‘R" districts > Parking of vehicles in ‘*R** districts in excess of l^.COO lbs GVW reguires tacK.pfihe falls^ngjtonditions be„t7,et. Mmintun lot size of 5 acres. ^ Property owT.er must be vehicle owner or ocerator. c Vehicle must be set back SO feet frotr. property lines. ^ Must net be visible from neighboring properties and p'.’.hlic streets: veretative screening is preferred. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur withir. enclcsed bvildin g. f_ The vehicle shall not constirate a nuisance at anv time, and. In a shared driveway situation, the City must have on file an agreement signed bv all cunent driveway userj. (d.) Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats cn trailers shall be subject to the following storage requL'emcr.ts when not stored for ccmmcrcial purposes; (1) Licensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the owner or occupant of the property. M\ boats stored on a property shall be ia operable condition, e.xoept that inoperable boats under active restoration nay be stored on a property for not more than two yean, the intent being to discouraf ? dte longterm storage of inoperable boats on residential propert>'. (2) Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a The stH«kw » language U deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 3 of 6 Scctioa3; Municipal Zoning Code Section 9D-1 is hereby revised as follo>^*s: Sec. SO-l. Prchibited use and parking of mobile homes and rc:re«tionaI vehicles. (a). Dermihons. The following words. :e.-ms and phrases, when used m this secncr. shall have the meanings asor.bed to them m thts subsecuon, except where me cc...ex. clearly indxatcs a different meaning. (I.) Recreational Ccmpin^-Vehicle. Mobile home and recrestionsi vehiclf shall mean and include the following definitions, and shall not include any manufactured housing um: bearing a State cf Minnesota manufactured housing seal or cenificate. for uses inciid.ne but not M.mited to those listed belo w-_ o. Comping troilef means a folding structure, mounted on w,.ecls designed for travel, recreation ar.d vacation uses, also called a per-ur camper. b Motor home means a poitable, tcmpora:7 dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, conitructed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle c. Pickup cemver means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. d Trowel trailer means a vehicular, portable riructure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer by the manufacnircr of the uailer. motf^rr-Ycles. all terrain vehicles, or prosertv oa its own stmerure and fet; Krlng dra\v-n bv a motor Nshicle but shall no* include boat trailrrs., a .trailer drawn bv a truck-t:actor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a n vehicle which carries a rortion of the vs-tight of ±e motor vehicle to wh-rh it is attached ____________Parking cf recreational camping vehicles, mobile homes ar^ utility tiuilers shall be regulated as follows: (1.) U is unlawful tor any person to park a mobile home or recreational campi ng vehicle upon public property' for human habitation, exoept ia o ligo nsed-reobile hom e park or -pubUcty-ONvned cam pgreundt The wriehan language Is deleted; die underTmed language is ir.serted. Page S of 6 (2.) It is unlawful for my person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile borne, recreationil vehicle in any residue- “R" district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least ten five feet from my property line. (3.) It is unlawfol to use a mobile home or recreatio.nal eamping vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. Section 4: This Ordinmee shall be published m THE PIONEER and THE LAKSR newspapers and shall become effective upon approval md publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orcr.o on this 24.ch dav of yoveaber 2003 by a vote of _4__ayes and __nays. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST; ^ Jit- r. Lindas. Vee. City Clerk Published in the LsVer/?ior.eer newspapers the veeV of Scccxbcr 13, 2303. The striekn language is deleted; the undsriined language in inserted. Page 6 of 6 • .krr- LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS Advanced Zoning Presented by John Shardlow Consultant Dahlgren. Shardlow & Uban, Inc. SPONSORED BY Government Training Service 460 Cedar Street, Suite 401 St. Paul. Minnesota 55101 651-222-7409 or 800-569-6880 Minnesota toll free wvrw.mngts.org J ] 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Comiminities frequently misunderstand both the le\'cl and the mature of the discretion that they have in the reviev/ of conditional use permits They often treat their review as though they were legislative approvals like a rezoning, lathcr than the administrative decisions that they are roNPmoNAi. USE pfrmtt definttion ^ standards ORDTNANrE DEFINITION The following is a good example of an ordinince definition and the standards for its approval Purpose; “Conditional use” means a land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropHate restrictions as provided by official controls upon a finding that 1) certain conditions as detailed tn the Zoning Ordinance exist, 2) the use or development conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City and 3) is compatible with the existing neighborhood Application, Public Hearing, Notice and Procedure. The application, public hearing, public notice and procedure requirements for conditional use permits snail be the same as those for amendments as prosided in Section 10-5-6 of this Chapter, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Council Although specific submissions required to complete an application for a conditional use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applications for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following proposed bnd use, building mapping and (unctions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, basic lighting concp'ns, the relationship of the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for Municipal sciviccs Standards: The Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use permits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location: 1 Will no: be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, ccmfcri, convcrjcr.ee or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Title Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicirity and will not change the t sential character of that area. -- ..r- p . 6 - ! ■ 6. Compatibility of appearance In detennining such conditions, special consideration shall be given to protecting inmcdiately adjacent properties from objectionable views, noise, traffic and other negative characteristics associated with such uses (E) Denial for NoncompUance; If the Plannuig Commission recommends denial of a conditional use permit or the Council orders such denial, it shall inc!udc in its recommendation or determination findings as to the ways in which the proposed use docs not comply with the standards required by this Title. (F) Pemuttee: A conditional use permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person (G) Periodic Review A periodic review of the use mry be attached as a condition of approval of a conditional use permit (H) Revocation Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit, or any other violation of this Title, shall be a misdemeanor and shall also constitute cause for the termination of the conditional use permit by the City Council follow ng a public hearing (I) Expiration If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the dale on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on application, the Council, after receiving recommendation from the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate If the conditional use pemiit is discontinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void This provision shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to the effective date of this Title, but the six (6) month period shall not be deemed to commence until the effective date of this Title (J) Minor Alterations Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee ii they arc consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan No change may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (10%) PR Arxir Ai. nrFTMTiON A permitted use to which reasonable conditions may be attached based upon factual evidence contained in the public record 8 - r HOW TO L*sF THE CONniTIONAL USE PERMIT TOOL Do no! list uses as conditional uses :n a district if you believe it is generally unacceptable there Remember the question about the right to the use is basically off the table It is a matter of how the use may be modified, or its adverse characteristics may be mitigated NF,\i:S RFOl'FREMEXT Hie courts have made it very clear that there must be a direct connection or nexus between the problem and the cure If you have reviewed t .licnce that suggests that a fast food restaurant wd’h a drive through window will have up to eight vehicles stacked waiting for food during peak periods, it is acceptable to condition the pennit to require space for eight vehicles to stack on site It is not acceptable to use the fact that a use is listed as conditional to require architectural design features, building materials or landscaping that is not required generally in your ordinance, or to restrict iis sign area to less than the amount available to othet uses in the district TI\fF MMITS. PERinnir RFATFW Another rampant abuse is the attachment of time limitations to CUPs The only permit that can legally be attached a time limit or “sunset provision" is an interim use permit Conditional use permits are land use permits that run with the land They cannot be automatically revoked when a particular aop'icam sells, or a specific time period elapses PFRIOniC RFVTFWl?. GROllNnS FOR REVOCATION There is nothing wrong with the idea of scheduling annual or biarmual reviews cf CU* 's (or other time interval of your choosing), but, understand that this is simply an administrative convention that you have established You cannot require an applicant to renew his he: permit at a prcicribei lime You can at virtually any point, based upon evidence or even concern that conditions are not being met, provide legal notice and hold a public hearing to review a CUP If there is sufficient evidence of serious violations, you may have grounds to revoke a CUP Sl’MMARV AND CONCLUSION Conditicrul uses 2:c permitted uses to which reasonable conditions may be attached The need for these conditions must be supported by evidence in the record As pan of your community’s planning and zoning administration program you may decide to conduct periodic reviews of CUPs "However, CUPs are land use permits that lun with the land, not the land owner or applicant and as long as the conditions arc beii^g met. the permit remains valid r r r [ [ r r [ - 9 - L. •04-3IM!l SrpUmiMr 20.2004 Pace I of 4 Dale Application Received: 8-I3-04 Date Application Cnnvidcred av Comptcic: 8-IR-04 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-17-04 To:Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cily Administrator From:Janice Gundlach, City IMamierJ:\ Date: Subject: September 15. 2004 t^04-3048. Steven and Kathleen Persian, 1005 Hunt Farm Road • Location & Accessory Structure Area Variances - Public I Icaring Zoning DUlrict: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR - 1 A, One Family Rural Residential District (5 acre minimum) 2.905 acic.> 1126.681*5.0 472 feet Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances in order to construct a 36* X 60 (2.160 s f) storage shed: 1. A variance to permit the proposed storage shed to be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building. 2. A north side yard setback variance to pennit the structure to be located 15’ from the lot line when 30* is normally required. Oversized accessory structure area variance to permit a maxinuim individual accessory structure footprint area of 2.160 s.f. when 1,200 s f. is normally allowed. 3. Staff Recommendation: Stall recommends denial of the request as submitted No valid hardships have been presented to allow the location or area variances for an accessory stnicturc that could otherwise meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance if it were reduced in size and relocated. Peiiincnt Zoning Ordinance ,Secliims Sec 78-1435. Location. yVo detached garages or other accessory building shall he locatid 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, acces.sory buildings located within the street or rear yards of such lots arc subject to the setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-33(Kb) and section 78-350(b); except that detached garages may be local ten feel from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a tunioiuund is provided on the site, litis section shall not apply to lakeshorc lots divided by roadways or comer lots. Sec. 78-1434. /Vrea restrictions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: g04*J#4S S<picfnb«r 20.2004 Past 2 or« (2) Uvcrsizcd accessory structures arc regulated by die following table: Lot Area (acres) 0-1.99 2.00-3,00 3.01-3.50 3 51-4 00 4.01-4.50 4.51-5.00 5.01-6.00 6.01-7.00 7.01-8.00 8.01-9.00 9.01 or more Maximum Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Area (square feet) 1,000 1,200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2.800 3,000 Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property (square feel) ___ 2,000 2,400 2,800 3.200 3,600 4,000 4.400 4,800 5,200 5.600 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: ATo such accessory' structure shatt be tocated hUMh a required yard area Qfrinci^t structure setbacks must be met). Furtlier, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. Such structure shall be aliotved only when the property owuer agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversiz^ accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessor)' structure must be remot^ if no principal structure has l^n constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together I___ *M-394S S«pl«Nibrr 20, 2004 ra«e3«ro within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Lbl ofEshibiU Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Survey Showing Setback Constraints Exltibil E - Proposed Elevations Exhibit F - Example Photo of Proposed Building Exhibit G - Aerial Photo (wetlands and topography) Elxhibit H - Topography w/Creek Setbacks & Hardcover Zones Exhibit I - Plat Map Exliibit J - Property Owner’s List Background The applicant and builder have met with staff on several occasions to discuss the construction of an oversized accessory building. The applicants have submitted their plan based on the total amount of accessory buildings allowed on a property 2.00 •• 3.00 acres, being 2,400 square feet recognizing that the code only permit.s an individual accessory building maximum of 1.200 square feet. The applicant ’s property is located within the Huntington Farm Plat which was approved in 1986 as -a PHD, Planned Residential District, llie purpose of tliis was to prc.scrvc tlic wetlands on Uic property, as shown on the plat drawing in Exhibit I. Also included with this PRD are reduced setbacks as opposed to the RR - 1A setbacks of 100 ’ front and rciu and 50' sides. This was in an effort to accommodate the smaller than 5 acre lots. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHECT Lot ArcaAVidlh RR-IA(PRD)Lot Area Lot Width Required 217.800 s.f. (S acres)300’ Actual 126.681 s.f. (2.90S acres)472 ’ ■94-J048 September 20.2004 face 4 of 0 Setbacks RR-IA(PRD) From Rear UR Side Right Side Painters Creek Required 100’ Caisling (house) 81.5* 111.4’ 165.4’ -220’ 300’ Proposed (shed) 40’ (variance rcq.) 179’ -400’ 1 S’ (variance rcq.) 250 ’ Slructuml Coverage This property is in excess of 1.99 acres and is therefore not subject to structural coverage requirements of Section 78-1403. Hardcover Calculations This property is located within 300* of Painters Creek and therefore located within the Shoreland District and subject to hardcover restrictions. Hardcover restrictions cover land within 300' of the creek. It appears that the proposed accessory building and any other hardcover located west/northwest of Uk home is subject to hardcover standards. I'his is an area of approximately 2 acres which would yield an allowable Itardcovcr level of 21,780 s.f (a.ssuming all 2 acres is dry-upland). This property does not come close to reaching tlic maximum allowed hardcover level and therefore did not require hardcover calculations with this project. For future projects, the applicant should be aw'are that the properly is subject to the 100’ creek setback and subsequent hardcover restrictions 300’ from the bank of the creek. Front YanI Setback Variance Section 78-1435 limits locations of all accessory buildings on residential properties. Non-lakcshorc lots arc not permitted to have accessory buildings located nearer the front or street lot line tlian the priiK'ipal structure. The front lot line of the applicant ’s property is the casicm boundary because platted right-of-way, currently undeveloped, exists all the way north to the railroad tracks. The applicant ’s house is located approximately 82 feet fiom the front lot line and the proposed accessory building is proposed at a setback of 40 feet. This requires variance approval. Side Yard Setback Variance Oversized accessory buildings arc buildings in excess of 1,000 s.f. The applicant has proposed a building 2,160 s.f. in size. Section 78-1434 (3X&) requires that oversized buildings meet principal structure setbacks. This PRD was approved with 30* side yard principal .structure setbacks where Uie applicant has proposed a building 15’ from the north side lot line. This requires variance approval. 1 S«plmb*r 2t. IM4 Accessory Structure Area Variance Section 78-1434 (2) limits the amount of accessory buildings on lots dependant on the total area of the property. The ^yplicant’s property is 2.905 acres and therefore limited to a maximum individual accessory building size of 1.200 s.l where a 2,160 s.f. building is proposed, requiring a variance. The chart also limits the total amount of accessory buildings on a property to 2.400 s.f.. which the applicant complies with. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship documentation form in Exhibit D. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis ___________________________________________________ Ifi emnMeHug appHcoHotu for x’arianet. the PlmmiHg CaumtuioH shaU cmaUat the effect of the peapoietl tmrtamce upon the heahh, tttfety ami welfare of the eomuminity. exUrtag anil anticipated traffic eondlHons, light and air. danger of fire. ri%k to the public tafety, and the effect on %alue% of property in the wmmnding area. The nannlng Commiuion ihatl coaiider reconwtending approi-al for vatiancet from the literal proAtiont of the Zoning Code In Instances where their urict enforcement would cause undue hatd^ip because of circuantances unique to the indiridual property under consideration, and shall recommend approtal only when it is demonstrated that such oalons will be In beeping with the spirit and intent of the Orena Zoning Code. Staff finds that there arc number of issues limiting the location of an accessory building, regardless of its size. I'or example: • Piescrvatinn of an alternate septic site location and 20 ’ setback from it • Ability of proposed structure to meet 20 ’ septic setbacks from existing septic site • Ability of alternate septic site to meet 75 ’ setback requirements from wetlands • Ability to meet 35 ’ wetland setback on the .south side of the property • Access to building - potentially over existing and alternate mound locations Staff finds that these issues leave the alternate septic site and the applicant’s proposed building location the only viable locations for a building the size the applicant has proposed. Staff questions whether the alternate septic site and the applicants proposed accessory building location couldn’t be swapped. This would eliminate the need for setback variances. Staff also finds that there is some logic behind Section 78-1434 (2) which liniit.s the size of individual buildings and also total buildings. As proposed, a building 2,160 s.f. may appear as large as some principal buildings which the Ordinance is attempting to prevent. Staff acknowledges that this is a visual issue only and the site is somewhat secluded, how’ever a hardship inherent to the land is still required in order to receive a variance to this standard. Thm appears to be ample room on the property for additional, smaller accessory buildings. Staff believes that a variance for building size should not be granted merely based on whether the setbacks cannot be met. If a site meeting setbacks lends itself to support a 2,160 s.f. building, then the Planning Commission should determine whether to grant a variance. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant this variance, staff believes the only basis for approval may be the secluded nature of the lot. «M-N4S S«p«raibcr M, 2W4 In conclusion, staff finds that the property should be held to the requirements laid out in Sections 78-1434 and 78-143S. Alternative locations meeting setbacks exist on the property and the property could support more than one large building, although there may be some justification for a single, large building as noted above. 2. Issues for Coosklcnition 1 . If the alternate septic site location and proposed building location can be swapped so that the required setbacks could be met. should the location variances be granted? Does the power line easement, wetland and septic locations on the property provide a hardship in order to approve the location or area variances? To what extent? Does the intent of the maximum individual square footage limitation make sense? i.c. Should we be concerned about the visual appearance of a 2,160 s.f. building on a lot which is somewhat secluded? 4. Does the remoteness of the lot factor into a variance approval for a building in excess of 1,200 s.f.? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? 3. Staff Rccommcndatioa Staff would recommend the following: 1.The applicant should rule out whether the alteroate septic site location and propos^ building location can be swapped. If so, the setback variances should be denied. If not. a variance to allow an accessory structure to be located in front of the house should be granted based on the power casement, wetland, and septic constraints. If a setback variance is granted staff would recommend denial of the building area variance and the applicant should also be held to the 1,200 s.f. limitation. If the Planning Commission wishes to grant a building area variance based on the remote nature of the lot, staff recommends that the building meet all setback requirements. J exhibit A City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (Thts form is to be completed by a City Planoer during your pre-application meeting *) Stmet Address 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MM 55356 Matftng Address P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 lAWir Main 952-249-4600 Fax 952 249-4616 Meeting Date/Time PC Dale: Sf FT7 What is the purpose of a pre~appllcation 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: MVni /)\ Rd Properly Identification Number (PIN): _ Zoning District; P-fl-1A Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: / j i. • □ Average Setback ttSido Yard Setback □ Roar Yard Setback p Front Yard Setback » □ Hardcover “□ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Lot Width la Other: qJ'jO fJr/ V^r i c.f ______ ___K-itVHiJrf zihO tithru __ __\£ . JiZDA Applicant’s Initials: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: *PI«a«e note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by City st^. _____________AppUcent Signettire:Date; ^-/2-oY City of Orono Variance Application 'Oa ill Stroot Address 2750 Kelley Parkway Ororx). MN 55356 Mam 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249^616 Mailing Address P O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Apcnicawn* ____ OaieRecetvoo ^____ Arryxjnt PaxJ f eCXp- OO Staff . <-C< _______ Fee JKO_____________ Renewal. S30 0 _______________ After-the fact. SI.2 00 Double Fee Thts applicatK)n form must bo compieled m full Applicant will bo notified withm 15 Cays an to tne status of the application Incomplete applications will not bo placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: __________//.m t- A-'o/^y Property idcniification Number (PIN)* 7 O - //r - ~?i ■ yz- ocC 6 ______ (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Date Properly Acquired (monlh/year): /o/oi □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels Present use of property; Ef Residential Zoning District: //t________ □ Other APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Compicle legal names and marital status required for each interested parly) Name: _ />e xSf4J. Phone (home): __________Phone (work): 6,/z- rV2- 7/od Address: ycor //*>vr- x/v r^ATC't'c, Afv S'^3S~c _______ Email: «;nrtyg: /’e^Sy/w tf -r>A»tfe-r ________Fax; *7si- _______ OWNER INFORMATION: (Complete legal names and mar.t.al slatus required (or each mteresteJ pady) Name ery. PA-7)JKk yyf‘<hC/7riT?}___ Phone (home): 9^2- •/7c-i>ot,p__________Phone (work): 6.//- ry?- y/’ryo_______' Address: ypor ^<-vr . c><.oAfri_ rr 3 _________________ Email: c T/>< h tt- m/H-.__________Fax: ~ 9r2 - ✓7JJ~ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: $ Vc) Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _______________*_______ _____AJ L€ /~_C iT. a /c - ilOOC wVc f_____________ >?i e^ jCE-gjar;.T>at A L/r^ne,a4A0^/=SrZ cc«rsSo /;y STXLrcTUd^ f^crr^rc.t.^rr C Jhif U^/t.V(r -Ja T^XT: iz^ ^Styyt iTS A #3048 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order (or your application to be processed ^1 iS Iff DD a □□ B□ Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Applicabon 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 612-348-5910 Onginal 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 11* X 17* for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculat.on 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*xiror11*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 hc/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: Date: Date;Sr /O -GM. OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the projserty by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Counol Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature: Owner ’s Signature;1C MJUriM' Date; Date: Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting Plannirtg 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 anertd a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Ranner assigned to your project. w. A O Tt ^ EXHIBIT B Page 1 of 3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An ar;>iicat<on will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas uniii 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 for a vanance to be granted The hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personaf and economic situations am not considered vaM hardships. In order fur an application to be tieard by tho Planning Commission and City Council a hardship having merit must bo demonstrated. HOW 00 I PROVE A HARDSHIP? Tfiis form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determ nc if a tiardstup exists and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information tho City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be cons'dered 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 corKlitions allowed by the official controls ** The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." L-t‘cj%77c^ t/ur' VTi The Aa.1? ______________ The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality “ •7V,y' Z.3 tJo ’r g C. a/AlCV//> vntu<.rL//!e: "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." #3048 L 6. 11. 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. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* 'The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Cruncil may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter lor property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located * ________iOiKJTXPC _ f:e l'3fV rhAt />mst.y/AL._____ ----gfcjgAgf .OiV^Jd.__"Tffexc f/o ^*•0 _ /Vc? _ _____________ 'The Board or Courtol may permit as a variance the tc** - ',rary use of a one-family dwelling as a two family dwelling " *The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.* "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures m the dislnct m which said land is located.* ____________________________________________ Jit m "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant * Ft a. /Vf iJ CT'C^-^ /X -JHF A*t/*^Tr' 1*ixr Tar c <yr rtfC iTf "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.* ____/v/*q7 c'HT ___TZ^^C.n'fl CL _c:oAf/*«^ cs /TV^ J f' Hinww I Zf r\ Page 3 of3 12. *The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* t/f 72 1 7)*t €~^cm*r/cT Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fully be descnbed in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the followir>g linos (attach additional shoots if necessary). THS' c yrv c«<<?/.<//wrg -fTxr a tutb ^ y V; Acc^s5e.<.>r “irr-^T^^e •-<_/*'<»'%'s' ____ 3T7- /r <g>/A £e-CrJ^'ir- #<».vig . 7?j S\JtL.a lS) eini< *i"m*/rru4/~ rti*,Aj t’ms’ .5rP. f=7~_ iUTiteX. 'Tttm^/7 /^c>urtALJC_.7:7V^^/<Ln^A£^.__W£.__’%m^Ls/yj'.£—7^e>A'i PAjCjntiSm f3 /gyt^i<tf A7o ATTXi^i AKif^ tJf.y/C 'i /vftrzJl.^ ^ ct^*TJt^e.r< Z!d4»iftr Qw>At./oviiTS^__ Ae-^rMerrfTS. 'T^fs C0'u/?c ^^^t^_t^rs_jorvr^ f/» 3 t:>i*niL y Cj^ .________________________________________________________________ //jttfC />C5t> »Jt<.4-CV TTL- XCCC »r/t'e-CkGf^^ ‘7a 4-//^ "THf /’t>**cx <_#vr d»ne**c*^. •'S -n.3^-r /j vfCK y nh^T f=b£^ /•.v TA'K'*-/^ fv®- ?5hr 'y^eu-rraarmte^. c/ffattuf A-Uf i.y,4f£.£' *>7»«/c7Utci 7t> /r-tr? cH'tf STb«2 >? CC“. oV’/c«;»/*r^- t>Af t* t/XiiC Xtrgry TT/C ^ea )T~ ^Ay 0 ‘i. e^fc-tro 77.«j tAl<^ ffct'C^e "Thtr £rr»e^ c»u<^ tor* /r-vt? ^a -^^CUt>¥ C^ef\-hc*J CC^ fry.ue.77^ f- r*e ^7%/^ t-tM&" uCK.StAS *%A\AC7t^h^ -fit 7»e A-crr-mtctry t^yrrat/Tfes »/ ffeco caj A AtTACJiC^ PAm /s //»/r-t»P«7) 7» car*#,/ 7>c avac/rV ■/Tr srAut-tiAc ffci/vf c.^ # Q A /I Cm EXHIBIT C L r S H a r % 5D CO jy-v >*••» ■••►> r . L. V,.; »..yr j >•«• I »r I ^-r • I • I r.. •«■ i ■tt r-rr-rr-T I I I I I I I ».«wr . 1 i 1 I ** I t 35-9* ‘ !^ i ^ 2 2 i 1 I . m H n j vietiAno.N ■ '-^v'Mli /. • / ?k' J i V* »« < visrof^o _____ \ \' NJ>-. ’ T'- ^ r'-'^^-s ^d;\\\' • A-, / •L./Vir* . / »ww«wfcK>[—1- CZTD Mi cr»•m *mtm MM ■ •...••M • *cn 5= =S — •MM •«• cs:*M«*< ext.•M* ■.»» •*«MmA — — i:d •>»M 4.’*' * >C=3 O jrCi *11#*n .■-H • M» c —•«M 1 •rtM*•• « ■••M— c •M ••M c I U 1/* Mt iO HIM. «n« HC»«t*ia t»o«l» KXs 5H S r tWDATf vmo» n Miiu)«iooii mOTAOM 9WMUNTFARMW) OWNERNAMB PMACPSCHOON TAXPAVn perm M 4 CARLA fSCMOON NAME/AOOR 99< HUNT FARM RD tX)NOLAREMN SS3S6 31 3011123430003 PROP AOOR IBS HUNT FARM RD OWNER NAME HUNTINOTOW FARM HOME OWNERS TAXPAYER JEFFERY F 4 CAROUNE LEE namb /aoor IBS hunt farmed LONG LAKE MN SS3SA PACE: I COc L7 31 3011123430004 PROP ADOR 31 AOORF^ UNASSJCNED OWNER NAME BURLWOTON NORTHERN RY TAXPAYER BN4SANTAFERRC0 NAME/ADOR PROPERTY TAX DEFT POBOX9610I9 FORT WORTH TX 76161 31 3011123440006 PROP ADDR MS HUNT FARM RD OWNER name HUNTINGTON farm home owners TAXPAYER PETER SCHOON NAME/ADOR 994 HUNT FARM RO LONG LAKE MN SS3S6 31 30IIB2342000A •ROP ADOR 1005 HUNT FARM RD OWNER NAME STEVEN P/KATMLEEN B PERSIAN TAXPAYER STEVEN PPCRSUN NAME/ADOR 1003 HUNT FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 5SJS6 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTNIDjT^TO THE BEST OFMYKNOWUDOEANDBELIEf.^^^^^ f . Du Mptrttlw IUwtvt4; M<-«4 Du CtMUtrti m C—ipkH; «Mhijr W0%Wm ftrM Eiplm: It-lS-M ChAir Rahn and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Sabjcct: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director SqKcmbcr 16,2004 #04-3049 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue - • CUP Amendment: Temporary Oflice Trailer • Public Hearing ZMinglNtCrkt: Zmlog Status: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. Golf courses, country clubs and tennis clubs are allowed as a Conditional Use within the RR-IB zoning district. Woodhill County Club is authorized to operate a golf course and related country club activities via a Conditional Use Permit issued by the City Council in 1968. The Club has obtained a number of additional conditional use permits for various improvements or activities since 1968. Property Area: (Portion in Orono): Approximately 13S acres Anfficatiou Summary’ Applicant requests approval to place a temporary office module (trailer near the tennis bam during major remodeling of the Club’s main buildings which are in Wayzat trailer will be in use for approximately 9 months and then removed. Staff Mecammtniatiou: Approval as presented._________________________________ Lbl of Exhibits A - Application St Letter of Request B - Survey / Site Plan C - Depiction of Trailer D - Photos of Proposed Location E-Plat Map F - Property Owners List Pertiaeat Code Sectioa Section 78-418: Conditional Uses in the RR-IB Zoning District: "Within any H-1 A” One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (4) Clubs, Campe, etc. Golfcounes, country clubs, tennis clubs, public swimmiiig pools serving room tfaar one &mily.scout camps, YMCA camps, YWCA caBys,chuwh camps, crpriviteaoo- pioat paries, playgnwDdi aid other wnilvuaes.lbeprincipslmuGtum for any oflbe above liaied laasriiainTiTlTmfiTlTrTmmTfrnmaqsininintlnlinmTTtiarirt.MMlafriaMrwyi be a miiumum of fifty fbat fium any lot line." WmAMCC TipilWtli K.W4 fHti Dtocttssloi Woodhill Country Club is requesting approval for temporary placement of a trailer to be used as an office during their major remodeling of the main Club facilities. The trailer will be located along the west side of the **tennis bam*', a site approximately450* from the nearest property boundary and more than 600' from the nearest residence. The tennis bam is located in the west-cen^ portion ofthe Club property along the driveway extension of Woodhill Avenue east of the maintenance buildings. During the club remodeling, staff is advised, club functions will be reduced to relatively low levels, with minimal fixxl services andoffice activities operating out of the tennis bam and temporaiy office trailer. With the minimal operations occurring, sufTanticipates there will be no new impacts on neighboring properties as a result of the relocated office activity. Staff and the applicants would have preferred to approve the trailer through some other method than a Conditional Use Permit, perhaps as a temporary license, as the CUP goes with the land and is intended for uses (hat arc relatively pemuncnl. Howe% er, the Zoning Code provides no license option, and because the Club is a conditional use, any new activities or constmclion requires an amendment to their cunent CUP. The trailer b intended to be in place for a period not to exceed 9 months, which suggests it will be removed by the end of June 2003. This is a condition that could be placed on the CUP if the i^plicants agree, to eliminate the potential for it to become a permanent fixture. The trailer will be expected to meet handicap accessibility standards similar to a construction trailer, and cannot be us^ as a residence. Our understanding is that it will not have plumbing, as the tennis bam provides this necessity. Issncs for CoisMeraUon 1. Docs Planning Commission have any specific concerns with die temporaiy placonent and use of the proposed trailer? 2. Will there be any impacts to the sunounding neighborhood if this temporary use is approved? Staff ReconineadalfcNi Staffiecomro cnds appro valofihe CUP amendment to allow the use ofthe proposed traikroffice module to be located a4i»cent to the tennisbaRiibraperiodof9maiitfas, with the trailer to be removed by June 30,2005. A'l CITY OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION Application# Data Racaivad ? ^ -04 Amount Paid iiCC< co PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2<*>r? v.o iL Av. ^ A Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) APPLICANT Name CX\*X Phone (home)________________ Address 1/v^ Q k OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone(work) ny.2 *)a __City Ai:>^.y ,.. w- Zip i Phone (home). Address Phone (work) _City ______ Date Property Acquired_____________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______S600.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$600 00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$600.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $600.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $600.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______$600.00 Land Alteration + Permit _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ‘ of lakcshore , (month/year) PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule . $250.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) . After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$600.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (♦ consultant fees) ______$600.00 Vacation ______$600.00 Easement Vacation ______ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$600.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$600.00 Comprehensive Plan Amer>dment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule r REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. / Competed Application Form. 2. Describe request in detail. 3. _____Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' of the subject property labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center, A-603 300 South 6*^' ^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910). 5. 6. 8. 9. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) • refer to handout for sun/ey information Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. y Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). / List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). / Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) y 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 (If X 17'* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require scaled drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please reme.mber that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_____________________________Date __________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknovirledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Ovimer's signature _______Date 4^^ Applicant must have ail submittals hto^e City ofSoK 25 days before the Planning Commiss on l/eebng Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Appkants must be present at all stfieduied review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council if an appicant is unable lo attend a scheduled meeting please make anengements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting ^9 0 4.0,.*5 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB :cc W OOC'HILL W *UATA MIN^E?CTA August 12,2004 To; Planning Commission and Orono Council On Sqstembcr 7*. 2004 Woodhill CounU>’ Club will be closing its main clubhouse approximately nine months for a major remodel. During this period of time activity at Woodhill will be less than if the clubhouse were open Woodhill needs to rent modular space to have the phones answered in the vicinity of where the Members w ill be The Modular Space would also be used for an employees break area Members will be at the bam to play bridge, paddle tennis and other activities. With the clubhouse closed there will be less activity at Woodhill. yet we would like to have an area for the Members to gather. This request would be for a period not to exceed 9 montlis. A small area by the bom would be graded flat with it restored to the original grate after removal of the trailer 1 have enclosed pictures of the area we would like to place the trailer. # ii iBUtii __L — E JUL 23 2034 17s20 PR TO S524730113 F.01 9 GE Modular Space c mm\ !, .imili ni;! To: Company: Phone. Fax; From; FAX COVER LETTER Mark Albrecht Wood Hill Country Club 952-473^)113 PM Voormtn OE Modular Space 1350 New Bf^JKtonBlvd Minnaapolia, MN 55413 ei2*33l«41S4 dract pHone 6l2*331-4509fax E-Mai. PtUip.vaarmanQge.com Web: www.mod9pace.com Data: July 23.2004 Pages: (including cover letter) Mark: Per our conversation over the phone, attached is the lease agreement for the 10x44 mobile office. Please review, sign, and fax back to me as soon as you can. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. We appreciate your business. Thanks. PhH phiiip.vee.'.Tian@0«oonn OCtaieu UfSpSWpimrte wwwiy VALUE aPOeDPROOUCTSaRDSElWCOInaludMe: •tm.lMlM.iiriiiTiirnilirti inSSiiliilOTiif aMwiwm ‘ rftfllyounnaMalnalyoMrMdul«tpW9iiMe9«iaiMhy|oMi«MrPaB«n(SIRVICS ^ MrWilSne our wb alia at www,—------- L, V' ' ■ ■«• -'»••■... ;.<(.,Vh-. ■■■ . r-.. . . ^. . ‘fr'' *:4»’*^-‘-"-- ’' 'v^ .-. f '4- .. 1^-l ^ y r.'^/r^«r*->%uW ■Mr .4-,- j*' ■ i» - "f v:' \ A'* / *' •> II«■■! I i 5 ' r~»r^. I—r»^P«, • . » * ^ . : •' .1 • ‘*Jt,'{,v; r f!,, * ‘ . .!ri-' ]' ^' 'I '''*^1 ^ I ■• vif^Ai,:if i? • ■i!® « ! f:ft4 i flki'd 4'. » *T ■“ i, I t '.^i‘ <♦»;; fi• % . r; ' • ^ * N > i \>s A? ' I lO ■'i - * »‘ :k. # 1 •1 * ■ , * • ; 7 \/’ '^. v'^ . '■ •'V '•fe..-. V »*•• V', \ ' t ^ \ M-7 .>V‘ K' \ '■ /* if " ■ .X> 'fV ■ Jliit::* . ..-Uavw:;'-,;-i^.^^ -r' .V' -r ’ « « f; "P.:. ;./f^ • .-.-S’ ,;.;'si#i;SSi *- /:v> r'' ..-. V : '!W^ ■ V#,'S» I'ii 1L ^ Mr.J?>I. M ■• ni't M3**aM Hm now »»■**«*— t*w**ta !»*»■«■«■ u>MV*so« «iise<«oeei^ts •mutcmm ni** « Riini.MHi M9aC8l |iia000>a.*0 e«kW*«M ••KCUU4'»*»»<«^ k*M|>09l >l*OOCw«l«0 HIk n ifii-uJKW MO* **• •:» »*I t*IU«U C*»A4*At»»«M* I lU inn ii:>!.*»•**«•* H Kimil'M* MO»*SO< >* 0KO«C»f“*0«SI T«.»rt» MuM.»4^»*«**-tW.-4t »u>b»Be> >i*oo»<4jk*a *W*' ■ CIl'IKIMn M0« *BM M»>na*«« e«M*aMt« taOuMCK^< IUMt>«aOi KH-ita*.! il MOaaOW ■ *aOM%«U»*»»«^9 T«t***u fl»u«f TOnK.*© MVi«eo* (MCaCC .», ta» • MW « t'D’uiMn MC*«00* M O^UaM>l CMon****^’* CT»0*4*»I*»* atwfta.jo* >11*' m (> imiw *«0**eca W' Ccoao'l p«atiiukf »0<O**XC»»** CU* ■000'MiC»'4*fV^ •MHCoea M4«o»Mi«~* • *Tt*l**M »!>»' •• r> niiw Me»4S0i m:mjss€iA 0M4Mt OM*4*j 0'’>*C**W» i.xaavu w»-4n««T-r»*wm k*Hft*9M W Mjl O* t* • trUTalix WK <• m’inijm owwvmM TAWfW MTU« ■ 4»«W I iM nn WMCjaaLKt «an*i*«B t*** •'ssasfssarsf"iWitrtM mveat la c*w«m w*t*MMCc iA***ia 0Mi»u4iXr' Biaca»ru.e ID** M *»• nj*ie«i *•0* oca Ml aocwo.»» e«a|ahAMf Clv«i»*v4*CCi *^m4'09* m 4C r m nuru mm- *W«Oea II OCaO>u-aanCMC OMCaaxMl a«©-'—»>*»• io**m •aw jLCCi>*a»c-* ■uwiooa Dt■ «>!«'• ox 1*1* N B Bl nCI*COO*MUI0 o«%4* •*•** 1» 41 »rv*<* «v\*«*(a *ioa*>rwwa v.wi.w •mrst.«e»Ji«s • ••laTatn IM*> M cnJI.DM , _ _ l«» ivwaa ••* ov*u«*>*t C'*n:a44**ati c»»i-i.4»At«*«>:a Muv.aea • *ll«T***a 1*1** H K "IM'BI* oca CM «3C >-V. ««l 0»>t****'( kCaal.B ■000 T*\*««|a a.Ct04vC***UD»000 •aMOOI i»**>000“’ifc*»* ««*Ul*va ID*' M K"?|U »l *«a*oca IB eaoaooM»**«--«» omaaMB ioM»«»*«ox*i r»M. tO***n lO«4*“«»3aO ,BC»C*«e*fa*«3l8 • HI*- m K^tu Kr .n I*******! Oaai- 'axl «*4t*«ca^a T«v^«iu «j»‘a3 4i4aot»BC»%4»*i <^U*|.09« »*I • IIBI n Ci;-:M **-y oe* ••* •»*■'’• •*! 0<nt*a*BI vaaMaaCe^ 1,x*.«ia a.nM-a*aO»**«OU. aawvooa mia'Mavl • a«t*r*aa IJMI B r ■•;i:'Bi *ISfOS* W OCMIl >.«»«l *ca«9 0Mk|a*iU>l aicail.siaaoo T«A'**i* “*I4 * "OO® %«U(O0* <HI»00©-U.«»l HI* M fj tJH IU* mvom w *oo«xii '.AA»eaia oaiacaaaaa c »>«*C ••»n"*0It at T«v«m c***ar«a«nM*o aawKOM 1*1 • »UUIltO>»»«f» Ca«;aS04.«*'* N « .*;):•»* r*0*03* UKaSOu-.t»»* OaataaMM c*i'loal*4TO*M MtC tawatti >-IB al»LTae»B atro / .TD4M*Tt0a l»sn»» laotiiMB M CC*9*B I OWNIiaaMt •000««.4e**'**CVl» 1*X**tU aoCOa-UOfta* CU« a«M4><oea Maaccoaiuis a«Ut*M* 111*' «• III Hi»«>: MB*ooa M*coac*oi 0«Maaaiat •OOOoaCaT** tU» Taw**:* »CO* u toca*a» CUiC a>wt'*sa« S*aOC»au*3 •I f Md*40C« • coao^'i UxaatU HaM*<aro«*CO«*.M»»/ta MMbOOl axtratladJ* •.•aiwOLllwa '**• *1 ni-HUBB* MO*«ao* B< rotsac '* C«a«aaMB •>.«J»«»ca'C*t>BM»< TXMTIl 4aluat«»tMC« aaw'ooa raHMit't»» Oft •0KXM«H nof«0*fatx 1»«»' •• B'l « B*.l* U Oftakaal lf.u:iai4C*U4taU rot*tta a<a«*BI4«J>«*"*lU*0l*4 • |I3*« oaac* a*»l MC0«u.Ca**> ru« lavain •ceoau.eatat cu* MiaOWiUao ■a«Ur*Ma MI** *• |i,i •:):«*» Mctooa «. auicoaa CaiallaaMi «*«aa*JWtaC laalUa rax*»n Waa»a»taC»**«aa MMt-aSM •BMVaMIU* ■ii<laT*wa IlM* I* r i*UJW* Mvasoa iB*Mjj«iaa- OMotuMN •a;j*Mtcta* toMtia •aot.tc* ••••ujteisaa BauXAtaaM Bin M »ii*UlMBI M0*oea tBaaoiOiea* 0«M4a4*« Caa4ieBBai*0U44»«n«». r*i«*rta O<««f9l*4l4*04U*TII aaMCOOl *aiMi;BMia* m a.imiara *«iaBBB MMU43ioa« 0W«MM| tlluaU4>4Cttl taWW 144W»4ll6»a r—•-«— bibuMOb* ■tTxaUMi ■I*' eaiaUMaa •0W«U C*n*t CU* Tawm aOOBMiraiatCX^ MTiataiM ni*t m BltWiMB *ag*«gai ai bmvuuilvs* •■WwaB ett O* ■•n*za «mbbw ana*B4i94ia .......aM BiaafT ■aTtataW BW kew>n* eu* ICMTttCUa jnrj4.a ■uiMnnaai H Bunwaw N0»*9M 0«n«iiMM TTMgft«r»W»Wi T*w«*u T»(ot»f» ■ «wno« kAi^oot ia«umu.««t ■tnATAMM um n uiinwmiMOAABoa mi toci»eo3MtuiKi OMUwMi tmt'.vn T*VA«U AHilClAMIKSAWO" <UHb*3W iMt9CI>OOOMUlA9 UNl MCfACM >♦ AOOAtn LA»«ilC»t3 Tia<i»tw«tco«*nvA»eT TAVA’W W?V«n3«««*»*f» K«UUAC9< IJOtTMtIII ttfttlx MTUUII IMI4 n MO»a SM iKItCatlMW o«*tu<u«c u' wi*oa« p »*• • “*•» UMliOCW l»V«<tlMO« MVUfAtn IU«> N UMUMCni fWASM iaoi*ww*>t OMltauM Hf TAVA*t« «Kiun«o*»KU*i»uM» IH'KASO* •tMLnuh*«t ■*VtATA«« Ml* s iHiUHiaRi MO* «De« im L<HA« Alt OMia«Aiic ncMOA*t»o»*i** TAXVAMA •0«0*»mA«0«0 MAAItMOOt UMkTHA*A«t • ATIATAMK UN< iTIONIVtTCM MS< • t^BAit mnm N n'lTlMAKM **0»AeC« IM>009MAA«I 0*«U«AUt CAMMAM TAtfATtl C»A«UJ"A«tA«tAC»lAIU WUU.ASO* lMaOO»<iUA«« •AVIATAAM i |JJ*< a nnmmou MHA a SO* iBJ wr«0>nul«s o^AUMi DtLOtfsoiwcKseHnr At. TA0ATU DI4«AIAe«J0"e MM||A» »tM19C<«00ei«U.tB • AltATAWA a>*t a Uiinjoee* NOASoi ia»oocMU«0 QMII AAUf OMA J AAtAUCO TAt»A*l» OAAiAAUVtCn naw Ia OCA M»A*0«tl«9 «A»|AtA»»* MW II iriniw NOAASOt a A90Anti>A»««tt e«AU AAWf cTi c* ots^o TAAltifl CrnO»C«3*« AAUtOOA »CI0*I4 e*«tVA.tA« WA lua a K Miwawi vofASOA lilt rtAxOAUW* Oa MIAAM AAAIMAAt JC a *WAM TA\*>TU WAMfrAeOa )'IHIAA9 a UAS* ■ ArZATAkn ttai H » MOAAX* lla l.»»»A*l A/I e«>CA«AAI< MMAOHtMCAianAL TAAAAin «-*P>AJAfCA» MMtAtOA liattWAAAlt aai ZAT aua lia a llrtSUMKI MkcaAoe* a A30AAM JHAUCMC PMAIAAAOI •.AiPAytOAACAtMUKA/ tAXIAVIA *a A»AAT a »IA*CO •AHtASOC ^At Otr- ACMAMIM lOtTkOAtHtA M*1 a cxRiAJCMi MSAAOCA *» AO00H1U.U ovAtaiMAa «MfTf*«cum»srTAt. TAWAin Cf UTMWIIXtlAOA AAVbAOOA C*ruA«A01|A»MC 4B AoooAAi«a •atiatawa uai a Bii’j>*aaA nsAAoea a AsoAiutrustCAO OwMIH aui ta €aa TVUCCA««»aa O TAAAAm •A*rjAICCA»U»A«CT AAM(.ASe« O’JMAril MMtlu aiauwa *>Ai< a «> ’tw* I r«s»AeoA a AS9Atnt»A»CAt9 CHAttAAHt •OTOASirW.'ATtirO* tAxiAna •oooAAi. ra.*T»» cu.« AAMtABOl »« AOOO-nj. AO «A<IA*AW« |<a a R t?a4i«a rac'AOOA iiw riAAOAUAOA OITiIAAAMI iC*0»AAAA»MJIC«aifc TAXAAMA MAA»IAIAA3UACiC»A«A«ilt AAAtAXIA I'tmAASAUAD* • AVtATAUA MM' a M iMUHBa aacaaboa a AroAiat.'AAtcAto Oa MIaa MI ITa TICAM"" TAXAAAIA C*AAlA4.l|tATt»*C«T NAUt'ACO* ATTAMaa^tcvA'M lMi>rA«tATi«a tlAAUtVA Mill a MMiiaaia AAOAAOM lit Liiaahav * e«AUAAMi aaaaaoaaiaaaaawujw tAXAAilA W-AABAAirmArWKA^ AAWLAOOa >.ai*VAAA»| aAilA/AWA MM' a Rtitiia* • AAOA a OM m «OO»«a.vA0 Cn/HUinut mw%KOJ*tt»>»*>COM TAM«AU wtUAa«4AA»(»taaec«M AAMKAOOt l^laOOOHAU-AO MAIX a Tama SIM' a Ki'»inari AAOAAOOA rw ■OOOMTwLA*! OmittwMI Alt am wCCJAf AA»AA*|A MiiUAM a MAOMit MCtt/AI ItMMOO^-UAlt ■ AII a TAMA jU*‘ a c'tntMM AAOAAOOA a AOOAUSUAAtlCAW 0«MttMAAI« UClfM^TCHtUrAk TAkAMf A too C AATCMtU mamiiaoca laiAOoiwuAAt ■AAWTAWI UW a cnmu »a AAOAAOea iiM ota Iaiomit 0MHUMAA« AMAlALAlMtOWAIUAI tAAAAtU AMI tALAtMtl»<AALA(At AAmiAfiffA laicmMOMiT matiatawa aa a n I’uxaii lAQAAOCa MO OAOAeOBCHAAOASI OatlAMAMC irr*CAAACR tAAAAAtt A*V»CAAAtn maioaooa a ’CAAij»<KMAa>l MAAirremAMA Mat a Runaiaai rtooAoo* MtiAuaetetA oaMAHAaf CMAStOAMCAlAoaOAntntt AtioAm CMW«(*t«auJuni MAMAOca iMHumoAA vauatam aai « ttiinaav AaaoAsea mocowaou BKIiaiil TMaa MMOMIA vaa TA»Am MATtMooiantAtcv iMiinifTti tirtKA Mfuaa Mta a tii'Wimt: faoAAOOA <iaoo«wiAr CMMAAAMf • »WrCAAUtAWMCCl.tU tAVAllA »-MCSU«t4%«»H.0lAAI aamoadga •tacxAt«to*>iT • ai Za Tama mi« a riiiijvt*. aaoaaooa aatuatuAii OMMiAhAwt ACAtnAKAttaMtAa TAXtAVIt t Ca AI AfTIAtlA AAMtAOOt IMAWlMUArt maiiatama aai a tuitjiMoea amaaboa latociaAOOMr owatMMi BMAOtMCT«ianiat.nT taiaaiia »»»< UIM MMal/*30A IStBCtSAWlAlt •AYlAtAAM Uat a eiita4iOHi mkaaboi at toawoooA9ujia OwaiAAMi MAAVMAWHVaOatA TAtAAVai MAATI«A>Ai«VBCartA atunuMAMOuiLA MAian. a« a amuAioMi NgAtaa aoiAuJ«M« iP-r-----tiowinrii-Tm--------- nvAMi ta wriCA—lAAOUMTu MaVASn WWlMIOta VATtATAMk aa> a oj. Minaoi AAOAAOOt AMlwnUlAVt (WAttAAAtt jOUWA iIBC a MU iTH TAVAItt JOtlAIAMlBCAWtAn* AAMtASSt ACBOtta • A*tATAMA tin- a K i»:i» 0Aij MarAOBti tauiMAif OMACtAAHI OOMAtBlt**AM»BA*«WA tAXAAVtt BCAAUItlOAAMtftA'WO"* AAMtitaot tautAiAii ■ AVtATAHA Ua> a K'lni) aa AooAAOOt at»O00M«j.»0 OmWKAMl tOHACtUMACVAUlt TAtAAVta jomcttoaApaAlu* aAMliAOCM ao-000-w.ta ■ArlATAWA ua< a MMtuAiaoj AtoAACot wAj lecrooooMvuta OlWUAAAIt lAWABMtMeUOM lAWAita tATMAtMtanio* iiuf90iaaooMU.ie •AAZAtAMA aai a eiina«a ABOAtOOB a ASBI- OWAMMAal KSIWMCDMaOMM.ttAl.TN TtVATtt KSMSMeOttOBAMWAtW. UtfTllffMAUi MMMAMUiaB UW ..'■'V A ^ •• H iii.i:>iM>« nanotm i.i* k»«»«i»*l OWNtlMM nvxt* OMM<M lll« M If tawfetN wofoo* ■ •oouii OMM«»AMl CfT»0»0W^ r*\f*fU ctT>o»a»o^ »«MI«9C« 'OWIM mil M )<I UiuMM Mc#fkOe* M Aoomi eMt«»AMt !*»•.«»» •owims -f'-e r«c**«n o«»i« o»t* •• U.iKIMM e««« jwi« "‘fU’* u^*M* CJno»»*»t»*» *«wVfOO( l>«***t*^**k*aa »«► w titinjiwc M3>00« MCOUfC'l aa«^«ee« <i’irkf»»» JI MtO>OM * *OOM»» k.'*»l»«**e OMta««ol r*v««ia to aiw**. «••».»» **Ma*ae* •>*»•• or T»< •• COOT^ H»viCtSCi r4t?v^ orWKWiflCtaMBKUt^^^y.^j^^ ,> ^ M4-JMI St9Hrnbtrn.im r>t«i»r9 DM* ApftintiM RcMivH: t*lt-«4 Date AffHcMieii CeuMtrvd M CoMfltfc: 9-1S4M Review P*rlod Eiptrcs: 1M4^ T«: Chair Rahn and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Gundlach, City Planner^ Dale: September 17.2004 Sabject: W)4-3051, Kevin & Julie Fitepatrick, 356 West Ijikc Street - Side Yard Setback, Lot Area. Lot Width Variances • Public Hearing Zoning Dbirkt: LR - I A. One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (2 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.643 acres (28,017 s.f.) Lot Width: SO.SO feet @ the shoreline and 75* setback 1 Application Summary: Applicant requests tiK following variances in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot: 1. Lot area variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot that is 0 643 acres in size when 2 acres in normally required. 2. Lot width variance to permit construction of a residence on a lot that is 50..SO’ in width at the shoreline and 75’ setback when 200’ is nonnally required. 3. North and south side yard setback variances to permit side yard setbacks of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. _________________________ ________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances us a house has existed on the SO’ wide lot since 1957, the applicants are not able to acquire any other land, tlie lot was legally formed at the time it was platted, and if the 30’ side yard sethack.s were enforced the lot would have no buildablc area.______________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-305. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: l.ul Area (acre)Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (feet) Side Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) Rear Yard (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 ListorExliibiU Exhibit A - Applications Exhibit B - Hardship Documentation Form Exhibit C - Existing Survey Exhibit D - Proposed Survey Exhibit E - Hai^ver Calculadon Worksheets } L St»t «n>crM.2f4 Exhibit F - Propoacd Elevations Exhibit G - Proposed Floor Plans Exhibit H - Engineer Comments Exhibit 1 - Memo from City Building Inspector Bruce Vang Exhibit J - Neighbor Comments Exhibit K - CMP Excerpts - Land Use Plan: Lakeshore Residential Land Use Policies & General Land Use Policies Exhibit L - Additional Applicant Comments Exhibit M - Property Owner’s List Exhibit N-Plat Map Background The applicants have recently acquired the property at 3S6 Westlake Street and intend to tear the existing house down and constrtict new. The applicants have worked with staff, including the City Engineer and Building Inspector to propose a grading plan that works with the constraints of the narrow lot. Ba^ on prec^nce. City staff advised the applicant that 10’ side yard setbacks would be a reasonable request bcca\xsc the required 30* side yard setbacks would make the property unbuildable. The applicants have submitted their proposed plan on that basis. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/WMih LR-tA Lot Area LolWidlli Required 87.120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200* Actual 28,017 s.f. (0.643 acres)50.50 ’ Setbacks LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front N/A N/A N/A Rear (street)50* 272 ’ (shed) 324.5* (garage) 392.5 ’ (house) 283.5 ’ (outbuilding) 354.S ’ (house) Uft Side (north)30 ’ 5.5* (shed) 9.9* (garage) 6.0* (house) 1 :0* (house) 15’ (outbuilding) Right Side (south)30 ’ 33.4 ’ (shed) 12.7 ’ (gvage) 8.2* (house) 10* (house) 11* (outbuilding) Lakeshore 75*100*(deck) 10* (abed)119* (deck) LLyn iM^I Scrtcwbcr 2t. 2M4 r>t«3ar9 Average Lakeshore N/A (no house is adjacent - see text)N/A N/A Talal Lot Area Total Stnactnral Coverage 28.017 s.f. (0.643 acres)Allowed: 4.202.6 s.f. (15®/.) Proposed; 2.588 s.f. (9%) Hardcover Cakulatioiu Hardcover Zomt Total Area in Zone AUowcd Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 3,913 s.f.Os.f 50 s.f®Os.f 0-75 (OV.)(1.28%)(0%) 75-250 16.500 s.f.4.125 s.f. (25“/«) 5,838 s.f® (35.35®/c) 4,104 s.t. (25%) 250-500 7,604 s.f 2,281 s.f. (30%) 671 s.f® (8.82®/o) 2,250 s.f (29.6»/«) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Varianee/Lol Width Variance Hie applicants arc proposing to tear down the existing home and rebuild on the lot. The lot is 28,017 s.f. in area or 0.643 acres and 50.50 ’ in width at the shoreline and 75 ’ setback. The lot is located in the LR - I A, One Family Lakcshorc Residential zoning district requiring two acres and 200* of width for all new construction, therefore, a lot area and lot width variance is required. Side Yard Setback Variance The lot located at 356 West I^c Street is 50 ’ wide at tlie road and 50.50 ’ wide at the shoreline and 75 ’ setback. The LR - 1A zoning district requires side yard setbacks of 30 ’ in which case no buildable area exists. Therefore, the applicants have proposed side yard .setbacks of 10* to yield a 30* wide building pad. This requires variance approval. Average Lakcshorc Setback The home is proposed at a location slightly further from the lake than the existing house and slightly closer to the lake than the adjacent home to the north. The adjacent lakeshore lot to the south is vacant. The proposed location seems very appropriate to staff in that it will not impact existing neighbors lake views. If it was moved further from the lake this would have a negative impact on the average setback line for a future home to the south. Haedaidp Stalcacnl Applicant has provided a Hardship Documentation Form in Exhibit D, and should be a^ed for additional testimony regarding the application. iM^I !kp<c»b«r M. MM Hardskip Anahrtb /« i^fUcmHatu for omriomc*. Mr PtomiUiit Cammltsiom tktOt coruider the tffta </ Mr propoied vmrtaiKe mpom Mr ktMt. orfety omd we^ore of Mr nmHmmity, ediMif am# mndci^td traffic roMMMoffs, 4gikr «iMf Mr, aw«rr if/lrr, fto* to Ike public sa/rty, mmd the effect em oalmet of property In the utrroumMttt orim. The Cotmmittlom shall comider recamimtemdiitg approval for vmtiattcet from the metal promkomt afdte Xotdag Code ht instaoces where their strict etiforeement would caate undue hardship because </ circumstmnces unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping uith the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. StafT finds a hardship to allow a house to be rebuilt on the existing lot. The lot is considered a legal lot of record and can therefore, be built on without meeting the two acre minimum requirement. The existing house has existed on the substandard area and width lot since 1937 and the lot was legally created in accordance with the platting process. The proposal for the house meets all other Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of the side yard setbacks. The lot is also sewered and not subject to primary and alternate septic site locations, as would normally be a concern with rebuild situations. Staff would recommend approval of the lot area and lot width variance as the lot is a legal lot of record and has stood on its own since 1937. Staff also finds a hardship to warrant approval of the 10 ’ side yard setback requests. 'I'hc lot is not wide enough to meet tire required setbacks, lire Planning Commission and Council Irave consistently approved side yard setback requests of 10* for existing 30* lots on the lake regardless of tlie zoning district. The hardship criterion specifically calls for reasonable use. In staffs view, a 30' wide building pad is reasonable. 'I'hc Planning Commission may want to discuss the reasonableness of anything significantly less than a 30 ’ width home. llic applicants liave been working with the City Engineer and Building Inspccior in order to provide a grading plan which will not negatively affect adjacent properties. City Building Inspector, Bruce Vang has submHted a memorandum in Exhibit 1 indicating the plan submitted meets all requirements of u ? Building Department and City Engineer. ^cighbor Comncnls The neighbors to the souUi have submitted a letter objecting to the proposed variances. The letter outlines the pattern of development along West Lake and the acquisition and combination of 30* wide lots in order to create larger, more conforming lots. Tlie letter indicates that the applicants should wait to redevelop until the other two 30 ’ wride lots to the north can be acquired for one large lot. so that redevelopment more closely matches the 2-acre zoning standards. While staff agrees with the neighbors’ position in theory, the struggle of a property owner’s right to develop inevitably clashes with this theory. Since the City of Orono’s inception as a municipality, no active City initiative has existed with the intent of forcing property owners to wait to redevelop until they have acquired more land. In fact, the City has several small lot iKighborhoods where the zoning doesn't match and some owners have chosen to acquire more land where others have not Staff recognizes that the West M •MOtSI S«p(t«iktr2l,3M4 ragiSarS Lake neighboriiood may be more actively moving towards larger lou but would beg the question; Should they be forced? Staff would find it “out of the oedmary” for the City to deny this variance request based on the position taken by the neighbors. Iisacs far CoBsidcraliaa Are 10’ side yard setbacks yielding a 30* wide building pad reasonable? Would the proposed house be out of character with the neighborhood? Should the applicants be required to wait to redevelop so that additional land can be acquired? Please review the Comprehensive Plan excerpts. Exhibit K. Docs the proposed redevelopment of this lot generally conform to the “Lakeshore Residential Land Use Policies”? Does it conform to the “General Und Use Policies”? Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommcndalkm Approval of the requested variances as submitted. Juati EXHIBIT A City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This form is to be comptotod by a City Planner during your pre-applica>ion meeting *) Street Address 27SO KeBey PailraMiy Orono. MN S53S6 Main 9S2-249^GOO Fax 952-24?M616 Mmtting Address PO BoxGG For Off. Oty Planner Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 M«>e(ir>g Oalc/Tirr« mjn PC Dale What is the purpose of a $>ro-^pplicaUon mooting? Pre-application meetings aid the oppiicanl in preparing a complete proposal, inform thorn of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. IM?OPERTY INFORMATION: :we Address: ■_________ . _______________________ property Identification Number (PIN): dSH7ZAZ30 C/S________________________ /-enlng District: 6^-/A_____Size of Property: _2t_l3, D53 S-'f -_______ StiSCRIPTION OF REQUEST: O Avpfage Setback ^iCSido Yard Setback □ Rear Yard Setback U Hardcover ^ Lot Coverage ^^otArea □ <>*her;_____________________________________ D1 ' -w. setback ^Lot Width Applicant ’s Initials: HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Docurrtentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them. or»d is aware that it must be completed aryj submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION: ‘Please note*. Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting dunng which this form wilt be completed by City staff. Applicant Signature:OJAaJLIlJ Dale: % Ma [ # C: 1':JL L n City of Orono Variance Application EXHIBIT A 2, SffMl>ldidrsss 2750 Ka«ey Partway Orooo. MN 55356 Main 952-249-4600 (ax 952-249-4616 Mating AMraas: P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Applicalion • / Data Rftoaivad Amount Paid Staff Ta Faa Rarwwal S600 JL300______________ Anor tbo tacT $1,200 OouMo Foo TIms applicat ioft torm must be oompletod in Ml Appicant «nl be noMtod within 15 days as to the status of the applicalion Incomplete appMcatione wW not be placed on Planning Commieeion Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address 56U Properly Identification Number (PIN): (Attach legal description to application if not included on the survey.) Dale Properly Acquired (month/year), oi lo4 □ Yes, I own the adjacent parcels. Present use of property, pi Residential u^lher __________________________ Zoning District; L4^\A_____________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Compleln lesal names and marital status requlmd lor each interested party) Name; K.tAuir\ aniL. jpi4a.pfl.r»rtpVg> lonorf _________________ Phone (home): _______Phone (work) j T-i_________ Address: f UlC£. ________^__________^ Email; JcjlillJtJt tAr_-ya\iDkL..nt^^__________Pax: ^ CtAiV (LhtJjL) OWNER INFORMATION: (Complelo legal names and mantal status required for each ir.teroslcd pady) Name: Qj\dL ^JyUiC —Ki3-0flLirig.\4>^^ _______________________ Phone (home): ntfli^ - U4i'\»4 > _________Phone (work): - “IWH 'Iri__________ Address: N. raiL(>\c. bff»i€.. 6*33 U ‘ _________ Email _________Fax: nk3jL^ml-HOteLltiUi.OJo€j9ui ) I 46o^booDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost: Describe the request in detail (attach additional sheets if necessary): _ ___ _ ______ _ rdL V AJft r\ane_f^ in J?ui\A./grt 4his—raj-cg>x)-.60::^^ Qti trS 4-irsi*.*2- ID3€-_2tD_fl?DiL_6tstbACAC-»________ nnak/g» 4-fug. i ^/ta #3051 ii, EXHIBIT REQUIREO SUBMITTALS: AN of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to be processed. a Gd Pre-Application Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form CerliTied Property Owners List - ovmers within 150' of the subject property, labels and plat map. List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance. Government Center. A-603 300 South 6"* Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612-348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover calculations. Also provide one copy 8.5’ x 11’ or ir X 17" for reproduction. Completed hardcover calculation worksheets (as provided within the variance packet). Topographic survey - including existing and proposed elevations. Provide one copy 8.5" x 11’ or 1 r X 17" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor and elevation views (provide one copy 8.5" x 11" or 11" x IT). Additional items may be requested by City Staff depending on the scope of the project. * APPUCANTS 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 irxujrred 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 refect it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. □ □□ AppUcanfs Signaluro: Applicant's Signature: Date: Date.% OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission & Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature. Owner's Sigr>ature;r Dale: Dale:%4'iw| b* Applicant must have all submittals Into Ihe City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are normally held on Ihe third Monday of each month Appllcaiits mutt bt prttmit at aN adieduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an appiicani is unable to attend a scheduled meeUng, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. #3051 EXHIBIT B Page 1 of3 HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM This form i« a r«<|uirad submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any mooting agondas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394 27. Subdtvision 7 requires that a hardship be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted The hardship must be unique to the property as variartoes run with the land and not the land owner Personal and economic situations are not eonstdered vaM hardships. In order for an application to bo hoard by the Planning Commission and City Coundi 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 oxsts and how tho variaiKe will affect tho surrounding community To prove a hardship, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them os dearly as possiblo. Since you arc requesting tho code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variaiK# is Justified. Tho information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval rocommcrxlation. If you leave something out it w9l not be considered Please address each of those hardship criteria as they relate to the roquost (somo may not apply) 1. *The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions ali^od by the official controls * _^0urJLOuQt.-C___________________________________________________ 2 The plight of tho landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not croat^ by the landowner * ftiLrrcno i‘<^__UnbuA\dlAtek^ _____________ 3. Tho variance, if granted. wiB not alter tho essential character of the locality ^6U&C.tilOLT J&tvL ■flUVdLSSAAC,-tD-< -in dkhi__ntJtAhtoDfh[TDdL tmhCtcn .-te. Cu\ O'Mrvtr tiiidLt txA>uf«.fnLA-Vs . ‘Ecorromic considerations akxfe shall rxK constitute an imdue hardship if reasonablo use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." if* nn rflfl^irwaifsU^ EXHIBIT Page 2 of 3 *Undue hardship also includes. tMt is not limited to. inadequate access to direct Bunight for solar energy systems. Varianoas shall be granted for earth shefterad construction as dafinad in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.' *The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may ixil permit as a variance any use that Is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zor>e where the affected person's land is located.* f\b4 __________________________________________ The Board or Council may permit as a variance Iho temporary use of a one-family dwelKng as a two-family dwelling * __________________________________ 8. The corxtttions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the disirici in which said land is located ” The granting of the appUcation is necessary for the preservation and er^yment of a substantial property right of the applicant.* TVw^ QrftA-KoQ. b-C 44r\a^ ■ Ir, 1^# f ^ |[Kli \A . n ^ 0*^ - The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safely, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code* — hU-T tu‘i\\______ Pim<VrrTt Oil n4-^r^>V* #3051 EXHIBIT Pi«e3or3 ”Tbe granting of Mich vartanoe wM not merely serve as a oorwenierKe to the appficant, but is rteoessary lo eleviain rkjpooshable hardship or dNicuity ' *rht*c» tyfArjr4r> bui\<^ Hardahip Slats wsent Should you feel the hardship carwKil fully be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difllcuty or unusual properly conditiorw prevertting compliartce with Zoning Ordinar>oe requirements in the foHouring lirws (attach additional sheets if necessary); -Vt> a^\ rv^of^toi\\ Cx V^tra \n># tinnpr^e^r^ *Avu a W3>r\te Jr\ d jnn»A Vptvi . '1'7Lii ■ 'i i/51 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN FITZPATRICK OF LOT 8. BLOCK 1. HILLSIDE PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 5 CAl peSCRFTION Of PfgMSES : I a. otock 1. Husoe park : dMWttt iron morkor orin^s ihown or* bot*d upon on nttunoP Oetum i* iurv*y intond* to thorn Iho boi*«Oori*9 of tn« obov* Oi»crib*d proporty. > locotion of four ontting buMina*. and el wPbit "hordcovtf ” Iborvoa ^mmm •«» a IK*# IpdOObdH ^ <nr f flf>f hm^nf < FXI!>TWG BUiLOINGS . I/ TO 8E REMOVED ' 1 ••1 1 .Ar.... i M>f Houa 9' ;e"f \ jj • 1 — .. .{ »u ' Sto /^^I . t:■ ^GARAGE Fir^t....... „/„„,fer?■ ■ ■ S''•-4i*®>>ow>w-«>tflss); ^ q. ; 4;jL-.....I5.:^kqp'____rt I/^roposho steps/< ^ - ■' lv> ■ w - -' /. ih......................■'>•..............^ ' - SAVE TKEfS r?^-. ://, GRADE swale <♦•''* TO^DRAIN 506.50 BENCHMARK ---- TOP IP ELEV = 4oU // / / .r.' PROPOSED ELEVATIONS GARAGE FLCOR=956.8 TOP OF FOUNDATION =957.1 lowest FL00R=948.4 3 H a L_ S 89^*48' 16"£ 513.63 swale to PRAIN,.^P .X'*'!r ‘'' N 89^48' 16" W Ik • HARDCOVER CALCULADON WORKSHEET EXHIBIT E SrrBACKZONE; (CHICLE OMC) ^75^ 7S-25(r 2SO-SOO* SOO-1000* gjOBTIQ HARPCQVgR IN ZONE A Houm ShcdL B. Garage C Ortveway O. SidMMBi E PtMmdk F Londacape Underlain By Ptaabc O. Ralain«>g Want H.Ottwf l.'V- 1^0 U.F. 6.U _Q»>j(WdLtj_ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PR0P08ED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House Langet SF. SF SF. ;s.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. "SF. [SF S.F.- \NaocA B Garaga C. Onvoway D Sidawafc E. PatxVDach F. Landscape Undwiam By Plasbc G Retaining Wits H OOwf ♦ e xlOO ____S.F. A ____SF. D ____% Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________B SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF ;sF SF SF SF 100 S F. A S.F B r MtSACKtONC: (CMCLSONC} BPmWO HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CAL t-Tf A. Houw VI. I B. Garagt C. Otivvway on. I D. Sidtmtm. E PaboA)wk F. Landscip* UndMMn By PiMlic G. Ralainino WiMi H.OUwr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A PROPOBED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. HouM So______ ftrch B. Gar»g« C Ortv*«wy D. SMtwRh E PatKVOKk F LandMip* UndMiain ByPlMbc G. RaUmini} Wals H OBmt TKM WORKSHEET 2SB4O0*S0B.10M* U6>r « OI OC.IL I \hU«tde.(^V. EXHIBIT SF -hfUAO SF - SF SF tPnc.Afrvn V90 SF ->tr0VtC.WA\Vt. iSF s.F-AtcVu SF .SF SF SF JH er « xlOO SF. A ______SF B 56.SS % J4vo .SF SF \s>o .SF SF i^0 SF SF SF SF. lO 5.0L SF SF SF IVO s F.- OiA4^*ULin^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION SETBACK ZOMI: <CmCLBONE) BOSTIMQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houm _______________ O-TS*75-2S0r WQRJCSHI UD'T • OlOILtC. I soo-ioco* EXHIBIT I'W.'V 10.to B. Garage C Orivaway 3^n^lXiUJSib(d^ D Sidawah E Palio/Oadi F. lartdsc UiKtertain By Piasae SF SF-StotA SF. S F - <^rA>J«Ji SF SF SF SF SF SF SF G. Ralair>ing Wate H Olhar tt TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________♦ B X too SF A ___SF. B % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House __________ K B Garage C. Dnwway D. Sidawani E PaMolOocIi F. Landscape Underlain ByFlasbc G Retaining WaNa H. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________♦ B SF. SF. IfO^O SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF.- 100 OVkAtoiuUlin^ SF. A SF. B M cr% «5 2,^.0 L*- -r. f I EXIliniTF ‘^t .;'..v A H . mCLxn M\ Bonestroo Riosene Anderlik& I Associates EnginecftS ArcMiecit August 30,2004 Ms. Janice Gundlach Planner City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crysul Bay. MN 55323 356 West Uke Street File No. 139-04-000 Plat No 04-3051 2 J35 VMcit Highw.iy 36 • St MN 00113 Otiice 6SI 636 4600- FaK 601 636 1311 WWW bonestroo com EXHIBIT II Dear Janice Wt have reviewed the plans and visited the site for the proposed improvements to 356 West I.ake Street. The proposed improvxments include removinR an existing residence and constructing a new home. The home construction will require some site grading to control and direct drainage. Wc have the following conunenis with regards to cnginccnng matters • The pro|HJsed house elevations provided do not agiec with the proposed grading plan. Tlie lakeside house elevation show* a proposed two story home with a full basement. The grading plan shows grading to provide a lookout on the lakeside of the home. The grading necessary to construct a lookout will likely encroach into the 75-foot setback and wc would strongly discourage this • Hie proposed lop of foundation is approximately 2 5 feet higher than the existing house to the north. This will create difficulty in grading a swale along the north side of the pro|>oscd home Wc rccomnKnd that the proposed top of foundation elevation be revised to be no higher than 955.0 • ITte final grading plans should include side yard swales to direct water towards the lake. • We did not notice any steps to the lake when we \isitcd the site. I he slope to the lake is steep and heavily vegetated. Plans should include step construction to the lake and provisions for stabilizing disturlicd areas where the steps are constructed and the site where the existing shed will hr • .-moved. • Final house plans should include gullets and downspouts that direct roof drainage to the side yard • Ihc silt fence should be installed at the 75-foot setback fiom the lake. AH erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approsTd by city staff pnor to any work on site If you luve any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONFSTROO. ROSENE, ANDFRl.IK & ASSOCIATE^;. TNC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono Bruce Vang, City of Orono • St. Puul. St Cloud. Rochester. Willmar. MN • Milw.sukee, Wl • Chic*»go. IL AltlHMUM Opewimwif EXHIBIT I O O V / GlTYoTORONO MunklfMl Offkcs Slr«tt 2/50 WI«T Parturai Oiono. VN 55356 PO B0i6« Cmt«l B«y. MN 553230066 Scp<embcr 15,2004 To: Orono Planning Conimission Re; 356 Westlake Street File no. 04-3051 lire residence proposed on the long and narrow lot at 356 Westlake Street presents some difTiculties in dealing with water runofT. Fortunately more than half of the lot slopes toward the street and has very little hard surface, allowing water to soak in. I'he area around the house with its higher concentration of hard cover will demand attention to details. Here, draiiuigc swales on the north and south property lines will carry runulT eastward to a relatively Hat urea before it nins to the lake. These swales and rough grade must he insialled and inspected at the time of ilic foundation backFilI and maintained throughout the project, ncfoie excavation begins, silt fence must be installed along both property lines as well as at the 75 foot lake setback Tom Kellogg and I reviewed the original plan and our comments were incorporated la the final design. With some extra care by the builder and oversight by the homeowner there should be minimal impact on the neighboring properties and on Lake Minnetonka. Bruce Vang il Building and Zoning Inspector IMcflMMC (952) 249.4600 • Fax (952) 249-4410 »ww.d.arww — Ml EXHinrrj COMMENT ON APPUCAT10N #04-3051 BY KEVIN AND JULIE FITZPATRICK TO REDUCE TBE REQUIRED LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH AND SIDE YARDS AT 356 WESTLAKE We, the owners oFthe adjacent property to the south oF3S6 Westlake request the City Planning Commission Find the requested variances unreasonable and oppose the granting oFthe variances as not supported by the required Findings For these reasons' 1. The Reasonable Eipeclatioas for Redevelopment Along Westlake from the History of Development. The last home on Westlake built on a SO ft wide lot was constructed over 50 years ago The established pattern is private consolidation oFthe underlying SO ft lots (see Exhibit One) into larger parcels either prior to redevelopment or in anticipation of redevdopment (see Exhibit Two). For exampte: 309 The existing home was expanded after consolidating the front and back lots to create the buildable parcel with 150 ft oFfrontage 34 1 In anticipation of redevelopment the underlying lots have been consolidated into a significant parcel, also with ISO ft of ftontage 349 This lot has 100 ft of Frontage on Westlake 36S This lot was combined with 373 to provide 100 ft of frontage on Westlake in anticipation of redevelopment with additional consolidation 389 lias 1 SO ft of frontage on Westlake 372 The owner of 372 acquired the home at 364 and combined the sites in 1999, creating a more conforming parcel, and removed several nonconforming structures and constructed a new home on 372. 364 Acquired and made available For redevelopment after a lot line rearrangement with 372 356 Traditional SO ft lot 348 Traditional 50 ft lot 340 Traditional 50 ft lot 332 100 ft wide lot 3895 I SO ft wide lot assembled prior to present development iiUil - FXIIIBIT h L The pinem of developmem along WestUke. and the character of developincin along Westlake hat not been redevdopment of the underlying SO ft lots The pattern has been to continue the reasonable use of the existing homes while patiently and expensively consolidating at least two. and typically three lots prior to redevelopment to approach the standards of the LR-1A District The property in question, pending consolidation with adjacent parcels can be put to a reasonable use, these circumstances arc not unique to this property but have been applied to all other properties alot% Westlake It was not an undue hardship to continue the use of the home prior to redevelopment and has been the reasonable use of each property prior to consolidation and redevelopment of the immediately adjoining property ‘fhis pattern, encouraged by the LR- IA zoning designation along Westlake has applied generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located Denial of the application to permit redevelopment of this substandard lot is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and is consistent with the experience of otiKr properties Granting the application will serve as an exception to the pattern of redevelopment established along Westlake and is solely a convenience and windfall to the applicant Granting the application will discourage the pattern of consolidation consistent with the Code along Westlake, and establish a precedent, which when extended to and 348, will alter the essential emerging character of Westlake 2. Ike Reasonable Eipcclalions for Redevelopment Along Westlake from the History of City Approvals. A number of variance requests have been approved and denied along Westlake Tlie consistent pattern of these actions has been approval of lot width and area variances if accompanied by a consolidation of the existing SO ft lots, and very careful scrutiny and denial of side yard variance applications Recent applications have included I. 1996, 372 Westlake, Loren Biueggemann, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to allow a large (2 acre) single parcel to be divid<*d into two buildable lots Denied 1998, 36S Westlake, Joe and Mary Fiedler, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to dlow replace an existing residence Tabled, then withdrawn This property has since been consolidated with 373 in anticipation of redcvclopincnl after additional consolidation 1999, Robert and Lisa Erickson. 364/372 Westlake Lot Une rearrangement, lot area and lot width. NO side yard variances After acquiring an adjacent home on a 50 ft lot and consolidating it into the larger parcel at 372 Westlake, sec 1 above, granted 2003, 332 Westlake. Blake and Mary Bichanich, lot area, lot width and side yard variances to allow replacement of an existing residence IxA area and lot width variances granted for this parcel of two lots Side yard setback variance denied EXHIBIT No variance has been granted for redevelopment on a 50 ft wide lot on Westlake. Variances for lot width and lot area have been granted when a SO ft lot has been vacated and consolidated prior to or as part of the redevelopment. The approval of this application would be an exception to the City’s action in previous similar applications on Westlake 3. The Reasonable ExpeclalionB for New Dev elopment at 340,348 and 356 Westlake The only remaining SO ft wide two thirds of an acre lots on Westlake reflecting the original platting are at 340,348 and 3S6. All other lots have been expanded by consolidation prior to or in anticipation of redevelopment. Each of these SO ft wide tots is occupied by a home that is livable, and could be remodeled, if desired The decision of the Commission to deny this application will reinforce, encourage and reward the slow, patient and expensive investments made by homeowners redeveloping this block in a way that approaches the requirements of the zoning code. It will reinforce the larger lots and adequate side yards that are emerging as the character of Westlake consistent with the LR-IA District Granting the variance wilt reverse this pattern It will immediately end the opportunity to combine 3S6 with any adjacent lot. And. the prcccdem you will have established will end any incentive to do the hard, expensive and patient work of assembling 340 and 348 and 356 prior to redevelopment The development of these three lots individually and at SO fl in width and with 10 ft side yards, which will surely follow approval of this application, will introduce a very diflerent character to Westlake. A change in character we oppose. The required findings on whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use. the plight of the landowner, its circumstances unique to this property at 3S6, the eflcct of the variance, if granted, in altering the essential character of the kKality, the finding special conditions apply to the structure or land in question that arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property, the conditions not applying generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located, and the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, should be made in the context of the all three of the remaining traditional lots on Westlake The impact of any decision will extend beyond this newly acquired property of the Fitzpatricks. Approval of the requested variances cflectively represents a rezoning of 356, and by the extremely attractive precedent it creates, 340 and 348, to the LR-IC district and a windfall to those individual owners. We oppose this fundamental change in the rules and property rights that have applied to ail other redeveloped and anticipated to be redeveloped properties on Westlake 4. The RcasofiaMc Rcdcvelopiiimt of 356 Westlake A Effective south side yard is not increased but is reduced Technically, the minimum south side yard is 8.2 ft This occurs along 6 6 ft of the south side of the home, and is in the form of an elevated planter area and a very small greenhouse that cominues the slant of t^e mansard roof, see photos one and two The remaining 39 ft of this 4S ft long home, the ^11 of the house, presemly provides an approximately 12 ft setback from the south property line. It is true that while 13% of the setback area will increased by the proposed plan. 87% of the present setback on this side will be reduced, not improved. And, the EXHIBIT J| length of the 20 ft tall wall of the new home on this side increases from 45 ft to 75 ft, creating 68 ft of new intrusion into the presently provided 12 ft side yard No effective or meaningful improvement to mitigate the reduced yard or the extension of the length of the house is provided by the new plan. This side yard is both eftcctively. and. if measured along its length, is actually reducixl from that provided by the present hoiiid B Extreme increase in building bulk and height not buffered by an adequate side yard The present home is a single story home with a low profile mansard roof, see photos two and three. The new house, with 2400 sf of lot coverage, a full second story and a steeply pitched roof to perhaps provide a livable attic space will be by design signiftcamly taller tlian the present home and the adjacent homes at 340 and 348 And, the length of this new wail of home intruding into the side yard increases from 45 ft tj 75 ft The applicants have not taken the care to provide an elevation for this side of the home, nor any consideration of buffering or mitigation of the eftect of the proposed greatly increased bulk and massing on the adiacent properties. No variance should be approved for this side yard The solution is, as with all other properties redeveloped along Westlake, wait until you can acquire a neighbor, and by consolidation provide a 100 ft wide parcel that can support ad^uate side yards for this scale of home consistent with the surroundings No twr story house has been built on Westlake on a lot this small This is trx> much house for this site m this neighborhood 5. Reasonable Applkatien of the Standards and Findings for Crantinf a Variance Orono’s Ordinance asks two basic questions to determine if a variance should be granted First. “What is so unique about this property compared to rMheis that it cannot be used under same standards applied to all other similar properties, and creates a hardship to the owner's reasonable and expected use and enjoyment of the property?” In the Orono Code the answer to this question has two elcmcms. First, the threshold finding, "How unique is this?" Second, the severity finding, "Is this really a severe hardship?" The required threshold findings are (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by tlic landowner (4) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this chapter. (8) The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property (9) The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. (12) The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. FXIIIBITJi L This standard is not met by this application The plight of this landowner, proposing to redc\ e1op a very nonconforming traditional lot with a modem home by greatly increasing the height and bulk, **loo much house”, is of their own making and design. This "plight", created by the application of the LR-1 A district requirements to the development and redevelopment on Westl^e, was and is shared by all other landowners on Westlake All other landowners on Westlake have successfully resolved this by acquiring additional lots prior to proposing redevelopment Redevelopment of individual lots has been delayed until this could be accomplished This is the history of development and the record of City approvals and denials of similar applications on Westlake. Absem the requested variances the landowner may be economically inconvenienced and be inconvenienced by delay of their desired schedule, but even if this rises to the standard of "undue hardship", it is not a unique hardship It is an inconvenience and an economic cost, shared by, and enforced by the City on. all other landowners redeveloping property on Westlake There are no unique conditions or unique expectations that support consideration of granting this variance. The required severity findings are (I) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls (10) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant This standard is not met by this application. This is not a 1920 ’s cottage that is falling apart It is a livable home, similar to others waiting redevelopment on Westlake. It has the reasonable use of continuing to be reasonably occupied as a home, though perhaps not by the applicant's family, until the patient and careful process of lot consolidation can occur At that lime a variance consistent with the history of development along Westlake can be provided The applicant does not have the substantial right to unreasonably redevelop this property The restriction is not severe, has been and shared by all properties on Westlake, and has been successfully resolved in many instances In the context of Westlake, this docs not meet the standard of a severe restriction on the long-term use and enjoyment of the property. The second basic question is “Will the result of granting the variance be compatible with the use and enjoyment of the surrounding properties and their normal and orderly development’’ The required compatibility findings arc (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality (II) The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapte: This standard is not met by this application. The pattern of development of Westlake, while not in lull conformance with the LR-1 A. is not that of the LR-IC district, which is the result of granting the requested variance. It will permit unreasonable development of the lot with no Mltii miiii II II EXHIBIT Ji» odklUng benefit to the City or the neighbors It is counter to the emerging and carefully developed character of Westlake And. by the extremely attractive precedent granting the requested variances vrould establish, will reverse the tr^ on Westlake of redevelopment at densities and building placements approaching the standards of the LR-1A District Granting this variance will aher the character of Westlake both by the features of the proposed redevelopment at 356, and by the standard it would set for the redevelopment of 340 and 34S Westlake Alteration of this essential character of Westlake will occur and will be contrary to the general welfare and therefore the intent and spirit of this chapter and the ordinance The proposed redevelopment permitted by the granting of these variances, and the inevitable similar variances that must be granted to allow redevelofNnent of its neighbors, will be incompatible with the character of the locality and will be of a character most similar to redevelopment permitted in the LR-IC district, rather than the standards of the present LR-1A district 6. Assuring the RcaseaaMe RedevdopuMut ef 3S6, and 340 and 341 WesUakc If the requested variances are denied, we offer to purchase the property at 3S6 Westlake from the Fitzpatricks for the price they have paid for it. We will rent the home for a limited time, make the pro^y available for consolidation and redevelopment with 348 and potentially 340. or eventually remove the home and combine its property with our parcels to expand our homesites Respectfiilly, Mchael and Jandle Shields 3575 Christine Dr Orono, MN owners and soon to be residents of 364 Westlake Robert and Lisa Erickson 372 Westlake Orono. MN owners of these additional properties on Westlake 365 Westlake 341 Westlake September 10. 2004 iIVTiVe-iliaftMIt^rm I n<i ^' * .irk# -UIS^ mfm KOPTH EXHIBIT TWQ t f^V' x'f■; , ®v?l '" , V ^ *• W. V' gg-:..: riir«‘'>».j.- ^ «■'. ' .-Vv,•-.••■ ' ' S r «0T0 ONE i- Y ‘'*-^ 2*3f ’ *iV=" m. * •• ^ » ft 1./ r ' "^tl I? >’ >wm J'0. PHOTO TWO . * ‘,.'o EXHIBIT K CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan \ LAKESIIORf: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE POLICIES \ Although Orono’s lakcshorc has a wide range of diversity in lot size and home size, the predominant character of Orono's lakeshore is natural. This is due to much of the lakcshorc being historically developed as large estate lots with homes set back a sub.siantial distance from the lakcshorc. or being developed as moderate homes on moderate lots leaving substanti.il open space. The exception to the natural lakeshore is the ureas where historic.ally small cottages were built on small lots close to the l.ikcshore. 11ie.se cottages have been updated, remodeled or expanded into year-round homes. The key goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to protect Lake Minnetonka, which includes the preservation of the natural character of the lakcshorc and the water quality of the lake. As the demand for, and value of. l.akc.shorc property has dramatically increa.scd, so has the pressure to expand or repl.icc small and not so small older homes with much larger homes lliis pressure has the potential to substantially altei the natural character of the lakeshore. and the more open and natural environment enjoyed by property owners along much of the lakcshorc in Orono. Tlic following policic.s will guide the City in addressing dc\ clopmcnt on the lakcshorc 1. Lake Minnetonka shall be protected as a natural and recreational resource . 2. The natural character of the lakcshorc shall be preserved, and when possible, enhanced. 3. The views and open spare currently enjoyed by lakeshore properly owners shall be protected 4. The size of a bouse to be allowed on a lot shall be de«i mined based on the size of the lot, as well as the shape and topography of the lot. 5. The increase In massing of structures on the lakcshorc shall be UmitciL etty of Orooo Coomoaity Maaa|caiettl Plan ScytmkCT MM Page 3R-24 CMPPjriJB. UndUMrian !AND USE <,OM SASD POUCIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon ihc following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed and fostered hy Orono residents over the last 2S years. LAND IJSK GOALS 1. To reinforce Orono's cnviruiiriienl:il protection comntitnienl, with special emphasis on the protcciinn of laikc Mionetunlui and Orono’s other iakes. 2. To maintain the historic identity and character of the separate urban and rurai neighborhoods. 3. lo provide appropriate places lor a varict> of ha'ul residential, educational, recreational, industrial and neighborhood commercial activities. 4. To protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses. 5. 1 u coordinate Orono's land uses with that of neighboring communities. h. lu coordinate land uses and developed density with the financial and physical capabilities of the City and its citi/eiis to provide the necessary pulilir facilities and services. GKM.KAL I./VNI) USE POLICIES 1. The boundary between Ort»no's Urban and Rural Areas b fivcd. Orono’s Urban Area will not be stricti) defined by the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary or future expansions ofthe MUSA boundary but w ill be fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan. Orono’s defined Urban and Rural Areas arc best described by the planned development tv pcs and densities. Areas where Ihc zoned density allo'- s no more than I unit per 2 acres is deemed Rural; areas where the zoned density allows more than I unit per 2 acres is deemed Urban. Orono's Urban and Rural areas arc depicted and fixed by Map CMP Part 3B. Land Uie Plan EXHIBIT The Mctropolilan Urban Serv ice Area (MUSA) will define the areas of Orono where municipal sewers may be extended. The MUSA will include all parts ofOrono’s Urban Area and may include parts of Orono's Rural Area where appropriate. Orono's land use plans will be baaed upon environmental protection policies. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the F.nvironmenlal Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management ot natural resources w**ilc prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. Development dcasily will be limited throughout the city to a level which will not overload the natural surface wafer drainage and Piltration system. Urbanization increases the speed and quantity of surface runolT while decreasing the water quality. Enveloped land use densities will be dcicrmirrcd by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland cap.icity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. To the extent that it is practical and feasible, the City will supplement e.xisting natural avsimilaiion capacities with man<madc ponding areas, but will not allow increases in development density beyond the defined rural density ns a result of such supplementation. The wetlands and marshlands of the city will be protected and preserved as wildlife habitats, as uaique open spaces, and as the only economically practical and truly effective method of flood protection and storm water runoff filtration. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from ciKroachmcnt and from alteration or destrriction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowagc casements for conservation cTthese lands. Protection of lake resources will allow reasoaable access, use and enjoyment while preventing overcrowding nnd excessive encroachment. In conformance with Orono's Shoreland Management regulations. Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1.000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will continue to be developed and fine-tuned to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore eiKroachment. CMI* 1 ‘ail 3B. Laiul list Plan 8. 11. 12. L Lake shorciiars will be prolcclcd from alteralion. Shorcland areas, whether blufT, beach or floodplain, arc sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. Ihese same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not pruperls regulated Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged Dcvclopmcnl or allcraliun of floodplains will be rcstricictl. Most of the Citv's identified flo<idplains arc located along the shoreline or within designated inarshl.'inds and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areru. In addition, where floodplains do e.xist on oUierw ise dry build able land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid How rcstricticms. to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. Natural resource invcsiigalion will be required as pari of all dcvclupnicat proposals, ‘t his w ill include topographical inforiiiation. soil analy sis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project, whether public oi private. Oronu's land use plan will pronioir the preservation of open space, light and air. Sufllcient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents I'rivatc stew ardsbip of laud aad resources is preferable to inflcsible public control. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. All laad owucri must have equal laad use opportunities. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished w ithin the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan. FXIIiniT EXHIBIT CMPrirtJB. I^ind Uk Plan L Future developmcut must enhance the community. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability ond beauty of the community. Future dcvcioprocut must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or matitcmalical division to the highest possible density. Physical improvcmcnia required to accommodate new development must be provided by the developer. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Ilecausc the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to irvcrcascd land use density. In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configurations, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. All physical improvements must conform to city standards. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and con .trucicd to uniform. City-established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans Developers must dedicate lands required for public use. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whoever such facilities arc directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. FXIIIBITK^ CMP Pan JB. UM Use Plan If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively snull, or the layout is nut conducive to public land dcdicaliun, then in lieu of lands the develupcr may be required to contribute funds for the municipal punrhasc of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. 18. No land will be developed unlevv its location and characlerivfics arc suitable for the proposed use in accordance with thb plan. Land to be developed must be of such sue, character and location that It can be safely used for the intended purpose without danyer to health, without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be peimilted lo be subdiv ided or built upon which it held unsuiuble by the City for the proposed use because of flood ha2.irds, inadequate drainage, soil foimations with severe limitations fur development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely lo he harmful lo the hc.ilth. safety, or welfare of the future rcsidenis of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN I.ANl) use POLICIES Ihe majority of Orono's urban area will be reserved fur revidenlial land use. Onion's urban residential neighborhoods w ill provide the opportunity fur a variety of housing types and price ranges Many urban residences will be inlimalely associated with the lake shoreline and w ill be subject to detuity restrictions because of sensitive envirunmcntal conditions. Medium density (2*6 units per acre) multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate witliin 1 .000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. limited commercial arras will be providcrl for ncigbborhurNf service brtsiwesses. 1 he primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, cuinnKteial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural rcsidenis. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban servicev, including inuniciixil sanitary scwci and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of I regional nature (i e. *big box* retail) which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential developmenl. will be discouraged. EXHIBIT L September 15,20(M City Ptanning Commission OronoCity Hall 2730 Kelley Parkway Ornno.MN 55356 Re: 356 Westlake Si. Variance Request In preparation for next Monday's Commission meeting, we thought it might be lielpful to briefly sliaic a few quick llioughts regarding our variance application. Please know that >our staff, especially Janice Gundlach and Tom Kellogg, have been exemplary in their work with us Both are well informed, fair, and very helpful. Wc have made every effort, and believe we have ctimplied with each of their requests for changes to our submission. This process has been made iniicfi easier thanks to their support. ■ Kationnic for request Wc believe that without a variance to the 30 H side setback our lot cannot be put to reasonable use. Denial will have a significant negative impact on the economic value of this property and the two adjoining 50 fi lots to the north. While appreciating that there are no guarantees, our understanding from reading historical Planning Commission and Council minutes prior to purchasing the lot, is tluit for new construction on a 50 fi lot, a lO-fi side setback and lot size variance would be granted with minimal intervention required by the city. These lots typically passed via Consent Agenda in both bodies A denial of this application would indicate a significant change of direction impacting a large number of 50ft landowners in the city. • Rights of landowners: We believe consistency in interpretation and the fundamental rights of the homeowner to build arc an important part of retaining the urban and rural character or Orono. We noticed a similar vision in the Orono Land Use Plan: **Alt land owners must have equal Itmd use opportunities So land ouner sitould be denied the right to develop Ins land by tmy staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development con be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan" fp!2) We have made every effort to comply with the Community Management plan and believe that isolating three 50 foot lots on Westlake would constitute land banking that limits the landowner rigiiis of the three families involved. KXIilBITL. • tmprovcmcnls to Uic lot With the counsel of Janice and I om. \sc base come lo undcrslanJ the rationale and support the cities development philosophy. Our submittal and intent demonstrates our commitment to improving this property and protecting the lake consistent with Orono’s vision. 'Hiis property was listed and sold by the previous owners as a “knockdown” because of its age and condition We are exiled, however, to be able to help improve both the neighboiliood appearance and character with our changes. A (laitial list of improveiiiciils we will complete includes o Remov al of all hardcover and an existing boat house in 0-75 ft /one. o Reduction of hardcover in tlic 75-250 zone from 35.355* to 24 95i. o Impioveinent of side lot setback from appro.ximalely 6 feet to 10 feel, o Improvement of neighborhood drainage despite sigmricant natural topography tlua currently drives water lo neighboring lots. O Improvement of the energy cfTicicncy and safety of the home itself while sustaining the essential external character of the ncighboihocHl, o Restoration of our eroding lakeshore in cooperation with the neighbors lo the north and the relevant Lake Miniictoiikagovciniiig agencies • Preservation of neichborhoodv As we wrere considering various Twin Cities areas for relocation, the neigliboihoods and schools of Orono quickly raised lo the top of our list Several of Kevin's colleagues at General Mills described Orono as very family focused and a comimmily that valued having a variety of family types along the same streets because of tlicir scattered development approach This diversity is important lo us as we raise our children V^'c agree with the city’s Community Management Plan when it says “Most of Orono'i c.xi.xtm^ urban ncighborfunHls arc a homogenous mix of iteuvr anJ older homes intermingled with on occasional vacant lot or a larger, divtsdile lot Tltcic i\ HO sinitle netithborhtHid which is in need of comnletc reneuxil or rehabi litation " We feel the dominant land ownership along one street and programiiutic and complete renewal of W'esllakc is contrary to this intention As wc hopefully begin raising our three small children on the lake, we look forward to preserv ing the traditions of our neighborhood. The essential character, wre believe, has more to do with the people of Westlake than a developer’s v ision Families like the Anderson’s. Olson’s, and Uie llarier's have lived tliere for decades, raised families, and deFincd that character Wc have already stwiit hours under our backyard trees talking witli them and were instantly offered the use of their dtKks for this summer as ours is in disrepair. For us. tliat is the essential character of Westake. and of Orono, that is in need of preserv ation. We are blessed to liave the opportunity to preserve this neighborhood as one of homes and families of many types and sizes Wc respectfully request your support in doing so Best regards. Kevin and Julie Fitzpatrick Maple Grove, MN RUNDATE VII/MM }| OSIIT2J2MOI3 ROf AOOR 3*0 WESTLAKE ST .WNEKNAMe CKHARJUUIATRHARRER AXf AYER CVTOXIA K A TIMOTMY R HARRER AME/AOOR J40 WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN S53S6 It 0SIIT232JOO23 ROf ADOR 31 ADDRESS L'HASSIGSEO IWNERNAME ROBERT 0 ERICKSON AXFAYER ROBERT D ERICKSON 1A.ME/AOOR «0 TWELVE OAKS CTR OR H54 WAYZATAMN 55391 31 05II72J230027 ROT ADOR 319 WESTLAKE ST IWNERNAME JANET DONALDSON AJCPAYER JANET DONALDSON MME.AD0R 3WWESTUUCEST LONG LAKE MN 553S« 31 0511723230043 •ROPADDR 364 WESTUKEST 3WNERNAME J KSHIELOSA4 R SHIELDSTRS ’AXPAYER JANELLE a MICHAEL SHIELDS MME/AOOR OOR3ENT1SYSINC 5125 CORD 101 fZIO MINNETONKA MN 333*5 HLVNEPIS COUNTY FROTERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE: I 31 0511723230014 PROP AOOR 34IWESTUKEST OWNER name ROBERT a OISON TA3CPAYER ROBERT A OLSON NAME/AOOR 34* WESTLAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 353*6 31 0511723230024 PROP ADOR 341 WESTLAKE ST OWNER NAME ROBERT D ERICKSON TAXPAYER ROBERT DERJCKSON NAME/ADOR wo TAILVE oaks or dr I6M WAYZATAMN 55391 31 05117232300)9 PROP ADOR 332 WESILAKtST OWNER name BMBICHANICHAMB3ANSSEN TAXPAYER ■ M OICHANICH A M B JANSSEN NAME/AOOR 332 WESTLAKE ST LONGUKEMN 33356 31 0511723230044 PROP ADOR 372 WESTLAKE ST OWNER NAME ROBERT DERJCKSON TAXPAYER ROBERT DERJCKSON N a ME/ADDR «S500 WAYZ a TA BLVO P754 WAYZATAMN 55391 )S 0311723230013 PROP ADDR 356 WESTLAKE ST OWNER name E C ANDERSON ETAL TAXPAYER DONNA M ANDERSON sameadcr io:r tenner avf . $ c DELANO MN 53321 31 051172323002$ PROP ADDR 349 WESTLAKFSr OWNER NAME C R MCNAB ARC VCNAH TAXPAYER RGBERfACVNIHlA A-rSAB NAME ADLR 177 PLSrsSULA ROAD MEDlCtNE LAKE AIN 55441 31 0511723230042 PROP ADOR 3A5 WESTLAKE Sr OWNER NAME ROBERT O ERICKSON TAXPAYER ROOIRTOERXKSON NAME ADOR MO TW ELVE OAKS CTR DR *654 WAYZATAMN 5SJ9I \ A A \ r V'•r«— 0!) I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACailATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THJS DATE ON THE RECORDS^ OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SFJIVICES DEPARTMEJpl^O THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. date L1!L!Z by EXHIBITN Hfni>cpin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department rr c Parcel InfdnnaUon urcM ID 0511723230015 if not • lipeiy/ecoaM map. fl rqprnerXB a cofneiMan of informitian anddMeflfomCNy, County, mtd Sm» n»a au&tpmiM mta ettm aomom. FILE •34.30*2 September 13 3C04 Page * o« 5 Dale Application Receiv ed: OS*1 8*04 Dale Application Coniidered at Complete: 09-13-04 60-Day Review Period Eapire): II-I3-04 To: Chair Ralin and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit> Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Melanie Cunis. C.ty Planner September \ 3. 2004 04-3052. Kric Vogstrom. 2618 Casco Point Road. - Variance • public hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, One Fainih' Lakeshore Residential, Vt acrc/IOO' Lot Area: 0 47 acre (20.561 s.f.) NVidlh: 100* parallel to the shore _____________________________80* 75* setback _________________________ Application Snmniar}': The applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to build a new single family residence on the property. The applicaii m consists of the following: 1. A hardcover variance for 57.9% hardcover within the 75 ‘ - 250 ’ setback zo:ie where 25® b is normally allowed and 26.4% currently exists; and 2. A \ariance for side street .setback of 10’ where a 1 5* setback from the adjacent right-of-way is normally required; and 3. An average lakeshore setback \ariance to encroach 10* nearer »o the lake than the property to the south. Staff Reconnnendation: Plamiing Department Stall recommends the following: 1 ■ Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance; and 2. Denial of the side street setback variance and denial of the hardcover \ ariance as proposed as there arc no hardships to support the variances os requested Hardship Staff does not find that there is a valid hardship to justifi granting a } hardcover variance or encroach on the side street setback Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard rcquircnients. lot Axea laifcl Lot W idth Front Yard (fc«)1 Side Y«d (feet) Rev Yard tfeei) Side X vd Adjacent to Street 1 feel 1 05 :oo 30 ! !0 11 ?o 15 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. FILE #04-3052 Stpl#*netf 13 2004 P*0#2of5 (b) Between 7S feet and 2S0 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 feci and 1.000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. (Ord.No. 101 2nd scries, § 1(10 56(16)(L)). 2-24-1992) Sec. 78*1403. Lot coverage. In all zoning districts, for all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the lot area. Exception: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1.500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures Sec. 78*1. Dcfuiitions. Lot area means the area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or area frequently under water which serves as a watercourse draining higher land on which sustains emergent aquatic growth or area which has been dedicated as public right-of- way. See. 82-2. Definitions. Dry buildahU' land means land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding drainageways, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland or slopes of 18 percent or greater. Lot area, minimum, means minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in chapter 78. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of tw o acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of w etlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with chapter 58. article 11. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in chapter 78 or half-acre, whichever is less (exclusive of public and private rights-of-wtiy. vehicular or pcdc.strian casements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property), and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area. Lbf of Exhibits A. Application H. B. Ha^ship Documentation Form 1. C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site J. Plan R. D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submined Hardcover Calculations L. F. Building Footprint Illustration M. G. Old Survey dated 03-17-S4 N. Plat Map Wetland Delineation Report City Engineer Comments Pre-Application Meeting Form Letter from Neighbor (2648 Casco Pt Rd) Survey for 2648 Casco Point Rd Property Owners’ List FILE Stc'rrw 13 2004 Past 3 of S Background Eric Vogstrom is the applicant and owner of 2618 Casco Point Road. The applicant has requested lot area, lot width, hardcover, and side-street setback variances in order to build a new* single family residence on his property. The property contains 20,561 s.f of non­ contiguous land, divided by Carman Bay and wetland. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArenAMdth; LR-IC Lot Area ' Lot Width Required 21.780 s f ('/,acrc>100* Actual 20,561 5 f (0 47 acre)100 ’ @ shoreline 80* 75 ’ setback Setbacks; LR-IC Required lAivline Proposed I Lakeshore 75’75’ Rear 30 ’30 ’ North Street Side 15 ’10- South Side 10 ’10* Average Lakcshorc i The home on property to tlie $i>uth is set back 86’s from the OHWL; the applicant ’s proposal shows a 75’ setback. Technically, the applicant needs an average lakcshore setback variance however, lake views from the propertv to the south will not be impacted by the applicant ’s i proposal I Structural Coveraer: 1 Total l.ot Area Total .Structural Coveraee 20.561 s f. (0.47 acre) 1 Approximately 16.J00 s / not tncliMling the portions of the property to the Ea\t of Carman fiav Allowed; 3.084 s.f (15* *) Proposed 3.002 sf (14 6*/,) Adjusted Allowed; 2.460 s f ■ 15® o of 16.400 s f Hardcover C alculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 12.888 s f 0-75 itncludtng non-0s.f Os.f 0 s.f. coniiguous pruftriy tau efCanman Bax I (0*/.)(0%)(OS) 75-250 7,673 s.f.1,918 s.f. (25«/,) 2,028 s.f.» (26.4 %) 4,442 S.f (57.9 S) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds r file •C4-J052 Sest*"'B«M3 2004 p»5«4c'5 Side Street Setback Variance Bordering the applicani's property to the nonh is an undeveloped public right-of-way. The applicant's property is approximately 80’ in width. Allowing for a 10’ setback on the south and a 15’ side street setback on the north leaves a 55’ wide buildable area. A reasonable home can be constructed within this width. The City Engineer ’s comments address the issue of house size relating to drainage. It is the Engineer's thought that the size of the home as proposed vmII need to be scaled back to allow for appropriate grading between the lots in order to avoid directing drainage onto neighboring propenies. The applicant’s proposal brings about some challenging drainage issues for this property. Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing 57.9*» hardcover. The existing residence and hardcover arc just above the allowed limit for the 75’ - 250’ setback zone at 26 4?i. The existing home has an approximate footprint of 1,184 s.f. The applicant is proposing a 3.002 s f footprint to essentially “max out" the 15% structural coverage amount based on the iotal dr>' land area. The total property area is 20.561 sf.; however this includes an appro.ximate 4.000 s.f. portion separated from the building site by an inlet of Carman Bay. The conngvous land area is approxim.atcly 16.400 s f. The applicant is basing the structural coverage amount on the total non contiguous 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. The Subdivision Code definition of "minimum lot area" (Cite 82-2) would disallow non ­ contiguous land as creditable toward loi area. The property to the south (2648 Casco Point Road) is similar in that it al.so contains a noncontiguous “island" of land In 1985. an approximately 3000 s f. home was constructed at 2648 Casco Point Road which, based on the contiguoia area of this lot. is 10^0 lot coverage and 21*-* hardcover. Tnis lot is considerably larger tlian the applicant’s property. However, the applicant’s property is only slightly substandard m area and width. The 15% lot coverage amount is a limit, not an allowance. On lakeshore propenies the limiting factor very often is the hardcover percentage, not the structural coverage amount A similar sized lot, Loffler, 1690 Shadyavood Road. Application <*04-3009. v as 80’-83’ in width and 0.39 acre and was limited to 33“b 75’ - 250’ hardcover (the hard.ships included being on a busy County Road and needing a backup apron; the non-optimal lot shape; and the inability to move the house nearer the road due to negative impacts on lake views due to the location of adjacent homes near the shore). That house wxs reduced to 14.7% lot coverage in order to make the hard:cvcr vvork at 33* b. For the applicant’s proposal, a 3,002 s.f footprint, 1,225 s.f. of driveway, and 215 s.f. of sidewalk make up the 57.9“/o proposed hardcover. There are no patios proposed and only one 18’ X 11 ’ deck on the lakeside of the home. The driveway and sidewalks as proposed seem excessive at 31’ and 8’ widths respectively. The curb cut of the driveway is not permitted at greater than 20’ at the ^ueet. The driveway as proposed would need to be reduced at the curb, and would need to be subslaaiially reduced overall to bring the L FILE •C4-3C92 S«p«mOtf 2CC4 Psgt S et 5 hardcover down to a reasonable level Hardship Statement Applicant has completed the Hardship Documentation Form anached as Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tn considering mppikatlons for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of rite proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, e\lsHng and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safely, and the effect on values of property In rite 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 reconunend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and littent of the Orono Zoning Code. SlafT finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land which would justify the side street setback variance or the hardcover variance as proposed. Tl:erc are no current or future plans to develop or vacate the Casco Point Road right-of-way along the property's northern boundary, and the future public use of the right-of-way is unknown. Staff believes that the allowed 55* wide building envelope is very reasonable and a setback variance to the side street is not justified. If the Planning Commission concludes that the applicant should get credit toward the structural coverage for the dry land on the non­ contiguous portion of the property, there may be some appropriate level of hardcover variance to support some reasonable level of de^\ lopinent of the site. Summary* Issues for Consideration 1. Side street setback; 2. Lot coverage determ'nation; 3. Combination of reduction of lot coverage and hardcover to a reasonable level; and 4. Level of hardcover variance that is justifiable. 5. Please review the comments from the adjacent property owner regardmg drainage, parking and tree protection. 6. Please review the City Engineer’s comments. 7. Arc iheic any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends appro\al of the a\erage lakcshore setback variance. Planning staff also recommends denial of the side street setback variance, and denial of the hardcover variance. The application could be tabled for revisions if the applicant requests tabling. City of Orono A Variance Application______ /O.. 0\\ Street Address 2750 Kel ey Parkway Orono. VIN 55356 Man 952-249-4600 fax 952-249-ft6‘i6 Matimg Address PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-:0£6 Appl catior. s 0^^ ^0^2^ Date Receiveo Q/tfCH Amount Pa^d Sta?* Fee „ UPC I'D ^ S503 Renewal S3C0 After.tr-e-*act Si 2C: DouS'e ^es Tns app'cation form must be completed m fu'i App cant wil te nctifea w;tmn 15 oays as to the status o* the appi cat on Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. PROPERTY INFORMATION: S te Address: cV^sc c pcr«~>r t^c/.p Property Identification Number (PIN). JLL -/ / 7 - ,-^2. - oc'ZH ________________ (Attach 'egal description to application if not me cded on the survey ) Date Proporty Acquired (month/year): □ Yes. I own the adjacent parcels Present use of property ^Residential □ Or er _____________________________________ Zoning District: _____________________ APPLICANT INFORMATION: (Corr.picie lega rc~=s arc ma-’ai status req-:red 'or each r.terested cany' Name; a^\2u i Phone (home). ~ Fvv i**.Phone (work)'J2CC - ^ISCO Address Jici^c Ciic/uv" Email <TL iv'CCitJG »x#ur_.c c Fax 6rvCS OWNER INFORMATION: iCompietc egat -arres £*d rra'ita’ status roqu red for ea;n irte'ested pan,) Name . m-m* xT Phone (home):Phone (work) Address Email.Fax. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Estimated Project Cost Describe the request in detail (attach additional sneets if necessary) UOitmer,^ r^h> i7p/yo /v>ao u;<ct_ /Sc^'ac AtJ i/»i»»<capp <?eAOf -P* 7Q ry/c cv/v^ //* fcC UCitnitJl/J SfUtL lO f-ecT /A/S/ibWO Pr- fS r T7t/A2iC r\ lO f^CCT CfcT Frtiit- 7>tt£. ut^ifyr»tUKc:)^ iU/»#a f S KC7* «> «*~V U’wYu^'O Ar-'O fJtet: HguSfc. *r f^cLT FA'**’ t^iL. Hc>.tStZ . T'^rktc. r>rcjA. ri-* rhiZ /S Fiiir Ar.C<e. ■ I ^6l CWiwSfe: iT /-S /orr M r?______ ■*i . .rcocMMb A H^o CO-OC , nif fS foxSrc «-A^0O0 iUpT V ^0,Stl St. Fr CP c«iu.^OccJU t^C^co tPt'/SCf X iSX ^C 0H s«f=r ^nuMiir-x^. Th^' /=%>.! ^ (4UT Oer SJJ?o rtr^ocx.-ac ccu«r T» «M.t /w «C o.. « » REQUIRED SUBMITTALS: All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date :n order for your application to be processed □□□□ □□ Pre-Applicaticn Meeting Form, completed by a City Planner. Completed Application Form Completed Hardship Documentation Form Certified Property Owners List - owners within 150’ of the suoject property, labe’s and plat map List, labels and map may be obtained from Hennepin County Department of Finance Government Center. A-603 3C0 South 6'^ Street. Minneapolis, telephone 612*348-5910 Original Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor), meeting all the requirements listed within this packet, including hardcover ca’culations Also provide one copy 8 5' x 11' or 1 r 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 IT or 11" X 17" for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor and eievat.on vews (provide ore 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 Plan.nr.g Department, agrees to pay addit onal fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) anCior consultant expenses incurred in review of this application and certifies that the .nfcrmation supplied :s true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge The applicant recognizes that hc/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 ojf poter\tial merit. Applicant's Signature Applicant's Signature: Date Date OWNER’S ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants agents. Commission & Council Members for Durpcscs of investigation and verification of this request Owner s Signature: Owner's Signature App’icant must have a’l submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Corr,m ssion 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 tq your protect. JJ. ................... HARDSHIP DOCUMENTATION FORM Page 1 of3 This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An app'ication will not be considered complete or placed on any meet.rg agendas until this form is ccrrplete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statue Section 394 27. Subd vision 7 requires trat a hardship bo demcoslrated in order for a variance to be granted Tne hardship must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and eccnotr.c situations are not considered valid hardships In order fcr an app'ication to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council a hardship hav.nc merit must be demonstrated HOW DO I PROVE A HARDSHIP? This form has 12 points outlining the basis C<ty staff uses to deterrrre if a hardship exists and how the variance w.ll affect the surround ng ccmnunity To prove a hardship, address ail the relevant po nts listed below and answer them as clearly as possible Since ycu are requesting the code exceptic'^. you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. Tne infcrmation the City receives is what is used m determining a denial or approval reconmendatio.n. If you leave somethirg out it wi I not be ccr.sidered Please address each of these hardship criteria as they re ’ate to the request (some may rot apply): ' "The property in questior> cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under 'w conditions allowed by the cfficial controls" Thtc Ctf r>id. car /: CtcT ui.r>i rxe. ) 2 , ‘The plight of the landowner is due to orcumstarces unique to h s property not ■ created by the landowner • /«»V IS Ci/UlUMC. Cug^Vt. BO/P CP /ttty (D "The variance, if granted will not a'ter th.e essentia! character of the locality.' fsi 0 ’ PC r AT ~ ThfiS UiitL. HC-m^ t-g/-i^viLKi iu»r>i MtiUyiC 4. ) "Economic considerations a’ore shall not corstituto an undue hardship if ‘ —' reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter," Page 2 of 3 'Undue hardship also Includes, but Is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sur ght for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Sect.cn 116J C5. Subd. 2. when m harmony with this Chapter ' “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not perm.t as a variance any use mat is net perm.ned urde*- tn s Chapter for c'operiy m the zone whe.'e the affected person ’s land is located * __ 7»cr /V /trYi:«.r»>r/fns- V “The Board cr COwncil may permT as a var ance the temporary use of a ^ one*fam:5y dwcling as a two*fami!y dwel..ng * 8.“The special condlt ons apply rg to the structure or land in quest.on are pecul ar tc such property or imfrcdiately adjc.mng property * ________rf ectfc-^ ^Hnr /AS ~ rv ..________ r7v^*‘t- 'fv cy t * c• / V c _______ 9 •The conditions do not apply generally to other land cr structures in the aisf'Ct in which said land is located * /)/•»>•< N «/» nn- ________________ “The granting of the appl.cat.on is necessary for the preservation ana enjoyment of a substantia ’ property rght of the applicant “ T/yfc. *«• * t> 7~ 11 <.r ^ e.r-r 7c 7 ? Su rr f c/rr.y.JCT t/frr-iX 11.' “The granting of tne proposed variance wil! not m any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, cr in any other respect be contra^ to the intent of the Zoning Code.* f.u - -^r c»>Cwwb yoc ■__________________________ jia .r- V.Jii KJ . •v' Page 3 of 3 ■The granting of such variance will rot merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or d fficulty * /jcr e.e^^^^lC.ti^C4L t^-n> rH£. Hardship Statement Should you feel the hardship cannot fuily be described in the above criteria, describe the unique hardship, practical difficulty or unusual property condit ons preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the followtng lines (attach addit.ona! sheets •* necessary) __0^-7- _______________________ fiP>.. ii >■ pj r*iy Pi?-cp^:)c7y /S (ho^ooz > SO (^r } /^ac(>tc scpt A^»y sn^nrufic: /=/r^ /^.a.;. ip^,*S>t( /S % - 5'='^'^) #)iv' snuttn.«*.^£ /“S CASC.^' 3^3* mstrH t\ ot^ctc LOiT^i r>fd: CiA^/Cuec c^r 7^ H^*-iz ocot C0% cf /r /s /A.’ /?^e: o-“7S Vc ^<jLz rf-fC3c6rf=ffia ^ Ajcr /vr /H-i- » ^ <;cCC2»' CfHC^. C^rs Sf tu /ynct^:, r^fftT HK^C ^t>m^ /v ci •-c=vt i.'A-A»viA;<..vr, ^ LC^Ktm:> L^tUS 7D (SCTT i\ Hitf^^CciJSit ^Cix St% HhiioctxcPi. iCHtCht IF Th\t<L /n^ e^nitcC. Ct'-r* /-cTt f\CCV^/sr VCiV Sc:2i: /S A, w“ ctfj /^j-~ mcjL. #30 5 f &i+ihfrC ^ f^o^yr cVisco fV/fJT C^«>^ _J H D B^fOil.n ]„D m [nnm DD ]0 s \ — ▼ 1 Q yjPImi ^16 tfr 5TT3ACX ZOtCZi (CEICLS OfGt)©7S-Z5CT «3-SiO* rTTSTTVC FARDCOVTIl IX rON~ A. Kcaje _______________ 3. Cns* C Drivewiy D. Sidcwiik E. Pat!^Dedc F. Ladnp* UodEtliia By Ptudc O. Ote total hardcover in zone X too Fttoposm wAWpmvCT in zqwi A. Hook _______________ * a Gnir C Drivtwiy D. Sidewalk E. P«ian3eek !?» UederWa By Pl«k a Ote total eardcover in zone total PROPE3CTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B _____X 100 &9ti»rr^ fOO-lCGT s-». SJ. SJ. S--. SJ. SJ. SJ^. Si^. SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. ft SJ. a SJ. f 4 .H Include, preperA^ Co.ror.ftr. Sft'j- SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ SJ C-<! S.F. SJ.\0 SJ. ^ SJ SJ |SJ. SJ. Q >sj.CO HilkUiMMIMitMMlIb "BOX Soo =■ <Ho, oco SQ ft i^V/UL U>r M3m\}£. ^ * ^0,Sfc| SQPT SfitFr X /s*Vo ^vui<-fttlie 308H st»f EARDCOVZR CALCLJ-AllUi'« w * frraACXZONZ: ccisc -wZod o--r r-ynrTTvr: t»i^nrovrS 7v ZQV- A. Hcut 3. Ctntt C Crtv«way C. SIcc«ni E. Pui«re± no-icoir •^.s=ia F. fg>o Uodolaia * By Plwk ____________- C. Oter P i(XY\-Vejr TOTAL KABDCOVER total FRDPSITY AB IN ZONE IN ZONE ^ B ypn^oAm WAHPCOvra w zone A. Ho« -------------------- B. Cacu< C Driwny O. SMevdk E. Pado/Dedi ?^3'7 SJ. £J. SJ. 5,-. S-- SJ. S-". .£LL£—s^-SJ. X 100 4m- 7 SJ. SJ. !sj. SF. A S^. B % SJ. SJ. .s/. .*■- SJ. \ ZZS sj, SJ, Zl<^ sj:. S5. S.F. !s.f. ,SJ. 3.7. [SF. SJ. •Ivj Or.--' J; total fj»3dcovs in ZCNc total ?!U)PSXrT AB2A IN ZDNi ♦ 3 ____X ICO - 44^2. Sj. a —TSiSZs^- 3 f i i e^H^grlce^H^grlc I '•' ^ .-./ % c:.. L*; .■>,* ?p5i» erfifl^. t ^p. ^(Hte/ra THIS ITEM MS lEEN mCMFIlMED ^XA-!-4<i.eA9-Utt--f nat of Surrey for Be»4le0e /> * Pock SKorelm*/.7' fin#3 ^ \ \ \ ^4 •\ s \ in ELodc 3> Vinship'e Subdlrlelo of Lot 1, Spring lark 2nd Mrisi Bennepin County# )&nneaota Scalet !■ s 50* Date X Mirch 15# 1951 o t Iron Barker Datua olerationt Gray's Bay Daa « 929.40* Hater surface of lake Mlnne tonka on Miroh 17, 1954, ■ 929.42' according to records on file In the office of the Hennepin County Highway Engineer. KFLLET & KELLEY, Engineers Long take# 'Minnesota ^lerr H Prepared by Svoboda Ecological Resources for: Eric Vogslruiii 2618 Casco Point Road Orono. MN iVdtland Classification. Idcniilication. and Delineation Project No. 2004-I04-03 Aususl 31 . 2004 . h V SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Providing the Sharper Edge in Satural Resources & Environmental Consulting Scplembcf 3. 2004 Ehc Vo^strom 20840 Channel Dnvc Orono. MN 55331 SER Project Name: 2316 Casco Point Road SER Project No: 2004-104-03 Project Location: A portion of the SE '/. of the NW % of Section 20. T IPN. R 23W. City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota Project Description: Wetland Classification. Identification. Delineation and Slaking Services Dear .Mr. Vogstrom, As requested. Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) personnel visited the above referenced property on August 31,2004, to examine the site for the presence of ajeas meeting wetland critena. Cnteria for determining jurisdictional wetlands are as described in the I9S7 U S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. ’ * ' * The project site is a small irregularly shaped one-acre lot separated by a small flooded inlet e.xtcnding in a northerly direction through the center of the property from Cannan Bay in Lake Minnetonka. The lot is sparsely wooded on the western side of the property but becomes denser along the periphery of the flooded inlet. The property is relatively flat closest to the basin but has an approximate 15 percent incline on the w estern side of the property which extends funher w est The incline begins to level off after an approximate 12-fool increase in elevation. An abandoned single family home exists at the top of the hill on the western most portion of the property. The project site is bordered by Casco Point Road on the western end, private properties on its northern and southern sides containing single-family homes and Carman Bay on its east-southeastern side. The property lies within the SE V. of the NW Vi of Section 20, To^fnship 117N, Range 23 W, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 1). METHODS National Wetland Invenlory-(NWl) maps, Minnesota Department of Namral Resources (DNR) Public Waters maps. Soil Survey of Hennepin County, arid aerial photographs were reviewed prior 2477 Shadywood Road • Exctlaior, MN 55331 (952) 471-1100 (Ofrict) • (952)471-0007 (Fax) L_ to ihc sue visit to identity .ircas of concern. Areas illustrating evidence of wetland conditions were examined in greater detail during the field survey. Vegetation, soils and hydrology were examined las outlined in the 19S7 Manual) and used to churacicruc wetland types and determine wetland boundaries. Sample tran.sccLs were established in a icpre'eniative wetland-to-i.p and transition zone in order to characicii/..* the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of the site. The t:an>ccts consist 01 one representative upland sample point and one representative wetland sample point. The number of transects completed per basin depends on the size of the basin and/or the number of wetland types associated with each b.isin Other samples were t.iken at unmarked locations to provide verification of the wetland edge as needed. Information obtained fiom the sample points can be found on the field data sheets located in Appendi.x A The wetland boundary was marked at the .site by blaze-orange "wetland boundary" flaggi.ng attached to 4-foot wooden lath The wetland boundary is considcicd to be the topographically highest extent of the wetland basin, areas below the staked bcund.ii y met the three required wetland criteria while areas above lacked one or more of these criteria Wetland cl.issification followed methods described by Cowardtn ci al. (1979) and used in the NWI completed by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Scrxicc The Circular 39 classification (Shaw and Frcdir.e 1956) is also given. The indicator status of plants was determined using the i\anoiial List of Plant Species That Occni in Wetlands • Minnesota (Reed I9SS). E.xplanation of the plant indicator categories is provided in Appendix B. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The NWI map (.Mound Quadrangle) illustrates one wetland basin on the subject propeny. The NWI identified wetlands on the property consist of a Type 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland on the scuthcasiem portion of the property (Figure 2). The Soil Survey of Hennepin County indicates three individual soil types on the subject property (Figure 3). These individual soil types include: Hayden Loam (HbB and C). Klossner Muck (Ma). and Be'.lville Silt Loam (Lc). See Appendix C for a description of the soil senes for each of these soil types. Of these soil types, the Klossner Muck (Ma) is classified as hydric soils (Hydric Soils of the United States). The DNR Public Waters Map of Hennepin County illustrates one public water (9l3w) on the subject property (Figure 4). SER pcisonncl examined the subject properly for are.ii meeting jurisdictional wetland criteria daring the site visit and delineated one area as being juiisdictional wetland. Detailed vcgetaiicn. soils, and hydrology data for the wetland are provided in the data sheets of Appendix A. Basin 1 is located in the in the southeastern portion of the subject property (Figure 5). SER delineated the boundary of Basin I as a palustrine (P-) type wetland exhibiting emergent (-EM-) vegetation with a seasonally flooded (-C*) moisture regime along the outermost portion of the basin and a palustrine (P>) type wetland with an unconsolidated bottom (-UB-) that is permanently flooded C-H) in the central portion of the basin or a Type 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland complex. The wcilund boundary was based on a dominance of Narrow Leaf Cattail {Typhti ongitsti/olia. OBL). and Wild Mint [Mciuhu anensis, FACW) on the wetland side of the t^undary and a dominance of Common Buckthorn {Rhamnus cariharitca. FACU) on the upland side of the boundary. The boundary was also based on an abrupt decline m elevation from upland to w etland ond the fact that the soil was either saturated to the surface or flooded in several areas alon^; the boundary on the wetland side SER used 30 lath to delineate the wetland boundary of Basin I. Photographs I through 6 (Photo Log) depicts Basin 1 at the time of the site visit. CONCLUSIONS SER examined the subject property and delineated one wetland basin, which exhibited a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation. h>-dric soils and wetland hydrology. Basin 1 w as classified as T>pe 3/5 (PEMC/UBH) wetland complex. RECOMMENDATIONS While the wetland boundary that SER has delineated is not official until approved by a WCA approved local government unit (LGU). SER advises the property ow ncr to refrain from any filling, draining, or excavating, or any impact to the area SER has delineated as wetland. Depending on the location of the property, buffers around the wetland may also be protected. Any activities in the proximity of the wetland should be cleared with appropriate WCA regulatory agencies. It is also advisable to have the wetland boundary survey^ by a licensed land surveyor, or located with a sub-meter GPS unit. Since the lath used along the boundary can be vandalized or inadvertently knocked over, a survey or GPS location of the lath will assure the permanence of the boundary. The client should also be aware that approved wetland boundancs are tvpically valid fo: only three years from the date of approval. Please feel free to contact Brian Burgner or Frank Svoboda at (952) 471-1100 if you have any questions regarding the information in this report. You will be receiving a follow-up phone call in two to three weeks to see if there is anything else that is needed. SER appreciates the opportunity to assist you with this project and we look forward to serving any future needs that you might have. Sincerely. Svoboda Ecological Resources Franklin J. Svoboda, CWB. PWS Vice-President Brian K. Burgner Welland Ecologist DATA SOURCES Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters Inventory Map. Hennepin County. 1985. L'SDA. Soil Survey of Henepui County. June 1971. 159pp. plus appendices. United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Map - Mound Quadrangles. 1991. (Taken from May 2(X)3 aerial photographs). uses. Digital Orthophoto Quadrangle - Hennepin County. Section 20, Township 1 17N. Range 23W. uses. May. 2003. LITERATURE CITED Cowarclin. L M.. V. Carter. F.C. Colet. and RT. LaRoe. 1979 CUisuflcation of WetUiml.s uml Deep\*ater Hithiitits of the United States. U S Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-79/31 I03pp Eggers. Steve D. and Donald M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Plant Conwnmities of Minnesota and Wisconsm. US Army Corps of Engineers. St. Paul District. 263pp. unclassified. Environmental Laboratory. 19S7. 19S7 US. Anns Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Repon Y-S7-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg. Mississippi. National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 1991. Hydric Sods of the United States. USDA Soil Conservation Service. Washington. D.C.. Misc. Publication Number 1491. 1991. Reed, P.B. 19SS. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Minnesota. National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. St. Petersburg. Florida Shaw. S.P.. and C.G. Frcdine. 1956. Wetlands of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Circular 39. 67pp. Figures r Fasernesfi Point OHP s..'->®PV Pelican Point Goose Island 1 SK?- ».^ssfe%%X r*v <■*■ > ' >” " H ^ *V;:Polnt„^«0.?5 Map of Site iuSVOBODA V ^ Eco ogical Resources a* Acrow^*M Pttf ftot/KMnr •1 t2 04 -fi 4 'J : M 'I ■ ^\'^ ' ‘f’ - ^ 1 ’ i :/. * •*% • V V ^ w W-/ 4 -* ’ • I ;.'■ ,i ,r. R* V- .' • National Wetland Inventory Overlayed on 2003 Aerial Photo :* *“ c »•■ >• : • • I }..*• . m Approximate Wetland Boundary Overlayed on 2003 Aerial Photo ,i':*svodODa f Rt io jict * 'k i- .«<.■I H. v» M •4-' rt--“ C.V.', p. R ;.i: fa.* •■ Appendix A Field Data Sheets SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Inwntur} A Odincuti'ifi • Fisheries • Ihltllt/i: • ^\lrttrul ConitntiniUcs V S.tg N i-nu 2MH C.ivAO Pmiu Road Aud |la»M-.\n;e 0.i'in 1 <M»rk P<i nr ll)SP I I WET BKB T*rw T\r< V5 iPEV.C/LPHi VEGETATION DjmmjnU |>M*i • »u»ji >» jvfui C4>'cfj(«M Ncn-domnjni> Sasic Ttpha tint ’otifrriru H V $ T II V S T II V $ T II V $ T H V S T H V S T H V $ T OBL <Cdua RKitfriiit I in.'^fif.'.ni FACW SifMum trt'K.j».ir itut H V s T FACU II V s r M V S T ■ M V S T' H V S t‘ II V s T H V 5 T >JO*iul Oo«nin»f:ii FAC 01 ✓ V« So >«U*. gf Don,nirti FaCW. OBL iFtr»0 ✓ Y<i Mata No vine or thrub species obtc^cd at thu owplc locAt or SOILS County Soil Surrey Mop Unit Havden loam Soil Serin <• on Soi onit Sc'<l Litl Am mapped ai deprcu.on or w«i rpoi on Soil Sgrt«> Field Ofewnaiioftl HydfK Mil a*«>m«d bocauM plan» aroOBL and F ACW and <»«iland bMiidaiy it abrgpi ^ M-iicnt Scil ____Oiian.* Soil Honroft'Dgeth 0-6-_______ 6-20- Maint Color TcAlurg __________ Pcai N 2 5/0 gtev Peaturts SanJv ctav loam Hy«r< Soil Pinoni' ✓ Y« Notn tndewmigicd (Pnir.ar> inOicatort tP) Sn;;fKlafy mdnatott iSi | Dcpilior«amplif| 20 Inthn biuMiaud. Cepth ol water IP) HYDROLOGY Frw »aMT >• bdwhe «. Depia bom Sgitaet Wartr Marta EWvaKon (PI OmP. Lino or Sodi.umi 9cpet.U iP) Otidized Root CKuimIi in Upper 12 meties iSI On>na|c P^icmi in W'aiiandi |Pl Waier-auiiMd Iratea (S| Local Soil Survey Dau (St FAC • Ncidral Teat iSl Hyd»lofy Cnierton Met' ✓ Yea So Other Otaervai'oeia No free water obtervrd in ihe bcrcltoie, WXTLAND DETERMINATION Is Ute SonpW Point m Weibnd' Ytl ✓ He ____Undetermned Durance bom Dalincaied Cd|c 5 ft Notti. Wetland edit based on veitiatioti ajid topotraphic line L. .i'4 SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES V nV//um/»//M CMfrin-tS £Jc7mc*t//io/i • Ft^hcncx • ^i'tldhfv • NuhirttI Cnminumtics ['.// s.i« :MS C>m:o Pn.ni RtuO____________ •>-'< Auj ?1. :«HU Jr lU«mvVrwj I V«mplc P>»fM If)lU«tnvVr^j SP M tP BKB t*Mvnuit4< r*ts; UPLAND VEGETATION FACU Doininantf jcnil c<»»<tacvi __________________ "VST FAC- H V $ T tl V J T M V S T H V S T M V 8 T II V 5 T hin «ini t'crr ■>(khii><i If >11 1 iirr • I • 1/i.fi.t »r>» C‘rtI rrU' .(t ii Citl u'f tti/^iuum Si’j:a 3 H V S T H V 8 T ■ M V S T ■ »l V s T ' H V S T ‘ H V S T ' H V 5 T FACW FACW FACL FACUi Owm.e>m»FAC or »Tn«f» ____Vet ✓ S'o »W*» of PjiD^wn f ^CW. OaL iFAC-we'>tt»'. len* Yt No N/A Nc«* No tine or shrub species ebtoed ai this sample locaiicn. SOILS Countv Soil Survey M«p Unit Hitden loam Soil Set«* It on Naiiovs) Hydne Soil L<« Area nuppeU at depreti on ur »((ipot on Soil Svnes C*WP%Sti'.viSi M>e» c toil atwm«4 tectaM treOBL tad F \CW tnd -e^lvd Kiw-Jjr, >i ismpi Orpr< Sc*l^ M.-KIII Sell Herzon Denth Mains Color TeMurc Ismisi 0-7”10YR4/J Samlv loam T-ir lOMl-i'l"SarJv loam Fevki'Fine'Prominer.t 5YR J 3 lOSM* CcTnotvCojrse>'Diiiinci 1CYR2/I lOYR 2/1 Sandv clav loam Sj 1 P-etr-:’Vet ✓ No L«»e«-ritit^rO •Iren Ot;de Scfl Masses |PfiiTury injicaters iPt Secandjxy mdicsurt iSi Crp"'- 0* umplirt 20 ln;r«» HYDROLOGY InaflOtifO CepU! sf'Vtitr iPl Free tmter m &o*ff*oie. Depdi rron Surtatc Wsfff MsAi. Elrtition IP) Dnn Lmet ei Stdmew P*p«s i» iPl 0ti4i»0 Rori CKaancH « Cppet 12 >n<h«tlSl Ortauge Ptnen* in V tt'ordt tPl Vk'tMt tuitod «a«oi ,ii Local Soil Sortcy Oaii (S) FAC • Tei: iS) Hk0<xia|y Cf :«r« Met'Yes ✓ No Pjmt Ob»«-*ii>ont No free *a:er obtetkcd in the borehole WETLAND DETERMINATION IttfvSaoipiePoiMiaikcilana? Yes No ✓ UnOcieimjted Dtnaacc from OcfaicaHd U|e S h NiA Notes WeilanJ etlie based on veieiation and topoiraphic line Appendix B Plant Indicator Categories mi*« INDICATOR CATEGORIES* Obligate Wetland (OBL) - Occur almost always (estimatedprobability >997e) under natural conditions in wetlands. Facultative Wetland (FACW) - Usually occur in wetlands (estimatedprobability 67^e 99%). but occasionally found in non-wcllands. Facultative (FAC) - Equally likely to occur in wetlands or non-wetlands (estimated probability 34% - 66%). FaculUtive 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 the region specified. If a species docs not occur in wetlands in any region, it is not on the National List. *Rcetl, PB 1911 Natipnsl till of plani ipecirt ihai oeeiM M» *«l5aii4i Minnetwa National Wcilindi U S F«»h and WiMlitc Sorvice. Si Potenburf. Flonda Appendix C Soil Series Descriptions BELLEVILLE SERIES The Oellcville sencs «.unM«i« nl pimriy Jiairci! jr.J \ery pmifl) Jr.iin» J *mU ijirmcil in vinily ir.iUTiuU unJciUin }>y luamy j^ueiol I.H.uMrinc wJuncnt* m 2H :»i -U) *n».hc» Pcn^Mhitity i» rarul iii !h< *jndy mjlcfijl* jnJ miHJerjicly ^nw m ihc liMniy inotcrta!* Slopes unj^c lr»»m II u* i pcrecnl jnnuji precipit.ition i> aboul ?3 inehc^. and mean annual tcmpcraiurc i> ahnat 49 dc^rtec' F TAXONOMIC CLASS: Sandy over loamy, mixed, xeir.uctive. moic Tjpic Endojquollx TYPICAL PEDON: Belleville loamy fine sand on a I percent slope in a cultivated field. (Colors 4*^6 for moist soil unless otherw ise indicated.) Ap-0 to 11 inches: black (lOYR 2/1) loamy fine sand, dark gray J0YR4/1) dry; moderate medium granular structure, friable; common fine roots; mildly alkaline, abrupt smooth boundary. (11 to 16 inches thick) Bg-1 1 to 20 inches, grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) fine sand; few fine prominent yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) and few fine distinct light gray (lOYR 6/1) mottles; single grain; loose; few fine roots; black (lOYR 2/1) coatings in root channels, mildly alkaline, clear wavy boundary. (0 to 20 inches thick) Cgl*-20 to 30 inches; light gray (lOYR 6/1) fine sand: common fine prominent brown (7.5YR 4/4) and common medium prominent light olive brown (2 5Y 5/4) mottles; Single grain; loose; slight effervescence, mildly alkaline; abrupt smooth bound.iry (0 to 10 inches thick) 2Cg2-30 to 34 inches; gray (5Y 5/1) heavy clay loam; common medium distinct dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) and few fine distinct olive (5Y 5/6) mottles; moderate coarse subangular blocky structure, firm; about 1 percent gravel; strong effervescence; moderately alkaline, clear wavy boundary. (0 to 5 inches thick) 2Cg3-34 to 51 inches, dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty clay loam; common medium distinct dark gray (5Y 4/1) mottles, massive; firm, about 3 percent gravel; strong effervescence: moderately alkaline; clear wavy boundary. 2Cg4--51 to 55 inches, gray (lOYR 5/1) silty clay loam; common medium prominent olive brown (2.5Y 4/4) mottles; massive; firm, about 5 percent gravel; strong effervescence, moderately alkal.nc; clear wavy boundary. 2CgS —55 to 60 inches, gray (lOYR 5/1) silty clay loam; few fi.ne prominent dark reddish gray (SYR 4/2) mottles; massive: firm; about 2 percent gravel, strong effervescence, moderately alkaline. TY'PE LOCATION; Wayne County. Michigan; about 7 1/2 miles south and 1 mile cast of Belleville; 52S feet west and 2376 feet north of the southeast corner, sec. 34, T. 4 S., R.SE RANGK IN CHARACTERISTICS: The depth to the 2C hori/on rani:cN Imm 20 to 40 inches. TIte soUmi rjn^cv from sliehtly jcid to moderately alkaline Rock fragments, dominantly gravel, ranges from 0 to 5 percent by volume tnroughoat the pedon. The Ap horizon ha.s hue of lOYR. value of 2 or 2. and chroma of I or 2 It is sandy loam, loamy fine sand, loamy s.ind. fine sand, or sand. A thin AE horizon is present in some pedors The Bg horizon has hue of lOYR or 2 5Y. value of 4 to 6. and chroma of I or 2. It is loamy fine sand, loamy sand, fine sand, or sand The C horizon h.is hue of lOYR to 5Y. value of 4 to 6. and chroma of I to 3 It is loamy fine sand. loamy sand, fine sand, or sand. It is mildly alkaline or moderately alkaline and ha.s slight to strong effervescence. The 2C honzon has hue of lOYR to 5Y. or is neutral; value of 4 to 6. .and chroma of 0 to 6. It IS clay loam, loam. siU loam, or silty clay loam. Thin lenses of fine sand or sand are in some pedons COMPETI.NG SERIES: There are no competing scries Similar soils .ire the Breckenridee. Brevort. Burleigh. Corunna. Edmore. F.SscwilU*. Gr.nnby. Pinconning. Roscommon, and Wauseon scries. Breckcnridge. Be.or... .* *.Mgh. Pinconning. and Roscommon soils have frigid temperatures. The Breckenndge and Coi-.nna soils are coarse-loamy. Edmore soils do not have mollic cpipcdons and are sandy Esscwille soils are calcareous. Granby soils are sandy. Wauseon soils arc coarse-loamy over clayey GEOCRrVPHlC SETTING: BellcviUc soils arc on nearly level lake plains and till plains. Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. The soils formed in sandy glaciofluvium underlain by lo.nmy glacial or lacustrine sediments at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 29 to 37 inches, and the mean annual temperature ranges from 46 to 50 degrees F. GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: The ueil drained and moderately well drained Metea soils and somewhat poorly diaincd Selfridge soils are in a drainage sequence with Belleville soils. In most landscapes with the Belleville soils are the Corunna. Granbv. Oakville. Pewamo. Tedtow. and Thetford soils. The Oaks ille and Tedrow soils do not have loamy material The Pew.nmo soils do not have sandy matenal. The Thetford DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Poorly and very poorly drained Surface runoff IS very slow or ponded. Perm.eabiliiy is rapid in the sandy horizons end moderately slow in the 2C horizon. USE AND VEGETATION: The greater part of these soils is cropped to com. soybeans, and small grains. A few areas of these soils arc in pasture, idle land, woodland, truck crops, or sod production. The wooded areas are chiefly lowland hardwoods. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The southeastern pan of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. The series is of moderate extent. MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: Indiaiupoti^. Indiana SERIES ESTABLISHED: Wayne County. .Vlichigan, 1974 REMARKS: CUssincation was adjusted to agree with ST Isxue #17 on 7 Sept 94 by CLG. Diagnostic horizons and features recognized in this pedon are: mollic epipedon the zone from the surface to I i inches (Ap horizon); aquic moisture regime. RANCE IN CHARACTERISTICS: SoUim ihi„Wnc.> and depth to free carbonaicv ianj:c fiom 24 to 54 inchoN. Ciut-e fi.ijiments of nii\ed lithology eompiisc 2 to S percent ot the volume of the control vcctioii The A horizon h.i> hue of lOYR. value of 2 or 3. and chroma ol I or 2 The Ap horizon hav value of 4 or 5 and chroma of I oi 2 and value of 6 when dry The E horizon ha> hue of lOYR. value of 4 or 5. and chroma of I or 2. The A and E hcrizon.s lypieally are ioam. silt loam, sandy loam, or fir.' ' mdy loam, but include clay loam, if erected. They are neutral to medium aeid The B: horizon h.rs hue of lOYR in the upper part ar.il lOYR or 2 5V in the lower part, value of 4 or 5. .ind chioma ol 3 thiough 5 Mottles arc present in the lower s 'izon.s m some pedons It typically i> clay loam or loam, but sandy cl.iy loam is in parts in some pedens. The argillic horizon has IS to 35 percent clay and 30 to 45 percent sand It is slightly acid to strongly .acid Some pedons have a BC 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 clay loam. It lacks mottles in son.e pedons it ha.s 15 to 25 percent calcium carbonate equivalent and is mddly or moderately alkalikrc COMPETING SERIES: These aic the Amanda. Be!mom. Delmoie. Qigtuull. Chili. Coggon . Conevtoga. El Data. Cull nan. Grcllton. Hebron, iiiikijiy. HiSh-GiiC* Hollingcr . Katjm.>zoo. Kanawha. Kerda.lvillc. K dJer. KoNcu.>ko. LcRoy. I.etorr. Lindlcv. McHeniv. Mandeville. Martinsville. Miam;. Mifflin. Mjlitary. Nccline. Not deg, (Mley. OwossQ. Pecatonica. Princeton. Rawispn. g.?iay. RenQva. Rictlanij. Riddle^. Rockbridge. Roseville. Sisson. Strawn. Suirimuville. Teanawav. Theresa. Wawascc. WeMville. Whalan. and Woodbine soils in the same family Amanda horizon sods have more dine in the B and C horizon, Belmont sods have redder hue ;n the B horizon. Bclmorc. Chdi. Kalamazoo, and Ockley sods formed in glacial outwash and have sandy or s.indy-skcletal 2C horizons Chenault sods have chert fr.agments m the solum and are underlaid by limestone bedrock. Coggon. Gallman. Hickory’. Pccaionica. Renova. Riddles. Summitvillc. and Wests die sods have thicker sola In addition. Coggon soils have low chroma mottles in p.irt of ihc B2 horizon Conestoga. Kendaliville. Lciort. Richland, and Rockbridge soils have more coarse fragmc.iis Drmds. El Dara. Kidder. Sisson, and Wawascc sods have less clay and more sand or sill in the lower part of the B horizon and in the C horizon. High Gap. Hollingcr. Mandeville. .Mifflin. Military. Norden. Roscvdlc. Whalan. and Woodbine sods have bedrock beginning between depths of 20 and 60 inches. GrcUton. Hebron. Lindlcy. and Raw son sods have more silt or clay or both in cither the lower part of the B horizon or C horizon or both Kanawha sods .are formed in alluvium from ac.d sfulc and are in an area of higher rainfall. LcRoy and Straw n sods have thinner sola. McHenry and Miami sods have more sill or clay, or both in the upper pan of the solum .Maninsvillc soils have redder hue in the B horizon and formed in stratified outwash or lacustrine sediments Nodine 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 sedim.cnts and have stratified C horizons Relay soils have hue of 2.5Y or 5Y in all parts of the B horizon Teanawav .soils have fitm sandy clay loam C horizons with KLOSSNER SERIES The Klits^ncr Ncric> iit very Jeep, very p«H»rly dr.nneJ >{iiU lorncJ m well JevoinpitveJ i*ryjr>ic rrjteral 16 m 50 inehc» ihttW overlying dcpnviu im murj*re» nil plaiftv l.il^C pijmv plainv and hi'hiUc m:cp area* They ha*c rtv'Jci.ucly »io»* i»* nunJeraiely rapid pcrrrcahthiy in the or;an.e nutena!. and moderate or moderaicl) *low permeability m the loamy materia! Slope* r.inj;e irom 0 to S perecfil Mean annual prceipiuition i> abtiul 2S inthc* Mean annual temperature i> iSiut 47 deiffeev F TAXONOMIC CLASS: Loamy, mixed, euic. meste Terrtc HeplcvipriatN TYPICAL PEDO.N: Klossncr muck - with a I percent .slope in a cultivated tield ^Color^ are for moist soil unless otherwise stated ) Oap-0 to 10 inches: black (N 2/0) muck, very- dark gray (lOYR 3/1) dry; about 20 percent fiber, less than 5 percent rubbed, weak fine subangular block) structure: very friable, many very fine roots: moderately acid; abrupt smooth boundary. Oa--lO to 26 inches, black (lOYR 2/1) muck, dark gray (lOYR 4/1) dry: about 60 percent fiber, about 6 percent rubbed, weak fine subangular blocky structure, very friable, many very fine roots: moderately acid: gr.adual smooth boundary (Combined thickness of O horizon is 16 to 50 inches ) 2AI-26 to 36 inches; black (N 2/0) mucky r. !ay loam, weak medium subangular blocky structure, friable: few very fine roots; si.gb ly acid; gradual smooth boundary. 2A2-36 to 4S inches: b'lck (N 2/0) silty clay loam: massive: friable: few dark reddish brown (SYR 3/4) iron oxide concentrations in root channels, about I percent gravel, neutral: gradual wavy boundary (Combined thickness of 2A horizon is 8 to 45 inches thick.) 2Cgl-48 to 65 inches; olive gray (5Y 5/2) clay loam, massive; friable; dark reddish brown (SYR 3/4) Fe oxide concentrations in root channels; many medium proir.mer.t yellowish brown (lOYR 5/6) Fc concentrations; about 1 percent gr.-'.vcl. slightly cffervescer-. slightly alkaline, gradual wavy bounday. 2Cg2 “6S to SO inches, gray (5Y 5/1) loam, massive; friable; many medium prominent light olive brown (2 5Y 5/4) and yellowish brown (lOYR 5/4) Fe concentrations, about 3 percent gravel: slightly effervescent: slightly alkaline. TYPE LOCATION: Nicollet Coun'v. Minnesota: 2600 feet north and 2300 f.ei east of the southwest corner, sec 12. T. 110 .<1. R. 28 W.: USGS Nicollet quadrangle: la: 44 dcgtecs 20 minutes 53 seconds N. and long. 94 degrees 8 minutes 28 seconds NV.. NAD27 RANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS: The thickness of the organic material ranges from 16 to 50 inches It is derived primarily from herbaceous plants. The organic matter content ranges from 25 to 60 percent in the organic surface and 5 to 20 percent in the 2A horizon. Tlie reaction of the organic matenal ranges from moderately acid to slightly alkaline. Some organic layers contain free carbonates. The 0 hon/.on h.i> hue ol lOYR 5 YR. or js nci:;r.tl. value ol 2 or 3 and chroma of 0 lo 2 It i> dominantly muwk (sapr.t nuie:ia.) hov^evo-. >ome pcdor> have thin layers of hemic material. Ic's than 10 inches thies Some pedons have highly oiganie mineial plow layers The 2A honzon has hue of lOYR. 2 5Y. 5Y or is neutrai. value of 2 or 3 and chroma of 0 to I It IS !o.tm. silt loam. s.indy eiay loam, silty cla> loam, cl.iy loam or mucky modifiers of these textures It is moderatelv acid to slightly alkaline Some pedons contain thin layers of coprogenous canh The 2r« horizon has hue of lOYR. 2 5Y. 5Y. 5GY. or is neutral, value of 2 to 7 and chtoma of 0 to 2 It is loam, silt loam, silty clay loam, clay loam, sandy clay loam, sands loam or fine sandy loam, or their gravelly or cobbly analogues. It is slightly acid to moderately alkaline. The upper 12 inches of this hor.w-n averages less than 35 p'-cent clay Some pedons contain thm strata of fine sand, loamy sand, or silt Gravel or cobble sized rock fragments range from 0 to 25 percent by volume Some pedons contain free carbonates Sandy substratum and ponded phases are recognized COMPETING SERIES: These are Lnwood . Medo. Palms. Philbon and Snalcar series. Linwood soils have well expressed granular structure to depths of more than. 12 inches and formed mainly in woody fibers Medo soils have sandy textures in the lower part of the series control section Palms soils have organic matter content greater than “5 percent and do not have .an A horizon directly below the organic material. Philbon soils have fibric and hemte material in the upper 12 inches Shalcnr soils avc less than 26 degrees difference between mean January and mean July temperatures GEOGRAPHIC SETTING: Klossner soils are in basins that were formerly lakes or ponds, lake plains, till plains, flood plains, or moraines They are also on hillside seep aieos in moraines and sideslopes of river valleys Slopes range from 0 to S percent The soils on nearby uplands are generally loamy. The mean a.nnual temperature ranges from 45 to 50 degrees F. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 24 to 32 inches Frost free da* . range from 1 10 to 160. Elev.ations above sea level range from SOO to 1400 feet GEOGRAPHICALLY ASSOCIATED SOILS: The mam ones are the C.anisteo . H.^rps. Okobou. Glencoe . Muskego and Hought on soils Canisteo and Harps soils are on the rims of depressions Glencoe and Okoboji arc at the outer edges of the depressions Muskego and Houghton soils are in larger depressions DRAINAGE AND PERMEABILITY: Very poorly drained Surface runoff is negligible. Permeability is moderately slow to moderately rapid in the organic layers and moderate or moderately slow in the loamy material. USE AND VEGETATION: The greater part of this soil is cultivated to worn, soybeans, small grains and specialty crops such as vegetables or grass sod. Other areas are in vegetation of grasses, reeds, sedges, alder, aspen, or w illow . Som.e of the hillside seep areas are set aside as natural areas and called fens. am DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT: The south central and southeast part of Minnesota and possibly northern Iowa. The series is extensive MLRA OFFICE RESPONSIBLE: St Paul. Minnesota SERIES ESTABLISHED: Nicollet County. Minnesota. I9S9. REMARKS: Diagnostic horizons and features recognized are sapric soil materials from the surface to about 26 inches, loamy mineral material from 26 to 50 inches or more; cquic moisture regime. This soil was formerly included in the Palms Series in Minne.sota ADDITIONAL DATA: Refer to MAES CFC#‘s 2697. 3251.3400 and 3475 Photo Log II n I H'Wrm t*‘A • '1'k 'K\% III •r ;•: - j rinnn< m *•*.>^ • ' si • % ■i"\ M’ ^ ^ ' • V \ “'* i i 1 *'■ V. ■>fv . f; j >v*( I'iluim. II • f I ;•- I I? > I'usvc;!: c.i; . • { I't'I'V, |C.;i R* « .f ■ nioioiof.iH sill .''•1 • • i». > f* ini Ki’j.l /^/I^.Bonestroo i^Rosene ^™|Anderlik«i I Associates Cn9«n*cf I & Architect* m 233S NMit HighMiey 36 • St PajI 551^3 Office 6SI-636-4600 • Fjt> 651*636 1311 WWW ocr*e jt'oo com sMftbir I September 1.2004 Ms. Mclmie Curtis Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re; 2618 Casco Point Road FiIeNu. 139-U-;.C0 Plat No. 04-3052 Dear Melanie: We ha\*e reviewed the proposed grading plans for 2618 CaKo Point Road. The proposed improvements include rebuilding an existing home and regrading the lut. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed grading plan does not provide adequate infcrmation relative to existing contours and adjacent home elevations. A new survey should be submitted showing existing contours extending at least 50-fcct beyond the lot lines of the subject property. The revised survey should identify any structures within SO-feet of the lot lines and show elevations around the structures along with Tint floor elevations. • It appears that the proposed new home is nearly t-vue the aizc of the existing home This build;ng footprint docs not appear to provide adequate room north and south of the home to allow for positive drainage towards the lake It is likely the proposed building tboipnnt will need to be scaled back to allow' for the gra<’.ing of sw ales to contain the storm drainage on sue and direct it to the street or lake. • The final grading plan should provide swales or drainage way^ that coniam all storm water or the subject property. Storm drainage should not be directed or:o adjoining properties as thown along the •• •*«« • • The final plans should include ctostoii and sediment coiiitol details, planting and restoration mfcmiaiion, and overall site icsioiation details If >xNi have any questions please call roe at (651) 604-4b63. Yours very truly, 130NESTR00. ROSENE. ANDERLDC &, ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono • St Paul. St Clouet, Rocnester. Wiiimar. MM • Miiwaunee. Wi • Chicago IL A*t»msttw9 ft «n« I* OeftlBlT© City of Orono Pre-Application Meeting Form (This fo-m is to be completed by a City Planner during your p^e-applicat^on rreet.ng •) Sf'oef Address 2750 Kei’ey Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Mailing Address P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN b5323-'''>65 Per Qff ce Use 0*^iy . . • . C.ty Panre' I I Mam 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 Meeting DateTine /\ i ! '’i VI PC Date t /1 f u '\ What is the purpose of a pre-appUcation meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and ldentl^/ polic.es or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the prc^rosal PROPERTY INFORMATION: S te Address ^C-iPi CVsScc Po/^>r iTc^-r-N Property Identificavon Number (PIN) _________ Zoning Distnct. / 6 Size of Property DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTi^^^P □ Average Setoack 0 Side Y3rd setback □ Rear Yard Setback ^ Hardcover □ Lot Coverage □ Lot Area □ Other □ Front Yard Setoack □ Lot Width ____ __________________________________________________________ ^t?i il? I //"r7ft ^ f ^ » a n /( h /U/7 /** Cin/i rg /«3^ _______________________________ Applicant's Initials HARDSHIP: Applicant has received the Hardship Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance application. OTHER INFORMATION; ‘Please note: Your variance application wiJI NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form wWise domweted^y City staff Date:Applicant Signature: BXfH3/r /d. Ciiy of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attention. Michael P Cafl^on Re 2618 Casco Point Road (Vogstrom site) Dear Mr Gaflftron, I live at 2648 Casco Point Road, the neighbor to the south of the referenced property I have reviewed the survey with City staff and have a number of concerns regarding the application for a variance to the hardcover ordinance > Drainage The natural drainage of the Vogstrom site it to the south, toward my property The survey docs not show any contour lines of adjacent p. openies. but the elevation of my improved property is substantially lower The 10-foot side yard set back docs not allow for and the survey docs not show any provision for the evacuation of rainwater runoff from the site There is a low area in Casco Point Road in front of my property I deal with huge amounts of rainwater runoff from the City street crossing my property A proposed driveway on the south side of the site would exacerbate this runoff problem Adequate provisions must be made to deal with on site water evacuation either with the installation of an adequate swale or a catch basin and storm drain > Off Street Parking Casco Point Road is a heavily trafficked street \ isitors and homeowners park on both sides of the street (ohen on adjacent properties) causing a dangerous condition Off street parking should be required for all new construction Any additional parking would create even more hardcover > Tree Protection The survey shows a large footprint for the proposed house This amount of hardcover may require the removal of a number of mature trees for construction and to enhance the view corridors There are large oak and maple trees along the property line that may be compromised by the construction The City should require a tree inventory indicating which trees are to be removed and ^bichtrees ar^ to be protected during construction Thank youy ---------------------- gA4g-Casco Point Road ik • «f ' »#•« ' ir‘' ■ > >K i-4 t • • »»IB [11 • • ^4 % 1 '■r 1 - -J-i-L 1 j t 1* <11 ol !!.*» H ilnmtli !* ..... ....,» Ml nl lot ■• »»<l lli«l f*M si l**i* I, i, •, *. <, *, *P ’• l»l«i -S«i«ll ii^ «vu» ('/^er tb c<Atr) Hunnepin BwerM Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department >«fcal ID 201172324003S ileuM Numbar 2S18 ntrmmt Nam« CASCO POINT RO TWs rs nor • /Sge*y feeofrtx# map. U nprwsanti a compMtbon d MbmiflOon andddm from Otf. Couniy. ancT Sure roKT eutnoriMs end otfwr sourest MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Aafust 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Cot*tr.;«»iun met on the above*mcntioned date with the following members present: Chair ‘ >!*. i Rahn. Commissioners J. Marc Fnulcr. Jim Leslie, Ralph Kempf, Roland Jurgens, and Commissioner C>Tithia Bremer arri\ed at 6:0S p m. Representing staff uere Planning Director Mike Gaffron. Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. SCIIEDrLED Pl'BLIC HEARINGS (6:00 lo 6:06 p.m.) m-3039 PROPOSED REVISIONS TO ORONO ZONING CODE, SECTIONS 78-1101 TfIROCGII 78-1210, FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS MANAGEMENT Curtis indicated that due to recent ii.terpretation of the regulations, the Federal Hmergency Management Agency has mandated changes in local fliHHlplain ordinances. 11icse changes arc required to go into effect w ithin the City of Orono by September 2, 2004. The draft ordinance was approved by the DNR on July IS. 2004. C'urtis staled Orono's current Floodplain and Wetlands Management Ordinance is serving as two ordinances: however, new standards and regulations dictate that it is more appropriate to designate -separate ordinances for each of these overlay districts. Curtis noted a joint meeting between City Staff and the Planning Commission was held on August 4. 2004. with the changes discussed having been included in the revised draft before the Commission tonight. Curtis slated ihc proposed changes to Orono’s Floodplain Ordinance include the follow ing; I. Adoption of the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map revisions. 2 Mandated changes in the definitions for lowest floor, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles, substantial damage and substantial improvement, and general flood plain district. 3. Changes to the language regarding flood proofing Acresiory Stnatuns. which will be requiring tw o automatic openings in the outside walls of accessory structures. 4. Changes to the language for Flood Fringe Conditional Cso concerning the auloinaiic openings in the walls where internal flooding is lo be used as a floixl proofing technique 5. A change to the language to Commercial Uses under All Flood Fringe I regarding the measurement of water velocity. 6. Changes in the Administration section regarding the fol lowing; - Standards for requinng a permit • Notification for watercourse alteratums - Notification to FENLV when physical changes mcrease or decrease the 100-year flood PAGEl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Aagust 16,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#04*3039 Proposed Revisions lo Orono Zoning Code, conlinncd) Rahn moved, Fritiler seconded, lo recommend approval of the proposed revisions lo Orono Zoning Code, Sections 78*1101 ihrongb 78-1210. as outlined in the August 11.2004 Planner's Report, VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CONSENT AGENDA •2. 04-3034 APERFECT CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ON BEHALF OF ROBERT P. .MAC K, 1580 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit lo allow an increase in the size of the berm at 1580 Sixth Av enue North, subject to the applicant meeting all of the City Engineer's requirements. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. •3 a04-3040 DEAN AND SHERRY LUNDBLAD, 1290 ARBOR STREET - VARIANCE I here were no public comments regarding this application Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, lo recommend approval of a side street setback v ariance for the properly located at 1290 Arbor Street, subject to the following condition: The existing turn around driveway shall be removed concurrently with the conviruelion of the proposed garage and installation of the new proposed drivew ay. VOTE: Ayes 5, .Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 84. 804-3010 THEODORE CAPRA. 35341\T PLACE - VARIANCES (6:08 - 6:29 p.m.) Theodore Capra. Applicant, was present. Gundlach indicated the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to permit 30 percent hardcover w ithin the 75 -250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 49“^ currently exists and a conditional use permit to allow land alterations w ithin the 0-75' zone, in order to construct a new residence on an existing lot Gundlach stated the City lingineer has not visited the site but has reviewed the proposed grading plan and has concerns regarding whether restoration of the slope is necessary. Gundlach recommended the CUP portion of the application be tabled to allow the City Engineer to visit the site. Gundlach indicated the applicant is in agreement with tabling this portion of the application. Gundlach noted the applicant and the applicant's architect have met w ith staff numerous times since the June Planning Commission meeting to discuss alternative site plans m an attempt to PAGE 3 P’ 5n>XTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Aapist 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M04-3010 Hicodorr Capra, coofinucd) icducc hardcover. The applicant has <»ubmincd a number of plans that have included both an atuched garage and a detached garage as well as relocating the residence closer to the road but has been unable to reduce the proposed hardcover to 25 percent. The Planning Commission reviewed an overhead of the proposed footprint (iundlach indicated the applicant is proposing to construct a tw o and a half stor>' residence consisting of a house footpjint of 2288 square feet wnth an attached 720 square feet three-car garage and w iih the proposed hardcover 7t 30 percent. Gundlach noted the amount of proposed hardcover has been reduced slightly from the previous plan. Gundlach stated the revised plan has the same basic footpnnt, smaller deck, smaller garage, and no porch. The existing detached garage located by the road and the shed w ill be removed as part of the construction Capra noted at the last Planning Commission meeting he had indicated in his opinion the small road at the back of his property w as a hardship. Capra indicated the road w as in existence at the time he purchased the property. Capra stated he has met all of the City’s requirements except for the hardcosxr and that in his opinion being required to reduce the sue of the house is penalizing him. Capra indicated he has revised his plans to the point where the proposed lesidence is not wlial he would like to construct. Capra indicated he understands the need to limit hardcov er along the lake in an elTort to reduce runoff, but he is unable to reduce the amount of hardcover being proposed. Capra pointed out the property at 1740 Shadywood Road was allowed 38 or 39 percent hardcover, and requested the Planning Commission reconsider his application. Capra suggested the City consider increasing the amount of hardcover allow ed w ithin the City to 30 percent. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn stated he understands how the applicant feels. Capra suted he does not feel the proposed residence is out of line for that lot and that the lot would be improved with the new construction. Bremer sUted to her recollection the lot located on Shad>-wood is a very narrow lot. Capra noted the lot is 82 feet. Capra stated that property owner was al.so aware of the road but >et the Planning Commission determined a hardship existed. Gundlach indicated that the property the applicant is referring to had over half of its acreage located ill the 0-75* zone, which was the pnmary basis for granting the variance. Capra indicated he is aware that he is not comparing apples to apples. Bremer commented there are many examples where the Planning Commission has required applicants to reduce the amount of hardcover to 25 pacent on lots that are similar to Mr. Capra's. Bremer indicated the City Council is the Pinal authority. PAGE 4 MINLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, Aafatt 16, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.fn. (lKM-3010 Tkcodore Capra, confiaued) Capra stated in order to have an underground garage area he ^\ould need to construct a retaining wall, which would actually raise the amount of hardcover. Capra indicated he would like to go before the Cit>'Council Gundlach recomnKnded the Planning Commission table the conditioiul use permit in the event the applicant w ishes to do the grading w iihm 75' feet of the lake in the future. Gundlach stated that application can be withdrawn if the applicant does not decide to proceed forward Leslie moved, Kempf seconded, lo recomne«d denial of Ike kardcov er variance and to table Ike conditional use permit lo allow land alterationt wiikin the 0-75' tone for the propertv locatcd at 3534 Ivy Place. \ OTE: Ay cs 6. Nays 0. *5. *04-3037 /ATA t Ol NTRV t LI B, 430 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD - variance . (6:29 - 6:44 p.m.) Bob Dnscoll appeared on behalf of the Way-zata Country Club. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting to amend their conditional um : permit to include a setback variance in order to construct an addition to the existing maintenance building located just north of the Luce Line Trail. The tequest also includes a vanance to allow a single building to be larger than 3000 sipiare leet The country club is located w ithin the RR-IB one-family rural residential district and that all accessory’ structures shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from any lot line. The existing maintenance building is located 45 feet from the Luce Line where 50 feet is normally required Gundlach noted the existing accessory strucnire was approved through the conditional u>e process. With a 55-foot setback being sho.v-n on the plans. However, the building was not constructed in the location depicted on the plans and is thus causing the need for a vanance for the addition. The applicant has proposed to construct an 18' by 60' addition to the eastern side of the existing maintenance building, which would have a setback of 41 feet from the Luce Line Trail boundary. Gundlach stated Staff finds no liardship exists inherent to the land to support approval of the Luce Line setback vanance. The addition could be shifted north to meet the setback or the addition could be reduced in si/e. Gundlach stated because the structure is nonconforming, the City is under no obligation to permit any expansion at all. Gundlach indicated the Luce Line Trail property is owned and operated by the DNR, who has no formal setback requirements. ITie DNR was notified of this request and no comments have been received to date. Staff IS recommending denial of the Luce Lme setback vanance to allow an accessory building to be eonstructed within 50 feet of the Luce Line boundary. Staff does recommend approval of the PAGE 6 IL. MINUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Sfo«day, Aagvst 16,2004 6HM o'clock p.m. (404-3037 Wa>-ula Coootry Clob, caotkiocd) accessory building area \inance to allow an tndixndual building to exceed 3000 square feet and for the total amount of accessory buildings to exceed 6000 square feet based on the number of acres the country club owns. Rahn inquired whether the applicant had an>ihmg additional to add to Staffs report. Dnscoll stated he did not. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kenipf commented he has nsited this site and that the building is not quite parallel to the Luce Line. Kempf stated in his opinion the building could have been constructed parallel to the Luce Line w ithout any change in the functionalit>'. Kempf stated the building w*as originally constructed inappropriately and that the applicant is now requesting that the building become even more inappropnaie. Kempf stated he did notice that the buildings facing the country club w ere painted green and had nice shrubs and trees planted around them, but that the side of the building facing the public is white and stands out. Kempf staled he also noticed some dead golf carts and pallets m view of the public and that in his opinion the Wayzata Country Club has not taken the stew ardship of their position on the trail seriously. Kempf indicated he w ould not be in support of the variance. Dnscoll remarked that the debns has recently been moved there in preparation for the construction of the addition and that the country club is in great need for additional storage. Dnscoll staled the building was painted w hite at the request of the neighbor adjacent to the Luce Line so it would he less obtrusive in the wintertime. Dnscoll stated the Wa>'zata Country Club works closely with the DNR and w ith the Luce Line users. Dnscoll slated the main purpose of the addition is to add more storage room so that those items would be out of sight from the general public. Driscoll indicated the country club has been the victim of several vandalism episodes in the last couple of years and they are attemptuig to house all their equipment indoors. Dnscoll stated he cannot comment on the tocalion of the buildmg since he was not involved w ith that project. Rahn commented that in his opmion thae appears to be an alternate location for this building that would not be encroaching into any setbacks. Rahn stated the issue appears to be the setback vanance and not the accessory builduig area variance. Dnscoll suted locating the building to the north is not possible due to the golf course layout and that in his opinion the proposed locatiofi is really the only location for the addition. Leslie inquired w hether the golf course has consKiered constructmg a separate structure rather than expanding the existing stnicture. PACE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM.MISSION MEETING Monday. AagnsI 16.2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3037 Wayuta Conntry CM>, coatIwMd) Driscoll indicated he is unsure Mherc they could construct another building. Jurgens staled he would like additional infonnation on w hy this structure could not be located elsewhere. Kempf commented that the addition could be shiAcd back nine feet. Driscoll remarked there is a 100 >car-old oak tree that he is trying to axoid cutting down Driscoll stated he would need to look al the area closer to sec whether the building would fit Jurgens stated he would like the applicant to consider redesigning the plan Kempf suied anothCT option would be to reduce the size of the building by nine feet, which would still give the country club significant storage. Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission should discuss expansion of the current nonctmforming structure. Kahn stated he would prefer a design that does not encroach further into the setback. Bremer indicated she would be in favor of the variance to allow a single building to he larger than 3000 sc]uare feet hut not in favor of increasing the encroachment into the setback Jurgens indicated Iw would also be in faxor of that. Kahn inquired whether the applicant would like the Planning Commission to proceed forward on that basis or table the application Dnscoll staled he w ould like the Planning Commission to proceed forw ard. Kaka moved. Friirtrr seconded, lo recommend denial of the accessory bnHding setback s ariance and to recommend approval of ibe accessory building area variance to allox* a slagle building to be larger thaa 3000 square feet aad to allow the total area of all accessory buildiogs to be greater than 6000 square feet for the Wayula Country CInb, 430 Long Lake Road, with the nnderstaading that any new addition will expand the nonconforming structure but not in a noncoaformiag location. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Kahn recommended the applicant have the redesigned plans ready prior to the City Council meeting. PAGES MLNLTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Ancnst 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. NEW BISINESS 06. 064.3041 REBECCA HOLZEM. 3407 EAST LAKE STREET - VARIANCES. (6:4S - 6:54 pjn.) Rebecca Holzem. Applicant, vv-as present Curtis stated the applicant has provided an updated survey which has been provided to the Planning Commission poor to tonight’s meeting. The applicant is appl>nng for a number of viinances in order to construct a new 864 square foot single family residence. The property is located in the LR*IA. One Family Lakeshore Residential Distnet and consists of 4.180 square feet. Ihe applicant is requesting the following vanarKes: i l ot area and lot width variances for a lot 4.180 square feet in area and 44 feet in width where two acres and 200 feet of w idth are normally required. 2. A creek setback of 37 feet w here 75 feet is required and 15 feet (detached garage) currently exists 3. A setback of 50’ from the 929.4 elevation where 75' is normally required. 4. A rear street setback of 15 feet where 50 feet is required and 18.8 feel currently exists 5. Side setback variances fur side setbacks of 10 feet where 30 feet is normally required and where 8 feet (house) and 1.4 feet (detached garage) currently exists. 6. A hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback /one to allow 218 percent or 720 square feet where 0 percent is normally allowed. 7. A hardcover variance w ithin 75’-250’ setback /one to allow 47 0 percent or 378 sqiure feet where 25 percent is normally allowed Curtis stated a neighboring property located at 3415 Eastlake Street applied for and received variances in order to build a new residence on another substandard lot. 3415 Eastlake Street received variances in order to construct a new home 13 feet from the rear street lot line, with a lake setback of 50 feet, and side >-ard setback of 28 feet 2.S inches where a 30-foot setback is normally required. This property is 100 feet in width and 102 feet in depth. Curtis indicated the existing hardcover is at 50.5 percent or 1,665 square feet and is located within the 75’ setback, with ihe applicant proposing a signiHcant reduction in hardcover to 21 8 percent or 720 square feet With the reduction withm the 0-75’ setback, the applicant has proposed a slight increase within the 75’>250’ setback zone from 37.6 percent hardcov’er to 47 percent, a diffnetKe of 9.4 square feet. SufT finds that due to the overlapping setbacks, the size of the lot and the proximity to the creek, there are hardships to justify granting some degree of variances for this property. FACE 9 >nNin*ESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, AukusI 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3041 Rebcccn llolzein, conliaucd) Rahn inquired whether the applicant had an>thing to add to siai'f s report. ilolzem stated the report was fairly concise and that she is well aware of what the restnctions for this property are. Holzem noted the lot is very, scry small and that she has anempted to conform with the City’s requirements but .nl ihe same lime construct a livable residence. There were no public comments regarding this application. Bremer indicated she is in agreement w ith Staff s recommendation. Kempf noted it appears the applicant has attempted to conform to the requirements as much as possible. Fntz.lcr noted the plans do not depict any decks on the residence. Molzem stated since she is unable to construct an>ihing closer to the creek than what is being proposed, she has foregone the deck that was originally proposed. Hol/cm a tented she would love to have a deck if the Planning Commission w ould permit it. Fntzler stated the Planning Commission in the past has granted a number of vanances for nonconforming lots only to find out later than a deck has been added w hich was nut onginally depicted on the plans ilolzem indicated she would conform with the requirements of the City, but that if the Planning Commission would permit a deck, she w ouM like to add it back m. FritzJcr stated it is not his place to add decks for applicants, but that he would like the record to rellect that the plans do nut currently depict a deck. Rahn indicated that property owners arc required to have a certain si/e landing or a deck outside of a patio door, but noted the plans have been changed to depict a window in place of the patio door. Holzem stated there may be a landing by the double doors. Rahn commented that he preferred the old suney over the new survey because the old survey showed the residence being almost 19 feet away from the street and with the new application it is shown at 1S feet. Rahn stated he w ould prefer to have additional room for parked vehicles to avoid encroaching into the street. Ilolzem inquired whether he would prefer a single car dnveway versus the double*wide driveway. Rahn stated he was looking at the distance from the garage to the street. Holzem inquired whether he would prefer the residence be located closer to the creek so that driveway could be e.vpandcd. PAGE If r-. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Aafut 16,2004 6:00 o ’clock p.in. (#04.3041 Rebecca Holzem, coMtoocd) Rahn inquired whether a double car garage was being constructed. lloizcm staled it is a single car garage with a double-wide driveway to give visitors room to park. Holzem indicated the old survTy was submitted to the City prior to her approval and has been revised to a single car garage and a double-wide driveway. Curtis inquired what the distance is from the roadway to the property line for this neighborhood. Gaffron stated to his recollection the residence located down the street is located 13 feet from the lot line and another six or eight feet to the actual pavement of the road. Gaffron stated a IS-foot setback would give you approximately 20 feet from the garage door to the actual traveled road. Bremer moved, Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Appticallon #04-3041. lot area and lot width variances, a creek setback variance, a rear street setback, side setback variances, a hardcover variance within the 0-7S’ setback zone, and a hardcover varianct v'*:iln the 75'>250' zone in order to construct a new 864 square foot single-family residence at the property located at 3407 Eastlake Street. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. #7. #04.3043 JOHN C. IIOL.M AND Sl'SAN M. KERBER. 1485 BAY RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCE, (6:54 > 7:04 p.m.) John Holm, Apphcani. was present. Curtis staled the applicants have applied for an average lakeshorc setback variance and a 75 ’- 250' zone hardcover variance in order to replace an existing 13 ’ by 24’ deck on the east side of their home. In addition, a 75' - 250 ’ zone hardcover variance and a side setback variance arc needed in order to construct a two-stall garage over exiting hardcover. Curtis indicated the applicants are also applying for a 75 ’ - 250 ’ hardcover variance in order to con<*Juct a covered entrance over existing hardcov cr. Staff IS recommending approval of the variances with the condition that the hardcover within the 75 ’ - 250’ zone shall not increase above the existing level of 26 percent or 5056 square feet Holm indicated he has nothing to add to Staff s report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn stated he does not hav*e a problem with this application, noting the applicants arc removing existing dnvxway hardcover in order to construct a garage and there is no further encroachment into the side >urd setback Jurgens inquired whether the patio depicted on the plan would be constructed PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, AueusI 16, 2(MM 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#04-3043 Joka HoIm and Sataa Kerber. caotiaord) Holm indicated their architect <bew m the patio but there r^ou'.d not be any chani;es to the exi»ting patio. Jurgens inquired whether it was possible to reduce the hardcover by I percent m the 75 ’ - 250 ’ /one !«»reach 25 percent Curtis stated the proposed sidewalk indicated on the plan is no longer proposed, which would reduce the hardcoxer. Holm explained there are a few options to reduce the hardcover, such as reducing the sidewalL moving the turnaround off to the right, or reducing the si/e of the garage. Holm indicated he is not oppo.sed to reducing it to 25 percent Kahn suggested the applicant decide which option he would like to do. Jurgens questioned whether the 75' - 250' hardcover variance would still be required in order to construct a covered entrance if the applicant reduces the hardcover cisew here. Curtis staled the applicant would still need a hardcover variance unless the Planning Commission IS requiring the applicant to reduce the hardcover to 25 percent. Jurgens commented if the applicant is required to reduce the hardcover to 25 perceni, then that w ould eliminate the two hardcover variances in the 75' - 250' /ones Bremer inquired whether the applicant understood what the Planning Commission was recommending. Kempf staled the applicant has the option of adding the sidewalk if he reduces the drixeway. Holm staled he would like some turnaround. Jurgens noted approximately 150 square feet would need to be removed. Gundlach stated one percent is approximately 147.5 square feet. Jargrns moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-3043, approval of an average lakeskore setback variance and a 75’ - 250* rone hardcover variance in order to replaee an existing 13 ’ bv 24 ’ deck on the east side of their home, and a side setback variance in order to eonstmet a two-stall garage 10 feet from the side lot tine where a 30 foot setback Is required and a 9.9 foot setback is existing, for the prnpertv located at 14115 Bay RMgc Road. \ OTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Augnst 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. <<8. 0O4-3O44 JENNIFER SIMON. 3925 CHERRY A\TM*E - VARIANCE (7:05 - 7:27 p.m.) Jennifer Simon, Applicant, was present Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence where the proposed setback is 20 feet from the rear property boundary when 30 feet IS normally required and the existing house encroaches approximately 15 feet into the setback The property is located in the LR-IC. One Family Lakeshore Residential District, and consists of .39 acres or 17.195 square feet. 'Die addition would be approximately 21.5’ by I6‘with adeck adjacent to it. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing screened porch and porch overhang located in the rear yard. Staff finds that there are hard hips inherent to the land, specifically the jogged rear property lot and the sloping topography, that somewhat restrict the applicant from meeting the required 30 foot rear yard setback. Gundlach stated the hardship analysis also references "reasonable use if u.sed under the conditions allowed by the official coiv-ols.” Gundlach explained the official controls would be tlic 30 fool required rear y-ard setback and the City’s Zoning Code. Staff feels the applicant can shift the addition 10 feet to the east in order to meet that 30 foot setback and therefore docs not meet the hardship criteria. Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds that tlic sloping topography alone constitutes a hardship and would not allow the applicant to rcliKate the addition to meet the setback, then approval should be granted based upon a hard.ship. Gundlach noted the adjacent neighbor did call this afiemoon and stated she has no objections to the addition. Simon requested an explanation be given regarding the sloping. Gundlach stated she took a city topography map and examined the slope of the land. Gundlach explained if the Planning Commission does find the property slopes down enough to prevent the addition from being relocated, then that would constitute a hardship. Simon staled she has attempted to redesign the addition but was unable to do so because the addition would then be located in front of a window and the upstairs would not flow properly. Sin..*n explained they were far into the process before the architect became aware that they would have to comply with the side yard setback. Simon noted this is a comer lot and a w ider setback is required. Simon staled they did attempt to slide the addition over but in her opinion it does not look very well. 'Hierc were no public comments regarding this application Kempf stated he did notice that the adjoining neighbor would not have any problems w ith the house being loca’c J closer to ‘he lot line given the distance, dense undergrowth and mature trees Kempf commented he did also try to visualize the addition in another location but saw the problem with a design that w ould locate the addition in front of a rear bailaoom. PACE 13 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Angus! 16, 2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. («MM-3044 Jennifer Simon, Continued) Kempf stated in his opinion the biggest issue is that Chcn>’ is not the front of the lot, and that if Cherry were the front of the lot, then the side yard setback would be 10 feet. Kempf staled in his \iew ihc backyard is functionally a back yard and what the applicant is calling the side of the house is functionally a side yard. Kempf stated he cannot see imposing the City's definition for front yanlside yard on this application. Fntzler inquired whether the applicant was unable to locate the addition because of conditions due to the land. Fntzler slated the location of an e.xisting window diKS not constitute a hardship and is a design issue. Simon concurred that it is a design issue, but reiterated they were unaw are of the side yard setback until they were well into this project. Simon stated the entire project would have to be redesigned if Ihc vananccs arc not granted and that she has considerable expense already into the project. Simon commented she may liavc to forego the project if the variances are not approved. Fntzler indicated he tends to agree with Staffs recommendation. Rahn staled he also is in agreement w ith Staff s recommendation, and explained that there is some rationale for determining a comer lot. Rahn stated the longer setbacks arc on the front and rear of the property and narrower on the sides, so it would make sense to have your larger sctba<-ks go w uh the length of the lot. Simon stated she is limited in what she can do w ith the house given the location of it on tlw lot Rahn noted the lot is somewhat nectangular. Simon noted she is also reducing the amount of hardcover by removing the patio and porch, w hich makes the lot well over its hardcover limit. Simon stated this addition would actually bring the lot more into compliance with the hardcover requirements. Rahn commented m his view the addition could be relocated 10 feet over, but that it would be up to the applicant to decide whether she wants to move the addition. Gumllach stated even if Cherry were considered the front, a vanance would still be required to do the covered entryway and the tuck*under garage addition. Gundlach stated the existing house docs not meet the 30 foot required setback if Cherry is considered the front. Simon commented m her view the side of the house w iih the covered entryway is the front of the house. Gundlach explained the City ’s code considers Minnie .Avenue the front because it is the shortest length. Simon stated in her opinion a v'anance would be required no matter where she builds onto the house given the fact that the house was originally constructed in the comer of the lot. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING CO>HVnSSION MEETING Moiday, 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.in. (M04>3044 JcHRifcr Simoa, coBtiaiicd) Leshe inquired how the topography of this lot could be used as a hardship. Gundlach stated when she reviewed the application, it appeared possible to relocate the addition 10 feet to the east. Gundlach stated a hardship inherent to the land that would prevent the addition from being relocated could be the topography of the lot, but that in her opinion the lot slopes very gradually and would allow for relocation of the addition. Gundlach noted she is unaware of the air.ount of grading that would be neeessary if the addition were relocated and whether that would constitute a hardship. Leslie commented the fact that it might cost more to relocate the addition or is not architecturally pleasing docs not constitute a hardship. Kempf inquired whether the ordinance that defines w hat the front and back yard of a lot is written in stone and if it is reviewed in every situation. Rahn stated since it is a city ordinance, it would require a variance to deviate from it. Gaffron stated it is in the definition section of the ordinance where it defines on a corner lot what the front yard is and what the side yard is. Gaffron stated the short side of a comer lot is the front according to the de. nition. Kcnipf inquired whether a variance could be applied for to make Cherry the front of the lot Gaffron stated he is unaware of any application during his tenure that specifically requested a redefinition of the ordinance. Gaffron stated the opportunity to define a front yard and a side yard exists when someone reque.sts a new subdivision, but to his recollection he is not aware of any s'ariances to the ordinance in a situation similar to this. Leslie concurred that functionally the front of the house is located on Cherry. Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would grant the variances if the front of the lot were ctmsidered Cherry'. Leslie stated in his view the proposed addition could then be shifled back but does nut really sotw anyihing. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission is interested in looking at making Cherry the front, the code may need to be amended rather than a vanance granted. Bremer inquired w hetha the applicant is even mterested in looking at redesigning her plans if Cherry would be considered the front of the property. Bremer suted the addition would merely be on a different side of the house. Simon stated her goals in this project are to add onto the house in a wny that the house docs not appear to be piccc-mcalcd .nd to increase the amount of living space. Simon suted her in view redesigning PAGE IS r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadiiy, Aigast 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. (M04-3044 Jcaairer SImb, coatimcd) the addition would not be as aesthetically pleasing, and noted that the airount of hardcover on this lot would be reduced w ith this project Simon stated in her opinion the slope is more than just gradual noting that they do sled down it in the wmtemme. Simon stated given the location of the house on the lot her opuons are very limited. Rahn stated it appears to him that the architect designed the addition not knowing the parameters of the design and the problem is an architectural thing. Rahn stated if the applicant determines that the addition cannot be relocated in a conforming location, he would not be able to understand that. Rahn commented in his opinion the architect designed the addition for a nonconforming portion of the lot and that there are other locations where the addition could be constructed. Simon stated they also considered turning the existing porch into a kitchen and inquired whether she would be allowed to remodel that and keep the same existing hardcox-er. Rahn stated if it is an existing ctoscd-in space, she probably could, but that he would have to defer to the building inspector. Gaffron staled one of the things the City w ould need lo do w ould be to look at the permit history of the property lo determine whether that porch was actually permitted at some time in the past, but that he would also defer lo the building inspector. Rahn suggested it might be a viable option to have the building ms(x*cior look at the porch to determine whether it could be converted into a kitchen. Gaffron inquired whether there is a foundation and basement under the porch. Simon stated it docs not have a basement under it. Jurgens commented it appears to be a slab on grade. Simon stated that porch is actually located closer to the neighbor's house. Jurgens commented in his opinion it would be a design issue to relocate the addition. Jurgens inquired whether the addition could \k located on the front and the deck on the back and clear the setback. Gundlach suted the deck is a second story deck and v ould ha\« the same setbacks as the house. Gaffron stated if the deck is high enough to require a railing, it w ould be considered structural and would need to meet the setback. Jurgens stated at this time he is unable to support approving this addition since it appears to be more of a design issue than a hardship. Simon reiterated that given the current location of the bouse, it is difficult to design somethmg that is aestheucally pinsmg. PAGE U MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMday, Aaf«« 2004 6:00 o*dock p.m. (m-3044 leaairer Sinoa, coadancd) Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like her afi^Iication ubied. Simon slated she would prefer not to table the application. Simon comoKnted if the addition is constructed on the front of the yard, the front is basically ruined. Kempf noted the southw est comer of the lot is the nicest part of the lot. and that if the addition is mos"^ forward and the deck is away from the street, the view from the house is turned towards the more pnvate part of the lot Rahn Staled the Planning Commission is an advisory board to the City Council and that she could plead her case before them. Leslie moved, Jargens secomled, to recommend denial of AppHralion #04-3044, denial of a rear yard setback variance to permit an addition to the principal residence located at 392S Cherry Avenne. VOTE: Ayes 5, Naya 1, Kempf opposed. 9. #04-3046 ROBERT W. AND BRENDA ZOE MACDONALD, 2400 OLD REACH ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:28 - 8:12 p.m.) Robert MacDonald, Applicant and Tim Kelley. Attomey-at-Law, appeared on behalf of the Applicants Gundlach noted a letter from Mr. Kelley has been distributed to the Planning Commission concerning this application. Gundlach indicated the applicants arc requesting an after-the-fact side yard setback \ariance to permit the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally required. The new garage originated by pouring a new slab over the old slab, reusing the mechanical systems, and constructing new walls and a new roof. The new garage is located in the same location as the old garage. Gundlach exp.ained the changes from the old garage to the new garage consist of a steeper pitched roof, a turning of the roof line, and two dormers added to the conforming side of the garage. Gundlach indicated the City has consistently granted variances to property owners in order to maintain their nonconforming structures to match exactly the old structure and also in some cases to make slight naodifications. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission review this application iii one of the two following ways: One. if the Plannmg Commission determines the impro\*ements to the garage consist of improvements to the nonconforming structure, the after-the-fact variance should be approved; or two, if the Ploiming Commission determines the structure has been completely rebuilt, the after-the-fact variance should be denied since the structure could have been relocate^ to meet the 10-foot setback. PAC*: 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Aagnst 16,2(MM 6:00 o’clock p.in. (N04-3046 Robert and Brenda Zoe MacDonald, conHaacd) Gundlach noted there are photographs depicting the old garage and the new garage in the packets before the Planning Comn.tssion tonight. Kelley distributed some newer pictures of the cxisung structure to the Planning Commission. Kelley staled it is hts understanding that Commissioners Jurgens and Leslie have slewed the structure. Kelley pomted out that only one comer of the strucnire u encrtsaching and the adjacent property located behind the garage is heavily wooded and cannot view this structure. There were no public comments regarding this plication. Rahn noted he also has \newed the property. Rahn inquired whether the roof has also been nude uller. MacDonald staled he belieses the height of the roof is exactly the same but that the pitch has been changed to a sleeper pilch. Gundlach commented the steeper pilch could have increased the height of the roof but that City Staff does not haw any building plans to confirm that. Rahn stated in his view the roof docs appear to be a little bit toller. Rahn inquired w hether the new garage is wider than it is deep Gundlach stated the dimensions haw remained the same. Gundlach stated in her opinion w hen the roof w’as turned, the pitch was made steeper in order to allow the dormers on the front of the structure. Jurgens stated there is some attic space in the garage but the only access to it is a small trapdoor. Rahn inquired w hetha new studs, sheathing and stucco were utilized to construct the new w alls. Kelley stated the old garage was damaged from water so the walls were replaced as well as the slab. Kelley indicated all the mechanical features of the old garage were incorporated into the new garage, such as the spnnkler system, electrical panel, and heating systent Rahn inquired whether the applicant replaced the slab, the walls, and the roof Kelley stated the> poured oxer the existing slab. MacDonald stated the existing slab was raised because of flooding in the garage. MacDonald indicated every spring they would experience tw o to three inches of w ater in the garage. Rahn inquired why the applicant ’s contractor did not apply for a permit given the amount of construction being done. PAGE It MlNtTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadiy, AiigMst 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.nu (#04-3046 Robert aod Breoda MocDoaald, cootiooed) Kelley acknowledged that it is better for a builder to obtain a building permit at the apprupnaie time and that he is not going to dispute the fact that no permit was obtained. Kelley stated the City has the right to impose double the normal bu Iding permit fees w henever a building permit is not obtained prior to construction. Rahn noted that is correct, but that residents cannot cook into the Cit>’ and buy a variance. Rahn indicated the property owners should go through the variance process and that paying double permit fees does not negate the fact that a variance w as requurd for the construction. MacDonald stated ongmally he had approached the City and attempted to make the garage larger and insuill bathroom facilities because the pool is adjacent to the garage. MacDonald indicated because it was not convenient to do that, he elected not to go ahead with that project and to simply remodel the e.xisting garage. MacDonald stated he instructed his caretaker to take care of the project, left for Florida, and when he came back, found that the garage had been completed. Kempf stated in his opinion the reason why a permit was not applied for was to avoid having the property come under a hardcover review. Kempf stated if this garage had been determined to be a rebuild, the City would ha\r reviewed the hardcover. Kempf noted this lot has an excessive amount of hardcover. MacDonald stated the amount of hardcover on this lot has existed since he purchased the properly and that he has not changed it. Kempf stated in his view this project w'as done the way it was done to avoid a hardcover review. Kempf indicated one option is to cut off that one comer of the building and make it a 45 -degree angle so the structure dors not encroach into the setback. Rahn stated he docs not have a problem w ith the location of the garage but that it is imuting that there arc contractors out there who do not pull permits. Rahn indicated in hts view, m light of the water problems and the small encroachment, the City probably would not have had an issue with rebuilding the garage in its present location but that the City in all likelihood w ould have requested the hardcover be reduced. Rahn staled in his opinion the issue is the excessive amount of hardcover. Kelley commented he did not mean to suggest that a resident could come into the City and buy a variance, but that the City does have methods in place to deal with a situation w here no building permit is obiained prior to construction. Kelley noted the City ’s codes do not define what a repair is. Kelley indicated the .Minnesota Stale Legislature did recently amend the laws concerning nonconforming structures and prov'ides that people can restore and replace nonconforming structures. Kelley stated even if the Planning Commission finds that this w ent beyond repair and maintenance, the current law allows property' owuers to replace or restore a nonconforming structure. Fritzlcr noted the property owner needs to go about it ui the proper manner, w hich is to obtain a building permit and a demolition permit. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, Aaguit 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. (404.3646 Robcn awl BrcMia ^lacDoaaM, coalimcd) Kelley acknowledged it is not proper to build w ithout a building permit, but that the builduig cede has penalties provided for in the code to deal with a sihiation where a building permit has not been obtained. Kelley stated if a project is constructed without going through the proper hoops, the property owner is penalized by having to pay double the permit fees. Kempf stated it essentially sounds like if you pay a double achieved avoiding a hardcover study. , ^ a building permit, you have Kelley stated that is not what he is saying and apologized for not being clear. Kelley indicated it is his opinion under the nonconforming statute that governs, a person now has the right to replace or restore a nonconforming structure. Kelley stated he is not aw are of the code requmng hardcover reviews because you arc simply replacing a nonconforming structure. Rahn inquired how nonconforming sinicturcs would be gotten nd of if the person is alwa^'s allow ed to restore or replace them. Kelley noted that was a recent change in the law. Gundlach stated it is her understanding the new statute did not go into effective until August 1" and this project was completed prior to that time. Gundlach stated even if the new statute would apply, it docs nut ulluw for any expansion. Gundlach noicd the new garage was not constructed exactly the same as the old garage, with more height existing at the 8.4 foot non-conforming .setback. Rahn noted there were also dormers constructed on the conforming side. Kelley indicated that he did discuss this issue with Gundlach prior to the meeting and concurred that the statute did not go into effective until August 1“. Kelley submitted that he believed the statute should be applied in this case. Kelley stated as far as the expansion, in his view it would be expuruiun of **ie nonconforming setback, and that was not changed. Kelley stated the location of the garage was nut changed. Fritzler commented that it appears to be easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission in this particular case. Kelley indicated the fact that a buildmg permit was not obtained in and of itself is not proper grounds to deny a variance. Kelley commented in cases where a building permit is not obtained prior to construction, the City does have ihc nght to impose a penally. Rahn stated the double fee allows the applicant to ask for a vanance. Rahn inquired whether the .MacE>onalds would be opposed to reducing any hardcover on this lot Rahn commented he would like to see some hardcover reductions. Kelley indicated he has not q?okcn with the city planner regardmg hardcover reductions. MacDonald stated when they originally came in wanting to rebuild the garage, one of the issues w as PAGE 26 MINUTflS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Aacuit 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. (404*3046 Robert aad Breada MacDoaald, coatiaacd) the hardcover, but it was not the sole issue. MacDonald indicated other issues, such as sewer and water hookups, in his nund made the project not worth pursuing and he decided to remodel the garage instead. MacDonald stated he elected to remodel <lie garage because it looked awful and was falling down. MacDonald indicated he is willing to discuss the hardcover, but indicated he does not feel it is the issue at the present time. MacDonald stated the issue in his mind is whether the structure is conforming to allow him to obtain a variance for the 18 inches. MacDonald commented he would prefer to be able to retain the parking lot in order to accommodate guests and not have them park in mud or in the grass. Fntzler inquired who w as responsible for the remodeling of the garage. MacDonald stated his caretaker w'as in charge of the project while he was in Honda, but that he ultimately takes responsibility for the project. MacDonald stated his intention was to be within what the City was asking for w hen he w anted to originally rebuild the garage. Kempf inquired what the large expanse of hardcover leading to a gate is used for. MacDonald stated that area is utilized by guests for parking. MacDonald noted that area was also discussed as a possibility for loss of hardcover when the larger garage was being considered. Kempf commented the turnaround appears to be large enough to allow for some parking of cars. .MacDonald indicated there are some options regarding a reduction in hardcover, but noted that the main issue in his other application was the sewer and electrical hookups and not the excessive hardcover. MacDonald indicated a considerable amount of grading would need to be done in order to provide bathroom facilities in the garage, and combined with the other issues, he decided nut to pursue that project. MacDonald stated reducing the width of the driveway by one foot was discussed at that time, but It was just one small piece that was discussed dunng his previous application. Bremer inquired if there is a retroactive dale in the statute. Kelley stated it went into effective August I". Bremer inquired whether the statute applies to construction that occurs prior to the date of construction. Kelley stated it is his opinion the City has the discretion to decide w'hcthcr to anaK'ze it under the old law or the new law. Bremer inquired w hether at the time of construction the applicant was in compliance with city ordinances. Kelley suted at the lime this garage was constructed, city code and state stanitc provided that a person PAGE 21 MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moflday, AiiK«tt 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.in. (#04-3046 Robert and Brenda MacDonald, continned) could rqMir or mainuim a nonconfomung structure. Kelley suted he is submitung to the Planning Commission that by incorporating the old slab and all the electrical controls, the structure has not been completely rebuilt. Kelley stated the Planning Commission has the discretion to apply the new statute if th^ so choose. Kelley stated in his view how the City* should interpret its code is to first see whether the applicant has the nght to do this nonconforming, and if they do has-e that right, the person gets a vanance. Kelley stated if the Planning Commission decides the new statute does not apply and deems the project to have gone beyond repair or remodeling, then the applicant still has the nght to ask for a vanance. Bremer stated in her opinion the statute would not be clTcctivc for unlaw ful activity prior to the cfTcctive dale of the statute because at the time the construction occurred, it did not comply with the Minnesota statute. Bremer indicated in her view the Planning Commission docs not have the discretionary authonty to apply the new statute but would have the nght in terms of their vanance process. Bremer stated m Iict opinion the Planning Commission is not bound by the new statute and is not in any way xiolating the new statute. Bremer indicated in her view tearing down and rebuilding a structutc is nut considered a repair or a remodel, noting that the Planning Commission has deemed some projects to be complete rebuilds w hen only half of the structure has been removed. Bremer stated if the applicant had come before the Planning Commission pnor to starting this project, he would ha\e had to follow the normal process and apply for a variance. Bremer stated the Planning Commission needs to look at this application the same as it would any application, which would mean that the property should undergo a hardship analysis. Bremer commented it does not appear that a hardship exists m this case and that the garage could have been relocated m a conforming location. Bremer stated if the Planning Commission had decided to allow reconstruction of the garage in the same location, it would then have conducted a hardcover analysis. Bremer stated the Planning Commission should discard the argument concerning w hether this is a complete rebuild or a icmodel since it is apparent that it was a rebuild, as well as disregard the state statute since it does not apply, and then decide whether the Planning Commission would have allow ed this, and if so. if a reduction in hardcover would be appropriate. Bremer indicated she probably w ould have approved the garage if an application had been submmed. but that they then would be undergoing a hardcover analysis. Bremer inquired w hether Staff has the hardcover calculations on this property. Gundlach indicated they do have the hardcover calculations available. Rahn staled m his view the excessive hardcover is the issue. PAGE 22 r i MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Aagast 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (404-3046 Robcn aod Brcoda MacDouM, Leslie questioned if it was assumed that the applicant was not interested in reducing hardcover and it was also assumed that this garage had collapsed or had detenorated to the point where it needed to be destroyed, Leslie inquired whether that would have been a valid remedy. Leslie inquired whether anotliCT alternative remedy if the applicant docs not wish to reduce har^over elsewhere would be to remove the garage. Kelley stated if the Planning Commission w ould like to discuss the hardcover, he would suggest tabling It until the next meeting to give him an opportunity to speak w ith city suff and his client. Bremer stated the applicant could also relocate the garage. Fnt7ler inquired when the existing garage was removed, whether the electrical service in the walls was removed. MacDonald indicated the new garage has the same electrical panel and the same w inng. Fntzler inquired whether new wiring exists in the walls or the old wiring and whether the old tight switches and outlets were replaced. MacDonald stated the old panel was utilized in the new garage and probably the w ire running to the garage is still there. MacDonald stated he is unsure about the switches. Fritzler suggested the applicant check the panel to see if there is a sticker in there for the new clcctncal to show that it has been inspected. Fntzler commented in his view the new winng points to a rebuild rather than a remodel, and that in his opimon this is a tear-dowm and a rebuild. MacDonald inquired what would happen if the garage were relocated so it no longer encroached. Bremer stated in her view a hardcover analysis would still be done. Kahn stated if a foot and a half were cut off the garage, a vanance w'ould no longer be required. Gundlach indicated typically in new construction where there is excessive hardcover, the City requires the property owner to remov e hardcover in the amount of w hat they are adding. Gundlach noted this garage was rebuilt over c.\isting hardcover and that the City, in cases where the hardcover is well over the amount allowed, have required additional hardcover to be removed. Rahn concurred it may be a good idea to table this application to give the applicant some time to consider his options for reducing hardcover on the lot. Bremer stated she would prefer a target number be given to the applicant. Gundlach indicated the origirtal request was for the 30 percent hardcover to continue w ith a bigger PAGE 23 MINITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Avgust 16,2004 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#04*3046 Robert aad Brcada MacDoaald, coaliaucd) building. Gundlach noted the Planning Commi&sion did review the application and had recommended that an additional 860 square feet of hardcover be removed because of the excessive amount of hardcover on the propcrt>'. Rahn noted the applicant is not asking for the si/e of the garage to be increased now. Rahn suggested the applicant consider reducing or removing the extra parking area. Kempf commented in his view there is adequate parking elsewhere. Jurgens inquired what the applicant had originally applied for. Gundlach indicated the original application was for two conditional use permits and a variance to one of the conditional use permits for the utility w ork previously referenced, but that a larger building was proposed to be constructed in a location that would not be encroaching on the side yard. Jurgens noted the 250 ’ setback line runs basically through the center of the driveway. Gundlach stated the hardcover is over m the 75’ - 250 ’ zone. Gundlach indicated it is her understanding the Planning Commission in the original application wns willing to allow for a reduction of hardcover in a zone other than the 75’ - 250 ’ zone. Kempf stated he would prefer to see a hardcover reduction in the 75’ - 250' zone Jurgens commented the location of the garage in his view is not a problem, especially since no neighbors have shown any opposition to this project, but had a variance been requested, it would have tnggered a hardcover review. Jurgens indicated he would like some agreement reached on the hardcover. MacDonald stated he would like a target number. Rabv moved, Kempf sccovded, to recommend approval of Application #3046, approval of an aflcr-lhe-fact side yard setback variance to permit the detached garage to remain at 0.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feet is normally reqaired, subject to the condition that the driveway pad soatb of the attached garage as defined in previous Exhibit G be removed. Jurgens inquired whether that would bnng this lot into compliance w ith the hardcover. Gundlach indicated the hardcover would still be out of compliance. MacDonald inquired whether it is the amount of hardcover or the location. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would prefer to decide where the hardcov'er should be removed if an amount was specified by the Planning Commission. PAGE 24 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Aafvst 16,2084 6:00 o*dock p.m. ((NM-3046 Robert and Breads MacDoaald, coatiaaed) MacDonald suted he would prefer lo ha\x an amount that the hardco\*er should be reduced b>' and that he would like to decide where he could reduce it. Bremer stated this lot encompasses a number of different zones gi\*en the size of the lot and that she w ould prefer reducing the hardcover in the 75' • 250' zone. Gundlach illustrated on the overhead the 75’ - 250' zone where the hardcover should be removed. MacDonald inquired whether he could look at his options for reducing the hardcover and come back before the Planning Commission. Raha amended his previous OMlioB, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Applkallon d04-30M, approval of an aner-the-fact side yard setback variance lo permit the detached garage to remain 8.4 feet from the side lot line when 10 feel is normally required, with the coaditioa that 800 square feet of hardcover be removed in the 75' - 250* zone for the property located at 2480 Old Beach Road. VOTE: Ayes 6, .Nays 0. PIJ^NMNG COM.MIS.SION CO.MMF.NTS »10. REPORT OF PLA.NMNG CO.M.MISSION REPRESENTATIVES AITENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS JULY 26. 2004 AND Al'Gl ST 9, 2004. Fntzlcr indicated he attended the July 26 meeting and noted that the bowling alley application was approved with a larger garage. Gundlach indicated the Planning Commission had recommended ten feet and the Council allowed 12' with a 22’ wide garage. Jurgens stated he attended the August 9 meeting, noting that the James Brooks application was put on the consent agenda. Jurgens indicated that approval for a sign for the medical building at the comer of Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway was before the City Council, which did not appear before the PLnning Commission. Jurgens noted he also requested a joint w ork session w ith the Council. White indicated the Council met w ith Shardlow . w ho had given them a synopsis of the issues to be discussed in defining the future of a city. Jurgens requested the Planning Commission be included in those discussions. Jurgens indicated the Council at the .August 9* meeting did discuss the appearance of the roof on the monument sign for the new medical buildmg as well Leslie inquired whether that was the sign that actually brought on the new sign ordinance. PAGE 25 I J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoHdiy, Augiift 16,2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Piaaiiag Comnltsloo Comments, continued) Gaffron stated that sign itself did not, but the applications for commctcial development along Highuoy 12 helped push the ordinance to the forefront. Gaffron indicated the Council did raise a concern regarding the possibility of having too many signs around the building. Gaffron stated Staff does have a sign ordmmee update that is more exiensiw. Curtis noted any future signs at that site n-ould need to be approved as part of the PUD. Cunts commented the sign ordinance probably does need to be addressed in the future and that an outline of the update could be given to the Planning Commission for their rcviesv. Cunis indicated Staff at the present time has to complete w ork on the Welland Ordinance. Kempf inquired whether the Planning Commission should look at the ordinance that defines what a front >‘ard and a side yard are. Gundlach mdicater^ to her knowledge the lan.;uagc m that ordinance is fairly common among cities. Rahn stated that ordinance deals primarily with lots that are long and that the Simon lot w as probably a unique situation since the lot was squarer than most :omer lots. Gaffron commented one option the Planning Commission could look at w ould be to include language in the ordinance that gives the property owner a one-time opportunity to designate what they would like to be considered the front of the lot. Gaffron indicated he has seen that ty pe of language included in other ordinances but that he is not sure whether that is the best route. Jurgens indicated he does deal w ith that type of situation a lot as a surveyor, noting that surveyors prefer not to draw in the setbacks but rather indicate on the survey what the setbacks are supposed to be. Jurgens stated if they are required to draw the setbacks in, they request a letter from the city declanng what the front and the side lot lines are. Jurgens staled in his opinion the surveyor or the architect should have contacted the city earlier to find out where tht front of th«-' >t was Kempf inquired w hether there w ere any disadvantages to giving the property owner the ability to make that determination. Gaffron stated it w ould be one more thing that staff would need to venfy and could easily be missed since It does not match the bnguage in the code. Bremer commented it should only apply in very unique situations such as a very square comer lot. Jurgens stated if it is such a unique situation, it might consumte a hardship, but in his view the Simon property did not constitute a hardship smee the slope was not very steep. Leslie suggested delay ing action on possibly revising the ordinance unless another similar situation oecurs. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moiday, August Id, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.in. #11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION GafTron noted the next Planning Commission work session is scheduled for September I". Curtis indicated StafThas their arnual picnic that day. Ganiron stated he would attempt to reschedule the work session. #12. PLANNLNG CO.MMISSION APPROVAL OF >aMJTES FOR JULY 19,2004 RaliB ntovcd, Jargens sccoiidciL to approve iIm Plaoniag CommissloB mcUiag mtnufcs of July 19,2004, as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Na>‘s 0. #1J. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 23, 2004 AND SEPTE.MBER 13,2004 August 23 - Jim Leslie September 13 - Roland Jurgens ADJOURN3IENT Rahn moved, Leslie seconded, to adjourn Ike Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. David Rakn,Ckair PAGE 27 t COMPARISON OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT note: dimensions and areas were scaled from submitted plans and thererorc are appmsimate Extent of the wall in the required setback aa*a Present House Proposed north 30 ft at 6 ft 50 ft at 10 ft 20 ft at 20 ft or greater south 50 ft at II 12 ft tiess shed greenhouse I SO ft at 10 ft 2.Garage north 22 ft at »).4 ft. JrtAheJ.2fift at IOft<.ai...iK%ti sooth 22 ft at 12.7 ft fjrtAThnit 24 ft at lf> ft uuaIwUi 3.Shed north 12.2 n at .5.5 ft 14 ft at 15 ft south complies 14 ft at 10 II ft 4.l.oiigosi Continuous Wall north 30 ft 76 it south .50 ft 76 ft B.StriKiure Heights in required setback area Present Pn»pt»scd lop Ol lift 3Kft (iHHise) 20 ft (garage) bonom of eaves K.5 ft 20 ft (house) II ft (garage) C.Lot Coverage Present Pn>pt>sed House II.L5sf 1500 sf Garage 5f»7 sf I JriAhrJt 624 sf Ij4UvIksI| Stimige l2*Jsf 3.16 sf IK2I sf 2460 sf (251U( sf by staff repon) MEMORANDUM T«: Chair Rahn and Planning Commtasionere Frann Mike Ganhm, Planning Director Dale: September 20.2004 Sabjcct: Imcrtan Uac Ordinance AltaebMeata A - MinnesoU Statutes Section 462.3597 B - Draft Interim Use Ordinance for Highway 12 Corridor (1998) Never Adapted In my SeptendKT 17 memo I asked w-hethcr large \‘ehicle storage might be appropriately dealt with via an *‘litterim Use** ordinance as authorized by State Statutes. Attachment A is the Sutute language. An * Interim Use* is defined as a temporary use of property until a particular date or until a particular event occurs, or until zoning regulations no longer allow it. With an * Interim Use* we would be al lowing properties Tor which a zoning or status change is pending in the foreseeable future, to enjoy some temporary uses which don't match the future expected zoning, but which could be a good use of the land until the zoning changes. An example is properties that werei^anned to be acquired for Highway 12 right-of-way. The attached draft ordinance from 1998 (which was never adopted) is an example. l*m not convinced that the Interim Ordinance is a solution the current issue of continuing a now* nonconforming use... OROINANCi: NUMBER , SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OFORONO BY DEFINING AND PROVIDING FOR INTERIM AND TEMPORARY USES OF LAND Till: CITY COUNCIL OF Till: CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: SccHon 1. The municipal codcofOrono is hereby amended by adding ihe following Definition to Zoning Code Section 10.02: "Use, Inlcrim" - A temporary use of property until a particular date, or until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. as determined by the City Council. Section 2. follows: The municipal code of Orono is hereby amauied by adding Section 11). 14 to read as SEC. 10.14. INTERIM USES. Subd. I. Interim Uses: Purpose. Certain properties within the City arc subject to future acquisition for right-of-way of Highway 1 2. and those properties may in some eases be unsuitably situateil or not finaiKially feasible on a sliort-temi basis foran> ofthcpcrmittcrl or conditional uses allowed by the Zoning Chapter. I lowcvcr. certain uses under certain conditions may be appropriate for such properties for a limited pcrioil of time, hut which arc not generally appropriate on a pemiancnt basis, which arc not consistent with land uses designated on the adopted loind Use Plan, and which arc not identified as allowable permitted or conditional uses within the respective zoning district, 'fhe purpose of this ordimmcc is to allow such uses for a brief anil limited period of time at the discretion of the City Counci I. In order to achics'c these purposes, the City Council is empowered to grant and todeny applications for interim use permits and to Impose rc;isonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. Subd. 2. Interim Uses: Procedure. Applications for interim use permits shall be processed in the same manner as conditional use permits as established in Section 10.09 of the Zoning Chapter. the following: Subd. 3. Interim Uses: General Standards. An interim use shall comply with The use shall conform to the standards for a conditional use perm it as set forth in Section 10.09 of the Zoning Chapter. The use shall conform to the applicable general perfonnance standards established in Section 10.60 ofthe Zoning Chapter. c. D. The date or event Utat will tenninate the use can be identined with ccriainiy. Pennission of die use will not impose additional costs on die public ifit is noccssao' for the public to take the property in the future. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of die use. Permission of the use will not result in adverse elTcets on the public he^th* safety and wcllare. Subd. 4. Interim Uses: Limitation on Applicrdiitity. This ordinance shall apply only to properties that meet all of the following criteria: 'Hie properly contains an existing building in which the iiUcrim use w ill occur; and The existing building and the property will be acquired for future Highway 12 riglu-of way; and Tlic Council dciennincs that no other use for die property would be nnancially feasible. Subd. 5. Interim Uses: fcniiiiuiUon. An inteniii use shall tcniiinalc on the liaptKiiing of any of the follo^ ing events, whichever occurs first: A. 1'lic date stated in die permit. B. Upon violation of the conditions under which the pcmiit was issued. C.1'lic redevelopment of the use and property upon w hich it is located to a permitted or conditional use as allowed w ithin the respective zoning district. Section 3. 'lliis Ordinance sliall be eflcclivc immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. Adopted by the City CouiKil of Orono on this, nays. dayof_1 998, by a vote of ayesand AITTiST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Minnesota Statutes Di^lay Document 1 of I Mlaaesota Slattics 2003 Display Docancal I of 1 BinBamn Chapter Thie: HOUSING, REDEVELOPMENT. PLANNING. ZONING ScctkM: 462 J997 Text: 462.3597 interi* uses. Subdivlsioa 1 Definition. An "interim use" is a temporary uae of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until soning regulariona no longer permit it. Subd. 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow interim uses. The regulations may set conditions on interim uaes. The governing body may grant permission for an interim uae of property if: (1) the uae conforms to the soning regulations; (2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified aith certainty; (3) permiasion of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and (4) the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for permission of the use. Any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations. Subd. 3. Public hearings. Public hearings on the granting of interim use permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357. subdivision 3. HIST: 1989 C 200 S 3 Page 1 of 1 1 ht!p7/wwwjcvilor. leg.stetejnn.us:8181 /SEARCH/BASIS/mnsUt/public/www/DDW?W%... 9/20/2004