Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2003 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend COUN'f^ll WOV 5 CITV Ut Cnuivu APPROVAL OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of November 10,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe, Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS LMCD REPORT - Lili McMillan PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit S Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT #02-2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment - Section 78-71 - Repulalion of Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures - Ordinance #03-2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road - Administrative Appeal Winfield and Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue - Variances - Resolution Scott and Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West - After-the-Fact Variance - Resolution Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road - Lot Line Rearrangement Raymond and Nylenc Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Resolution Timothy J. Lattemer, 2032 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution Timothy and Kelly Mahoney, 2760 Pheasant Road - Variance - Resolution WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review - Resolution Orono Zoning Code Amendment - Sections 78-1491 (h) and 78-1577 - Regulation of Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts - Ordinance 3.#02-2829 4.#03-2866A 5.#03-2917 6.#03-2935 7.#03-2950 8.#03-2951 7.#03-2953 10.#03-2959 ‘1.#03-2960 12.#03-2963 13.#03-2966 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14. Accept Quotation for Industrial Park Watermain Extension 15. Adopt Assessment Roll - North Long Lake East Sewer Extension - Resolution AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24,2003,7:00 F.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 1 6. Application and Certificate for Payment U5 ~ Navarre Fire Station 1 7. Police Department - Accept Donation CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 18. LICENSES 2004 Liquor Licenses * 19. BILLS UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 2m 11/24 - Council Work Session, 5:30 p.m. 11/24 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 11/27 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 11/28 - HOLIDAY, Observance of Thanksgiving Day 12/01 12/03 12/08 12/24 12/25 12/26 Truth in Taxation Hearing, 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas (Afternoon) HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas HOLIDAY, Observance of Christmas 1 , t : - Public Attendance Meeting Date C/COUNCIL □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please filloutthe information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I 1. T^hhii> •[ IxirK/Spi^ 2. lii/.y/r/y ________/y-/ _______________ 3. i 'Ti La U^L4it>^ ^u'iu 'StxiriLfu’Cc^i _______/ s. Qrriwc,n / ? C-7 S Tex' 1m (K '^ll/(ctj^>Z6 Ayfu- 9.. 10.. 11. 12.. 13. 14. 15. W:\Adi Mitt lapparflFnnnsypDNk Imudanw apd ! @) ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Lili McMillan. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaflion, City Attorney Tom Barrett, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. QQI iMP.II MFFTING Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NOV 2 5 2003 CONSENT AGENDA CtTY OF CHU\0 1. Approvc/Amend Items9,10, II, 12,13,14, IS, I6and 17 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item 18A was removed from the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, and Sausevere seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 27,2003 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of October 27,2003. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING 3. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project A. Order Preparation of Plans and Specification—Resolution No. 5073 Mayor Peterson called the Public Hearing to order at 7:02 p.m. Gappa stated that the City had recel ved a signed petition from the Homestead Neighborhood residents requesting an assessment sanitary sewer project. At the October IB*** meeting. Council accepted the Feasibility Study and scheduled a Public Hearing. Notice was sent to all property owners and published in the local newspaper. He stated that at the present hearing, if Council received a favorable response from the 1 of 16 : ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (3. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project, Continued) nei^borhood residents, the next step would be to adopt the resolution ordering preparation of plans and specifications for the project. Kellogg showed a map of the neighborhood and explained that 5 of 6 lots currently have nonconforming septic systems, with one lot in question being vacant. He stated that they considered two systems: gravity and pressure. A gravity system would be very expensive due to the topography of the neighborhood and the requirement of a new lift station, costing in total about $250,000. A pressure s)rstem (one is being instalUxl at North Brown Road and County Road 6) would require a pipe alongside Homestead Road with a pipe accessing each property. There would be a shutoff installed at the property lisie, with connection to an existing pressure forcemain. The total cost for that system would be about $81,000. The per lot proposed assessment would be $ 1 1 ,570. Each property owner would be required to buy a grinder pump that would need to be installed by a plumber and electrician. That cost would be in addition to the assessment, and could range from $7,500 to $12,000. Kellogg staled that the assessment included replacing any disturbed bituminous or landscaping during the installation of the sewer. Gappa stated that the assessment would be over 15 years at 6.25% fixed interest, which would cost about $1,250 per year. Mr. Schultz of 744 Homestead Road asked if the assessment would transfer from the current owner to the next if the property were sold. Gappa stated that the assessment stays with the property. Gafiron stated that typically the buyer’s mortgage company would force the assessment to be paid before financing the sale of the house. Mr. Schultz asked how they would put the pipe along the shoulder of Homestead Road. Kellogg stated that they propose to keep the pipe along the south side of the road. With the directional boring process, they could follow the contours of the land and maintain a constant depth of 7 % - 8 ’. They would only have to dig holes where they put the service in, likely in two sections. Mr. Schultz asked if past pressure sewer projects have been stable over time. Kellogg stated that he could only think of one problem, and he believed it had been caused by the plumber who installed the grinder pump. Mr. Schultz asked when residents would need to be hooked up. Gappa stated that people with a conforming system would not have to connect as long as the existing system remained conforming and in working order. People with non-conforming systems would need to hook up by 2007. If a non-conforming system broke down or needed major repair before 2007, they would have to hook up at that time. 2 of 16 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (3. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project, Continued) Mr. Schultz asked about a SAC fee. Gappa stated that it would be a one-time fee of $1,275 in addition to the assessment. The monthly sewer bill, or usage fee, would be billed quarterly and run about $90 each quarter. Mr. Ureg Hanson of 776 Homestead Road stated that he understood lakefiont properties were required to be on sewer by 2006. He asked if the current project wasn't rqrproved, what would happen then. Gappa stated that by 2007 they would have to replace the septic. Because of the topography, there is not much suitable area for building new septic, and they would have to go to a mound system. The mound system would require tearing out trees and using a pump system anyway. He stated that sewer is the only long-term solution to that area's problem. Murphy stated that the total cost would be almost $20,000 after the interest was added to the assessed fee. In addition there would be the SAC fee and connection costs. He asked if the $11,570 could be paid up front. Gappa stated that people could prepay and there would always be the option to pay the bah^e at any point in the assessment. Sansevere asked if 6.25% interest was the going rate. Gappa stated that the City has used 6.25% interest for the last five or six projects. Sansevere stated that rates have come down recently. Gappa stated that they charge slightly more than the City borrows the money at to cover administrative costs. He stated they could reconsider the interest rate for this project. Having announced 6.25%, they could possibly lower it. but not raise it. Mr. Hutter of 770 Homestead Road asked what made the septic systems non-conforming now, when they conformed three years ago. Gappa replied there was a change in the state law concerning the determination of the separation of groundwater. If they found seasonal groundwater less than 3' below the surface, a system was no longer conforming. Mr. Hutter asked why their systems had not been grandfathered in. Gappa stated that the state wanted systems fixed right away, but Orono has been pushing the deadline back. Mr. Hutter asked what the benefit would be doing it now vs. in 2007. Gappa stated that most people begin paying on the assessment right away, even though they don't hook up right away, because they need time to save up for the additional cost of hookup. Costs go up every year. Also, it would be difficult to sell a house with a non-conforming system. Kellogg stated that the City didn’t force the project. Five of six property owners petitioned the City to consider the project. Mr. Rick Rice, Park Commissioner, asked if having sewer would increase the property value. Mayor Peterson stated that it would increase some, but not as much as the cost of installing sewer. 3 of 16 im .-vr. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 ($. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project, Continued) Ms. Judy Pierpont of 1801 West Farm Road stated that out of town buyers think septic is a negative because they aren’t used to the system. Murphy stated that sewer would be a benefit considering the cost of pumping and maintenance on a septic system. McMillan stated that having sewer as a back up system would be a comfort, even for those who arc currently conforming. Mr. John Stobbeck of 780 Homestead Road stated that he currently has a conforming system and asked if he then has no deadline for hookup. Gappa stated that was correct, as long as his system remains conforming he needn’t hookup. Mr. Stobbeck asked about the Terminating Flushing Connection. Kellogg stated it is an access point for the City should they need to flush the pipe. It would consist of a 2 '/i” diameter cap set flush with the street. He stated it would barely be noticeable. Sansevere asked Mr. Hutter if he was against the sewer project. He replied he was in favor of the system, but would prefer to do it at a later date. He stated he owns two parcels, but one of them is undeveloped property adjacent to his home property (lot 6). Ms. Judy Gurgal stated she owns lots 1 (vacant) & 2, and is in favor of the project. Mr. Schultz asked when the project would begin. Kellogg stated they planned to begin the project in May and finish it in July, 2004. Mr. Hutter asked if there were two systems to consider for installation. Gappa stated that there were two options, gravity and pressure, but the gravity system would be so much more expensive that no one would want to use it. A gravity sewer would cost over $30,000 per unit. Sansevere asked if a property owner could defer the project until 2007. Gappa stated that people with conforming systems could opt out and the City would carry the debt on that portion of the project. Non-conforming systems would be assessed, but would not have to hookup until 2007. Gappa stated that lots 1 & 2 would be two separate assessments even though they ’re owned by one person, who would then be responsible for both assessments. McMillan stated that she received sewer a couple years ago. She is paying the assessment, even though she has not hooked up yet because of the additional cost. Her 4 of 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (3. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project, Continued) yearly assessment comes on the property tax bill. She feels it is a nice benefit having the sewer as a back up for her septic. Sansevere asked if all six property owners were present. The owner of lot 3,800 Homestead Road, was not present and had not signed the petition. Mr. Hutter asked how the final decision would be made. Mayor Peterson stated that if the residents decided they don’t want to pursue the project, then the City would wait until they came back to ask for it again. Barrett stated that if they wait, they might not get the sewer installed for $11,000. Gappa stated they were at the point where the neighbors had to decide to push ahead or hold off. Sansevere stated that the Council would look into lowering the interest rate if possible. He stated that in two years time there could be a new Council or interest rates could have gone up and they could get stuck with a rate of 8%, for example. McMillan stated that the directional boring business is currently in high demand, and in a couple years it could be more difficult to get the service at a reasonable cost. Ms. Pierpont stated that she wants the sewer installed and feels mound systems are unattractive. Sansevere asked if they could poll the neighbors to see who was in favor of the project. Barrett stated that as a matter of law, the neighbors would not have to make a final decision yet. They could take a suaw vote to inform Council’s decision whether to move forward or not. Gappa stated that if they got the go ahead from the public hearing, they would put together plans and specifications, gather bids, come up with a firm assessment, hold the assessment hearing, and pending no appeals, would then go through with the project. Mayor Peterson polled the neighbors. Ms. Pierpont lot I lot 2 yea (Received 2 votes for owning 2 lots) yea not present lot 3 nay Sof 16 1 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (3. Homestead Neighborhood (Brown Road North) Sanitary Sewer Project^ Continued) Mr. Stobbeck lot 4 yea (Conforming, will defer) Mr. Benson lots yea Mr. Hutter lot 6 yea (Noted: prefers later timing) Mr. Schultz lot?yea (Noted: also prefers later timing) Mayor Peterson stated they had a 6 to 1 vote in favor of the sewer project. Murphy stated that a mound system would devastate the land, and sewer would be the best solution. White asked what system West Farm Road uses. Kellogg stated they don’t currently have sewer. Mayor Peterson clotcd the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mnrphy moved, and White seconded to adopt Resolution No. 5073 Ordering Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Homestead Neighborhood Sanitary Sewer Improvements. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATIONS 4. Friends of the Park Award—Barbara Wulf—Resolution No. 5074 Mayor Peterson read the resolution into record, awarding the Friends of the Parks award to Barbara Wulf, and thanked her for her contributions to the City and its park system. Sansevere stated that the City is dependent upon the volunteer efforts of the people of Orono, and that they are fortunate to have people like Ms. Wulf who want to enhance and improve the community environment. He thanked hu for her work. Murphy agreed with Sansevere. He stated that he drives by the Seven Nations Park almost every day and appreciates the respites provided to the City’s residents. He thanked her. White stated that the park has become very important to the neighborhood. He stated her efforts have been very timely and thanked her. 6 of 16 I UllBmiilini Mrtt JrTli ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY* NOVEMBER 10* 2003 (4. Friends of the Park tward—Barbara Wulf, Continued) Mayor Peterson introduced the Parks Conunission members who were present: Drew McDermott, Pauline Bouchard, and Rick Rice. Murphy moved* and Sanscvcre seconded* to adopt Resolution No. 5074 awarding the Friends of the Parks Award to Barbara Wulf in recognition of* and appreciation for* her outstanding and dedicated efforts in service to the City and its park systenL Vote: Ayes 5* Nays 0. 5. Fire Chiefs* Report Chief Mark Ducharme, Excelsior Fire Department, and Tony Roe, Long Lake Fire Administration Oflicer were present to deliver the report. Roe stated that the Navarre fire station was getting power and gas installed, and they were putting the heating system into the ceiling on his last site visit. He visits the site every Tuesday to check progress. Duchaimc stated that on November I S'** they would have a training session for new recruits from Navarre and Excelsior. They will be burning down a house and old bam at 2920 Fox Road. They will begin at 6:00 a.m. and hope to be done burning by 10:30, with the drills completed by then. The recruits will take their Fire Fighter I test on November 22"*’. They’ll hold a new class for recruits in January or February after holding a joint Long Lake/Navarre recruitment. Murphy stated they appreciate the work Ducharme and Roe do for the communities. He stated his wife was riding a horse that got spooked by a fire truck coming down the road with its lights and sirens going. Roe stated that he was on the truck, on their way to a fire, and they quickly shut down the sirens and went around her. Murphy stated his wife appreciated their quick response. Mayor Peterson asked if the new trucks were on schedule. Ducharme replied that they were. Ducharme stated that they are working with Roe to send him to the National Fire Academy, a federal program. The cost to cities is minimal, possibly as little as $100-200. He stated he strongly supports Roe. Less than 1% of applicants are accepted to the program. Mayor Peterson stated that they should let Council know what they need from the City. 7 of 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 6. Stubbs Bay Water Quality Improvements —MioDebaha Creek Watershed District Moorse stated that Mike Wyatt from the Watershed District would make a presentation on a diagnostic study done on Stubbs Bay. He was joined by Scott Thomas, Watershed District Board Manager, and John Key, District Engineer. Wyatt stated that several members of the community approached the Watershed District Board in the mid I990’s with concerns about the water quality in Stubbs Bay. The MCWD allocated approximately $750,000 to a Stubbs Bay water quality improvement project. They recently completed a diagnostic study, and the next step would be to complete a feasibility study. Wyatt stated that lakes in the area are heavily influenced by phosphorus, with a direct relationship between the amount of phosphorus and water clarity. Phosphorus gets into the lake through stormwater runoff and creek inflows, and is also released through internal sources. Stubbs Bay has two inputs; a creek offtake Classen and a large wetland off the Luce Line. There has been an increase in total phosphorus throughout the study period of 1998 - 2002, with water quality being marginal and declining. Key stated that the Stubbs Bay data showed a direct relationship betweeu drops in chlorophyll and rises in clarity. Thomas stated that there is a dependence on flow, that is, wet conditions during a year flush more phosphorus off the land, providing for year to year variations, thus one had to look at the overall trend. Wyatt stated that in the diagnostic study they monitored surface and bottom phosphorus, chlorophyll, and Secchi depth (clarity). The analysis model looked at: external inflow of nutrients, internal loading of nutrients, lake outflow into Maxwell Bay, total and annual phosphorus loads, and water quality response model. They considered if the total phosphorus were reduced, how it would affect total water quality. Any improvements to Stubbs Bay could affect Maxwell Bay as well. From 1997 - 2002, the bay has been highly influenced by the internal loading from the mucky substrate. There’s an increased nutrient load when the bay turns over in the spring and fall. The external loads increase in wetter years (’97, ’01, ’02). White asked if wave runners have much impact. Wyatt stated that he read a study recently published by the North American Lake Management Association that attributed the mixing of water more to wind than prop wash, but a shallower bay would be more influenced than a deep one. Conclusions from the diagnostic study showed a high degree of internal loading. Stubbs Bay is one of the highest internally loaded water bodies within the watershed district. 8 of 16 1 J ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (6. Stubbs Bay Water Quality Improvements —Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Continued) Internal nutrient concentrations increase following the spring and fall turnover. The external loading would continue to increase with the increase of developed conditions as projected according to the Met Council 2020 plan. Currently about 29% of the land around the bay is developed as single family home, which could become 63% with fully developed conditions, leading to additional nutrient spread off the land and into the lake. Gaffron stated that the way Met Council reports could have some inaccuracies. He would expect much less of an increase in development around the bay. Wyatt stated that his charts show 516 acres of land in current use. With total development, and the agricultural and farmstead land completely eliminated, they would have 1,151 developed acres of single family residential. GafTron stated that the northeast portion of the watershed is the most likely to get developed and the rest of the area is not likely to be further developed. Wyatt stated that as the land is developed to whatever degree, increased use would result in increased external loading of nutrients. The issue should be addressed in a management plan. In improving the water quality, both the internal and external nutrient loads would have to be addressed. Wyatt stated that the Watershed District would like guidance as to how much the City would like to improve the water quality, if at all. From their lake response model, to reduce the frequency of the algae blooms by 30% would require reducing the total phosphorus load by S0%, which is a significant number. Wyatt stated he came to present the study results and to ask the City if they would like the Watershed District to continue with the feasibility project. They have budgeted for it and are prepared to do it. They would look for a partnership with the City to engage the area residents, the direct stakeholders, who are living on and around the bay to find out what sort of improvements they would like. They would need to find a happy medium between leaving the bay as is, and completely eliminating phosphorus. As water clarity increases, so does submergent vegetation, such as milfoil. Stubbs Bay does not currently have a milfoil problem. They would also conduct a cost-benefit analysis and consider a long-term solution that takes into account area development. Chemical alteration of the lake would require repeated cost assessments after determining how often treatments would need to be repeated. They would manage the internal and external factors of the lake to find a balance that achieves the goal for the bay. White asked about lakeshore restoration as part of the solutio.:, with resident participation in restoring natural vegetation. Wyatt replied that could be part of the project, and that the Watershed District is interested in promoting that kind of shoreline stabilization over traditional riprap. Wyatt stated that the MCWD completed a comprehensive hydrologic 9 of 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (6. Stubbs Bay WtUer Quality Improvements—Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Continued) study that identified an area from Classen Lake that inflows into the bay and is highly erodable. That area could be helped by some kind of stabilization project. Such a project may or may not be included, depending on how they want to manage to the bay as a whole. Murphy asked where phosphorus comes from, other than fertilizer. Wyatt stated that the external load comes fmm anything that gets washed into the lake, both organic and mineral material. Murphy asked if the macro-solution is to scrub the water on its way to the bay. Wyatt replied that they have used stormwater ponds to allow sediment to settle out before reaching the lake, and that has been successful in reducing the external nutrient load. Murphy stated that the MCWD is requiring a 25’ buffer around wetlands. Wyatt stated they require from 16 '/2*-3S*. Muiphy asked if that was to try and scrub water before it reaches the wetlands. Wyatt stated that the purpose is to provide some type of treatment for runoff before it reaches the water bodies. McMillan stated that as she understands the report, the main problem in Stubbs Bay is the internal loading, which can’t be scrubbed out and is tougher to control. She stated she is familiar with the Long Lake alum treatment and is not sold on its results. Wyatt stated that one way to treat the internal loading is through alum, another is through ferum chloride, or using some sort of aeration system. The aeration would settle out the phosphorus and keep it attached to the bottom, where it can’t feed the algae growth. Thomas stated that Stubbs Bay would never be clear. They could remove a lot of phosphorus without seeing much benefit. The problem is that the bay will continue to get worse. Doing nothing is not an option, because the external loads will continue to increase. One thing they can do is deal with the land use plans to minimize the impact of future development. Sansevere asked what would be the best course of action. Wyatt stated that the feasibility study and stakeholders meeting would determine what kind of work they do. Sansevere asked * hat the most likely scenario would be. Wyatt stated they would likely be able to treat I ntemal load with aeration and alum or ferum chloride; and manage the external load by ntrolling runoff. The alum treatment would need to be repeated, so they would have to do a long-term study to determine how often they’d have to repeat the process. They have not done an aeration project yet. lOof 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (6. Stubbs Bay Water Quality Improvements —Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Continued) Thein stated there are not many aeration systems in operation, but the most successful one is in the St. Paul Water Utility. Likely the cost would determine the best approach. McMillan stated that water is a difficult medium to work with because it is constantly moving. She felt they should pursue the next step and see what the residents were willing to do. Mayor Peterson asked what the time frame would be. Wyatt stated they want to hold the stakeholder meeting in the next two months. Sansevcrc asked when they would do the treatments. Key stated they treat in spring or fall. Mayor Peterson asked if they would want funding from the City for treatments. Wyatt stated they are not seeking funding at this time, but need cooperation to meet with residents and City staff. The cost of treatment would come out of the feasibility study and depend on the project needs. Long Lake cost $75-100,000. They have the ability to assess the people who benefit from the project, however. Lake Minnetonka is viewed as a regional resource, so they ’ve used district funds for past projects on the lake. Sansevere asked what percentage of the cost for Long Lake’s treatment was passed on to the city. Wyatt stated they assumed the entire cost of the alum treatment. Thomas stated that their projects are spread across the entire watershed district and they would expect their work to be augmented by the City in terms of development and land filtration to minimize runoff. They will determine what sort of project they can bring to Stubbs Bay, and then identify what Orono can do to assist the desired outcome. Sansevere stated that the residents would want to know what their cost will be. Thomas stated that they develop a model to show the residents what the MCWD can do at their own cost, and then discuss what the residents can do on their part. White stated it sounded like a good educational opportunity, and suggested they stress benefits other than water clarity. Thomas stated that they do not stress water clarity too much because upper bays will never be clear due to years of wastewater treatment plant discharge building up the internal load. What they try to do is improve the water quality and prevent its further decline. Mayor Peterson asked if there would be a large time commitment from City staff to get the project up and running. Thomas stated that they would not need much staff time until after the feasibility study is completed. Wyatt stat^ that at this time they needed to know the City supported their plans to pursue the project and hold a stakeholder meeting to II of 16 I ORONO CITY COUNCTL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (6. Stubbs Bay Water Quality lutprovemeuts—Miunehaha Creek Watershed District, Coutimued) engage the public. Once the feasibility study is complete, they would bring it back to Council and let them know what they recommend for the project. Murphy moved, and Sanscvere seconded, to approve the MCWD moving to the next step in the planning process for a water quality improvement project; holding an informational meeting for the Stubbs Bay property owaers to discuss project options and impacts and to obtain their input regarding a water quality improvement project Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—PAULINE BOUCHARD, REPRESENTATIVE Bouchard stated they were looking forward to the Work Session with Council. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—DAVE RAHN, REPRESENTATIVE None. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Tom DeVeau of 680 Tonkawa Road stated that he was building on his property, and in following the drainage plans approved by the City the area between the garage and Tonkawa Road, where runoff is meant to cross the right-of-way, has developed a steep swale, which he expects to become a problem in the winter with freezes. There had b<^ a culvert under the driveway that handled the runoff. He would like to replace the culvert. He requested Council encourage the City Engineer to work with him to replace the culvert. Kellogg stated he was not aware of that specific issue. Gappa and Gaffron stated they were also not aware of that issue. Gaffron stated that they had held discussions for two months about the drainage plans for that property, and culvert replacement had not yet come up. He stated they would look at the culvert issue next. Mayor Peterson stated that staff would look into the matter and report back to Council at the next meeting or earliest opportunity. 12 of 16 1 sauii ... - . .. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Mr. DeVeau sUted that he appreciated the work being done to improve Stubbs Bay. He used to be in the aerator business, and suggested that interested residents could hang aerators off the end of their docks. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 7. M12-2858 Scott Standa, 2659 CaMO Point Road—Variance (After*the>Fact) Gaffron stated that Mrs. Stands had called him to say no one would attend the meeting. They are planning to move and now propose to remove the offending deck on the boathouse. He told her to let them know when it’s removed so they can inspect it and make sure the boathouse is safe. He suggested Council table the item. White moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to table Item 7, #02-2858, Scott Standa, 2659 Casco Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. Joint Use Dock License—Minnetonka Power Squadron—Resolution No. 5075 Sansevere stated he would have put item 8 on Consent, only he is on the Power Squadron. McMillan moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5075 directing staff to issue a Joint use dock license to Minnetonka Power Squadron for the period of January 1,2003 to December 31,2003. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1 (Sansevere). MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated that regarding the scholarships they arc giving. Council could each write out two separate checks for $125 at the next meeting for the schools. Muiphy offered his compliments to Ann Wilbur for her Sun Sailor piece. White also complimented her. Murphy stated that he had talked to O’Keefe on Thursday and they should get the official response letter from Mn/DOT soon regarding Highway 12. They are still on margin with Ames Construction. They want them to finish up the work they promised for the fall, then to meet in the winter to plan progress for 2004. They want to move dirt without closing more roads than necessary. 13ofl6 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) Mayor Peterson stated that she had received a letter from the Nusbaums, and a letter from the lady on Bayside regarding the sewer. She asked if anyone could take her place at a Mayor ’s meeting on the 1 8"'. Murphy ofTered to attend. White stated that the last Parks Commission meeting was the best he’d attended in ages. They were very focused on developing a plan and a budget. Murphy stated he went to watch the house move. He asked if the City could send a letter to Stubbs thanking them for a job well done. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT *9. Adopt Assessment Roll for Old Long Lake Road Sanitary Sewer Extension— Resolntkm No. 5076 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5076 adopting the Oid Long Lake Road sewer extension assessment roll. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. Adopt Assessment Roll for Brown Road North/Connty Road 6 (Phillips) Sewer Extension—Resolution No. 5077 Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5077 adopting the Brown Road North/County Road 6 (Phillips) sewer extension assessment roll. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. Request for Payment If 1—Old Long Lake Road Sanitary Sewer Extension Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, Old Long Lake Road Sanitary Sewer Project to E J. Mayers, Inc. in the amount of $21,755.00. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. Request for Payment #1—Brown Road North/County Road 6 (Phillips) Sanitary Sewer Extension Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, Brown Road North/County Road 6 (Phillips) SaniUry Sewer Project to Red Pederson Utilities, Inc. in the amount of $15,679.75. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14 of 16 • * 4 ru ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 *13. Request for Payment #1 —Stubbs Bay Erosion Improvements Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Payment #1, Stubbs Bay Road Erosion Improvements Project to Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc. in the amount of S7,720.65. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *14. Request for Final Payment—SC AD A System Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve Request for Final Payment, SCADA System Project to Automatic Systems Company, Inc. in the amount of $10,818.76. Vote: Ayes S, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT *15. Request for Payment—Navarre Fire Station Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the request for payment in the amount of $3,441.61 to BKV Group, Inc., to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. Navarre Fire Station Operational Apparatus Equipment Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the purchase of firefighting equipment for the Navarre Fire station and fire apparatus at a cost of $27,082.02, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *17. Code Amendment Regarding Ciandestine Labs—Ordinance Nos. 2 and 3,3^^ Series Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 2,3 ’** Series, amending the Orono, Minnesota Code by adding Section 70-5 regarding abatement procedure. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 3,3^ Series, amending the Orono, Minnesota Code by adding Chapter 50, Article III regarding clandestine drug labs. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. IS of 16 i. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 10,2003 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *18. LICENSES A. Special Event Permit ■■ I. Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Mike Dom, Minnetonka Power Squadron District 10 Summer Rendezvous (200-300 guests) 510 Big Island Saturday, July 25^ 2004 Noon - 11 :00 p.m., live music from 7:00 -• 11 :00 p.m. i Murphy moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to approve the above listed license. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1 (Sansevere). *B. Trapping License Joshua Beith 35 Mulberry Annandale, MN Mnrphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the above listed license. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *19. BILLS Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor 16 of 16 i 4400 B C 3600 D 3200 E 2800 F" I I 2000 800 j A WAYZATA UyO U.S. MWV II KtucT nnrr.IIvix:8X^ 2^03 I__ K 400 L( I I 1 teno 1A0 . -I-O 'k^ 2^S3 UKX kOySTTWXA AGKNDA ronCOUNCIl. MKKTING sm FOK MONIIAY, NOVKMIIKK 24,200.1,7:00 VM. OUONU COUNCII. CIIAMUKKS, 2700 KFI.UIY PAKKWAY,OKONO, MINNKSOl A (♦) Asterisk items arc coiiHulcrctl i.* I»c imiliiic ilcms to be cnaclctl u|>uii by ui>c molimi by ilic City i'miiii under the Consent Iteni^ on the agenda. Memos regartimg each of the Agenda items are available in tl Public Packet • located on the counter near the sign in sheet ROl.I.CAIJ.COUNCII. ^/l^c-r.^,Q NOV 2 5 2003 li CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve^Ametid APPROVAL OF MINUTES UHUivO * 2. RegularCouncilMeetingcfNovember 10,20<r3 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pat Wolfe, RepiesenUtive PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS LMCD REPORT - Uli McMillan PUBLIC COMMENTS — (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. ^2*2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment - Section 78-71 - Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and Ncrconforming Siniclxirss - Ordinance 4. t^03-2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 ShAdywood Road - Administrative Appeal • 5. #03-2917 Winfield and Nancy SVr;^^rns, 350 Crestview Avenue - Variances - Resolution 6. #03*2935 Scott and Kan Hutton, 18J5 Shadyns’cxxl Road - Variance - Resolution 7. #03-2950 David and Tan viioss. 2^»15 Couriry-side Drive West - Afler-the-Fact Variance - Resolutio*: 8. #03-2951 Judith and Ji-nes Picipont. 18^9 and 1801 Weal Fann Road - Ut Line Reairangemer.i I ?n mi'llli Newkirk, U?9 Shoreline Drive-Variance-Resolution10. #03-2959 Timothy J L»::emer, 2032 Shad>r»ood Road - Variance - Resolution • II. #03-2960 Timothy and Kflly Mahoney. 2760 Pheasant Road-Variance-Resolution 12. #03-2963 WJM Proper;^. LLC, 2605 Wes; WayzaU Boulevaid - Commercial Site Plan Review - Resolution 13. #03-2966 OronoZoningCodcAmendment-Sections 78-1491 (h)and78-1577- Regulation of Vehicle Stenge in Residential districts — Ordinance MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14. Accept QuoUtion for Indus jial Park Watcrmaic Extension 15. Adopt Assessment Roll - North Long Lake East Srwer Extension - Resolution REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MRFTiNrt NOV 2 5 20U3 CITY OF Date: November 19,2003 Item No.:3 Department Approval: i^ministrator Approval; Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02-2829 Nonconforming Uses & Nonconforming Structures Amendment Zoning Code Section 78-71 List of Exhibits (Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits of 11-13-03) A - Proposed Ordinance B - Public Hearing Notice C - Current Code Language (Section 78-71 ) with References to Proposed Code Summary of Proposed Changes: (See pages 2 & 3 of PC Memo) Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission reviewed this final draA at a public hearing on November 17 and recommended approval as drafted on a vote of 6-0. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Please review the attached Exhibits, as this code section makes significant changes in the way we do business regarding rebuilding and expanding residential structures. Briefly, this amendment changes the Nonconforming Uses section of the code by henceforth having it also apply to Nonconforming structures. The changes include establishment of a “50% of value or volume removal” threshold after which a nonconforming structure has to be brought into complete zoning compliance; and establishment of standards for expansion of existing homes and accessory structures. Other changes include elimination of certain outdated language and a reorganization of the entire section. The Planning Commission has been working on this topic (also referred to in past discussions as “When Does a Remodel Become a Rebuild ”) for more than a year. Staff believes the proposed ordinance will provide clear direction to homeowners, builders and remodelers as to the extent of demolition that will trigger requirements for full conformity. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Ordinance No., Third Series, An Ordinance Amending Section 78 of Orono Municipal Zoning Code by Amending Section 78-71 Regarding Nonconforming Uses and Structures. ! To; From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Mike GafTron, Planning Director November 13,2003 Subject:^02-2829 Nonconforming Uses & Nonconforming Structures Amendment Zoning Code Section 78-71 List of Exhibits A - Ordinance Draft #5 (11-13-03) B - Public Hearing Notice C - Current Code Language (Section 78-71) with References to ip'O Summary of Proposed Changes: (See pages 2 & 3) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Background Planning Commission initiated discussions on this topic in December 2001 (memo of 12-13-01). This was primarily in response to concerns that too often, remodeling projects were resulting in nearly total removals of existing structures, and the “pre-existing structure” basis for granting of certain variances to retain existing nonconformities was being abused. The problem was quickly identified as the lack of a threshold level of removals after which a mere ‘remodel and addition’ project would be considered as a total rebuild subject to meeting all current standards. The initial concensus was that the City should adopt a formal policy establishing threshold percentages of newly constructed or reconstructed spaces that would define a project as a rebuild subject to meeting all code standards. A draft ordinance amendment was presented for discussion in March 2002, proposing to add a new code section entitled “Residential Remodeling Total Replacement Standards". This was reviewed in May 2002, and resulted in consideration of perhaps a more elegant solution, by revising the “nonconforming uses” section of the code to have it also address nonconforming structures. Discussions continued through 2002 and included the issue of whether to use “value” or “volume” as the basis for a threshold.. Early in 2003 Planning Commission reviewed other cities’ codes. A further issue was then identified - whether the topics of removal (“how much of an existing building will be removed”) and expansion (“how much greater has an existing building grown, and what percentage of the final product is original building”) should be combined. It was concluded that most other cities do not combine the two concepts, and primarily deal with the removal issue in their nonconforming uses/structures codes. Nonconforming Ufcf/Slnictnrcs November 13,2003 Page 2 Cnrrent Status During 2003 an amendment of the Nonconforming Uses section (10.03 Subd. 5, now recodified as Section 78-71) was drafted to reorganize that section and add standards specifically addressing nonconforming structures. Platming Commission reviewed the latest draft on November 5 and suggested a number of further revisions and slight reorganization. The current draft reflects the Planning Commission recommendations and includes additional paragraph titles for clarity. The current draft is organized as follows: Title: Nonconforming Structures and Uses A. Genet at Provisions (1) Purpose statement (2) Effective date (3) Safety Repairs B. Nonconforming Uses (1) Change to Conforming Use (2) Change to New Nonconforming Use (3) Relocation of Nonconforming Use (4) Decrease in Nonconforming Use (5) Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use (6) Normal Maintenance (7) Alterations to Lawful Nonconforming Dwelling Units C. Nonconforming Structures (1) Involuntary Damage or Destruction (2) Voluntary Destruction (3) Expansion of Residence Structures (4) Expansion of Accessory Structures (5) Relocation (6) Prior Permit The current draft accomplishes the following significant revisions: It separates the provisions pertaining to “Nonconforming Uses” from those pertaining to ‘Nonconforming Structures ”; - It eliminates the ‘36-months after 1-1-75’ sunset provision for lawful nonconforming uss of: 1) land not involving a structure or 2) involving a structure with value less than $3000 on 1-1-75 Noncoaformliig UMs/Structurcs November 13,2003 Page 3 - It eliminates the language that made the existing section pertinent only to uses, not to structures - It eliminates language that suggests the Council will look favorably on the granting of variances where a situation existed legally under prior laws (prior to 1975) • For nonconforming structures, it distinguishes between “Involuntary Destruction” (fire, war, acts of God, etc.) and “Voluntary Destruction” (intended demolition in order to rebuild) and establishes separate standards for each case: Involuntary Destruction; retains threshold after which rebuild must be conforming at ‘damage is 75% or more of fair market value ’ Voluntary Destruction:establishes that if less than 50% of fair market value is retained, o[ if less than 50% of pre-existing volume remains then entire structure and site must be made conforming • It establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming residence structures as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of nonconforming accessory structures Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code revision, hold the required public hearing, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. n ORDINANCE NO., THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 78 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 78-71 REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES The City Council of Orono, Minnesota ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-71 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following language substituted in its place: “Section 78-71. Non-Conforming Structures and Uses. (a) General Provisions (1) Purpose. It is the purpose of this Section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses, and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Ordinance establishes zoning districts and specific uses which are permitted within each district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses and structures shall be eventually brought into conformity. (2) Effective Date. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be changed, enlarged, expanded, extended, or structurally altered in any manner which increases its nonconformity, but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or, subsequently amended. However, any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a nonconforming use on January 1, 1975 and which were thereafter specifically allowed to continue said nonconforming use under the terms of a conditional use permit issued by the City Council, shall be allowed to continue under the terms of said conditional use permit. (3) Safety Repairs. Nothing in this Zoning Chapter shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the Building Official, providing the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than fifty percent (50%) of the fair market value of such structure. Said value shall be determined by the City Assessor. Structure shall include such accessory features attached to the structure or located anywhere on the land, such as signs, marquees, monuments. Page 1 of 4 (b) Non-Conforming Uses (1) Change to Conforming Use. When any lawful non-conforming useof any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-conforming use. (2) Change to New Nonconforming Use. An existing non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use. (3) Relocation of Nonconforming Use. No nonconforming use shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of this ordinance adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. (4) Decrease in Nonconforming Use. A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to decrease the nonconformity of use. Once the nonconforming use of such structure or parcel of land has been so changed, said use shall not thereafter be altered to so as to increase the nonconformity. (5) Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use. Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a poiod of twelve (12) months following written notice by the Zoning Administrator, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. (6) Normal Maintenance. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural repairs and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the non-conforming use. (7) Alterations to Lawful Nonconforming Dwelling Units. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful nonconforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the building, or the nonconformity. (c) Nonconforming Structures (1) Involuntary Damage or Destruction. WTienever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is seventy-five percent (75%) or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessment records at the time of damage, in which case the whole thereof shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be in accordance w ith the provisions of this Zoning Chapter. (2) Voluntary Destruction. This subsection is intended to apply to the Page 2 of 4 1 Ifeiliii 1 L voluntary and willful destruction of all or portions of a lawful nonconforming structure. Whenever a lawful nonconforming structure shall be destroyed by means other than fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, to the extent that less than fi fly percent (50%) of the structure’s fair market value remains, said value to be determined by the City Assessor, or to the extent that less than fifty percent (50%) of the structure’s total volume remains, said volume to be determined by the Building Official, then without further action by the City Council, the structure and the land on which such structure was located or maintained shall, from and after the date of said destruction, be subject to all of the regulations specified by the Zoning Chapter for the district in which such land and structures are located. Any such structure which is destroyed only to an extent that at least fifty percent (50%) of its value remains and at least fifty percent (50%) of its volume remains, may be restored to its former extent. Estimates of the extent of the destruction shall be made by the Building Official and the City Assessor, in a manner consistent with generally accepted methods of determination. (3) Expansion of Residence Structures. Lawful, nonconforming single family residential structures may be expanded, provided; a. That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity, and complies with all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located, ‘increase in nonconformity” includes but is not limited to any expansion of the existing building’s 3-dimensional envelope within a required yard or not meeting a required setback. b. That if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. c. That in cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50% of the required setback for that Zoning District, the Cit>- may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite required yard depth to result in an aggregate yard depth equivalent to the combined required yard. (4) Expansion of Accessory Structures. Lawful, nonconforming residential accessory buildings may be expanded, provided: a. That the expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the accessory building, and complies with all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in w hich it is located. “Increase in nonconformity” includ«*s but is not limited to any expansion of the existing accessory building's 3-dimonsiona! envelope within a required yard or not meeting a required setback. Page 3 of 4 b. That if the accessory structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. c. That in cases where an accessory structure is too close to a lot line, the City may require that the existing accessory structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. (5) Relocation. No nonconforming structure shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed at the time of this ordinance adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance. (6) Prior Permit. Any proposed structure w vch will, under this Zoning Chapter, become non-conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six (6) months prior to the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, may be completed in accordance witn the approved plans; provided construction is started within six (6) months of the effective date of this Zoning Chapter, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure shall thereafter be a legally existing non-conforming structure. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall be effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this by a vote of___ayes and ____nays. day of ,2003 ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Lindas y'«*e. City Clerk Page 4 of 4 B CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952)24M600 Fax (952) 249^16 NOTICE The Planning Comnussion will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kellev Parkway on Monday, November 17,2003, on the matter of proposed revisions to Orono Zonios Code Sections 78-71 and 78-1144 relating to the regulation of nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. The public hearing will begin at 8:15 p.m. or shortly thereafter. All persons wishing to be heard uill ^pear at this time. Written comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed revisions is available in the City offices for review. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Michael P. GaffipdlPiiuming Director To be published the week of November 1,2003. Posted at: Orono City Offices Long Lake Post Office Crystal Bay Post Office Navarre Post Office i I i ♦ I vr /^/f75^ DIVISION 2. NONCONFORMING USES AND RELATED MATTERS S6C» 78*71» Nooconforming US6S< Any land or buildings which were actually and legally dovoted to a nonconfoming use on Janu* aiy 1,1975, may be continued in the nonconform­ ing use pursuant to conditional use permit granted as specified and subject to the following pro\i- sions: (1) TTie nonconforming use may not be changed ^ to another nonconforming use. (2) Noting in this chapter shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when the structure is declared unsafe by the building inspector, pro\iding the nec­ essary repairs shall not constitute mo.» than 50 percent of the fair market value of such structure. A structure shall include such accessory features attached to the structure or located anywhere on the land, such as signs, marquees, or monuments. (3) When any lawful nonconforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a confoiming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any noncon­ forming use. (4) Whenever a lawful nonconforming struc­ ture shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within 12 months after such calamity unless the damage to the building or structure is 75 percent or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessment records at the time of damage, in which case the whole of the structure sbaU be demolished; and any construction thereafter shall be for a use in accordance with the prorisions of this chapter. (5) Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of such structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. C l|I I if ^y lawful nonconforming use of land not involving a structure and any lawful non­ conforming use involving a structure with an assessor's fair market value upon Jan­ uary 1, 1975, of $3,000.00 or less may be continued for a period of 36 months after January 1,1975, whereupon such noncon­ forming use shall cease, unless brought into conformity with this chapter. Ally proposed structure which will, under this chapter, become nonconforming but for whi<^ a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six months prior to January 1, 1975, may be com­ pleted in accordance with the approved plans proinded construction is started within six months of January 1,1975, and continues to completion within two years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally existing nonconforming struc­ ture and use. (8) Normal maintenance ofa building or other structure containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use is permitted, includ­ ing necessary nonstructural repairs and incidental alterations which do not ex- ^ tend or intensify the nonconforming use. (9) Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful nonconforming residen­ tial units when they will improve livabil­ ity, pro\ided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or bulk of the ^ building. -ste Iff So . I (10) The nonconforming use provisions of this y* chapter apply only to the use to whichchapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structures, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of this chapter. \Vhere, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the council will not unrea­ sonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under division 3, subdivision II of this article. (Code 1984, $ 10.03(5)) V f Date Application Received: 10-21-03 Date Application Considered as Coropiete: I0*2I*03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 12-20^3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCII NOV 5 CITY Oh UhiuivO Date: November 19,2003 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaflron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: i^03-2866a Judy & David Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Motion to Confirm List of Exhibits A • Notice of Planning Commission Action 11-19-03 B-Staff Sketch C - Memo and Exhibits of 11-14-03 Application Summary: Applicant is appealing City Staff s interpretation ofthe conclusions ofthe Planning Commission and Council in relation to the extent of hardcover removals required per Resolution No. 4920, adopted February 24,2003. Planning Commission Findings and Conclusions: Planning Commission reviewed this on November 17, 2003. On a vote of 4-0, Planning Commissioners who were at the Febmary PC hearing concluded that the drawing in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4920 correctly depicts the Planning Commission ’s intent regarding removals of concrete patio. However, the number “681 s.f." was not part of their conclusion, therefore staff should calculate the actual square footage based on the drawing, and that result should be used as the basis for removals. Further, applicant has the option of removing other items of hardcover in the 0-75' zone than concrete patio to make up the required square footage (except for rock/plastic landscaping bed liner which was to be removed regardless). Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the conclusion of the Planning Commission. Staff has recalculated the area of the concrete patio to be removed as depicted in Exhibit A, and finds a total square footage of644 s.f. rather than 681 s.f as noted in the Resolution. Staff is scheduled to meet with the property owners on 1 1-21-03 to consider which additional 0-75' hardcover items should be removed to meet the 6-14 s.f requirement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to confirm the conclusion of the Planning Commission. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by__, seconded by__, that in the appeal by Judy and David Zoschke, File #03-2866a, the City Council hereby confirms the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission as noted in the staff memo to Council dated November 19,2003. I- 9 I dlRl --------V" t f f A CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE #03-2866a NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 19, 2003 TO: Judy & David Zoschke COPIES: 2040 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Appeal DATE OF MEETING: November 17, 2003 Planning Commission concluded as follows: The drawing in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4920 correctly depicts the Planning Commission’s intent regarding removals of concrete patio. However, the number “681 s.f.” was not part of their conclusion, therefore staff should calculate the actual square footage based on the drawing, and that result should be used as the basis for removals. Further, applicant has the option of removing other items of hardcover in the 0-75' zone than concrete patio to make up the required square footage (except for rock'plastic landscaping bed liner which was to be removed regardless). VOTE: 4 FOR 0 AGAINST (Only the members who were at the February meeting voted on the appeal) Staff has recalculated the area of the concrete patio to be removed as depicted in Exhibit A, and finds a total square footage of 644 s.f. rather than 681 s.f. as noted in the Resolution. Staff is scheduled to meet with you on the property on Friday, November 21, 2003 at 1:30 p.m. to review the removals already completed and consider which additional 0-75' hardcover items should be removed to meet the 644 s.f. requirement. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Cit)' Council - Monday, November 24, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fi”om the City Recorder after review and approval by the Plarming Commission. If yon have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Date Application Received: 10*21-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10*21*03 60*Day Review Period Eipircs: 12*20*03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director November 14,2003 #03*2866a Judy & David Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road - Appeal of Administrative Decision - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR*1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential, l/2*acre min. 0.4 acre (17,467 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant is appealing City Staffs interpretation of the conclusions of the Planning Commission and Council in relation to the extent of hardcover removals required per Resolution No. 4920, adopted February 24,2003. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the appeal, since we believe Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4920 as signed by the applicants is a correct depiction and interpretation of the required removals. List of Exhibits A - .Application B - Letter of Request Submitted by Applicant C - Photos Submitted by Applicant D - Resolution No. 4920 E - Council Minutes of 2-24*03 F * Planning Commission Minutes of 2*19*03 G - PC Memo & Exhibits of 1*31*03 H * Council Memo & Exhibits of 2*20*03 I * Letter to Applicants 9*25*03 J * Zoning Code Sections 78*96 thru "8*99 re:appeals process Background The Zoschke’s were granted a variety of variances in February 2003 in order to replace a deck on the lake side of the residence and enclose part of it as a porch. The applicants agreed to remove hardcover including landscape areas lined by plastic/fabric as well as patio area in the 0*"5' zone. However, the applicants are disputing the square footage and extent of patio removal agreed to; they do not believe they agreed to the remcv als as depicted in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 4920, but to a lesser removal that allows the upper patio, stairway, and a 3’ portion of lower patio adjacent to the retaining wall, to remain. Review Process to Date Staff was initially advised by the Zoschke’s in July (July 21 framing inspection called for finishing removals before continuing project) that they disagreed with the Resolution diagram and the extent of the removals required. This was new s to staff, since they had signed the resolution in March'April and had not noted any issues at that time. j «03-2866a November 14,2003 Page 2 Staff reviewed the zoning file and the PC and Council minutes to determine whether any documentation therein would support or refute the Zoschke’s position. The initial conclusion reached wm that the square footage to be removed was not documented in either set of minutes, but the Council memo of 2-20-03 clearly indicates a 681 s.f removal, which was reflected in the attached resolution adopted by Council on 2-24-03. Staff has confirmed that the diagram. Exhibit A, was attached to the resolution at the time it was presented to Council, as it appears in the official record packet for that meeting. Therefore, tfie Zoschke’s had opportunity to review the resolution and exhibit prior to its adoption, and had further opportunity to review it between its adoption and the time they individually signed it more than a month later. The Council did place this item on its Consent Agenda, so no discussion was held at the Council level for this item. In order to give the Zoschke’s the benefit of the doubt, I discussed this application in July with Jennifer Chaput Zierke who was the Orono staff person responsible for the Zoschke application. Jennifer is currently the City Planner for Long Lake. Jennifer advised me that the resolution, exhibit and memo accurately reflected w hat she believed to be the required removals. I then requested that Planning Commissioner Jeanne Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting to determine w hether any new information could be gleaned from the tape. After reviewing the tape she indicated that she could reach no conclusion as to the exact extent of removals required. She did indicate that there was discussion that occurred in relation to my (Gaffron ’s) drawing the potential removals on an overhead transparency at the PC meeting. It would be useful if that transparency was available. However, as is our standard practice, transparencies and duplicate copies of documents are discarded from the zoning files at the end of the review process, and that transoarenev is unfortunately, long gone. ^ ’ To further the review 1 brought the matter intormally before the Planning Commission after their August or September meeting, and the few members present who were part of the February review did not have a clear recollection of the details of the required removals. The inability to reach a concensus generated my September 25 letter to the Zoschke’s suggesting they could file an appeal. I did not offer the Zoschke’s the option of filing for a new variance application, although that option was perhaps available; this could still be an option depending on the outcome of this appeal, but also puts them at risk of re-openina the entire hardcover issue and an even more negative result, fi-om their perspective. Applicant ’s Request Please review the applicants ’ letter of request. Their position is that they have removed all but a 2.5 ’ strip of the lower patio, w hich stnp was retained to support the retaining wall. They believe the stairway leading to the upper patio, and its adjoining spillway, need to be retained for drainage purposes and to reatin access to the lower yard. They further want to keep the upper patio as it is accessible to family members who cannot traverse stairw ays. M3-2866a November 14,2003 Pages The applicants indicate they have removed a total of447 s.f. of concrete to date, as wel I as the plastic landscape bed liners. This leaves them 234 s.f. short of the 681 s.f. removals required per the resolution. Options for Action This appeal process is intended to allow for consideration of whether the administrative actions taken by StafT(i.e. the interpretation of what hardcover was required to be removed) reflects the intent of the Planning Commission and Council. Since this was on the Council's consent agenda, the primary review focus will be at the Planning Commission level. This is a public hearing process as defined in the zoning code. Planning Commission could reach a variety of outcomes on this, including one of the following; 1.Determine that the staff interpretation as noted in Resolution No. 4920 correctly reflects the Planning Commission’s intent. 2.Determine that the staff interpretation does not correctly reflect the Planning Commission’s intent, and provide staff with direction to clarify and correct the resolution. 3.Reach no consensus as to whether the interpretation is accurate, and send it along to Council with no recommendation. (Not a desired outcome, obviously). The applicants could, if they disagree with your conclusions, file for a new variance and attempt to demonstrate a hardship that would support the granting of variances. In staffs opinion, the appeal process is not intended to take the place of a new variance application. StofT Reconunendation Planning Commission should review the available documentation and attempt to reach a conclusion as to w hether the Resolution and E.\hibit accurately reflect the Planning Commission’s intent at the Februaiy 19, 2003 meeting. If not, provide detailed direction to the applicant and staff as to the correct intent. Your conclusion will be brought forward to the City Council at their next meeting. r /l-l I M'N-02 Application # C^'^^L pIp A ~ Date Received /'c ■2f-03 Amount Paid / c:‘ • CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION / , / rs J Site Address kPVP Snfidy l^HO (j Rjnauc Aoorcss iav tv vuuuu i\f/i_______. ________ Type of Application to be Filed V Mtui S Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ' fh - //? - ii 3 - ,> / -‘UO /3^ APPLICANT Name Address JL TaJ^/ \r hh^ ...... Phone (home ) fS‘^9Sv _ Phone (work) S'f 3 -/9 V <? City 0An X'O OWNER (if different than applicant) Name c. _____ Address___________________City Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip. Date Property Acquired 93 I (do) ^o also own the adjacent parce (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____ 5325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seaw j11, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Facl Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement \*acation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ^ $100.00 Appeals -- _ Other - see Fee Schedule ^ i J ^ ^ J A ^ y3h'- 2. 3. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I- ____Completed Application Form. ____Describe request in detail. ------CertiHed fropfrty Owmers List of owners within 350*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ------Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed rjrve>-or) - refer to handout for surveyinformation, »u»>cy ------Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ------Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). ----1:™,'’!“'%!.'*^ T" ‘1"^'“''' “ *"•««> i" theproperty. This would include name(s) of applica.nl(s) if not current owneifs). ------ Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ------ As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. FOR "^PR^So/DOCUME.NTS OR COPY futamll)*'*' ^ ° documents, plans, etc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sin this application. Please remember that vour application is not complete if the above infonr.aiion has no: been included. ^ —-------------------------------- ------------- APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE TU applicant hereby agrees to provide ali uiformation required or requested by the ZonL-a Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by’original ferpayme-') sumhe^r. 'T'" n '"'r “d certifies tte the inforJJ^licnsupplied IS true and correct to the best of hislisr knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date P/SO fO 3 OLIVER’S SIGNATURE fi-rther authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Counc’ members for purposes ^invgiga^ an^rificatio^of this request. Owner's signature ■>V yT Date /o~o? Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Lndafof each''4nth a l““* scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CoiJSl ?f App .cants must be present at aM scheduled meeting, please make arrangemenu to have a.-, authoS^- « unable to aneod a Building A Zoning OfT.ce of this change prior to the rr.eeu.Tg ^ “* Tr it ^ # \ 7" •li*L’" ' '.' ■'*■ : f. yi' « V ■ -'m Hm IIUN DAti tl/17/AS BATCH its PBOf ADM OWNCt NAME TiUlPAyfH HAMf/ADM 17 17-117-23 31 0003 •37AA SUNSET Dt RESTAUHANIS HO LINIT INC NESTAUtANTS NO UNIT INC BSff OAEEt to H1NNE70NKA NN 553AS roof ADDO OUNEO NAME TAXfAVEO NANE/AOOt 30 17-117-23 31 §fi2 •2010 SHADVUOOO 00 0 N t C N KOZIOCV OICNAOO N OOZICKV 2010 SNAOVNOOO 00 NAYZATA m 55391 ONNEO NANE TANfAVEO NANE/AOOO 30 17-117-23 31 0013 02090 SNAOYNOOO 00 0 t J ZOSCHKE DAVID A JUDY K ZOSCHKE 2090 SNADVNOOD 00 NAYZATA NN 55391 poor AOOO ONNEO NAME TANPAYEO NANE/AOOO 30 17-117-23 31 0019 02000 SNAOVNOOO 00 JOAN L CAOLSOH JOAN L CAOLSON 2000 SHADYNOOD OD NAYZATA NN 55391 HCNNCPIN COUNTY POOPEOTV INfOONATlON SVSTEN rOOPEOTV OWNEOS LIST OEPOOT NO. PX935901 PACE 50 17 17-117-23 31 0095 03701 SUNSET DO SPEEDNAY SUPEOANCOICA UC SPEEDNAY SUPEOANEOICA UC C/0 POOPEOTY TAX OECOODS 539 SOUTH NAIN ST * FINDLAY ON 95090 30 17-117-23 31 0001 02000 SNAOVNOOO 00 0 0 KIOCIMEO 0 L N KIOCNNEi 0 0 KXOCNNEO I L H KZOCNNEi 2000 SNAOYNOOO 00 NAYZATA NN 55391 SO 17-117-23 31 0011 02029 SNADVNOOD 00 PANELA J NIUETTE PAN NILLETTE 2029 SNAOVNOOO 00 ORONO NN 55391 30 17-117-23 31 0012 02032 SNAOVNOOO RO JANES N OUROESS JANES N OURCESS 2032 SNAOVNOOO RO NAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 31 0019 02050 SIIAOVNOOO RO JACOUELVNM NyREUV jacquelynnXxellv 2059 SNAOVI NAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 31 0015 02099 SNAOVNOOO RO J KLEIN OyN KELLY J N KLEIN/r-J N KELLY 2059 SNAI^VNOOO RO NAYZATA NN 55391 j/7 30 17-117-23 31 0052 02090 SNAOVNOOO RO JACQUELYNN N KELLY JACQUELYNN N KELLY J N KLEIN 2059 SNAOYNOOO RO NAYZATA NN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 513 00011 Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF NY KIOVLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE BY <A> m- .1 l=jT)7rg p In ^^}7p\^^ : r..__r?.- A'3 n-N'Oi jmAv\X[\mi^...y ' ' ■■• ' f ■ I '"r'2'^r'^' ( ■••j:'' » i-i ^ •' are Of LANGOGN PAM ✓ D« /24j (DICKSON EXTENSION) (26) s r> 17- ii7-23-^j) ,f.'X •:'-^" f*' 0m f. ’ 'i ■'p'f' ‘ , ^ ' -«> — •V, r0i^Vi. ■••.■; *r:y»m5 Mjipp C^t m>n^Afds_» o \iateroadtuitliofili ■ ^‘ • ij ■■ TB^'O ■> ■) mft.,..- .■ |£!l- 8 WfyS/03 of R^(ji',i5t 0 RjJjiLi^i • R^duliffh /h /ififij coiftR fo ji'C /^ijyte{)tc/ Rm h^t^o^tui Mfi Jfffi. 03 fffC ti MJ/jhi(. ji A'^p/fin, ooh dk/i» iimw!0^ So/hl ^/u^6 ' fMdcmk /> fki Q-JS''njfji rp^e/find AiMknj /f mcAiU Pofib mfiA Jk Mi 'Cpkh^iX 77/5 pA(pO$fil ibff^ JiiUJtiSftJ /<» y^/ 9h nt> d(0.^(003. Z?/^ /Pff/ r >y/i^ Aikdic^ ^ /f ShM ccACfiifc sfMp /ft /k sfiinPPy ^/fso //>/ At/i/i/si^ /fkj /k P).ZflihJ9i^ iJl/f?// fon $fpcAf. ZJ/i ti'p^ /7(apkdU /a Ml QautulU fffpHtjiAffti'/ih so f/. of coAtpik iKjfttf k 6i /Ma'AO(Ay O'/if/i iut AUiioJ fk k'nnl fSMih'cfi, ih y//AAc (ooftf^(^ fa k AitidO id Zffd Z< h^AiAfSid Zo fS! sj. ff> /)> /7ZJ^hti^ A'f' yj it Aftfel't tf slctJ SSl/tftx. p/t h Cs< i pith ^ , , CDniMh spi/h/ry tti fh ir.,MU fmm<-<- lyt*l- ii/iir /tsduy /?/ //c coni'til ms.f,tp^ tti' '»<• ^ ptPiB^ci^y t!y 0 ccfiifto c^itpt/cf- f Hti>it(il)i^ /Ma nddtlieniff fili'Oi ftppttllli tn<uU(. fen utt/tfl C' * * *^ *\S ) "* slkuhnnl /thjillj/ it lit k'.fi’htt^ imll W Ht ifnixs dt/udi on /A nM.mt h fhti UII/I/I piilMyli^tploh »3hCD 01 Pfi/novii^^ it flsOif filulp mill iflUii. ik shtA'^ to Co/lf^lKi, tlfioAt rh mddlt hmu A/dl rM.oA ntd fish/kt-^ a*/9// (pill h tttJ<ArniniL = Th utond SfnnIliA pfitid jo ftCcm/P/i to fftuifiAo ftmxppy aifuciUT io koiiiiL ot fhi simAs-rAtJi (hAAi ^ tifli-’f' Ufifh io'fh X^A fftid Jti chf^sn to /itsciuL //■fjc /ssms^S/ni^ ^ffOD^eA JS ^0U> l*/U /7f mmii iat tnUt^l'nhi fhf gfifk Ax/t>cgh^ /Ai s/Anof^ki^ tUL ipculcl hi shKt gi Ui (>%f tupighd. ti/lihL d,ffi fjt ikt cogficJi /hat at/fii k /!50A^ et Ht hhUi. f/t 4id pnH plonnh.^ CQiHil mn^tiRs mf pi> Cmishi<t^,K filtfixiU /niiio, fitt /jed/n ^emt!,'n^ fy //j fyfia (,/m lomyr.ss, »(mcc/luhit^ /, (ukt pihhe\^ if/iAi h U /ti/agocJ coa M h t^hhckhd. Rnt,oonl t/ifkJlnU: IVrhli mguiiKntiL tosh /pjg,(Ukt/bi /iffgt AbMcircJ fU Mcghh - Ot L //ffinc CO/iCAifi ptj/h (oHog)id Su soddh^x in ttR(H phto l>Cj, di-f^oi/tcl. ^ u 1 0 Id p/PifU 0/iiiK //$ ntp/{<shid -MlimI COM Aik sliitijfflh Jh Hl iitfu hAAfst.u rAsAf k.')^u hcffdic //£ iK^kiiliclx sM/As r.nAiCofsHgtfAcJ. 5r 5(|ff ^ PfispOstd r €SS,I k. d RM'Oli gOiA HDO so < f. ■'-■'■' Rfffib oiA dld^. ™ Rift Sths ihitA nto/L ik sp/lkfbJjp ■'•vl-' ifMk 0AHiihi, ikoffth ptgho mid cAink /? /,p/uhkp r Or/ ki ^slsf !t> n umSkhC( iOhk k/Ai/'dy V-PmooiA gOiA kdOsolf ohccACAcU /pi’ im/dt/t^lk /ost tv ,r'/;^ kk o/iUr (tJfliUy m/nkbs. P^iAik/.i, r'/n Aisfxdhil^ AijuhiPht^ ihfp! //c f^isalai/oK f^T) ^fiiihdbd fo Apf/pc! fdi socn/t/lc /0/Ai/fdy kiPAOOid. Mh /dis pAodhhcftd pAoj/'cf ccM rhfi it rpppficpi//4i eahcludaiL /dpf/ih ^oii (OP ^ohM o0fisicl(Ri?iku*»Vi •> . «K 1 i. -^v ' V ' >M- S‘> : * .% > r. ' '» *« ^ >___ 1, - ^ t: Iv - y «• -• ;t^(^J5fb...v •_ >if. «• ‘' ',0- .J> '/■J^TV', ^'5* '■’^ «. ^ I I /V 4( X t <1 S :mmr ' ^ ^ “v *•' wi -j'. •' J •» ' \'r jt>l;^ ’•mf ''^i^ ■’^ •. Kfl'i-.I 't I o m ' >3"? .V <"'**^'40^'^ t^** '. ... ■ Sps; t. I >?i5J-, i', ■ ^•^' ■ « .•;" ■ •>■.!- ’/.. d (V n£>» it - - -1 '‘•<^%' .. .• It r Miii^ .i y- '.-/i■'‘VAf; < •Jt*'^- ..IL ^' • • • 52"-'so/'v' V^.’ gT ». itui .■;??i;r^' ZitryLS i, iJ “• JfcTVfJ* Pfe’^V; % ■* • :T-^'- .*.* «»: ^#fSi • H •D IH4-63 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.___4 9 2 9 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C)(6); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2) FILE NO. 03-2866 WHEREAS, Judy and David Zoschke, ^husband jnd wife, (hereinafter "the Lot 6 and the Northwesterly half, front and rear, of Lot 7, “Gust S. Johnson’s Addition”, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property"); and AMIEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City- for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C); Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B); Secaon 1022 Subdivision 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(6) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area, w* 2 848 s.f. (16.3%) of structure where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permitted; 6,442 s.f. (57.08%) of hardcover where 2,821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone; and a 21 ’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback in the LR-IC zoning district; and due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City- of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Plannine Commission held a public hearing on February 19,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2866. The property- is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where 0.5 acres is the Page 1 of 6 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ____4 9 8 9 3. 4. 5. 6. minimum required lot area. The property consir.s of epproximately 0.4 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 19 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0. ' ’ The Planning Commission made the following Crdings of fact: A. The deck has existed for many years in the location of the proposed d-ck* B. Replacement of the deck as it currently exists and enclosing a small area will not increase the lot coverage by stmeture, hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ hardcover zone or change the average lakeshore setback; r u ® f:-- tivo sliding glass doors located onthe lakeside of the house; D. The neighbors ’ views of the lake are not gready affected by the locadon of the deck or the proposed patio enclosure; E. There exists 1,506 s.f. of non-conforming plaric hardcover on the creperty that must be removed; and ^ ^ ^ ■ F. Excessive c.xisting hardcover in the 0-75’ zone can be substantlallv reduced by removing a portion of the concrete patio near the lake. The City Council finds that the conditions existkj on this ptopeity- are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the or other danger to neighbonng property; would r.c; merely serve as a convenieoce to the appheants. but is necessary to alleviate a detr.cnscable hardship or diSiculty; is necessary to preserve a sidtstantial property righ: of the applicants; and w ould be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Cede and Comprehensive Plan of the the appheants and the effect of the proposed variances on the heclth, safety and welfare of the community. ’ ^ Page 2 of 6 Umr • —lTfTlhi>rr«.%rX 1_J -.. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __4_92 9 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above flndr.gs, the Orono Cit>* Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Surdivision 14(C); Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and Section 10.56, S-bdivisicn 16 (C)(6) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area, with 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) of structure where 2,620 s.f. (15V:) is pendaed; 6,442 s.f. (57.08%) of hardcover where 2,821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone; and a 21’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Approval is rcrject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based cz the site plan submiaed by the applicant attached to this resolution as E.xhibit A. Ar.y further amendments to the site plan may require further Plaiuiing Commission and City Council review. 2.Approval is subject to the frilowing: a) 1,506 s.f. of existing landscape plastic hardcover must be removed on the property, and b) in the 0-75’ hardcover z:ne, the 681 s.f. concrete patio must be removed to reduce the hardcover t:.-n 1,341 s.f. (24.86Vo) to 660 s.f (12.23%). 3.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and mur. be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (February 24,2004). 4.Violation of or non-compliance with a.ny of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zo.ning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 0.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the.nselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 6 oI 4<ii.CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 9 2 9 24lh day of FrtlSij! 200?^"*"“''* AtTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor V 1 \ ■ t ^ • l\ Page 4 of 6 (krti i Hi i oT GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 49? 9 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of February, 2003 by Barba» A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. STATEbrU^ESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Notary Public The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 2-^^^day of Februa::)-, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cit>'. Dcd- CC Notary Public ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this 29 day of .2003. . C. ?o5 cW;Ca_ personally appeared before me, who is personally known to me ^_w hose identity I proved on the basis of V K) 7!>C whose identity I proved on the oatli'affirmation of _ credible witness .a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his'her/iheir free act and deed. DiNISEMLESKINEN KOTARY PUeUC • MMNESOTA CcmriBiCA 4ia 31.20CS Page 5 of 6 ' 'll • •CITY of ORONO ’‘‘irv RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4^29 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On ibisJH day of4ar// . 2003, K. n^r^nn^iiv af){>eaitd before me, who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis o f mtt) _whose identity I proved on the cath'affirmation of ___ credible witness .»a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their &ee act and deed. z Notary Public DENISE M. LESKINEN NOTAXYKeUC-UNNESOrA 11^ CoordiscA JsA. 31.2X5 Pages of 6 I i 1 liiiMtaliK 0mm , Z--:I ’' \ ’ :A ' '- •^V''-.i'i ■■ • » ■ ’ 1 ' T ■• . . .4..-‘ . . ’ t ‘ '. *4 4;^ CERTinCATG OF SURVEY FOR LEIiSURE ROOMS. INC. IN LOTS 6 AND 7. GUST S. JOHNSON' S ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKIC MINNETONKA CRYSTAL DAY f 2M CONiM UC T ^ ./ UCAI OCSCRIPTION or pnruitfs . lot 6 oo4 Iho Ner|h«t*ltrljr hell. Iron! end »«or, oi Lot 7, “Coil S. Jotmioa* » Mdilloit** **?*F 1 ..I*'? •* ptt?" rtitrrinq |« -|h« Norllwtticrir »*oll. IroAl OAd r«or o) lot.7* It o «mv« dttcrlplloo in IMt ll»« NorllMotItrly lino ol lot 7 it lh« loktthoft. ••nt. Ilitrflort, tht client ii n^viiei Ihnl it insif nccettnrir !• Jwilicialljf Uelcfrtiifit the ScMtIicotIcfly line ol Ihf oliovt descfi^tti properiy. 0 ! ilenoltt Iron nnrlicr Ocorinpi'Aho^ ore PoteP upon on ottirntO ^olim. Thit survey intends to siioo the Poondorles of the oPovf described p-operly. tho locution of on tainting hoosc, ond the locution of vitiPIt "hordcover* Ihoroont II docs not purport to sboo ony other irrprovonenis or oncrooctvnenlSt mm OOtrtot OMO UP tuow l«€ CRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. GONSULIM CN9CCR& LAMQ SMVCVWM^ SU l<UNMm «49 mtni HIM UMC. UNO UM. Mi »»»• MTU—r^«r» OMi n**i vioyife^ ea t»on iMf I m m oat letooo PaeM|«OH« l«v#t|0 OO lOO SOCtgl OMt HIMI O at ton o OttMH —n__/ M t«r«H oaoia . yt r//>_ ON«« r-ir 9»H 1-24-Ot OJ-it? JJ.: I ll >Mm I f U lit I .il I it ut.J idSkiMdiMOiii,MIBUBilMUUNMUl MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 24,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. e: PLANTSTNG COM>nSSION C03DIENTS, Continued Fritalcr pointed out that some applicants belabor their points, or worse try to badger or intimidate in order to make their case. ’ White stated that, in his observations, the Commission has been e.xtremely patient and tactful handling difilcult cases. Mayor Peterson encouraged the Commission to continue to stick to its 20-minute limit, since it is unfair to other applicants who arc forced to wait until the wee hours to be heard. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *3. #03-2872 TERRY & CBnuSTY MORSE, 2080 SPATES AVENUE - VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 4928 Nygard moved, White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4928, a Resolution granting lot area, width, and setback variances to add a second storv for closet space on the most southwesterly portion of the existing principal structure, 20.6’ from the side lot Une adjacent to a street where 50 ’ Is required to the propert>- located at 2080 ^^pates Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. _____________ ----- ^ 4. #03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCHKE - 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4929 Nygard moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4929, a Resolution granting lot coverage by structure, hardcover within 75-250’ of the lakeshore setback zone, and average lakeshore setback variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f. as patio area for the residence located at 2040 Shad>wood Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. "^SOLUTIO??NO*493^ "'HITMAN -1580 SIXTH AVENUE N. - VARIANCE - Nygard moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4930, a Resolution granting variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, located 50 ’ south of the centerline of long Lake Creek where no hardcover is permitted, and grading, filling or exca\ating of more than 10 cubic yard within 75’ of the Creek where none is permitted, to serve as access to a future home for the property located at 1580 Si.xth Avenue N. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 5 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, Febmary 19,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2872 TERRY AND CHRISTY MORSE, Continued) Gaffron indicated that combining the four lots would be a simple matter of filing the appropriate paperwork, and that doing so, would not change the value of the overall property and would allow him to receive one tax statement instead of four. There were no public comments. Mabustb moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2872, Terry and Christy Morse, 2080 Spates Avenue, granting a variance to add a second story on the most southwesterly portion of the exbting structure, 20.6* from the side lot line adjacent to a street where 50’ is required, subject to the condition that the applicant apply for the legal combination of lots 1,2,3, and 6 to be combined with the homestead parcel. V'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#2) #03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES The Commission returnedjo^is_Application af.er Item 4, as the applicant was not present. (#3) #03-2866 JUDY AND D.AVTD ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES 6:44-7:02 P.M. Judy and David Zoschke, Applicants, were present. Cbaput reported that the applicants had requested a lot coverage by structure variance of 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permitted, 6,442 s.f. (57.00%) hardcover within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,821 s.f. (25%) is permitted, and average lakeshore setback encroaching 21’ in order to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f. as patio area. As the addition of a second story in 1993 resulted in the removal of the roof for the existing deck, Chaput pointed out that due to deterioration of the floorboards, the applicants wish to replace the existing deck. She noted that the proposed patio enclosure does not increase the size of the deck. As i: is City policy to allow one 4’ wide stairway with iandlngs, and retaining walls within the 0-75’ setback zone, Chaput suggested that one of the hvo sets of steps to the lake could potentially be removed to reduce hardcover. She continued by noting that there was a significant amount of concrete patio and walkway within the zone, and suggested if repair was found necessary, a portion of this could be removed as well. Further hardcover reduction could be accomplished through reduction of driveway closest to the property PAGE 2 of 26 A* MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCHKE, Continued) line, and finally, a considerable amount of non-conforming plastic hardcover shall be removed throughout the property. With regard to the average lakeshore setback, Chaput stated that due to the fact that the Chaput indicated that staff would recommend approval of the requested variances with the condition that 1,506 s.f. of plastic hardcover on the property be removed prior to buildine permit approval. ® Chair Smith mdicated that, to her, the removal of the roof in 1993 caused the floorboards to rot, therefore, this application seems to be a mere replacement of what was already on the property. She also noted that the new enclosed portion adds nothing to hardcover, since It IS on tlw upper level. Chair Smith stated that she- W'ould not support any additional removals from the driveway, as the home was on a busy County Road. i\Ir. Zoscl^e stated that they had removed excess driveway hardcover in 1997 and would find It difficult to remove any more today. He maintained that the plastic had been there for 10+ yews under 4 of gravel and 1 ’ of topsoil, noting that it would be a very dirty job to remove and questioned his alternatives. Chair Smith mdicated that the plastic does interfere with the natural runoff occurrence. Gaffron concurred, stating that the removal of plastic has been a policy for 15 years. There were no public comments. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could tecomt.tend the removal of one se; of Se home" “ “ on the lakeside “".tl'" rf' P™'"* »“• i- would bedifficult to remove, given the size of the garage and the fact that the, are gardeners. PAGE 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, Febraar.^ 19,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2866 JUDY AND DA\TD ZOSCHKE, Continued) Sd patio ** remain, while requiring the removal of the steps Zoschke noted that it would be difficult to remove the concrete steps and retaining walls on the north side without causing tremendous erosion problems to that hill. Berg agreed that this removal could cause a far g.eater issue than allowing them to remain. She could accept removal of the patio alone. Bremer stated that, after walking the property, she felt the garage would be too tight to fit “ay other than the vehicles inside, therefore, she had no problem allowing the shed to Since he saw no increase in smictural coverage, Rahn stated that he saw no reason to continue to look for additional removals. Mabustb moved, Rabn seconded, to recommend approval of tbe requested variances 'I**V** - ®®“‘****®“ ***** o** plastic hardcover, as well as, tbe concrete patio in the 0-75’ hardcover zone be removed prior to building permit approval. VOTE* Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #03-2367 DANIEL AD.AMS, 1145 TONK.AWA ROAD, V ARIANCES 7:03-7:35 P.M. Kathy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, w as present representing the Applicant. Bottenbeig explained that the applicant had requested an average lakeshore setback, h^dcover wuhin 0-75’ setback zone, hardcover within 75-250* setback zone, and structure within 75 of the I^eshore variances to remodel, add a second story and attach the existing garage to the residence. The space that currently exists between the house and garage would be filled in and the second story with dormers would be over the entire residence including the garage. Bottenberg reported that lot co\ erase by structure would remain below the allowed 15%, even " ‘th the addition of the proposed second story and attaching the garage. On the other hand, a 385 s.f portion of the exisring residence is located within the 75’ setback from Lake Minnetoi^a, in fact, at Lhe closest point it is 64’ from the OHWL of the lake. The also be above this portion of the residence and located within the 0-7o setback zone. Bottenberg continued by pointing out that, while hardcover would Ihe addition, the applicant had suggested removing the concrete shuffleboard Md the bnck next to the shuffieboard surface to reduce the amount of hardcox er within the setback zone to 9.56% as compared to the previous 14.3%. A PAGE 4 of 26 / ! i| II t TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE:Januaiy* 31, 2003 SUBJECT:#03-2866 Judy and David Zoschke 2040 Shadywood Road Varianr** -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (0.5 acre) 0.4 acres (17,467 s.f.) Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Hardcover Calculations Survey Deck Plan Average Lakeshore Map Plat Map Location Map Topography Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Permit for 1993 2"'* Story Addition Photos of the property Photos of the property by applicant (1993) B C D E F G H I J K L M N Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover within 75* to 250’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25® o hardcover. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage By Structure: 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®^ of the lot area. U03-2S66 Judy and David Zc\chke 2/20/2003 Page I of 3 ..rtOK . Application Summaiy: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. (42.3' x 12’) lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area; 1) Lot coverage by structure: 2,848 s.f. (16.5’i) where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permined; 2) Hardcover within the 75’to 250’ lakeshore setback zone: 6,442 s.f (57.08%) where 2,821.5 s.f (25%) is permitted; 3) Average lakeshore setback: encroaching 21‘. In 1993, the applicants added a second story onto their home. The remodeling and expansion resulted in the removal of the roof of the existing deck as well as the original railing system. The building permit did not identify a new deck as pan of the approval nor did it question the amount of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the Cit> *s policy that a second story may be added to a home when the foot print area of the building is not increasing, regardless of hardcover excesses. There have been no zoning applications on this property in the past. The applicants wish to replace the existing deck for safety reasons, due to the deterioration of the floor boards. The proposed patio enclosure does not increase the size of the existing deck but may impact the lake views of neighbors. The lot area and lot wid*j of this property are less than required by the zoning district. 1) Lot coverage by structure The existing amount of structure on the propertv- exceeds Lhe maximum permitted by 228 s.t.^ Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard. This application does not propose to increase or decrease the amount of structure on the property. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck within the same square footage. There is no building permit on file for the existing shed. .A review of aerial photographs shows that the shed was in existence prior to 1970. At that lime, a building permit may not have been required since the building code allows strucru'’e up to 120 s.f. to be built without a permit (although the City has required permits for a i such structures since 1996). To reduce the amount of structure on the lot and bring the property closer to conformity, the shed (128 s.f.) could be removed or relocated under the deck. The removal of the shed would reduce the amount of structure to 2.720 s.f. (IS.f?? j). 2) Hardcover There is significant hardcover located within the 0-75‘ and 75*-250’ hardcover zones, none of which has had building permit approval but has c.xisted since before 1970 (as* shown on aerial photographs). Even though the proposed deck replacement is located in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone, it has been the Citv ’s practice to request removal of ‘ hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when excesses exist. lt03'2S66 Jud}' and David Zoschke 2/20/2003 Page 2 of 5 A L 0-75’ Hardcover Zone: The City’s policy is to allow one 4‘ wide stairway with landings, and retaining walls (via CUP/variance) within this zone. Tnis property has both wood and stone retaining walls and two sets of stairways, varying from 4’ to 7 ’ in width, accessing the lake. Since there are two sets of steps to the lake, one set (49 s.f) could potentially be removed to reduce the total hardcover to 1.292 s.f. (23.95%) from 1,341 s.f. (24.86%). The retaining walls are necessary for the applicants ’ use of the propern-. There is a significant amount of concrete patio and walkway (821 s.f) within this zone. In the future, if repair of the concrete patio and w alkw ay become necessary, they should be removed. 75 ’-250’ Hardcover Zone: There is 3,621 s.f of hardcover in this zone beyond the 25% permitted. Although this is excessive, there are few- areas of hardcover that are unnecessary for the use of house as it exists today. Doors on either side of the home use the concrete w alks for access; and the concrete steps and flat stones on either side of the home provide access to the back c: the lot. Potential hardcover reduction in this zone could be accomplished through reduction of the driveway closest to the southern property line. If the drivew ay w as reduced by 264 s.f (44’ X 6 ’), the hardcover would be reduced from 6,442 s.f (57.08%) to 6,178 s.f (54.74%). Additionally, if the shed (128 s.f t and patio blocks surrounding the shed (116 s.f) were removed in the future, the hardco ’.er would be reduced from 6.178 s.f (54.74%) to 5,934 s.f (52.58%). Existing Landscape Areas with Plastic: There is a significant amount of reck on plastic throughout the property, which is considered non-conforming hardcover. All plastic and fabric must be removed on the property before a building permit will be issued. This includes: 70 s.f in the 0-75’ hardcover zone; 1,267 s.f in the 75 ’-250’ hardcover zone; and 169 s.f in the 250’-500’ hardcover zone. Since plastic is no; a permitted form of hardcov er, these numbers are not included in the total amount of hrdcov er reported for each zone. 3) Average Lakeshore Setback In 2002, a certificate of occupancy was issued for the adjacent new home at 2060 Shadvwood Road. The new home was built farther back on the lot than the previous home, changing the average lakeshore setback of the applicant's home. The property to the north, 2032 Shadvxvood Road, is closer to the applicant's property than the new home to the south. The proposed enclosed patio area is also located within their view of the lake. A letter is i.-icluded in the packet from this neighbor, stating that their views will not be impacted by the 21’ encroachment due to the higher elevation of their home and the dense vegetation berween the properties. M03-2866 Judy and David Zoschke 3/20/2003 Page 3 of 3 I Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The deck has existed for many years in the location of the proposed deck; 2. Replacement of the deck as it currently exists and enclosing a small area will not increase the lot coverage by structure, hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ hardcover zone or change the average lakeshore setback; 3. A building permit was issued in 1993 for a second story addition to the home w ithout addressing hardcover or structure issues on the property since the addition did not expand the existing footprint. The deck was not included in the permit; 4. The deck would continue to provide a landing for two sliding glass doors located on the lakeside of the house; 5. The neighbors’ views of the lake are not greatly affected by the location of the deck or the proposed patio enclosure; 6. The plastic hardcover is not permitted by the City anywhere on the property; 7. It is the City’s practice to recommend removal of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone when an application is under review; and 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances w ith the condition that 1,506 s.f. of plastic hardcover on the property be removed prior to building permit approval. If the Planning Commission concludes that the structural coverage should be reduced, the shed (128 s.f.) may be potentially removed, reducing the structural coverage from 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) to 2,720(15.57%). If the Planning Commission concludes that hardcover should be removed on the property, the following may be potential removals: a) In the 0- 73 ’ hardcover zone, the follow ing could be considered: 1) The concrete steps on the north side of the “grass area’’ could potentially be removed to reduce the hardcover from 1,341 s.f. (24.86 %) to 1,292 s.f. (23.95%); and 2) In the future, if repair of the concrete patio and walkway (821 s.f.) become necessary, they should be removed, further reducing hardcover to 471 s.f. (8.73%). b) In the 75 ’-250 ’ hardcover zone, the following could be considered: 1 ) Removing a portion of the driveway (264 s.f. or 44’ x 6 ’) closest to the southern property line, reducing hardcover from 6,442 s.f. (57.08%) to 6,178 s.f. 54.74%); and 2) If the shed (128 s. f.) and patio blocks surrounding the shed (116 s.f.) were removed m the future, the hardcover would be further reduced to 5,934 s.f. (52.58%). UOJ-2856 Judy and David Zoschke 2/20/2003 Page 4 of 5 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET A Lot Area & Width: LR-IC Required Actual Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (01 acre)0.4 acres (17,467 s.f.) Lot Width 100 ’75 ’ Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’5,395 s.f.None 1,341 s.f. (24.86%) 1,341 s.f. (24.86%) No Change 75-250 ’Il36s.f.2,821.5 s.f. (25%) 16,442 s.f. (57.08%) 16.442 s.f. (57.08%) No Change 250-500’786 s.f.235.8 s.f. (30%) 192 s.f. (24.42%) 192 s.f. (24.42%) No Change ► Lot Coverage By Structure: Total Lot Area Allowed Lot Coverage Existing Lot Coverage Proposed Lot Coverage 17,467 s.f.2,620 s.f.2,848 s.f.2,848 s.f. (15%)(16.3%)(16.3%) No Change M03-2866 Judy and David Zoschke 2/20/2003 Page 5 cf 3 IQ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change fiom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ~ Date Received / - / 7 -nS Amount Paid pp PROPERTY INFORiMATION Site Address iyKO^iiALOOGd. ^OOZi Property Identificatioii Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ________________________ I (do) ftlo~no_a also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: Lk l-C’-_______ .(month/year) ___________. _______________________________________ Address: S.0 vO ^hbJ^UJOOd i?cl City: OHQVO Phone (home) ^ ^ Phone (work) 9sS - ^3 - /^ y 7 Zip: SS / OWNER (if diHerent than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:r'i V ity:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ZS‘^000______ Describe request in detail: _ RcpItJCt EjchfihK iook /9hd. stfilf'.i TO c\p 1o s/?kfy CodL . tUd <:uh ^XcA ^ ' (attach Additional sheets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width >C Hardcover X Lot Covera. Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakesho Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: n J_______________ J (attach additional sheets if necessi^ 'a .if saiy) / N i/''i--. -y * # i * • .V- ( & REQUIRED SUB^^TTALS AlL.gf follpwing Infffrinatlpp must be submitted bv anplicafinn order for vour app)l<;^^|on to bg coniidered complgtg: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. S. Completed Application Form Ceitincd Propeity <^crs Ua of o»aers within I50-. labels and plat map (you SJT^<^-cS»!S‘^7 ■™"™'‘' Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover reiroduc°bn“ ^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/," x 11” for reproductioli Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11") the^mn^ll “ “t«est inA. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE nt applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomtation required or requested by the Zonine Attaimstrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by’original fee paymenrt and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, atrf Cite ftTthe information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. / - /jZ.- 03Applicant's Signature OWTs'ER’S SIGNATURE JnCor ano agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable Cberrfo!^^„m°‘’’^f^’' agents. Commission members, and Councilmembers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date A~/^^(^3Owner’s Signature D1 "’a City offices 25 days before the Planning Ch 7 7"* ‘'‘'«'i"ga are held on thV thiid Monday of each cZmlsste !»h r ■"“! *'! aekeluled review meeting, of the Planning malce an-sneem.. * ’ll '^*01 is Unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please &ttj:gXcC';isCange;trLr«^ M O 'O I i -vw’ MINNEAPOLIS i‘jt> //?iS(n'tf VCi^ of \Vt f*r*/in Otj/^ jakf^'.rif^ fl^/’lcj ijfL'f.k SoV/J*. iiia C^-iUtrL^ Lt>.'L^ A. ^oo(- S%.i^/rCi4\y . I At V^hi)^ 4-0 be r*f/wct.^c.i, btc^tu-ie^ r>f Ci re^eXf^m^ f c ■/!•<t\U__LH /) f 4'ket.i- 4-. I Aneriran College of Rheumatology Suy^ pnj‘c.L LJirL, C4^p^reL/e.l f)wf t>t4-(<!»•.*I- bt. -fe l^tCi Op P«4,A<l3. /Volu^ f/^# «/e "Pkt- i’t ^ 4K.t^ «gx j C/Tt. r pfi l-C<i d^ck. Kfi.^ r^'Vl'e.fi CiA <i iS ii^uRCikU, (C a.^ Sui3t^.4-l~e,J rtp^i^ pltn^ i s It tc- ^l&CC 4-kt dtek. ’Clotf/- Cj^A C.i d Ta. Sl^all ■gt^r^ pnrcL ( ff'jC l»t *J ______ r\\iiAy 'Hv6 ^l-Cu>t Jrci/L'fi^ "hi CcA»ft«.*m \v .<?<wPfc^^ Co^ts. >^c- p<^iV LO.ll i>e rC-Af U’-^^i'h -^Ivfc Cipprtut^l gjti'-i/~«‘o^ _________ r>rtC.e.w/'C Ibi-fi/ /I 1 loLi-'g-d '(v^ ^ C>t\^ tT -PX- We. , .pt-. flt;e/- 4iu>4' l.~h-»r-l-. J ftiro rf^ueik^^ A yy^./^i'fli^c^^ -It* l\/c cJre<>i.^__reJu ccJ .<r4-rucln.><. ccc>c>*«;jg. ^</S'o tv<- rt^trUfJ )^^W. t\/e. € OCT.'S. Vo____ k UwC */t> reJut-t. ■Pu/-Ai»<.— t^)/LActe'f* f't.KtAnA^ ^\CuS<~ <iA <1 utncA kl>'AL_J!fA ^r/eJ-i'cnS ! _______*T)\e- po/*^A fjt.'/l he plciC^J CO /?<.vf/i tr^c/ (d^>ci _____ f L ^h'nC'/'.'Cn ncLJ A aA V-Kg, pnye.k i,rr-^*4- */'Aa./-._____ij \.(*Ci |3l«/^^ i^e L^»L*Ui'<,*«f ^ 1^.y* c ci /w ^Sec lc.i*f~e* tLi" /.At te f i-toni. LJfj-t. St--Ai < tl Hn4-.i u;i<c^ Ott/" •H' f/tt ^ TAfk.V (* JtiAtfS Cu><»i L.'ncc/ f-cfC __c/cLkVi ----- bc4-A i)cujec A/I<l b^:/f A. Ku^# i\a*iic Cn 'Htt. Sou4-/if.-n nreih------- MINNEAPOLIS -L^uk. _ iib.e,> ktMtr is iyu^c -A -l^tll Slti^j lih'cic^—j}» dt. j-Aei> OCTOBER 23*27, 1994 £cu/^—nurc. Th^ tsl^a Ancricti College of Rbeonatolog; ^—ft/\ d gn —£M.^fcri ii- iiu -------------LirJ p..Lle^ f^rUc .k.^- ll-k-^ Ut ^y;r^f ^tvf HaI- uje. JT.n C(.^f fy(\s/^ reAvrct/fcc/ il<i> y^/^Arr nf /^-ts-ox ) Cin<j c,r^ ^ L^k ^.4- A Axrihr- kr,.J /n rr^i.»cA^«J UfL**/^;*^** p c. 1 rii iMiii ■MM»m#>fWri I iiiAi»diiiltf¥atottkaOUft Arthritis ana Rheumatology Consultants, RA. Jesn C Gcrnan. MO. Jcdy K. hargrcve. M D. ^rcntoa ’C A S’»<efrp. M.O. Paul H. VYaytz. M 0 Jeft'ey L W*iscn. D O Kufl F. Zirrr.erman. M.D David C Zcsc.nKe. M.D.. Ph D. P-cre: (952) S93-1959 FAX. (952) c93-19b4 A Clinic of Board Certified Rheumatologists /.i-ter H Dorman. M D --cne (612)333-6245 FAX: (612)332-7976 Vs~ :n V/. Eerglund. M D. =-cne: r763) 551-94C4 FAX: (763) 551-94CO •.t'•>> --------------- j cn'iCrCH0;o December IS, 2002 %'r*" \~ fiaukS.-Wcmberger . Cit>' Planning/Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Bo.x 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Repair of deck at 2040 Shadywood Residence Dear Mr—\iisiiibergcr: I am writing to request a building permit to repair my existing deck. My general contractor, Scott Cooper, as already review ’ed the plans with vou. Apparently there are some issues that need to be resolved. Some historical information is important here. When we bought the house in 1993, the whole 50 foot deck was enclosed with a roof and an extensive railing system. This was removed in order to remodel and expand the structure upward. We actually reduced the total building coverage by 350 square fee: by removing a glassed in patio area and a sky port. Not unexpectedly, the deck floor (carpet and plywood) had deteriorated with its new expesure to the elements. It has been unsafe to walk on for the past year. I have to replace the total deck floonng. I need to replace the railing system and reroute the stairs to satisfy safety codes. I am requesting to re-encloie a small portion of the deck (12 feet) to protect us from the elements. No additional building coverage is in these repair plans. Several issues need to be discussed: 1. Sight line restrictions: Because our home is on an excavated hill there never was any Lnterference with the neighbors’ lake view with the old covered structure nor will there be with the repaired deck. My neighbors agree with this (see enclosed letters). Additionally my neighbors have a privacy fence between our properties and I have grown a dense arborvitae hedge also to block any view of the deck. 2. Lot coverage bv structure: By your calculations we are over by 228 square feet. Note that w’e have never added a single square foot to this coverage with our remodeled structure and in fact reduced :t by over 350 •quare feet (see paragraph one). This repair project does not add any covered structure square feet. Our riginal appro ved remodeling plans (1993) allow for another 108 feet of covered structure but this was never completed for lack of funds at the time. 7250 F'ance Avenue Eaina.MN 55435 (952) 893-1959 3030 Harbor Lara Plymourn. MN 5S-U7 (763)551-9404 80S Medical -s Bu'fcing Minneapciis. 55-1C2 (612) 33i-;24S Page 2 , 5 “* f*“ *’?*"Prop«ty. I have never added any hardcover and in f^t have tii^ to reduce it. In 19941 took out 96 square feet of cement walk in the 0-75 foot zone and placed it with flower gardens and lawn. In 1998 I re-configured our damaged asphalt dnveway to reduce the hardcover by another 1,240 square feet. * ^ I am continuing to seek wa^ to reduce hardcover on this propcrt>-. In consideration for the above deck rebmldmg project I am willmg to remove the following: -over 400 square feet of cement patio m the 0-75 foot zone replacing it with lawn, -the plastic under 650 square feet of graveled area on the north side of the house. for to lettCT s length but I want to set the record clear on these repair plans. My backeround tomng before m^cme was m «ology. When we bought this propeny in 1993 it was not only an t^ esore but also m ecolo:ncal failure. With some money, but mainly just hard w ork, we have immensely improved Its visual appearance and made it much more environmentaliv fiiendlv I would hope to avoid *h. addiiional time and expense of a r-ariance iwlicarion since this is just a repair a c-‘ ' S!'* for to Itardcove: survey and had to hire a second contractorwhca the airst one, i,eisure Rooms, Inc., bailed out after meeting with you. if ytud*^' “P 0 to discuss these plans further Sincerely, Enclcsurri (letters) a : « W* . *.. /I * • * •__\v.^tci11% • ^ • • •• ^ ^ •. fm • • • • ^ * 7?-2S’o /URO>-'1 2s 7. ■ 7tU 30 7, n i •• t i Ui" C €fUJLK€ieUL b • ^ ^ ^4rvtTure- (is'^^ ■z.LtQ (fc.57.) 2/Ws.f. U<^\i^S07tf- Z 2 fi* S.f. OlAJtiT /£T%. • i j i h // •; . - ;. •• " . V • • • ■•. . • Ifc . *• • ' ; 1 V Vv .*i. . ,..a 'Mi* iMMl Hi I To Whom It May Concern:I We have reviewed the Zoschke ’s plans for rcpairici their deck and fc: adding a sma!! covered porch. We are in agreement with these plans. Because of the rrnificant difference in elevation ber.veen the two houses as well as a privacy fence and an arborvitae hedge, iere has been and Tvill not be interference with our view of the lake. Sincerely, . ff t ! vs> 0 • •• 0 0 #HARDCQV^ <-;ALCULATinN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLBONE) 7S>250* 2S0-S00* EXIjTWC HARDCQVy.R IN 7.0NT. ^ w r \ X _ • •< SOO-ll ril ^ I5 - 3g?t.f.x/.»2a i?bO X 9"; 21 xg.67= X X • • r B. Otrife •«» • • C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E PatioA}eck • mm • • • •»• • X X F. LtndKipc UoderUin By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House _____________ X •m m •Lenftfi X X X B. Oarage C Driveway >••••• • • X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other »• •TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ •*. B 145 302. VM90 tSniK W4U$ Amo S.F.- 90aoe<is S.F. «r J'tMC IttTAi OJ-. SI. X 100 Width * A8/ S.F. .S.F. COHCRfT£ S.F.-WALIV4TC coMccrnSJF.-pAT»^2 S.F." • PiAi'TiC SI. JAff A SJ. B % SJ. SJ. SJ. SI. M SE. S.F. S.F;- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. -A SI. B M _ •» t0.j ^ J SETBACK ZON£t (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTINC ttARPCOVBR IN TftNF A. Ifouse hardcover CALCULAip£iVVORKSH£ET C^t> 0.7S X 2SO^O‘SOO-1000' Ltqglh Width X X X B. Oirage •• • • C. Dri\‘ewiy X X D. Sidewilk X X E. Patlo/Deck • • .X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other =• "Z^TP x S** ^ . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7.0IW A. House • m m 0 Ungth Width X X X B. Oarige C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B xIOO j2Z1^ sf-h/>. 43 _ - FLAT . S.F.-NWt id %:Sfe=K-S« Z2qi SJ. - _ %i/iO<rok S.F. ' 74-7 J^CTJ S.F.-C ohCASTCN ' *Q MDV5C S.¥.^OEa< S.F> Pat * 0 a __________S.F. 310 il.ZBA S.F. B V. M/^0 tter*‘ 5P ,w«u Kb*«oe S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F.- SJ. SJ. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. 1 S.F. SJ. - A S.F. B M J ___ hardcover CALCULATION VVORKSHEEXSETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75* 7S>350' EXISTING HARDCOVKR 1|M A House ____________ X ism SOO.IOOO' Ltnfth WMth X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain ByPluiic Or Fabric • • • X X X X X X X X X ,S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 164 .. Bl/^CVo IDi?iv^a// S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.- 0. Other X za TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONB‘ X too S f -JJ, »MSTI6 .S.F. vvaaO 0C1A in< g P .vk«aa5/8dBf S.F. A S.F. B % A House ■2A-A7- Ltngih Wid«S S.F. B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E- PaUo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other X X X X ' X X X X X X X X S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.P." • SJ. .SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 0 • V. .a''. <( '■ •«: V- ?. ..-•<^^.:i;- V v,4-■*"7 t;' >>. :mi ^vv- . -i>- I CERflFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LEISURE ROOMS, INC. IN LOTS 6 AND 7, GUST S. JOHNSON' S ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY •2fi4 COMTOUR UHL i T ICCAI OCSCWtPTlON or PRCMISCS ; Lot 6 ond iho Nor iy holt. froM ond roor. of Lot 7, **Cott S. John too* t Addition*** NOTC : Tht port of tn# dttcription ftftrring to "tht North»tftcrIy holf, front ond roor of Lot 7** If o vQ^ut dticriplion in thot tht Northtotttrly lint of Lot 7 It tht loLtthort, on tvtrchonoing lint. Thtrtfort. tht clitnt it odvitcd that It moy bt ntctttory to Judicially datamuna tht Soothtotttrfy lint of tht obovt dttcribtd proptrty. o ; dtnoitt iron morktr Btoringt «ho»n ort botfd upon on ottuntd dotim. Thit turwty inttr\dt to thoo tht boundorltt of tht obovt dttcribtd property. Iht locotipn of on tii'ting houtt. ond tho locolion of oil tifiblt **hordco«tr** thoroon. It dott not purport to tho« ony othor Irfprottmtnti or oncrooctfntntt. -mo •At Httmim CO oov*c#e GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. OMULTMQ CNOmML LAM ftJPVCYOII^ »TC PlAfPCRS • U-47A-414I I KtitT cpiitv OMt ii«t pfcvcAion ot aittof «*» rofttfVt tv «t tt iMf* m MCI OAttwtO* viMi I m A tnv icimtt MovitooMi ractcit mo wmomem MV M iMi o tc tut • M«tti4 tAVC m ittm mm 'U£/L l••IO' ••n 7-}«-02 oa-di7 oi'dir /# • 'i f.f} « V . V V. < »k « < V • •* •i s •V •• 't ^•••4 • ••e .... , •• • * • • • ■ > 6h E: Vi. ■r-Ufcfta-A; / K E I ^ / • * • • . .': *. . ’.V lPBCt^ eUEVA-noMs. f.7 .-r* 77''ij *• •: * \ . • • l». •• C2/;2. tU------n I jiMTitfai * ^ m* • ', ( t *^t.‘ft’ v." . flf :K^.‘ ' r • . *^. • )‘w Hennepin County T^payer Services # ICf)17- > 17-.?3-HgT) . /“•CJC" 'Parcel Information Parcel ID 1711723310013 Hausa Numbar 2040 r-i* - •'•. • • . '• ▼’.rf • * • • - ^-r • ■“•*• V* S5- - '4> .• StrMt Nam* SHAOYWOOD IU>;:S;.. This IsnottltgaBy neoidtdmap. Hi9pf9$»nta • compMtbn or Intonnaeofi *. anddMaftomO^. County, and5Ma readautfwridaa andetfiaraburcat. * ':,<| -H inANOVIMAW Is e «IU>IOVIIW *W Pl^ jMs^V MlNorth Maxwell Bay »V«r OR0^30 s lOHNS P0!NTLA Arm Shadywood Point * PEERING ISLAND «DS Crystal Bohng point Bay Fagerness Point •upo u\l ~ ^ OICKSON ’ AVI TOCO no t-iaOTtWAM IWvtM WEST / sTin a^S” Stack Lake a, / -^j^gtuRT TiENiAtiiff___• \CtfliCtU DirniTiMrfzzimmcm VM2iiJM*« a, a _■ ■■U ■ orr •§3®lySfW}iM _/ y' _ |cMST»jl ironTTiTii-Ma^ Mil ■! ■ ■ --- ! Bay ^ SHOmiNE O f^MCAIT ntamni M Mtcaini y »^ffTMM9TRD Pelican Point AND X24CC^-V s3' SPRAY Cos^* ISLAND 2-3UM0W ROKMTBMITIDr • UOUMn J ph*lp* sapY ^^ISLAW %1» V:j* ^ ENCHANTED *»«»»• ISLAND I Howards Pdnl ^ ^ « ,»» -»» ^ ^ ^ i"*\ iUN BATE il/ir/AS BATCH SIS NENNfriN COUNTY fROfEBTV INFOBNATION SVSTCH PROfEBTV OHNCBS LIST HEPOtT NO. mSS^n PACE SB PfNIP ADM OHNEB NANE TANPAVEB NAHE/ADOB 17 17-117-2S SI BteS •S7A4 SUNSET M BESTAUBANTS NO UNIT INC BESTAUBANTS NO UNIT INC BSSt BAREB BO HINNETOMCA HN 55SBS 17 17-117-2S SI 0045 0S701 SUNSET M SPEEDNAV SUPEBANEBICA UC SPEEDNAV SUPEBANEBICA UC C/0 PBOPEBTY TAN BECOBDS 5S4 SOUTH HAIN ST * FINOtAY OH 45B40 SB 17-117-2S 31 0001 02000 SHADVHOOO BO B B KIBCHNEB S L N KIBCNNEB B B KIBCHNEB BLN KIBCHNEB 2000 SHADYVOOO BD WAYZATA NN 55S41 PBOP ADOB ONNEB NANE TANPAYEB NANE/ADM SB 17-117-2S SI 0002 02010 SHADVNOOD BD B H I C N KOZICKV BICHABO V KOZICKY 2010 SHADYNOOD BD WAYZATA NN 55S41 SB 17-117-2S SI 0011 02024 SHADYWOOO BD PANELA J WIUETTE PAN WIUETTE 2024 SHADYWOOO BD OBQNO NN 5SS41 SB 17-117-2S SI 0012 020S2 SHADYWOOO BO JANES N BUBGESS JANES N BUBGESS 20S2 SHADYWOOO BD WAYZATA NN 55S41 PBOP ADM OWNEB NANE TANPAYEB NANE/ADM 001S I BO SB 17-117-2S 02040 SHAOYWi D t J ZOSCHKE DAVID 1 JUDY K ZOSCHKE 2040 SHADYWOOO BD WAYZATA NN 5SS41 SB 17*117-2S SI 0014 02050 SHADYWOOO BD iACOUELYNM NyKEUY JACOUELYNNl^EtLY 2050 SHAD1 WAYZATA NN 55S91 SB 17-117-2S SI 0015 02004 SHADYWOOO BD J KLEIN ^ N KELLY J N KLEIN/rnA N KELLY 2050 SHADYWOOO BD WAYZATA HN 55S91 J!.7 PBOP ADM OWNED NANE TANPAYEB NANE/ADM SB 17-117-2S SI 0010 020B0 SHADYWOOO BO JOAN L CABLSON JOAN L CABLSON 20B0 SHADYWOOO BD WAYZATA NN 55S41 SB 17-117-2S SI 0052 02000 SHADYWOOO BD JACQUELYNN N KELLY JACOUELYNN N KELLY J N KLEIN 2050 SHAOYWOOD BD WAYZATA NN 55Sn TOTAL BATCH 5IS 00011 T> PERMIT RECORD ^ ki- r CHEC OFF LIST FOR ISSOANCE OF ''ERMITS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ADDRESS OR SM«^tQMtOOOO GA P1D«- - - - - - ---!- - -1- - - icRiPTioH OF wnpK. ZONING REVIEW BT :r0 DATE APPROVED BOILDIMC REVIEW BY. DATE ARPHOVED.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - —— FEES TO BE CHARGED. Misc. Fees Cslcula^ed By*, — PERMIT PLAN REVIEW Yes. 4^ No STATE SURCHARGE Yes. INVESTIGATION FEE Yes^ SAC Yes No Number of SAC Units _______ No _ No“"i5^ SEWER CONNECTION WATER CONNECTION PARK FEE SITE INSPECTION OTHER (specify) ZONING CHECK LIST Zoning District:—^- - - - - Fire DepartmentPost Office: School District: v>.^57X3An£^. Lot Area:_Lfe^fe2a^2-a4i Width _ Depth Survey Submitted: Yes_K. No_ _ Date of Survey: ^.1X*.15- - - - - - - _____ Right Side; <0«t (S^ Rear (Street) _ _ _ _ Left Side:- -||.j. Proposed Setbacks: ’ , Front (Lake): J Adjacent Structures: A^lf^Wetland: Ia Building Height: Def. Hgt. 2.^ Avg. Setback: OAC Lot Coverage: 'Existing‘ ‘ Proposed Peak Hot. Hardcover: 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' /UO + No Date of Council Approval:, BOILDZNG REVIEW fipn* -“y M : I Basement 1st Floor 2nd Floor Garage £q Footage LIST CONSTRDCTIOK TyPBg e • • • $.,Per Sq Ftg X X X X X TOTAL Estimated Construction Value: $ Ll.OOO^ Inspections Required: Site ^Footing A'Framing ^Insulation Work Requiring Separate Permits s tfC Plumbing ___^Grading/Filling ^Mechanical ___Fire Septic Wall Board inal /^Fireplace (Masonry) Other ^(Mfg.) Water Connection Sewer Connection Lawn Irrigation Other (/'Well (State Permit) nc Electrical (State Permit) REMARKS (IN HOUSE):• • e • •• • %• REVIEW BY OTHERS DATE: Access: Existing Mew Access Approval: Date By: ^poT*ROIARKS (TO BE NOTED ON PERMIT): gy^AM-rtOAJ 6^f ^ •• • • • A .<r- »v. -V aemrx llev«OVa f.fi^.|Ldop ^VT6^ A«fX*^^T* iK^u^TiiO /• ....: . ^ _ -V _ _ _■..•■ • ••••* • •• I - • • • . I ., . • • • ••»• • • ........................•!.•«.• - - - M am. m ■ m . a ■ - .• * M» • • ••• • • > • • • ••• • • • ••■ • •»• «•»•.•• • «• . ■.•••■f > ••• >»•• • • • • • . . • » »». ■••• • • •••*•• ' • • • • 1 T~Vj1 ■ 1 1 / • «• f • 1 ••« • • * • mtm • • •• • • • / • •• • •• • • • — • 'T WLipt . ,c^ Cifc«tv^»^«s«ve ------------— I r-.-- *1 I CuD^e •• • » • • u ^ - a wx-ee XX0(-9B>K>^,oonoN ................................ tfivr Krar . A*tb IftAVlaJU «»■«• ••• 11 I II —• —.-l-..U ,*&....' . f ^1 II llll^lM lllllB 1 : r. > ^ •H’ * IV s' ■ V .«fi «• * • •T “ f ' • •• “-'TT' ■ «T ’.TT'^ ' . . ■ . -'j: - - <*. ...• .^, r* !-■' *. .‘^». • K : .t*. ‘^ -ra:-rv;. «««' s •"/' *► I’l t ^ '• rf I o ^ 'r~ 'v: - i*- . • X ^ •.•^ * ■ *• •• ■ii: •1 , Hwf*7 I';...* .,-.A..-‘ V-.' v/:^*' I / ti . U'^<ie^DE Vl'^^J (^:^o g•:^^o'ru)ocp) I'.'Pf^i?-b^LO^NY WK> NUT s'-tcxm oj c-^[is^Kik^ pem'x) ^ R^?7 2-W fLCOli KDr:CK) • .- / =5/ i oc •> m ■rM lAv■fy ir-*^ •w| <^1 m MliS «4. > ’ (t "'"j Im. .0 <• >A^-. :• ■•■■% - <K :? -tf.?' ■I ^ » . ■i r*^ ^T:: K‘cXC!’V[t>0^ 'to'TVfe KI£7|2:TH CUD'b'2- S^£>f iKiOCD ^0 ■) k UOI^TH COeue\?. Or Z<cCY- pf>T\0 \‘^ P(2cyP6fSD) '2-C4o S^hi>f\jjOQQ (2D. l/^'hY-t^XU^ ViiSW f A ^! On |m; ^ ^ :J^ ^ ■:^\r I r'JOlr Y- l-M:' \ -4% \ W-P^,4 .-‘v •;• r.V..^ f A f ’ L: I ;t,V •■■v: 4r ", US u^iUi- ..—II Hi# * 'j .V • »it 6-<^*t n # , r. ■5' j'Jvr t?'If M&l6ri'Pi::^e TD -THe <5acrvl C'X^O SR^OYWCi^o) Ai^e<^ice vigiAJ XOVtOQ^O > 4%. V - - % '111 » -»A ...^.^^ • ^ V*-' r • V ■ ■* • ■ ^:< u ?-‘ ’-• ?;-,.C'.;tf ■ ;■' j,; ' ■v ,;•:- ^M10 ., ^ '-Vi »,•-■ it' r> . f' • ■ft «. ■.'■■> “•■.V ■ “■ -f -I ••. ,-f. ■-"• i' •»• « ■•. • .< V y.' -/ -»♦ r^v.v ‘%:/v: HKk: mPm EP32^/ ii*? ; »i5? TT^n^^': • T ' rm>~ . IM- f. -.V V:? 1 —-iU -- > :4 M'fM ''-J ■ :i i2x I d ■ 7 *1 *. * €^ • Y r^ h ■■ ■ ; ,;(■■. f ; ipi^ t)/.r-r u' ' * .V** • • M V, v.'« ‘ ' ■ - t-. . A •- - nWW •r ••■' , :i£^^ iiOfj^ srieeT N2/5T ,r^ ;^ ' »•t:’ir-r, ». LA ••* ■ ^ • t T:r’< PS' ; l»^5^^L]iIiL_i'^«'v-:--- -=^rr ^«f — vtr. .- togjai-r^ -4 > - ^-5? *■ ~u-^i;:^•.Ce Cf' TOJ5e N '5 I - ' » v '^i J R / 1 /" .-J .•» y *" ■ • *A »r 4 •. 1 i . •.>-.i^i-5'^ .*[' I.-,- I *• • V< M , * I < 1' ^ ••vj- 'hfr :■■ ■■ : .' * - . ' fi' ^ (^esioi/MioN P'l5l^ ; • '}i-' T/ '■'‘i. - • , •' IilV.K* IJ* tisassfflrs 7^ ■■ L^^i©»'pe •»’ •^i ■*.-^‘^nUii—l d.dTt-:, Ml M—;]IIHI *im^ \ltilLJ 1.,^ 4-^:. -' ■ <> * V.'--. A < V r,_ wmm.^ iJ-r? iivx ' MwhiI Rvrrrf^r ’*IRvrr J' - t' * ‘IB :rllil'l - ■ '■' ‘'f l J li! V^,"*4;" 5 j • i: j'i‘ . < I**" •' , [' r-t-’-: •^•-■•. f Wig\>C^i:' vet A *£^WJL '^jSPcs j|^' ,r t .ill mi ^ij‘: >'V ‘ ^ \*. I ^ ^ - i ^T 5 ♦ mmm ; . **,m ■-T; n-'L-V^o?r< * .'-it .>; '>•' i RS r\m ;^j. /■ ..yj ) f / * 'I \k ISMfliki 'Jti^ • 4S6S0 in- S IA-l/9;) RAMBIUI C«H l2t4.M0 IftfOnMAIlOW OCIMEO niLIAIll BUT NOT OUAIIAffTIBO W^rp^Trr^-vTtf !•?!'?-•'•r I- ~>Mm m Mtf' 10«0 tHAOmOCO AO MUHQAONO IT ISSfl I AH lit tui f orv 9 tZ'J lICNN lOf »aA}Ml l4»MMm AC^ Jl __________ . pin CO AO It 10 ^AO ttItitADrwOOOlWOWIM lOHCMt IAR 19241 193/N tHA 19241 AS4 91 ASP N llSrCR 19 04 /N mat m m UMctfiiofir ??vr =?\ •y.-: :' i} . fc •■ •• V »« . % ; •/ rf N% . MlMNnOMA* ««. UMMl *0 <“j' •-■•! •VIlWfVirAl'VlfWl f AWOfTAMic Vliws fAOiM IT n:P KSPPtO lAAItMOAf OH ICAinifOi cntsrAi •.^» fANoy •CAcif.rrEA watifi and a iPAoout waia . pUJJAmUA fcn lAAI SI YU iTb-^HO Aimt m tUmtMlHTt itIMi ' ICl OUST % JCMN«?n*l5 APOM ic T § ASP NIY %I2 0> lOf ? nu 1711723310011 WAI CCHNICr RIP.RHO.Dm.OSPm»O.PAI i AMiqp_"tw CCNHfCf MPHYYSM.ORY.tUS.TRC.VAC* •m M 17411 in M 14AI4 m. UP AA 9»HIM C0H.CA7.0tM \ ri'M Mill :n M 14R12ItA IS / CAS MIG 41200 IHI 2 479 \ in 1 I7RII 30 1 I4R27 tsr atmim Cxr ARO 00 9 I/VI ASM Q M M llltl If BSM Pf P L MN 1919 r.ic 2MA OH -M IIR12 10 1 MRtl CAR UA.T CO P0S9IP RIGHT TIRMt 2N 1 ISIS CR 42X12POf t i*3t H MUSURIMINff APPRX. 5UH :rn *:r 4120304 hi 11:9 AC7 1319 OOP 1179 ISP 1491 cmci tOlNAALAL i r. IHC. •0 V J19 17 9113 PH 479 24II fA S.tf to AAI4?f.|4H US I »I0 OS : 10.1 |«:tr#|AC7 1^0 9IIAO T WOCO AO IIII9 9AltSAi:M0 MAlAOUr AA.VfU« IS OH A •lAUTiPUlLV LAHOscArio tiviL lor. Till lAsr paciho viiw op losiHs foiwr AND lAFATf n| COUNinr ClUi •! AyAliAILI PACM MOSf OP fill ROOMS, covcnio occA A.%0 me mnci PAtiof. ihjoy me mo pioon 10 ciiUHo PiACPuscFs Ic IAAi fiii CHIU opp mose coot IVfNIfIGS VAUIUO. irAMO CtVNGl mnOUCHOUf nilMAiN Pioon RircllfH. DIHINQ AHO UV:**G ROOMS. AOOIttOriAL PtAtUniS: covtnro ISinmAP IHClUOtS a HLMCO ORtfNHOUSC AHO ROT* iiHo iiricM mi povin IS CAnrt*ro and mciuoismo cohcrcti PISH fOHOf WHICH couio If usrr AS PtANffns.snrr iniry lcaoi 10 mi MAIN riocn AHO lowm ir»ri iiviho aaias mtcrcom and audio 9t sum iiinouGHour ini homi . A MAIN riOCA nifcuri iNcivors I-LAAPASI IAR AHO INfOnMAi OtPliHGAniAirADHiO fOWAlACVT OiCR. OfllAf LARI VIIWS PROM till OirUHC lIVtHG AHO MASIfR f f ?nOOM. MAStlR ICOROOM HAS HIS ANO urn Clouts AHO AHOn CR IVALROUf 10 fill DICK. AH* OIHER MAIH nn ifOnoOM IS CU»^fHTlY ICINO USfO AS A oiHornci [oLtn SH.SOmOOOROAO------------- AND la /IOI MASIM ifOROOM PfAlRruT »0 A p^i •CAUn/UUT UHOSCAPfO Un ISIIC'L IHClUOIS OCCOMirVI • lOHl WAIfRfAll.I.silRMIOIAfl RAT'D AHO A 40R14 LARIIHOAI r*i.oioiNjo. U.QU OOCR AHO Pt'VF PlnMAHIMf 9PRIHSII0 OAROIHI AHO KAMD.eUf f rOHI ROSI •USIl flAHTins llHi IHI C-;VmAf ClUOlO OARACI IS CVIHSI2I0 AHO ' WTlOflUM A^c iJ CARRr HAAS 4.*9.|)fa naia^EASaiiil H Application Deadline: 1/28/03 60 Day Deadline: 3/29/03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Jennifer Chaput Title: City Planner DATE: Febwaiy20,2003 ITEM NO. Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description:#03-2866 Judy and David Zoschke 2040 Shadyuood Road Variances Exhibits: A B Resolution Staff Report and exhibits of 2/19/03 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. I (B) and Section 10.S6, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover viitbin 75 ’ to 250*: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage By Structure: For all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not e.\ceed 15% of the lot area. Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. (42.3 ’ x 12’) lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area: 1) Lot coverage by structure: 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permitted; 2) Hardcover within the 75 ’to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone: 6,442 s.f. (57.08*^0) where 2,821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 3) Average lakeshore setback: encroaching 21’. PLANNING COMMISSION: Planning Commission recommended by a 6 to 0 vote to: Approve the requested variances with the following conditions: 1) 1,506 s.f. of existing landscape plastic hardcover must be removed on the property; and 2) in the 0-75 ’ hardcover zone, the 681 s.f concrete patio must be removed to reduce the hardcover from 1,341 s.f. (24.86%) to 660 s.f. (12.23%). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C)(6); AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L)(2) FILE NO. 03-2866 WHEREAS, Judy and Da\id Zoschke, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owTiers of the property located at 2040 Shadywood Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 6 and the Northwesterly half, front and rear, of Lot 7, “Gust S. Johnson ’s Addition’’, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C); Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (CX6) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to replace an existing 507.6 s.f lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area, with 2,848 s.f (16.3%) of structure where 2,620 s.f (15®/b) is permitted; 6,442 s.f (57.08%) of hardcover where 2,821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75 ’-250’ hardcover zone; and a 21’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback in the LR-IC zoning district; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 19,2003, at w-hich time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2866. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, where 0.5 acres is the Page 1 of 6 LAdUi.______ I ► 5. 6. minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 0.4 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on Februaiy 19, 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The deck has existed for many years in the location of the proposed deck; B. Replacement of the deck as it currently exists and enclosing a small area will not increase the lot coverage by structure, hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ hardcover zone or change the average lakeshore setback; C. The deck will continue to provide a landing for nvo sliding glass doors located on the lakeside of the house; D. The neighbors’ views of the lake are not greatly affected by the location of the deck or the proposed patio enclosure; E. There exists 1,506 s.f. of non-conforming plastic hardcover on the property that must be removed; and F. Excessive existing hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone can be substantially reduced by removing a portion of the concrete patio near the lake. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty’; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants: and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application, including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 1I i CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Bsscd upon one or more of the sbove findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants vorisnees to Municipal Zomng Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C); Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B); Section 10.22, Subdivision 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)(6) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2) to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area, with 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) of structure where 2,620 s.f (15%) is permitted; 6,442 s.f (57.08%) of hardcover where 2,821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted in the 75’-250’ hardcover zone; and a 21 ’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any further amendments to the site plan may require further 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission and City Council review. Approval is subject to the following: a) 1,506 s.f. of existing landscape plastic hardcover must be removed on the property; and b) in the 0-75’ hardcover zone, the 681 s.f concrete patio must be removed to reduce the hardcover from 1,341 s.f (24.86%) to 660 s.f (12.23%). 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 these variances will expire on that date (February 24,2004). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance 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 themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Page 3 of 6 Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of February, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 4 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of February, 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 February, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk 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 On this day of .2003, appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of .personally whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of, credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their act and deed. Notary Public Page S of 6 I 1 i 1 rj' STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this__day of appeared before me, ,2003,j)ersonally who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 '4 ” ■? ''?»^ -S*: r -■> ii - ' ■ *.v-.T-fWSi.. .la,-*m.y r I < b CERTiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR LEISURE ROOMS, INC. IN LOTS 6 AND 7, GUST S. JOHNSON* S ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA $ ooc: LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY f lf.4 CQMTM LfC ^ /A lECAl OCSCWIPTION Of PRfuiv< . Lot 6 oruj Iho Norlhootltrly holl. IfoM ond roor. ol Lot 7. ’Colt S. dotmton* • AMilioo** Si’Ll ‘2* rtt#rrli»9 to "IM NorUM««ltrl|r ^ol(. lro«t ond roof svs-iirt?’ '"t ciidM i;;i ;r«;; ;r; irJudictolly ^•ttrrviint ih« Soulhtotitrly lint of Iht o^vt Otcribttf ^rtptrly. o : dtnolts Iron mirktr 0torin9t ’thovn or# bottd upon on otfumd dol«n%. JJj** *? '*** boundoflfi of lilt otovf dttcnbfd proptrly. e GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 449 NORTN «UOW CM. kOMO UMC. lii 99JM •l2-471»4Mt ' Cf >#* OMi f9$% 1 HI M»f I a« a «it mmnmi i iwatit mm i •Mni ««■ •« im 9 Of Mao 9 mmmk »« —ZdLX:yii/x tL«%4 r«|pr 7-M-« M-Jt7 MOI7 • V'i lAAiiSifii I CITY of ORONO Municipal Oflkcs Stmt Address: 27S0 Kelley Parliway Orono. MN SS356 MaHag Address: P.O. Box 66 Cfystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 September 25,2003 Judy & David Zoschke 2040 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: Status of Required Hardcover Removals Dear Mr. & Mrs. Zoschke: Building Inspector Bruce Vang has advised me that your construction project is nearly complete. When we last talked, I indicated I would poll the members of the Planning Commission who reviewed the variance request to see whether they agreed or disagreed with your position regarding the specific hardcover elements that were to be removed. Having discussed this with most of the Cornmissioners present during that review, and then having had Commissioner Mabusth review the audio tape of the meeting, it appears there is no clear consensus of recollection as to what portions were to be removed. At this point, there are two apparent options for resolving this matter: 1. Remove the portions of patio as defined on the diagram attached to the resolution; or 2. Formally appeal the administrative conclusion reached by staff. The foTOal appeal process is specified in Zoning Code Sections 78-96 through 78-99 (copy attached) which includes a formal public hearing and review by the Planning Commission, followed by final action by the City Council. The appropriate appeal application form is attached. The appeal fee is SI00.00 as established by City ordinance. The information you need to provide includes the completed application form, the fee, and a letter of request and supporting information clearly describing your position. We will use the neighbor address list you provided with your original application. At this point you must either comply with the removals per the resolution, or immediately file the appeal paperwork and fee. I would prefer that if you choose to appeal, you make that decision very soon so that we can place this on the Planning Commission ’s October 20 agenda. This would require your application and fee to be returned to us no later than Monday, September 29 so that we have time to legally publish for an October 20 hearing. Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 wwwxi.orono.ina.us tfiiiaiiiiiia msk Judy & David ZoscYike September 25,2003 Page 2 r an app^ filing are not accomplished by that date, we would have no option but to find the property m violation of the resolution conditions. I Sincerely, MikeGaffron Planning Director end. cc:Melanie Foth, City Planner Janice Waataja, City Planner Lyle Oman, Building Official Bruce Vang, Building Inspector 178-72 ORONOCrrVCODE width only may be utilized for single­ family detached dwelling purposes if the council finds: a. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; b.It is served by public sanitary sewer; and c.It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other applicable Code provisions. (3) In R districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R district in the city not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of this chapter and shaU not be utilized fiir single-Camily detached dwell­ ing purposes without council approval. (Code 1984, $ 10.03(6XA)) Sec. 78-73. Separation limited. The separation by the transfer or sale of non- iforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrange­ ment, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common own­ ership is not permitted without council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in in^vidual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of this chapter. (Code 1984, § 10.03(6X0) Sec. 78-74. Farming. All farms in existence on January 1,1975, shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: (1) No new stock farms shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than 25 percent over the total number of ani­ mals that existed on the farm as of Janu­ ary 1, 1975, with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a con­ ditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and tv-pe of animals to be kept shall be deter­ mined by the council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed, and the council shall find that the pro­ posed or existing stock farm will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. (2) The establishment ofany new building for the bousing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. (3) Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. (Code 1984, 9 10.03(18)) Secs. 78-75—78-99. Reserved. DIVISION 3. APPEALS AND VARIANCES Subdivision /. In General Sec. 78-96. Board established. (a) A zoning board of appeals and adjustments is established. The planning commission is con­ stituted as the board of appeals and adjustments. The decisions of the board are advisory to the council. The board shall have the following pow­ ers: (1) To hear and decide appeals fi^m any affected person where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, require­ ment, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforce­ ment of this chapter. (2) To hear requests for variances in accor­ dance with this chapter. (3) To exercise other functions as provided in this chapter. (b) Subject to such limitations as may be im­ posed by the council, the board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include prorisions for the giring of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs CD78:26 T j ZONTNO RECULATIOXS } 78-'"^ by the parties. The board shaU provide for a record of its proceedings, which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, includina the final order. (Code 1984, §§ 2.54(1), (2), 10.06(3), 10.08(2X0) Sec. 78-97. Hearings. Hearings by the board of appeals and adjust­ ments shall be held within such time and upon such notice to interested parties, as follows: (1) The board shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding the matter and shall serve a copy of such order upon the appellant or petitioner by mail. (2) Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. (3) Subject to such limitation as may be im­ posed by the council, the board may adopt niles for the conduct of proceedings before it; and such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. (4) The board shall provide for a record of its proceedings, which shall include the min, utes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the final order. (Code 1984, S 10.06(3KF)) Sec. 78-98. Notice of hearing. (a) A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing on an appeal or variance shall be mail^ at least ten da\3 before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 330 feet (150 feet in the case of a variance hearing) of the property. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and adclresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person, and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give published or mailed notice to individual prope^ ovmen or defects in the notice shall not invabdate the proceedings. (b)^ addition, a notice shall be published in the offinal newspaper once at least ten days before ^e day of the hearing. If the board autho­ rizes the issuance of a permit, the council shall have SIX months from the date of the decision of the board to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest in the land; and if no such pmeedings are started within that time, the officer responsible for issuing building permits sha^ issue the permit if the application otherwise conforms to this chapter. The board shall specify we exact location, ground area, height and other det^ as to the extent and character of the building for which the permit is granted. (C^e 1984, §§ 2.54(3), 10.06(3X0, 10.08(2KB)) •j reference—Notice of hearings to be as pro- vnded ty ordinance, Minn. Stat. } 462.354, subd. 2. Sec# 4 8-99# Appeals procedures# The applicant or other person or officers oft’ city affected may appeal by filing a written not. stating the action appealed firom and stating the specific pounds upon which the appeal is made. The notice shall be accompanied by a fee in the amount prescribed by the current city fee sched­ ule payable to the city, which fee shall not be refundable. (Code 1984, 5 10.06(3KD)) Sec. 78-100. Subdivisions. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjust­ ments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable conditions im­ posed by the subdivision regulations. The board has following powers with respect to the subdivision regulations: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of chapter 82. • (2)To hear requests for varying the regula­ tions as they apply to specific properties where an unusual hardship on the lan<^ exists, but variances may be granted onl. CD7827 Date Application Received: 6-18-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 8-5-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-4-03 extended to 12-3-03 COUNCII MPPTING NOV 2 5 if003 CITY Ut" Unv^itiO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 20.2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Waataja^j)^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2917, Winfield & Nancy Stephens. 350 Cresiview Avenue - Variances - Resolution Zoning District: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre minimum) Lot Area: 0.455 acres (19.817 s.f.) Lot Width: 203 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 11-18-v ? C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 11-13-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new residence on a lot subject to a 75’ creek setback: 1. Lot area variance to allow a residence reconstruction on a .455 acre lot when 2 acres is normally required. 2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30' when 50’ is normally required. 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is normally required. 5. Hardcover variance to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed. Planning Commission Recommendation .Approval of the revised proposal, as submitted and shown on the plan dated November 3, 2003. which consists of the following variances: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approx al of the front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is normally allowed. 3. Approval of a side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10' when 30’ is normally allowed. 4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a 30 ’ rear yard setback when 50' is normally allowed. 5. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 25^o is normally allowed due to the limited amount of area in the zone (6,580 s.f.) and the large amount of unbuildable area on the lot (12,000 s.f.). Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting lot area, setback, and hardcover variances for 350 Crestview Avenue. ■iimnftihiAartriilMftiirf J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-282,78-305 (B), 78-1288 (B) FILE NO. 03-2917 WHEREAS, Winfield R. Stephens III and Nancy Stephens, husband and wife, (hereinafier “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 350 Crestview Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City") and legally described as follows: Lot 6,7. and 8, and that part of Lot 5, Block 6 BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA, lying south of the north 40 feet thereof. (hereinafter the “property"): and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282, 78-305 (B). and 78-1288 (B) to allow construction of a new residence on a property that is 0.455 acres in size when 2 acres is normally required and for the structure to be setback 30* from the front property line when 50’ is required, 10 ’ from the side property line when 30’ is required and, 30’ from the rear property line when 50’ is required and also to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normallv allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by Lhe City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 0 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2917. The property is located in the LR - 1 A. One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The subject property is 0.455 acres in size. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on August 18, 2003 and November 17, 2003 ai:d recommended Page 1 of6 I i ----- 5. approval of the lot area, setback and hardcover variances based on the following findings: a. The subject property is 0.455 acres in size when the zoning district requires 2 acres. Also, the adjacent neighborhood in which the property is located has many lots under the required 2 acres. b. The setbacks of the e.xisting home are non-conforming. c. A reasonably sized home could not be placed on the lot without setback variances. d. Over half of the property is unbuildable due to the 75’ required creek setback. The City Council has considered this application including the findings ai'd 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. I’m.* City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282, 78-305 (B), and 78- 1288 (B) to allow construction of a new residence on a property that is 0.455 acres in size when 2 acres is normally required and for the structure to be setback 30 ’ from the front property line when 50’ is required, 10' from the side property line when 30 ’ is required and, 30 ’ from the rear property line when 50’ is required and also to allow 45% Page 2 of 6 • ! i Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 24"* day of November, 2003 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 lifciartifla nil'll 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 V 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 corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 J n-1 . ,n-^:r»n»7 CRES'TVIEW AVENUE I < RBCBVeD NOV 03 2003 cirroFORONo CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelicy Parkway P.O. Boi 66 Ciystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO;Winfield and Nancy Stephens 3770 Bay side Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ZONING nLE: 03-2917 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMNOSSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; November 18.2003 COPIES; TYPE OF APPLICATION; Lot Area. Setback and _ DATE OF MEETING; November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows; Approval consistent with the following staff recommendation: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of front, side and rear yard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located in a 2 acre zoning district. 3. Approval of the hardcover variaitce request to allow 45% ha^dco^ er in the 75-250’ zone due to the limited area in the zone. VOTE;FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; meeting starts at 7;00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after re\iew and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja M3-29I7 November 17,2005 Page 1 of3 Date Application Received: 6-18-03 Date Application Considered ns Complete: 8-5-03 60-Dny Review Period Expires: 10-4-03 eitended to 12-34)3 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From: Date: Janice Waataja, Cit>‘ Planner|^ November 13,2003 Subject:#03-2917, Winfield &. Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue • Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot \Yidth: LR - I A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) .455 acres (19,817 s.f.) 203 feet Application Summary: Applican: requests the following variances to construct a new residence on a lot subject to a 75' creek setback: 1. Lot area variance to allow a residence reconsmcction on a .455 acre lot when 2 acres is normally required. 2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30* when 50 ’ is normally required. 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 30’ when 50 ’ is normally required. 5. Hardcover variance to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 25 ’o is normally allowed._____________________________________________________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of front, side and rear yard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located in a 2 acre zoning district. 3. Approval of the hardcover variance request to allow 45% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone due to the limited area in the zone. Exhibits Exhibit A — Revised Site Plan Dated November 3,2003 Exhibit B - Revised Hardcover Calculations Exhibit C - Revised Floor Plans Exhibit D - Revised Elevations E.xhibit E - Revised Roof Lines Exhibit F - Planning Report dated August 14,2003 2 #05-2917 No%cintcr 17,2003 Pige 2 of3 Exhibit G - Notice of PC Action dated August 21.2003 This application was originally heard before the Planning Commission at the August 18, 2003 meeting. At this meeting the applicant was proposing the plan shown as Exhibit D of the Planning Report dated August 14,2003. At the Planning Commission meeting the applicant’s proposal was tabled to allow for the applicant to redesign in conformMce with staffs recommendation which was as follows; 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of a front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is normally allowed. 3. Approval of a side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10‘ w hen 30’ is normally allowed. 4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 30* w hen 50’ is normally allowed. 5. Denial of the creek setback to allow structure in the 0-75’ creek setback zone. Because the project was being reviewed as a rebuild, the applicant was instructed to redesign a footprint which does not extend into the 0-75’ creek setback. 6. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75’ creek setback zone to allow 2.7% hardcover when 0% is normally allowed 7. Approval of a hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone which would allow for the buildable area as shown on Exhibit H of the original planning report due to the limited amount of buildable area existing in the 75-250’ zone. The applicant has submitted plans which meet the above recommendation. The footprint of the proposed home meets the 30’ front yard setback, 10’ side yard setback and the 30’ rear yard setback. Also, the applicant has removed all structure from the 0-75’ creek setback zone when j25 s.f. was originally proposed and has proposed hardcover in the 75-250 zone at 45% when 44% was originally proposed. The applicants proposed footprint also meets the structural coverage requirement as 12% is proposed when 15% is allowed. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the hardcover percentage in the 75-250’ zone acceptable? Or, are there opportunities for additional reductions. 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation .Approval of the revised proposal, as submitted and shown on the plan dated November 3, 2003, w hich consists of the follow ing variances: 1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow' a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of the front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30* when 50’ is normally allowed. 3. Approval of a side \ard setback variance to allow a side x ard setback of 10’ w hen M3-2fl7 Novcmbtr 17.2003 Pag*3 of3 30’ is Donnally allowed. 4. Approval of a rear yard setback variance to allow a 30’ rear yard setback when SO’ is normally allowed. 5. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 4S% hardcover in the 75-2S0’ zone when 25% is normally allowed due to the limited amount of area in the zone (6,580 s.f.) and the large amount of unbuildable area on the lot (12,000 s.f). bL i f f -1 J t meavo) NOV 032HIB cnVOFORONO V -p. • :• HARDCOVER£ALCVLATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZOSE: (CtttCLEONE) (%.7sy' 75-150'2S0-5W 500-1 '— EXISTING HAKDCOVER IN TONE EXHIBIT B • A. HcuS€“ - »S FLrnigfhHUtt• . jr ■B S F Jf 5 F Jr 5 F B. Cange x 5 F C. Drtvewai x ^ F X 5 F D. Sidewalk x •• • 5 FXSF £. Pado/Dedc x • S F S F. F. Landscape x .. S.F.Underlain x B S F.By Plastic x B •S.F.Or Fabric C* Othir X • S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •« ^7>-»J TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • • * Ft S.F.A +B X100 B ^.*71 % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE f 1 A. House X n ■S.F.LtngA WUih X ■9 S.F. ___ - X B S.F. X B S.F. B. Garage x _5.F C. Driveway x S.F. * X B S.F. D. Sidewalk x 5 B* X B w • w __S.F. E. Pado/Deck * x • • S.F. X F. Landscape x S.F.Underlain x B S.F. By Plastic x B _S.F.Or Fabric C. Other x • _S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • /)>1 TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE -h,dH)0 5.F. A +B xlOO /y % B • : SET^CMZOSE.. EJg^'G HARDCOVKP m A. House- ORKSHEET 25(>S00' Lttttfh mdth 500-1000 X X X B. (hrage C Drhewt^ QJbO X X rno D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Dedc X X F. Lattdscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ____________ + B n \'b xJOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House w| ______________ X Irr^th VTubh X X X B. Garage C Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pctio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underkin By Plastic Or Fabric X X X ns G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 2^ rp. S.F. S.F, S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 5.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. ___SF. A JgS'gQ S.F. B SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. , SF. + B xlOO SF. B % •i-*# NOV 03 no GtlYOFORONO i V ;■ mm: W' MOV u ^ QdVOlrORONO : EXHIBIT D ' noT '^0 5'/:: received NOV 03 2005 CITYOFOBO a (o t:..' lAtU r. - k EXHIBIT F M3-39I7 August 18.2003 Page 1 uf7 Date Application Received: 6-18-03 Date ApplicatioD Considered as Complete: 8-5-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10-4-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Conurfssion Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Waataja, City PlannerjJ^ Date:August 14,2003 Subject:#03-2917, Winfield & Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR - 1 A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) .455 acres (19,817 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests the fallowing variances to construct a new residence on a lot subject to a 75 ’ creek setback: 1. Lot area variance to allow a residence recor.sruction on a .455 acre lot when 2 acres is normally required. 2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front >ard setback of 30’ when 50’ is normally required. 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 2S* when 50’ is normally required. 5. Creek setback variance to allow structure to ’ce setback 68 ’ nom the creek when 75 ’ is normally required. 6. Hardcover variance to allow 2.7% hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when 0% is normally allowed and to allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone when 25% is normally allowed. ___________________ ________________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of front, side and rear yard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located in a 2 acre zoning district. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance request to allow 2.7^o hardcover in the 0-75’ zone to be consistent in requiring 100% removal of hardcover in the 0-75’ zone with a rebuilds and lack of a valid hardship. 4. Denial of the creek setback to be consistent v>ith net allowing structure in the 0-75’ setback zone. _ '' 5. Approval of the hardcover variance request ic allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250* zone due to the limited buildable area in the zone.____________________________ 2 J 1 #03-2917 Auguit IS, 2003 Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections !“*’**-'r*‘efo»owin8*ninimum requirements Shall be obwrved. Lot Area - 2 acres. Front Yard = 50 feet, Side Yard = 30 feet. Rear Yard 50 Section 10^6, Subdivision 16.C.1: Structure and on-site sewage system setbacks fin feet) from Ordinary High Water Level. Tributar>- = 75 feet. ' 1st IS sirs: % yssttsssr' List of Exhibits A - Application Including Hardship Statement B - Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form C - Survey of Existing Conditions D - Survey Depicting Proposal F - Hardcover Calculations G - Bmldable Area Implementing 2-Acte Setback Requirements U aty J - Photographs K - Property Owners List L - Plat Map Background houses footprint including a second-story addition to th<» * *P"existing calculations which are both included herein. ^ ^ ^ hardcover LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidfh! LR-IA Required Actual Lot Area 87,120 s.f. (2 acres’ 19,817 s.f. (.455 acres) Lot Width 200’ 202.90’ . ---------*»- -fdjiiau, - ^ —------------------------------------- -- wikih.'A’i ♦ myi9n August 18,2003 Page 3 of? Sttbackst LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’39.6’29.6’ Rear 50 ’35.5 ’ (house) 27.7 (garage)27.7 ’ Left Side 30 ’10.6 (garage) 31.5 ’ (house)10.6 ’ Right Side 30 ’r.2 n/a Creek 75 ’6S.5 ’68.5 ’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 19,817 s.f. (.455 acres).idlowed: 2,972.55 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,734.425 s.f. (13.8 %) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 12,000 s.f.Os.f (0%) 325 s.f.* (2.7 %) 325 s.f. (2.7 %) 75 - 250 6,580 s.f.1,645 s.f. (25%) 1,713 s.f.* (26.03%) 2,879 s.f. (43.75%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing major renovations \\hich amount to a rebuild. In doing so the applicant must receive a lot area variance to be compliant with current Zoning Ordinance standards. The property was legally foraied in 1920 and therefore is a lot of record. For this property to be redeveloped, approval of a I:: area variance is a formality. The property is provided with municipal sewer. Front/Side/Rear Yard Setback Variances As mentioned above, this property was developed in 1920 prior to the current Zoning * Ordinance standards which now result in non-cc.nforming setbacks in the front, side, and rear yards. The property is .455 acres located in a 2 acre zoning district. Many of the lots in this neighborhood are substantially smaller than the required 2 acres. It has been staff policy to review these properties against the sefcack requirements of the Vi acre zoning 1 WM9I7 August 18,2003 y ‘"‘‘ “‘•’“k “d 1 O’ itiletior side yard setback' Tile ^d *■"'* “'O^k. and a 27.7- tear Creek Setback Variance TTie Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 ’ setback from a designated creek to all structures 7 v‘T 1'°'^’' ®ay Creek and is therefore located within Itot IS within the 0-75 setback zone. Even though the creek setback isn't chanainc structure massing is and a creek setback variance is required for the second sto^ Hardcover Variance S weS TJwZlv 77c"*r‘? a kntdcover variance is required as well. Currently 325 s.f.ofstructure exists in the 0-75 ’zone. The anolicant is ^ proposing to add a second stoiy which doesn’t increase the hardest ^ds Ls to the 0-7o zone and results in a variance. Because the applicant is doing substantialro:rri:'-esr^ “ L,f sirrihin ® hardcover variance to al ow 43.75% hardcover in the Infthi noiroally required. This is due to the configuration of the lot and the majority of the area being within the 0-75 ’ creek setback zone ’ Hardship Statement ® brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimonji regarding the application. Hardship Analysis un4„ cm,Ue,.,u,«. w .ZIZITI 1?" "" Staff fmds that due to the limited buildable area outside the 75' creek setback (609 5 s f 1 a hardship exists which would support variance approval. Should the Planning C<Mnmission consider this, a front and rear yard setback of 10’ wlv»n so* 5c * ^ j side yard setback of 10'when 30' is required, font '„g° rc ' ““ “ rartbltTf7T7tet^?h^P?°“‘'J!'- ■r^'«i«i"8P'oposairr«t rear . .>ard setback of 27.7 feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the 27 7’ setback is appropriate or if a 30’ setback should be required. ' Staff doesn't find a valid hardship which w ould justify granting a creek setback •.anance noymi August 19,2003 Page5of7 or a 0-75’ zone hardcover variance. The applicant has submitted plans that show a rebuild and consistently staff and Planning Commission have required full removals in the 0-75’ zone. The area of structure in the 0-75’ zone amounts to 325 s.f. in relation to the 2,734.425 s.f. house that is being proposed. Removal of structure in the 0-75’ zone would only amount to 11.8% of the entire proposed home. The applicant has additional area outside the 75’ setback zone to compensate for this lost structure. Therefore, staff doesn’t find any hardships which would constitute approval of the creek setback or hardcover variance in the C-75’ zone. Staff finds that due to the limited buildable area outside the 75’ creek setback, a hardship e.xists which is inherent to the property. The property consists of 12,000 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone an j only 6,580 s.f. in the 75-250’ zone (refer to Exhibits G and H). Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” If the property owner wanted to rebuild, any reasonable sized home would require several variance approvals due to the limited buildable area. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The creek adjacent to the applicant's property is a circumstance that is unique to the property and not a condition created by the landowner. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Many of the homes on Crestview Avenue are smaller homes on smaller lots. Variances allowing less restrictive setbacks will not alter the character of the locality. 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.' Not applicable 5.“Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable i 7. 8. 9. 10. M3-2917 August 18,3003 Pagt0uf7 Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” The uses proposed are uses allowed in the LR -1A zoning district. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable “The special condiUons applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The conditions of non-conforming setbacks apply to the properties in the general neighborhood, especially on Crestview Avenue. The creek being adjacent to the property ana the setback zone being entirely within the applicant s property is a condition peculiar to the property. “•^e conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The conditions of smaller lots with non-conforming setbacks do not apply generally in the LR - 1C zoning district but rather the immediately adjoining neighborhood. ^ * pie granting of the application is necessar>' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The granting of the setback variances and allowing additional hardcover in the 75-2^0 zone is necessary for the applicant's to construct a reasonable sized house. Allowing structure to encroach in the 75' creek setback, including hardcover, is not necessary when other options are ax ailable. H'ith this request, without allowing structure in the 0-75 ' ro/ie o reasonably sized home can still be constructed. 11. "Tht granting of the proposed variance «ill not in any way impair health, safety, effort, morals, or tn any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The granting of the lot area, and setback variances, consistent Kith '/■ acre setbacks mil not mpir health, safety, comfort, morals, or the intent of the Zoning Code since (he characteristics of the area are that of V: acre lots. iiu M3-2917 August 18,2003 rage 7 of 7 Allowing hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. This is because consistently staff and Planning Commission have required 100% removals in the 0-75' setback zone with rebuilds and massing of structure in this zone is discouraged 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." Granting lot area and setback variances would alleviate the hardship of limited area available to build using the zoning district’s standards. Allowing structure and hardcover to within 75 ’ of the creek, in instances of rebuilds, would serve as a convenience to the applicant. If the applicant is going through major renovations or rebuilds, non-conformities should be reduced and/or removed, not maintained. Granting of a hardcover variance in tr^ 75-250' zone would be necessary to alleviate the hardship of limited buildcble area in the zone (609 s.f). Issues for Consideration 1. Is it appropriate to implement setbacks of the Vi zoning district for a property in a 2 acre zoning district when the property in question and most of the developed lots in the immediate neighborhood are closer to a '/; acre? 2. Because this is essentially a rebuild, should the applicant be required to remove the 325 s.f. of structure in the 0-75’ creek setb<ack zone even though it is part of the principle structure? 3. Is the limited amount of buildable area in the 75-250' zone a valid hardship to grant a hardcover variance of 43.75% when 25% is normally allowed? 4. Should the applicant revise his current house plan to meet a 30’ rear yard setback when 30' is deemed appropriate for the purposes of grunting a rear yard setback variance? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the lot area variance because the property was constructed prior to current Zoning Ordinance requirements, and in rebuild situation this variance is a formality with legal lots record. Approval of a front and rear yard setback of 30' when 50’ is required and approval of a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ feet is required. This is due to the subject property’s area, .455 acres, e.xisting within a 2 acre zoning district. Denial of the creek setback variance to allow structure w ithin 75’ of the creek and subsequent hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Because the applicant’s project amounts to major renovations and essentially a rebuild, staff and Planning Commission should be consistent with requiring 100% removal in the 0-75’ setback zone. 1 i Muiliilali i CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) App6catk>n U Q3-<^^ I *7 Date Received Lp~1^^02> Amount Paid^-^QO.DD PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____C(2-q.'sXQt^uj Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) Ox - // > - /u ~ ___________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired *Z-i z.qoi_______________^(month/year) I (do) ((^o not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V resident!^ ___pother (specif). Zoning District: /o. L.A -/A-_______________ APPLICANT , Name' Address: 3'7‘7a _____ Phone fr.onie’l ____ Phone (wotk') C>tz, City: I c f^ c.,______Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED i ' Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Sid( Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or u.nusual property* conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: au -U C.r£s-k. ^fc..^ , Kq tfey, Jt ^Uvt* 1^1 ^ t»-«»f.4. u y ^ (i*v> !/<!• /X** c (attach additional sheets if necessary) o ^ Ct.Ai'T #29 ITJ^ • •• . . . !r ' required submittals . flrdtr for voiir anniiMtinn \ "be application dfndlint datt fa 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of ou-ners within i ^n* uv i ^ . must obtain this list, labels and man from w ^ Cy®“ Finance, A-603. Govt Center, 348-5910). County Department of M'SL°L^^SLd‘‘7n hardcover reproducUon. (» »Py 8 ’/," x ir for grade are proposed’' to “ r*'“* the property. This would include naraefs) of aLuct^tSiV*f “ “ As an addendum to this application please ^ owner(s). persons you wish notified of this appliStion ^ separate list of any other Additional items as may be requested by City s^aff ' ' ‘ yarianef nnnlir».Hnn fpplication. Please remember that your......fornpim if thf above informfttion has nn> inrinirif A V V A ^ m M M ^ ^ ___________APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Ad'raSSi t^raes IddSauf' and/or consultant expenses incutred in 7'«<' •>>' “rishtal fee payment) information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/h« SedsT"* Applicant’s Signature4Zi^^_^C^J? . ^ ./ .) D-------- -----------------------Date C' y/g, . OWNER’S SIGNATURE Date Appllcflnt must hnve all submittals into the r*i*fv nrr Commission Meeting. «™hng Commission Me«incs ariTeld on '7 Commission and Council. If TAplicL? is7J!tt m T‘'7 make arrangements to have an autliorized agent attend in vom'7 * ‘'7 “*“’“* "’"•■ng. please & Zoning Offiee of this change prior to Jhrmeetag. - • • ‘ J / J 3 '■j •r ttaui I ‘> •f ' *'♦ •a, ■> r ’ ■■ ■ ■ >’ ' - A^-'' ■ vV. V ,■ •;•} y> t , » »■' - • ' i • , 'y>:, ,■ 'j-vt;* >V.^' .’«vV ' / • • • . Adjnccnt Property Owners' Acluiowicdgctncnt Form have r^ewd the plans for tlie proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located Ci—%y»t/»f4»>feQ also referred to ns Land Use Application No._____ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Coimcil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that (lie proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council appr >val. rropcriy 0\vm?r //*/«? Uiiiu Property Owner Date ***A******* 1 (we)_ [print naine(s)][print address] have reviewed iltc plejt^ for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ----------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. 1 (wc) -inderstand that in exccutinp this acknowlcdccmcnt, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (tve) am (are; aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. l*roi)crty Owner Date • , : .• • • . • • « • • • • % • • ^ . . =tt: JO • • • • •* • V ? • • •. . • > A\ . - t iT-ilcfllMiMtKKixsuAiMUii-.1 iiyiiimi*llBlniA»■ iMr TiH ©wi&lf oCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR W. R. STEPHENS OF LOTS 6. 7. «e 8. AND IN LOT 5 BLOCK 6. BAYSOE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA (‘ \ \ w' y Ql LtCAL OCSCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lett 6. 7. end 8. end that po't of Let S. Block 6 6AYSI0C ADDITION TO LAK£ MIMsCTOMtA. lyin) toutii of the north 40 (««t thereof. » o : d«not«8 iron morktr BtOrinQt shown ort bostd upon on otsimsd dotim « This survsy intsnds to show ths toundoriss of ths otovs dtscrlbod proptrty. ond ths locotion of on oxisting houss ond gorogo thsroon. it doss not.purport to show ony othsr krprovsmints or oncroochmsnts. m T W O *T 0 ” t.125.37 tcAswco •r ffUNT I sr^-ecT '^\w l%mr\ ^ 1 1 • m ’ } » -■ illmi III f Q i S..i . i i : ij ■'j r I EjLCVATfn ; { 'iuxtpiftL sm YAtp yiew ii_E«xv4mo>j*^*; f * Cf^EEt-SIDSJw^i^W •\rr:l -r,^r. ;; ; a v .1 ,*i ^ y T .".ygi a JlklW I. ^503 •i'* 5t ' at K'5 ■f'~ R '^‘1 w (i VI .r';>^ rJ : »»r Vi' ’ efj ■fi', FP • 1 Fowi^XJ»n #4 • / * •• • • ^ • _ ii ^1- A r Vh' ]'■ ■/ '-■_ fX'^^a ■< f' ^JJidPtt^Cm (.^3*CCW f\oaa.T^\^ 0‘ V' •* • •. r.^•• r.r:“:’ 'j i; 'j ( * A A V:-.^ GQ >• ■. ' ■> - - --_ WiMFlIiLO 7TT f'-S'-cS f HARDCOVER CALCULATlOiN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CmCLEONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE K House _____________ Ur.jUl N X X B. Ovage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X • X F. Landscape Underlun By Plutic Or Fabric X X X 0. 0(hcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_________^ 3 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A House _____________ X LtnfJi X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk . X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ 3 75-250*250-S00*500-1000* 3Z5 “ SF. 3Z^ X too lZ.OO£f 2.21 _ xlOO \. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P.- S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % 'EfVIC>i5 fTT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) existing HARDCOVirn T\ A. House H.ARDCOVEU CALCUL 0-75' Length X X X B. Gtrage C. Driveway zo.s^ X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pitio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZC total property ;^oea in zone proposed RARDCQVER in 70\T A. House ^ Length X X X B. Garage C. Dnveway X X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain 6)r Plastic Or Fabric .V X X 0. Other ^ total hardcover in zone total property area in zone B -AXIQ^V ^ 7S-350J >VORKSHEET 250-500' VVidUi 12.7 X ICO Wid* 500-1000* 1S3__s.f. S.F. S.F. S.F. 260 SF. 220. 1713 14^/ in. ZCo 4-ys’ i&zl xlOO - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. -S.F. _S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % 9ecpaS£oS.F. - AoOmo*0 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S,F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, S.F. S.F. __S.F. A _________S.F. B i ■w ww . KJ — WCJ 1 25.37 ICASLftCO ^2>r(Q BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY PROPOSEt^ o ADDITION WCLl »5 rs EXISTING GARAGE S^:l 20S •••«•••••• ••• ' ••• ••••• 4 ocn CNo CN O O o •75' SETBACK LINE O {/) / i “ i i^S/hJe, 2->«dJe a:o 2 S6ALE* I" - 20* O VJO i 125.37 tCASURCD • • •«•••••«••• *«•••••• ••••••»• ••• ••• •• ••• ~a»ii bir rt 3^7.7 '••75' SETBACK LINE ^T&A^K' P-9GIV/|R9/Ag^>f5j^ Z,<oOO S.f. 9 S:. ^—C /[ \ ^--------------------V j,- -/ **% • 7y^ r. t • J • --ii-.f»^ ^ L" ’t ' .<-«•' - • i'*- '♦'■•^•^ ' •:!'(■: ‘Ij ••':'j "• • •■ f'r> 1 ‘ -*; . •<(• f'vki *5 • *'‘»r'' !■ >< ii ,• • • *•( f. n«r.\*;. 4J V -v ..^v vr.! • . » V • • .i4?-',V Xv’vt ,»vl *• . CTHeCT Vl£W O') >-5 5? -^ .-’^ !^'H >.^r^ • -^ • ;'J V*- ••: f^s. * .v*'"V —'A ■ft'i..- • ■J;'^> ,. ■■ ■,^u^::ry^fi' V i ✓;: ; ^ ♦ v/k^ **-• .• ' *• .V I • ^ / ' -i'v.Y' - ' *. **> . ’ ;.„. ;;".v :r '/•• r ► V »’• 4 ■^prrx-T, «r 'W>' Wfc . V ^***i.- , •5,'^ .-■ ► » ^ i I ^ r r ►V* *T ^•'?i .......'^-'42.5 PPk Fl./3Me#«r^L irtrf? ,.^^\d’v '• >^<r>fty< '^s: wy V m ?-*■'■ -"'v Hmji Bis «J;H"‘3?:--^-:»:»iT^!l®¥ ■■tsr ■' * amr ^ ‘ PI- OTaV,.:>^ fef ■-> .^ i K&W£--L •'' -I'" JV^/»jt ri y ^ • ■ 1^, i^V •'• * tf^ SsiU^ ,U-A f-:xk^i iA\v . >r: g^r- :. /'-‘. i*T?r • ’- *; Wxk ^?V- *viT' V " 1.’-^ fei w'|?SstKfc'if • 1^'! ! f ^ . *. ."‘'■f^yffe:- ‘ ■ •'^ * •Ai. 3S 0511723140008 PROP ADDR 3310 DAYSIDT. RD OWNERNAME JWWOiCIKAKLWOJCIK TAXPAYER X3IIN W WOICIK A KIT L WOJCtK NAME/ADOR 33IODAYSIDORD LAKE LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140030 PROP ADDR 315 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNERNAME RAEDDINOTONH^JEDDINOTON TAXPAYER ROBERT A TAMARA EDDINGTON NAME/ADOR 315 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511#23140034 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNERNAME ESTHERMADDISON TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140037 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME ESTHERMADDISON TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140052 PROP ADDR 3300 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME I1ARI1ARA JOANNE. ItUBER TAXPAYER BARBARA JOANNE I lUDER NAME/ADOR 3390 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140058 PROP ADDR 3300 HA YSIDE RD OWNERNAME SUEPWIIITNEY , TAXPAYER SUEPWIIITNEY NAME/ADDR 3300 DAYSIDE RD LONOUKEMN 55356 li'I % PKoi*u;i I uv iLlJI 38 0511723140010 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME CHARLESM ALDRICH IVETAL TAXPAYER CHARLES A CARUE ALDRICH NAME/ADDR 270 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140031 PROP ADDR 325 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNERNAME WILLIAM LSULLIVAN TAXPAYER WILLIAM SULUVAN NAME/ADDR 8417 RH3ENT AVE N «105 BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 38 0511723140035 PROP ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD OWNERNAME A LADDISON ETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140047 PROP ADDR 3332 DAYSIDE RD OWNERNAME HARRIET A HEHL TAXPAYER HARRIET A HEHL NAME/ADDR 3348 DAYSIDE ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140056 PROP ADDR 320 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNER NAME J F UtllMEYER ATI. IJ^HMEYER TAXPAYER iOlIN A TRUDY LEIIMEYER NAME/ADDR 320 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 II ^ ■■ •W It * ' * 9 I i I 4' 38 0511723140011 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME OIARLESALDRXrHIV ETAL TAXPAYER OfARLES A CARUE ALDRIDI NAME/ADDR 270 CRESTVIEW AVB LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140033 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME BERTL ADDISON ETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140036 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UN ASSIGNED OWNERNAME ESTHERMADDISON TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3382 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140048 PROP ADDR 3348 DAYSIDE RD OWNERNAME HARRIET HEHL TAXPAYER HARRIET A HEHL NAME/ADDR 3348 DAYSIDE RD ROUTEI LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 0511723140057 PROP ADDR 350 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNER NAME W R STEPI lENS III ET AL TAXPAYER WINHELO R STEmiENS IB NAME/ADDR 3770 DAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 A J KUNDATE:«ri6nND) r. ■' i HENNCriN “Kf^gWIN^ATlON SYSTEM PAOe;2 IO»TIFVTHATTHE FACTS REFRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATC AND DATB^W^^ • 0 m • • • • • . • • • • 1* • •/ . %• • V.#2917 \ I Til MAiinr-rt-iruii CWi^lT W «r • . Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ’.f 18 lO 17•S 16 (62)s 15 5 olo 14 (39) olo 13 oto 0 (33) 7§ ^ 125.25 fBA YSIDE RD (CO ParM Information Parce A D ^511723140057 House Number 350 Street Name CRESTVIEW AVE Viis Is not^s legsl/y ncordtd map. It nprasents a compilation of In/ormaticn ■...............‘“'31.’ "■ ...............and daiM'fiipm Ofjfl County, and State mad authoritias and other sources. J: rJ T.U r EXHIBIT G CITYOFORONO ZONING FILE: #03-2917 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE: August 21,2003 TO: Winfield & Nancy Stephens COPIES: 3770 Bayside Road Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances (lot area, front, side, rear and creek _________setbacks and h^dcover)^____________________ DATE OF MEETING: August 18,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table. Planning Commission recommended the applicant submit plans including a site plan, elevations, and floor plans incorporating staffs recommendations for review at the next Plaiming Commission meeting. This includes removal of the existing home in the 0- 75 ’ creek setback zone. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGA^^ST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is tentatively set for: Planning Commission - Monday, September 15,2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Citv Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on June 18, 2003 and considered complete on August 5. 2003. The 60-day review period would end on October 4, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the September 15 “* meeting, the potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends (October 13, 2003). Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to December 3,2003. Date Application Received: 07>29-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07-29*03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12-03-03 COIIMCIL MFETING NOV 2 5 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OP OHO;vO Date: November 20,2003 Item No Cp Department Approval: Name: Melanie Foth U Ojl Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Title: City Planner Item Description: ^03-2935, Scott & Kara Hutton, 1832 Shady^ood Rd - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area: Lot Width: List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 11-19-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 11-04-03 0.55 acre (24,252 s.f.) 100’ Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance for 27.9% hardcover within the 75 ’-250’ setback where 25% is normally required. The application consists of the following: 1. Hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to their existing deck within the 75 ’- 250’ zone. 2. Hardcover variance to allow a 10’ x 12 ’ shed (additional 120 s.f. hardcover) within the 75 ’-250’ zone. 3. Hardcover variance in order to remove 808 s.f. of driveway hardcover which was removed in order to obtain a building permit for an addition constructed in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003 the driveway hardcover was reinstalled.__________________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On November 17.2003. Planning Commission voted 5-1 in order to: A. Approve the hardcover variance to consuuct a 10’ x 12 ’ (120 s.f.) shed within the 75 ’-250’ setback zone with the following stipulations: 1) Removal of the 808 s.f. of driveway hardcover. 2) Removal of all plastic and fabric liners from landscaping areas. B. Deny the additional hardcover in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to the existing deck. The applicants were advised to incorporate the staircase within the deck upon reconstruction. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282 FILE NO. 03-2935 WHEREAS, Scott W. Hutton and Kara M. Hutton, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1835 Shad>-\vood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 624, City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 to allow 27.8% hardcover within the 75*-250 ’ zone where only 25% is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS I. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2935. '00 •The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and lot width of 100’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on August 18. and November 17,2003 and recommended approval of the variance based on the following findings: a.Within the 75’-250 ’ setback, the applicants proposed the removal of 748 s.f. blacktop and 60 s.f. of concrete sidewalk in order to reduce their hardcover amount from 31.9% to 27.8% which was required in order to obtain a 2000 building permit application. Page 1 of 5 b. The applicants are proposing a drain tile system which wrill be brought to daylight no closer than 50’ from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of Lake Minnetonka. c. A shed currently existing in the 0-75’ hardcov er zone will be relocated to the 75'-250’ zone. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely ser\e as a con\enience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 to allow hardcover within the 75’-250’ setback zone of 27.8% (consisting of 4.584 s.f. of hardcover) subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the level of 0%. Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 4.584 s.f or 27.8® a per the proposed plan and hardco\ er allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit .A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcov er or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in Page 2 of 5 hardcover urill not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the reconstmction of the proposed deck. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be e.xercised by obtaining a building permit for the new con.s:n*ction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 24,2004). 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. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant ’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 24*** day of November, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 A 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 corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instnunent was acknowledged before me this by ______________, husband of_____________. day of ,2003 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___________, wife of_____________. day of ,2003 Notar>' Public Page 5 of S iXlJk,.II llltm I -■ ”J 0(HiSir h CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay» MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 03*2935 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 19,2003 TO:Scott & Kata Hutton 1835 Shadywood Rd Orono, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances > Hardcover DATE OF MEETING: Monday, November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: A Approval of the hardcover variance to construct a 10’ x 12* H 20 s.f.l shed uithin the 75*»250* setback zone with the following stipulations: 1) Removal of the 808 s.f. of driveway hardcover. 2) Removal of all plastic and fabric liners from landscaping areas. B Denial of the additional hardcover in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to the existing deck. VOTE:5 FOR 1 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; Meeting starts at 7;00 pm_________ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952.249.4627. iimiM I iii'iiiiiwfii i03-2935 November 4.2003 Page 1 of 3 Date Appikation Received: 07-294)3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07-29-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 10-01-03 60-Day Eitension: 12-03-03 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Foth, City Planner November 4,2003 Subject:#03-2935, Scott & Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 0.5Acre 0.55 acre (24,252 s.f.) Appikation Summary: The applicants previously requested after-ie-fact hardcover variances and an after-the-fact lakeshore setback variance in order allow a 10’ x 12’ shed within the 0-75 ’ zone and after-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75 ’-250’ zone. Additionally, the applicants were requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f. The variance included: 1. Hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ zone of 31.9 % when 25% is allowed and hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone at 1.7 % when 0% is allowed. 2. Accessorv structure within the 0-75 ’ setback where none are allowed. The applicants have since revised their request. They are requesting the following: 1. Hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f staircase to their existing deck within the 75 ’-250’ zone. 2. Hardcover variance to allow a 10’ x 12’ shed (additional 120 s.f hardcover) within the 75 ’-250’ zone. The applicants are also requesting a hardcover variance to in order to retain 808 s.f of driveway hardcover which was removed in order to obtain a building permit for an addition constructed in 2000. Between 2000 and 2003 the driveway hardco\er was reinstalled. ________ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Stall' recommends approval of a limited hardcover variance with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of a hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f staircase to their existing deck within the 75 ’-250’ zone. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow’ a 10’ x 12’ shed (additional 120 s.f hardcover) within the 75 ’-250’ zone. 3. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 4. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone amounting to 1 .7 %. 5. Removal of the shed in the 0-75 ’ zone. 6. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27% coverage per 2000 building permit conditions (remain at 4,464 s.f). Hardship: Staff does not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to exceed 27% in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. ________ ______________________________ M3-2935 Nov«mt)«r 4.2003 Page 2 of 3 Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-1288. Hard cover limitations. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed wiAin 75 fwt of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary, e.xcept for stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Between 250 feet and 500 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 30 percent hardcover. Between 500 feet and 1,000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35 percent hardcover. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16KL)), 2-24-1992) List of Exhibits A. PC Memo as of August 14,2003 B. Hardcover removal plan by Concept Landscaping Background This property is situated adjacent to wetland within Lake Minnetonka. Although the property doesn’t have actual navigable lakeshore, the property is within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, therefore requiring the 75 ’ setback. In 2000 the appliewts applied for a building permit to construct an attached 2-stall garage and 2 story addition. At that time staff noted that the property exceeded the 25% hvdeover for the 75 ’-250’ zone from the OHWL. The applicants worked w ith staff and reduced the hardcover to that which is allowed by code, as a condition of the buildins permit issuance. ® In April 2003, it was noted that the driveway hardcover that was required to be removed GHvl^^Cwithi^^ ^^***^** property approximately 35’ from the In August 2003, the applicants were before the Planning Commission with hardcover variance requests and a request for a variance for an accessory structure within 75 ’ of the 1: I?* were directed by the Planning Commission to remove the excess 808 s.f of bedcover from the 75 ’-250’ setback zone, and with relaUon to the shed in the 0-75 setback the applicants were provided with City Code information regarding a lock DOX. The applicants have provided their plan for hardcover removals within the 75 ’-250’ setback zone. They are now proposing to add additional structural coverage (consisting . staircase for their existing deck) and to place the 10 ’xl2’ (120 s.f.) shed wUun this zone. In summ;^, the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to add 75 ’-250’ zone after the removal of the 808 s.f. required by the 2000 building permit approval. ^ ■I •i < » M3-293S Now«mb«r4,2003 PaO*3of3 Issues for ConsidcratioB 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccomnendation Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance with the following stipulations: 1. Approval of a hardcover variance in order to add a 42 s.f. staircase to their existing deck within the 75’-250 ’ zone. 2. Approval of a hardcover variance to allow a 10’ x 12’ shed (additional 120 s.f. hardcover) within the 75’-250 ’ zone. 3. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 4. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone amounting to 1.7 %. 5. Removal of the shed in the 0-7S ’ zone. 6. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27% coverage per 2000 building permit conditions (remain at 4,464 s.f.). r,f •03-2935 August 14.2003 Page lots Date Applkation Received: 07*29-0J Date ApplicatioB CoasMered as Complete: 07<29*03 (0-Day Review Period Espires: 10-01-03 eWlDiTA To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City Planner jf^Jlj^ August 14,2003 W3-293S, Scott & Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR'IC, One Family Lakeshorc Residential, O.SAcre 0.55 acre (24,252 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicants request after-the-fact hardcover variances and an after-the-fact lakeshore setb»:k variance in order allow a 10’ x 12’ shed within the 0-75* zone and after-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75 ’-250’ zone. Additionally, the applicants are requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f.. The variance includes: 1. Hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ zone of 31.9 % when 25% is allowed and hardcover in the 0-75’ zone at 1.7 % when 0% is allowed. 2. Accessory structure within the 0-75’ setback where none are allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: ^ Denial of the after-the-fact variance to encroach into the 75* lakeshore setback. Approval of the after-the-fact hardcover variance with the following stipulations: 1. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 2. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75’ zone amounting to 1.7 %. 3. Removal of the shed in the 0-75’ zone. 4. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27% coverage (total allowed to remain 4,464 s.f.. Hardship: Staffdoes not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to exceed 27% in the 75 '-250 ’ zone. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections 10.22.1(B) 75 ’ setback from the OWHL for all structures ^ 10.22.2 Hardcover Regulations List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Existing Survey/Site Plan D - Photos E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map H - Memorandum from City Engineer I - Letter dated April 2003 from Building Official Background •03-293S Aufl--« 14.2003 P*g*2ds This pro^rty is situated adjacent to wetland within Lake Minnetonka. Although the navigable lakeshorc. the property is within 75’ of the UH WL Of Lake Minnetonka, therefore requiring the 75’ setback. In Apnl 2003, it was noted that the driveway hardcover that was required to be removed ““ “ ““ WroxtaaKly 35’ ftom ft. Lake Yard Setback Variance ................................................................ pi.|«)p.ityUwiihin75'ifih.OHWLofUkeMinn«onk.. However theoroDertv Hardcover Variance Currently the property is over on hardcover in both the 0-75’ and 75’-250 • 0-75 ■= 1.7% (134 s.f). where none is allowed zones. • 75’-250’ = 31.9% (5272 s.f) where 25% is allowed The applicants are proposing to further increase their hardcover by 42 s f for a staircase addition to their exisUng deck, and are requesUng for the hardcovw to remain over the maximum with a total of 5314 s.f. within the 75’-250’ (32.2%) LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width? LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.780 s.f (0.5 acre)100’ Actual 24.252 s.f (0.55 acre)100’ i i ( i 'f 1 f Ir AH Til I ■ •03-2935 August 14. 2003 Page 3 of 5 Shed Setbacks; LR-IC Required Existing Proposed Lakeshore 75 ’35’ No change Staff Recommendation: 75 ’ North Side Yard 10 ’10 ’No change Stnictunii Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 24,252 s.f. (0.55 acre)Allowed: 3,637.8 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2,306 s.f (9.5 %) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 7726 s.f 0s.f (0%) 134 s.f* ( 1.7 %) 134 s.f (1.7%) Staff Recommendation: 0% 75 - 250 16526 s.f 4131.5 s.f (25%) 5272 s.f • (31.9%) 5314 s.f (32.2 %) Staff Recommendation: 4464 s.f (27%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In eoHsUerlng applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, l^ht and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of die 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 is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. •03.2935 August t4.2003 Pagt4o(S by the Zoning Ordinance. With the addition in 2000 the applicants were required to remove hardcover to remain ivithin the allowed 25% in the 75 ’-250’ zone. City staff i^uired 808 s.f. to be removed in order to remain within the approved levels as part of .k . .11' application. Upon final inspection for the addition project staff noted Jat the bedcover required to be removed had been put back in. The applicants put the driveway hardcover back as a result of Hooding within their home and garage following recommendaUons in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. 1“™" “ '• P'OP'")' In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. not 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4.Economic considerations alone sh.all not constitute an undue hardship if re^onable use for the property exist under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.' The applicants have not indicated economic reasons for their request. 5. Essir* si:i—I. N/A N/A 7. “The Bo^d or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." N/A i i: •Oa-2935 August 14.2003 Page S of 5 8 "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The wetland nature of the shoreline visually suggests a 26 ’ wetland setback would apply, but in fact this is lake shore by definition, so the 75’ setback applies. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 9."The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." “Pte lakeshore setback and hardcover requirements apply to all lakeshore lots, in the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. II."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." Structure and hardcover within the 0~75' zone is contrary to the intent of the code. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 12."The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” There are reasonable options that would eliminate the need for variances. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration 1. Should the OHWL setback be applied in this situation? Wetlands immediately lakeward of the 929.4 elevation are a characteristic typical of a relatively small portion of Orono's Lake Minnetonka shoreline. 2. Have the applicants provided any supportive information that justifies the variances? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation 1. Approval of the additional structural coverage to accommodate the deck staircase. 2. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 3. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75’ zone (1.7 % or 131 s.f to be removed which includes the shed and retaining walls). 4. Removal of the shed in the 0-75’ zone. 5. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve the approved level of 4,464 s.f. per prior approval. This constitutes the driveway that was supposed to be removed per the building permit approval. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2SO.OO (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming struchires S2S0.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Application U C)2> Date Received '7~3 l'K-(S^ Amount Paid ^SO. ^ ^ Site Address ShdduiOQOOL ___________________ Property Identification Number (P.LD.) t7^ >I7«- *34 nOOp Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____/Vlfiu ______________ r (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. .(month/year) Present use of property, y residential Zoning District; other (specify) APPLIC Name ANT Phone (home) Address: IyuQOM torV Citv.~OvT)nn Phone (work) Zip: S6SW OWNER (if different than applicant) Name AJ/A Address: Phone (home). Phone (work) City.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; c ga-CXL VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback:Front (attach additional sheets if necessary) Lot Width Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing con^liance with Zoning Code requirements; (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 • ' . i*i\, r ’ required submittals M 9f ttie fff||9w|ng Information mnct be Ky ih# «nni.v,»* ^ j.. -Order 1. 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Fonii - "-»p o»“ -Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ Department of Finance, A-603, ~ SSons°L*'l!l'i!Jed“®"h sun-eyor) and include hardcover reproduction. ^ P"”''-*' (» copy 814- , u- Z 5. 6. 7. 8. s/ ----- ^ * 11" for /property. This would include name(s) of 2ca^»r “ ‘"‘"*** *" **>® _k: As an addendum to this application nleas* >f not current o\vner(s). you wish notified of this application. * separate list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Admin" raior! a'^^V^r^dWo^arftes requested by the 7.oning supplied is true and cone^tq.^^tTerof W^llle^ rotwg:: ““ Applicant's Signature Date OWTVER’S SIGNATURE entry onto the propen^i s"a‘fn'consuhaIite* agentTcotS!!?' reasonable members for pmposes^^fea,io„ a-,d verilicat'ion of ihiw^S'°" Owner's Signature Date "7^ /y- Applicant must have all submittals infn f— nu «• Meeting. Planning Commissioi Meetings ^ held ontlT v 'H'k*' Commission Apphcaols must be present al all scheduled review m»«- r*^"* Monday of each month. Council. If an applicant is unable to ar.cnd a scheduled mf t”^ •<>' Planning Commission nod have an authorized agent attend in your p'ace Ltd to aj!? T o*-"r“S«r>ents to change prior to the meeting. ^ ‘ ^ Building & Zoning Office of this '4 « •f% iasrr - i 1 Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (wc) ^uud of l^gts SHA/TiiUOP^ f^0l(C \ " (print name(s)] (print addr^J have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Shfl^YUlOPCl tolplso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (wc) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requims Council approval. ^ -./ /7//■7^5 ______________ ^ LPropertyDate “7 Property Owner Date //^/crs **»*********************t*******i,i,i,t,*i,i,i,tit*,i,i,i.t,i,i,t,i,i,i,i,i,i,i,iti>i,it*i,i,i,t,f**0**i***0 I (we) -Jchii (priprmt name(s)](print address] •rt reviewed tljp plans .for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^\)U dt^UlC^Ogi also referred to as Land Use Application No. , I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requi|a^^ouncil a^^v^a Property Owner Date '2 n:^U^ Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. { ;/•* •f) To: Orono City Planning Commission From Scott & Kara Hutton 1835 Shadywood Road Orono MN 55391 952.471.9549 Re. Request for Hardship Variance to our Hardcover exposure We wish^ to apply for a variance to our hardcover exposure. This was brought to our attention when we received notification that we were in violation of the city ordinance building code, when we had a shed moved to our property. And although this has not been the most timely response and inquiry we do wish to be good citizens of the city of Orono. Kara and I have been blessed with a little girl however the road to child rearing does possess Its hills and valleys. Kara was on bed rest for 2 months and now with Alana’s arrival she has colic. This has been the reason for our tardiness with this request; please do not perceive this as a lack of desire to address this compliance issue. Our desire to remodel our home and enhance the livability and value started when explored our options to increase our single car garage Into a 2 car garage. We had purchased the property in 1992 and decided that financially we could accept the additional cost associated with the remodeling project. We at first had hoped to have a 2 car detached garage in front of our home it would allow us to have increased our square footage in the home add a bedroom, remove our driveway, and have additional storage in our garage. This was our initial request to city planning and we were told that we would not be able to build a detached garage in front of the house. Our primary reason that we preferred this scenario was that it accomplished several other goals. Address the elevation issue. When we purchased the property, we underestimated the issues regarding our property elevation and slope. During winter melting and summer showers we had water entering into the fiont of our garage and into our living area in the basement. This was not disclosed in our purchase agreement but had to have been noticed. Create a more natural landscape. Since our house is set back much farther from the road, we would eliminate the need for a long driveway. It would also allow us to landscape, with wild flowers gardens. Sound Damping. The garage would also act as a sound barrier to the traffic on Shad^ood Road. Perhaps had we known; we may have requested a variance to the building code, but that is history. 1 might add though many citizens are-unaware of how to properly approach local governments regarding issues of this matter, this includes myself. Our second scenario was our current design ofour home. A modified rambler with a 2 car tuck under garage. This scenario was much more costly and did not address all ->f our storage i.ssues. However we believe it to be aesthetically pleasing and very ' !■ -o ' L f.'i pSSiislIsiSL We Mn be assur^ ihal our property as well as future residents will ne*. er have h regaling the slope and elevation. That is as long as we car. keep the*• ■«« tM iwltK Cl^ Ww IvCw^ It IS ou^uest that a hardship circumstance be issued for us regardins our shed The shed itsdf is in an inconspicuous location and docs not detract fro.r. our property appearance. Our neighbors all have sheds and like ourselves prefer nothav- clutter My request is to update our deck on back of our house. We are hopi.-g tc remove '*''**’ “ ®‘**‘*’ building specs andestimate is included. It is not rwl safe in its current condition and would be much more functional with stairs. This should be incoT>orated into your evalustion. Regards, Scott & Kara Hutton 952.471.9549 h 952.548.8264 w r/il { ,•» • r-f> auk : t “'* 6,. ' AmMAflRi ----^dKU ■i>«i-iirrTrtr>ftitfriftM P<H 1 6> rr I> 0>- t I W ,Ui ♦. »' ,^.\i4. : s.‘ - S7>,>f-> -*•'. • I •*L'7f***v*'S^^KiV . > 1 /■^ - M ... r*' ****.'l£-;\t3S :i. .Vv, *k m-i *i* ' -./i j•V V ' * • •x * *-• ■ SCw , ,r,. • V*^ * ' '■^'^r -<-i ::r-"^ ‘X i WM » • ■ % • .* a- t- -ar*: :>* •-3'- -m • •' ;.i2 -ii; •;-^:-r. •-tEV:; ; '^-C-ie-. j - V - - .’i?k •; wim asi^ R3 li^IL T^ • ♦ •. mi • I /—7^ • ••* ■=^ ^i^r*- . i*-1 ^ r>=?*r air ‘ *- % -' ivfljv SBJ-: U! c^'4 r ■ ■»\: . <^,*J ■' , I V A \ ,r^•mp I - ^\w - i- I 'i> .-jK-'*.il^ if- ' -'V EC Lis::i*'>;e^^^'-': >;r. •tSLk \ 1? . • V ; r.jT - I ». ' . V ■ ^ \ » '5:,V-' ' ;: LI f," E#‘ ■ ( -• r/.>v N' ^r i ' i m '.•ETf ,t- ■CAl Iv. «Mk. • J X ^ ; «S mi mm-' iiSe 7 *^'*'-vz ••5^fc riT*..KSi#^/ s53^ pl« i»l r*;. - , I . ; ’. • *^ * ■ • ^ r* • / d-' % *•' .' • W. I. *% - • •1 ’•1 I • .-f.'J w >1-v: ' -t IbitV - •-- *# %• • V *•'•- 0^4 - '.vi;IJ'--'■* . - '-'S ■■•'-. * \ ■** . *) '/l'/ '• . *'* r ^ v.:^ ,' -'XO ?I,’- T-«i;? V y. > .••••. ,- v ^^ .. . ' V-^ ■ ' • ■' > . 1 ^ \] '» ^ ». '•/ M »r i 'A'*w./'m ‘i/J'i r'!» ‘<n 'dW(Bir- D-^ 1' ,»i'4 * -> . -^la i,.^\.^rr ■' 7 I'-i?' < SETDACKZOr^: Length B- Carige C. Om*awiy X \ X D. SidewiUc X X E* Patio/Decic X X F. Landscape Underlain By PlasUc Or Fabric X X X X X O Other - B length X X B Garage C. Onveway O. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck X X F Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc X X X X X G Other '' UJUCSliEET 250-500’500-1000' VVidlli -SF m a a .SF. _S.F. -S.F SF. ___SF. SF. SF. T ■ /262 S.A —____S.F -----------S.F. .SF. S.F, S.F. SF. S.F. V i-X)--aZSHrsF. —OOi__y. A B SF. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF; S.F. S.F. ,SF. S.F. .SF. SF. SF. S F. • \ I’.Xj • s F. A S.F. B % •. w-.f: V«« I e EXISTING HARDrryvER (N ZONE A House an Lengih u*. •*.iu-JUO 13^4- W,dih B Gt/age C Driveway D Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X \ X X X X X X tS"s F. SF. S.F. 22^3 111 {T^3ls .S.F. , SJ'.*€»a4C. S.F.-Cohc. !sf. • • S J.'CaK, 0^^7^c SJ. SJ. SJ. S.F. RJ'N'OAIt 7/ZI/7ftn 38 I7II7232I000I OPAODR 1795 SHADY WOOD RO VNERNAME M R SUNNARUORO A A A KRASEN VPAVER MICHAELSUNNARBORO >ME/ADDR ALICIA KRASEN 1793 SMAOYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 3t 17117232)0001 OPADOR )• ADDRESS UNASSKJNED »^ER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED UND XPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND M E/AODR NOT FOR SALEAVATER FRONT 38 171172)240007 '•PAODR 1133 SHADYWOOORD •‘NERNAME iOHNOMOTZKO XPAYER iOHNOMOTZKO ME/AODR II)5SHA0YW00DR0 WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723240011 OP ADDR 58 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED NER NAME M J KOSEK A O FINK KOSEK APAYER mark KOSEK A GINA FINK KOSEK ME/AODR 1875 SHADYWOOORD WAYZATAMN 35391 38 171172)240017 3PADOR 1856 SHADYWOODRO NERNAME MAOSEIFERTiR <PA YER MILTON H SEIFERT JR ^1E/AOOR 1856 SHA DYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 IICNNEPIN COUNI^- I'ROI’liRTY INFORMATION SVSlI M I’KOIM-k I Y OWNERS LIST PAG I 38 1711723210026 PROP ADDR 1800 SHADYWOODRO OWNER NAME DOUGLAS K SEAUOLT taxpayer DOUGLAS R SEAUOLT NAME/ADDR 1800 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 553V1 38 1711723210027 PROP ADDR 1810 SHADYWOODRO OWNER NAME M W KROLL A L C KROLL TRSTES taxpayer mark W a LORI C KROLL NAMI/ADDR 4gj SINALOA RD SIMI VALLEY CA 95065 38 171172)240001 PROP ADDR 1123 SHADYWOODRO OWNER NAME R A RUUD A S L RUUD TAXPAYER RONALD A A SABRINA L RUUD NAME/AOOR 1825 SHADYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723240006 PROP ADDR 18)5 SHADYWOOORD OWNER NAME S WARM HUTTON Taxpayer scott w hutton NAMC/ADDR 1835 SHADYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 35391 38 171172)240009 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME M J KOSEK A G FINK KOSEK taxpayer mark KOSEK A GINA FINK KOSEK NAME/ADDR 1875 SHADYWOOD RD Wa YZATA MN 55391 38 1711723240010 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME M J KOSEK A G FINK KOSEK taxpayer mark KOSEK a GINA fink KOSEK NAME/ADDR 1875 SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 55391 'J •) 38 1711723240015 PROP ADDR 1820 SHADYWOOD RO OWNER NAME BASK3ERPINGALSCAIN taxpayer BRUCE A SKJERPING NAME/ADDR 1820 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 35391 38 1711723240016 PROP ADDR IS40 SHADYWOODRO OWNER NAME BRADLEY T BOSTON TAXPAYER BRADLEY T BOSTON NAME/AOOR 1840 SHADYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 55391 ) 38 1711723240029 PROP ADDR 1875 SHADYWOOORD owner name M i KOSEK A G FINK KOSEK taxpayer mark i KOSEK NAME/ADOR GINA fink KOSEK 1875 SHADYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 55)91 !v.-. 'i % CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEhTTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND DATE BV -Mi" r i.T ^ Uir4 t. ^ I *' /o ^ 1 •- I----- i*! « RD INL z7 RLS NO 1216 / J.7r Mm 3 \3 %] o ^\*;o s' B S' t45*4*»J* 9 ^S s " \ J05 • *.' \v^\' \ 24 t\ soot \ '?• 1 ’• ■\'‘' 1 25 (16) 5 2944 ■Z.\s / O \V 26 IL^J r \ Ov^4 »?« (29) e -9 \47.34 (9 4 'Se*PAPrs CP TRACTf i \ '■• ^ \ ‘>V^.<J- I \' C \ . \ - »9#7 ■" 'vH w \ / \ <■*. f Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Aii«ci#|«i. inc. If •»» AIIU hmi Iw# Acil«««/few«t O^ontmiiy lifip|0y«r frincipali: Olio 0 •oncstroo. W. • Mjrvtn t. SorvM W • dfnn t Coot, OC • tooori C . it'ry A Bourpon. PC • Mart A. Mansoa PC. Engineers & Architects August 12,2003 Ms. Melanie Foth Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ctystal Bay. MN SS323 Soralor ComwItOfMt; CoOort W. Boitfit. PC. • iOMpA C AnOtrlit. Pt • ••cnarO C Ibrr^r. PC • M. CBorM C PA Allocloto PfifKipoli: Rttm A Go##oa . pc . • CioOoft t. Pltlftnc PC • tKAorO W Potttf PC • Oovftf o. lottora Pt MschJtl r. Pjwcmana Pf. • IrC C. CltldL PC • ItnnttfiP AnOrrioA. PC • Mart * toifi. PC • riiol A Bonouroo iio a * SsOnoy p wiMiaoifOA PC, LI • A bhoi tC Btfig, iCBA • Allan CKt Scrvhsdt PC. • fhomat Mf Pftarion. PC. • * jampi B. MalanC PC • IM»t C Itnian. PC • L PhiOtp Cravd A PC • Oanstf J. Ctfgerton. Pf • loviatf Martinti. PI • rnomat A tpfto. PC. • ShdBon i. Joitnion • Oait A Grovp. PC • Thomai A Poutnar. pf • tooon X Otwory, PC orricti: Si Paul. Sl Oou C CoctittUr anB WUlmar. MN • Mdwautt. Wl • CfMcago. C orwwbontfifoocom Hutton Residence File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-293S Dear Melanie; We completed a site inspection of the Hutton property located at 183S Shady^^ood Road this morning. The purpose of the inspection was to review the necessity of the existing paving along the north side of the home as it relates to drainage. The homeowner was present and indicated the paving was installed to convey storm water flows from the driveway to the rear or west side of the home. Based on our observations a vegetated drainage swale could be constructed in place of the pavement along the north side of the home to provide an equal or better drainage conveyance system to the rear of the home. If you have any questions please call me at (6S1) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65I-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636-1311 ■i i ^.’T-|»-- iM."' B)Cf+l&/T X CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Stmt Mdms: 2750 Kelley Pirlnray Orsno, MN 5S3!o MaRIng Udrtu: P.O. Ba 6S Ciystil Bar. UN 553234)066 Scott Hutton 1835 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE; Shed Dear Mr. Hutton, As you may recall you and 1 met at your property to discuss hardcover issues prior to isr^g the Building Permit for your Garage addition. You agreed to remove portions of driveway to bring your property into compliance and allow for the addition. Since the project had a final inspection and was closed out the driveway was replaced and the shed was added. Therefore the Qty must require you to remove hardcover again to 25% or less in the 75’ to 250’ zoiie. If you cm reduce the perceiitagc to 25 or less wi Ji the shed the City will be able to issue a Building Permit for it. If not, it will be required to be removed from the property along with hardcover in excess of 25%. Please contact me within the next 2 weeks to discuss how \‘cu would like to proceed. Failure to bring the property into compliance will result in legal action. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Oflicial LO/dml Enclosure Telepboae(952)24M600 • Fax (952) 249^16 wMTw.cLoronojnaas CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway POBox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952J49.4600 ZONING FILE NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; TO: Scott & Kara Hutton COPIES: 1835 Shadywood Rd Orono, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: After the fact variances: Hardcover, Lake Setback DATE OF MEETING: Planning Commission recommended as follows: Table to the October 20* Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicants to provide their plan for 808 s.f. of hardcover removals. VOTE;7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission — Monday, October 20*t 2003; Meetingjtarts jtj^00jni__ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commissicn. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952.249.4627. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on July 29,2003 and the 60-day review period would end on October 1,2003. Howe\ er, because your application was tabled by ^e Plaiming Commission a' their August 18 and September IS, 2003 meetings and will not be heard until October 20,2003, which falls after the 60-day review period. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to December 1,2003. rriiiii-ihni r Date Application Received: 09-02-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11•04•03 6(KDay Review Period Expires: 01-04-04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COIIWCII. MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 CITY OF OHONO Date: November 20,2003 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Fothi 111 Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2950 - David & Teresa Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: RR-1B Lot Area: 2.047 acre (89,189 s.f.) Lot Width: 303* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - Memo from Bruce Vang, Orono Building inspector C - PC Action Notice 11-19-03 D - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 11-17-03 E - Draft Minutes from PC meeting 11-17-03 Application Summary: Applicants requests an after-the-fact side setback variance to allow a 2380 s.f. sport court to be located less than 6’ from the side property line where a 30’ setback is normally required. Please see the attached memo to the Planning Commission for more information. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 17,2003, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the after-the- fact variance to reduce the side setback from 30’ to less than 6’. The Planning Commission found no viable hardship to warrant granting the after-the-fact variance. The dissenting Commissioner found a hardship because it was an “unfortunate situation" and felt that the applicants were not at fault. The Planning Commission recommended a deadline of June 15,2004 for removal or relocation of the existing sport court. This was supported by staff initially; however, Mike Gaffron has discussed the matter with Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, and has reached the conclusion that a reduced timeline would be more appropriate. Staff Recommendation Denial per the attached Resolution. City Council should discuss the timeline for removal of the existing sport court and direct the applicants accordingly. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached Resolution denying the after-the-fact side setback variance for the 2380 s.f. sport court for David and Teresa Gross at 2635 Countryside Drive. A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1404, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE 803-2950 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organi/eJ and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq.. the Cit> Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulation for the protection of the public health, .afety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, David A. Gross and Teresa L. Gross, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants'*) are the ow ners of the property located at 2635 Countryside Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter “the City") and legally described as follow s: Lot 7. Block 3. Old Cry stal Bay Road Addition. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter “the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for an after-the-fact variance to permit a 2380 s.f. sport court, requesting the follow ing appro\als; 1, Section 78-1404, Subdivision 2: To allow 2,380 s.f. sport court to be located within 6’ of the side lot line where a 30' setback is required. WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendation of the City staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and wTitten statements submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono. Minnesota hereby denies the requested after-the-fact variance as described above based on one or more of the follow ing findings of fact concerning this property: 1. The property is located within the RR-IB Zoning District, requiring a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and minimum lot width of 200'. The property consists of 2.047 acres, or 89,189 s.f in land area, and has 303* of width. Page 1 of 3 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8 h. A* The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on November 17,2003 at which time all interested parties were allowed to speak regarding the variance request. On November 17,2003 the Orono Planning Commission by a vote of 5-1 recommended denial of the after-the-fact variance, finding no hardship that would support approval of the request. The sport court was constructed without prior City review or approval and without proper construction permit. The granting of the requested variance woi'Id be contrary to the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-123 with w’-iich the applicant must first comply in order that variance be granted. The Council finds that: a. The property in question can be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls if the proposed variances were granted. b. The plight of the landowner was created by the landowner. c.Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serv'e as a convenience to the applicants and the applicants have not demonstrated a reasonable hardship or practical difficulty acceptable to the City Council. d. The conditions of the Zoning Code limits impo.>ed and e.xisting on this property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which this property is located as well as in adjacent residential zoning districts. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and w elfare of the communit). As a result of the denial of the variance, the aforementioned sport court must be removed w ithin fourteen (14) days of the adoption of this resolution. Page 2 of 3 Ji t I,' Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 24“’ day of November, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of __, 2003, by Barbara Peterson & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 -- November 19,2003 TO: Orono City Council RE: Sport court removal at 2635 Countryside Drive in the second week of June, 2003 a sport court was found being built at this address. It appeared to be much too close to the side property line. A stop work order was posted. I spoke with the home owner, Mr. Gross, informing him of the nature of the problem, and that most likely the court would necu to be removed. On June 17 a letter was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Gross establishing a deadline of July 21 (about a month later) to have the court removed. In June, near the deadline date, Mr. Umess called representing Mr. and Mrs. Gross and requested an extension to the deadline because the owners would be seeking a variance. He was informed that the variance was a long shot, as staff could not find a history of any similar variances being granted, but Mr.Umess and the owners thought it was worth the trouble and expense to try. An extension was granted verbally with the expectation thai submitals would be in by August 20 for the September 15 Planning Commission meeting. In September Mr. Umess was contacted again. He apologized for being tardy with the application and assured staff it would be in shortly. The application was finally received on September 9, but was not complete in time for the October meeting of the Plaitning Commission. Further extension was granted, and the application was finally considered and denied at the meeting on November 17. It is now four months after the original deadline for removal. This large court which is less than 6' from the side property line where 30' is required should be removed as soon as possible. The work should take less than a day. I would suggest the end of November as a deadline. Respe(cAfully, ^ang( nsDm( Bruce Van] B & Z Inspe'btor I iMBit atffiBiTC CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 60 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952J49.4600 ZONING FILE 03-2950 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; November 19,2003 TO: David & Theresa Gross 2635 Countryside Drive Orono, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances - Side Setback DATE OF MEETING: Monday, November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: A Denial of the variance to reduce the reauired 30 ’ side setback to less than 6* for a 2380 s.f. snort court. VOTE:5 FOR I AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; Meeting starts at 7;00 pm_________ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952.249.4627. Miftir D FILEM3-29S0 November 7. 2003 Page 1 of 0 Date Application Received: 09-02-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-04-03 60-Day Review Period Espires: 01-04-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Foth, City Planner November 7,2003 Subject:03-2950, David & Theresa (Tara) Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR'IB, Single Family Rural Residential (2 acre) 2.047 acre (89,189 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance in order to allow a 2380 s.f. sport court within 6* of the side lot line where 30’ is required.______ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the following: Denial of the after-the-fact side setback variance request. Hardship: Planning Staff does not find a hardship to justijy the granting of the after-the- fact variance for this situation for the following reasons: 1. A smaller sport court could have been constructed within the required setbacks, or 2. The existing court could have been constructed in an alternate location meeting the Code. Pertinent Ordinance Sections Chapter 86 Buildings and Building Regulations Sec. 86-66. Required. It is unlawful for any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or demolish any building or structure, or any part or portion, including but not limited to the general construction, plumbing, water well, on-site sewage treatment system, wood stoves and fireplaces, ventilating, heating or air conditioning systems, or cause such work to be done, without first obtaining a separate building or general permit for each such building, structure or separate component from the citv. (Code 1984, § 12.02) Chapter 78 Zoning Regulations Sec. 78-1404. Tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory stmetures exceed 1,000 square feet footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: (I) Front, 30 feet minimum and not within the required front yard nor i i i------------dk L FILEM3-2950 November 7.2003 Page 2 of 6 between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property. (2) Side, 30 feet minimum and not within the required side yard area. (3) Rear. 30 feet minimum and not within the required rear vard area (50' in theRR-lB). (Code 1984, § I0.03(14)(D)) List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. E.\isting & Proposed Sur\ey/Site Plan D. Submitted Plans and Elevations E. Letters from City Staff F. Alternative location for sport court meeting setbacks G. Sport Court Contract H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map J. Photos Background In June 2003, the applicants were notified by a lener (Exhibit El) from Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was required for their newly constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified that the sport court did not meet the required 30' side setback as it was placed less than 6' from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height restrictions. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work conducted on their property. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court, which the applicants signed, placing the responsibility for obtaining permits upon the property owner (Exhibit G). In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to remove the 2380 s.f. sport court as no permit had been applied for nor did it meet required setbacks. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport court and applied for an after-the-fact variance. A lener from Planning Director, Mike Gaffron. dated September 10, 2003, informed the applicants that their variance application was incomplete pending submittal of several items. That letter, attached as Exhibit E2, gave the applicants a deadline of October 1. 2003 in order to remain on the October Planning Commission agenda. The deadline for the October meeting passed w ithout submittal of the required materials and therefore the application dropped off the October agenda. Because this was an after- the-lact application, Stalf did not want the issue to be overlooked and sent a letter to the applicants (attached Exhibit E3) requiring submittal of the materials by November 1, 2003 or removal of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action by the City. At that time. Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into compfiance with J FILE«:3-2950 Noveirt*' 7.2003 Pa;«3of6 City Codes. On October 31 ” Staff called the applicants because the materials had not been submitted and Staff realized that the deadline date that was given fell on a Saturday. The applicants were notified at that time that the materials were to be submitted by 10 am Monday, November 3"*. There was a misunderstanding regarding who was to be responsible for submitting each of the required items which was causing the delay in material submittal. As of the date of this report the raised garden has not been brought into compliance. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR>1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. (2 acre)200’ Actual 89.189 s.f. (2.047 acre)303 ’ Setbacks for the snort court; RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 78' •Front, 30 feet minimum and not within the required front yard nor between the front lot line and the principal structure on the property. 155 ’No Change Rear 30 ’2ir No Change East Side 30 ’5.8’No Change West Side 30 ’175 ’No Change Side Yard Setback Variance A 30 ’ side yard setback is required; the current setback of the sport court is between 3.5 ’ and 6 ’ from the eastern side property line. The applicants are asking the Planning Commission to allow a structure 2380 s.f., which is 1380 s.f. larger than the threshold which triggers the increased setback of 30 ’. to be set back less than 6 ’ from the property line. Additionally, the setback requested by the applicants is significantly less than would be required for even just a small storage shed. The applicants have proposed additional landscaping screening consisting of arbor%'itae between the sport court and the L FILEM3-29S0 November 7.2003 Page4or6 eastern property line. The garden was located by the surveyor approximately 3-4** over the property line and should be located entirely within the applicants property. Per City Code Section 86-66, a permit is required for construction within the City of Orono. City Code also states that non-roofcd tennis courts, pools, paddocks and arenas are not subject to the mxximum accessory structure size limitations, however, the above structures in e.xcess ot 1000 s.i. are subject to additional setback requirements. Had a permit been applied for in this case, the applicant and the contractor would have been made aware of the 30’ side setback for oversized sport courti (which are treated as tennis courts). The intent ^eater setback requirement for sport courts is to minimize both the visual and activity impacts to neighboring properties. A sport court 6 ’ from the lot line has a much pater impact due to the noise, potential glare, lighting, and merely the activity associated with such a recreational facility, as compared to one 30* from the lot line. Further, the opportunity for adequate screening is lost with only a 6* setback. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be a.ked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the inm idualproperty under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it u demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. ^ * The applicants suggest that their lot has features and factors that force the court to be in tins location. However. Staff n.-:ds that, due to the size, location and nature of other features on this property, the property cannot support the 2380 s.f. sport court The ‘>- acre property cuirently has a 1.176 s.f. in-ground pool with a large patio surround.^a pergola-covered brick tireplace with a gathering area adjacent to the pool, septic tanks the existing mound septic systeir. and alternate secondary mound location in addition to the home. These features accoira for nearly 17,000 s.f. (19 %) of the property. Staff identified an alternate location for Lhe sport court confonning to setbacks (Exhibit F). Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship pertinent to this application: flYiWklliriTWiir j FILE#C3-2950 Novemt«r 7. 2003 Pas« 5 of 6 1, “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.’ This property can be used under the official controls. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The applicants did not contact the City to determine setback requirement nor did they apply for a building permit. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The character of this neighborhood is that of openly space.' 2-acre lots. Granting this variance will allow for a 23b0 sf sport court to be located 5.8 ' from the side property line where a 30 ' setback is required for sport courts over WOO s.f. 4, “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not stated that economic considerations are a part of their hardship. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. The fact that the in-place sport court had a high price tag cannot be considered as a hardship. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, hut is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable. 6. “Ihe Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permined unde: this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.’ Not applicable. 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question ore peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The conditions applying to the location of the sport court are completely dependant on the other features structures within the applicants ‘ property. This property cannot support a sport court of this size. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. FILEM3-2950 Novwn()«f7,2003 Pag*6 of6 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The applicants ’ property is 2.047 acres within a 2 ’Ocre zone. The neighborhood consists of similar lots. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The ability to have the 2380 s.f sport court is not a property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance wil! not in any way impair health, safety, effort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The granting of this variance is contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that while sport courts do not have a maximum size restriction, sport courts 1000 s.f. or greater are required to meet a 30 ’ side setback This requirement was established to protect adjacent properties from the negative impacts of such facilities. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The variance if granted will serve as a convenience to the applicants, it is not necessary to alleviate a hardship or difficulty. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration 1. Perhaps some additional soil testing could be performed in order to determine whether or not an alternative secondary septic location could be located, which might allow for a conforming location. 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Plaiuung Staff recommends denial of the affer-the-fact variance request based on a finding that if there are too many restrictions caused by other site features and amenities, then these factors are not hardships but are reasons that the site cannot suppon an additional amenity. aHi»tr A AppUcaHon # Q3-^9y*0 Date Received -0.3 Amount Paid .PST) • CITY OF ORO.NO - VARIANCE APPLICATION b.itial Applicanon Fee S230.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) j PROPERTY' INFORAUTION Site Address 2635 Countryside Diive West. Orono. MN 55^56 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)____________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required stirvey. Date Property Acquired 8/01 (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:_______________________________________ APPLICANT Name: __David & Tara Gross Address: 2635 Countrvside Drive West Phone (home) 952-476-7338_________ ___ Phone (work) Ti'l- U\i 3^ . City: Orono Zip: 55356 ^/Vi/1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $. See attached (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) R\RDSHI?/DESCRIPTION OF UNT/SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difilculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance vith Zoning Code requirements:___ See attached__________________' ' (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2950 i REQUIRED SUB.VOTTALS AM .of tht f9H9wjn2 inforingtion must be submitted bv the aPDiicarinn deadllng date In ordgr for vour aPDllcation to be comtdered complgtg; I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’. labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). 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). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour yarlangf application is ppt complete if the above information has not been tncludgd APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonine Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoiraation supplied IS true and cojifict to the best of his,lier knowledge. ^ -------------------------- OUTSER'S SIGNATURE Applicant's Signature iiiwuiicu in review or mis appiicatioii nd^cofffict to the best of his,lier knowledg( The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members and Council membci‘ for purposcsof investigation and verification of this request 7 T~~ / Owner's Signature Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. ApplicMts must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeiing. please make arraneemehts to have an authonzed agent attend m your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting. ’#2950 K j I ATTACHMENT TO ZONING VARIANCE APPLICATION Description of Request: This request for a variance is with respect to a sport court built on the property which appears to violate the existing setback provisions of the Orono Zoning Code specifically Sections 103 Subd. 14c and 14d thereof Hardshio/Descriotion of Unusual Property Conditions : The Applicant retained Sport Court (the “Contractor”) to construct the sport court on its property. The Applicant ^lie^'es that the Contractor is a reputable company with significant experience and expertise in the construction of these facilities including considerable experience within the City of Orono. Accordingly, the Applicant reasonably relied on the Contractor for advise as to the proper location of the sport court. The Contractor never advised the Applicant of any set back requirements with respect to the sport court. The Contractor ultimately built the sport court within 10 feet of *he neighboring property in apparent violation of the zoning code. The Applicant was rely’ ig on the knowledge, experience and expertise of the contractor in the placement of the s^ort co‘'rt and *vas unaware that the construction of the sport court was in violation of any ci,y ordinance or set back. Prior to construction, the location of the sport court as disclosed to adjoining property owners and the set back requirements were nevei discussed or objected to. Due to the location of the Applicant ’s home, drain field and backup drain field, the Applicant and the Contractor determined that the current location of the sport court was the most appropriate for the property. Attempting compliance with the setback would move the sport court into th backup drain field area. Even if another location could be found (which does not appear likely), removal and reconstruction of the sport court at this stage w'ould be a very costly and wasteful use of resources. Further, the location of the sport court creates no health, safety or welfare issues w ith respect lo the property or the adjoining properties. That is, no risk to health, safety 01 welfare of the residents are involved nor is there any adverse environmental conditions, wetlai.d conditions, erosion, hardcover issues or any other zoning laws impacted by the locau^a of the spert w.ourt. As an alternative, burming and screening the sport court with trees and other landscape materials appears to be more cost effective and appropriate. :0ji495»I iJil f 1 ■v; 11/03/2003 15:34 6514542230 SPTCTM3LS PAGE 01 CityofOioiio Atteotion: Melmie As per yourraiucst fof iofbiiDotioii f^snlins tho oouit thot wot ooDstnictod ot tbo Dtvid Qioss bousdiold, below you wQl 6nd what I hope will aniwer your Issuei. 8faw of coart aito 3S* x 70* Cooit to ladadc the Mowiag Hoau. Sptit Coart tariheo* Modular atUetic furftce green in color, with lines mariced in grey. Adjastablo hoop* sin^ hoop with clear bocldboard. Light nail* oppodte hoop ao k acts as a net pole as well as lighting i>r the court. liglds to Aine towards the house not into neighboif. Lights aw metal halide, and inside a box sc li^ is daected straight dowa Fsaco* tinV with green vinyl finish all poles, mesh to match court Fence rtnU be a combination of 5* and 10* higL The excavation of the area was accomplished by lowering die grade on the north end by 12** end raising the south end by 2*5**, no retahung walls were needed end the slope of the area was tqieredoffdieGOw.t to blend with the sunoundings. The court was pitdied to the south but only a little tb uUow the court to be fiooded for winter vorts. Typicaliy we will slope e court r* per 20*. The base of the court con^ of concrete that is 4** thkk with 3/8** rebar every 24** in both directions, tied and elevated into the center of the pal Hk sub>beae was recycled concrete, and class five. t p. ■ * / ru\ ^v.O v».i £<»■M III V/-min /> ' ' ue*‘3'>*^^l it ====»^—^.. § ---------------------------a------------------------------------------------------------------------" !! f li" C ~ A®L s s r^«tfTaiil Ml-vriMXViJii*i atf UdiAiiih^ .-^^au Aal'Ji ft r«kMft GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Strttt tiinss: 2750 KsHi-y ParVwiy Orono, ia S5356 Malliaf Addrttt: P.O. Boa €6 Crystal Bay. HN 5522-CC65 June 17,2003 Mr. And Mrs. David Gross 2635 Countryside Drive West Long Lake, MN 55326 Dear Mr. And Mrs. Gross: As we have discussed, a cement court was built on your property which decs not meet the required setback distance from the side property line on your lot. Because your 35' X 65* court is more than 1000 square f«t the Orono Zoning Cede SccUons 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) and Subdivision 14 (D) require that it be located 30* from a side property line. Yours appears to be about 7 or 8*. If you or your contractor had applied for the required permit prior to begirjiing work you would have known about these requirements in advance. When vour contractor started work even though there was no permit posted he left you in a difficult position You also hired a landscape contractor to build a fenced n garden. This garden does not require a permit, but it does need to be: 1. On your property 2. No more than 6' high within 30 ’ of the property line 3. No fill or retaining wall may be within 5' of the property line Section 12.02 of the Orono Zoning Code says: "The owr.er and/or occupant of any property, upon which any work has been done in \iolation of a.-.v Building Code or zoning requirement shall be respotwible for obtaining a permit, and/or for correcting, removing or abating such violation within thirty days after notice from the City that such violation e.xists.' Therefore, you and your contractors have not corrected these violations by July 21, 2003, the City may initiate legal action. If you have any questions or require further explanation please feel free to contact either me or the zoning department at City Hall. Building and Zoning Inspector Tticphooc (952) 249<4400 • Fax (952) 349-4616 ^*^w«ci«oronojno.us U »4 cmr«f Municipal u:{i m stmt Mints: 2750 lUty Paikway OroN, W SS3S6 miat IMnii. P.O. to 66 Ctystal Bty, MN SS323-GC6i Sec. 86-36. Cocrection of violations required. Tie o^ner wd/or occupant of any property upon which any work has been done in violation of any building code or zoning requirement shall be responsible for obtaining a peiTOt and/or for correcting, removing or abating such \iolation within 30 days after notice from the city that such violation exists. (Code 1984. § 12.02) Sec. 78-1404. Tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Tennis courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1.000 square feet footprint area, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: (1) Front, 30 feet niinimum and not within the required from yard nor between the front lot Ime and the principal strucnire on the property. (2) Side, 30 feet minimum and not within the required side yard 'rea. (3) Rear, 30 feet minimum and not within the required rear xord area (Code 1984, § 10.03(14X0)) TckplHNie(952)24!• Fas (952) 249-4616 ...... & S2, CITY of ORONO Monldpal OfTcts September 10,2003 Stne! Mdnu: 27:0 Ktllcy Farirwy Crrr;. MN 55355 MailBj Hino: r.O. Ba £3 C7st3l =i/, UN 55323-CCS3 David & Tara Gross 2635 Coimtryside Drive West Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Gross: R eqitst for further infor .\utio .\ Zoning Application #03-2950 The City of Orono is required to notify you uithin ten (10) business days as to th- stirus of vnirr application for after-the-fact setback varia=*es for a ^ ^ o C«rt ficae of 5ur%-ey (2 copies) signed by licensed s-er%-eyor. sioss-ig the suiveved sunreyor «artv ISe'ihf ^“Pravemenu. It is critics! thaS s^eyw exactly locate the existing house and sport court, sho'-rin* dirnensions of inadequate for review purposes, as such locadca must be ceniiied by a s-l-\eyor) ° Wm tfds cross-secticas, elevation xiews. etc. of the proposed srort court It have basketball hoops or other fixtures? ^ * o ^ berms or vegetative screening are proposed, please pro'.nde -'’’ns fjr those improvements, and show their proposed locations on the survey. ” * ~ tem»t$c««d;fovcbyS Commission agenda. Please call me at (9S2) 2;M600 sho““ “ S^^^c cesrio^®' Sincerely, ^ Michael P. Gaffiron Planning Director eo-'et 4.. W.M«te»> a L l . ru(95J)J4»^«16t e.<v •♦u IM5 UJftTJMfti* w»nrxLorono«anj J CITYof <HtONO Mnaidpal Offices Strut l^rtss: 27!u K«i!(y r2.‘V«ay Cr.ri MN «356 Malting Mtfresi* P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 October 15,2003 David A & Theresa L Gross 2635 Countryside Drive West Orono, MN 55391 Re: FUe # 03-2950 Propert}* Identification Number 04-117-23-13-0007 In a letter dated June 17,2003, from Br.ce Vanr. Building & Zoning Inspector, you were notified that your newly constructed cecent sport court and your fenced garden are in violation of City Code. You were directed a: diat ±ne to take the necessary steps in order to bring your property into compliance by July II. 2003. In early September 2003, you were again nodf ed by City Staff that your cement sport court was in violation of City Code, as it was constructed without a permit and does not meet the required 30* side yard setback. On Sentemrer 9,2003, you applied for an after- the-fact setback variance to allow the spen ccurt to remain in its current location. You were notified by Planning Director, Mike Gafron. ±at items were missing from your application and you were given a deadline of Octo ’cer 1. 2003 for submittal. To date those items have yet to be submined and ycur garden has not been brought into compliance with City Codes, therefore your arplicanon has been removed from the October 20* Planning Commission agenda. At this time, concerning the cement spcncoun. you have the following options: 1. Remove the cement sport court in i*a entirety, cr 2. Submit the requested materials by November !. 2003 to proceed with the variance hearing on November 17,2003. Additionally, in reference to the garden, i: must *ce relocated on to your own property and the fence may be no more than 6 ’ within 30* of the preperxy line. Finally, there may be no fill or retaining wall located within 5’ of the property line. Your garden and cement sport court, as constructed, do not meet City Ordinances. In order to resolve this matter; you are required to bring your property into compliance with City Codes by November 1, 2003. In two separate letters. City Staff provided you with options in order to comply widi Code; I have attached those letters for your reference. Tdepbooe (952) 2494600 • Fu (952) 3494616 %nrw.cioronajaxLUS JXttieiT F S 89*01*05" E . 53.09 roo morker i«t Kisting spol elevollon, I tv# I floti/n or# bostd upon on ossimed doiun ids to the boundories of .bed property, the locotion 10 house, pool ond sport court joes not purport to show ony ■iwnts or encroochmsnts. N 89*01'!05" W 156.64 #•I V ^ ' ttOOOJ) % ...-• r» In««i- «l^ /# \ \133 aa IIOM-I) .V '^EXISTING HOUSE , __ S !«mJ) msocnt »». #»» wjO ^.•••••••#•••*••'•••«•♦••••»•«•••♦•••»*»••••»•••••••••••*••*•••' (m7) (mn BWWmCTLACt I -•* » Mxai (HM) CTE alternate SEPTIC SITE t (MIJ) t (iat^) \ \ (aa^ IftMJ (taiA) (Na«)(aau SEPTIC MOUND •(aaM)(«aa.t) PTION OF PREMISES OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION '.V ; iron marker set ; existing spot elevation, 50 level datim mn ore bosed upon on ossimed dotum. !• i, -f , ; I GAF » mtj (MM) cc (HU) (MU)(MO I *(MM) (MI.1) .. y^-rrf*'_______. yrT EXISTING HOUSE 8 BMOCNT a 3» #2»» ■*!W») .. taf JU *♦•♦♦••«•••••••••♦••••••#•••••••••< (•MT) (M17) ■MX _ nwriACC >(m7) GARDEN tNWWu PTiON OF PREMISES : ; 3, OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ADDITION ; iron marker set ; existing spot elevation, >0 level dotim )wn ore bosed upon an assimed datum. intends to the boundaries of •scribed properly, the location ng house, pool ond sport court does not purport to show any 'cments or encroochments. » (MU) (MM) ALTERNATE SEPTIC SITE (M^ tftMI (OMA) (•M4) (MM SEPTIC MOUND MM) (M«.t) ^4^ N 89®0ri05" W 156.64 05/30/2003 14:49 An agreement betweet and Customer Address ‘itwCity, Legal descrip If checked he Please do not Insiatler proposes l m Size of court light Bnit BB unit *Pole pd "Board pad Net adjust systeir Net pole Net Reboundcr Ball containoent 1 Aitro*Turf All work to he comp (include ux, i( appUc Payment lo be made jd' It is egwd th€ follow Call: Buded Utiliries;( Acetsi Pemiuloo: Anticipa’.cd Finish DS' Spon Ccun Authorixe Site prep is complel installation is temovi Liodscaplof iadud Acceptance and Ho 1 have read the abcvi conditions o( the agr have carehiUy looked for location of ike ur drain fields, septic ta Customer Signature Your Sales Person: i SPORT 05/30/2003 14:49 • * *. V .# B514542230 SPTCTMPLS ^ • *1 •• • r . M OfH^^PAGE 02 n Construction / InstallatiQii Agreement An lEreement between Sport Court of the Twin Cities anri ------ Customer Address ■ (called customer) Home Phone - ^3^ Zip ^3;^ .WorkPhone X XX Legal description of customer's property is attached. y\ If checked here, additional attachments ars included in this agreement. Please do not use pictures of our inslallation for promotional use. Installer proposes to furnish all equipment, labor, and materials necessary to complete the Job below: Sports beach ___________: |yl Paint lines * Fun pack . • • • Size of court Light nnit BB unit *PoIe pad *Board pad Net at^uil system Net pole Net Rebounder Ball cootainoent T»f * Hockey goal * Shuffleboard set_ Hockey boards _ ^Shuffleboard _ * Hopssotch ^ * 4 Square _ * 3*point arc _ X X X *3'point arc *Court \\nm*.^^fr»o ( Court tile Site prep ’ ______ Cqncrtte InstalletloD__________ Freight ntheT^ wk.is * ^ I Aitro'Turf HOME GOLF CENTER Size of Green ________________ Sanding __ Cups & Pina Concrete _ ‘1\MfIni(ill ^ Other All work w be completed to stagdar^p^a^^M^ work^a^e ma^r fw ot ^ Payment to be made as follows; in' It is atfstd At fallowing Utmsiissuts {if required) shall be performed by: Ciil; Bu.-ied ^ Pennlu: A cccm rcnmUaioo: X Dtivcway/Accou Permiaiion X Anticipated Finish Data Sport Court Autharired Repreaenutiv > >n, Date: Site prtp ia completed when: cement forma are removed, excess cement off slab is removed, excess soil resulting from court installation is removed, and the grade ia Ish at the base of the slab. Laadacaplog iacludiog: retaining walla, addition of icp soil, resod, rock border and et^pig IS NOT INCLUDED uo Icm suted. Acceptance and Hold Hannlui^recfflcnt 1 have read the above contract details acd the conditicos shewn on the reverse tide of this page. 1 hereby accept all tenns and conditlorj of the agreement. I further aclciowledge that the Sport Court Sports Patio tscation hM been staked at my direction. I Cusiomer Signature ; tanks, pipelines, witug, etc. i lum^acksoe Your Sales Penon; j^Date: MobUe # 7 SPORT COUR^ 3900 SIBLEY MEMORIAL HWY.. EAGAN, MN 55123 • PH: dSi.4S4.04Sd HUNDAIU: tmOO) 3N 0411773120004 PROPAUOR 2615 COUNIKYSUMiDH OWNERNAMfi PETICHY AM M TICHY TAXPAYER PAULBTICIIY NAME/ADOR 2615 COUNTRYSIDE DR LONGIAKEMN 55356 31 04II723I200I5 PROPAOOR 2610 COUNTRYSIDE DRW OWNERNAME TOOOB A KATHERINE M URNESS TAXPAYER TODD BA KATHERINE M URNESS NAME/ADDR 2630 COUNTRYSIDE DR W LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 04II723I300I0 PROPAOOR 2740 DEER RUN TRE OWNERNAME BTLARKR4 ASBLARKIN TAXPAYER BRIAN T A SUSAN 0 LARKIN NAME/ADDR 2095 SALEM CT LONG LAKE MN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPliRTY INI ORMATION SYSTEM pr ()im;r IY owni ;ks i.isi rMil-: I JH U4II723I2UUI3 PROP ADUK 2670 COUNI RYSIUE OR W OWNERNAME RDAJMOEVERE TAXPAYER ROBERTO* JEAN MDEVERE NAME/ADOR 2670 COUNTRYSIDE OR W LONG LAKE MN S53S6 38 U4II723I2UUI4 PROP AOOR 2690 COUNTRYSIDE DR W OWNERNAME ROBERTJJORGENSONETAL TAXPAYER ROBERT JAGERIA JORGENSON NAME/ADOR 2650 COUNTRYSIDE DR W LONGIAKEMN 55396 51 04II723I30006 PROPAOOR 2659 COUNTRYSIDE OR W OWNERNAME N A LEVY * 1 0 LEVY TAXPAYER NEAIL A LEVY* IRENE D LEVY NAMIVADI3R 2655 COUNTRYSIDE DRW LUNOl^KEMN 55J56 M 04II725IJ0007 PROPAOOR 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRW OWNERNAME DAVID A* TERESA L GROSS TAXPAYER DAVID A GROSS NAME/ADDR 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DR W LONGIAKEMN 55356 31 0411723140005 PKOPADOR It ADOKESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TAXPAYER ONR REAL ESTATE MOMT NAME/ADDR ATTN DEIIUIE CURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 03 <*3 S'} i CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND UEUCF. o , . DATE J- by ■ • - .1^. ^ . - '« .HJtl Hennepin h*. V-V. Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department II -O.*r i? w •/ r'Z-J Parcel Information Parcel ID 0411723130007 House Number 2635-A v'i street Name COUNTRYSIDE DR W This Is not a lagally racordsd map. It nzrsss rts a compilation ofMonnallon and data from City, County, and Stale -ad sjzftoritias and othar soureas. ( wmmmm -■'M ' "ll X V.l <' •I'l ^bfUkm '•I* r, »•.* • N • --I- •ira; KZVi’* 7/^), m lit• - ^ ^ r^'f fe *V • 0 ,. ■ -1 r VA*?;a^S?J»!$- ,. .,,1 ' •#'4^ 3k\?SiT V. . '\x -.*i ‘ .-Jt; ^ Er— »-N. 'V\r .> i‘‘. h • ««VJj ‘ V. --.rf i 0C J t •• • V.' 1 •/•iv..\i i i *•!.»«m-: V' lu ■’{<'• 1» f* ♦ *1 a-. •'"T 1' V*'W -z.1 — ^ : ‘ ^p’l Vr. -n.f. B.- p V* ‘-*s ^mmm I^^SS '___ 1 ^* v I* T'A^iSiju^ii^lBBSs spip^ B bv •ID m .. e>t 2- 6X r • ‘'i ■■M^ m T trmm t> w. ■»■ v; r.^ mw '4> j ^ 5^^'^•:S .-‘n: ■ ' »-.v ?- V'; '/;-//;i^j/V v f* ,: i: f-‘*?S";: 5 ®li;r'T 1^ CIjL*^^ • •• 1 t>’ v% i__ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Acting Chair thanked the q^licants for working with the City and Planning Department staff to resolve their differences. Ms. Newkirk acknowledged that it had been a terrible experience. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2953, Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, granting both a hardcover variance in the 0-75* aone of 1.4% consbting of a staircase to the lake and the 75-250* zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed, subject to the removal of all landscape fabric and plastic liners. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#8) #03-2950 DAVID AND TARA GROSS, 2635 COUNTRYSIDE DRIVE WEST, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE (7:23 - 8:00 P.M.) David and Tara Gross, the applicants, were present. Foth explained that the applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance in order to allow a 2380 s.f sport court within 6’ of the side lot line where 30’ is required Foth provided the following background, in June 2003, the applicants were notified by a letter from Orono Building Inspector, Bruce Vang, that an after-the-fact permit was required for their newly constructed sport court. In addition, the applicants were notified that the sport court did not meet the required 30’ side setback as it was placed less than 6* from the side lot line. In the same letter Vang notified the applicants that their fenced-in raised garden did not meet City Code requirements with respect to setback and height PAGE 15 of 56 » <****■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. restncbons. The applicants were unaware that a permit had not been obtained as required, and it was their understanding that their contractor had obtained a permit for the work conducted on their property. Staff has included a copy of the contract from Sport Court, which the applicants signed, placing the responsibility for obtaining permits upon the property owner. In September, the applicants were directed by Planning Department Staff to remove the 2380 s.f. sport court. At that time, the applicants did not wish to remove the sport court and applied for an after-the-fact variance. A letter from Planning Director, Mike Gaffron, dated September 10, 2003, informed the applicants that their variance application was incomplete pending submittal of several items. Staff did not want the issue to be overlooked and sent a letter to the applicants requiring submittal of the materials by November 1,2003 or removal of the sport court would be required to avoid legal action by the City. At that time, Staff also required that the raised garden be brought into compliance with City Codes. On October 31” Staff called the applicants because the materials had not been submitted and notified them that the materials were to be submitted by 10 am Monday, November 3"*. There was a misunderstanding regarding who was to be responsible for submitting each of the required items which was causing the delay in material submittal. Foth stated that, typically, a 30’ side yard setback is required; the current setback of the sport court is between 3.5’ and 6’ from the eastern side property line. The applicants are asking the Planning Commission to allow a structure 2380.s.f., which is 1380 s.f. larger than the threshold which triggers the increased setback of 30’, to be set back less than 6’ from the property line. Additionally, the setback requested by the applicants is significantly less than would be required for even just a small storage shed. The applicants have proposed additional landscaping screening consisting of arborvitoe between the sport court and the eastern property line. In addition, Foth noted that the garden was located by the surveyor approximately 3-4 ” over the property line and should be located entirely PAGE 16 of 56 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. within the applicants property. Foth pointed out that City Code Section 86^, indicates a permit is required for construction of structures in excess of 1000 s.f. and are subject to additional setback requirements. Had a permit been ^iplied for in this case, the ^)plicant and the contractor would have been made aware of the 30’ side setback for oversized sport courts (which lore treated as tennis courts). Foth reported that Plaiming Staff recommends denial of the after*the>fact variance request based on a finding that if there are too many restrictioos caused by other site features and amenities, then these factors are not hardships but are reasons that the site carmot support an additional amenity. Ms. Gross indicated that the garden issues had been solved and were no longer in question. Mr. Gross explained that their intent to construct a sport court in this location was by no means meant to be a malicious act. He indicated that he and his family moved to Ormio two years earlier and have been heaxily involved in the community. Having looked at their options for constructing a sport court last spring, they settled on this location as it was visible from the kitchen windows and proceeded without objection from adjoining properties. Gross stated that, in fact, the adjoining neighbor had no objection at the time but instead asked to use the sport court when complete. In addition, he had seen several full size teiuiis courts and sports courts on property lines throughout the area and had no concerns about its placement. Although the intent was to build the sport court 10’ from the property line, which they fdt was meeting code based on others they’d seen, due to grade changes the court was shifted to merely 6’ off the property line. .Mr. Gross stated that, after construction, Bruce Vang ^>proached the applicants and said we’d have to apply for an after*the-fact variance. In so doing, the Gross’ hired Gronberg and Associates to handle the matter and provide the City PAGE 17 of 56 •I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. with the necessary p^)erworic they required. Gross stated that, unbeknownst to them, the deadlines were missed, after which he placed repeated phone calls to his representatives to provide the necessary papers. Mr. Gross believed the proposed alternate location would place the sport court on the blind side of the home and cause the removal of eight large spruce trees. Instead, Gross proposed they plant signiflcant landscaping to improve the existing situation. Acting Chair Mabusth recogm'zed that the applicants had been put in a difficult situation. Ms. Gross indicated that, typically, all of the contractors they’d ever dealt with had always pulled the permits for them, and it was not apparent to them that it was their responsibility. Gross questioned if the Code had been changed recently to reflect a 30’ rather than 10’ setback. Gaffion indicated that the oversize structure Code dates back 10 years. Paul Tichy, 2615 Countryside Drive, stated that, as the adjoining property owner, he wished for fiirther clarity and definition of what the codes exist for it not to protect the integrity and values of property owners. He pointed out that, while it is their preference to preserve the natural state of their property, they did not wish for bad things to happen for the neighbor. Acting Chair Mabusth pointed out that, specifically, the rules regarding sport courts exist to protect adjacent neighbors from the additional noise and disturbance the courts, and lights create by nature. Gaffion asked the Commission whether they could find any hardship that would support the approval of the proposed location, had the application come to them before-the-fact PAGE 18 of 56 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Although she could appreciate their concern about visibility, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that, had they come in prior to construction, they would have been asked to test for septic and move it closer to meet the 30’ setback. Gross acknowledged that, while they could try to reduce the size of the court to fit within the City Code, at great expense, he questioned how the additional 4’ would eliminate the impact that noise and children might have. Bremer asked what the sport court would have to be reduced by to allow it to remain 10' from the property line. Gaffron indicated that accessory structures of 0-750 s.f. require a 10’ setback, from 750- 1500 s.f. require a 15’ setback and so on. Hawn stoted that this is the second time she had heard of this sort of setback issue being created by sport courts and asked why this continues. Bremer pointed out that the contract with Sport Court clearly states it is the homeowner’s responsibility to pull the permits. Gross stated that, having never been in a position where the contractor hadn ’t pulled the permit, they simply had overlooked that aspect of the contract in the excitement of getting their sport court. He reiterated that they never would have walked willingly into this predicament and noted that his proposed options placed a pretty significant impart on him and his family. Fritzler maintained that the applicants must reduce the size of their sport court and keep any fencing within limits as well. PAGE 19 of 56 iiirmriiiT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 17,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. While she would not have voted to support the current placement of the sport court if they’d come before the Commission first, Hawn asked whether a time limit should be placed on the courts removal or new placement. Gallron stated that weather conditions may warrant a removal/relocation deadline of June 2004. Bremer questioned whether the applicants had spoken to their contractor about their role in creating this problem. Gross stated that the contractor refened them to the contract. Tichy, the neighbor, questioned whether Sport Court should have proceeded without a permit knowing what they do about limitations within Orono. He pointed out that Sport Court has acknowledged that Orono is one of 5 communities in the metro area with more restrictive setback allow ances than most. He argued that Sport Court might have a bit more liability in the situation than they have been leading the Gross’ to believe. Craig Jones, owner of Sport Court, stated that for 18 years he has been the one to pull permits for his clients; however, he had recently changed this policy and put the responsibility of this upon the customer. Unfortunately, as in this situation, Jones stated that he has learned this is not an effective alternative and has reversed his policy so that he, the contractor, pulls the permits. Jones stated that he was familiar with Orono’s rules regarding setback, having spoken to Lyle Oman in the past. . Fritzler asked why the contractor didn’t question the fact no permit was posted at the site. He stated that he would not be in support of granting the after-the-fact request. Fritzler moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-2950, David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive, a request for an after-the-fact variance to PAGE 20 of 56 H 1 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 17,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. allow a 2380 s.f. sport court within 6* of the side lot line where 30* is required. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1. Zugschwert stated that she would grant the request with additional screening. She believed it was unfortunate that the Gross* were caught in the middle; whereas, the Sport Court organization has once again begun pulling the permits for their clients. Based on the denial. Todd Umess, 2630 Countryside Drive West, asked for clarification of when the removal must take place given the time of year. The Commission agr. *d that removal or relocation should be complete by June 2004. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8:00 P.M. (#6) #03-2966 ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, SECTIONS 78-1491 (h) and 78-1577, REGULATION OF VEHICLE STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Acting Chair Mabusth opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Seeing there were no public comments, Mabusth closed .the public hearing and postponed Commission discussion following new business. NEW BUSINESS - Continued (#9) #03-2866A DAVID AND JUDY' ZOSCHKE. 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL (8:01 - 8:25 P.M.) Judy and David Zoschke, the applicants, were present. Gafhvn explained that the applicant is ^pealing City Staffs interpretation of the PAGE 21 of 56 Date Application Received: 9/16/03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9/17/03 I2u-Day Subdivision Review Period Expires: 1/14/04 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COIIWCIL MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 CITY Uh OMUImU Date: November 20,2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Adm^istrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gartron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descriptioo: =03-2951 James & Judith Piernont, 1801-1849 West Farm Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Vacation/Rededication of Drainage & Utility Easement List of Exhibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 11-20-03 B - Memo and Exhibits of 10-15-03 Application Summary: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between these two residential lots, both of which they have owned for many years. The westerly lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants’ intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1801 and its guesi house, but only if the wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement. Planning Commission concluded the wetland area is Qoi attributable, and determined that the guest house use should be discontinued, the kitchen removed, and a “Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP” be applied for. Please review the memo and exhibits of October 16 for additional information and history regarding this property. Planniog Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this at a Public Hearing held on November 17,2003. On a vote of 5-1, Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot line rearrangement as follows: 1. Because the parcel containing the existing residence and guest house will not contain at least 4.0 acres ofdr> buildable land, the guest house use should cease. The conditions of the 1990 Guest House CUP were never fulfilled and won ’t be with this lot line rearrangement. M3-295I I80M849 West Farm Road November 20,2003 Page 2 Planning Commission was open to the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a “Plumbing In An Accessory Building CUP" which would require the removal of kitchen facilities from the guest house. Planning Commission discussed the fact that the guest house did not meet location standards for the Plumbing CUP, but concluded that the fact that the building has been in this location for many decades, is far from any neighboring residence and has no negative visual impacts, it is a historic structure, parts of which date to the 1870's, are factors that limit any negative impacts of such a CUP. Planning Commission indicated the City Attorney should advise staff as to whether the CUP conversion can be part of this process (and if so Plamiing Commission recommends approval), or whether such a proposal must be a separate application and re\ iew/Tiearing process. 3.Approval of the necessary easement vacations in exchange for dedication of new easements along the new lot line. 4.Removal of the driveway connection between the two lots should be required and can occur in 2004. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. If Council concurs, resolutions conditionally approving the lot line rearrangement and the easement vacation/rededication will be prepared for Council adoption on December 8. The City Attorney has advised staff that the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP will require a separate application and hearing process. He also suggested that the subdivision approval not become effective until the CUP process has been successfully completed and its resulting conditions met. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to conceptually approve the lot line rearrangement and easement vacation/rededication per the Planning Commission recommendation, and direct staff to draft appropriate conditional resolutions for adoption on December 8, and direct the applicant to make an application for a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP (deadline is December 17 for the January Planning Commission meeting). r CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-41Mill. ZONING FILE #03-2951 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 20, 2003 TO: James & Judith Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: November 17, 2003 Planning Commission recommended conditional approval as follows: 1. Because the parcel containing the existing residence and guest house will not contain at least 4.0 acres of dry buildabte land, the guest house use should cease. The conditions of the 1990 Guest House CUP were never fulfilled and won’t be with this lot line rearrangement. 2. Planning Commission was open to the conversion of the Guest House CUP to a "Plumbing In An Accessory Building CUP" which would require the removal of kitchen facilities from the guest house. Planning Commission discussed the fact that the guest house did not meet location standards for the Plumbing CUP, but concluded that the fact that the building has been in this location for many decades, is far from any neighboring residence and has no negative visual impacts, it is a historic structure, parts of which date to the 1870's, are factors that limit any negative impacts of such a CUP. Planning Commission indicated the City Attorney should advise staff as to whether the CUP conversion can be part of this process (and if so Planning Commission recommends approval), or whether such a proposal must be a separate application and review/hearing process. 3. Approval of the necessary easement vacations in exchange for dedication of new easements along the new lot line. 4. Removal of the drivew a> connection betNveen the two lots should be required and can occur in 2004. \^ote: 5 Ayes, 1 Nay Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Clt>’ Council - Monday, November 24, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you cannot attend, please send a representative or advise Cit>* staff to reschedule your Item for a future meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available fiuiii the Cit>' Recorder afier review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. k Date Application Received: 9/16/03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9/17/03 60>Day Review Period Eipires: 11/16/03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 16,2003 Subject:#03-2951 James & Judith Pierpor.t, 1801-1849 West Farm Road - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Vacation/Rededication of Drainage & Utility Easement - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. (87,120 s.f.) Lot Area: Existing Lot 15 & part of 16 (1801 West Farm Road): 3.“0 ac. Lot 14 (1849 West Farm Road): 2.31 ac. Proposed 4.01 ac. (3 ac. dry, I ac. wetland) 2.00 ac. (alldiy) Application Summary: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement benx een these two residential lots, both of which they ha', e owned for many years. The westerly lot, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly let, 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.2854. Applicants ’ intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1 801 and its guest house, but only if the wetland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement. Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 78-305: LR-1 A Minimum lot area required = 2.0 acres dry buildable Minimum lot width required = 200' 2. 3. Section 78-303(8)(. ): Guest House CUP standards Conditions of Resolution No. 2854. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat map ;o/2o/o^ C - Survey - Existing & Proposed Lot Lines D - City topographic map showing approximate wetland boundary E - Hardcover Calculation Worksheets F - Buildable Envelope for Lot 14 G - Property Owners List H - Photos 1 - Resolution No. 2854 & Pertinent Docu.r.ents ■w «03>295l October 16,2003 Page 2 Background Applicants propose to relocate the common boundary between Lots 14 and 15, Farm at Long Lake. Currently, Lot 14 is a vacant 2.31 acre lot. Lot 15 has been combined with a pan of Lot 16 and contains the existing residence plus a guest house on 3.7 acres. In 1990 the applicants were granted a CUP via Resolution No. 2854 to convert a detached stable and garage into a guest house near the northwest comer of Lot 15. At that time the property was depicted as “5-plus dry contiguous acres”, considered as including Lot 14 for density purposes. Condition 2 of Resolution No. 2854 stated as follows: “2. The applicants have agreed to legally combine Lot 14, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake with the adjacent homestead property by February 28,1991. AppUcants are hereby advised that If the legal combination is not realized by the specified deadline date, aU residential use of the subject structure shall cease immediately and applicants shall be required to the necessary alterations to the guest house structure so that it may no longer be used for habitation. AppUcants shaU obtain the req-ired building permit to complete the alterations.” For reasons unknown to staff, the legal combination has never been completed by the applicants. They continue to own both parcels, however, and are requesting the lot line rearrangement in order to maximize the area of the homestead parcel while retaining the minimum 2.0 dry buildable acres in Lot 14 for future development or sale as a building site. Guest House Standards Guest House conditional use standards appear in Section 78-303(8)(a) and read as follows: Conditional Uses. Within any "LR-1 A" one family lakeshore residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (8) Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. (a) Guest Houses. A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house.” In past applications, this has been interpreted to mean that a property in a 2-acre zone must contain 4.0 dry buildable acres of land :o qualify for a guest house. Staff is unaware of any past situations '^bere a guest house was allowed when a portion of the required 4 acres was wetland. It should be noted that the existing guest house is located very near the north property boundary of Lot 15/16; this was reviewed and found acceptable during re\iew of the CUP granted in 1990. K #03*2951 October 16,2003 Page 3 Septic System Capability; Sewer Pending Applicants have provided septic testing indicating that Lot 14 after the rearrangement will have two approved sites for a S-bedroom mound s>stem as required by City code. Lot 15/16 has also been confirmed to have a site for construction of a S-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing system serving the house and guest house. However, the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that Lot 14 and Lot 15/16 will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future. At the time of attributing sewer units to the various properties to be served, the guest house on Lot 15/16 will have to be considered under the City ’s assessment policies. Lot Standards Lot Area & Width Lot 14 will contain the required 2.0 acres of dry buildable land after the rearrangement. Lot 15/16 will contain 4.01 gross acres, of which approximately 3 acres is dry buildable, meeting the minimum standards for a single family residence. Setbacks Lot 14 will have a substantial buildable envelope remaining after the rearrangement (shaded area of Exhibit F). Note that Lot 14 is by definition a “through” lot, hence any accessory buildings will require a CUP under current codes. The setbacks to existing structures on Lot 15/16 will not be impacted by this rearrangement; in all cases, the existing structure setbacks from the common boundary will be increased. Lot 15/16 also has frontage on both West Farm Road and the “Homestead” private road, and could also be considered as a through lot. Hardcover Lot 14 has some land within 1000' of Long Lake, but appears to be all outside the 300 ’ shoreland hardcover limit of the tributary creek between Dickey Lake and Long Lake. Lot 15/16 has land within each of the four hardcover zones. Hardcover calculations have been provided, showing that existing hardcover is well below the established limits, and should not be a factor in future development of the property. Note that based on the county plat maps, Lot 15/16 does not abut the shoreline of Long Lake and therefore is not considered as a lakeshore lot. Wetlands Based on a review of the City w etland maps, and those of the MCWD and Hennepin Conservation District, there are no wetlands on Lot 14. #03-2951 October 16,2003 Page 4 Drainage and Utility Easement The existing 20' drainage and utility easement along the current boundary between Lot 14 and Lot 15 is proposed to be vacated and a new easement granted in its place. Prior to final approval of the lot line reairangement, the pertinent utility compames will be requested to confirm whether they have any objections to the vacation/dedication; no objections are anticipated. Lot Standards Table: 1849 West Farm (Lot 14)1801 West Farm (Lot 15/16) | Standard Required or Alloured Existing Proposed Existing Proposed 1 Lot Area 2.0 acres 2.31 acres 2.0 acres 3.70 acres 4.01 acres Lot Width 200' min.450'±400'z 70' +120'± Hardcover 0-75 0%NA NA 0%0% 75-250 25%NA NA 0%0% 250-500 30%NA NA 0%0% 500-1000 35%8%±7.7% r 18.13%16.6% Issues for Consideration 1.An old loop driveway provides access from the existing residence south through Lot 14 and back out to West Farm Road. There was a prior connection to the Homestead private road to the south, but that has since been blocked off If this access driveway is to continue through Lot 14 for now, it should be dealt with \ia easements or removal at such time that Lot 14 is transferred into separate ownership from Lot 15/16... 2.Will Planning Commission accept the use of three dry buildable acres and one wetland acre to satisfy the Guest House lot standards requirement of 4 acres? If not, then should the guest house use cease? With removals of certain fixUires and'or any existing kitchen facilities, the guest house may qualify for an “accessory structure plumbing" CUP, although the guest house is not in a conforming location... the applicants should be asked to define the current and intended uses of the guest house... 3.Aside from the guest house and access issues, does Planning Commission have any concerns regarding this lot line rearrangement? A M3-2951 October 16,2003 Pages Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicants to grant a 20' drainage & utility easement (10' cither side of new lot line) to replace the easements being vacated. Applicants to provide title opinion to confirm ownership of each property. Planning Commission should address whether the Guest House use should continue to be allowed based on 3 acres dry/1 acre wet. If not, then applicants should be directed to proceed with removal of its plumbing, or make an application to convert it to an “accessory building with plumbing” and remove any existing Idtchen facilities. Planning Commission should determine what the intended use is for the driveway in Lot 14 connecting to Lot 15/16; then determine whether any special conditions should be considered for continued use of that secondary ac<;:9BS if Lot 14 is sold separately from Lot 15/16. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2951 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 22. 2003 TO: James & Judith Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake. MN 5S3S6 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Tabled because applicant was not present. Although no discussion was held, the Planning Commission did accept comments (tom the adjoining t.eighbor to the west who spoke against the idea of a new home being constructed on Lot 14 for various reasons. Motion to Table - VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, November 17, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you cannot attend, please send a representative or advise City staff to reschedule your item for a future meeting. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Plarming Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. s A Application # Date Received Q-u Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIONLKA X JLUCAIIU^ M Site address bJEsr F^ltm ZV. otir^c ///// uifsr fiMUm 7^D ^ Property Identification Number (PID)^^ -//f -,g.f 4//^. f:L^ nr - A3 Vv Please check one - Property____abstract or x torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Karr; ^uaiTH / ^mes 'Pis‘RvaAir“ Add-;ss J9et i^fsr T^nan City OKaNa____________________ Phone (home) 9S‘Z/-ti9r’ fi<^3 Phone (work) J/j, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__ (attach list if more than one)Zip Phone (home) .Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District ITU A Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units / hcuse. Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes ^ Lot Line Reaaangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites - o - Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 3^^/^ Units per___Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential _______Other (specify)________ 1 tfllM Pf«l«>»n|*0'fteinfornationonCert G) As°« yy “** fr°™ Hennepin County Department of finance A-60. Official’s Signati^ application, please attach a separate list of any other persons ^swsh notified of this application. ^al appucation 2. Si^d CeniGcaie of Survey or mylar copies of (JSlZi *'• i.1; 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developen Agreement and Lener of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature ark fees if appUcable). Date '• “““ “ «« epply, —7 — (Class I. II & III) $275.00 _2L— Lot Line Rearrangement S335^0^ -------Subdivision Application (Class I & II) S4fe)?r^ --------- ^ »« "0-rside.d.l, Totals ■TT------ • uij ■2^ Legal Review and Filing: • $ B -______*'“w*'*»»»ionorsiy $100.00^ - ‘ ----- . Legal and Engmeenng Review Fees (as incurred)«r Renewal of Class Ill."prel^^ Subd1li?bn App^ applicaaon) ------ Propos'd Private Roads 5650.00+ $ 50/lineal ft • i- />. Proposed Public Roads 5950.00 + S.50mneal ---------“"iv^ * “ * Request for Citv to A<-f,.r,f Cv.„.— b _-. .. « " — !“• ft- x .50 « $n m .Z:-----^ a.3u/nneal ft.- 1 Request for City to Accept E.xisting Private Road S950 00 Proposed Samtary Sewer Main Extension S275 00 -i- S?v«t, k Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 S25-^tub Proposed Storm Sexver S>stem (excluding culverts) $250.00 Site Evaluation Review fanDlicahU #« 1 C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees -------- Variance $250.00 (S5O.C0 per each additional variance) PRDTo"nt T*""" Subdivision $100.00PRD Application with Subdivision $35.00/Dwelling Unit 6 o Pbmrmg CommirGm^^u';.;™^^^^ Appl,c.m-5SimrS2^ A----- V S'-'T'I • . ' tyApplicant's Signa Owner's Signamre 1 Date ySoj^ti- 15* Applicant must havrntfsubmittals into the City Ofucc 25 dav lUr t. i a c are held on the third Monday of each rr.on'Ji. Applicants mu!t'^D«senf«*llM meeting. PlanaiAg Commission meetings and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled mee^f please *®‘**‘*“^'‘* "view meetings of the Planning Cor-mission ML^L££^ e rono City Council adopted an ordinance limirino # O ,*• 1^.. tk 1 , ? J Picrpont 3124750301 Judith Picrpont 1801 West Farm Road Orono, Minnesota SS3S6 September 17,2003 Mr. Mike GalTron City of Orono 2750 Kdl^ Paikway Orono, Minnesota S53S6 Dear Mike: This IS just a note to ^nfirm that otff documents are being subndted today to sunnort our request to rcarruige the eastern boundary line of lot 1'4 at 1849 Weal Farm Road. Wc wish to move the line westward such that lot 14 becomes exactly two acres and lot 15 land, thereby mcreasing the total acreage of combined lots 15/16 at orj^inally boc^^ asped* of the properties remain the same as they had Mark^nberg is supplying the survey related documents and forwarding the septic related documents provided by Steve Schirmers. Under separate cover, I sent to your tmention the completed and signed application and certified list of residents within 350 leet as weU as the required mailing labels for notifying those resSdents. 1 he septic Hel^have b^n identified per your instructions. Our anticipation, however, is sewa will he brought into the area so such that lot 14 will have a capped access and the combined bts/15/16 will be connected. As you know, tfce request for that service is m process with the City of Orono. Th^ you for your help in assuring that we put forward the information necessary to facilimte our reqi^ for the property line rearrangement. Plca.se let me know if 1 nay provide addiiionaJ belpfol information. Cordially, Juditb Pierpont P-l if iLi .^S'c? '—•' T»y.~,a >n^i»Mr PROPOSED LOT DIVISION FOR JAMES & JUDITH PIERPONT IN LOT 14. 15 k 16. BLOCK 1. THE FARM AT LONG LAKE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA niSTIIC LCCAL OCXRimOHi <) Ul 14. BMk I. lie F«n AT lONB LAME 2) Lot IS. Slock 1. lie rcM AT LONS LHC ALSO TN«t H'l «f lot It. Block tkoroof on fllo out of roeort 1. DC FAfti AT IQN6 UlC. occortlfif to tto rocoftot rt In Iho offico of tko Cowoljr Roooftor. H oiwmb Iii Coynty^ tirTTtil Mtitkorly of tiM fit'th 104.72 foot m4 oortBorljf of tho follwifif CcnUncIng oriho oottUMtl cofMor Ol.ootS Ul >•; fW*?* 1* MOraCD UGAl OESCRimONS: AT *>« to. ondBorallol with tho owot oootorly lino of ooit lot 14. 5?* Bloch I, DC fAMi AT LONS LAIC MU •••♦ o^itiooorod ot o right:ao:p v. isTKi s?i*;}M;v'.:?iVsJk’i; 101.24 fMt to tho oolot of •••jMofoot. tH.liioot: iCSoo North 04 Boff«44M IS!^A.AMTa2 foot to 0 iolfit oo tho oorthoootorly lino of oo|( 300.07 foot oowthoootorly of tho oorthooot coroor of ooU Ut tonnlootiof. Bi 00000to14 Ut It, tiotontIt ont thofo If 0« lll. o*. .» rocord in tl SMlhlrf! HHmeoto lyin, OMcrfllS !?•* ntrlkorly of llio folio^no 1hMr>Sm'oi •} 'U coulkooct coroor of cold Lot tlinoM NirM 02 toorooo 12 miootoo 03 oocoodo foot, oocifiod W1.24 foot to tho Kit* f2i#^*si5!55*sJ®fSA B7 tofrooo 47 mlnotoo 97 oocoodo Uat* iS 9 '**•**•• 1^*^ ^ tSffooo 93mlfiyloo 2t oocondod?!i^i*iiFo!*Ji-!®-iKl!!H*^.*A*,*^thoootofly lloo of told lot It li*^*ljJJ^*JJJJJ*^*NJJhoootorly of tho iiorthOMt toroor of told lot oo^ooTothS Sn S^^^^^a VtooI co|lorf*tM?o^XSVmi*lOMto*t^oonT*!t^doo • m\ Borpoft to -- - t»o- •oorlM'ohoiwi%^t«ood oooo m mmmm4 49\m%- - i dtotCtt oolotihf tthttorllhtk tCBh tity ndm 0B-JB1 \ \ Y I •' - M: .\'AI rr* #7 {V t- ”*"‘~'** •» • '' ' ^-''I \ » f l2.3i /2.00 ACRES BEFORI lACRES AFTER EXISTING »<OUS£ ' v ' ' '‘x 'x' iRANAl^ AfO/\ < '«<^ •" i % '. V ''\'''I \• __ ' » 'h » ' ■------- X. \ I < ' I ---------------------—\ •^'! ^ ’. \;'!' I ______-J ' / \ \ \ \ \ \ X ' \ • \ \ I ' ' I I * ’ I • J I ' \ 1^ ;—' ' I < ' '"'............ ■■, '•> N aV*T 5lt W 74J48 Mn a . X n N 1^/X 'n ''^^ORAINACE >M) % ' X EXISTKG TENMS COURT \f !'M' I ' I \ • ........•V.v-. j ' ^---- --------- Sr -Mk ^ k.\'k k ^ ^ 1 •It k-^AX.- * A'.<!KliUl£a L^LJlCiigl • I ^ i^T /y •» ^ *• N I------------ -t ' ' ' I I . - " 1'. •• •'^ \ '■• \lv\'■>■ ■??<> ^11 ^ . ----------- IQ ^ ROAD)!, 1' -4 1^ im \ \ \ \I ' \ \ \ % \■.'ir'^ ■'. M^ \ ^ V*'r/ ' ' ^ V 'L • ' ^‘l V ' ^ I. l\l ' .3t/K I n •lOltO ;■■<;-■■a■■;■.J■.■,l„;...^^.y:...;:>:^'_.::....................... I \ ''-UK * ' I '.I '■^ \ ...... ■ ^ - * —L:-^ --t^o .‘•^ ----*.--•; I vZZ ______ V 'll /> N BZ‘4r '^r. W 74JA8 KUNUAII,;V IILNNI-PIN COUNTY PROP PROI’liK TY O •' INFORMATION SYSTEM RS Lisr PAGE: I 31 27IIM34300U PROP ADDR I92S WFST FARM RO OWNER NAME CIIARI^ L SCIIROCDER ET AL TAXPAYER CHARLES L SCIIROEOER NAME/ADOR PAMELA FREEMAN SCIIROEOER 1925 WI-STFARM Kl> tONGlAKEMN S53S6 3B 2711823430015 PROP ADDR 1889 WEST FARM RD OWNER NAME DIIWIIIITEN ft P E HART TAXPAYER HHWHITTENftPEHART NAME/AOUR 1889 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 2711823430017 PROP ADOR 1110 WILST FARM RD OWNER NAME TIMOTIIV ADAMS TAXPAYER TIMOTHY ADAMS NAME/ADDR iSIO WFST FARM ROAD LONG LAKE MN 35356 38 2711823430018 PROP ADDR IHM) WIST I ARM Kl> OWNER NAME L SI lUIJ. ft E Y MORRISON TAXPAYER UURIE SHULL NAME/ADOR ELIZARETH Y MORRISON I860 WEST FARM RD lONGIAKI: MN 55356 38 2711823430024 PROP ADOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME THE FARM AT lONO LAKE TAXPAYER THE FARM AT LONG LAKH PTNSIIP NAMF/AnOR CIO TIMOTI IY ADAMS IRinWI-SI FARM HOAD LUNUIAKEMN 55356 38 2711823440006 PROP ADOR 1709 NORTH FARM RD OWNER NAME LftRROSENCREN TAXPAYER RANDY V ROSItNGRF.N NAMI-/ADDR 1709 NORTt I FARM RD lOMilAKI.MN 55356 38 27IIR2344<8Nm IMi't NOUIIII'AHMKO UWNliK NAME JUSEPI111 UI EE.KMAN TAXPAYER JOSliPHIIOFn-RMAN NAME/ADDR 1669 N FARM RD Ij ONG IV5KE MN 55356 3H 20IN;M4 in||6 I'HOI'AIHm INIII Wl SI I AKM 1(0 OWNER NAME J W ft 3 A PIERIDNI TAXPAYER JAMES W A JIIDIIII A PIEKmNT NAME/ADDR >801 WEST FARM RD LONG LAKH MN 55356 38 2711823440018 PROP ADDR I72'l NORIII FARM HD OWNER NAME lIRftRSEIEED TAXPAYER UEN3AMIN R ft REIIECCA S FIHU) NAME/ADOR > 729 NORTII FARM RD lONGIftKHMN 55356 38 34118231lOOOl PROP ADDR 776 IIHOWN RD N OWNIiR NAME R D HI NSON AIIA LUIKHNS TAXPAYER HARIIARA A LUIKHNS NAME/ADDR RICI lARO D BENSON 776 DROWN HD N EONOIAKI’MN 5535b IN 34IIN71IIINNM PHHPAINIK .IN ADDHI.SSIINASShlNI i) OWNER name: J I) S I AVID A P M STAVID JOHN A PHOEBE STAVIO 710 BROWN RDN LONOIAKEMN 53356 TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR IN IIIIN/lllmNMi PHIH'ADDK IH ADDHE.SS UNAVSIONI D OWNER NAME MARY I. .VIIII. I T AL TAXPAYER MARYLSTEILETAL NAME/ADDR 744 DROWN RO N LONG LAKE. MN 55356 38 2711823430016 PROP ADDR 1849 WEST FARM RD OWNER NAME J W PIERPONT ft i A PIERPONT TAXPAYER JAMES W ft JUDITH A PIERPONT NAME/ADDR 1101 WEST FARM RO ORONOMN 55356 38 2711823430020 PROP ADDR I960 WIiST FARM RD OWNER name: DAASMUSSENftKAASMUSSliN TAXPAYER DONALDAftKELLYAASMUSSEN NAME/ADDR I960 WEST FARM RD LONDLAKEMN 55356 38 2711823440007 PROP ADDR 1699 NORTH FARM RO OWNER NAME RICHARD W PERKINS TRUSTEE TAXPAYER RICHARD W PERKINS NAME/ADDR 1699 NORTH FARM RD lONGIAKF MN .5.5.1.56 IM J/IIHJMIIIIIIT PHUPADDH l/;o WISIIAIIMHD UWNHR NAME WM ft M BRACKEN TAXPAYER WILLIAM M BRACKEN NAME/ADDR 1770 W FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ■; >. JL 1 38 3411823110002 PROP ADDR 780 DROWN RD N OWNER NAME J D STAVID ft P M STAVID TAXPAYER JOHN ft PHOEBE STAVIG NAME/ADDR 780 BROWN RD N lONGIAKIiMN 55356 f ' ) IN .MIIHJIIIINXI7 PHIH'ADDR 800 IIROWNRDN OWNER NAME Vft OSTEIN TAXPAYER VICTOR N STEIN NAME/ADDR 800 BROWN RDN IT3NGLAKEMN 35356 niK ■ ' , -V' RUN DATE ;«/W2(Dl in T4lt«I)l20005 PROr ADDR 744 DROWN RU N OWNER NAME T M SCMULT/E AMI. STEIL TAXPAYER MLSTEILATMSaiULTZE NAME/AODR 744 BROWN RON LONOLAKEMN SS1S6 * HENNEPIN SYSTEM }» T4IIS23I20006 PROP ADDR 770 DROWN RDN OWNER NAME IIAIIIinTER TAXPAYER HEINZ FIIUTTER NAME/AODR 770 NORTH DROWN ROAD LONOLAKEMN 5S3S6 38 341 1823120007 PROP ADDR 690 DROWN RDN OWNER NAME ERICJURSON TAXPAYER ERIC J LARSON NAME/ADOR 690 BROWN RON LONOLAKEMN SS356 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST '' ' PAGE : 2 ^ i t ■) ' . T ^ f ■) V<. :c-k>• K 4 * , / :j., Vi ■i nd wmm ' 0 * * )■’ \ y <'-m.y v< ?s^. I. 7 -If’ •A:'>' 7‘\^Cn"' •'/*/> ^;,7i • V, '•■ . S ■- ♦ ' 1 i »^7Wtr .' *. ;.>s. -Z ?>i « t ■’* ^># r y* I'V V « V”w^. SBG9^7^ yjffR i , t - w *,W§PP ^Bhi 'B¥a BBH QCE! ims' UBE t*. ■ Si2mm ■m rBi»A' -w K m mA”»V jEira ; -r/. .*-. T7 .•.. *•;■■ >.r:'.j-'-».-•;; ' *\:*i<.'i >.♦ i ^ - ■ S - . r l•■f■ ^-■wsjp iVi-'i C'^il! I'liPl nil—— Il|l|ll■l■ll■l■■llll■^l I ____. . • . * .. Ss ‘V’"' ''•■'• ■ •!W.V***. •'m 1 jm • :-> V.’ II CtTY- I 1 ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2854 A RESOLOTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT AND VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 3(A) FILE #1568 * V * A ^7 »\ ' \C>.‘ NBERBAS, James and Judith Pierpont (hereinafter "the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1801 West Farm Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as followst Review Exhibit A Attached (hereinafter "property"); and NFTSREASf per Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A), the applicant has made application to the City of Orono to permit the conversion of a detached stable and garage into a guest house that will be located 1*6" from the north side lot line instead of the required 30*and that said structure will be located 49* from the street lot line instead of the required 50* and that said structure will be located 58' from the existing principal structure instead of the required 60'. Minnesota: NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1568 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Lalceshore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 dry contiguous acres in area for each residential unit. 4. The property is approximately 5+ dry contiguous acres in area. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended approval of the conditional use permit and variances as proposed based on the following findings: a. The property consists of 5+ acres in area. b. The property owner to the immediate north that receives the most visual Impact from the intensification of the structure has submitted written approval of the project. Page 1 of 5 - -'."W-, irr^, jJ L... ]city of OROINO CTjy^RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2854 V' NO. aRQNO ..Ct V« . V'h'. '.V> .CvN"’ The property owner's house is located ISO-**' furth^ east of the subject structure. c. The existing structures and foundations are in good condition and will be able to sustain the proposed renovations and improvements for residential habitation. d. There is adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development to support the second residential unit with one bedroom. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions^ lights air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicantr but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the stable into a guest house unit will not be detrimental to the healthy safety or general welfare of the publicr would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS# ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28# Subdivision 3 (A)# subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall make payment of an additional $50.00 for the variance portion of the land use application. Page 2 of 5 City of OROIVO • 'V' ctir OF QRONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO______ *• • ^ •. • .•V\ - .v ‘ 2. The applicants have agreed to legally ccnblne Lot 14, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake with the adjacent homestead property by February 28r 1991. Applicants are hereby advised that if the legal combination is not realized by the specified deadline date# all residential use of the subject structure shall cease immediately and applicants shall be required to make the necessary alterations to the guest house structure so that it may no longer be used for habitation. Applicants shall obtain the required building permit to complete the required alterations. 3. Upon application for a building permit, the applicant shall provide the necessary septic testing ar.d documentation to confirm suitable area for on-site sewage treatment facilities for both principal and guest house structures. This shall Include evidence of suitable area for alternate on-site sewage treatment facilities. Applicant is placed on notice that at some future date if Lot 14# Block 1# The Farm at Long Lake# is to be divided from the homestead property# the guest house structure must be converted to an approved accessory structure that does not contain an independent dwelling unit. 4. All portions of improved structure located less than 5' from north side lot line shall meet all cerminent fire code standards. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant# but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval# or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 13# 1991). 6. Violation of or non-conpliance 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. 7. The undersigned applicant has read# understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and cn behalf of himself# his heirs# successors and assigns# hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of 5 • f • usMauai ~ ........................... iiriiii 1 city of OROINO .♦tv cirv RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO____ ORONa ,>*V V* Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of st» 1990. ST: ^/b^othy^n Ballin, City ClCleric XUJU Prop^ty/^niif (s7 Janej^ R. Grabekr STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) c The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Rallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was exec^uted on behalf of the City. W «?SSS^Si'{" ‘ /Vo(-C-<3.i!!V /rinJy NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this 't-t'day of 199 a before me a Notary Public within and for ’said county,personalTy appeared _________ lo vmo e^rson (s) described in and vrtio executed the nent, a: known to me to be foregoing instrumeht, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. --------------------------------------- <.’•>-.‘;cr;.v* rIfiKOIAI NOT PUBLIC J Page 4 of 5 • i V 1 ClI V (3f ORONQJ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2854 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )as. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) y...O X*‘ .r. i%Tlj ••• x'v.' On thi* f > day of ,_^Sz^^£^:s:i:L Public within and for7ald^ fiOfeA PyJbK^‘ Lbed in and^ wl ,, , , 199£_r before me a Notary Countyr personally appeared % ^ «_ _^_/,jdh known to me to be We p«rson(8) desdbribed in and/who executed the foregoing instrume^r and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^.VVV^..V.V,VVVV»VAVW/>VVVVVWIrt^VM \ j f it > -v.' • 'i:.'=::££0T.i .1: 'Zi'srf > isirij Cet 27.1!:5!f« Cet 27.1990 ^ Page 5 of 5 City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2854 ORONO NO. V*. •• • « E.XHIBIT A fJfRAI. nESnUTPTTnM Lot 15, Block 1. THE FARM AT L'JIG LAKE. AL^oU That part of Lot 16, Block 1, ”ARM AT ifiMr* t au"* corded plat thereof on file «r- n- i . accoramc to the re corder, Hennepin County, Minne-ot« Ivinr ionJh* ?*^^°** County Re and northerly of the following deacribed^line^^ 104.72 de™M»‘l2 lot 16. thence llorth 02 WeSt line o? .iw Lc? thence South 87 degrcea 47*m^Autes ?7 « beginning; thence North 64 deireH ^ "‘nu^H ?a "I”” f: e point on the northMst;^v■l?i! '“"t “ feet eoutheaaterlv of ^Jiatant 35J..57 theJe"erS!"unil^ ■■‘-n.r of cold U.t id n>..l fCit the State of Mlnneoata. ^ aurvcyor under my direct :ju the lav/u oc . M ■M i r«•'n4 . *' s •■ m. X’ry •■• ??. 1. CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay# MN 473-7357 55323 APPLICATIOH HO. 1S68 HOTICB OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 8/23/90 Mr, 6 Mrs. Jares Pierpont 1801 West Farm Road Long Lake# MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variance Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: August 13# 1990 VOTE: 4 For 0 Against COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: To accept and adopt the approval resolution submitted by staff and to condition approval on both the applicant and staff adopting an agreement in a form acceptable to staff and attorney to assure the final lot combination of Lots 14# 15 and part of 16. A.; discussed at the Council# this can be achieved in the following ways: a. Buyout contract to allow combination. b. Agreement of fee holder to allow combination. Upon resolve of the agreement and legal combination of the parcels# applicant is asked to complete the execution of the 3 original copies of the resolution at the Deputy Clerk's desk at the City offices. Variance approval is limited to the extent shown on approved p?an and as noted in the approval resolution. Changes in approved plans are subject to further review b/ the City. Variance approval exoires one year after date of approval. A Building Permit application must be submitted no later than August 13# 19?1. As with the variance approval# conditional use approval is subject to the conditions of the approval resolution. In the case of projects requiring a building permit or other work permit# suoh permit must be applied for within one year of the date of conditional use aporoval (Auouct 13# 1991) or that approval will expire. Please be advised that the City cannot issue a building permit for the guest house conversion until the legal combination of the property is resolved and the subject resolution executed for filing. Isv ORONO RSSULAR COUNCIL NilTING HELD ACGCST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE I1S66-REGNIER CONTI.VJEO Nays-0. Motion passed. •1567 ROBERT S LOUANN POWELL 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION 12853 Mr. rowell vas present. City Ad.-ninistrator Be. ardson provided a brief suntrary of Michael Caffren’s August 7, 19rl r.er.o. It was r.oved by Mayor Grabek. seconded ''■/ Councilr.er.ber Callahan, to adopt Resolution *2353, approving the average setback and hardcover variances to construct a deck on the lake side of t.ne residence at 2915 Casco Point P.cad. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. .Motion passed. •1568 JAMES • JCDITB PIERPONT 1801 WEST FARM ?.OAO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIA-NCt RESOLUTION 2854 Bernhardsen presented Counril with a brief review of this application. He noted that staff has recently learned that Lot 14 has the principal and alternate septic sites to serve the structures on l:t 15. Bernhardsen stated tnat the Pierports are purenasing Lot 14 under a 7 year Contract for Deed, which will preclude a legal lot cor.binatirn free, errurring at this tine. He said, “This would pose a prcblen should tne terns of the Ccntract for Deed be terninated." Mrs. Piertrnt said, “There is no ouestirn that we intend to cor.bine the properties when we are able to do so. We would like to put the access driveway on lit 14.“ Mabusth questioned whether the City Attorney could reco-o.end a method to prtvide the City vizh assurance that the lots cannot be separated in the future until a legal lot combination can occur. Barrett stated that it vtuld be necessary to havt the fee Owner of Lot 14 e.xeoute whatever agree.te.nt is used. Counrilme-'cer Callahan asked how the seotic syste.n care to be located on lot 14 rather than tne Let with the orincipal structure. Gaffron replied, “The surdivision involving this property was done before the Septic Cede went into effect in 1978. Prior to 1978. a review of septic system locations in relation to property lines was not included in the subdivision process. “ • • • a. I A Wrx: *- .V-* - • :. .V V'. ^ Vi^ . •’) •'.'i.i. ’..V;;.V:-w5‘ -• ■ ■•• lt.4. • ■ :i*p\'. sif ■M« I • • < ■■ fe;*' • V'»> • ^ ''.’ri.C ■i'l',.; fiS ORONO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13, 1990 ZONING FILE #1568-PIERPONT CONTINUED Callahan noted that Mabusth’s rerc states that th« tuest house/stable structure would have to be removed tf Let 14 is not combined with Lot 15. Ke said, -In light cf infcrr.aticn we received pertaining to another applicaticr. this evening, 1 do not believe we can require removal of the structure.- Barrett said, “The City could grant a per-it based on the existence of certain health and safety structures, such as access to the septic system.- Callahan agreed that Barrett’s ccr: e-ts wculc held true for now. He said. -If in the future, the errperty owners wish to subdivide and sell Lot 14, the structure we are discussing this evening should be removed.** Bellows said, **If the property cwners request a subdivision of the property, the guest house structure and septic needs would be addressed under tne subdivision regula cions. ** Bernhardson suggested tabling this -atter t: allow time for staff to explore available options. Mayor Graces as<ed Mrs. Pierccnc if tabling this matter for two weeks would pose any problems. Mrs. Pierpont replied, -There is a timing emblem.. *«’e wish to complete the guest house so that we ray reside in it wr.ile we have a ccntractcr read to start onremodel our house. Monday.- Bellows asked whether staff has explcred the option of locating an additional septic site cn Lc* 15. Gaffron stated that staff has net Iccked at tnat eptien, but based on topography, would probably be difficult. .Mayor Grabek asked whether there are any ether unresolved issues involved witr. this application. Mabusth replied, -There are none. In fact staff has deter.mined that footings do in fact exist under the stable. Prior to the Planning Cemmissien raetinc. staff nad been advised that the footings did not exist. T“e Flanning Commission recommendation was based on that incorrect inforratiem.- Mayer Grabek suggested that staff te allowed tc atte-pt to resolve the lot ccmcinaticn issue withc.t the need tc br.ng the matter back to Council. He said. ’’If tnere is a satisfactory solution, you .may proceed witn construction. rcwever. snculd difficulties arise, the matter will have tc come cac< to Council, in two weeks." - 13 - ORONO REGULAR CCUNCIL MEETING HELD AUGUST 13. 1990 ZONING FILE IlSSa-PIERPCNT CCNTINUED Mrs. Pierpcr.t stat«i t.-at Mr. Tin Adans is the fee c—er of the property. She said. **Mr*. Adans has been very support’ve of this project a.-:d wants t: see it proceed.- -t was r.cved by .Vsycr Grahek. seconded by Council*eT.ber Peterson, to adept Resrlition #2354 . granting a conditior.il use pernit and separation setback, side yard setback, and street setback variances, subvert tc a satisfactory resolve of t.-.e lot ccnbination issie between all parties involved. If the tirties are unable to reach a r..cjal acreenent. the application nuit cone back to the August 27th Icu.-.cil Meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, ?:*vs-0. Motio.n passed. CounciiT.er.cer Goetten asked that* staff ir'orni Council of any decision trat is trade. •1569 SAM MCCLOUD 4280 BAYSIOE ROAD VARIANCE RESOLUTION 12855 Mr. McCloud was net present. Mahusth stated t.hat it was her understanding tnat Neal **‘ecer, the apolicar.t's Arc"* intended to be present, cut r.ad net yet arrived. * ’ a-,.lean, s ha*.* revise: rr.eir p.ar. fron a ter. bedroon hc.je to an s-rJ'- be-roc.-. house i.-. trder to address the septic correrns. ne said. An eight b»crccr structure will principal and c.-.e alternite sectic site.-c.t.y require one Callahan asked hew access to this property is achieved. Mabusth rep-ied, -Tnere is a 60* ease.*rent fer access t*' -'•is parce- from the cdjacent parrel.'* * r- mover by C:uncil.-ember Goetten, seconded bv y*vor Cra^e.<, to a-cpt P.escl.ticn *2955. approving the front* «---e*" .vc:ion": Bayside-.r-a'd: 1>UBLIC FACILITIES - DIREmCNS FOR ZONING Sernhardscr said. This is a follow us to our ea--er discussions retirdi.ng r.rlir facilities and the coning of *s3c.h .aci.ities. .Vy -e.r.o oitlires various issues that nay stc* frciin Wayzata. I will provide -ritter notice to you. Cour.cil.T.e.rcer Calla*ir sicceste tabling t.his .natter. - - rieved hy hay:r SnreH. seconded by Cccncilae.T.fcer - li - • f J roiiMnil MEETING Date Application Received: 09-l7>03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09-30-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-30-03 NUV 2 5 2003 Cl I Y Uh OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 21,2003 Item No Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Foth Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2953, Raymond & Nylene Newkirk. 1489 Shoreline Dr - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IA Lot Area: 0.71 acre (31,118 s.f.) Lot Width: 132* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notices 10-22-03 & 11-19-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 10-20-03 & 11-17-03 Application Summary’: The applicants are requesting lot area, lot width and hardcover variances for their property on which they are rebuilding a new home. The request consists of: 1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the minimum lot area is 2-acres and the minimum lot width is 200 feet and the existing area and width are 0.71 acre and 132 feet respectively. 2. Hardcover variance in the 75‘-250’ zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normallv allowed. Planning Commission Recommendations 1 On October 20, 2003. the applicants were requesting lot area, lot width side setback and hardcover variances. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval for the lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new home, how ever tabled the hardcover variance request and voted to deny side setback variances and dweeted the applicants to redesign to meet the 30' side setbacks. On November 17, 2C03. Planning Corn-mission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the requested hardcover variance. The applicants redesigned to meet the 30’ side setback requirement. Staff Recommendation •Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. I 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282, AND SECTION 78-305, SUBDIVISION B FILE NO. 03-2953 WHEREAS, Ravinond K. Newkirk and Nylene J. Newkirk, husband and wife (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 1489 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Lots 3 and 4. N J Stubbs Subdivision Lot No 2. Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter the “property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant? have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 to allow a hardcover level of 35.7% where 25% is normally allowed in order to construct a new home. WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305, Subdivision B to allow a new residence to be construcuted on a lot with substandard lot area and lot width. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2953. The property is located in the I.R-IA Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot are of 2.0 acres and 200' of width. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearings held on October 20, 2003 and November 17, 2003 and recommended a. The property has a total area of 0.71 acre and 132* of lot width. b. A hardship e.xists with respect to dri% eway hardcover due to the nature and location of the shared driv eway and the inability to park vehicles along County Road 15. c. No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. d. The property is served with municipal sewer. e. The combination of 2 lots with a total lot size of 0.71 acre is typical of lots in the immediate neighborhood. f. A single family residence can be constructed on the property without the need for further variances. 4. 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. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district, that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substrjitial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and 78-305 Subdivision B to allow construction of a new residence on the 0.71 acre property and hardcover level within the 75*-250* setback to be at 35.7% where 25% is normallv allowed, subject to the follow ing conditions: Page 2 of 5 *; 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicants and annotated by City stalT. attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 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. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not increase above 0%. Hardcover in the 75- 250 ’ zone shall be limited to 35.7%. or 7.575 s.f. 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 existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover w ill not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by the footing inspection for the new residence. 5, Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, 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 approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 24, 2004i 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a vio ‘ nion of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Oro.io City Council on the 24th day of November. 2003. Page 3 of 5 a J » . ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property 0\Mier(s) 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 corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 L<. State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____________, husband of______________. day of .,2003 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) 'j This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of . wife of .2003 Notary Public Page 5 of 5 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway POB0X66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 03-2953 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: October 22,2003 TO: Ray & Nylene Newkirk 1489 Shoreline Drive Wayzata. MN 55391 COPIES: Michael Cronin S809 West Bush Lake Rd Minneapolis. MN 55438 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances - Lot Width. Lot .\rea. Side Yard Setback, Hardcover DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1. Approval of the lot width and lot area variances. 2. Table hardcover variance. 3. Denial of the side vard setback variances. VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's ne.xt scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - .Monday, November 17,2003; Meeting starts at 6:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Coniniission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after evie’.^ and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please cal' City Planner, Melanie Foih at 952.249.4627, ' it CKHiaire^ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway POB0X66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 03-2953 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 19,2003 TO: Raymond & Nylene Newkirk 1489 Shadywood Dr Wa>~zata. MN 5^391______ COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances - Hardcover DATE OF MEETING: Monday, November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: A Approval of the hardcover variance as requested. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you ha^ e questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952.249.4627. ■ -i' I A’"- ^ r ,v4\5 , ,.r ■'i:. k FILE# 0^-2953 Novefrter 13. 2003 Page 1 of 5 Date Application Received: 09-17-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09-30-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11-30-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Froni: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City Planner November 13,2003 03-2953, Raymond & Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre minimum Lot Area: 0.71 acre (31,118 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a hardcc. er variance for their property on which they are rebuilding a new home They are requesting hardcov er variances within the 0-75 ’ and 75 ’-250’ zone. The request consists of; 1. Hardcover variance in 0-75 ’ zone of 1.4%, consisting of a staircase to the lake, where 0% is allowed. 2. Hardcover variance in the 75 ’-250’ zone consisting of 35.7% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed.__________________________________________________ Stqff Recommendation: Planning Department staff reconunends the following: 1. Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed. Hardcover within the 0-75 ’ zone at 1.4% and hardcover within the 75 ’-250’ zone to be at 35.1%. Hardship: Staff finds hardship to approve the hardcover variances as requested due to the nature and location of the shared driveway and the inability to park vehicles along County Road 15.______________________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakeshore hard cover and land alteration regulations. In any LR-IA, LR-IB, LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. (Code 1984, § 10.22(2)) Lbt of Exhibits A. Revised building footprint meeting 30’ side setbacks B. Revised hardcover calculations C. PC Memo & Exhibits as of October 20,2003 bJUAtiaatfhifiu_______ 1 FILE* 03-2993 No««aib*r 13,2003 P*g*2efS Background The applicants’ initial request was for hardcover and side setback variances in order to constmct a new residence on the 0.71 acre lot within the 2-acre zone. However, the Planning Commission at their October 20*** meeting asked the applicants to redesign then- home meeting all of the required setbacks for the LR-IA zone. The Planning Commission did feel that there was a hardship due to the location of the lot. the shared driveway situation and the inability to park on Cty Rd IS to grant some level of hardcover variance for this project. After several^meetings with Staff and another visit with the Planning Commission at the November 5*** work session the applicants have designed a home to meet all of the required setbacks. The applicants are requesting a hardcover variance within the 75’- 250 ’ zone of 35.7% where 25% is allowed. The applicants’ request for a variance within the 0-75 ’ zone is merely a formality as the 1.4% hardcover in this zone represents an tdlowed 136 s.f. staircase to the lake. IOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lof AreaAVidth: LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acre)loo" • factual 31,188 s.f (0.71 acre)132- Setbacks: LR-IA t Required j Existing Proposed Lake 75’53.5 ’75’ Rear (street)50’91.5 ’50’ South Side 30’14.1’30’ North Side 30’19.9 ’3d’ Average Lakeshore The existing and proposed homcf both meet the averace lakeshore setback. FILEi03-2953 November 13.2003 Page3of5 Structural Covcnigct Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 31,188 s.f (0.71 acre)Allowed: 4678 s.f (15%) Proposed: 4470 s.f (14.3%) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone 0-75 75 - 250 Total Area in Zone 9997 s.f. 21,191 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 0 s.f (0%) 5297.7 s.f. (25%) Existing Hardcover 775 s.f.* (12.8%) 9241 s.f* (43.6%) Proposed Hardcover 136 s.f (1.4%) 7575 s.f 135.7 %) .After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The app licants are proposing to reduce the amount of hardcover on their property in rebuilding their home. The current hardcover amount in the 0-75’ zone is 8.9% including the lakeside deck and stair. The applicants have proposed reductions to reach 1.4 % hardcover within this zone. The existing stair to navigate their steep slope will be modified slightly from the existing and a 32 s.f platform are located within the 0-75’ zone but are not officially counted toward hardcover as they are excluded by the Zoning Ordinance. The 75 ’-250’ zone currently has 43.6% hardcover and the proposal will reduce hardcover by 7.9% with a total percentage of hardcover in this zone at 35.7% where 25% is permitted. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. tn coiuUerlng applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Hardship Analysis Staff finds that due to the nature and location of the shared drive and the inability to park on County Road 15 a hardship exists to grant some level of hardcover variance for this property. L. FILE# 03-2953 Novtmber 13.2003 Page 4 of 5 Staff would nake the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property uot created by the landowner." The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the entire home, thus requiring more strict standards than that of a remodel. The property, excepting the lot width and lot area variance, must have a full review and be brought into compliance in the circumstance of a re-build. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not indicated economic considerations as their hardship. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116j.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." Not applicable. 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. F FILE# 03-2953 NovtfDber 13.2003 Pag«5of 5 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any w ay impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends the following: 1 . Approval of the hardcover variances as requested. 2. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. ' ----------. \ '\\\ \ 2^ tflS VflM k i\ I I I I •/*/ !• A DQSTfC ___— ROOST ................J I I I fVf I I I 4:: . . ; >i• • • ; r • II CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR RAYMOND K NEWKIRK OF LOTS 3 & 4, NJ. STUBBS FIRST SUBDIVISION, IN LOT 2. SEC. 11-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA j NOrfet7 V ^ . i==g2S{ .S^X «o << I I I t I I »« t I ( 4 « ♦ • • .* • • » •1*1• • • • I t I • « '• • • •• • • ••••it I I I • ' • • • I 1 I I I » •»• • • • ^CVW-cJk^ of UC.-»A Ol >-Vr»cV •. « *bo * ( Vo* 4*^0 ^ ‘ CSV ^loi o lA pro^'V X 50* ^>c\ -IS* C“)5* pQpo>»a'^ Iv fc ‘ S t5SI7 AS.'r^E* • j;...»i... 1^. ii^ «0 ••ll»l«••* »5 imtiiii? #•• 4*II|I|**4....^ -...... .* .•. ^ /.f A I ’(III *»..•• I I ;I • » • I • I • • I . I / /? : M: I .:: I III! I • I • « • I III* llll***! • I I I I • • • I I • I • I I I I I • • I « f I I J I • • I > I I I I •#••••#* A I I » I • N M*09‘M‘‘ W 175.01 /7^ ;:• • I # I I • • I I I I I • • . tW«B I I • I * I /***l#l«*( » I I I # I ' • I I • / I • I I Pn9po>»<^ 5‘tW AO’ *48f I\ • 1*2* • \i- rr 03 ® n -.oocsr LgCAL c£s;;q-PTo»i or P^giiSTS : Lott 5 M 4. N. J. sTuees rnsT sueotvsm in Lot 2. Stc. n. r»p 117. Roogt 23 o : otrottt iron nnanifr set o : Otnettt iron mortitr foi4i4 (totJ): 4tnoiot spot oio«etlO^ mten tto itvtl oolum •17-• : 4tnoUt •■tiling eonloir Sn«. ffwon mo ttvt> dotun Boeings tno«n or« OOMtf upon on ojtimO doum 5 01/ ♦ in I o t (Mm 91 b W 4 ce iij yL «u: 0. • X VI IIIc Xn r- w i •• no EXISTING HARD COVER TABULATION: Q\-7^: House Deck/Potioe> Roloining Wall D«t)k./S4;»»r> o L»We TOTAL: 18 Sq. Ft. 405 Sq. Ft. 96 Sq. Ft. Z,66 fH. boT Sq. Ft. LOT AREA:9,997 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER:e>.\ % 75 ’-250‘ House Driveway Concrete Deck/Potio Ret. Wall 3.208 Sq. Ft. 4,900 Sq. Ft. 743 Sq. Ft. 387 Sq. Ft. 3 Sq. Ft. TOTAL:9,241 Sq. Ft. LOT AREA:21,191 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER:43.6% PROPOSED HARD COVER TABULATION: 0-75’ Deck./ ® L>kc Sq. Ft. TOTAL:\’JU Sq. Ft. LOT AREA:9,997 Sq. Ft. % HARD COVER:1 A Vo 75 ‘-250* House 2nd FI. Balcony 1st FI. Cantilever Driveway Concrete V.a c - 4.45b Sq. Ft. 12 Sq. Ft. 5 Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. ^^r> Sq. Ft. TOTAL:7,snS Sq. Ft. LOT AREA:21,191 Sq. Ft. % HARO COVER:bS.l7o Lb A- Ar«» •. IS*fc ot Toi^>\ L«A* A ^,is-lh 5ij.Fr, BKHieir C FiLEiC3-39S3 October 20 2C03 Pace 1 of 6 Date Application Received: 09-I7-03 Date Applif ath}D Considered as Complete: 09*3<H)3 60*Day Period Expires: I2-3<MI3 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Foth, City Planner October 20,2003 REVISED Subject:03-2953, Raymond & Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre minimum Lot Area: 0.71 acre (31,118 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicants request side-yard setback, lot width and lot area variances in order to construct a new home on a substandard lot in a two-acre zone. They are atsi.’ r.*questing a conditional use permit for minor re-grading within their lakeshore yard. The application consists of: 1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the minimum lot area is 2- acres and the minimum lot width is 200 feet and the existing area and width are 0.71 acre and 132 feet respectively. 2. Side yard setback variances to allow setbacks of 20.3 feet on the nonh and 15 feet on the south where a 30’ side setback is required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 34.1% hardcover within the 75’-250’ zone where 25% is required. 4. Conditional use permit in order to re-grade the 0-75’ lakeshore yard to create a natural slope where a failing 6 ’ retaining wall exists currently, and to improve drainage away from the house.________________________________________ Sta_ff Recommendation: Planning Department staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence on a substandard sized lot. 2. Denial of the side setback variances. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25% within the 15'- 250* zone. 4. Approval of the conditional use permit in order to remove a failing retaining wall and re-grade as proposed. 5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. Hardship: Staff finds hardship to approve the lot area and lot width variances as requested. However, staff is does not find a hardship to allow hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75 ’-250' zone or the maintenance of a substandard setback with the new home construction. ----------- i' *• • FILE# 03-2953 October 20.2003 Page 2 of 6 Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-282. Lakesbore bard cover and land alteration regulations. ^ u'*? district, uithin 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or peraanent sL'ucr.:res except as r greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to l.COO feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover (Code 1984, § 10.22(2)) Section 78-30S(b) Mininiuin lot rcoiiirenignt!t* Lot Width ^t) 200 Side Yard Adjacent ^Street (feet) 50 Sec. 78-1247. Land alteration and building permits required A i^rmit is required for the construction of buildings, building additicr.s. related work such as consiwction of decks and signs, installation or alteration of sevvnne treatment Code"'^’ activities, and other activiues as regulated elsewhere in this List of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Leners from Neighboring Owners G. Prcpcrt>- Owners List H. Photos I. Pia: Map J. Conditional L'se Pennit/Grading Annlication Background Iheir proposed*home comply S'thall rolling re^^remte^ HwUrie in^venently applied U.e ■/, acre standards ,o Urdr lor. L pon mec.in^r4lmffrai,e dermis of ^err home for over one year and in applying the ■/, acre standards existing side yard setbacks of their current home. ^e applicants hav^e also applied for a conditional use pe.-mit for laand alteration in the 0- 73 zone to re-grade the slope where a failing 6’ retaining wall ciL-rendv exists and to grad the lakcshore yard to improve drainage away from the house. FILE* 03-2993 October 20.2003 Page 3 of 6 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f (2 acre)200' Actual 31,188 s.f. (0.71 acre)132’ Setbacks: LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Lake 75’53.5’75' Rear (street)50’91.5’89' South Side 30'14.r 15.0' North Side 30’19.9’20.3' Average Lakeshore The existing and proposed homes both meet the average lakeshore setback. Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 31,188 s.f (0.71 acre)Allowed: 4678 s.f (15%) Proposed: 4478 s.f (14.4*^o) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9997 s.f Os.f (0%) 775 s.f* (12.8%) Os.f (0 %) 75 - 250 21,191 s.f 5297.7 s.f (25%) 9241 s.f* (43.6 %) 7222 s.f (34.1 %) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants are requesting variances from the required 30’ side yard setback on both side yards of their proposed home. They do not wsh to encroach further than their existing home, rather have proposed to encroach less than existing by 1 to 2 feet on each FILE# 03-2953 October 20. 2003 Page 4 of 6 side. Hardcover Setback V'ariance The applicants are proposing to reduce the amount of hardcover on their property in rebuilding their home. The current hwdeover amount in the 0-75 ’ zone is 8.9% inch;iing the lakeside deck arid stair. The applicants have proposed reductions to reach 0 % hardcover \vithin this zone. The e.xisting stair to navigate their steep slope uill be modified slightly from the e.xisting and a 32 s.f. platform are located within the 0-75 ’ zone but are not counted toward hardcover as they are excluded by the Zoning Ordinance. The 75 ’-250 ’ zone currently has 43.6% hardcover and the proposal will reduce hardcover by 9.5% with a total percentage of hardcover in this zone at 34 1% where 25®/i is permined. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of die proposed variance upon the health, safety and .welfare of the community, existing and anticipated tram conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values ofprooertv ^ the surrounding area. The Planning Commbslon shall consider recommending arcroval for variances undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration and Hardship Analysb Although the applicants have included detailed hardship statements in support of their request, staff finds that a hardship does not exist to support granting the side vard setback variances or the hardcov er variance as this project is a complete re-build Re’-build situations are an opportunity to evaluate the property and assure conformity and compliance with the zoning requirements. However, the lot area and lot width variances are a formality m this situation and staff supports granting these variances. Staff would make the follow ing recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship’ pertment to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if u<ed under conditions allowed by the official controls." The property is 0.71 acre and a reasonable home can be constructed on this site In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not ' created by the landowner." ^ The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the entire home, thus requiring more strict standards than tnat of a remodel. The property, excepting the lot width and lot area variance, must hMve a full review and be brought into compliance in the circumstance mMi FILE* 03-2953 October 20.2003 Page 5 of 6 of a re-build 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The existing home currently encroaches Jurther into the side setback jurther. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The applicants have not indicated economic considerations as their hardship. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.” Not applicable. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for propertv’ in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Not applicable. 7. “The Board or Council nay permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjo>-meni of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. niJEfO>»S3 October 20.2003 PogtOofO Issues for ConsMcnition 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff recommends the following* 2. Denial of the side setback variances. 3. I^al of the hardcover variarKe to allow hardcover in excess of 25*/. within the 75'.250’ zone. *' “ “W"8 wtll and th;'!itai.Srg^!;^s Kll^ 5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners ftom planting beds. Should the Plai^g Coinmission approve the request as proposed Planning Staff recommends subrmttal of a more detailed drainage and grading plan indicating one-foot contours and drainage arrows in order for Engineer review. I i exhibit A ApplicarioB # Date Received C '5 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid S £-::.oo PROPERTY INF9R\LATI0N , . Site Address t j ^ ^ ^Aa )re/i’N t D r •_______ Property identiHcation Number (P.I.D.) lii/7 7.1 QJ d eg 9 mtion > W ^ ^ ^ ^ - -mw « ^ « W « . -w ^ -m -m ^ w «« • M m M M m m ^ ^ M Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Profertv Acquired 9 ________________^(mcr.-Ji'year) I (do)((do notpalso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propem- r«idential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District: Z /r *» f h_________________ *_________________ APPLICANTTn / ii y a/ / . / Phone (home) ^ lyfiylytJfKlrk Phone (work)/Vg V- Jja o 7 y/y y iQi^, Cin:Zip: S'5-79/ OW.NER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:, Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQLTST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: € e _____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARI.ANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (speciiy) HARDSHIPA)ESCRIPTION OF UNUSU.AL PROPERTY CO.NDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: •». /v / 7*^ aL a ff (anach additional sheets if necessary) 41 ' c<’Q W U kJ' S 1 required sub .xuttals I. •> 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propen> Owners List of owners within 150’ label< anA niir / ScuWons°L*requiied*'^7n ^ licensed surveyor) and include hardcover reproduedon <'> “P-'' for L fof',h°7'r (p'-i* on^ ,1,List of the legal names (include marital status) of all oersons writh an inK. * u properry^^ This would include name(s) of app can.( ,'n cur^^n. ;'o?:rhtrd':ftis “^a?;Sn"‘“' Additional items as ma\ be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please rememhar fU . variance anplication U nnt if .i,- ‘ "v '^*®^** remember that vourM_juL.e me aoose inforniaiion ha« noj_heen included. applica .\t’s signature rd'oriSr! asr7«\olraddi.ira;ts -^a Zoning consulram expenses incLed in reTiew lf IT supplied is .rue and cojuo .he hes. of hist^ «" Applicant’s Signature Q, or nisner kMwld( >i(£^Date ^ 00 jT OUTER’S SIGNATLRt e";°r; i^ffTorsuha'n." rr'c nrenshers for purpoL'of i^ves.igadf'arSdoT^^^^^^ Council Owner’s Sicrature. Date f'J7-3Loa:i M^ny' %tn!:?„'.: c'o ’:S" M:edn'.fLt^ld .Applicants must be present at all scheduled review m*«t* r Mch month. Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled '"**,? **'* *^*^““*"8 Commission and have an authorized asent attend in vour nlace and tn. a • ”'***'”®* n>akc arrangements to change prior to the meeting ^ Office of this • 4 • ••• . .4. • # 4' J "‘4.1 ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF RAY AND NYLENE NEWKIRK 1489 SHORELINE DRI\’E A. The Proposal The Newkirks propose to demolish the home at 1489 Shorelhe Dr. they have lived in since 1999 and build a new home on the site. As they considered the altemadves of a major reno\*atioD of the home on its present foundation, or, building a new home with basically the same footprint, they of course considered the economics of each alternative. The decision was tipped by an outside factor, the noise from Shoreline Drive / County Road 15. With new construction they could most effectively create barriers to the noise; thicker, better insulated wtalls, brick and other reflective finishes, special sound dampening windows and glass, and most importantly, they could use the design of the home to mitigate the noise from the roadway. The interior plan of the hone could be changed to use the garage to buffer the master bedroom and cluster the most active areas of the home in the iitner most parts of the home. The new home is larger than the Newkirk’s present home, bu: is no: atypical or unanticipated for its lakefront location. And, as the Newkirks made their choices abcu: ±e new home, they held a priority for maintaining the e.xisting relationship of the present home with their neighbors in the new home. As a new home rather than a renovation, the Newkirks have the responsibility to comply with the present regulations on this previously developed site. To allow their new home to be constructed they will require three variances. B. The Requested Variances The requested variances are: 1. To reduce the required LR-1A lot area from 87.120 sf to 31.118 sf and lot width from 200 ft to 132 ft to recognize this e.xisting. but non coniorming homesite. 2. To reduce the required side yard setbacks 30 ft to 21 ft c.-. the north and to 15 ft on the south to generally recognize and maintain the e.xisting. though non conforming, side yards and relationship of the present ar.d new home and the homes of the neighbors. 3. To increase the allowed percentage of impen ious surface in the 75 to 250 ft area from 25% to 34.1%, a reduction from the present 43.6? s coverage in that area. The exact dimensions of these requested variances and the ccmpa.-:son of the present and. proposed homes follow as Table A. TABLE A. SUMMARY AND QUAMmCATION OF REQUESTED VARIANCES regulation STAiNDARD PRESENT PROPOSED lr-ia lot standards Area/sq ft Width Side north side comers south side comers LOT COVERAGE house only HARDC0\'ER 0-75 ft Zone Lot Area/ sq ft house sf driveway sf concrete sf deck / patio sf ret wall sf Total allowed percentage 75-250 ’ Zone Lot Area / sq. ft. house sf dri\eway sf concrete sf deck/patio sf ret walls sf other Total area / sq ft allowed percentage 87,120 200 ft 30 ft 4678 sf 15% none 5298 25% 31,188 132 ft 19.9 /55.8 ft 14.6/ 14.1 ft 3226 sf 10.4% 9597 IS tone tone 435 55 519 5.2% 21.191 3208 4500 7^3 3S7 j rote 9141 43.6% 31,188 132 ft 20.3 / 39.5 ft 15.0/19.6 ft 4478 sf 14.4% 9997 none none none none none none none 21.191 4478 2466 146 115 none 17 7222 34.1% C. Hardships and Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. Lot Width and Area The Newkirks propose to use their present lot, the lot they have occupied since 1999, and has been the site of the present house since 1964, for their newr home. This homesite, containing two platted lots, cannot be expanded to the west due to the Hwy 15 right of way or to the east into the Lake. Table B describes the adjacent lots between the Tanager Lake Bridge and Bracketts Point. TABLE B ADJACENT LOTS AND LR-IA LOT STANDARDS Required Area / sq ft Width 87,120 200 ft 1475 Shoreline 1487 Shoreline 1489 Shoreline 1491 Shoreline 1200 Brackets Pt 46,529 28.317 32,329 48,170 40,293 195,638 4.5 ac 125 ft 132 ft 190 ft Source, Hennepin Countv* Combining the New kirk's non conforming present parcel w ith just the parcel to the north, 1487 Shoreline Dr. (also non conforming), or just the parcel to the south, 1491 Shoreline Dr. (also non conforming), w ould provide the required lot width but would not provide enough additional lot area to create a conforming lot. To create a conforming lot the Newkirks would have to acquire both 1487 and 1491 Shoreline Dr., demolish the homes on those lots, and combine the lots into a single new parcel. It would be a practical if not impossible hardship to require the Newkirks to create a conforming LR-1A lot for their home. The result of granang the variance would be to simply recognize the existing and compatible condition. The continued use of the lot for a newly constructed single family home w ould not introduce or create any new impacts or conflicts at the site nor alter the essential character of the area. The 15% lot cov erage standard is met by the proposed home on the present lot, and the existing relationship of the homes would be maintained. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not not be reduced by 519 sf and 100®/o, and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced by 2019 sf. and 22 %. 2. Side Yards On a lot assumed by the Code and the regulations for the district to be of over 2 acres in area a-nd having a minimum width of 200, the LR-1A requirement of a total of 60 ft of side yard, 30% of the lot. is compatible and reasonable. If the lot is in an area of nvo acre lots, each at least 200 ft wide, this requirement is probably essential to the maintaining the character of that district. 3 IT^'ll III III! I III ---- This standard requires al-ost half of the wdih of the Newkirk's 132 ft wide lot to be dSteft hJ M «“'« = hardship, especially in an area orismct where no lot is two acres in area and only one lot is over 200 ft in width. Strict application of the assumed character of development in the LR-IA district, and the two acre 0^^^^ fc'tv"-T ^ 'M' !-“<* 0" <Ws a* of Shoreline eliminates theopiwmnity for typical or anticipaied dev elopment of this lake front site. This standard makes OT^S si-de“of Sh" T character are the same, but noton this side of Shoreline, where they signincantly differ. The Newkirk’s condition cannot be overcome or addressed by purchasi.-.g additional lot width from our neichbors. width cannot be purchasirf from the neighbors as their lots are also non conforming due to arearpe“„nird^rs;"''' - Both neighboring homeowners have rev iewed the building plan and the request for variances md hav e no objection to their being granted. The existing plantings and landscapine between the nlSedt^r bewv eenuie homes well in excels of that.. .. • / ‘. ....... uci^vccn me nomcs we m c.xcess of that provided by mer^y distmce. GrantL-.g the variance would simply maintain the estab&hed fte lo/. hardcover standard is met by t.-.e proposed new home that is the subject of the requested the home on the souU. pro; ides a trai-^ition and buffer betweeTe rol“e°x"e«: ^f^^' provided by merely distwce. The v isual space between the closest comers of the 0^x 0^ places the most passive uses, the garage, closets and master bath, on the south side 0 X to™ where greatest area of new side yard intrusion, 736 sf vs 45 1 sf. is located ^ ’ Absent the requested variances to permit rebuildine the home the 0 m 7C fi -n nm to reduced by 51, sf and 10053. and the 75 to 250 ft Im be3;;”loT; 3. Impervious Surface, 75 to 250 ft. As you toovv by now we don't ti-.ink the site can be enlarged to create additional imoervious surface to ofisel or provide a greater reduction in the necessary tvoical and an. Wn.,T^ unpervious surface associated vvidi a home on a site like this, n; addition, the preren^h"e7“” ^veway OTangeraent, that cannot be practically altered due to the engineering stand^dTof surftce’’«mp7mrour rite 7^74"! e!7m^^ Granting the variance will allow construction of a new plan which will reduce the 0 to 75 impervious surface from ol9 sf to 0 s: and the 75 to 250 ft impervious surface from,24rs7to ►v i “•v 7222 sf. This provides an additional 2528 sf of absorptive surface on the site, an improvenient of 8 % overall, and 100% in the important 0 to 75 ft area. Granting the variance will implement the new plan reducing the existing bituminous driveway area by one half, and using concrete pavers, wdiich while still impervious, when compared to bituminous, disperse and slows the rate of runoff, for this reduced, but still sigruflcant, component of the impervious surface on the site. The Newkirk's proposed home and impervious support areas are not excessive, but Q'pical and anticipated development of this lake front site, and granting the variance wiU provide' significant new absorptive surface, improving the quality of the direct runoff to the Lake while not altering the essential character of the vicinity. Rev 10/01/03 ------iiYiTAi exhibit b SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS RAY AND NYLENE NEWKIRK 1489 SHORELINE DRI\*E A. Lot Width and Area Hardship 1. The site cannot be extended to acquire additional lot area to the west due to the Shoreline Drive right of way, or to the east due to Lake Minnetonka. 2. Due to the present area of the Newkirk’s parcel, and the area of the adjacent lots, both 1487 Shoreline Dr. and 1491 Shoreline Dt. would have to be acquired by the Newkirks, the homes demolished, and the lots combined with the Newkirk’s lot to create a new single lot that is conforming in area to the LR-1A standard. Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. The variance v.ould simply recognizes the existing condition, a single lot created by two platted lots. 2. The continued use of the lot for a newly constructed single family would not introduce or create any new impacts or conflicts at this site nor alter the essential character of the area. 3. The 15% hardcover standard is met by the proposed new home that is the subject of the requested. 4. .Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not be reduced by 519 sf and 100%, and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced by 2019 sf, and 22 %. 5. The existing relationship with the adjacent homes will not be change nor will the essential character of the area be changed. B. Side Yards Hardship 1. Additional lot w idth cannot be purchased from the neighbors as their lots are also non conforming due to area and any deduction from their lots would increase their non conformity and therefore would not be permined by the Cit>’. 2. Requiring almost half, rather than the assumed 30%. of the width of this 132 ft wide lot to be reserved for side yard eliminates the opportunity for tvpical or anticipated de\ elopment of this lake front site. Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. Granting the variance would simply maintain the established the existing relationship with the adjacent homes and not alter the essential character of the area. 2. Both neighboring homeowners have reviewed the building plan and the requests for variances and have no objection to their being granted. The existing plantings and landscaping between the homes provide a • - -S -* •- ; •/ • •• / * 'J t • y J "" p-id«. by *' ^nh ‘‘T ^°"‘ *' Ne»-kirk-s horn, to both the home on the north and the hone on the south provides a transition and buffer between the homes well m excess of that provided by merelv distance '■ Pf*' "««• “d comers of each req'uirelnl!'’"’' ' ^ ^ *■ r?du!e!^‘T ir "« Odd the plan "ducesthebuildir.gareamlherequirednonhsideyardfrom Il7sftol04sf el P “ P‘“”* die most passive uses in the home, the caraae closets and master bath, on the south side of the home, w here greatesf aiea of new side yard intrusion, 736 sf vs 451 sf is located ® " "'t^rv^r 9. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not be reduced by 519 sf and 100%, and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced by 2019 sf, and 22 % C. Imperv ious Surface, 75 to 250 ft Hardship 1. The site cannot be practically enlarged. 2. The present shared driveway arrangement, that cannot be practicallv altered due to the engineering standards of Hennepin Countv. sevLiv reduces our ™,ty to funher reduce a major impervious surface Z " ** on Shoreline Dr. adjacent be provided^ thi she“ “ accommodate guest parking must Unique or Mitigating Condiuons ' A^o m 7*' Of a new plan which will ..a,,,.. the 0 to 7a tmpervious surface from 519 sf to 0 sf and die 75 to 750 ft IfTf rh“’“' *f <0 ^-22 sf This provides an additional 2578 still impervious, disperses and slows the rate of runoff from'this''d‘'’ d'’ll* ^11 ^gmficMt. component oftheraiperv ious surface on the site " 4 aT''"*bnpervicus suppon areas are th- tvpical and ant crated development of this lake front site L will nouh^the 9/16/03 «=»sential character of the vicinitv-. aite. the J * -’•* J i Tii->/ cr^! A k. Mii# I ------ '/ \ • •Mt TOUNO 1/1* I I \ 88t)4*2V \Mil '* vj.yj/i ■6B.BB- Fmii I '.01 ^ [?5Dl,i. •» ASJiiV.Jfrri-i' ;' I • -a PROPOSED siEPS—:{Uv •uf n'sciBACK n mou I \ yAM I w'tTi » II PROPOSCO, ENTRY NX: S»1 [«Vi«1 \ rmfi t V>P( •j«i (Mlof . PROPOSED I •IIUMMOUS : CONC. WALK nMviwAv 10*. IN MIIKMII* 9%f 4.9UU VI : N . PROPOSED / PAVER MOCK IHtlVI WAY I Ml 7 -nwr . mou / {MyAKK L ... ... . ; "jiiiiiiiiiiii Ariri 11,111^ 111 llijfiv£jjjni|ir lllllljEiJ 1J.111' O?" 4.1 I I /T// 'c-tr .1 / OIOI o OKW t7f.4 CONTOUR flKX Of WAIIR 2 UFf 20U3 n w'f 1 SCCRON llfWAOr H M U. MAY IM MAV NM' MAMO COWIL WMTMIH MCUJOCO M NARO COViM \-i I <!> J * .*■N \ i I 8 injy CONOmONMG tinH \ ’tirniiM i ; *roi^ 1/T *84.14-X PADS I.09**' •fOUNO MCNNkpW COUNTY R.O W. MON • M2I • M«A 'X 175.01 88t)4*2A* • * * I I* • fOUNO t/l* WON* •*'* r* •X04 S Of UNE • t »AaS TO K RCMQYCoi 70 Sf total M»*fV 7 >M7I ;I • • «9« aOICMMK W V fOUNO 1/1* MN PWC nn$ - M« %• ft ____ i I iBrrc-1 / «K9.9 T cSSnTo!^^>»97.i \ M4.e \ I ^ found 1/2' 88*04 ’24’ —181.66 \ 999.2 /^-V\ \\\ ~ \ ^ I 1 I 931.9, I \ \ N 1 44± v\>. 993.9 OUNb 90 9 ■ 9SI.9 68.88 ’ 9S4.2 W.2 996.6 \ M / X'.'? \ ~\0 ji9i7.e ■*-*- *2 PROPOSED —9> r S1EPS ff?' *V 992.7_ 1 990.1 1996.6 PROPOSED^ ENTRY // X195?^J I // ^2.1 ^1 ►i*/"W-2 127 OAK OAK 9:t9 -v; ' •“. ■ 991.9 OAK 996.9 I Tin / / / /11; 9:t9 '997J),VPROPOSED ^ \ 996 2 /1 DRIVEWAY TO; V BE REMOVED • \ 4,900 SF ;V i 1 961.T1 ^ii >OSED EESIDENCE’ m A Q ^cv 'I /P*I ^ 9t0.3y ' -^40.3 Hf. ^— OHW 929.4 Lr^ CONTOUR I -9:is ^ EDGE OF WATER 2 SEPT 2003 997.0 \ \ V , PROPOSED i PAVER BLOCK DRIVEWAY /m 93U KSS oED in hard cover TABLES. 991.6 \ 928.9 ■ 999.6 \ \mm ////. IssiT FBLJNO 1/2* rvA^rw HENNbw COUNTY R.O.W. MON *1 liD J 'Sl'w CONDITIONING U i-oi#^ /*. • —84.14 — ■ 996 6 --175.01 — S 88*04*24" W FOUND 1/2* IRON* 3.04 S OF UNE ■997.9 RET. WAILS TO JBE REMOVED. 70 SF TOTAL 1997.1 / p • « "TlJ'l m /tW «..■ /: a-~| ~.,f,,|Jn/M, rrniiiiii,^ f( II l^f•.rr• Jiii? • I tM> ONI tn 4 CCJNIOUN n>« or NAic* 2 StPI 2W1 II 111)1 ki. / IflJll mu (Iff lU'llUl oonc •acnoM siooa 701 Sr. MAY ON MAY NUI IN i<* hand omn ychty him oiy » •CUttO M KANO CO\AN lANllS 1*2 I • nil z ------ ,, {3 NOT TO BBIMD MIt OONItllieTMN iMl affm' (■■■■ A laaouu I I; s II ■!!'rn •■■■■ I ^11 NOT TO BB U6ID MR OCNftIMpnON a tl .I3333T Jliiiii1 i«aaa> f * r. m I iJ I L iiliiillls ‘iii':i:ii ii IlliiPiliil: iiiLUte ill ^'“il i?«yi Jr-«J 5S^. J ypiniMUioN W*f^ AikMiiiiA IMVMHN NOT 10 MIMB m CKNilPUeneN ID330n !!lllll' (■■■■ looauu I I Hi Ii zs NOT TO BB uecD F0R ecwmicncN ROCn FINIdH 6CHEDULE ' laaonn 30IIII I toaouL II f V 'J CH* 1 V • l \h U fc.-: L_— ■ exhibit f Janet and Richard Krier 1491 Shoreline Drive Orono, Minnesota 55391 952 475 3653 September 22.2003 RECEIVED SEP i 3 2CC3 CITY OF ORONO Ray and Nylene Newkirk 1489 Shorelirw Drive Orono. MN 55391 RE: Side Yard Variance Dear Ray and Nylene: y /?/r ep<^op/tL, hf Ujo.z f\jtj2o cc^. / kfy lv\u^ /t’cf rJ^ ^u U luc JL Th.' *.k you for sharing your new home plan with Jan and I. It is certainly going to be € beautiful home. I have attached a copy of the form that we sent to the City. Given the plans that we saw with the roof sloping away from the side lot line and the distance between our home and yours, we would support your application for a variance to the side yard from the required 30 feet to about 15 feet. We have two concerns that we expressed to you and your wife '=st week. Our first concern is that part of the grading on the southeast side of i- a proposed home and the removal of the existing retaining wall and subsequent grading will have a detrimental effect on the large 52 caliber inch Maple located in our yard. Both the retaining wall and this large Maple are in the area between the Lake and 75 feet from the Lake. As you indicated, you thought that this could be worked out We would be glade to work with you to determine if a solution can be agreed upon. We are certain that you can understand our concern for the protection of this large beautiful tree Our second concern is the lot grading. K appears that by raising the elevation of the lot it is possible that more storm water drainage would drain to our land. Although, as we discussed, this may not be the case, a site grading plan vrould be helpful to insure that stomi water drainage works well in the future and the additional fill does not contribute to storm water running aaoss our property. We appredate your willingness to work with us on these concerns and we are looking forward to hearing from you soon. Richard Krier 1 September 23,2003 Janet and Richard Krier 1491 Shordine Drive Orono, Ma 5S391 Re: Laiie Maple Tree Dear Janet and Richard; Thank you for your letter regarding the large M^>le tree on the lot line. We are equally concerned about the aafety of that tree. It provides a very nice buffer between the two homes as wdl as providing a great deal of shade to our home in the summer heat. The landscape contractor is providing a drawing showing the grade elevation at that location. He is alM very concerned about protecting that tree from any potential damage. We are trying to comply with the chy zoning of 0 hard cover in the 75 foot set back. This is the only reason for removing the retaining wall. I will review the proposal from the landsciq)e contractor with you as soon u I get a copy. Regarding tte water drainage issue, he is also aware of that and saw no reason why the drainage would not stay much the same. The next time you see drawings you will note the air conditioners have also been moved as you requested. Nylene and I appreciate your concerns regarding our new home and want to make sure it has a positive impact on our neighboriiood. Thanks again. ^3-^57955 RECEIVED SEP 1 6 2003Adjaceat Property Owacrt* AcloMwIcdgcneni Fom i(».eidcMAen or (4^1 J>g. c ^oforono IprinI tunwii)] Ipnrl.addieii) have reviewed the ptans for the propos>ed inifiravctmait or proposed use of the propciry lucsred at ■^fbgjETifOg also rcfcited ;o as Land Use Applicaiioo Ko._______ I (we) undenund that in executing dtis Kknowlcdprmcnt. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or dsapproval of the property or ose but merety to conCrni for the City Ccijinl that f (\vetam (are) aware of the improvement plans and tliai the proposed neighbor’s proiect or ose leodffM Cbonci! aoDroval rrJperty Owo^r Date L? ppop^y OwiS Date I (we) (t f^f J of ^ i^inr !piint itutiets)] (print address] have reviewed the^pl itso relWied to as Land Use Application No. locitcd at 1 rive) understand tlut in v\ccuiin§ ibis acknowledgement 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare qtproval or disapptova! of the property or use but merely to confim for the City Ccimcil that I (vcf am (are) aware of the impcovemeBl plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or tt<c tctpiircs Council approvwL Prv«perty Owner Date PfOpcn> Owner Date If you have any infennation that nuy assist the City in the review* of this Land Use Application, please submit yoor cditunects to tite Duilding & Zoning OfTice at least 10 days pHor to the scheduled meeting dace. ^ :LA' #2^*•../» i 4 • •/ AdJacMt mpcftjr Owatn* AckntwkdgtflMit F«tm K«t) {print nimclst](pnrU .ad«Jxc3t>| have re\ ic\vcd ihc plans for the propo^d improvonent or propoKd use of ibe property located at __________________^1*0 referred to as Land Use App'ication No. I (we) understand that in c.xccuiiog this Kknowlcdvement. I (we) «m (are) not asked to declare approval or disapprova) of the property or use but rnerely to confirm for te Cky Coundl that I (uc) am (are) aware of the improvcnrcr.t plaris and that the proposed neighbor's nrolect or use requires Council approval Propeny Owner Date rroperty OwiKf Date ^ (**)*T*SvI/CriO I1 / l^'*7 ^|^p Sprint name(s)l ^ {pnit addrws} ~ ^ O \T. *** proposed improvemmt or proposed use of the pri^Gfiy located at 10 rifftffKdl to ^ I 1/^ ^*^»I)C4ltiCA ^0* I (we) underttmd that in executing dris acknowledgement. I fwe) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use bat merely to confirm for tbe Ciry Coundl that I (vt> an fare) aware of the iniptoumenl plans and that the proposed neighbor's aoiect or uAe fMuim Cimndl 3fh(mv*al ^ ^ • - . n*y. riinifcTeii lir KUNIMI1::WII//UU Jl I1II723230002 fKOr AODR 1475 SIIORLUNI: OR OWNCRMAMB fiUENASCIIMIIT TAXTAYER ELLENASatMIIT NAME^AOOR 1475 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 51 1III7232300IO morADOR 1417 SHORELINE DR OWraRNAMB BMWAULBRALLWALLER TAXfAYER ORIAN M R USE L WALLER NAMiyAIMm I4B7 SINmi IJNE DM WAYMIAMN 55391 •t •V ('i \j f ) ( t « I e ) IlIiNNEPlN COUNTY PKOPRKTY INFORMATION SYSTiiM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 3a IIII7232JOOOS PROPADOR 1491 SlICNUUJNeDR OWNERNAME JANBTCKIERNAN TAXPAYER JANETCKRIER NAME/AOOR 1491 SIIOREUNE OR WAY/ATAMN SS39I 31 1111733230009 PROP AOOR 1419 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAME RKNEWKIRK*NJ NEWKIRK TAXPAYER RKNEWKJRKANJ NEWKIRK NAME/AOOR 1419 SIK3REUNE DR WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 IIII7232300IC PROPADOR 1490 GREEN TREES Rl) OWNERNAME C4SPLAT0U TAXPAYER CARL * SUSAN PI ATOU NAMI /ADim MMIUKI'I.N IKIil.S Mil WAY/AIAMN S339I 39 1111723230011 PROPADOR 39 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME GREEN TREES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER GREEN TREES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NAMIYAI )OR « A»JAI K11 VI IS I IMMiKI I N IKLI.SKII WAYZATAMN 53371 I CERTIFY THATTHB FACTS RRPRESCNrEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BESTI Mb nbnrvcriri 11 inArn ici\ aci^viv«i:o Ln:rAi\i ivii:n i, I nc ULdi v OFMYKNOWUsDCEANOOEUEF. _ ,------- , date'/IT^ DV rA(H:: I 'I exhibit H- I - it' '*jr9i - a . \ • :1 te??t^. ■ ^ •'•i v: ■ • 1 ■■ ' -'5. ‘ . I ' i': ^ \J^ ^K3tai >JT ■ s JaiNflf: "■•^ - • \.- \ f fe- > "»'1y-'M\scfcTi ^fitA * L y Cl y I .v-» • ♦ ^4v; n ^‘ \ r iCw.- 1 'jr^crTw=i=^ it .%v_-:ifi ^ouTH Pf^PeT^ry Li^i'i? V/tew P^M L/f^S ‘T |2t:77rtr'J(f=i VV^l-t- l/i^hO “pi^M exhibit ■ * 'r - >4 «. t. *S * ;»*N jaSf j-^ VZ^ V • -'‘V ^,A* , vt -:i • <■;• r ^•,5jL V '.<i--' :V.» # ' . av. - ••»> ^ . rv^.t^-v • '• - ■' v»^* : 'y^^' \ - > r'- I ‘ ^ •'^ ,' i mp(2jm p^pct-tv Ci/!>r y/rt^) View' TP V'iPrl^ L-AtK^ .v^»:V « ' f -i : £>4^-: . -<\a'.:,4 W ■ t•I 2_'»%j» % ^ / 'it V. V ' i Of *' ^ OJ Sz>i)7K LlKB tfiir'Ar^f>\ VIBV T£'VV/W> UlilC nepm Hennepin County^^J;;:: Taxpayer Services Depiar!ffi|hty:^ e^ m r • Parcel Information :i street Name SHORELINE .f ^Parcel ID 1111723230009 '^^^House Number 1489 This is not a legally raeorded map. It represents a eompUaden eUntoapadon and data from City. County, and State road audtcrities and other aoureas. Jam. Pa Y ' ^ 't.p- :•■ • V isSi-.- ^ yJVm N ^ \ ^ . V Pf ■A:' r.-fiV L ■ ira /‘:.>t-';J-.V.;-.»fl>?^-,- ^ “i i’. / / T».- ->>«■>-,' EXHiBrri City of Orono POBoxM 1 2730 K«ll«> p»l»ay (952)249-4600 rOR CITY tsc ONLY DMtlUBa\cd PtfiBito Amount S CU^FUod: Aoorovoddv SifoPttfi: Rccornmnds Aoorovil O Dmia) O CITY OF ORONO - USER DEFEVED/GENER\L PER>UT (All pamts must be appro\c<i b> the CfTicial and or Zoning Oeranment) Job Site / Chvner Infonnation: Site Address:H8 7 /'XV t Or Owner: 4"My ^7^Mailing Address: Citv: _______ Zip: Home Phone: “^7^ ~ cS'‘/0 Alternate Phone: h^c. 5T7?/ Contractor / Applicant Information:______. Contractor/App.: lyUl/t tnunyi Contact Person: Address: f^^U'lTlCir /h/^z ^ State License #: Cit>': OD/K/Ki^T^^ Zip: Expiration Date: Phone: " ^*7^^ Alternate Phone: TYPES OF USER DEFINED PERMnS f~l Stairway to Lake General - tier Defined Surcha^ • (Per IBC) *Etlimated Cost: S □ RetaV-ng Walls Genera - Lsc* Z^fined Surcharge ♦(PerlBQ * Estimated Cost: S____ □ Temporary Trailer General - L'ser Defined *SJ0.00 n Docks - 42" or Greater GenrnI - lx*Defined Surcharge n Com.T.ercial - (Per L BC) • Estimated Cost: S______ General -1 xr Defined Land Altgr2>r!on Genera - I ser Def red ^ • S50.00 (Needs Site ^ini ' □ 5 :: ’ - - S75.00 (Needs CUP. n Zoning Review General - User Defined •For 0-75* Zooc.$30J» □ Residi-::al • S30.00 f~l Tree Retrcval C<r<nl - L m: OcfiMj • Within 0-75-SJO.OO •• I herby apply for a User Defined Permit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and accurate: that the work w ill be in conformance w ith i-.e Ordinances and Codes of the City and with the State Building Code: that I understand this is not a permit ar.d work is not to star: without a permic and that the wofCKill b': V accordance with the aono\Oi plan. 9-/7-St 00 3 Date ttitfUiiiTrtiiggJtHa A * ^ I - ... n. y rouNoilBiilffiR ^ COUNTY N.gw.^1^ FOUND 1/2* 88*04*24 181.86’ exhibit J 68.88 PROPOSED STEPS Hat • liaai'! 18* OAK PROPOSED, ENTRY UNt Ar OAK JJfiHir OAK"‘te li W-i § I §90.7 Irv PROPOStD I. J99.2 liUU ■lUMNOUS ONS^IMV TO IE REMOVeO CiRi \ \ , PROPOSED / PAVER BLOCK DRIVEWAY HKiiifrf OHW 828.4 CONTOUR CDOC or VA1BI 2 SCFT 2003 ■Ml* Pi DOCK SECTION STONAOE FUlFOm TO TOAJN. 288 Sr. MAY ON HAY NOT 8E CONSPENCD HARDCOVER. VERIFY WTH OTY. MOT MaUDED M HARO COICR TAMES. _i-oc.iCT<oP ftp View CE!^ ^ 8i ntt ■r«^ 1/2* «MU —84.14— ■ M4.t \ nSZ/JS/J? coNWiiONmo 15 mHTJ \ : ROIOvS^ToS TOTAL nn Eg|Y^^t.4fcar Tttgg. 2» i2 S; ;S 1/2* «0N MFC ELCV • 886.3 / f-'Suto4«x. WAyut- 3!*QSL To Gy. N4AlSg.c4f^,T:vjL» 9 *tf ! - ^ / / Date Application Received: 10-16-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-03-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 01-19-04 meeting nUV Z 5 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION oi I r UH UHONO Date: Item No Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Melanie Foth Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2959 - Timothy & Sheryl Lattemer - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: LR-IC Lot Area: 0.2 acre (10,521 s.f.) Lot Width: 40* List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 11-19-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 11-17-03 Application Summary: The applicants request the following: 1. A hardcover variance in the 75'- 250' setback zone in order to reduce their existing hardcover from 65.1% (82.2% including rock and plastic) to 59.9% where 25% is allowed. 2. Side yard setback variances for the residence in order to add a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists and add a full 2"^ story where currently a '/j story exists at a substandard setback of 5.8' where a 10' side setback is required. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 17,2003, Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the side yard setback and hardcover variances. The Planning Commission also recommended removal of the 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage on the property, but allowed the underlying driveway hardcover to remain. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. < A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-282 and SECTION 78-350 SUBDIVISION (b) FILE NO. 03-2959 WHEREAS, Timothy J. Lattemer and Sheryl A. Lattemer, husband and wife (hereinafter *Hhe applicants") are the owners of the property located at 2032 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City") and legally described as follows; All of Lot 5, Gust S. Johnson’s Addition, EXCEPT that part described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Northwesterly line of Lot 5, Gust S. Johnson’s Addition said point being 101.1 feet Southwesterly of the Northeast comer of said Lot 5: thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 5 a distance of 129.9 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 5; thence Southerly along the Southwesterly or Westerly line a distance of 1.8 feet; thence Northeasterl> a distance of 129.9 feet to he point of beginning. City of Orono. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 and 78-350 Subdivision B to allow hardcover within the 75 ’-250’ zone in excess of 25% and allow a 2"“^ stcrv floor expansion within 5.8' of the side lot line where a 10* side setback is required. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2959. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District, which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and lot width of 100’. The property is 0.2 acre in size and has 40’ width. Pi^e 1 of 5 3. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at public hearings held on November 17. 2003 and recommended approval of the variance based on the following findings: a. Within the 75’-250’ setback, the applicants propose the removal of 296 s.f. of concrete sidewalk, and 90.6 s.f. of bituminous drive in order to reduce their hardcover amount in this zone from 65.1“/o to 59.9%. b. The applicants will remove the carport, consisting of 357 s.f. of structural coverage, but leave the hard surface below the carport as an accessor>' parking stall. c. The small size of the lot is a hardship that supports the level of 59.9% hardcover within the 75*-250' zone, given the existing developed status of the property and the need for olT-strect parking due to the high traffic on Shad\A\ood Road. d. The second-story expansion in the substandard side setback will have no negative impacts on neighboring properties. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the etYect 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 conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serv'e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preser\e a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby ‘ grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-282 to allow hardcover within the 75’-250' setback zone of 59.9^ b (consisting of 4504.4 s.f. of hardcover) and a variance from 78-350(b) in order to add a pitched roof over an existing flat roofed porch Page 2 of 5 1 I i il and to expand their current Vi story into a full 2"** stoiy within 5.8' of the property line where 10’ is normally required subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above 7.7% (232 s.f.). Hardcover in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 4504.4 s.f. or 59.9% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of existing/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will not likely be approved without concurrent reduction in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. The carport structure shall be removed per the approved site plan. Required removals of carport structure and hardcover shall be completed prior to issuance of building permit. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance w ill expire on that date (November 24.2004). 6. Violation of or non-compliance w ith 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. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 24'" day of November, 2003. Page 3 of 5 illMti I r 1 ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) 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 Page 4 of 5 J n STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___________, husband of_____________. dav of ,2003 Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this__day of ,2003 , wife of Notary Public Page 5 of 5 I J CITY OF ORONO 2750 KcUcy Parkway PO Box 66 CrysUl Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4600 ZONING FILE 03-2959 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 19,2003 TO: Tim & Sheryl Lanemer 2032 Shadywood Rd Orono, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances — Side Setback & Hardcover DATE OF MEETING: Monday, November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: A Approval of the hardcover and side setback variances for the home w ith the following stipulations: 1) Removal of the 357 s.f. carport; underlying hardcover to remain. 2) Removal of all plastic and fabric liners from landscaping areas. 3) Removal of296 s.f. of concrete sidewalk. 4) Removal of 90.65 s.f. area between the garage and the southern property line. 3 Denial of the side setback variance in order to chance the roofline of the existing garage. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AG.ALNST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; Meeting starts at 7:00 pm__________ If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952.249.4627. L FILEM3-29S9 Novtmbcr 7,2003 Pag* 1 of 6 Date Applkation Received: 10-19-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11-03-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 01-03-03 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City Plannei^|[^\ November 7,2003 03-2959, Timothy & Sheryl Lattemer, 2032 ShadNvvood Road, - Variance • public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC, Single Familv Lakeshore Residential ('/i acre) 0.2 acre (10.521 s.f.) ' Application Summary: The applicants request the following: 1. A hardcover variance in the 75’- 250 ’ setback zone in order to reduce their existing hardcover from 65.1% (82.2% including rock and plastic) to 61.2% where 25% is allowed. 2. Side yard setback variances for the residence in order to add a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists and add a full 2"'^ story where currently a Yi story exists at a substandard setback of 5.8 ’ where a 10 ’ side setback is required. 3. Side yard setback variance in order to change the roof on the existing garage and carport that is currently setback 4.5 ’ from the property line where a 10 ’ side setback is required.__________________________________________________ Sta_ff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends: 1. Approval of the hardcover variance in order to reduce the level of hardcover on the lot from 65.1% to 61.2% within the 75’-250 ’ setback zone. 2. Approval of the side setback variance to allow the construction of a pitched roof over the existing flat-roofed porch 5.8 ’ from the side yard where 10 ’ is required. 3. Approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current '/S story into a full story' 5.8 ’ from the property line where a 10 ’ side setback is required. 4. Removal of the 357 s.f. carport in order to reduce structural coverage from 24.8% to 2 1.4%. 5. Removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds. Hardship: Stafffinds that a hardship exists due to the substandard size of the lot and the location of the existing home. ______________________________________________ FiLEi03-29S9 Nov«(nb«r 7.2003 Page 2 of6 Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structwe or building in an LR-IC district shall exceed 2 1/2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed; Loi Area (acre) Loi Width (fe«) Front Yard (feet)Side Yard (feet)Rear Yard (feet)Side YorJ Adjacent to Street (feet) 05 100 30 10 30 15 (Code 1984, § 10.25(6)) Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Photos G. Aerial Photo H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map Background The applicants' existing home is setback 5.8’ feet from the side yard where a 10’ setback is required. The home has a flat roof on the rear porch and a Yi story in the middle portion of the upper level. The applicants wish to add a pitched roof ateve an existing flat-roofed porch make their ciurent '/: story a full story. The applicants have proposed removal of all of the plastic lined rock landscape areas and will be replacing those areas with sod. They have also proposed removal of a 296 s.f. section of concrete si Jewalk. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot .AreaAVidth: LR-lC Lot Area Lot Width Required i 21,780 s.f. ('/i acre)100’ Actual 10,521 s.f. (0.2 acre)40’ A FlLEi03-2959 November 7.2003 Page 3 of 6 cdy..^n^rai Coverage;_________________ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 1 * 10,521 sS. (0.2 acre) • Allowed: 1578 s.f. (15%) Existing Proposed: 2613 s.f. (24.8 %)i hardcover ralculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area m Zone 3009 s.f. 7512 s.f. Allowed Hardcovej^ 0 s.f (0%) 1878 s.f. (25-ii») Existing Hardcover 232 s.f.* (7.7 %) , 4891 s.f.* ;(65.1%) Proposed Hardcover 232 s.f. (7.7 %) 4595 (61.2%) • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds —------ Sid. V.rd y*f, ,he required 10' se.buck on the north side of the lot. The existing home does not meet the r q reauires a variance. In order windows and adding the pitched roof to their porch. AS pan of this application the hardship ..... l»ni..<naM-i J FiLE«03-2959 November 7.2003 Page 4 of6 Hardcover Variance The applicants have proposed to remove all of the rock and plastic landscaping and replace those areas with grass. In addition, the applicants are proposing to remove an area of sidewalk totaling 296 s.f. and installing grass. The total hardcover reduction is proposed to be 296 s.f., not taking account of the 1644 s.f. of rock lined landscape areas which will be removed. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shaU consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of die Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consIderallOH, and shall^ recormend^pro^al onfy when It is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the Staff tinds that due to the existing location of the home, there is a hardship to allow an encroachment in order to add a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exists and add a full story where currently a '/i story exists. However. Staff does not support granting the side setback variance in order to allow for the change in the garage roof to incorporate the carport. Rather, Staff would ask the Planning Commission if the additional structural coverage and the proximity of the carport to the property line and the neighboring garage warrant removal of the carport. ® Staff would make the following recommend..tions in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofHcial controls." In order to alleviate the leakage problems with the roof some structural work is necessary. With regard to the carport, staff does not find that a hardship exists in order to maintain less than 6 ‘ setback between garage roofiines. however due to the layout of their driveway and garage staff does find a hardship to allow the ,?d7 sf of parking hardcover in place of the carport structure. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. '' 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his orooertv not created by the landowner." ^ ^ The location of the home on the lot and the lot size are not created by the appl icant. 3. “The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality." The nature of the lots along Shadywood Road in this area is small lots with closelv spaced homes. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. ^ FILE«03-2959 November 7,2003 Page 9 of 6 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propert>' exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Economic considerations are preventing the applicants from razing the house and re­ building a new, conforming home. However, economic considerations are not the reason for the variance request. 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. \’ariances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Hot applicable. 6. "The Board of Appeals and .\djustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not pemiined under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located.” Not applicable. 7. "The Board or Council ma> permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable. 8. “The special conditions apphing to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." This property is 0.2 acre within a 0.5 acre zone. It is not particularly small for the area, nor is the size or location of the home on the lot out of character for the neighborhood. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The zoning standards apply to all '.jkeshore lots in the LR-IC district. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. 10. “The granting of the applicatirn is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right cf the applicant." This criterion is met with respect t: the house exparvsion. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any oi'.er respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoninj: Code." This criterion is met with respect to the house expansion. 12. “The granting of such variance udll not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." This criterion is met with respect to the house expansion. RLEM3-2959 Novtfnbtr 7.2003 Page 6 of 6 Issues for Consideration 1. Docs the Planning Commission feel that there is a hardship due to the location of the driveway and the garage to allow the carport to remain? 2. If the carport is removed, does the Planning Commission feel that the parking surface should be removed as well? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the side setback variance to allow the construction of a pitched roof over the existing flat-roofed porch. 2. Approval of the side setback variance in order to expand the current '/i story into a full story. 3. Removal of the carport consisting of 357 s.f. structural coverage, but allow the underlying pavement to remain as a parking area. 4. Removal of all plastic and fabric lined landscape beds. I* if ( V i J 2 ‘ ; CIT\' OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original a^jplication) Variance for non-conforming structures 5250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application Date Received \0-1 Amount Paid c ~d PROPERTY' INFORMATION Site Address ^03'A SiTfleit/tOooct iZoetcL______^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) n 111 Coia. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. rvr'C, Mm Date PrppeityAcquired _____09 /C3__________ I (do)(^o_n^also own the adjacent parcels of land..(month/year) Present use of property; X residential Zoning District: LR~ lC>other (specif.). APPLICANT Name rnr>OHu| ^1. I n A Hrfraaee* __Address: ao3a S^QAt^tPood Phene Gnome) 9Sa/410-4Ik I ____ Phone (vvork) 9SJ-/4 TI - ^ 3M- S Cit>-_OlrCVic___________Zip: 5939 I OVNER (if different than applicant) Name Souvi^Phene Gnome) Address;Citv: Phone (*.vork) Zip: D jWCRIPTION of request Estimated Construction Cost S liO COO Describe request in detail: See OtfciCPtfcC ------ (attach additional sheets if necessar;.) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area X Setback: ___Lot Width Front X Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desenbe undue hardship or pracUcal difficulty or t^snal property'conditions preventing compliance with Zomng Code requirements: 5fg CLtfetcilfgC_______ (attach additional sheusJf (TS ' c.) iiJ A TIS}H>ri REQURED SUBi\nTTALS All Tf Ibe follo»lll|. lnf»rn.».I^B niim h> ... I far roiir «pdIIc.»Io. .; ^ 1. 2. 3. 4. j/ Completed Application Form - f 6o'rHeS•”“« Govt Center, 34S-5910). ^ ^^P^rtment of Finance, A-603, ~ SSons°L*r^uJed ”^h ha«lcover reproduction. O “Py 8^5" * II” for 5. 6. Sketches or plam of floor I eiAv,*,«r, • / reproduction. T ict «r»»,« I t * * . *■ views (provide one (1) codv 8*/i" r n«\List of the legal names (include c»,h.ov ___.F^ " >• 7. 8. List of the lecrl i«mes (include ms-ital statol 77n!” '7 property. This tvould includ- i>j.r,.r.\ „(■__1. I P'”°“ *■“*' “ interest in the you wish notifisd of this apolicatio-. ^ separate list of any other personsyou wish notified of this apolicatio-. Additional items as may be‘requested by City staff. The Applicant and Properr.- Owner mus* ncr thic .• mr PPPlIrntlon Is not' contn.,.. tr^lL.^:... ,ngn" h 7 APPLICANT S SIGNATLTIE Administrator, agrees^to ^yIdditiSnarfees^(L*ffri™^^^^ requested by the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in revieu- of this 3001100110^7^ ^ P^.™™*) >nd/ot supplied is true and correct ^ the best of hi^er ta7l7ge. infoimation Applicant’s Signature^ iS/o^ OWTSTR S SIGNATURE entry onto the property by City suff 7rsuhe7 agetlu'7 reasonable members for purposes of inv Jgation'and reriSiofonfe^^^^ Council Owner’s Signatu'-e _r:>Date____ Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv oTicfc K.r u ex Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the Commission Applicants must be present at all sebedu^fd Iw l!l7 ,7“ «f ~ch month.Applicants must be present at all scheduled renen^m^ftti * r month. Council. If an applicant is u.nable to attend a Commission m,d have an authorized agent attend in vour anrt ,.4..:— .u «*■’.?.**** *”^* aaTangements tohave an authorized agent anend in your plT-c and^vLT^’iS AaTangements to change prior to the meeting. ^ ^ ** & Zoning Office of this t" r •v' t • A)’•i r'eSL^' L DATA PRIVACY AmiSORV In accordance with M.S. 13.04, SuM. 2. "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request .or a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to dctermme your qualification fos die permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on vourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. riff First ^32- Middle Last Address Or£tl^} City State 5~535 / Cfe. - Zip Phone I understand my rights as stated above. J. ^gnature ,t ■ . • ... * us CJ Adjacent Propert>- Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) T)av/>c( ZoscKK-c. of aoMo sioQgu^icood Kct [print narae(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Ao'67. StoQc*x|tocort tZetalso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we^ am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Ov Date I (we)/2 [print name(s)] <z_£—/r.tcfu [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^03^ Shod-cj tcood fciabo referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner U' - /JP Date Property Owmer Date If you have an> information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ / •• O' : O' <0^f L exHiftiT B Description of Reougst: The western most (road side) portion of the house has an A frame style roof with dormers. It also has an area that is a flat, rubber roof. We would like to remove the western most (road side) portion of our roof and replace It with a conventional roof to match the eastern most (lake side) roof up to the flat roof area. This would provide a uniform and consistent roofline. The proposed new roof will not be any higher or wider than the eastern most (lake side) roof. The increased bulk of the house will be very minimal. We would like to install a trussed roof over the existing flat, rubber roof on the western most side (road side) of the house. We would also like to replace the existing plastic roof on the carport with a trussed roof, running the opposite direction of the existing garage roof. Hardshlo/Descriotion of Unusual Property Conditions We are asking for this variance because the house and carport were built within the side setback boundaries. The existing dormer and flat roof show evidence of past leakage. There are large water spots on the inside sheetrock directly beneath the dormers and water pools up on the flat roof. We feel by allowing us to ch.inge the roof to a more conventional line, we would be better able to capture run off water via a gutter system so that rain water does not run into our basement or onto our neighbor's lot. Because we are not proposing to build higher or wider than the existing eastern side (lake side) roof, we will not obstruct our neighbors view. i . V -V 'S ....... "i--------- i i HARDCOVER CALCULATION \^DRKSH£ET IT € SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN gniW A House ____________ Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pa(io/Deck 44/^ ft*' F. Landscape-^. Uoderlain By Pla^c TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A A _ _ _ _ _ _ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck 'IM 75-2S0 250-500'500-1000' X X X X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other UVAII$ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _L^ , » X X X X X •»- B * B X X V X X X X X X X X X B width /' xioo __________ xlOO Width 'box>^xioo - 5<J I±fL T©» n, 3 e(p 2^2 ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. A ST. B ST. S.F. ST. S.F. ST.1 I. ST. ST. rf'i- /n * -V ST. ST. • ✓ ST. ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. __ST. A _________ST. B 'l-n % W'Mii r .H 'i .Jr . .••; V V"- i U 1* 1 ^ pifiil iSMiJv ‘ St '!1 •V^ X.vJ I > ITt ,iv -r V'\ . •V ’-- \ ’ "^' • ■- .■• - N—-h ffiKP f A’i "-' V'^ ■ ’i‘. % > ‘ ‘Ti . i- ^ . «-,y . •.<* ■■!,- ‘ P-- ‘ '• ' ^ '., • - •. V K •• ., ' •■•■V.,. •• : m r ‘ :•* \ * ,. ,\f :• >».? • • 4^ » • r .^-• •i 4 ' •^ ^ ^§T«Tl I-' ^ ♦ '.. ‘4; ' •■> h.-. .•'V ■;»>••• ' • I f .'!V^rl L. K V^Eafv • <• V iV* yv > ^ TIBQHSrS &3^k * x‘;!rV ■\ AaBWlRimfS r - ftlSlWF* ' '• • • * ' V '••'*'■ 4 '. ‘ . • 1 “i' -' > m vj-r ■•li t% ' . »v. v'U>' ‘••V* V- v; m * ^ * W* ;. vt ^ •’ > 4 « te- r 1 si **"^' fW' RUN DAIt 10^7/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 1711723240028 PROP ADDR 1998 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME JANET E SOLTAU TRUSTEE TAXPAYER JANET E SOLTAU NAME/ADOR > 998 SHADY WOOD RD WAY/ATAMN 55391 38 17117233IOUOI PROP ADDR 2000 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME R B KIRCHNER A L M KIRCHNER TAXPAYER R D KIRCIINFR A L M KIRCHNER NAME/ADDR 2000 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723310002 PROP ADDR 2016 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME RWACMKOZICKY TAXPAYER RICHARD W KOZICKY NAME/ADDR 2016 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 17 1711723310003 PROP ADDR 3746 SUNSET DR OWNER NAME RESTAURANTS NO LIMIT INC TAXPAYER RESTAURANTS NO UMIT INC NAME/ADDR <300 BAKI R RD MINNETONKA MN 55343 38 1711723310011 PROP ADDR 2024 SIIADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME PAMELA J WILLETTE TAXPAYER PAM WILLETTE NAME/ADDR 2024 SIIADYWOOD RD ORONOMN 55391 38 I7I17233100I2 PROP ADDR 2032 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAME TJLATTERNEIL^ALATTERNER TAXPAYER TIMOTHY J/SIIERYL A UTTERNER NAME/ADDR 2032 SIIADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 D O 38 1711723310013 PROP ADDR 2040 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAME DIUZOSCIIKE TAXPAYER DAVID A JUDY K ZOSCIIKE NAME/ADDR <^'N0 SHADY W(N)D RD WAYZATAMN 55391 17 1711723310045 PROP ADDR 3701 SUNSET DR OWNERNAME SPEEDWAYSUPERAMERICALLC TAXPAYER SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC NAMI /ADDR CVO PROPERTY TAX REC ORDS 539 SOUTH MAIN ST MNDIAYOH 45840 38 1711723310052 PROP ADDR 2060 SHADYW(X>D RD OWNER NAME JACQUELYNN M KEl J.Y TAXPAYER JACQUELYNN M KELLY NAMI:/ADDI< J M KLEIN 2060 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 • / f •'•to 6 I I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. P DATE /o - 7- aS, by X L itiia ■irriMlii^lliMiTriiinfTgyi ! Hennepin Hennepin County eswwr I ' ■'V'» ’ Taxpayer Services DepartrH^^; \» (24) 36 a] // /T\ Parcel Information o n Parc«l ID 1711723310012 Houm Number 2032 StrMt Nam« 8HADYWOOD RD TNs is not 6legaay recorded map. ItnpnMitts 9 eompil6tionoHntonmllon and data from Oty, County, and ^ata road authoriPaa and othar I i~li I' M'*! I firirtfl >■ I-uf new “T* e.««ST. »ISV\ ^ |Cvicr..(W l^tCM lb CVU«.T. /■=^*1 A/ ' y N N %LL *A- 0 c^' 7 «.b«| MC* T« jnri* t««*T. 5rt#i" »iHvJ • ♦ • *■^ , TTTT^ « T-----Xi ■ "iziL~-y \ I4A4^*m>CM ^ ,-r*t.rt«r. ^t^ItJKip C • isf. -) • • .GLidv.■■■V - 3/,C.*r I'-O* - .p - lLir«lt C*P«MC 7 9ic^£ ^cC'v'^riOK^3/ic,-r i*.o‘ . rtMtnwi \ -, ^ V •■ itrMMW«yt MM «* J IA*t ««iilir w MAIM* «M 4MIM A * • Muty riAMM* l•«l«Nl• *aji illMtUM w*44«r VAUtttMCt# • W i«LAf MM MvIMMIAm*. ilHMUMt MMf CMMVMMMity HA«tMllt« Ml«* MMMff UMwM MitiV "^X. t r % M (tO**MCfr 1 H<M>» Ml tm.lNIIMIUIKMirM tVMNITHlIVklS lOlU^Ui ANU 41 M.N WI .11 UUSIINI. M IWMI lUitSStX MtHuvi iitMi^ I hiiu A iv aiuoi AH04nmm§tuk iKMiTMiMiiiir-c;. 1/2 iM cike ft04ai>gtiiiarL%»a w/ArrtM'Am I ubt AMU i#AM KAf ific •uilmm ; rAff i jai »u r tyfitai. • IM1NC4 Uk AStn Al T.JttlA.ClNOIlAiMlItrtrUI OWMIJI %tl IC'IMIM Vtiunr «r/€mNMI ■! MMMTar tMIIUl.AtMir %HtA »l*»minc;ai ih Ijav AMuiMiuuiriNiMviacA. CAI.V Mini riKfAi N't AMO WATUlilllflJI n lllliMl. AIJU) AS IMMC'ATAUCM OftTAM JL siAiruliiMiraAvt suisMiiusrr nMMiaui^ 0« AS MStv COM gUAlXT^ fM M «;«AC K M U WAflMMIIU.UOI tQIIAI. MUA At SiilMUMMNT. aoariNsi>iAfi.ifiisiN. n; matt cm si own « m AM ^NI/TtA Al rj%vu MM AM IMIW IM4IM MMSfl VAffM SAIMIIA MfnurMrSUJM;8aM.AMIU.MJl.V. MMI# vunu AI mm. MA rCN e«lSflM. MOU# HOMIIM CAM IM; mmM. IISM. GVmMI MOAtJI MaA h j' I t Xi'J^I fiatOlANlLlAVljjsi . SACIA to suit II ANU AIIU|WI|1I UVtSIUPiC* AMb MMIIT TO AIMM WIIH SAIItllM. MAIMMI.AMU MNISUlUACATiaC AAiariMb. ttfM'Al. I ;i Kcaau «^ I ■ rnmu I Date Applicatioa Received: I0-22-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10-22-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 12-21-03 MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 CITY OF ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 20,2003 Item No. Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Waataja|j\^ Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2960, T imothy and Kelly Mahoney, 2760 Pheasant Road - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1 acre minimum) 0.75 acres (32.796 s.f.) 174 feet List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 11 -18-03 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 11 -12-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variance to change the roof line from 4/12 pitch to a 7/12 pitch and to add a covered entry: I. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 29* when 35* is normally required and 33 ’ currently exists. Planning Commission Recommendation Approval consistent with the following staff recommendation: Approval of the front yard setback variance of 29* when 35* is required due to the valid hardships of the existing non-conforming front yard setback, the excessive right-of-way, and that the covered entry will not have any negative visual etTects from the road. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting a front yard setback variance for 2760 Pheasant Road. % A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-330 (b) HLE NO. 03-2960 WHEREAS, Timothy J. Mahoney and Kelly A. Mahoney, husband and wife, (hereinafter “the applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 2760 Pheasant Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Those parts of Lot 2, Block 1, YALE SMILEY ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota and Lot 15, “PHEASANT LAWN”, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lie southerly of the following described line: Beginning at the most westerly comer of said Lot 2; thence on a bearing of South S3 degrees 21 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 36.40 feet; thence South 70 degrees 09 minutes 30 seconds East parallel with the southerly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 36.00 feet; thence North 67 degrees 44 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 21.55 feet to an intersection with the northerly line of the southerly 3.92 feet of said Lot 2; thence South 70 degrees 09 minutes 30 seconds East along said northerly line of southerly 3.92 feet to the southeasterly line of said Lot 2 and said line there ending. (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 (b) to allow a new 7/12 pitch roof with a covered entry to be setback 29’ from the front property line when 35 ’ is normally allowed and 33 ’ currently exists. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File <103-2960. Page I of 5 r 2. 3. % The property is located in the LR - IB zoning district, which requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre. The subject property is 0.75 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on November 17, 2003 and recommended approval of the front yard setback variance based on the following findings: a. The nature of the existing 4/12 pitched roof causes snow loading problems. b. A new 7/12 pitched roof would allow snow to slide off the roof with greater ease. c. The steeper roof creates the need for a covered entry to minimize icy conditions and create a safer entrance. d. The existing front yard setback is non-conforming. e. The total right-of-way on Pheasant Road is excessive at 60 feet. f There will be no negative visual impacts from the road. 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 U^ic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping witli the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 1 il CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 (b) to allow a new 7/12 pitch roof with a covered entry to be setback 29 ’ from the front property liite when 35’ is normally allowed and 33’ currently exists, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site (dan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Plaiming Commission and City Council review. 5.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 new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 24,2004). 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. 7.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 agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 24"* day of November, 2003. AITEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 « TtniniTn ni 1 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 S day ofThe foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this __, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of S % State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of ,2003 by Timothy J. Mahoney, husband of Kelly A. Mahoney, husband and wife. Notary Public State of Minnesota ) )ss. County of Hennepin ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this __day of _ by Kelly A. Mahoney, wife of Timothy J. Mahoney, husband and wife. , 2003 Notary Public Page S of S Armifiilnnin-n ididUl um fa H i0(T a % certificate of survey for TIM MAHONEY IN LOT 2. BLOCK 1. YALE SUILEY ADDITION. AND LOT 15. "PHEASANT LAWN" HENNEPIN COUNTY. UINNESOTA f pheasant -ROAD iC>*t :c.:* "* or Iff .* i«i I •••»• I v> .(• !•! 11. *w»casm * _mr it. • .. »'ti, :• :«wi» TO Cl •• ;; Call aarciiti •» S*»i% il #•%«••• |i «0 tac*M«> fa«i « la .4...... JO c... a...;............................. :»Mfa*::! a a«*.*«t ' .A ................ ,J»- «•«•.;: >« •• .,4 •.«* #4!^ • a«a •••fj -a*’ m>4^. .. #• • i •. • ■ • < • ♦ <• 4. • '4»«4« la f .• i*a t. !• ••« 4*a*a aaa«* (Ma araaa*-* • aa «•• ii •' 1 ' •«»• n4 ■•• 414: a» a»i ••t>aia ‘Aa'iei*#** •4» '*c*a.^<*i» •• aacfaac-r^n'» »4l >•>«•' t *4 *'.• •'I •»7: > • t )3-»!5 G'CNSERG I ASSOCUTESl KC wtimiiuM ««1 « aciov 01 10C U mC. mi MJM tii.aij.aiai . oa*rt mm* mm m*rn. wn;w%**m^ m •• M aa iMia at ancr mm ■w* • a •&« uum aMmOBM^ iMaia «C «•«M«M an a« uai • ac Hat V «ant4 ■zt; uiAi IO/17/OJl 0}-4it “frr /^r %:--x i ‘**. I • • J 1 1: CITY OF ORONO ZONING FILE; 03-2960 2750 Kclky Parkway P.O. Bo* 66 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CiytCal Bay* MN 55323 (952)249-4600 DATE OF NOTICE; November 18, 2003 TO; Timothy and Kelly Mahoney COPIES: 2760 Pheasant Road Excelsior, MN 55331 TYPE OF APPUC^TIQN;_........Front Yard Setback VanM^ ............................. DATE OF MEETING: November 17,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval consistent with the following stall recommendation: 1. Approval of the front yard setback variance due to the existing non-conforming setback, that the encroachment only includes a roof and is not enclosed, and that the 60' total right-of-way is excessive and still allows for adequate separation from the house to the paved road of 50 feet. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; meeting sUrts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. % M3-29M I November 17,2003 PacelofS Dale Applkatkm Received: 10-22-03 Dale AppUcaliOB CoasMered as Complele: 10-22-03 00-Day Review Period Eipircs: 12-21-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner]^ November 12,2003 03-2960, Timothy & Kelly Mahoney, 2760 Pheasant Road - Front Yard Setback Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) Lot Area: 0.7S acres (32,796 s.f.) AppUcadon Summary: Applicant requests the following variance to change the roof line from 4/12 pitch to a 7/12 pitch and to add a covered entry: 1. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 29' when 3S’ is normally required and 33’ currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the front yard setback variance due to the existing non-conforming setback, that the encroachment only includes a roof and is not enclosed, and that the 60' total ri^t-of-way is excessive and still allows for adequate separation from the house to the paved road of SO’. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-330. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: { Lot Area (acre)Lot Width (feet)Front Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjacent to Another Lot (feet) Rear Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent to Street (feet) 1 140 35 10 30 35 List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form Exhibit C - Hardship Statement Exhibit D - Existing Survey Exhibit E - Proposed Survey Exhibit F - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G - Proposed Elevation Exhibit H - Proposed Floor/Roof Plan I 1 N03-29MI NovtMbcr 17,2903 Page 2 ofS Exhibit I - Proposed Foundation Plan Exhibit J - Proposed South Side Elevation Exhibit K - Rear/East Side Elevation Exhibit L - Photographs Exhibit M - Property Owners List Exhibit N - Plat Map Background The existing home sits at a fh>nt \ard setback of 33 feet when 35 feet is required in the LR - IB zoning district. The house was constructed in 1952 and there are no variances on file for the property. The property is located on a comer lot and at the end of the Pheasant Road cul-de-sac which e.xtends to Lake Minnetonka but is not considered a lakeshore lot. The applicant has a dock as part of the Pheasant Lawn joint use dock agreement. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth; LR-IB Lot Airpa Lot Width Required 43.560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 32.^96 s.f. (0.75 acre)174 ’ Setbacks; Structural Coverage; LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 35 ’33’29 ’ Rear 30’125 ’ ] 125 ’ 1 Left Side 10 ’38 ’38 ’ Right Side 35 ’42 ’42 ’ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 32,796 s.f. (0.75 acres)Allowed: 4,919.4 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,074 s.f. (9.4%) ) ) \N03-2960 November 17,2003* Page 3 of5 Hardcover Calcutotions: Hardcover Zooe Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 5,226 s.f.0s.f (0»/o) 0 s.f.* (0%) 0 s.f (0%) 75 - 250 27,570 s.f.6,892.5 s.f (25%) 6,878 s.f.* (24.95%) 6,878 s.f. (24.95%) • After exclusion 1 of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Front Yard Setback Variance , .u The applicant ’s current home has a front yard setback of 33 feet. The applicant has proposed to change the roofline to a 7/12 pitched roofwhere the existing 1971 roofisa 4/12 pitch. The applicant is proposing to change the pitch of the roof because at the existing 4/12 pitch heavy snow loads create cracked eaves. A 7/12 pitch roof will help sol\ e this problem by allowing the snow to not load so heavily on the roof and slide off with more ease. In changing the pitch to a 7/12 the snow would fall directly on the isting stoops entering the house and attached great room. The applicant has proposed aexi covered entry so that the snow falls away from the stoop. The covered entry will not extend any further than the existing stoop, 4’, but as such a front yard setback vanance is required. The applicant is also removing existing concrete (11 s.f) and rock on plastic (48 s.f.) to maintain the current, conforming hardcover level of 24.95%. The proposed front yard setback is 29’ when 35’ is normally required and 33’ currently exists. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis til considering nppllcutlons for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval tor variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code.________________ Staff finds that there arc valid hardships to allow for the reduced front yard retback. First, the existing house doesn ’t meet the required 35’. Technically, the lot is not considered lakeshore because it isn ’t platted all the way to the lake but runs all the way to the lake. Rather, there is a joint use dock situation. If this were a lakeshore lot the street would be considered a rear yard where only 30’ would be required and the proposal would only be requesting a 1’ encroachment rather than 6 ’. Next, the proposal is for a covered entr> with two columns which will support the roof, not a totally enclosed entryway. The intent of a front yard setback is to create uniformity % •03-29M* Novcabcr 17,200J Pagc4«rs of house placement and sight lines up and down the roadway. Because the proposal will not be enclosed the uniformity issues will not be affected. Lastly, the 60’ right-of-way of the road is excessive compared to the SO’ right-of-right for most local streets throughout the City. The boulevard in the front yard of the property is 20 ’ where usually 10 ’ to IS’ would exist on a typical local street. Because of this the house and proposed covered entry wouldn’t qipear abnormally closer to the lot line than that of any other home in the nei^borhood. Also, staff has found covered entries to be common throughout the City and surrounding cities for that matter. They provide safer entry to the house in the winter months and during rain. Many cities allow a covered entry as an allowed encroachment and staff will be examining this issue for discussion at a future woric session. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” A covered entry would not be allowed without variance approval. 2.”The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” Tlte excessive right-of-way width is unique to this property. Also, placement of the home ahead of the front yard setback is unique to the neighborhood but not out of character due to the excessive right-of-way width. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Should the variance be granted the essential character of the neighborhood will not be affected. This is due to the excessive right-of-way and that the proposal is for a covered entry rather than a totally enclosed addition. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Not applicable “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” Not applicable “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Not applicable I r % M3-2960I November 17,200,^ Pace 5 ofS 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The excessive right-of-way and placement of the home ahead of the requiredfront yard setback are peculiar to this lot. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” Most other homes in the neighborhood meet the required front yard setback. The applicant’s home doesn ’/ appear closer than those around it due to the wide right-of-way, and therefore these conditions are unique to this property. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial, roperty right of the applicant." The applicant could not achieve a covered entry without approval of this application. 11 . "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." This proposal will not impair the health or safety of the general public and will not be detrimental to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty.” Granting of this application is necessary to alleviate the hardships described above. Issues for Consideration 1 . Is a covered entry a necessity warranting variance approval? 2. Will the covered entry create any visual problems from the roadway? 3. Does the excessive right-of-way have any pertinent relevance with this application? 4. Should the applicant be required to remove 48 s.f. of additional hardcover other than the rock on plastic as proposed (if not, hardcover would be at 2S.I%)? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the front yard setback variance of 29' when 35' is required due to the valid hardships of the existing non-conforming front yard setback, the excessive right-of-way, and that the covered entry will not have any negative visual effects from the road. EXHIBIT A 1 Application # ^ ^ Cj Date Received / o/ / "7/ c ^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $130.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) lOPERTY INFORMATION / Site Address 27^ fntA^Afi/T S^S^/ Property identification Ntmber (P.l.D.) JS4uJnf Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Properly Acquired Jo/zeo /_____________________________^(month/year) I (do) not^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. Presentiise ofproperty: X residential ___^other (specify)____________________ Zoning District: ____________________ APPLICANT Name Address ant , ,, ^ \^\T7dn Phone (home) ____ Phone (work ) 763-’^79^^30^ City: fJCCeAi'oji. Zip: ^£iS331 OWNER (if different than applicant) Ncme Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost %/OOCOO Describe request in detail: AthaeKc<^ _________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area__ ___Lot Width ^ Setback; Front __Sjde Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property co u/:tk 7n«:..» _____ w. property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: __________ (attach additional sheets if necessa.'y) i JJ }i \ 1 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Ail of the following information must be aubmitted bv the applicaHon deadline date In oriigr for vour application to be conaidcrtd completer 1. 2. Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Deparnnent of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8 Vi" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital stanis) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete If the above Information has not been includgd. 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 consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied IS true and c^neo^the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date |o 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. OWNER'S SIGNATUL_ __ 1 he owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes^j^L-mvestigation and verificationjnf this request. lO 03Owner's Signature A Date Applicant must have ^luubmf^ into thc^SitiLOffice^ days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Councii. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. y • N I f• » 1 V. * ' EXHIBIT B I \ Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form T/ ^ (i/I (we) JTfUL it^nu of_^Z^/fisasA^T £J (print jume(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Ph^joSAAft also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council araroval. Date Property Owner Date 1 (we) [print name(s)] of [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^7£9p also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use recfmbes Council approval. Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days pricr to the scheduled meeting date. 8 t i.* 11 L U % * nr r • Lk « Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) of /a/- /V (print name(s)] (print address] have r^ewed the {lans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner ink 6:7 Date * (we) Aiwv of T'^OO [print name(s)] (print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at rTKoJAr*^ Ad. also referred to as Land Use Application No. ___ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) cot asked to declare approval or disapp^al of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aw^rc of tM improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires CouncKipprovr*' ' Property Owner Date fi//WZL3 Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 I ( Adjacent Property Ownen* Acknowledgement Form * SllciU nf 7.7t,S [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ^7^ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Uwn Date Property Owner Date I (we) iik Snt/cy [print name(s)] of 2.730 PJnoi^ JZJ. [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvment or proposed use of the property located at AA also referred to as Lane Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this ackno vledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use bu; merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property/Owner Date ©3 Proper^Owner ^ 5 Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ •••• ' • F - ’A ^ I*' . V- is % AdjaccDt Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form (print hame(s)] [print address] ( ) have rev^wed the pl^ for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date /o/ 7/0 s Property C)6mer f Date >««***«***• I (we) [print name(s)) of 27*n 06as/fK^ Al [print address] have re^wed t^ plaiw for the proposed impnavement or proposed use of the property located at VUfO also referred to as Land Use Application No. ________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Propc.ty Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Balding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 -•»r 7 r <::J v..9 u T 1 % Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form * (we) /oifOL of 2Ttf PhtaSiA^ [print name(s)] [print address] ^ve reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at T7^0 f'hseMuft JSA also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) undeistud that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to decive approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requues Counpd approval. ^ Property Own^ Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at --------------------------- also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) un^rstand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to Property Owner Date Property Owner Date AnnUrlHr“«u“k “«st the City in the review of this Land Use /i •A.— -ftl— I 'r 11 i [. ) EXHIBIT C HARDSHIP/DESCRIPnON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS: .gywjj J ortrXsnpMhkmiAA . ^ ^/inArar^ a/ucAccA xnAlgL *4iig^ flicJim* ^ jfi *HlC. h.-iiOe. ^ AiTa/^Jc ^ /\kjUL> //*7/2. faO^ u3tl\ 3£>loe^ 'fUrs pfeii ^ A£uJ /Vfg>. ^tkiJ ^ u/i/Z AAitJ /Sr. /4fuJfJ -/o <l,Af x»/>/o <.^rfrL, /hije^J <0^^ fni/f ^mA/cmj . 'fhc. -fria/y)CR. ^f}Ci}<jp ^ //vv5kg^ ^ <in<^ ^f%!^ l<AAir.<^ <g. ZO. */ ^ /29os/j Aoyyfcr>;^ lj Aj ^ Iijr^s» <HAe^i/^ lmr A P<^,cL*7A»ai/^ oAfesfAi ^}l4c&tJ<^ ^/" riuc. '/o >^4r, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:L#l%u ARvA^ VC • y /X rini) ~7/a- pihdncA. foc^^ ~y>T /^yfca-/r ct. (|iytX>i>C^ CtrirutAJlr^ty /%mA /t/)//i^^^ .? /0/V'cy>>i^ Ao 1 4 ^V • ••■•? : • X--%w-- ?- • •> •*••««« r- 1 EXHIBIT D "certificate of survey for TIM MAHONEY IN LOT 2, BLOCK 1, YALE SMILEY ADDITION. AND LOT 16. "PHEASANT LAWN" HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA OBffaiiuc 1 T f.h ucH. or mmt% Tmi* MMt ui I. tlMA I. T«iC »ftLrr IflOlTlON Ul II. *#ICAIM«T «••<'•••« t*******^ •! IM mail «! Mii i«l*nCAlAMT UMT ■Alan ll« MalMrlf «f IM •I I; IAa««« mm • Warlaf «r Smia iS «••»••• tl flMiiaUf AMMia fMl • StilMc* al M M >1 ajlA |A« M«|A«#I« ll«« «f i«l« iai t a AUlaMa af MTti JaT: l8Bia^£iA*!y*aaa#Ma aallaa ailA lAa aa#lAa#l» ilaa af lAa aaMiaaf iTj.il Imi «| ^16 iailt lAaMa^WtS^Si* Maiaarlf J.il laal la l4a aaalAaaala#!, lUa af tat# Lai t «3 LiTiTm^J aSlaf? * ftai. laaia Ft aa^aai Ot«ini>lat 10 aac^a'laai ^aMaf a* *% taca*a« Caai a iiaiaaaa af ti.ll faai la «i Uia#taall atvaai c> a^aalat JO aataaat Caal ala*f aaii «a#IAa#lr IIm af a tl .*»a aatia* ^a; a«-aifi at*ai.»f i>af atatalia*. aaa lavaf tataa §•#»••%» a*a aa»«a mmrnm a* aaa.^a aatan fa.a •«!•*#• la t»a !•« •#!«•.»• »• aa #«.ii.«a Mwaa 1*4.ta* •» *<ai aai #«*##'! la a >aaa»»#a af IM aaa*a aaicttAai a«aaatit. a«a laa laaaiiaa af an ••••Ala *i^aaa*a#‘ a«» ataat ata«a«OT»als at aaataaafwaaia. * S ati'ia ■wot CRONBtRG k iSSOCUTBl INC/*N CRONBtRGJE f i| MBiMB—BUB V y Ml B mov M u ^ ^ ost-An l0CU«.ltl IIJM •St.4TJ.au I aaa Ataf I «i a Mf u •oiMvaiMai i**jr ^0 . .* i ;• >*J >1 L 1 EXHIBIT E CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR TIM MAHONEY IN LOT 2. BLOCK 1. YALE SMILEY ADDITION. AND LOT 15. "PHEASANT LAWN" HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA i CcDfVred^ 1 \ oaroM uc 14 H 67*19* 40<* ^ pheasant -road fill* ocMroui i#c n Hg- tii*L a ---------------•• jft o •tt* t«t » nt9* . • ♦ I . • •••li •>»* • • » H I* t# !•« «. •• !•« «»••• «••<*.MJ ««»«.•»! » I ♦ M»« •» «tl • » ••Ii *# %».• 1^0 1 —€t—€mmrn%% I 33: i )3-»!S • I ^■N CRO ^7T. CRONBESC k iSSOCUTISl UC lie oocm uM larae. SI ««» « •now OR. iOC uwL WA MJM • <I«W* OA rv ftwt ^ ••• ■^•40 Of l« M I«ait M wt • M • BAt town iownaa^ cw«tt nmumw «■«(« f*x* > t •M .A •<J f.-rTN • i I ilii-'BriliiBiliiliilrflni • • •• ^ •' A«**^ .•* *.' V'. •; S . i *. . •• . •H • # : . • / *• T*• • I ••• • • * ' V , IM M a^mhby EXHIBIT F ^fC-oS HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ('ITTP) 75-250' 250-500' EXlSTivn UAPnmvvD im vnioT i ^ X ■ » Ul?, K»*feASAlST L^Wi EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House 500-1000' LtngUi X X X • : •• • •• \ <• . . • »/. * B. Garage • mm m • C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other total hardcover in zone * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ 4- B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE- A House ____________ X Ungih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X 0. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ _ _ + B Width m m xlOO Width XlOO - r z .. O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SE. • ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F:- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. -A “ S F. B<n__1% i 7m MaHOHBY Hu /o^f7-ffJ ^ Lot /S Png>»9MNr Law .!i .., ;• •r*;v • - • -/•■'V-- V .• •.. • * • n / .. : I • -*. * : * i*«>* •• • • # •. •! •' . »• 1 "C‘ . -A- •r*;• * •* .* ‘• * •*• • ■> r.‘ *. •• • • • I •» • tv • I- • . f. -. - •• •* •. *•-»*? .. • •••.• j •# t* • • <5;-. •t A.: • k HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 0-75' X Uti|Ui X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck • *• X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plutic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __________ + B PROPOSED RARDCOVRR IN ZONE* * A House _______ X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk A.• •--•7. ** • X X E. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X >-•••• • • • 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A_ __ _ _ _ B 2S0-S00'SOO-1000' Width xIOO Width xlOO SF - MOOS. S.F. S.F S.F.'tftHOiii It vwic eCMfMO Van^MOOlT S.F.-COr<, ftivgg /305 S F. 'BUOKrof? S.F. S.F.- f S.F.-Ve 4-3S' S.F.-0f6»^ \OZR mrta 3 F,.flp6< on PiA* S.F. S.F. 2^------S.F.-if{5^^5_25 S.F. A Z7Syo S.F. B ~ % 30ii S.F. S.F. Cone S.F. • S.F. S.FiKttC^7DP S.P. • crdbMO iihh S.F.>/d.5/c3 S.F. /Oeck SF.tot^/to.'rfO S.F.rocJs C a ptuik S.F. s:f. 2^/ S.F.a*wZ) 77/mA c £ZZSZ S.F. A S.F. B % IIfill r Of roof •ft*' co/xjrt^ ^rvifU. (j •/ % • . # • -V .•.TV. . •*,•: n pure PUCkt-g ^iU|L^g ------------ ■ 1 r *.• % — •< •4 ^ T I V ‘■% A s H ih.-f:ii.L 1 ■ -. .-^'.r^s^j •rrrr ^M2tsi£d^££^:^\rrr^-^vi.-*Tm.n*».r-^rlttli~iTliTllifflflrwirn i<irhiiTVf"ri iir~rrir^n ifi ^flnaiiifi ii II iiii iiart^iAlirtni'i iWi « «> «iri i if »m*-iurTinti -1 tm mi-iTm- ■iii ffiiitfhiiih Mill ii ~~*rtl1>rnrTmrtill • I Ilf.. )i >• • VtW^ d^ CM^iA M^JiiftYV\ ^\JUn ------— I t Amnatr ''r*- ^ “t A t. ‘7t«n: iim LtoH • < ■ ' • * " “ <► •• • « • • « ... ^EO' • l/f' /?' • ■ ■■ (itAT Vi'CM/ 4^ H0IHV£^ 4- ;■ ■ ■ . • ■ ' •f^ ;t .< ■•’i . . :,^ ii 4 '» *• ^ *,A,' r^- t:^J / , ^Sf'. ’i ■1 ri^, A^, —: ________ , r I 45' K, ^ P?4 • k?* •»)] iix 8a Wim/ ^ -y v/j ‘J • : rV '•'•i: •'-^' ' ' : 1 ' (Vil.M - \0/w' > A !m-'i • ^ /; » *.T«ir? * • !■ C ■■ jNt? V A^^w. . I w. I” 4 » * ^)!3Ri» *’.sass-^sssh^: . ^ vvl ^r< . . >* *1*^ >v. '^>•1 iS- ■ '* 'Wv^H ■ii^ p)41 , • 5 1 X Sli t ■» \^. I, 'M ■ > 4 '4 KUNUAIt; )a 2111723230014 rROPAODR 30 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME PHEASANT LAWN HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER PHEASANT LAWN HOMEOWNERS NAME/ADOK' 2700 PLEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 5S33I 31 2111723230023 PROPAOOR 2703 PHEASANTRD OWNER NAME STEPHEN L BAKJCE ETAL TAXPAYER STEPHEN L BAKKE NAME/AOOR 2763 PHEASANTRD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 3S 2111723320001 PROPAOOR 2791 PHEASANTRD OWNER NAME LNALCSUNDET TAXPAYER LELAND N SUNDET NAME/ADOR 2791 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 31 2111723320004 PROP ADDR 2000 PIIEASAN1 RD OWNERNAME JAMESDBCHTENKAMPETAL TAXPAYER JAMES * JEAN ECHTENKAMP NAME/AOOR 120 BIRCH BLUFF RD TONKA OAYMN 53331 4'A! ::r•: ^ Hi:.- ■i. V IILNNLi'iN SYS ILM 38 2111723230013 PROP ADDR 2760 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME TJMAHONEY*K A MAHONEY TAXPAYER TIMOTHY J MAHONEY NAM E/ADDR 2760 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 38 2111723230024 PROPAIXm 2723 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME TV SEIFERT* OP SEIFERT TA3CPAYER THOMAS V * DARYL P SEIFERT NAME/ADDR 2723 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 38 2111723230032 PROPAOOR 2720 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME WILLIAM YALE SMILEY TAXPAYER WILLIAM YALE SMILEY NAME/ADOR 2720 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 38 2111723230033 PROPAOOR 2730 PHEASANTRD OWNER NAME WILLIAM YALE SMILEY III ETAL TAXPAYER WILLIAM YALE SMILEY III NAM E/AOOR 2730 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 38 2III723320002 PROPAOOR 2793 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME RICHARD A MARZAN TAXPAYER RICHARD A MARZAN NAME/ADDR 2793 PHEASANT RD ORONOMN 33331 38 2111723320003 PROP ADDR 2799 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME ELMER J MARTINSON TAXPAYER ELMER J MARTINSON NAME/ADDR 2799 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 38 2111723320003 PROPAOOR 2789 PHEASANTRD OWNERNAME J*OTEYNOR TAXPAYER GAIL M* JOSEPH TTEYNOR NAME/ADDR 13223CARDINALCREEK RD IU)liN PRAIRIE MN 55.146 I^ERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND information as rr appears this date on the rkords ScSf COUNTY taxpayer SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. 1 y y/ PACE: I • '*33 Hennepin a» I m. (42) <1^ E * ^-Uhjj ^ 11114 ^ "ijggrstroiw '4 . ' * *\TJ •„ y EXHIBIT N % Honnopin tP-'" Hennepin County Taxpayer Service Department wt• IfSSR? ' :■?. < •*. .. \TJ * •• *. V » * % ; v<:.^ '•} .V (f\ ParceUnformatlon V. areel ID 2111723230015 House Number 2760 Street Name PHEASANT RO Tmisnoialtgafyncoi^map. Hnpnsamsaeomptailoncttntomalion and data tnm City. Cou ',' and Statamadauduridaaandedmaourena. Date Appikatioa Received: 10>22*03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 10-22-03 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 12-21-03 "w asms CITVOFOHO.VO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 20,2003 Item No.: Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Janice Waataja Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2963, WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard Commerical Site Plan Review - Resolution Zoning District: I, Industrical District Lot Area: 24 acres (1,045,004 s.f.) List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 11-18-03 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 11-14-03 AppUcatloH Summary: Applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to expand the existing garage structure situated immediately south of the main facility. Planning Commission Recommendation Approval of the plans as submitted. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting a conunercial site plan review for 2605 West Wayzata Blvd. > - A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE PLAN RLE NO. 03-2963 WHEREAS* WJM Properties, LLC. (hereinafter the applicant) is owner of the property located at 260S Wayzata Boulevard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and leg^ly described as follows: Parcel A: Lots I through 12 inclusive. Block I, ORONO INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, including ail of vacated Lincoln Drive within said ORONO INDUSTRIAL PARK. Parcel B: (from Book 3619 of Mtg. Pg. 456) All that part of the south '/> of the Northeast '/«of Section 33, Township 118, North Range 23, West of the S"* Principal Meridian, described as follows: Conunencing at a point on the South line of said Northeast 'A at its point of intersection with the West line of the East 66 rods thereof, said point being distant 1550.78 feet East of the West line of South Vr of Northeast V*\ thence North along the West line of the said East 66 rods to the North Line of the South '/i of said Northeast '/«, being a point on said North line distant 1547.45 feet East of the West line of said Northeast thence West along said North line 460.5 feet; thence South to a point on the South line of said Northeast '/< 460.5 feet West of the point of beginning; thence East 460.5 feet to the point of beginning, including any portion of any street or alley adjacent to said premises vacated, or to be vacated. (hereinafter the “property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-821 to allow a 20’ x 75’ addition to an existing detached garage structure on the property; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 17,2003, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 3. 4. FINDINGS 1. 11iis application was reviewed as Zoning File tf03-2%3 2. The property is located in the (I) Industrial District. The proposed addition is an allowed use in the 1 district per Zoning Code Section 78*824. 'Hie Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 17, 2003 and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0. S. The Planning Commission made the following fuidings of fact: A.The Plaiming Commission finds the 20 ’ x 75’ addition meets all setbacks per Section 78-825 (e). The addition also conforms to the Lot Coverage requirements of Section 78-825 (c). B. The proposed addition will result in a loss of approximately 5 parking stalls, however the property will still conform to the parking requirements of Section 78- 1516(20). C.The City Council finds that approval of the commercial site plan for the proposed garage addition will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, will not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding i»operty values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. D. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and Page 2 of 5 I recommendations of the Phuining Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicants and the affect of the pn^x>sed use on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby approves the commercial site plan to allow a 20’ x 75 ’ addition to an existing detached garage structure on the property, subject to the following conditions: I. The addition is constructed consistent with the plan submitted and annotated on Exhibit A. 2.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the commercial site plan approval shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any auttority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors anxl assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of November, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(s) m Page 3 of S A STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ,2003 Nolaiy Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN i«™n«n< W« ex«^ on lS.f ^ c!^’ coiponuion -kI saM Notary Public Page 4 ofS -? ■ ,■ »■ iiVii inAri J STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me. who is personally kiH>wn to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation ,a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their Im act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20. personally appeared before me. who is personally known to me whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation ., a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 r tes-‘ T' iV' \ «r " Exm&IT A v27»^STCPUN rm ^ £(ri^ fowo i? I I t.•iI |H r 1 1 1 1 it' i 1 1 1 !l* II flI 3 i I •^m %mm _____ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Parkway P.O. Boi 66 Ciyatal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE: 03-2963 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: November 18.2003 TO;WJM Properties, LLC I2S20 Wayzala Boulevard Minnetonka. MN SS305 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION:Commercial Site Plan Review DATE OF MEETING: November 17.2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the plans as submitted. VOTE;FOR AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is conflrmed as: City Council - Monday, November 24,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the ofndal Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Pianning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. 4 V: ■ >f. 1 A —---- (H I W03-296J Nvvcmbcr 17,2003 Page 1 of 3 Date Application Received: 10-22-03 Date Application Considered as Compleic: 10-22-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 12-21-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Janice Waataja, City Planner November 14,2003 Subject:03-2963, WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard - Commercial Site Plan Review • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: I, Industrial District 24 acres (1,045,004 s.f.) Application Sununaiy: Applicant requests a commercial site plan review in order to expand the existing garage smicture situated immediately south of the main facility. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as the project meets all standards of the Industrial District. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Sec. 78-821. Review of building permit applications. All applications for a building permit in any I industrial district shall be reviewed by the council and may be referred to the plaiuiing commission for review. List of Exhibits Exhibit A - Application Exhibit B - Description of Request Exhibit C - Survey Exhibit D - Plans for Garage Expansion Exhibit E - Aerial Photograph of Property Exhibit F - Property Owner s List Background The applicant is proposing to construct a 20' x 75 ’ (1,500 square foot) foot addition to the existing garage structure on the property. This garage is not part of the main building. Three overhead doors are proposed as well as two steel access doors. The existing building is used as a garage and loading dock facility accessory to the permitted uses which are conducted in the main facility. The applicant doesn’t propose to change the use of the garage but to merely house larger trucks. /3 4 J M3-2M) Novcinbcr 17.200J Pa|c2or3 All of the other improvements shown on the plan (Exhibit D) have been approved by the City with previous applications. This includes the new driveway, parking and landscaping. Most of these improvements are on hold for Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. This request is only for the garage expansion. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width 1 Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)n/a Actual 1,045,004 s.f. (24 acres)n/a Setbacks 1 Required Existing Proposed Front 75’148 ’148 ’ (main building) Rear 100’400 ’380 ’ (garage) Left Side 30’55 ’55 ’ (main building) Right Side 30’250 ’250 ’ (main building) The proposed expansion of the garage structure meets all setbacks and will not become any closer to the front yard, left, and right side yards than the existing main building. The proposed expansion will get 20’ closer to the rear property boundary. Structural Coverage According to Section 78-825 (c) Lot coverage. “...Not more than 45 percent of the total area of any lot, tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures.. Lot Area Allowed Existing Proposed 1.045,004 s.f. (24 acres)45% (470,252 s.f) 16.8% (175,986 s.f.) 16.9% (177,486 s.f.) The proposed garage expansion increases the structural coverage on the property by 0.1% well within the allowable limits for the Industrial zone. -,7 Wi ^ .?^-s^ ' •(V'-' Vv ;.',i7 .W • . K" : -J V:.' . . ' ■ '^- / '. ■ ''r.v; >1mt. *' ) ii ¥ S ■ # Job Navie u;aflgnaf/n.nn.^t Conuia Addreii - Cmuici Ptew I; • Iona Laka . MN - Job Nu«ber; - mwmm L Floor P'on Seals- 3/l6-«=' -0 '.4f i'fi' ■ l•^c- . k 5: juc l/> O)c i5 3 2 ’ -ill! 3{i 3. : , i- rn - -J r •s- 11!•c i. ,« 1 C «• 1 1 Ai j t* £r* \ L» c> i (i» X %j * -jy 3 3 c ji vT mJ c •> “'I|C illr ■ ‘ a ! '-^ • ' 5' O)c •5 3 CD •5?^ ui‘ 3^ t lO-* < i L u Sf c iT \ rro Xu* N. <c c tmm c I c a^gs:. ^ r V^-W^^i':< '... ^1 ImtriiiwiariiinniA .aim • ./ ■ ;, "- ^ ■ ;%' -■ .-"'T . ‘ ■ ■■*■>.'■:, % • 4 ttuS •I •» y. y •..•• ! •><..erf'''.' -j '•r !'<> r.v :</ I ' -•■># :f-. -*?• ^ • i I A v^'i5ii. sn’S!fe'^' w '■mi * • ‘ -V %. ,.•^W»?5ggBg| i.'s' ^ •'•ti -A ,/ia i;iS reed Sheets^**EXHIBIT F 38 3311823110003 Dalstrom Development LLC 7745 Polaris Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311 38 331182312O0O8 Professional Prop, of Orono LLP 835 Partenwood Long Lake, MN 55356 38 3311823130011 Veda Inc. P.O. Box 375 Long Lake, MN 55356 38 3311823110012 VCI Capital Inc. P.O. Box 375 Long Lake, MN 55356 72 3311823140005 Church of St George 133 Brown Rd.N Long Lake, MN 55356 72 3311823140011 Etco Properties Inc. 15500 WayzaU Blvd. #754 Wayzata, MN 55391 72 3311823140018 Metrotech Products UG „ , , P.O. Box 547 Prci^ijcH Long Lake, MN 55356 72 3311823140019 City of Long Lake 450 Virginia Avenue Long Lake, MN 55356 38 3311823310010 B N & Santa Fe RR Co Property Tax Dept P.O. Bov 961089 Fort Worth, TX 76161 38 3311823420008 Speak The Word Church 515 Jersey Ave. S Golden Valley, MN 55426 AVERY* Address Labels • « Use tengjlate for 5160® 38 3311823130002 Ace Properties LI/;; 5500 Anderson Estates Rd. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 3311823130015 DRB#8 LLC WJM Properties LLC 12520 WayzaU Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55305 72 3311823140015 Rothgreaves Holdings LLC 3085 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 72 3311823140020 Lartch Development Co. Fred Hanus 15801 West Oaks Mirmetonka, MN 55345 38 3311823420013 Richard & Patricia Meyer Michael Hilbelink 85 Golden View Dr. Long Lake, MN 55356 A'. ____ Laser S160® i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION C0( iwr.fi. MPETING NOV 2 5 2003 CITY OF CR0\0 Dite: November 20,2003 Item No Department Approval: Name: Melanie Foth Administrator Approval: Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2966, Zoning Code Amendment Code Sections 78-1491(h) & 78-1577 - Ordinance List of Exhibits: A - Ordinance B - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 11 -04-03 Summary of Proposed Changes: 1. New regulations regarding parking vehicles, other than recreational \ ehicles, in "R” districts in excess of 14,000 GVW. 2. Special Mobile Equipment was specifically defined and regulations were added. 3. The inclusion of utility trailers within 78-1577. 4. Change in the required setback for parking and storage of recreational vehicles to maintain consistency with the setback for utility trailers - w ithin rear or side yard, no closer than 5’ to the property line. 5. Housekeeping and tenninology changes. *Sgt. Kurt Erickson reviewed the proposed language and suggested some minor changes. Those changes are indicated as the circled language. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission reviewed the final draft (absent comments from Sgt Erickson) at a public hearing on November 17, 2003 and recommended approval as drafted on a vote of 6-0. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the attached Ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the Ordinance No____, Third Series, An Ordinance Amending Section 78 of the Orono Municipal Zoning Code by Amending Sections 78-1479(h) Regarding Commercial Vehicle Parking and 78-1577 Regarding Exterior Storage. liaimwh i ii A ORDINANCE NO , THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANC E AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-I49I(H); SECTION 78-1577; AND SECTION 90-1 REGARDING EXTERIOR STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The Citv Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section I: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-149l(h) is hereby revised as follows: (h) Commercial vehicle parking. Off-street parking(^iliti^ accessory to residential use shall be utiliEed solely for th e parking of passet^t'-aulomebiles subject to the provisions of 78-1577 of this Section. Additionally, vehicles in excess of 14.000 r-:;unds CiVW ^all lv» giihtgri In iht^ nr^isions of 78-1577(ck2) and noCgPn^niercially license^ trailerrin e.xcess of 10.000 GV\\^hall be parked or stored in a residential district except when loading, unloading or rendering a service, except that one-such -vehicle may b e parked at th e resid ence of th e owner or operator of th e v eh icle. Und er no circumstances shall parking facilities occessory to resid ential structures b e used for-open-air storage of commerciol v ehicl es nor for open air parking for bu siness purposes-of automobi les b elonging to th e employees, owner, tenant or customers of bu siness-or-manufacturing establ ishm ents oth er than th e hom e occupation permitted -foT'that property; Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1577 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1577. Exterior storage in R districts. In all R districts, all recreation vehicles, mobile homes, camping trailers, motor homes, pickup coaches, travel trailers, special mobile equipment, and utility trailers shall meet the requirements of this code. .Additionally, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except that utility-trailers less than 20 feet in length, wh ich are not stored -fer commercial-purposes, need not b e screened wh en-stored to th e rear of th e house and -a distanc e 5 feet or more from-any property line and IS feet op-more-frem the principal resid ence structure on any adjac ent-lot. {a}. Definitions; ill Recrcatitmal-Gempme-N’chicle. Mobile h.wte and recreational camnine u’//u7c (^i^^ean and include the follow inc definitions, and shall not include anv manufactured housinc unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housimi seal or certificate, for uses including but not limited to those listed below: The strick en language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page I of 6 J (2.) q. Campim trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and dcsiLncd for travel, recreation anJ vacation use?, also called a dod-up camper. fy Motor home means a portable. temporarN dwellina to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as ar. integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. c.Pickup(^mh cnmprr^neans a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis lor usTas a temporary dwelline for travel, recreation and vacation. d Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable strucr.je built on a chassis, desiuned to be used as a temporary dwellimi for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a tuvel trailer bv the manufacturer of the trailer. Special Mobile Equipment means e\crv vehicle r.ot designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and onlv incidentally operated or moved over a hitihwaN. inc’.udinti but not limited to: ditch digging equipment, moving dollies, pumr hoists and other well- drillinu equipment, street sweeping \ehicles. and c:-ier machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loader.N. tractors other than truck-tractors, ditchers, levelinu uraJers. rinishir.e machines, motor graders, road rollers, scarifiers, carth-movinu eauirment. The term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks. truck-n-..~ unted transit mixers, truck-mounted feed grind er, or other motor \eh:c!es designed for the transportation of persons or «,open\ to which machinery has been attached. (3.) Utility Trailer mea.ns anv motorless \ehicle. other ’Jtan a boat trailer or ^)ersonal wat ercraft trailer, designed for camir.g of snowmobiles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on it.< own structure and for being drawn bv a motor vehicle but shall not induce boat trailers, a tiuiler drawn bv a iruck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a motor vciiicle whi n carries a portiop. of the weight : f the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b.) Parking of recreatioiial eampmg vehicles, mobile homes ar.d utility trailers shall be regi dated as fni!:.tvv; n .) ii's unlaw'u! fer n. v person to p.irk a mobile home or recr>*a Uo na: vehicle upon public propcrt\ for human habitation r hom e park or publicly O’^Twd campgroun^p It i.f unlawful for anv person to park or store a utility “juiler. mobile home . The tUricken language is deleted; the underlined language inserted. Page 2 of 6 recreational vehicle in anv resid<?nce- “R” district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least five feet from any property line. (3.) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational comp ing vehicle for human habitation on anv private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the citv. (c.) Vehicle storage. All vehicles parked or stored on anv property within the City shall be operable and currently licensed. The parking of vehicles. otl..r than recreation vehicles, in “R” districts is reuulaied as follows: n.) Parkinu of vehicles, other than recreation vehicles, %>i*h a maximum Gross Vehicle Weight tCiVW) of 14.000 pounds or less is allowed in all •“R” districts. (2.) Parking of vehicles in “R” di.stricts in excess of 14.000 lbs GVW requires each of the following conditions be met: Minimum lot size of 5 acres. ^ Property owTter must be vehicle owner or operator. c. d. V^ehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. e. Must not be vi?»hle from neighboring properties and public streets: vegetative screening is preferred. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. f, 1 he vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at anv time, and. g. In a shared driveway situation, the Citv must have on file an agreement signed by alkcurtentyrivewav users. (d.) Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes: (1) Luensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the '^wner or occupant the property. All boats stored on a property shall be in operable conduton. except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent being to discourage the longterm storage of inoperable boats on residential property. (2) Principal residence retpnred. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a The strickew language is deleted: the underlined language is inserted. Page 3 of 6 group of contiguous commonly owned properties that does not contain a principle residence structure. Maximum length. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 30 feet in length shall not be stored on any residential property except within a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards. Exception: Existing boats over 30 feet in length which are documented to have been stored on the property within the 24 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall be allowed to continue such storage practice until the property is sold, and shall meet the setback requirements of this section. Allowed storage locations. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feet in length may be stored outside on residential property as follows: a.Lakeshore lots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and lakeshore yard as long as they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. b.Nonlakeshore lots. Boats maybe stoicd in a side >“ard and rear yard; trailerable boats may be stored on trailers in -» driveway in a front yard or side street yard. Required setbacks. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers shall be stored no less than five feet from any lot line and no less than IS feet from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot. Screening. Screening is not required for outside boat storage when In conformance with this section. If boats are shrink wrapped, white is the preferred color but is not mandatory. (7) Dispute resolution. Com. laints regarding boats stored in lakeshore yards and potentially impacting a neighbor's views of the lake will be referred to a dispute resolution committee, consisting of the planning director, the building oftlcial. and a member of the planning and zoning staff. (Code 1984. § 10.60(13)) (ej Outdoor parking or storage of special mobile equipment as defined in this section shall be prohibited in anv “R” district. The ^neken language is deiued; the underlined language is inserted. Page 4 of 6 Section 3: Municipal Zoning Code Section 90-1 is hereby revised as follow s: Sec. 90-1. Prohibited use and parking of mobile homes and recreational cainping vehicles. (a). Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1.) Recreational Camping Vehicle. Mohile home and reereatioml etimping ve/nV/e'shairinean and include the following definitions, and shall not includeafiymaiymanufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate, for uses includint; but not limited to those listed below: a Campiufi trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses , also cal'ed a rop-up camper. h. Motor home means a portable, temporary dwellinij to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral pan of a self- propelled vehicle. c. Pickuii (eoHeh g/w/><^ieans a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling- for travel, recreadon ana vacation. d Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure 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 manufacturer of the trailer. OJ I 'tilitv '^f<’i!er means anv motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or personal w atercraft trailer, desiened for carrvinu of snow mobiles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on its own structure c-td for beinu drawn bv a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary a.\le on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b.) Un lawfu l acts. Parking of recreational camping vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows: (1.) It is unlaw ful for any person to park a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle upon public property for human habitation , (^^cept in g licens ad mob ile home park or^blicly own ed campground. The stricken language is deleted: the underlined language is inserted Page 5 of 6 (2.) It is unlawful for any person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile home, recreational vehicle in any residence- “R” district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least ten five feet from any property line. (3.) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. Section 4: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this by a vote of___ayes and____nays. dav of , 2003 Barbara A. Peterson. Mavor ATTEST; Linda S. Vee, City Clerk The Hwcheii language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 6 of6 r FtLE»03«2966 November It. 2003 Page 1 of 2 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Foth, City Planner November 11,2003 BiHlBlT Subject:#03-2966, Code Revision. City Code Sections 78-1749(h) and 78-1577 -public hearing Summary of proposed chanees: 1. New regulations regarding parking vehicles, other than recreational vehicles, in “R” districts in excess of 14,000 lbs GVW. 2. Housekeeping and terminology changes. 3. Special Mobile Equipment was specifically defined and regulations were added. In the past, storage of special mobile equipment was regulated to be stored inside an enclosed structure by the introductory paragraph of City Code 78-1577. 4. The inclusion of utility trailers within 78-1577(d). 5. Change in the required setback for parking and storage of recreation vehicles and mobile homes to maintain consistency with the setback for utility trailers - w ithin a rear or side yard, no closer than 5 feet from the property line. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections v' 78-1491(h): Commercial vehicle parking 78-1577: Exterior storage 90-1: Prohibited use and parking of mobile homes and recreational camping vehicles List of Exhibits A. Proposed Ordinance B. Proposed Language for 78-1577 C. Existing City Codes 78-1491 (h). 78-1577 and 90-1 Background Historically, special mobile equipment and vehicle parking was addressed within the introductory paragraph of 78-1577 regarding exterior storage. This revision of City Code Section 78-1577 is in part to maintain consistency between the various code sections that deal with parking, to establish additional updated standards commensurate with the A FILEiO>2966 Novtmter 11,2003 Page2of2 residential nature of Orono, and to address the wide range of vehicle uses within our community. At the last two Planning Commission work sessions the Planning Commission discussed amending the Conunercial Vehicle parking regulations (78-149 1(h)). Out of those work sessions it was determined that the code section regarding vehicle storage on private property was a better fit within the Exterior Storage section (78-1577) of the Zoning Ordinance. Recreation vehicles and motor homes will have overlapping coverage in both the Zoning Ordinance (Section 78-1577) and within City Code Section 90-1 Manufactured Homes and Trailers (police enforced) due to the different enforcement components. Issues for Considenition Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed amendment? Staff Recommendation Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for Staff to bring it forward to the City Council. L. ORDINANCE NO »THIRD SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE SECTION 78-149l(H); SECTION 78-1577; AND SECTION 90-1 REGARDING EXTERIOR STORAGE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The Citv Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-149 1(h) is hereby revised as follows: (h) Commercial vehicle parkinf;. Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential use shall be utiliEed-solely for the parking of passenger automobiles subject to the provisions of 78-1577 of this Section. Additionally, vehicles in excess of 14.000 pounds GVW shall be subject to the provisions of 78-1577(c)(2) and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a residential district except when loading, unloading or rendering a serv’ice. exc ept-that one such vehicle may be parked at the residence of the owner -of--operator of the vehicle; Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for open-air-storage of commercial vehicles nor for open air parking for business -purposes of-automobiles belonging to the employees, owner, tenant or customers of business or manofa.Muring-establishments other thoii the home occupation permitted for that property: Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1577 is hereby revised as follows: Sec. 78-1577. Exterior storage in R districts. In all R districts, all recreation vehicles, mobile homes, camninc trail rs, motor homes, pickup coaches, travel trailers, special mobile euuinment. and utility trailers shall meet the requirements of this code. Additionally, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, exc ept that utility trailers less than 20 feet in length, which are not stored for commercial purposes, need not be screened when stored to the-rear of the house and a distance 5 feet or more from any property line and 1S feet or more from the principal residence structure on ony adjacent lot- la). Definitions: QJ Recreational-Gampine-Vehicle. Mobile home and recreational ctimpmg vehicle mean and include the following definitions, and shall not include anv manufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate, for uses including but not limited to those listed below: The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 1 of 6 (2.) (1} a.Campine trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses, also called a pop-up camper. k Motor home means a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. c Pickup coach means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. d Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer bv the manufacturer of the trailer. Special Mobile Equipment means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including but not limited to: ditch digging equipment, moving dollies, pump hoists and other well- drilling equipment, street sweeping vehicles, and other machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck-tractors, ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers, .scarifiers, earth-moving equipment. The term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks, truck-mounted transit mixe rs. truck-mounted feed grinders, or other motor vehicles designed for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has been attached. Utility Trailer means anv motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or personal watercraft trailer, designed for carrying of snoxsTnobiles. motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on its own structure and for being drautt bv a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer drawn bv a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary a.\le on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b.) Parking of recreational eammmt vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows: n.) It is unlawful for anv person to park a mobile home o r recreational camping vehicle upon public property for human habitation except in a licensed mobile home park or publicly owned campground. (1} It is unlawful for anv person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile home . The s^iekeft language is deleted; the underlined language is insetted. Page 2 of 6 recreational vehicle in anv resident- “R ’ district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least five feet from anv property line. (3.) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational cam iwng vehicle for human habitation on anv private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the citv. (cj Vehicle storage. All vehicles parked or stored on aiiv property within the Citv shall be operable and currently licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreation vehicles, in “R” districts is regulated as follows: n.) Parking of vehicles, other than recreation 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 lbs GVW requires each of the follow ing conditions be met: Minimum lot si7C of 5 acres. b. c. d. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. Must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets: vegetative screening is orefetred. e.Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building. £ The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at anv time, and. g.In a shared driveway situation, the Citv must have on file an agreement signed bv all driveway users. (d.) Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements w hen not stored for commercial purposes: Licensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the owner or occupant of the property. All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent being to discourage the longterm storage of inoperable boats on residential property. (2) Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a The stricken language is deleted, the underlined language is inserted. Page 3 of 6 group of contiguous commonly owited properties that does not contain a principle residence structure. (2) Maximum length. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 50 feet in length shall not be stored on any residential pioperty except wiihJn a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards. Exception: Existing boats over 30 feet in length which are documented to have been stored on the property within the 24 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall be allowed to continue such storage practice until the property is sold, and shall meet the setback requirements of this section. (4) Allowed storage locations Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feet in length may be stored outside on residential property as follows: a. b. Lakeshore lots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and lakeshore yard as long as they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. Nonlakeshore lots. Boats maybe stored in a side yard and rear yard; trailerable boats may be stored on trailers in a driveway in a front yard or side street yard. (5) Required setbacks. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers shall be stored no less than five feet from any lot line and no less than 15 feet from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot. (6) Screening. Screening is not required for outside boat storage when in conformance with this section. If boats are shrink wrapped, white is the preferred color but is not mandatory. (7) Dispute resolution. Complaints regarding boats stored in lakeshore yards and potentially impacting a neighbor's view s of the lake w ill be referred to a dispute icsolution committee, consisting of the plaiming director, the building official, and a member of the planning and zoning staff. (Code 1984. § 10.60(13)) (e.) Outdoor parking or storage of special mobile equipment as defined in this section shall be prohibited in any “R" district. The sfrieken language is deleted; the underlined language is insetted. Page 4 of 6 Section 3: Municipal Zoning Code Section 90-1 is hereby revised as follows; Sec. 90-1. Prohibited use and parking of mobile homes and recreational camping vehicles. (a). Deflnitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning; (1.) Recreational Camping-Vehicle. Mobile home and recreational camping vehicle mean and include the following definitions, and shall not include any manufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate, for uses including but not limited to those listed below; a. Camping trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses , also called a pop-up camper. b. Motor home means a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self- propelled vehicle. c. Pickup coach means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. d Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure 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 manufacturer of the trailer. Utility Trailer means any motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or personal watercraft trailer, designed for carrying of snowmobiles, motorcycles, all terrain vehicles, or property on its own structure and for being drawn bv a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer drawn bv a truck-tractor semitrailer combination, or an auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b.) Unlawfu l acts. Parking of recreational camping vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows; (I.) It is unlaw fill for any person to park a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle upon public property for human habitation except in a licensed mobile home park or publicly owned campground. The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted. Page 5 of 6 Vttitirilili H (2.) It is unlawful for any person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile home, recreational vehicle in any residence- district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least ten five feet from any property line. (3.) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. Section 4: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this by a vote of___ayes and___nays. day of .2003 Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk The stricken language is deleted; the underlincc Page 6 of 6 i language is inserted. ---riUlOki EXHIBIT - B Sec. 78*1577. Exterior storage in R districts. In all R districts, all recreation vehicles, mobile homes, camping trailers, motor homes, pickup coaches, travel trailers, special mobile equipment, and utility trail,;rs shall meet the requirements of this code. .Additionally, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, (a). Definitions: (1) (2.) (3.) Recreational Vehicle. Mobile home and recreational vehicle mean and include the following definitions, and shall not include any manufactured hou.sing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate, for uses including but not lim::ed to those listed below: a. Camping trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses, also called a pop-up camper. b. Motor home mear-S a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self-propelled \ehicle. c. Pickup coach mea.~.s a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. d Travel trailer mear^ a vehicular, portable structure 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 manufacturer of the trailer. Special Mobile Eijuip^tent means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of p.rsons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway, including but not limited to: ditch digging equipment, moving dollies, pump hoists and other well-drilling equipment, street sweeping vehicles, and other machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck-tractors, ditchers, leveling graders, finishing machines, motor graders, road rollers, scarifiers, earth- moving equipment. Tr.e term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks, truck-mounted transit mixers, truck-mounted feed grinders, or other motor vehicles designed for ihe transportation of persons or property to w hich machinerv has been ar_2ched. Utility Trailer means or.y motorless vehicle, other than a boat trailer or personal watercraft trailer, designed for carry ing of snowmobiles, motorcycles, all terrair. vehicles, or property on its ow n structure and for being drawn by a motor \ ehicle but shall not include boat trailers, a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrai’.er combination, or an auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weigiit of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. (b.) Parking of recreational vehicles, mobile homes and utility trailers shall be regulated as follows: (1.) It is unlawful for any person to park a mobile home or recreational vehicle upon public property for human habitation e.xcept in a licensed mobile home park or publicly owned campground. (2.) It is unlawful for any person to park or store a utility trailer, mobile home, recreational vehicle in any “R'* district for more than 24 hours, e.xcept in a side or rear yard at least Hve feet from any property line. (3.) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. (c.) Vehicle storage. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and currently licensed. The parking of vehicles, other than recreation vehicles, in “R" districts is regulated as follows: (1.) Parking of vehicles, other than recreation vehicles, with a ma.ximum 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 lbs GVW requires each of the following conditions be met: a.Minimum lot size of 5 acres. b. c. d. Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator. Vehicle must be set back 50 feet from property lines. Must not be visible from neighboring properties and public streets; vegetative screening is preferred. e. Maintenance of said vehicle shall occur within 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 driveway users. (d.) Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes: (I) Licensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be licensed to the owner or occupant of the property. All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent being to discourage the longterm storage of inoperable boats on residential property. (2) Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a group of contiguous commonly owned properties that does not contain a principle residence structure. Maximum length. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 30 feel in length shall not be stored on any residential property except within a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards. Exception; Existing boats over 30 feet in length which are documented to have been stored on the property within the 24 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance from w hich this section is derived shall be allowed to continue such storage practice until the property is sold, and shall meet the setback requirements of this section. (4) Allowed storage locations. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feel in length may be stored outside on residential properly as follows: a.Lakeshore lots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and lakeshore yard as long as they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. b.Nonlakeshore lots. Boats maybe stored in a side yard and rear yard; trailerable boats may be stored on trailers in a driveway in a front yard or side street yard. (5) Required setbacks. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers shall be stored no less than live feet from any lot line and no less than 15 feel from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot. (6) Screening Screening is not required for outside boat storage w hen in conformance with this section. If boats are shrink wrapped, white is the preferred color but is not mandatory. (7) Dispute resolution. Complaints regarding boats stored in lakeshore yards and potentially impacting a neighbor's view s of the lake w ill be referred to a dispute resolution committee, consisting of the planning director, the building olTicial. and a member of the planning and zoning staff. (Code 1984. § 10.60(13)) (e.) Outdoor parking or storage of special mobile equipment as defined in this section shall be prohibited in any “R" district. EXHIBIT C - Existing Code Sections 78-1491 Generally (h) Commercial vehicle parking. Off-strecl parking facilities accessor} to residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of passenger automobiles. No motor vehicle over 7.000 pounds’ gross capacity and no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a residential district e.xcept when loading, unloading or rendering a service; e.xcept that one such vehicle may be parked at the residence of the owner or operator of the vehicle. Under no circumstances shall parking lacilities accessory to residential structures be used for open-air storage of commercial vehicles nor for open-air parking for business purposes of automobiles belonging to the employees, owner, tenant or customers of business or manufacturing establishments other than the home occupation permitted for that property. Sec. 78-1577. Exterior storage in K districts. In all R districts, all mobile materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except that utility trailers less than 20 feet in length, which are not stored for commercial purposes, need not be screened w hen stored to the rear of the house and a distance 5 feet or more from any property line and 15 feet or more from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot. Boats, unoccupied boat trailers, and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes: (1)Licensing, operability and restorations. All boats stored outside on a residential prop«*rty shall be licensed to the owner or occupant of the property. All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition, except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years, the intent being to discourage the longtenn storage of inoperable boats on residential property. (2) Principal residence required No boat shall be stored on a property or on a group of contiguous commonly ow ned properties that does not contain a principle residence structure. (2)Maximum length Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 30 feet in length shall not be stored on any residential property except within a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards. Hxception: Fxistiiig Kxits over 30 feet in length which are documented to have been stored on the property within the 24 months prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall be allowed to continue such storage practice until the property is sold, and shall meet the setback requirements of this section. AlloM cd storage locations Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feet in length may be stored outside on residential property as follows: a.Lakeshorc lots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and lakeshore yard as long as they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. b.tWonlakeshore lots. Boats maybe stored in a side yard and rear yard; trailerable boats may be stored on trailers in a driveway in a front vard or side street vard. Required setbacks. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers shall be stored no less than five feet from any lot line and no less than IS feet from the principal residence structure on any adjacent lot. (6) Screening Screening is not required for outside boat storage when in conformance with this section. If boats arc shrink wrapped, white is the preferred color but is not mandatory. (7) Dispute resolution. Complaints regarding boats stored in lakeshore yards and potentially impacting a neighbor's views of the lake will be referred to a dispute resolution committee, consisting of the planning director, the building official, and a member of the planning and zoning staff. (Code 1984, § 10.60(13)) Sec. 90-1. Prohibited use and parking of mobile homes and recreational camping vehicles. (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, e.xcepl where the context clearly indicates a different meaning; Mobile home and recreational camping vehicle mean and include the following definitions, and shall not include any manufactured housing unit bearing a St,ate of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate: (1) (2) (3) (4) Camping trailer means a folding structure, mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses. Motor home means a portable, temporary dwelling to be used for travel, recreation and vacation, constructed as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle. Pickup coach means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreation and vacation. Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis, designed to be used as a temporar\ dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer by the manufacturer of the trailer. (b) Unlawful acts. (1) It is unlawful for any person to park a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle upon public property for human habitation except in a licensed mobile home park or city*owned campground. (2) It is unlawful for any person to paric or store a mobile home or recreational vehicle in any residence district for more than 24 hours, except in a side or rear yard at least ten feet from any property line. (3) It is unlawful to use a mobile home or recreational camping vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. (Code 1984. § 9.52) Cross references: Stopping, standing and parking generally, § 66-76 et seq. I "MEETING REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION d 5 2003 r cric.vo DATE: November 24,2003 ITEM NO.: /«/ Department Approval: Naaic Gregory A. Gappa THk Director of Public Service's Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director's Report Item Description: Accept Quotation Industrial Park Watermain Improvements The Council previously approved a conceptual plan for the completion of watermain improvements for the industrial park. A 12" watermain will be installed from the new 12" watermain in Kelley Parkway to the industrial park. This will provide for increased fire flow capacity to the industrial park, and will also allow for the abandonment of a 1%7 8" watermain that is located at the edge of the travel lane on the north side of Highway 12. This watermain is in poor shape and repair of this watermain results in major traffic disnq[>tions on Highway 12. We are recommending that contractor that is currently working on the water and sewer utilities for the Stonebay Development install the watermain from Kelley Parkway to the south side of Highway 12 this fall. The rest of the project to cross under Highway 12 and install the watermain in the industrial park will be completed in 2004. Installation of the first phase of the project this fall will complete the watermain construction that interferes with finishing the Stonebay Development project. The contractor is already mobilized in the area, so we have received a reasonable quotation for this work. We are recommending acceptance of the quotation from Nodland construction. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Accept quotation for the industrial park watermain improvements from Nodland Construction Company, Fergus Falls Minnesota in the amount of $7,350.00 to be funded from the Water Fund with a budget adjustment to the 2003 Water Fund budget to reflect this expenditure. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COliMnil MFETING WV 2 5 2003 CITyOFORO\o DATE: November 24,2003 ITEM NO.; Department Approval: Nmc Gregory A. Gappe Title Director of Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report Item Description: Adopt Assessment Roll North Long Lake East Sewer Extension- Resolution The property owner at I40S Sixth Avenue has requested to be assessed for the North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension project. The assessment terms are SI 1,000 for a IS-year time period at an annual interest rate of 6.25%. The staff recommendation is for approval of the resolution adopting the assessment roll COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resolution adopting the assessment roll for the North Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension project. k '•f ■ • >?• V 'V ‘ A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE NORTH LONG LAKE EAST SEWER EXTENSION ASSESSMENT ROLL WHEREAS, the property owner has petitioned for an assessment sanitary sewer project and has signed an assessment waiver, waiving all applicable assessment procedural requirements, and requesting to be assessed for project costs for the North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension improvements. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, 1.Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefitted by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2.Such assessment shall be payable in equal aiuiual installments extending over a period of 15 years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 2004 and shall bear interest at the rate of 6.25% per aiuium from the date of the adoption of this assessment resolution. To the First installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31,2003. To each subsequent installment when due shall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. 3.The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the County. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Adopted by the City Council of Orono this 24th day of November, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Ill M i^:^"v:;ivy.::^-' :V. ;?^A\:^VT<:v;..y;..r- Assessment Roll for North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension Date: November 24, 2003 Munkipal Code: 38 MMoicipolity: ORONO Levy Number:Levy DeKriptioa: North Louf Uke East Saaitary Sewer Eiteasioa Total Project Asscumeal: SI 1,000.00 laterest Rate: 6.25%Number of Yean Payable: 15 PIDS Total AddiUon Lot Block Priacipal Code # Owner’s Name Street Property Address Mailiaa Street Address Mailing CHy Address Units 3S-II8-23-22-I SI 1,000.00 J.V. & D.M. Crotteau I40S Sixth Avenue N.I40S Sixth Avenue N. Long Lake MN SS3S6 Total: $11,000.00 la^ 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COIIMCII meeting NOV 2 5 2003 CITY OF ORONO DATE: November 20,2003 ITEM NO: Dcpartmeat Approval: Naac RooMoone Title City Admiiiistntor Admiabtrator Reviewed:Ageoda Sectloo: City Adnunulnlof'* Report Item Descriptk»: Nairarre Fire Station Application and Ceitificate for Payment No. S The City has received Application and Certificate for Payment No. 5 from DEW, the General Contractor, in the amount of $301,395.00. The qiplication for payment has been reviewed and iy)proved by the architect and project manager. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the Application and Certificate for Payment No. S, in the amount of $301395.00, to be paid fixim the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fuixi. ,w •v • •.r7, t'-mwn. lilLaJoaci J BKV O O J f AicNiwnufw InMorOMifn CnQifiMrtrig Dat*: November 11,2003 Attantion: RonMoorM 222 North 2n4 Street Mtnneeaoto> MN SS40I Phone 61 2-339-37S2 FW6I2-339-62I2 AddrasK ChyofOrono 27SO KeNejr AulcMay Orono. MN SS336 PraiactNa.: 1124.10 **BCaMBO wi'ijjaB WE AM Sf Nome YOU: Ra: Navarre Fire StatkNi I I Phnu n Plant Q Semplet O Spedllcatlont Q Copy of letter l~l Ctanft order O Odier TRANSMITTED VIA: Gmi I □Meue^ter □ Fee Dothen C Of if s [' a"a T {OrSCRlPTION _ X Rwnwnt Application No. S • THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as chackad Maw: For approval For your use As requeued For review and comment FOR BIDS DUE Rl Approved es subaiitted n Approved as noted n Returned for corrections n Other.______ Resdbmit Submit_ Return copies for approval copies for distnbution corrected prina J PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS: EiKlosed are two copies oF Riyment Application No. 5 for work performed on the Navarre Fire Station. This application has been reviewed and certNied in the amotmt of $30I,39S.00. Please rentk payment apinst thb application. Regards, Nan Gustafton COPY TO: Bn Wokers. Constructive Ideas, 901 Jefferson Avenue. Suite 300, St fW.MN SSI02 Brad Berfce. DEW Corporation. 212S Century Avenue. North St MN SSI09 File q M124* 10^ikair-07f •owfMT-iilg-piS.dac a RAcloiurM art not as nomit kMty nc/dtf lit at eiica.Pnnct4 I I/I 1/01 L f ^YMENT APPLICATIQM TO: CHyolOrano STSOKMtyPwInMy Orano,MN9S336 FROM FOR: 212S CwiMy Awtnua NorthSlPM,MNS5109 PROJECT 0300S tSSfliSS 37704790 ShoraNnaOrtv* Oreno,MN 95336 ARCHITECT: BKVGwup.hc 222N.2ndSL MnnMpoit. MN 55401 Pag* 1 application » PERIOD THRU; PROJECT H: DATE OF CONTRACT: 5 OiaMbuUon to; 11/04/2003 (2 owner 5) architect 07/01/2003 SJCONTRACTI □□ CONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY OF WORK (Un« 1 «/. 2) 1. CONTRACT AMOUNT 2. SUM OF ALL CHANGE ORDERS 3 CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT 4. TOTAL COMPLETED ANO STORED (Cotomn G on CondnuaUan Pago) 5. RETAMAOE: a. 5.00% ofComptotodWorti (Columnt 0 « E on ConUnuaflon Paoe) b. 5.00% ofMalwIalStanM (Cohmm F on ConKnualton Paga) Total Ratalnaga (Una 9a « 96 or Column I on Condnualton Pago) 6. TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED LESS RETAINAGE (Lina 4 minus Lina 9 Total) 7 less PREVIOUS PAVMENT APPLICATIONS (Una 0 from prior /tppVcalion) ~ 8. PAVMENT DUE j~ 8 balance TO COMPLETION (UnaSmtouaUnaS)___________t294.98l.72 SUMMARY OF CHANGE OROEItt " Total changaa a pptosadln 91,138,000.00 to.oo 11.138.000.00 t087.408.20 944.095.00 9279.00 944.370.00 9843.038.28 9541,643.28 93O14M.0O PtaHoua mon8ia ______ Total apptwadtaia month TOTALS NET CHANGES AOOmONS OEOUCnONS PAVMENT APPLICATION Contract^ slgnalui^ CONTRACTOR: By: OawCoqxMal Data; RobartS.Daw.PrasWanl Stataof; Mtonasota Countyol: Ramsay Subsortbad and sworn 10 balbra malhis 4lh day of Novambar 2003 11/04/2003 TAMMYJNELSON NOTARVR jSUC • MNNOOTA Notary Public Tammy J. Nalson My Commission Expiras; January 31.2009 ARCHITECT'S CERTIFICATION N comptotad to “*** Work haa baan CERTIFICD AMOUNT___^ ^ r Akywanr Ot». yw$ltouUaOtch»n akAtanMtan. ' rnstM (ha carttMamotrrV.) ----------------------T---7-------------^ ^ p-IbtaAopacaltonnorpavmaWaooaadtorhfinw—---------------------y ^. .'Z OSS. Ptc. DOCUMENT ' ■ s . \ ■ r f ; 5 f *\ ■. . ,y CONTINUATION PAGE Page 2 of 3 PROJECT; - N>P«caloocanlainfcioConlractoi'*tigna«u^ 0300S Na\arraFiieStoiion B WORK DESCRIPTION OefMfal Coodllions Bonds Ewthwoffc Site UtINMs AsphaH Paving SNaConcrela Landacaplno ConoMa Masonry Pracasl Conaala t I ArchPiacatl Steel PabOcaUon Steel Erection Rough Carpentry MUlMiorti Walarprooling Roofing Caulking HMfOoors/Hartfwafe Oveittead Doors Al Clad Wood wmdOMt Al Glass & Glaziitg Ceramic Tile Acoustical Ceffing TOe Epoxy mooring Carpel/Resllieflt Painting Touel PatfUons TolMAcoasaoilea APPLICATION#; DATE OF APPLICATION; PERIOD THRU; PROJECT #s; 11AM/2003 11/04/2003 SCHEDULED AMOUNT D I E COMPLETED WORK AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS AMOUNT this PERIOD SUB-TOTALS S126.687.S0 S9.994 00 529.645.00 51 1.900.00 516.657.00 S4.eso.oo 517.562.00 541.200.00 5241.700.00 59.263.00 S11.71S00 535.696.00 58.700.00 S35.323 00 S13.102 00 56.400.00 S48.840 00 53.657.00 S9.34500 SS.91900 S9.952 00 S11.409 00 S7.130 00 52.640.00 SII.SOOOO 56.339.00 S1 1.178.00 S711.00 S2.14000 8747.494.90 S76.256 78 S9.994 00 S17.62S00 Si 1.900.00 SO.OO SO 00 SO.OO S21.600 00 S24I.700 00 S9.283 00 S11.719 00 S33.5S0 00 S8.70000 S10.S18 00 SO 00 S6.40000 SO.OO SO 00 S2.292S0 SO 00 SO.OO SO.OO SO 00 SO.OO 54.029.00 54.247.00 SO.OO 50.00 50.00 S470.006.28 S26.208 00 SO 00 58.020.00 50.00 512.350.00 54.990.00 517.962.00 519.400.00 50.00 50.00 SO.OO STORED MATERIALS (NOT IN D OR E S2.097.00 SO.OO S21.282.00 SO 00 SO 00 S48.840 00 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (D ♦ E ♦ F) PERCENT COMPLETE ;g/c* S102.464.78 S9.994.00 S25.64900 $11,900.00 S12.390.00 S4.990.00 S17.582.00 Si.628 00 S2.963 00 SO 00 $9.952 00 SO 00 SO 00 SO.OO SO 00 SO 00 SO 00 so 00 SO.OO 541.200.00 S241.700.00 59.283.00 511.715.00 539.647.00 58.700.00 531.800.00 SO.OO 56.400.00 548.840.00 BALANCE TO COMPLETION (C G) RETAINAGE (IF VARIABLE) S24.222 72 SO 00 SO 00 $0 00 S4.907.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO so 00 so 00 S4900 SO 00 S9.123 00 5900.00 51.282.00 5595.00 5618.00 5248.00 $870.00 52.060.00 $12,085.00 $464.00 S98600 SO.OO $5,900.00 SO.OO S1.62800 S5.275.90 SO 00 S9.952 00 S9.90000 SO.OO SO 00 SO 00 SO.OO SO.OO $179,492.00 SO.OO 50.00 50.00 S0.00 S0.00 S9.900 00 SO 00 SO.OO S4.029 00 S4.247.00 SO.OO SO.OO CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT /VPPLICATION SO.OO $690,996.28 S3.S23 00 S13.10200 SO.OO SO.OO S1.820 00 S4.069.50 $9,919.00 SO.OO S5.e09.00 S7.130.00 S2.640.00 S7.479.00 S2.0B2.00 S11.176.00 S711.00 S2.140.00 S96.496.22 SI .782.00 5435.00 $1,990.00 S0.00 5320.00 S2.442.00 S9100 5264.00 $000 $490 30 $27900 SO 00 SO 00 S201 00 S21200 SO 00 $0 00 $0.00 S32.SSO.00 OSS. INC. DOCUMENT I ■janTti iirniiaill r: K CONTINUATION PAGE P»*OJECT: * ^^vniwl AppHcalon oonMning Conlncloi% uign^kn !• 03009 Navam FIra SlaOon •ttadwd. B APPUCATIONi: oateofappucatkm PERIOD THRU PROJECT •» Pag«3of 3 1V04«)03 11^4/2003 WORK DESCRIPTION SCHEDULED AMOUNT Loctwft Lowm Visual Diiplay Bowds Pin EMtin0utsl«an Mtoc. Spadaltias Floor Mats lOonWylng Oa«loas RoMonUalAMilwiCM Crana Window Binds Msrhanicil FIro Pretsdion ElscIfleal S7^.00 S244.00 $812.00 $390.00 $000.00 $1,019.00 $7,994.00 $4.480JK) $0,700.90 $1,690.00 $230,000.00 $12,000.00 $110,000.00 TOTALS $1,130,000.00 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMB4T APPLICATION D ie 1 COMPLETED WORK--------- 1 AMOUNT AMOUNT 1 PREVIOUS 1 PERIODS 1 THIS PERIOD $0.00 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,994.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,370.00 1 $0.00 $0.00 1 $0.00 $80,830.00 $43,212.00 $0,834.00 $9,499.00 $20,000.00 $80,000.00 $070.191.2r|~~$311,797.00 ~ STORED MATERIALS (NOTINDORE TOTAL STORED (O^E^F) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,994.00 $0.00 $3,379.00 $0.00 $113,148.00 $12,333.00 $100,000.00 $9,900.00 $887,400.21 PERCENT ^OMPLETt (G/C) 1 H BALANCE TO COMPLETION iC^) T » RTTAfNAOE (IF VARIABLE) 0%$7.28000 $0.00 0%$244.00 $0.00 0%$81200 $0.00 0%$39000 $0.00 0%$96000 $0.00 0%$1,919.00 $0.00 100%$0.00 $378.00 0%$4,408.00 $0.00 50%$3.334JO $180.00 0%$1.090J0 $0.00 48%$122,802.00 $9,097.00 98%$227.00 $617.00 91%$10,000.00 $9,000.00 78%$290,901.72 $44J70.00 4 i on. MC. DOCUMENT -»w«l PAYMENT APPUCATIQM TO; CMyof Orano 27S0)MtoyP«rtnMy Oiono.MNSS336 AUn; AooounM PayiMt FROM: OawCofponlion 212S Caokify Avanu* North SL PM. MNS5109 FOR: PROJECT 03005 and Navoira Fk# Station Pag* 1 Orono.MN 55336 ARCHITECT: BKV Group, tnc. 222N.2ndSL M.nnaapons. MN 55401 APPUCATIONi PERIOD THRU: PROJECT DATE OF CONTRACT: 5 OlaMbuttonlo; 11/04/3003 (3 owner H architect 07/01/2003 (x) CONTRACTOR□□ CONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY OF WORK Appllcallon la mada for paymanl aa ahown balaw. ConUnuallon Paga la attaohad. 1. CONTRACT AMOUNT 2. SUM OF AU CHANGE ORDERS 3. CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT (Una 1 ♦/• 2) 4. TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (Column G on ConNnualion Paga) 5. RETAINAOE: a. 5.00% olComplaladWort( (Columna 0 ♦ E on Continuation Page) b. 5.00% ofMalortalSIorad (Column F on Continuation Paga) Total RaMnaga (Una 5a * 5b or Column I on Continuation Paga) t1.138.000.00 to.00 CONTRACTOR: By; Daw Corporal $1,138,000.00 Data: Robart S. Daw. Praaldant 11/04/2003 $887,408.20 $44,005.00 Slalaol; Mkmatota Counlyof: Ramsay Subscribed and sworn to bafora malhifc 4lh dayof Novambar 2003 T/UyiMYJ NELSON NOT/tRV PUBLIC • MMCSOTA MyCownaiMnEapniJan.3l.200S $275.00 Notary Public: Tammy J. Nelson My Commission Expires: Jwtuary 31,2005 6. TOTAL COMPUTED AND STORED LESS RETAINAOE (Lina 4 minus Una 5 Total) 7. USS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPLICATIONS (Una 6 from prior AppHcaSon) 8. PAYMENT DUE 0. BALANCE TO COMPLETION (Una 3 minus Una 6) $294 88 $44,370.00 $843,038.28 ARCHITECrS CERTIFICATK) $541,643.28 *’*!®I*i**^ assurance to Owner, concerning the paymani herein appOad for. 4pptlea#on. (2) such Worti has bean oordo^ u4th M Conlracl Ooaimanls, (3) Ms Appdcalion lor Pa^ntani acouraioly stales amount $301^00 ahoo?nolban!i*^ *“*'™*^ **“ “**^ CERTIFIBO AMOUNT>..i it* II SUMMARY OP CHANGE ORDERS AOOmONS OEOUCnONSII ToMI chanpaa appreuadln prm4ous motiiia $0.00 $0.00 1 TotNapproMdMsmonSi $aoo $0.00 11 TOTAU $0.00 $0.00 ir NETCMANQES $0.00 friMol a* Me Sguras Maf anEchsnipotf to maleh Ma osrtMsd amounl) PAYMENT APPLICATION OSS.INC.OOCUMB4r SitlM CONTINUATION PAGE Pag^2of 3 PROJECT: •n. PaymtfU Appicaion containing Conlraclor*s tignatura fs attadtad. 03005 Navarra Fira Station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 DESCRIPTION Ganaral CondiUona Bonds Earlhwoffc SUaUllUtias AtphaN Paving SHaConorala Landscaping Conorala Maaomy Piacaat Concrala Arcti Pracasi Slaai FaMcaHon Slael Erection Rough Carpanlry Walaiprooling Rooting Caulking HMiDoore/HanKwa Ovartiaad Ooore Al. Clad Wood WMowa Al. Glau & Glazing CaremicTHa Aooua«calCo8ii«T1la Epoxy Flooring CatpaWHitnl Pamik^ TokaiPadniana APPLICATION a DATE OF APPLICATION; PERIOD THRU: PROJECT at; 11/04/2003 11/04/2003 SCHEDULED AMOUNT Sl26.«a7.S0 S9.904.00 525.045.00 511.900.00 516.597.00 S4.990.00 517.902.00 541.200.00 S241.700.00 S9m00 S11.715.00 535.696.00 S8.700.00 539.323.00 S13.102.00 S6.400.00 S48.a40.00 S3.697.00 59.349.00 59.919.00 SUB-TOTALS 59.952.00 511.409.00 57.130.00 52.640.00 511.900.00 90.330.00 911.179.00 S711.00 52.140.00 S747.494.90 COMPLETED WORK AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS S70.296.78 SO.994.00 517.629.00 511.900.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 521.800.00 S241.700.00 S9.28300 Si 1.719.00 533.550.00 58.700.00 510.918.00 SO.OO 58.400.00 SO.OO SO.OO S2.292.90 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 54.029.00 54.247.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO S470.000.20 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT APPLICATION AMOUNT THIS PERIOD 520.200.00 SO.OO 58.020.00 SO.OO 512.390.00 54.950.00 517.502.00 919.400.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 52.097.00 SO.OO 521.202.00 SO.OO 50.00 548.840.00 51.020.00 52.983.00 50.00 99.052.00 50.00 SO.OO SO.OO 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 SO.OO SI79.402.00 STORED materials (NOT INDORE 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 50.00 50.00 50.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 55.900.00 SO.OO 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 S0.00 S0.00 59.900.00 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (O ♦ E ♦ F) S102.464.78 S9.9U.00 525.649.00 511.900.00 512.390.00 54.950.00 517.982.00 541.200.00 S241.700.00 59.283.00 511.715.00 S:3.647.00 SO.^OO.OO S31.000.00 SO 00 S8.400 00 S40.840.00 91,028 00 S5.27550 SO.OO 90.092.00 $9.900 00 SO.OO SO.OO S4.02900 S4.247.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO S090.990.28 PERCENT COMPLETE (G/C) 81% 100% 100% 100% 73% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 90% 0% 100% 100% 50% 96% 0% 100% 48% 0% 0% 39% 07% 0% 0% 0% 87% BALANCE TO COMPLETION (C-0) S24.222.72 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO S4.907.00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO SO 00 SO.OO SO.OO S49.00 SO.OO 93.923.00 S13.102.00 SO.OO SO.OO S1.629.00 S4.009.90 59.919.00 SO.OO 55.909.00 57.130.00 52.040.00 57.479.00 S2.0B2.00 Sl1.17t.00 S711.00 52.140.00 S96.490.22 RETAINAGE (IF VARIABLE) 59.123.00 5900.00 51.282.00 9999.00 5610.00 5240.00 5879.00 52.060.00 512.085.00 5464.00 5506.00 51.782.00 5439.00 51.990.00 SO.OO 5320.00 52.442.00 S91.00 5264.00 SO.OO S490 00 S27900 SO.OO 9000 5201.00 S21Z00 SO.OO SO.OO SO.OO 932.990.00 088. INC. DOCUMENT aaaam ^ ' : r-t'ii k ►git *• vi■:7^ ^ »^' •"Mi »• ••. M'fia ."C CONTINUATION PAGE PagaSof 3 03005 — '’■>^^*^«onconl«WnQConfcwaot%«^^ Ntvana Fin Slilion B WORK DESCRIPTION U)d(M Louvm Visual OitotoyBoMto Firs Ealinouisiwn Mm. 8psciallls« Floor Mats •OsnMyino Osvioot PssidoniWAppllancM Crans Window Blinds MscKsnicsl Fkt Prolodion Elsctricai APPUCATIONi: date of APPUCAHON: PERIOD THRU; PROJECT •§; SCHEDULED AMOUNT COMPLETED WORK AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS $7,200.00 S244.00 $012.00 $350.00 $900.00 $1,015.00 $7,554.00 $4,400.00 $0,709.50 $1,055.00 $230,000.00 $12,500.00 $110,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3.37500 $000 $09,930.00 $0,034.00 $20,000.00 STORED MATERIALS I AMOUNT THIS PERIOD I (NOT INDORE) total I PERCENT I BALANCE COMPLETED AND Ic OMPLETeI TO (O^T^F) ' ' COMPLETION RETAINAOE (IF VARIABLE) ((>0) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,554.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $43,212.00 $5,499.00 $00,000.00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,554.00 $0.00 $3,375.00 $0.00 $113,148.00 $12,333.00 $100,000.00 $7,280.00 $244.00 $812.00 $350.00 $960.00 $1,915.00 $0.00 $4,486.00 $3,334.50 $1,655.00 $122,852.00 $227.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $37800 $0.00 $169.00 $0.00 $5,657.00 $617.00 $5,600.00 $1,138,000.00 $570,151.28 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT APPLICATION $311,757.00 $5,590.00 $807,408.28 $250,501.72 I $44,370.00 OSS. INC. DOCUMENT I ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cot IMCII. MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 CiTy OF ORONO Date;II/24/03 Item No: J 7 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Title: Kurt Erickson Sergeant Item Description: Acceptance of Donation Exhibits: DISCUSSION; On November 14"* Dr. Charles Boehm, a resident of Orono came to the Orono Police Department. Dr. Boehm and his wife had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in Orono earlier this year. Dr. Boehm out of concern for the safety of our officers and to express his appreciation for Orono police service, wanted to donate six traffic safety vests. The vests he offered meet ANSI/OSHA guidelines for traffic safety requirements. These vest have an approximate retail value of $360. The contribution was not solicited by the department. The police department can make use of the vests. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept the donation of six traflic safety vest from Dr. Charles Boehm to be used by the Orono Police Department. 1 COliwni mfeTING NOV 2 5 2003REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: HovSn\SrAyM ITEM NO: r /6 Department Approval:AdnUntetrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name LinVee Title CiiyCIetk Licenses Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSES Clnb On Sale Wayzata Country Club and Sunday Liquor 200 Wayzata Boulevard Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Off Sale Liqnor Navarre Liquors Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. ■ ■ j. u ir a—-M.1 Minnesou Depanmem of Public Safety Alcohol and Ganbliiig Enforcement 444 Cedar Sneet Suite 133 St. Paul. MN 55101-5133 651 .296-6979 • TTY 651-282-6555 • Fax 651-297-5259 RENEWAL OF LIQUOR, WINE. OR CLUB LICENSE No license will be appeoved or released until the $20 Retailer ID Card fee is received by MN Liquor Coolrol Liceiisee: Please verify your license information contained below. .Make corrections if necessary and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liability for the new license period. City Ckrk/Counly Auditor are also required by ^A.4M S. 3 to report any license canceHatloB. License Code MCLONSS License Period Ending 12/311196 Ciiy/Couniy where license approvedP^®^® Licensee Name Country Club Inc. Trade Name Mayzata Country Club Licensed Locaiion address 200 Wayzata Blvd/BoM 151 City. Stale. Zip Code Business Phone 200. 00LICENSE FEES: Off Sale $ Orono, MN 55391 952/A73-88A6 0.00 On Sale $Sunday $200.00 By signing this renewal application, applicant certiBcs that there has been no change in ownership on the above named licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for new Ikeasces, full applications should be used. Sec back of thb appiicalion for further information needed to complete Ihb renewal. Applicant’s signature on this renewal contlrms the following: Failure to any of the fuUowing will result in Ants. 1. Licensee confirms it has no interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly in any other liquor establishments in Nfinnesota. If so. give details on back of this application. 2. Licensee confirms (hat it has never had a liquor license rejecicd by any city/township/county in the state of Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 3. Licensee confirms that for (he past fr«c years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation (state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give detail> on the back of this renewal, then sign below 4. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please gi\e details on back of this renewal, then sign below. 5. Licensee confirms that dunng the past license year, a summon.^ has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law (Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. If yes. attach a copy of the summons, then sign below. 6. Licensee confirms that Workers Compensation insuraiKC is in effect for the full license period. Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period in dty/county where license is issued. $100,000 in cash or securities or $100,000 suretv bond mav be submitted in lieu of liquor liability. Licensee Signature ^Date (Signature certifies all above information to be correct and license has been approved by city/county.) City Clerk/County Auditor Signature_____________________________________Date (Signature certifies that r,:newal of a liquor, w ine or club license ho> been approved by the city/cuunty as stated above.) County Attorney Signature ___ ______ Date County Board issued licenses onl)^Signature certifu Pol ice/Sheri ff Signature licensee is eligible for license). Date // (Signature certifies liceipi^ or ait^i^s have not been cited during the past fi\e years for any state/local fiquor law violations (criminal/civil). Report violations on back, then sign here. PS 9093-98 i prs, bomr addressgg €ir tglindicate hflow chanfgi of corporate ol ‘ *koC ^tauJKJfOl€H Aa) j, , Uli ^Sf¥^ i/^.* S^fifeiJ^ i(M Pdtukti 9ftiT /ko<44f^. Mti s^ski Xuu. 1 X4// , iL^o? iUtikai^ ?xi- M-u^r • i[y u**:-jL'iw any Inlaiaat what«nxiT- dltartlv or IndirMlIy in other Hquar #€iahlkl L)PU&____________________________________________________ t'liN its; Minnesota DefMfimem of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement 444 Cedar Sticet. Suite 133 St Paul. MN 55101-5133 651-296-6979 • TTY 651-282-6555 • Fax 651-297-5259 RENEWAL OF LIQUOR. WINE, OR CLUB LICENSE No license will be approved or rclcticd until the S20 Retailtf ID Card fee u received by MN Liquor Control Liccniee: Please venfy your license information contained below. Make corrections if necessary and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liability for the new license penod. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M^. 340A.404 S. 3 to report any license canceHatkML License Code ________License Period Ending 12/31 /20036641____________ Cily/County where license approvedP*^®^® Licensee Name Navarre Liquors Inc. Trade Name Licensed Locatiun address 3421 Shoreline Dr/PO Box 117 Ciiy. Stale. Zip Code Navarre, MN 55392 Business Phone 952/471-8800 I LICENSE ITKES Off Sale $150.00 On Sale $0. 00 Sunday $0. 00 By aiKiiing this renewal applkation, applicani certifies that there has been no change in ownership on the above named licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for new licensees, full applications should be used. See back of this application for fhrther infomution needed to complete this renewal Applican t*! alynat arr nn thk renewal (II M g nv the following: FaUure to report any of the foUowiii£ wili result in flneg. 1. Licensee confinns it has no interest whatsoever, direedy or indirectly in any other liquor establishments in Minnesota. If so. give details on back of this application. 2. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by any cilyAownship/county in the state of Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 3. Licensee confinns that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked for any liquor law violation (state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give detaili on the back of this renewal, then sign below. 4. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for any civil or criminal liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign below. 5. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law (Dram Shop) MS 340A.892. If yes. attach a copy of the mmmons. then sign below. 6. Licensee confinns that Workers Compensation insurance is in effect for the full license period Licensee has attached a liquor liability igg^nce certificate that correspoiids with the license period in dfy/county H ^ i&^ued. $l(M,00(^caa^or!m or SlOO^MNi surety bond may be submitted in lieu of tiquor 1Licensee Signal (Signature certifies alTaEove^fonfiRpon tt City Clerk/County Auditor Signature ^aod license has been approved by city/county.) Date paje /os (Signature certifies that renewal of a liquor, wine or club license has been approved by the city/county as staled above.) County Attorney Signature Date County Board issued licenses only (Signature certifies ije^see is eligible for license). Policc/Shcriff Signature lifics licensee i Date //hojo:^ (Signature certifies licensce^i^(ss^Stesb^e not been cited during the past five years for any state/local liquor law violatirns (criminal/civil). Report violations on bacu^^n sign here. PS 9093-98 . ! IndU-ale hoiow changes of corporate ofOc tfs. partngra. home addrcSMS or ltltPllPn€ nilintKrSI Indlf II. tiflow any interest whatsotwr. dirtcUv or IndlrtcUv in other liquor establishnKlUs; Bftfftf* llrt*^** Hqimr tow vtotolioiu (dvll or rrimtna^^ that hav* nn»« ftr 5>tlii»r pgMUtoL incliidliig Liquor Control PenalUtt); t within the last five years. (Dates, oflenscs^ Rgporl below deUik Inviilvin^ any license re|€Ctions or revocations; rity/County Comments: MO .....I iiiliTiBii Minnesou Dcpartmem of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforccmcnl 444 Cedar Street, Suite 133 St. Paul. MN 55101-5133 651-296-6979 • TTY 651-282-6555 • Fax 651-297-5259 ______RENEWAL OF LIQUOR, WINE, OR CLUB LICENSE______ No licente «ill be apjMovcd or icleaied until the $20 Retailer ID Caid fee U icceived by MN Uq<ic« CooiidI Lktnsct- Please verify your license infonnaiion contained below. Make coneciions if neccssarv and sign. City Clerk/County Auditor should submit this signed renewal with completed license and licensee liquor liii>:lity for the new license period. City Clerk/County Auditor are also required by M.S. 340A.404 S. 3 to report ans Ucense cancellation.a License Code MCL0N5L License Period Ending 12/31/200X|D)y ________ Cily/Counly where license approved.^**® Licensee Name Trade Name Uoodhill Country Club Inc. Uoodhill Country Club Licensed Location address 200 Uoodhill Rd City. State. Zip Code Orono, MN 55391 Business Phone 952/473-7333 LICENSE FEES: Off Sale $0. 00 On Sales 200. 00 Sundav S 200.00 By dgnlng this renewal appUcathm, applicant certifies that there has been no change in ownership on the above named licensee. For changes in ownership, the licensee named above, or for new licensees, full applications should be used. See back of thb application for further Information needed lo complete this renewal. Annlicanfs signature on this renewal ConUrms the followina: Failure to renort anv of the following will reauh in tines. I. Licensee confirms it has no interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly in any other liquor esuMishments in Minnesota. If so. give details on back of this application. Licensee confirms that it has never had a liquor license rejected by any cityAownshipfcouniy m the state of Minnesota. If ever rejected, please give details on the back of this renewal, then sign below Licensee confirms that for the past five years it has not had a liquor license revoked fur an\ Lquor law violation (state or local). If a revocation has occurred, please give details on the back of this renewai. then sign below. Licensee confirms that during the past five years it or its employees have not been cited for ny civil or ciiminal liquor law violations. If violations have occurred, please give details on back of this renewal, then sign below. Licensee confirms that during the past license year, a summons has not been issued under the Liquor Liability Law (Dram Shop) MS 340A.802. If yes. attach a copy of the summons, then sign below. 6 Licensee confirms that Workers Compen.saiiun insurance is in effect for the full license penevi Licensee has attached a liquor liability insurance certificate that corresponds with the license period in city/county where license is issued. $100,000 in cash or securities or $100,000 surely bona may be submilled in lieu of liquor liability. (Signature cenifies all abo\c information to be correct and license has been apf>roved by city/county.) City Clerk/County Auditor Signature________________________ Date Date 2k (Signature certifies that r«*newal of a liquor, wine or club license has been approved by the ciiy/ccuniy as stated above.) County Attorney Signature________________________________________________ Date County Board issued licenses only (^gnature certifies licensee is eligible for license) Police/Shcriff Signature (Signature certifies liccnse^wliss^mt (criminal/civil). Report violations on _____________________________Diitc ^ /•tO J at^havc not been cited during the past five yem for any siaic/lcval liquor law violations t^k. then sign here. PS 9093-98 Indicate brfaw rhan»« nf forporatg olBters. pa ring it. hnm* «r lApluMK imml Indicate bdow «ny intettit whateoenwr. dipcctlv or Indirectly In mhcr lfa|iiftr »€i«hHclMn»iit«» Report below dctalh of Mqnor law violationi fdvll or crimlnalt that hnv# n^i Bnes or other penaltlea. Indudtnf Liquor Control Penalileal! t within the last Bve veara , (Datea. offenses. Report bel nwf d*talh li ii'.Ai or re^ocatimw; Citv/Couniv Commente; . a __>Jp F^>.^('evA<v V- 'QjlkmaiJaI i r CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail RegistertS) NOVEMBER 2MS COUNCII MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 CITY OF ORONo 11/21/03 11;36AM Page 1 Check Amt lnvo4ce 10100 PHfneryCeah Paid Chki 077196 11/24/2003 ANCHOR PAPER E 101-41900-201 OOloo supplies $520.89 148840001 Copy Paper Total ANCHOR PAPER $S20.89~ Paid Chki 077199 11/24/2003 ANDERSON. KRISTI E 101-42400-319 Other Professional Services $430.00 11/17/03 Plan Com-11/17403 Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $430.00 Paid Chki 077200 11/24/2003 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 101-41900-201 Ofiloa supples $57 00 6013-353812 Coffse-CH E 101-42110-201 OfflMSuppRBS $17100 6013-353S13 CoNse-PD ToW ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $228.00 PaU Chk* 077201 11/24/2003 BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC. E 101-43170-304 Enginewing-Contulling $25900 101695 Orono Zoning Map Prap E 101-43170-304 Engineering-ConsuKing $1.129 17 101695 Stonabay PM 02-2789 E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulling $1,01230 101695 Applications 8/2003 E 101-43200-304 Engineering-Consulling $395.91 101695 Orono Sr Housing PM 2641 E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $334.64 101695 UM8iaWoo(toPM2263 E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting $202.67 101695 Prof Propamat PM 2782 E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $130.50 101695 ConvarlOaia E 101-43170-304 Engineering-ConsulUf^g $12500 101695 LUOrono Fke Station Drainage E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting $125.00 101695 Kokesh Farms Plat 2863 E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retainer $100.00 101695 Council MIgs Aug 2003 E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $38.31 101695 Misc Ejipanae Aug E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $96.00 101695 OrMar Pump 680-S Broiwi Rd E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $96.00 101695 Ivy Plaoa Drain • Firo Lana G 602-18500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $1,355.12 101696 SCAOA 08/2003 E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting $306.00 101697 CoRdlOSkJewak E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting $1.267 00 101098 Stubbs Bay Rd Erosion Imp 0 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $209.20 101699 HU Svrr E)it.Jolin Makay G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $1.662 84 101700 OUaRdSvvrExt E 425-48945-304 Engineermg-Consuking $24162 101701 Nav Firo St 8 UW Imp E 402-48038-304 Engineering-Consulting $95700 101702 Co Rd 6/WWow Intaraactkm G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $2.712 84 101703 PhiNpt San S«vr Aug E 101-43280-304 Engineering-Consulting $3.27302 102384 Stonabay PMC:-2789 E 101-43280-304 Engineermg-Consulting $326 03 102384 Prof Propaitiat PM 2782 E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $973 58 102384 AppKcaUona August 2003 E 101-43170-303 Engineering-Retarar $10000 102384 CouncN MMs Sapt 2003 E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $42.54 102384 Misc Expanse Sapt E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting $13771 102384 U Mika Woods PM 2263 E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting $28800 102384 3329 CiysUi Bay Rd Sbn S««r E 402-48030-304 Engineenng-Consulting $192 00 102385 CoRd19Sktowak E 651-49910-304 Engineenng-Consulting $268 00 102388 StubtM Bay Rd Erosion Imp E 402-48039-304 Engineering-Consulting $1,430.49 102387 Leo Carlson DsSBd Trad G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const, in progress $1.845 05 102388 CHd LL Rd Swr Ext E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting $150.33 102389 NsvFiroSI8Utillna> E 402-48037-304 Engineering-Consulting $266 00 102390 Fox St Bridge Raplaoement G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const m progress $1.278 20 102391 PhMpsSanSwDpt G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $822 50 102392 Homaslaad Rd San Swr SapI Total BONESTROO ROSENE A ASSOC.$24,149.57 PaMChM 077202 11/24/2003 BUDGET PRINTINO E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $119 30 28954 Coin Envalopas CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® NOVEMBER 2003 CtMCk Ami ImMilee Cmumafii Total BUDGET PMNTWO $119.30 Pi5dCWar077255 11/24/2003 BUSINESSFOMISBACCOUNTINO E 101-41900-201 Offloewjpplim $335 34 31821 Oiract Oapoill Receipts Total BUSINESS FORMS BACCOUNTBIO PaidChk# 077204 11/24/2003 CAROUCSOENS E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & AooetsoOes E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts A Accessories Total CARDIAC BOEIiCC $335 34 $200 83 505684 JIJ^ 505684 $389 83 Survfvelink Bettery SurviveMi BeHery TSTSIiMOTtSoS 11/24/2003 CENTERPOBITENERGY• OC E613-49830-381 Oas&Electric $151.26 539004161700 GasSeivloe-GC Total CENTER POINT ENERGY • GC $151 26 PaldChM 077206 11/240003 CHUNKS LAKESI E 101-42110-402 Rapairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repeirs/Meint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 RepeirsAyieint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 RepeMMaint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 RepaiTBAyiaint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101 -42110402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 Repairs/Makit-Auto Equip E 101-42110-402 RepairsAtaint-Auto Equip Total CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO $33 48 $10548 $248.76 $365.49 $2845 $2845 $36 00 $1,260.98 $57 34 $1350 $2,177^93 24540 24556 24559 24563 24583 24591 24593 24618 24624 24627 OilCKenge#195 Oil. Siren Head 9197 ON. Brakes #198 Tumsignal Ss4ch #190 Mount Tires #193 Mount Tires #197 WigWeg #191 Brakes. Rotors #190 Oil. Mnt Tires #193 Tire Repair #196 11/21/03 11 36 AM Page 2 Paktr^hke 077207 11/24/2003 CUUMAH E 613-49830-403 RapairsMainl-Misc Equip $14.00 090836764 Softanar Saivioe Total CULUQAN '$iibo Paid Chkl 677260 11/24/2003 OAHLKE TREE SERVICE E 101-43000-408 Contracted SIreei Maint $4C000 11/18A)3 Holiday Banners Total OAHLKE TREE SERVICE $480 00 Paid ChW 077209 11/24/2003 DCA-WIRE ONLY G 101-21719DCA/Spending Accounts $337.36 11/12A)3 Flex Spending 11/12A)3 Total DCA-WIREONLY $337 36 Paid Chk# 077210 11/24/2003 DELL E 101-42110-570 Omoe Equs> and Pumisnings $1,388.00 522621219 Optiplax Q)(270 E 101-41900221 Equipment Parts A Accessories $9581 525637022 Memory-OptiplaxISXIIO Total DELL $1.483 81 Paid Chk# 077211 11/24/2003 DELTA DENTAL G 101-15998 Non-Employee Health Ins $129 65 37220072 Dental Ins -12/2003 G 101-21709Dental Insurance $1.430 55 37220072 Dental Ins -12/2003 Total DELTA DENTAL $1.560 20 PaidChki 077212 11/^4/2003 DEW CORPORATION E 425-48945-520 Buildings and Structures $316.982 00 RFP5 RFP #5 Navarre Fire Stalior. G 425-20600Contracts Payable ($15,587 00) RFP5 RFP K Nevene Fire Station is01$301.395 00 PaidCliki 077ii:^11/24/2003 DOeO*S E 101-42110439 Meeting Expenses $190 73 5488 BreakfMt Meeting L CITYOFORONO Check Detail Registei© 11/21/03 11:36 AM Page 3 NOVEMBER 2003 Paid Chki 077214 11/2442003 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS. IN E 101-42110-221 Equipffiafil Parts & Acoettohet $201.66 41 Latex Olovas. Soap Total EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS. IN 1201.66 Paid Chk# 077215 11/24/2003 FORTIS BENEFITS G 101-21713 LTDIrwuranoa G 101-21713 LTDInsuranoa Total FORTIS BENEFITS $791 91 4019625-1 $791 91 4019625-1 $1.563 62 LTD -12/2003 LTD Ins-11/2003 ^ald Chki 07^i f ^ 11/2442003 GENUINE PARTS CO. G 10M9999 Suspense Account ($413 16)1 2312966 Paid in Error E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $6 04 750969 Oi Filter E 10M3000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $1603 756734 Hose. End E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $579 760062 Gasket Meker £61^.49630-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $61.15 760120 EarPkig E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $15.85 760541 Cleaner E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $4251 760676 FiKers E 101-43000-221Equipment Peru & Accessories $26 71 761266 Shop Supplies E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $21 34 761442 WorkLarrq) E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $1981 761499 Connectori E 10MS200-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $1277 761776 Cable Ties E 10M3000-212Motor Fuels 6 Lubricants $1934 761866 Oa Filter E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $37,26 762127 Alarm E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $6614 762393 Wiper Blades, tune up E 10M3000-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $11 69 762419 Fittings E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $1 06 762495 Light BuM E 101-42400.402Repaks/Maint-Auto Equip $1 27 762575 Gasket E 613.49830-212Motor Fuels & Lubricants $31 73 762795 Oa.Fller E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $233 763350 Misc Supplies E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $5 66 763611 Car Wash E 101-43000-222Vehide Equipment & Parts $31 15 763713 Filters E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $27 69 766328 FRer, Gauge E 101-43000-221Eq jsiment Parts 6 Accessories $40 99 767466 Coupler E 101-43000-221Equipment Parts 6 Accessories $2 96 767633 Cleaner E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment 6 Parts $75.17 767741 Lamp. Baright E 1C -13000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $80 93 767743 Lamp E 101-43000-222Vehicle Equipment & Parts $9.79 767626 Undercoat Total GENUINE PARTS CO.$260 44 Paid Chk# 077217 11/24/2003 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT E 101-41900-329 Other Communications $63.13 23107184 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH OPT $63 13 Paid fihW 077218 11/24/2003 HINSHAW 6 CULBERTSON Databtta Access E 101-43280-307Legsi-ConsuKing . $1.696 54 10335622 AppDcMIont Aug 2003 E 101-41600-307Legai-Consulljog $1.636 68 10335629 G NelsofWCartson Easement E 101-41600-307LegaU^xisuJting $24 00 10335629 ATATLaase E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $113 00 10335629 Reaokibon Advice E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $21700 10335629 Hennessey Land Swap E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainer $1,301 96 10335631 Coundl Mgs Aug 2003 E 101-43260-307Legal-Consulting $61306 10340153 AppMcatlons S«|)l 2003 E 101-41600-307Legal-Consulting $52 00 10340156 Lurton Prop Resolution E 101-41600-307Legal-ConsuRing $197 50 10340156 HoMander Haa Bldg E 101-41600-305 Legal-Retainef $1.300 00 10340159 CounciMMs Sept 2003 CITY OF ORONO 11/21/03 11 36 AM P*g«5 *Check Detail Registei^) NOVEMBER 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $1,068.00 PaMCliM 077229 11/24/2003 MPLS OEPT Of HEALTH ft FAMILV E 101-42110-319 Other Prolettionai Servioet $4900 20031028 Lab Analysis-03-1214 E 101-42110-310 Other Prolettionai Servioet $73 00 20031028 Lab Analysis-03-1109 Total MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH A FAMILY $122 00 Paid Chk# 077230 1 1/24/2063 MTIDIST CO. E 613-49630404 Repakt/Mainl-Bldgt/Groyndt $685.00 386850-00 irrigation Blow Out Total MTIO»TCO.$685 00 Paid Chk# 0/7231 11/24/2003 NAVARRE HARDWARE E 101-42110-228 TraMig Soppliet 13.20 126077 Bungie Cable - Firearms Tmg E 10142400-221 Equipment Partt & Acoettoriet S7.44 126176 Hacksaw E 60249450-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $8.51 126354 Chemical Glove E 60149400-227 Utility System Maint. Suppliet $3 40 126402 MuriadcAdd E 10141900-201 Office supplies $21 27 126469 Cleaning Supplies E 10142110-228 Training Supplies •3 38 126622 Firearms Tmg Supplies E 10141900-201 Office suppliet ^6 38 126687 Battery E 61349830-223 BMg/Oroundt Maint. Supplies $*.:. .76 126700 Misc Suppfies E 10142110-201 Ofiloe supplies $4.25 126778 Staplea E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $20 32 126779 Keys E 601-49400-227 UtiMy System Maint Supplies $15.38 126783 Ddams E 60149400-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $35 04 126812 lOOWButw E 601-49400-227 Ulilily System Maint Supplies $16.58 126851 SiNcockKeys E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $2032 126963 PVC Pipe, Coupling E 60249450-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $2.12 127025 Key Ring E 10142110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $30.27 127313 Gloves. Tape E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $585 127397 Marking Pabit E 10142110-221 Equipment Parts 8 Accessories $761 127422 Batteries. Numbers E 10145200-221 Equipnoent Parts & Accessories $1 16 127423 SHook E 60249450406 Repairs/Maint-Swfr lines/lifts $1.00 127453 Misc Hardware Total NAVARRE HARDWARE $2^24 Paid Chkf 077232 11/24/2003 NORUNO'S E 40648737-511 Land Improvanientt $20,878 75 18501 City Hal Landscaping Total NORLINO'S S2o!^B78 75 Paiid Chk# 077233 11/24/2003 OBERAIGNER. SCOTT E 10143000-226 Ciothing A personal equipment $98.00 11/17/03 Safety Shoes Total OBERAIGNEa SCOTT $98 00 Paid ChtM 077234 11/24/2003 OFFICE DEPOT E 10141900-201 Office supplies ($8.67) 223716813-00 Return E 10142110-201 Office supplies $16.79 223716814-00 Office Supples E 10141900-201 Office supplies $1678 223716814-00 Office Supples E 10141900-201 Office suppfies $276 47 224441992-00 Office Supples E 60149400-201 Office supplies $10 53 224441992-00 Calanders-WtrPInt E 60249450-201 Office supplies $25253 224441992-00 Calanders-LS E 10142110-201 Office supplies $276.48 224441992-00 Office Supples E 10142110-201 Office supplies $2 96 224441992-00 Office Supples E 10141900-201 Office supplies $2 95 224441992-00 Office Supples E 10142110-201 Office supplies $34 68 224443429-00 Office supples E 10141900-201 Ollloa tuppllat $3467 22444342AOO Office Supples Total OFFICE DEPOT $916 17 CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® ll^t/0311 36 AM Page 6 Cheek Amt ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCA E 101 -45200-490 Contributions to Civic Org*t 2003 Total ORONO COMMUNITY EDUCATION NOVEMBER 2003 Invoice Comnienl 2003 Summer Rec Prog $2.262 65 Paid Chki 077236 11/24/2003 PRECISION TURF E 613-49630-223 Bldg/Grounds Maint Suppket Total PRECISION TURF $1,426.29 2996 Fungicide. Fertiltzer $1.426 29 PaktChk# 077237 11/24/2003 PRUDENTIAL UFE INSURANCE G 101-21710 Life Insurance $63.65 11/2003 G 101-15996 Non-Employee Heanh Ins $30.50 11/2003 G 101-21710 Life Insurance $^2.10 11/2003 Total PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE $776 45 Life Insurance 11/2003 Life Insurance 11/2003 Life Insurance 11/2003 PaidChk# 077236 11/24/2003 ROOT-O-MATIC E 602 49450-406 Repairs/Maint-Sier lines/lifts $260 no 2746M Sevier Mamt-2505 Dunwoody Total R00T-O4yUTIC $260 00 Paid Chki 077239 11/24/2003 SBC PAGING E 101-42110-321Telephone $31.06 202610 Police Pagers Total SBC PAGING $31 06 Paid Chki 077240 11/24/2003 SNYDER DRUG STORES F. 101-42110-201Office supplies $31 89 10/1/03 Batteries. Film t: 101-42110-226Training Supplies $10.61 10/13/03 Training Supplies E 101-42110-201Office supplies $585 10/17/03 Film E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $17.62 10/22A)3 Photo Processing ToUl SNYDER DRUG STORES $6617 Paid Chki 077241 11/24/2003 STREICHERS E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $146 80 3900531 Shirt Pants - Russedt E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $3995 390053 2 Shkt - Russeth E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $53 14 391370 1 Battery E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $7972 393306.1 Battery. Rechargable E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $27 56 395055.1 Cleaner/Toiselettes E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $60 60 3954561 Flasher E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $12885 3960172 Shirt - Fisher E 101-42110-221Equipment Parts & Accessories $5647 396656 1 Flasher E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment $160 90 397694 1 Boots: Striker ToUl STREICHERS $756 01 Paid Chki 077242 11/24/2003 UNIFORMS UNUMITED E 101-42110-226Clothing & personal equipment S106 45 196739 Noisier Total UNIFORMS UNUMITED $106 45 Paid Chki 077243 11/24/2003 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE E 101-41900-322Postage $1.800 00 89549067 Postage for Meter Tout UNITED STATES IK)STAL SERVICE $1.600 00 Paid Chki 077244 11 /24/2003 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH E 101-4211CM02 Repairs/Maint-Autc Fquip $974 5079 Cai Wnl). Squads E 101.42110-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $9.74 5066 Car Wash. Squads E 10M2110-402 Repairs/Maim-Auto Equip $9.74 5069 Car Wash • Squads E 101-42110-402Repairs/Matnt-Auto Equip $6 00 5094 Car Wash - Squads E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $974 5099 Car Wash • Square E 101-42110-402Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $6 00 5105 Car Wash • Squads j i rvT.'T* -* “aJ" V CITYOFORONO Check Detail Registei^ 11/21/03 11:36 AM PS0«7 f NOVEMBER 2063 E101-42110402 RapNraAtoM-Aulo Equip E101-42110402 RapNraAMnt-Aulo Equip E 101-42110402 Ripaln/Mtlnt-Aulo Equip Total WAVZATA BAY CAR WASH $6.00 5109 $8.00 5114 $8.00 5116 sre.96 Car Watli-Squad* Car Wash-Squad* Car Wa*h • Squad* E 101-42110-226 CMMno S p*r*on*l equipnwnl Tow W1TTKE.TONV $1U.M 10ai/03 $18S’36 UnWomi/CMMng PaUCMi 6f7246 11/24/2003 XCEL ENERGY E 101-42110-301 E 00140400-361 E 101-42110-301 E 602-49450-301 E 101-45200-381 E 10143000-381 E 101-43000466 E 10141900461 E 613-49630461 Oa*AEI*Glric OaaSEIacIrIc Oa*6EI*c(ric OaaAEIaciric OaaSEIactrIc Oa*6El*clflc Slr**t Uohtinq Oas&Etodflc 0*s6EI*ctric Tow XCELENEROY $495.25 $3,165.93 $9.42 $1,263.19 $2526 $266.64 $1,313.61 $1,229.46 $429.2£ $6.238J20 116050677730 EMrical Sotvioa 116059677730 ElMdrtcalSarvloa 116059677730 EtecMcal Swvioa 116059677730 ElacMcal S*rvio* 116059677730 ElacMe*! Soivio* 116059677730 EtacMcal Saivloa 116050677730 ElucMcal Sarvio* 110059677730 ElacMcal Saivloa 116050677730 ElacMcal Saivloa i " -4 10100 Primary Caah $436,066.34 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 406 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 425 NAVARRE FIRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATMO FUND 602 SEWER OPERATMO FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORMWATER UTILITY OP FUND 10100 Primary Catli $59,060.43 $3,151.49 $20,076.75 $301,766.95 $3,621.20 $43,117.09 $3,529.43 $1,023.00 $436,966.34 A CITY OF ORONO 11/21/03 11 39 AM P«Q#1 check register Clwcfc Numbor Employ — Namo 053579 053580 053581 053582 053583 053584 053585 053586 053587 053588 053589 053590 053591 053592 053593 053594 053595 053596 053597 053598 053599 053600 053601 053602 053603 053604 053605 053606 053607 053608 053609 053610 053611 053612 053613 053614 003001 003002 003003 003004 003005 003006 003007 003008 003009 003010 003011 003012 003013 003014 003015 003016 003017 003018 003019 003020 003021 003022 003023 DODGE. RACHEL M LESKINEN. DENISE M SILUS. BARBARA O ANDERSON. BRUCE L ARNE80N. JOSHUA A. BOBZ1EN.SUEA. DORIS. SCOTT W BU010.STACE M CARLSON. MICHAEL B DEMBOUSKI.JAYC ERICKSON. KURT R FARNtOK. CORREYL FISCHENICH.OANT. MADSON. ADRIENNE M. MCNICHOtS. DAVID L. MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES PERSEU. WILLIAM R RUSSETH. KYLE M SCHOENHOFF. JOHN B. TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F. TOMCZYK.MARKW WITTKE. ANTHONY A HERMAN. JOHN R. QAFFRON. MICHAEL P. MEYER. WILLIAM C. OMAN. LYLE E. VANG. BRUCE L. GREGORY. JAMES D HANSEN. STEVEN OBRIEN. RANDY L. PALMER. GREGORY A. RATHBUN. BARRY J SKREEN. DALE S SMYTH. KATHERINE R STEFFENMAGEN. RONALD STORK. JOHN T MOORSE. RONALD J VEE. LINDA S KUEHN. THOMAS M OLSON. RONALD J. PETTIT. SANDRA K AHDERSOH. BRUCE L BOBZIEN. SUE A. BORIS. SCOTT W. BUDIG. STACIE M. CORNICK. JAMES L FISCHER. CHRISTOPHER K GOOD. STEPHANY R JOHNSON. JEFFREY MCNICHOtS. DAVID L TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F. LEE. JOSEPH P BOLTERMAN. MATTHEW A. FOTH. MELANIE C GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GAPPA. GREGORY A OMAN. LYLE E WAATAJA. JANICE J DEBAERE. DONALD L Pay PaHod 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Ctmck $1,031.08 $864 60 $464.96 $479 62 $221.96 $772.47 $1,477.34 $637.60 $402.70 $1.694 49 $1,623.33 $1.854 86 $1,538.33 $58991 $729.37 $1,762.53 $583 53 $1.170 29 $189.61 $392 78 $1.489 34 $1.657 65 $898 36 $1,404.19 $658 90 $44 63 $1,313.61 $84226 $392.72 $473 12 $741.01 $1.41242 $1.342 28 $21 77 $1,363.46 $37.42 $2.235 92 $1.243 61 $1.31326 $1.147 61 $1.083 57 $1.135 00 $110 00 $20.00 $40.00 $1.568 80 $1.553 35 $1,941 39 $1.535 29 $87500 $900 00 $27465 $1.096 45 $1.16671 $125 00 $1.790 38 $1.400 00 $1,212.45 $1.193 88 Chacli 11/12/2003 OmatandMo 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 OutrtandMg 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstandtoig 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 OutMandkig 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 Outstanding 11/12/2003 OuMsiding CITY OF ORONO clwck ragistor 11/21/03 11:30 AM Page 2 CITY OF ORONO 11^1/0311:40 AM P«0*1 ^Check Detail Registei® NOVEMBER 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comniefil 10100 Paid Chk# Prlmanr a bffi Cash 11/1 FIRiT NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES 0101-21701 FedafalWKhhoiding 0101-21703 FICATaxWKhhoidkHl 0101-21703 FICATaxWRhholding Total FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF LAKES $8,764.99 $4,383.70 $4.:»3.70 $17,^39 FEDERAL W/H FICA 8 MEDICARE W/H FICA 8 MEDCR CITY SHARE PaldChkS 077188 11/12/2003 KSt RETIREMENT TRUST -487 0101-21705 Other Ratkamem Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-497 DEFERRED COMP $56882 PaUChk# 077189 11/12/2003 UWENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE 0 101-21707 Union Duet $0 00 Total LAW ENFORCMENT LABOR SERVICE $0 00 UNION DUES Paid Chki 077190 11/12/2003 MN CMILO SUPPORT PMT CTR 0101-21712 Other Dedudiont $81M2 11/12A)3 Total MN CmJD SUPPORT PMT CTR $81512 caf1ton(0014164432) Paid Chki 077191 11/12/20(0 MN DEPT OF REVENUE 0101-21702 State Withholding Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $3,822.77 STATE TAX W/M $3.822 77 Paid Chk# 077192 11/12/2003 MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM 0 101-21718 Pott Employment HaaMh $224.^111203 Tout MN STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM $224 42 HC Savingt /pay end 11/09/03 PaUChU 67719^ 11/12)200 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT SOLUTION 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $1.797 00 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $4.87 Tout NATIONWIDE RETVtEMENT SOLUTION $1.80187 USCM - ENTITY 2339 OBRA#2343 Paid Chk* 677194 11/12/2003 ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEE/CUST 0 101-21705 Other Retirement $2.979 68 Total ORCHARD TRUST CO. TRUSTEEK:U8T $2.979 68 MN STATE RETIREMENT Paid Chki 077195 11/12/2003 PUBUC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT 0 101-21704 PERA $6.544 37 0 101-21704 PERA Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PERA CITY SHARE PERA EMPLOYEE W/H $11.635 42 Paid Chki 077196 11/12/2003 JNITED WAY 0 101-21708 United Way Total UNITED WAY $6500 $65 00 CHARITY DONATIONS Paid ChUI 077197 11/12/2003 WISCONSIN SCTF 0 101-21712 Other Dedudiont Total WISCONSIN SCTF $184 62 $184S2 JOHNSON • 0002756898 10100 Primary Cath $39,629.91 Fund Summary 101 OENERAL FUND 10100 Primary Cath $39.629.9J $39,629.91 § infobmation ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING r.nnMnt MEETING NOV 2 5 2003 OF nryoFORONO % « . ' ■M.mauma n u n I'lFETjKG NOV 2 5 2003 CITy OF ORONO 72d SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOU8. MINNESOTA 55402-2463 TELEPHONE i612) 332 2292 FAX I6t2i 332 4305 Cl&otyuC(_j^ tL^UL_c^ (SAjL^ CX lift &i}^>(O/’-trUO t- \ ijtlfiiiirifirirf nr" M □ □ Q 729 SCCONO AVCNUC SOUTH MINNEAPOUS. MINNESOTA 99402 2493 TELEPHONE I6I2I 332 2292 FAX (612)332 4309 7^— TI oZ aj?\ cOO IoglcM^<L ( \ Ouocl A. LLMCCLAKE MIWWETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE • PO. BOX 385 . SPRING B4IK, MN 55364 0385.453 47I-7I25 • MX 452 471.415, 'WCOvEo bCEPHAVCN EXCELSIOfr MOCFiNOCNCE LONG LAKE LOKETTO MEDINA MmNETONKA BBACH MINNETRISTA ORONO S7. BONffACIUS SHOREWOOO SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND November 6,2003 Mayor and City Council Qty of Orono POBox66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 GRCCNWOOO Dear Mayor and City Council: The Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission would like to thank you for your approval of the LMCC 2004 Operating Budget We apprwiate the opportunity to serve your city in the administration of the franchiw agreement and to help resolve your residents' complaints with the cable provider. If you have not already done so please send a copy of your minutes or resolution that states your approval for the LMCC records. We would als» like to thank you for your recent assistance in providing the number of households in your community to substantiate the mfoiTOtion needed for the Opposition to the Effective Competition Pehfaon the LMCC counsel is preparing. The Opposition to PetiHon wUl “J" * provider's assertion that there is effective competition LMCC aties and therefore they should no longer be subject to basic rate relation. Your appointed commissioner wUl be receiving a copy of LMrc meetog^ "lonth's meeting packet distribute prior to each Imow^^^^ ^*” ** °^ further assistance in cable matters please let us Sincerely, Sally Koenecke Administrator ^niiMrii fc^PFTING m Minnesota Department of Transportation NOV Z 5 2003 Transportation Building 395 John Ireland Boulevard Saint Paul. Minnesota 55155-1899 01 ry uFOflONOr RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2003 CITYOFORONO November 12,2003 Mayor Janet Schaefer City of Long Lake PO Box 606 Long Lake. MN 55356-0606 Mayor Barbara Peterson City of Orono PO Box 66 Ciystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 Dear Mayor Schaefer and Mayor Peterson: I am writing in response to your letter of October 1 concerning management of the Highway 12 project in your cities. 1 understand your frustration with the delays and changes in the schedule of this project. Please accept that we too are frustrated with the delays and changes in schedule. As a part of addressing the concerns raised in your letter two meetings have been held. The first held October 22"**. scheduled by State Senator Dean Johnson was attended by two members of my staff; Bob McFarlin. Assistant to the Commissioner and Bob Winter, Disrict Operations Division Director. The second was scheduled and held October 24 by Tom O’Keefe. West Metro Area Manager. As a result of these meetings we understand your principal interests as; 1. A construction plan and schedule the Cities can count on. 2. Significant City input into hauling times and routes. 3. An on-site project manager with the responsibility and the ability to make decisions. 4. A return to the spirit of partnership that has marked this project during its development. The responses and next steps developed in our meeiings are as follows; 1 . it IS understood that the late contract award and approval leading to a late construction start made the schedule included in the contract essentially unworkable. Certain elements of the contract, most of them vital to the cities, arc being advanced for completion this year. Once the construction is wrapped up for the 2003 season. MnDOT will meet with the Cities and the contractor to develop a schedule for the remainder of the project. Mn/DOT Construction staff w ill review the now unworkable schedule included in the contract with the Cities at the November 21 meeting as a first step in this process. 2. At the October 24 meeting Mn/DOT reviewed the haul routes identified in the plan and review ed the procedures for changes in those routes. It was agreed that Mn/EXDT would ensure the cities heard and responded to the contractor's requested changes before taking a position on those proposed changes. 3. Lucas Smith is the on-site project engineer. Dan Penn is the resident engineer. The two fill this role. 4. We appreciate and fully share this interest. I believe the steps taken above plus the cities commitment to attend the weekly construction meetings will lead to this end. Please continue to work with Dan Penn and Lucas Smith in the delivery of this construction project. Tom O’Keefe remains available as a point of contact though his role has changed to one of a reference or perhaps a facilitator. I understand that the cities agree that Orono Councilmember Jim Murphy will ser\ e as a first point of contact for our staff when significant issues arise. I am confident that w ith your help we will develop a schedule that balances and meets the needs of all to the greatest extent possible. I am also confident that the work will progress more smoothly and more predictably when that schedule is in place. On behalf of my staff, we look forward to continuing to work w ith you towards the delivery of a project judged successful by all. Sincerely. t i •? 1 ni I. s!.