The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-21-2003 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday April 21,2003 6:00PM 2750 Kellry Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Rcpresenlative: Jim White AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record al the front podium if you w ish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled fur the May 12,2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #03-2882 . i»s Palmquist for OBA. 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road, CUP Renevv al (StalT: Mike GaiTroi., 2. #03-2888 Jim Cusack. 4140 llighwood Road, N'ariancc Renewal (SiafT: Wendy Boltcnbcrg) OLD BUSINESS 3. #03-2876 Scvic L Unning. 3329 Crystal Bay Rd., Variances (Staff: Jennifer Chapul) NEW BUSINESS 4. #03-2880 Fred Johnson. 1926 Eagerness Point Rd., Afler-Tlie-Facl Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 5. #03-2881 Curtis and Kathleen Midthun. 2941 Casco Point Road, X’ariances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 6. #03-2884 John L. and Cheryl A. Ficbclkom, 2730 Shady wood Road, X’ariances (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) 7. #03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth. 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, X'ariances (StalT: Jennifer Chapul) 8. #03-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place, X’ariances (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) 9. #03-2887 Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc., 4753 North Shore Drive, X^ariances (Staff; Jennifer Chaput) r PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 PM 10. 003-2003 Dennis Meyer, 46S5 ud 4605 Tonkaviesi Lue, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 0:00 PM 11 .003-2009 Ra\ia Real Estate, LLC 2060 Wayzala Bhd. West, PUD Concept Plan (Staff: Wendy Boltenberg) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings March 24, 2003 and April 14.2003. 13. Other issues for discussion. 14. Planning Commission approval of minutes for March 17,2003. 15. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on April 28,2003 and May 12,2003. ADJOURNMENT liatM } Public A ttendance MrtTIM:D ati U I j x, < □ C ouncil B^lanning Commission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please mllolt the imorsiation REgiESTEO BELOW POR Ol'R CITY RECORDS. NAME (pleuc prial)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from ascnda) NAME OR NLMBER I. k' L 2. in^ Owa ^ ^Trvnt P 'S /ficAr-Z/f Lh^ .-iL ..fi I I i(. fr'y-, t . ■ ili / i , . r, ^ ^ ; j\ !X^ ^//*/(C‘ 6 Wt.'.i' iT j\ Ci\,C'i^L t j ' ^>') — / - % / “* i i "> C'': ^S. I A y >■*. J 7. ^ 5___________________'o V a. L €S- . 9. T6W\ P oIL^jua A 10. ^iVl V A ^t-v 11. y .■■li... OiST^S-Iwk* CA'-M-^yCi R<a 4.vx n X.1 i c,l (_ -• *^U, C «A>r 1^***'“ . '^‘-' ^>f.A <r ■!> i is.'^r^y, /Wr.^tL._________i'iir 0: ' (13/(1 u,.) L '> 2 1 •••••***Kc,nenbcr that Monday*s Meeting Begins at 6:00 p.m., aoi 6:30******^** To: Chair Smilh & Planning Commissioners From: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director Dale: April 16,2003 SabJccI: Various Topics of Current Importance Here's an update on various things that arc happening... 1) Dave Rahn has been reappointed to an additional 3-year tenn as Planning Commissioner. Stephanie Zugschweit hu been appointed to a 3-year term as Plauming Contmissioner. Jan Berg has been appointed as an Ahemate Planning Commissioner. We likely will advertise this summer for additional Alternate candidates. 2) Next Scheduled Work Session is Wednesday, May 7,5:30 p.io. in the Council Chambers. Topics for diKUSsion will include the following: ✓ Review draA language for Nonconforming Structures amendment to Nonconforming Uses section (10.03 Subd. S); establishes threshold standards/limits for how far removals can proceed before full conformity is required... ✓ Building height and massing amendment - review your discussion of April 3: • No strong support for aggregate side setbacks... - OK with idea of greater setback for greater height; reduced floor area ratio (FAR) for buildings that have more than 1-1/2 stories... • OK with idea of establish a maximum peak height in addition to meeting height definition... - OK to consider changing height measurement definitions... - Need to add something relating house height to lot width... - Tools need to apply only to small lots, may be too restrictive for 3-acrc or larger lots... ✓ Council has directed that staff do a study of existing lakeshore lot widths in 2-acro zone; the issue is whether there w ill be a significant impact if code is changed to allow lesser setbacks for existing narrower lots in the 2-acre zone... ✓ Do you really want to proceed with changes to fence ordinance??????????? ✓ Other topics of interest 3) Please return your Planning & Zoning Workshop registrations to me ASAP if >x>u wish to attend one or more sessions. 2003 Meetiag Schedule The following meetings are scheduled for the remainder of2003. PC and staff should discuss on an ongoing basis whether the work sessions w ill be held and what topics will be considered. pc (6:00 />. Ilf. I Monday, Apnl 21 Monday, May 19 Monday. June 16 Monday. July 21 Monday, August 18 Monday, September 15 Monday, October 20 Monday, November 17 SekeAdtd » SttUmtu 15:30 m.m.i Wednesday. May 7 Wednesday, June 4 Wednesday. July 9 Wednesday. August 6 Wednesday, September 3 Wednesday. October 1 Wednesday. November 5 Wednesday. December 3 J 800 K 400 Lh 0 I ^ I ORONO rLANMNG COMMISSION MM4«r Afril 21.200J ArMFM 2750 KcO«r Pwiiw»ir - CwcU CSawOrw AGENDA CMacHRrprmaUlhr: lim While AUDIENCE MEMBERS: fteate i(ta la for Ibe |MbUc neorO al lb< freal podiaai If yoit with toaddmt the rtaaali Coaniiitloa. AppUraaH wU be aibed to note to Ibe froal ubie to aMwcr qunlkioi «b< the Cbilr aaaoaam Ibe appikalloa. Tbc Plaaalai Commluloa b at adtitocy body to ll Cliy Couarll. If aciloa b lakes oa aay Heim oa Ibb asrada, Ibey will be icbedaled for ll May 12,200J City CouacU nccUag aaleu otbenibe soled by Uc Cbab. CONSENT 1. MD-2U2 T1wniaiPalmqttistibrOBA.IOMOIdCrytUlllayRsad.CUPRctK«a (Staff Mike Caffes) 2. MD-20U Jim Cstack. 4140 HiclmaodRaad.VMiMccRcBcwal (SufT Wendy Boncbbcei) OLOBLSIM^ 3 a03-2074 Se«ie L Laanisg. 3329 CrytUl Bay Rd^ Vanancet (Staff. JeiKifa Cbjpal) NEW BISLNESS 4. 003-2110 Fred Johiuon, 1926 Fageraeti Polol Rd^ Aner-Tfie-Facl Variance (Suff Wendy Oonenbcig) 5. 003-3III Curtii and Kathleen Midthun. 2941 Catto Polal Road, Varimcct (Sufi. Wendy Bouenbetg) 6 a03-2ll4 JohnUandChcryl A. Fiebelkoen. 2730 Shady^ood Road, Variances (Suff. Jennifer Chaput) 7 a0J-2ttS Cerda and Ed Toth. 1200 aad 1290 Sproee Place, Variances (Suff Jennifer Chaput) I a03-2t04 Dcnnit and Diane Killian. 1300 Sprace Place, Vanances (Staff. Jemufer Chapyi) 9 a03-2tt7 MianctookaCiiitacn Homes Inc. 4753 North SboecDrbc.VariarKes (Staff Jennifer Chaput) PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00 P.M 10 MD-Jn) Demis Meyer. 4655 aad 4609 Toskaelewf Lase.Lol Line Reanangcmcnl and VariarKes (Staff Mike Gafbon) 1:00 P.%1 11 a03-2009 Ratia Real Estate. LLC 2060 Waytala Bhd. Wesl, PUD Concept Plan (Surf. Wendy Doitenbcrg) PIJkNNINC COMMISSION CO.\|.%IENT5 12 Report of Planning CommitsKMi tcpmeniatiircs attending Council meciinp March 24. 2003 and Apnl 14.2003. 13 Other isnies be discMsaioiL 14 Planrung Comnission approval of rainules for March 17, 2003 15 SeIcctMnoficpreaenuutrts far City Council mcctinp on Apnl 29.2003 and May I2J003 ADJOUR.NMF.NT Applic»lt»a Date: M Day DcadUac: 3/24/03 5/23/03 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Svbjcct: Mike Caffron, Planning Director April 15,2003 tl03*28S2 Orono Baseball Association/Orono School District 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road North Conditional Use Permit - New Baseball Field Construction Renewal - Public Hearing Zoning DIsfriel RR-1B, Rural Residential List of EKhibili A • Survey / Site Plan / Construction Plans B • Resolution No. 4689 C - Covenants and Declarations D - Application & Cover Letter E • Plat Map F - Property Owners List Application Summar>- Orono Baseball Association (OBA) has submitted an application for renewal of their 2001 conditional use permit w hich granted approval for construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields complex. The prior approval expired in September 2002 w ithout commencement of construction; how ever, funding is now in place so construction can commence in May. The property is located south of County Road 6. cast of Old Crystal Bay Road. The property is owned by the Orono School District and leased to the Baseball Association. WTicn not being used for baseball the outfield areas w ill be used for youth soccer fields. The two existing baseball fields arc designed for play for up to about 12 years of age. The new field w ill be somewhat larger and w ill be made available for high school use. The new field w ill not include lights. Games will only be played during daylight hours. To accommodate the new field a new drive entrance will WTap around the north side of the existing baseball fields to a parking area west of the new field. iO}-2n2 Oreoo Bateball AsMciatfon/Oroao School District 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road North Pafc2of3 HackgroBBd • Lee Cartfoa Fields aad School Property In 1994 Ihc Orono Baseball Association (OBA) constructed the two existing baseball Helds on the property. No Conditional Use Permit was required for the west */i of the property. The City of Orono leased the west '/i of the property from the Orono School District, and then leased the property to OBA. It was the opinion of the City Anomey that as long as the City w as leasing the property from the School for a period greater than ten y-cars that the baseball fields would be considered a permitted City park use. T^c lease between the School District and City of Orono was entered into on April 15,1994 for a period of 1 9 years and 11 months, terminating on March 1 5,20 1 4. The Code permits any municipal use in the zoning district. The east '/i of the property is the proposed location of the new bascbalL'socccr field. Since the City does not have a lease for this portion of Ihc property and it is owned entirely by the School District a Conditional Use Permit is required for the construction. Schools and their associated facilities require a CUP or CUP Amendment when such facilities arc proposed. OBA is in the process of amending their ground lease directly with the school district for this half of the site. As a condition of approval of the new Orono Middle School all the properties located cast of Old Ci^tal Bay Road have been combined into one parcel. The parcel includes the baseball fields and Middle School. In 1999 the CUP for Middle School construction was approved and the school opened in the fall of2000. SJlrFlan Review I. Site Layout The access road will be an extension of the existing access from Old Crystal Bay Road The road will lead to a 48 stall parking aica west of the ball field. In addition, the parking area will include a turnaround with a 65 radius. The 65* radius is 15 ’ narrower than a t\pical cul-de-sac width, but has been approved by the City Engineer and Fire Marshal. The tumaroGnd area is necessary for IrafTic flow, safety and to provide a suitable drop offsite for the fields. Pedntrian access will include a sidewalk that w ould be located adjacent to the new parking area and provide acc^ to a future trail extension along County Road 6. OBA has committed to working jointly on this trail connection with the City. Orono Schools and Hennepin County. shown on the plans are baiting cages, a 24* X 36* storage building, play lot and announeer ’s booth. \N cst of the existing fields the OBA will replace an exisung storage shed with a larger shed and expand the parking area along the entrance drive. M3-2W2 OroBO Baiebill Atsoclatlon/Orono School Diitricl 1930 Old Coiul Bay Road North Bate 3 of3 Parking/Scating The plans do not indicate the total seating capacity for the bleachers. Code would allow scaling up to 288 based on the 48 spaces showTi for parking. The Code determines parking for athletic fields as 1 parking space for each six scats of capacity. Each 22 inches of bleacher space devoted to seating is counted as one scat when determining design capacity for the bleachers. Any bleacher space devoted to aisle or any other purposed is not considered scat space. OBA has indicated the seating capacity will be kept within the 288-seat limit. Lighting There are no lights proposed for the field. Any lighting used within concession stand areas shall be installed and shielded to not expose the light source, per code •■cquiremcnls. Trail Connection The fiiturc trail along C.R. 6 would provide a needed link to the cast. A trail is located cast of the properly to Willow Drive and continues south to the southern end of the Willow View Development. Final trail construction design and engineering would be completed at some point in the future. A condition of the approval is that the School District grant an casement for the trail connection. V. Stormwater Management OBA’s Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit is complete pending School District execution of a Declaration and Agreement regarding wetland buffers, street sweeping, stormwater facility maintenance and use of non-phosphorus fertilizer. Drafts of those documents arc attached. Issues for Consideration Staff believes all issues were resolved with the original approval. Planning Commission should address any issues of which staff is unaware or which may result from public comment. Staff Recommendation Applicants are requesting renewal of their previous approval with no changes. Staff recommends approval per the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 4689. t • BALL FIELD CONSTRUCTION ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION ORONO COMMUNITY SOCCER ASSOCIATION ON ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS’ PROPERTY vO'-- VICINITY MAP •\ C> A i; ^ ■ A srj GENERAL NOTES (. m TO M1MM uiwr MS Mmi or fMnmoM. t fIMM M MCSMMr 10 MUV orvw m «• l« 1 ruMAcriMHHra IMCTMS eewTwcRMAia ■dMBMMM* 4.cMtoi«ai IMC VtIWV NMII KAMA mSmS^mSmh * oiounruoMmimiruKrowMaw^_________________ wcawiuiiowoucK or M OMfln* » kOCA1WIH«WCt. T. rMn:TiaoTMrukMrMtrMtina«»cs4«temMi B BUMM roa aomt OB Twr MOM C3HH VMM fB«W«W»r»OTaroOB.BiM*fBWAWBWIBOWCVMV1 Ml M MfOfB. «IMI ATD) tro MB. *.***>•• Mr TO WIfIXI — rACBJfMBIM ■tm^tnOUiTMa lIBIBBOCBMBMWB.I’WMUriirWmVM—-----------------n mnrnini iunnM w.mwt»o3CTtc0M0i ob omocbmtmc -icoomiibiwbb . II un ACTMmt to TMB coHfTMieroB m. u. iiuiirAo BBiBCtor cirr btobui cot>r»MC«UTaxMi t bom cc<mmi:iio« c*wua mt «m stwis bmttj «u in ortMnooaMIOIICT OUMBU BTBTdM MIOil •nwlilTBr.M <t« UtUlT V contmueTiCM Bcung OMT mo cum II AU.COMr«i:TBOM*UCOIiri.TrRIIAmK«tKMCOeUMB easauBCfo drawing index trvim >JCtmoi IM—WMJMJW * nOMlC«IIM.«UM * r««MMrMa<a*Mt * Wiotmi t •fTIMTBM im it ,v.*v r I •< OWADWIO. DRAINAQE AND EWOtlQW COWTROL MffTES: V eaianM t«* M > ? ■»» «*ucjM »im M* uMiL ■J M Mr f«a Mi.f <■ B»tcTmr«M' II Miwitittaer-cMMnwi C MtaauHWaMHTAM ft ftWftMrMaMMraftftVMt^ftXdftM Wil»« wnwtn—Milftiiiipftjtiifttn L4M*M<ftC11SI• rucMBMftimraa •datftMdi MOT* ftuPUfM OTMOT MMOT Mmat r<u«M« ftMM awiM*rar iw tOTMkMOTOT. *»M»ftOT\dOT«OTIfc*MaKft.M*tlMOTM**lOTlOTMm CttOTftft «ft MOTjaiOTAMOTioOTMrrAMCTTrOTirtCLMarwiiev^nwciOTvcjMi •«ftCMOTiOi*»*ii*ftUft Matter••*■*«(•rtrta*rmo«HMCin*na(***i ft* OeOTIftOTtM ftMftS out *M MtM Mftft**MftN«»nCiOT in MU. CftOTi* am «|*C* M lObM. ftiftMtiOM J^J»JftJJMJ*J|»*M •MTfcr f»a rot ftir* C*ttOTt*»»«OTftft>l ■OTM — OT—rOt—«M»ft» ■1 ftOMU M COOTOTT eteutCM *0 *1 MI M OTr*MCfftOTiCkMr«MftMiavtOT«XMI____ •atOTft or OTMCOT • (M« «a MM tM MftM UT? OT ruTMa MiMM Oa>MM MW** Mau MOM ■ rue* wart ••»<•«*>**• *tMH«*OT (ft<*ftOTftOT**IIOTrttt«MftMOTt«i*MM««*rirwa*»tAa. »»CMtWTta •mu ft«at*a %•*• M MI* laoMftaCct r<« a rtOTCuat i*t Mt uac It Mkfa •ftMIMTUlTlklOTftftftM. »» IOT**MCPlMOT«a*OTlOT»«»l*HftfttOTftOTt»<Mil»*>*__________ **“**_’*»«>«■ «UftOTOTftHOTiiattOT>OT*lft»B«»ftU««aft—fta*>ftftft--------- ftft»a^M—illlftOT»e»*aWOT** MftftfOTM* HilftWI l»OT»mOTOT »******«—UftMOTOi **■««—MOTH «»«»«>tOT Mill MIOTiMftiftft* tMiUM ftft OTJ *OT H •••«• *tft *CM ftj* tjftji U* ft* **|ftnOTemtl*. «OT«M —ft»ft—M*i*OTWft»iOTi*fta<ft«*fta*ftaft«M--------------- ■Swm aMMSSUaSwft£|^^ MMOTCEMOTMail • M*Ulft»ft(t««OTI ihotmT LIQWiD • »ea n****r MI M <1 ft* MOT • I* <»ft eeMMCTtaMl*M*MM»«UMMa>I»OTMn ■»■■■« I* ftri a *1'^ Oalftru to n rOTftftft MS *OT OT«WOT ft* a«*MM fft ft* ftCaft *• < ttOT^UtrftMOOT*.OT)M«aC*;aOTI»«l** Mftft COTtaaOTOTM *■* ftOft Ctft *»« itl* OTOTMiseMteui MOfCftiaaaeTaftw tp, OTOTeMaft-TOT^^ ••■••ft *OTa««i3mt>t>ci ■ ■■ OT •ftO*CaUft*«*«LMrt' C S u -^miehMkr•' J /*K- ' ■- V, N / <■ N VI / % •. SU.*1 ; \ j VI ll i // ■>s / ‘SVV-, .t \ “/■A L ii I / llrtjl / il'l/ >•■ i' Hi iU ill -.-‘y *' :. •’ is3 fl V F / i ! ‘/r; »s*u r.«*■•., •> /I- .•‘l. W ----IBwgjiag |gS9r n&i-i otcijSM! •i*««'»v>nae«MTi /T\ tEDIMENTFILTlRAT W STORM SEWER INLETS »|CM«SS7S(TMMrW PtPEBEDIMNQ.WCP •MT<«KWVMk.-«- 1/ SECTION AQUMlATTUWrmQg ^ 0-CQMCRgTg MAtMTPMjluyp ROCK CONgTItUCTlOW ENTRANCE RCP FLARgn CND SECTION KIT (FES) ■ STRIP ^ H’ ■ * •-«••»«J*5SSi I.^gsa-aa* a>s Sfp CONCRETE WAUaSlAM rsTnsTKUT © -•. . I . ' .'-....4 i_';-; u I trOKT DUTY PAVgitgfiT •r«MNlM ^tAC«a * / -M-S ars^ia.t>£vCHf^.5iss« m-MEDlUfJl DUTY PAVEMENT i •ijT r7ij/ U k f-r — T ^7j‘ ROLLAWO -1 rmiMi r « • i ir~ ‘ -t.t' wiSSU* mtmrniSSSSiim n ,i/i/(i i/» ACCESaiRLE PA KU AND POST gis !!! WPr lii I- I V if -------------------r----- B412 CURB AND QtITTO i .•1.- 0 unnii •VSKSZXZ-IBMIMtMWMHr , RI^KAP.PUUtlDKIiD SECnOM , NMi IT M vwaMBi irnaa ■'MiMMMn «••!«• «B mS mmrnmrni 0_AOUIWATTWIl)ai ©HI ti*« t. (\r met aut MSMM ruu OIMENT FILTER AT ORM SEWER INLETS irrsi^'SKrr.sssffiSji, 0 riAtmiiwitt.iieA • • iUr-'T Y—-ct ^-.,zzr ROCK CONSTRUCneiL ENTRANCE ©H-612 CURB AND QUTTCT ^ 1^12 CURS TEwiiMKoR ©CONCRETE WAt i_*. -.1 t, | LSI LIGHT DUTY PAVEMENT© / ©MEDIUM DUTY PAVEMENT r- t-.. i^iilLiiUlLIl] i ai t S2J SO«M ««•«•■• Ml wAmm /V\ acc essible parking SIAM W ANDP08T ii llliis nii i;' (■ i • ' yV. ••• . C'. / /'^'^SSsrasrtsans. yii!A4 r—^ I _________ i!i Hh‘ ■ssrasgsa •MMM OUTLET COffTROL 8TWUCTURE (0C81) NO SCALE m ii I .1 its [ii i j i -• 1^ I(9vI9>2002 Q2:I2m Fre»<iTY OF OlONO ♦3»Z«;4SII T>4si fmmi Mfi 7599077 GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 4689 PER SECTfON lOJO, SUBDIVISION 3 FILE NO. mOI-2703 WHEREAS, the Orono Baseball Association in cooperation the Orono Soccer Association (herelnaAer "the applicants") have an option to lease propeny from the Orono School District (hereinafter "the owner") located at 1030 Old Crystal Bay Road North for the purposes of constructing a third baseball field, with a secondary use as a youth soccer field within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the Chy") the property is legally described as follows: See Exhibit A, (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 20. 2001. at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use pennit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 to permit construction of a combined baseball field and youth soccer field on the northeast comer of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, HNDINGS This application was reviewed ^^ning File *J01-2703\ Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. The property is located in the RR-IB rural residential zoning disfricL Schools and associated uses accessory to a school arc a conditional use in the RR'IB zoning district. The baseball field would be constructed on property owned by the Orono School District and leased to the Orono Baseball Association. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 2001 and recommended approval by of vote of 7 to 0 to pennit construction of a Metro Legal Ssp^ces Inc. Box 491 P«,e 1 of 12 M O O O O Ssr'IS'ZOO] C2:02 m FrcB-CITY Of OtCMO T-4II M33/0II f-in GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 8 0 findings; Assocuiiioa (OBA) constnjct.d the tuo existtag toeW fields, knoun as Lee Carlson Fields, on ihe propem- A Condm^ Use Permit v,iu cot required for the west the ^oo School Distnct and further leased the propein- to OBA. It \vts the opiniM of the City Attorney that as long as Ihe City leasing Ae School for a period greater than fen years that the The east of the propert>* Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for ilie construction Schools and their associated facilities require a CUP. In 1999 a CW for Middle School construction was approved and the n ^'^00* individual properties located east of P11 combined into one tax paroel. That parcel includes the baseball fields and Middle School. Access to the new baseball'soccer field would be via an extension to the existing access fiom Old Crystal Day Roai The road will lead to a 48 s.aU parking area west of the ball field In addition, the parking area will include a turnaround with a 65* radius. The 65* ladiw is 15’ narrower than a typical cul-de-sac width. The Citv Fire Marshal has approved the tu^ound width. The xsidth meets the standard for basic emttgency scmce. City C^. requiKj paring fo, .UJeUc fitldj u I poking spice for euh SK SMts of es^ciiy. E«h 22 inches of blescher ,fj de>-oecd to lecung IS counled M one seat when dsieimisiog design capscity for the b.eachcrs. Any bleacber space devoted to aisle or any other picpose U Page 2 of 12 _ ^jj^ ^ ^■eOs Til levlS-2032 02:llpi Fros-CITT OF OKM ♦8!224i4SII T-4SS P 804/013 P-171 GITYof ORONOi Mil W RESOLUTION OF THE CI'gr^UNClL K. L IL NO. not coasidered seat space. Code u*ould allow seating up to 288 based on tte 48 spaces shown for parking. Pedestrian access wnuld include a sidewalk that would be located adjacent to the new parking a.'ca and provide access to a future trail extension along County Road 6. OBA has requested the trail connecuon not be constructed, and only the corridor established at this time. The Park Commission reviewed the request at their meeting on August d, 2001. and commented they a.”e supportive of a set aside of land that could be used for a trail connection in the future. The land would be designated for trail use by granting of an casement along the proposed trail corridor. The trail corridor would be determined following concept approval of the site plan and trail easement would be granted by the School District to the public. The baseball field expansion Includes batting cages, a 24' X 36 ’ storage building, play lot and announcer ’s booth. West of the cxi^lIns fields the OBA is proposing to replace an existing storage shed with a larger shed and expand the paridng area along the entrance drive. A wooded ravine separates the baseball fields from the school property. The ravine is a designated wedand. The proposed improvcmenij do not encroach within the protected area around the ravine. The City of Orono's 1974 wetland inventory did not classify any of the wetlands on the property as protected, however the ravine and w*etlands are protected by WCA regulation and do appear on the National Wetlands Inventory. A wetland basin is located at the northwest comer of the site where County Road 6 and Old Cnstal Bay Road intersect. The new ball field does not impact that wetland basin. Tncre are no lights proposed for the field. Code does not permit any source of light be visible at arty property line. The property is located adjacent to the Willow View development. The most impacted propenies would be those in the northwest comer. At the Page 3 of 12 i 1 V.-. :V l0vlWOO2 12:11m FrwCin OF 0R» ■or%. T-4li PUS/DIJ F-m GITYof ORONO. resolution of the city councilresolution of the city coun NO. 4689 M. N. is coosiste.1t vdih other uses on the School Property- * prop«ny connection to the regional system. A trail is located e^nf “ Vil'Kp”."'’ “““““ •* «'<• of Ae^Sow *• s:r grantmg ihe eondiUonal use ~m,i, «uuW t i^tL" “."I"*>•“' ln.ca.. Of U.C Zoning Code JcTmXliJ: pL^'oTlSf *' *»“ by the applicants and the e-Y*u ***°"’ commentsJL .ZTo7lr^Z:^;: on U.e heslU.. safety CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS grams variances to NMcipTzoaSg^^e'seclion* ^ Council hereby of lot 3. Blocb I ior outside s.,:./e use. 1. Proprny shaU be developed as sbo«n on the eppros.d sit. plan .tta=b«l hereto Pase4of 12 1 J •• •* 3 j j ltovl9>2Q02 62:04 m FrerCIH OF OMM ♦S522434EI8 7-416 PDOf/Dtl F-m m GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 6 8 9 4. 5. 8. stonnwitcr manageraem plans shall be approved by R/' the Ciiy Engineer pnor to final approval. ^ ■^e MCWD shall \x consulted to determine if a new permit or amendme.'it to ^ the existing permit b required. ^ Bleacher design capacity sb:i:i not exceed 288. OBA, School District and City of Orono shall work with Hennepin Coon» to detenmne the ^propriate trail connection. A trail easement shaU be .granted by the School District to tl.e tti. ’?** for a LN'o P«rl^^ sigJshril he pl«ced along the new road and in the drop off zone to not block veificles from entering or exiting the new parkingarea. Auihontics granted by this conditional use perniil run with the property not \vith the applicM^bui are permissive only and must be exercised by completion of . pavmg Kid striping of all parking areas wthln one year of •PPwvaJ. or *W$ conditional use permit will expire onyear onbo-daijr^Huncn^ an^hafwte (September 10, N a/ Violation of or non-compliance \vith any of the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code shall rSemcMor^™^^^' ^ ^ punishilble as The undersigned owner a.nd applicants have read, understand and hereby aarcc to me terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, iheur h^lr$ successors and lusigns. hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of Title of the property'. Page 5 of 12 fj. r") o ) 77' fe \ rrw-' I^IK»2 62:M m ftm<ITY OF ORMO ♦1S22II4III T-4II PN7/III H2I W' L#GITYof ORONOr RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 4 6 8 9 Proptfny ' (RepresonuUve of Orono School District) Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor (Reprcseniarive of Orono Baseball Association) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ts- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) rf (^»o. . municw «»po»U«« M «id «« .x^lu Jo* iLf «£ —J:£±±d±^=D^^ Notary Public *— P*Se6of 12 Jioo QO # c ■;) v. .> 'W 1 •• RffrlMBOl M:Mn ProrCin OF QMIO «I9?Z4S4II|T-4II F.OOI/Qli Hfl STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ts. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this .^f£5ay of 4 6 b V r • 2Qjil before me a Notary Pi*Uc wSthin and for »«»« wuwj, Iiwwowy wareo f 6/Kwa/Aa*-.. KACHB.D00QC wnavFUuo Hr oSTi 5S®»I STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of ^C'l^he/' Notary Publie iPasiti Notary Public P4e7of 12 #S€^SS2 iitiipi rr»<iTT V ems huhmiii b^ibic A T-4II P.NI/BII Mri 4688 r • pfioposo New LCAse oescfUPnoN of th« west 140 feet beorln, ef MV.gr;.;T9".;i;:;.rc^i ^ 2; thenciV^^, <20 feel; I We North ^5 degrcMl^st o dfjtm 2l W»« tooth 293 feet C«fl Ine af aofd Lot 2» ond scid 0ne there eaefing. • ^ thence North 60 degreee tn cn cseumed o distonce o Cost to the Pt|o 8 of 12#28 eS I c» JOI m 9 fs« 5 BALL FIELD CONSTRUCTION ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION ORONO COMMUNITY SOCCER ASSOCIATION ON ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS' PROPERTY U 5 S 3 a ! CPOM.WOIE*CwuwnwolwpBt s HHI C?5, {'C cc fS «c 5 9t:Nn FroB<ITY Of OKOIO ♦aszimEii Exhibit B T-4K P.%umt Mfl 4689 IIlllvM' .. - , ..... • .............................. V.?' " 1 - ■■ "■« • t . > Nov-IMOOI 02:DIm FroKITT OF OKStO ♦iS22<94S1i T-455 Exhibit B P 012/0!] F-in 4689 - -1 “^*: •' f - *T;« - *r.-* - J - *- jj( 11 1 •. *L >, •'.r' • ” fiya? n I . ■ “^m - '4- >;•■ V\' lfr‘ — \ II Mf '.-/rrc-'«........N.u.i. .•AU*fiM UMnuerci 3 • « “Tsr -Ai3A^ aB»—BY—agjsj 111 Klf|Ut>Cr»LM f.r Xr-ii-Tr: 0'> nnQNOMnniPMtNnni • V i* .**. DECLARATION day of,..2003,THIS DECLARATION ("DecIantionT is made this by Independent School distria No. 278 ("Declar^"). REQTALS >XTIER£AS, DecUnnt b the owner of real property within the City of Orono, hfcnnepin County, Minnesota, platted and legally described as: Hiat part of Lot 2, Block 1, ORONO SCHOOL EXPANSION, which lies east of the west 140 feet thereof and north of the following described line: Beginning at the iruersecilon of the east line of said west 140 feet with the north line of the south 233 feet of said Lot 2; thetKe on an assumed bearing of south 89 degrees 39 minutes east along said north line of the south 253 feet a dbtance of 170 feet; ^nce north 33 degrees east a dbtance of 106 feet; thence north 60 degrees east to the east line of said Lot 2, and said line there ending; (the "Property^ and no one other than Declarant, the Gty of Orono (“Lessee") and ORONO BASEBALL ASSCX3ATION ("Sub-Lessee") has any right, title or interest m the Property, and Vi'HEREAS, the Property constitutes the entirety of the land to which Minnehaha Greek Watershed Dbtria Permit Application 0 02-C38 applies; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the Property to certain conditions and restrictions imposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dbtrict as a condition to bsuance of their Permit 0 02- 038 for the mutual benefit of the owners of the Property. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant makes thb Declaration and hereby declares that thb Declaration shall constitute covenants to run with the Property, and further declares that the Property shall be owned, used, occupied, and convened subject to the covenants, resmetions, easements, charges and liem set forth Ln thb Declaration, all of which shall be binding on all persons owning or acquiring any right, title or interest in the Property, and iheb heirs, successors, personal representatives, and assigns. 1. Wetland Buffer. The weilarui buffer, measuring s'arying widths surroimding the wetlands as delineated and shown on the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan for the Property dated 10/23/02, and anached hereto and incorporated herein .• A> 'chment A, shall be maintained by Declaraiu in perpetuity free from mowing or other vegrtatn t .Laturbance, fertilizer applicauon, yard or other waste dbposal, the placement of structures • . •<. other alteration that impedes the function of the buffer in protecting the quality' of water mi- wetland or buffeting flows into the wetland. 2. Street Sweeping. All streets and public ways within the Property shall be swept at least twice each year, in the spring following snowmek and in the fall after leaf fall. JJ. ir OQ.. O; O ^ ■pp^tothe Lf J*»-pl»o»pIioiu$ FeniCzer. The use of fenilizen conuiain* phosphoms b ^^^rr^4^hni ^ ^ P«p^-. Oily femUzen chat do not comaia phosphoms 5. The redub sec forth above are eiqriessfyiiicoipofated hgwMfi- fint set ^ ^WHEREOF, the unden jgaed has exeemed thb iiutrunxm the day and >ear DEO-ARANT: Independent School Dbtikt No. 278 Bf. Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrunent was acknowledged before itk thb ____________. 2003, by________day of Notary Public •v ' r- - / . - . / tj Attachaent A iff > liji-.*, ! [il <1 . > V•. ■■ ■: im «.V ••' • •: .- V ■ ■• li'i . , ■ V- •;, :OiC-'r • -;;■■ , . • A'^'y ■ -i-V' T , I 1 • \ ^ .■-7M'., / A-. -.\V. \\ if- 'Vv ^‘^•••r- .-W'V, ; :c • • ;T I i -•AU rcLCi eo%$r«gcr^ »«eO »UMU AMdTAfKs iratnni oruni ^ ^_. 4 • t “K* «u4J64^ siS» tROMS CdfTIICt. CRA3K3AS0 eiuiHASC rjki r AnachmrmB STORMWATER FAdUnr MAINTENANCE Th«e tenra apply to the stormvuter facilities constmaed punuant to Minnehaha Geek Watenhed Disukt pennit application number 02*058. ____ Applicant has applied for a perarit fromthe MCWD punuant to MCWD Rule N, Stormwater Manag ement; and WHEREAS, the property that is the $ub>ea of this agrecn*nt is legally described in ^ Declaration into uliich this Attachment is incorporated and the wri retention pond and infiltration basin on the property to which these mai ntena nce requirements apply are described in Attachment A - Erosion Control, Grading and Drainage Plan dated 10/23/02; WHEREAS, MCWD Rule N provides that a maintenance agreement shall be subnmed for stormwater treatment poi^, outlet structures for such ponds, cul\*erts, outfall structures and all other stormwater facilities, tod that the maintenance agreement shaD specify methods, schedule and responsible patties for maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the E^trkt’s Maintenance Agreement Form. NOW, THEREFORE: Applicant shall iiupert the stormwater retention and treatment basin(s) at a minimum of once a )ear to determine if the basin's retention and treatment characteristics are adequate. A storage treatment basin will be considered inadequate if sediment has decreased the wet storage volume by Vi of hs original design s-ohime. Bas J on this inspection, if the stormwater b.uin(s) is idenufied for sediment cleanout. Applicant shall restore the basic($) to iu original design contours within one >ear of the inspection date. 2. Applicant shall iiupea the grit chambers, sump catch basins, smnp manholes, outlet structures, culverts, outfall structures or other stormwater facilities for the project in the spring and fall of each >ear. Applicant shall remove all sediment and debris during the inspeoiom such that the stormwater facifities operate as designed and permitted. 3. ^olation of the inspection and/or maintenance provisions of this Ag^ment is a viobtion of the MCWD permit for the project for wiuch the MCWD may take action agaimi the Applicant. dl^ir PROPOSED LEASE DESCRIPTION FOR ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATION IN LOT 2. BLOCK 1. ORONO SCHOOL EXPANSION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA MOPOSD t€m LCASC 0CSCKPT10N Thel pari of Lot 7. Botk I. ORONO SOOOI. CXPtSSCH. mtich Bat te«l e( Vw *nt 140 (ttt Uwoot and north of Iho feloahtg d*Kr»«d *>• B««>vw>g «t tha Sn1«rMcl!wi of «h* ooit Ina of •eU oMt 140 foal oilh tht north Ino of tha ooulh 2S3 foal of ooSd Lot 7; Ihonca oi oi oaiunad booring of South 89 dogroo* 39 minitoa Ceil dong oad north ina of tho keuth 3S3 foot o diitwa of 170 foot thonco North 35 d*:'aat Coal o tfatonea of 108 foot Ihonco Nwi 60 docroat teat to tho Cost b<o of ooid Lot 2. ond laid Ina thoro ondrig^ O o o o 7T fij ‘. rj o /O pro I «•rtf «»iPT aoi *• Km. wvfuim m i r b- AppOcatioa # Dale Received Amount Paid Jii»5^c'o3 /50. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 1030 old Crystal Bay Road. OronOi Type of Application to be Filed Conditiom.! tu> P^mit Ren>»Ai Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 28~iia-?3-S3 APPLICANT Name Thopas Palmqulst* Address 61SS Scone Court Phone (home ) (7631 ______ Phone (work ) (6121 a6S-4&?& City Maple Plain. MN Zip55359______ *0n behalf of Orono Baseball Association 0>VNER (if different than applicant) phone (home) Name independent School District 278_______ Phonc (work) Address 685 Old Crystal Bay Road _____ City Orono, MN Zip 55356 Date Property Acquired Unknown I (do) (do not) also oum the adjacent parcels of land. (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/Gucst Apartments _____S250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg _____S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____S250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore PRD.TID - see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftcr-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation _____S 100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____SI00.00 Appeals _____ Other - see Fee Schedule •7 r \ !* *.■» required SUBIillTTALS 1 » ___«Completed Application Fonn. Describe request in deUil. musi obUinTTLuS Md P'“ ">*? 5. 6. —“<■ p'" ■"»<*• A-603, Government Center, 348-3271) County Department of Finance, — • «fcr to h»d,u. for survey - W survey, changes in elevation (grades). contours) if land alterations invol.c 8. 9. ■ ctang« in el««ioi (^d^* ‘f I*™' ‘K^Uous involve property. Thif w^TncMl"^LiI^(s™of*ap^cMi^^^ *‘"' *" “ ““ Consrorclton p|„, if (see\L”ff f"S'“™« »-"(«)• persons ^u'uirnoUH^lVSsother FOR or ^5?‘'l7» SUBftUTTED. «t«fp ___.... - DOCUMENTSSUBAUTTED. submitted.)(Slarr ufl. reouire to scale dr^^Til. Turn^^'; Z.TT^ The Applicant and Property OwTier must sion iTi.'e r .• application is no. complete if to. above infomSion has^rSlC" include' S“L?stl?' « complete.'------------------------------------Date_________ Please remember that your APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Admitostrator. a^f t^plj l°ddhtonal'few ("fafTtime" nor""" Z 1'''"“'“’ *’>' *' Zoning and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of ihis"^applica^ton an? supplied IS true and corwt to the best ^his/her knoulAge ’ ^ »hc information Applicant's signature^~-^v^tiA^U/c^t-/^-■H Date V/a/ds 03\'NER ’S SIG.NATURE ,, entry onto the pWcrt>° byc!’v?toin*?oMih^ application and further authoriaed reasonable members for purposes of investigation’and verlficatton oTtois'JeT.lsT'’'' OwnePs signature (SEE ATTACHED letter ) Date Applicant imut ha\e all submittals into the Citv ■»< .1 *'*"^** held on the Monday Planning Commission aMetting fltrming Commission td Co^U ??* »»“» he present at all scheduled TOetuig. ple„c make anangements to have an autbo^^?^' *“ •PPhcwtt is unable to attend a Building A Zoning OfTice of this charje prior to the meeibg ^ ^ 'driie the W" 4-<zJ s' ' ^ Orono Baseball Association P.O. Box 503 Long Lake. MN 55356 Ooug Jerde, President (763) 479-2868 Much 18.2001 Gqt of Orono 2750KeQeyParfc»?y Otooo.MN 55356 Anemioo: Mr. Michael Gaffion RE: Conditional Use Pcimit Renewal - Expansion of Lee Carlson Baseball Fields 1030 Old Cijiul Bay Road, Onmo, MN Please consider this lener (with atiachmems) an application by the Orono Baseball Associaiico for renewal of a Condiuooal the Permit for the construction of a proposed r»ew little league baseball fteld on property os-ncd by the Orono Public Schools. This new field will be used by community based )Outh baseball and >ouih soccer organizations. Assuming the Gt>* of Orono approm this request, the Orono Baseball Association intends to commence coiutruction of this facilit>* late May, 2003. Funding for the improvements contemplated is in place. An Amendment to tiie Ground Lease with School Disuia # 278 b in process and wtD be executed upon Giy approval of ihb request. The field «ould be ready for play during the 2004 season. Enclosed in support of thb application are the foUo«ing items: • Conditional Use Permit application. • Orono Public Schools approval letter, dated July 12,2001 • Orono Qty Council Resolution # 4689 (File No. 01-2703) which appro\*ed the initijl request for Conditional Use Permit through September 10,2002. • Certified Propert)' Owners list of all owtjcrs witnin 350 feet of thb property. • Certificate of Survey/Legal Description. • Conditional Use Permit Renewal Fee of S150.00. • Three copies of large, to scale drawings, and two 11" x 17" reductions of same. Tliese drawings are as foUows: - Sheet I • Tale Sheet dated 5/17/02 - Sheet 2 - Eidsiing Conditions and Removal Plan dated 5/17/02 - Sheet 3 - Larout and Fencing Plan dated 10/23/02 - Sheet 4 • Erosion Control, Grading, and Drainage Plan dated 10/23/02 - Sheet 5 - Pasing, Reference and Landscape Plan dated 5/1 7/02 - Sheet 6 - She Details dated 5/17/02 - Sheet 7 - Site DetaOs dated 5/17/02 Note that 1 has-e had several conversations with Mihe W>ati at the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dbtrict. MCWD Permh # 02-058 b complete pending execution of a Declaration and Stormwater Facilit)- Maintenance Agreement by Independent School Dbtrict No. 278. Thb document will be executed and recorded upon Council approval of the Conditional Lke Permh- A copy of the Declaration and Stormwater Facilit)'Maintenance Agreement b anached hereto. Orgno BMabdi AaMdtOoii P.O.BcxSOS LongUhg.MN S53S6 OougJgrdg.PirMidgn( (7«3) 479-2866 Please ako ooce the foOowiag; • Tliewcoiiiuuctiooplam provide for the future addGtioorf the Oty of Ooiio. and Hennepm Coonty to deteimine the appropriate trail • Ike bkacherdesigncapacitxshall not esxed 288 people PlanniD8GmimissiooineetiiifcaiidtheMayl2,2003CiyCb«iidImeet^ ^ Sincerely, Oooo Baseball Associ Thomas P. Palnajuist 06 A Board Member 0 I Enclosures Cc Doug Jerde.CB A President FIXM t F<W NO. :Jul. 14 2001 12:49P« Pi Mli '• r M July 12.2001 To Wbom II Mqr Coocon: HOS/V-***"**^ Th0 Orano Bo«d of Bduetliaa. at hs May 14. 2001 needag a ppcoved 0»b fturtull mm.xumrn nddMuMuM Dflipi pnMMed ^ fbe Ofeooo BaiMl Assodatkn Ibr the amoidDate 4 I III oiHM ^ 1^ locond diraclly mau of the Lee CiHno linle Learie Fields. The Boaid directed the dlnrict*s edminiitririon to devdop a lease docuroeol Ibf (he use of Oiii lend. Such docoaieDt it cunemfy bdm devdoped ^ ittoniey Tom Qoiby and will be avaU^le •oeo. Sifoed: Nnll.Uw4i/ onoNomiuc SCNOOtS nfmicT omcE oasoLD C ktital B at ROAONOOTM. P.O.DOS46 LoucLmo. MOMUOTA SS3M410M fS244f«300 f92^44»43M M. O O Q Q it r L_. RUNUAU vn>.HFNNEPfN COUNTY MMJPEK NFORMATION SYSTEM PROPEKTY OWNERS LIST FACE:T Jt MIIBJIHaM ^AOOR Jt ADDRESS UNASSmO) >WNaiNAM8 WRJLOWVCWDCVELOrERSLLC avaver muowvcwocvELoraisur ^^ME/ADOR 1S3l«rmLANE imSMN SS449 Jl 1311I2JI 10003 PROfAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSlCKm OWNCRNAMR DANLSTROM DCVQXJTMENT LLC TAXFAVtR DAJItrmOM DCVELOTMEm LLC JiAME/AOOR 774SrOLARBU MAfLEGROVEMN SS3II 31 3311123130007 PROTADOR 3700 KIUIEYPKWV OWNERNAME HRACTTYOPORONO TA3CPAVER IIRACfTVOPOROHO NAME/AOOR l33SMtO«NM)S WAVZATAMN S3JW 3t 3311123310001 NKSP ADOR 743 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N TWNRRNAME SCHOOLDRTNOn IA3CPAVER ORONOSaiOOL DOT 1271 HAIflVADDR Its OID crystal BAY RON LONOLAKhMN S53S4 I CERTtFY THATTIE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND IRUEREFRESOfTAHONOFUrORMATIONAS TT APPEARS TlflS DATE ON THE RECORDS OPTHE HE3MEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMEFTT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEP. ^ DATE<y-iZz? BY Jl o o O 7/' O O ~n RUN OATH, vn/nu 3f niiusiioool f«OfADOR 2M0 SIXTH AVr: N OWNER NAME STONCOATE FARM INC TAXRAVBI nONGGATF. farm INC NAME/AtXM MSI aviNOCLOUD M EOEN PRAmiE MN 5SJ44 31 miUMIOOOS PROF AODR 3« ADDRESS UNASSKJNED OWNHINAME THOMAS P CARROLL taxpayer THOMAS P CARROLL NAMG/ADOR 3M0ATHAVEN LONOLAKEMN SS3S4 31 3«lin)430n2 PROP AODR 3TOO SIXTH AVE N OWNER NAME lOlINLEIN taxpayer JOHN N LEM name /aoor poooxm LONOUKEMN 553SA 3S miUMJOOOS PROP AODR 770 OLOCRYSTAL RAY RON OWNERNAME INDSaK)OLDISTR27t(ORONO) taxpayer ATTN superintendent NAME/ADOR INO SOIOOL DOT »27t (ORONO) 6RS OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD N LX3NGLAKEMN 3S3M 31 3IMI33440006 rROP ADOR ns WILLOW VIEW DR 3WNERNAME L A PETERSON A D PETERSON rAXPAYER LEE A DARLENE PETERSON lAME/ADOR ITM2 CASCADE DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN SS347 PAGE: I 31 3111123340003 PROP ADDR 705 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RO N OWNERNAME SOIOOLOBTNO27» TAXT/'T!R ORON0SCNDBTNO27I NAMIV a UOR ms OLD CRYSTAL lUV RO LONOLAKEMN SS3S« 3t 2111123410006 PROP ADDR lOOS WILLOW VIEW DR OWNERNAME WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS tl€ taxpayer willow view DEVELOPERS LLC NAMG/ADOR 1321 94TH U N E MPLSMN SS449 31 3111133420003 PROP ADDR 2600 SDCTII AVE N OWNERNAME THOMASPCARROLL taxpayer THOMAS P CARROLL NAMFMDDR 3600 SOCTH AVE N LONOLAKEMN SS3S6 3t 3111133430010 PROPAOOR 600 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RON OWNERNAME INOSCHOOLOISTNO27t TAXPAYER INO SCHOOL OBT NO 27f HAMPyADOR AOMWOPPCE-SUPERINTCNOENT 600 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RO N LONOUKEMN 55356 31 2111123440007 PROP ADDR 90S WILLOW VIEW OR OWNERNAME HANSPDERGHBI1ARONPDERGII TAXPAYER IIANSPASIURONPDERGII NAME/ADOR 10609 OIATHAMCTN BURNSVILLE MN 55337 31 2II1123440009 ROPADOR 945 WRXOWVIEWOR IWNERNAME WILLOW VWW DEVELOPERS LLC AXPAYER WRLOWVKW DEVELOPERS lit UUOe/AODR IS3I94THUNE MPLSMN 55449 36 2611623440010 PROPAOOR 965 WRiiOWVIEWDR OWNERNAME WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC TAXPAYER WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC NAME/AOOR 1531 94TM U N E MPLSMN 55449 36 3611623410004 PROP ADOR 2500 SIXTH AVE N OWNERNAME LEW A ERICKSON TAXPAYER LEW A ERICKSON NAMDAOOR 716 I39TII AVENE BLAINE MN 55434 II :4III334I0007 PROPAOOR 1025 WILLOW VIEW OR OWNERNAME PJQUILTYPJQUILTY TAXPAYER PATRICK P JUUE QUILTY NAME/AOOR 1035 WILLOW VIEW DR LONOUKEMN SS356 31 7611633430004 PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME LOU T A iEANNINE J BEASLEY taxpayer a lAO a ANNAIARIE GROaiOWSXI NAMfyAODR 1365 MAPLEWOOD DR MEDP4AMN 55356 36 36III334300II PROPAOOR 3660 KELLEYPKWY OWNERNAME CTTYOFORONO TAXPAYER CITYOfORONO NAME/ADOR OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONOUKEMN SS3S6 31 3611633440006 PROPAOOR 925 WILLOW VIEW OR OWNERNAME WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC TAXPAYER WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC NAME/AOOR IS2I94THUNE MPLSMN 55449 36 3611123440011 PROP AODR 90S WILLOW VEW DR OWNERNAME WILLOW VIEW DEVaOPERS LLC TAXPAYER WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC NAME/AOOR I53I94THUNE MPUMN 55449 M QO ; FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner April 21.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2888 James Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Renewal Variances - Public Hearing Zoniag District: LR-IB One Family Lakesbore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acres) Ltot of Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Plat Map D Property Owner’s List E Stair Report and Resolution of File #02-2760 Application Summaiy: The applicant owns the subject property and Is requesting to renew lot width, lot area and an accessor>’ building without a principal structure variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The proposal is the same as previously approved as File #02-2760 on March 25.2002. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Sec'.ion 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 51 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-lB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 9:(Accessory Buildingf): No accessory ’ buildings or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory ’. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. I6(LK2): Hardcover in 500-1000* setback zone: Within 500-1000’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35"/o hardcover. To permit 295.23 s.f. (94.9%) hardcover where 108.88 s.f. (35%) is allowed. *03-2SS8 Jim Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Renew Variances 4-21/7003 Page I of3 r— Discvssioa: The existing residence that m built in 1920 vvnil be removed A lot u-idth \'ariance is required due to the lot being 51 feel wde where I4(T is required in the LR-IB zoning district. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 1 1,888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR-IB zoning district. An accessory building variance is required because Orono zoning code docs not permit an accessory building on a |m)perty without a principal structure. Currently there is an e.xisting accessor)- building (detached garage - 20* x 22 ) located on the property. A garage is not proposed in the new residence plans, so this building will be the only garage/storage facility on the property. The applicants have submitted building plans for a new residence and the detached accessory building will remain. Hardcover: A hardcover variance in the 500-1000’ setback zone is required because access to the detached garage is in the 500-1000' setback zone. This area is a \-ery small portion of the property. It is also the only access to the garage and is provided via a driveway easement at the rear of the property. There is no feasible way to reduce the area of the driveway >-el have it remain functional. The parking area adjacent to Highwood Road will also be retained. It is necessary given the nanowTiess of that road. Note that the 250-500’ setback zone will be at 29.3% where 30% is allowed. Crediting the 500- 1000* setback zone with the unused 250-500’ hardcover (77 s.f.) reduces the 500-1000* overage to just 109 s.f Stalcmcnt of Hardship: This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. There is no additional land to combine with the property. The detached garage is in good condition and will be used as a garage. luucs for CoBsidcratioB: 1 . The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the properly. 3. The detached accessory building is in good structural condition. 4. The proposed plan for the new residence does not include a garage. *03-2111 Jim Cusack 4140 Hi|h«t>od Road Renew Variances 4/21/2003 Page 2 of 3 5. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 6. The proposed new residence eliminates the side setback encroachment of the existing residence. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff RccommcndatioB: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. »03-288S Jim Cusack 4140 High^ood Road Renew Variaaccs Afixam Paae3of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot RcqaircMtals Slnictural Coverage Hardcover Calculations LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 1 Acre 140* Actual .27 acres 5r Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 11.888.75 s.f.Existing: 1,432.13 s.f. Proposed: 1,769.33 s.f. 12.0 »/o 14.8 % Distance from Shoreline Total area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-500*11.577.8 s.f.3,473.34 s.f. (30%) 3,346.86 s.f. (28.91%) 3,396.17 s.f (29.33%) 500-1000*311.1 s.f.108.88 s.f. (35%) 295.23 s.f. (94.9%) 295.23 s.f. (94.9%) r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Iniiial Application F r ^750.00 (S50.00 per each additional ^ancc) ^^"R^wal Variance Fee SlSOloD^ (no coange trom original ap^cation) Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application » Dale Received ^ - o Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address KOOXL mbei^fP.Property Identification Numbei^.l.D.1 OH-l IH - - 'f^D Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of ^ residential ___^other (specify) _(momh/>ear) Zoning District:, APPL1C.\NT Name >J(\ tCi Ca, cCYTtCK Address: Hi HO (Pci ■ Phone (home) 0 *^3- * V'7J1 - 'I _____Phone (work) (cl^- C( City: A^(Oll rvC Zip: *5_-5 3& *-/ 0%\*NER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S_______________ Describe request in detail: hiill/^ (attach additional sheets if necessary*) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear _Lol Coverage Average Lakeshore \C Other (specify) pn^\cl(Vc ( (diu IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTIO?' OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance ----------------- ' ------- ------------- ----------------^ ------- -----------------^ --------------- ^------1-------- npliance with Zoning Code requirements: I r>-l~ 'piK’Ht’n piHrr 'iV rLvil'gQ-f- r.ALlVA fdtruYViiri^. is r. ly-usp, -iUr ptr.v-rft v • («tach additiofial sheets if necessary) ' if 9.?77 . /0> required submittals M .npjla»i»a.toaii.u^ .rd,. 1. — Completed Application Fonn 5. Z S:^rSElSH^T ^ 6. _ List of the kj.1 „a„„ (j marital sw«?oT.n'/” ‘T property. This would include namefs) of annHc-mr wr^"* "* *" 7. _ A, m, addendum to this ,Tf"' you wish notified of this appUcation.*^ separate list of any other persons * — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ss-assajsss^ .... APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Administrator. ap«s^topandStiontrfw*(L'fn™/^^^^ *’7 consultMt espenses incuned in review of this applicatiM -ndV.^T"’ supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her lmowlcd|cZ ***' information Appiicanfs Sign^ure Date ^X^/V^:? OUTVER’S SIGNATURE .^'ryp'o the'p~JIn “by'a^ sm^^^suUall ’ri perns' 0«mer-s Signature 7)^ A. *l^w.w L*:/ i.'>" 1 ■U.cj>t (i m ^,l^m on-HI- :23-(/j^ WM^ ty, Ceuhty:tindStaA‘H»d MMf tttttt, «• ■Aral SM uiwNit 1‘MM'Kiiif inruwtAUUM ki«IUt raOPCIITT OMNCAS LIST NLPQRT tW. fisSS^IL PASS 7 nOP ABMI own MM TAMAYia Mm/ABM SA •7-117-2S M tllS Mll« NI6NMOOO «■ 0 M I J L APPUiAUH 6fORSC tt/JOANNC L APTLEBAIM AlIT HXOMOOO HO MMND IM UUA M I7>il7-2S M ■•!• M147 NIOWOM U LAIIY W KAMEU LAMY If KAJUELA A1A7 HXOMOOO U HOUND NN S5SM SS •7>117*2S AA Ml* mss HIUMDOO RX» FRANCES M NILSON FRANCES TESAR A154 HIGHWOOD PO HOUND NN 55S4A PROP AMM own NAHE TARPAVU MANI/A0M SA A7'117>2S A4 •■2i AA1A7 NXONMOOe RO NERLIN L NALVERSON ‘ NCRLIN L MLVERSON A17S HIAIMOW RD MMNO HN U344 SA t7-XX7-2S M A021 MX7S NX6NN000 RB MERLIN L HALVERSON HERLXN L HALVERSON A175 lUCHMOOO RD HOUND HN S534A SA 07«1I7*2S AA tnz •A19S MXGIIHOOD RO 0 N SHITli ARC SMITH DOUGLAS N A RUDAN 0 SfUTlI AITS HI6IM000 RO HOUND HN 55SAA SA 07*XX7>23 AA #127 PROf ARDR lAXAA NIONNOOO RD OHNER NAM R 0 A A L RUNSCH TAXPAYER . ROiERT A ANY RUHSCN NMK/ADOR AXA4 NIUMOOD RO HOUND NN SSSAA SA tr-XIY-ES AA gQZA •AXSA HXOMMOOO RO J L RARXE ASH 6LVNN JON L BARRE AXSA NI6NMOOO RO MOUND NN SSSAA SA P7*117-2S AA 0A2T •AlAA HICHMOOO RO JANET L EXDE JANET L EXDE AXAA NXGMWOOO RO HOUND HN SSSAA PROP ABM OMNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SA ■7-117-2S AA ROSA •AlAA HXaRfOOO RD J 0 CUSACX A C H GRACE C GRACE A J CUSACX AlAI HICNMOOO RD HN SSSAA SA IT-lir-ZS AA AOSl •A1S2 HXGIRNMO RO SCOTT C A CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT C A CATHERINE ANDERSON •A1S2 HI6HHOOO ROAD HOUND HN SSSAA SA 07>117>2S AA OASr taaSS ADDRESS UNASSICNEO JANES n CLEARY JAMES CLEARY AlaV NORTH SHORE DR HOUND NN SSSAA PROP ADDR OHNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR SA A7-XX7-2S AA RASA •Aiay NORTN SHORE DR JANES H CUARY JAMS CLEARY Aiav NORTH SHORE DR HOUND IM SSSAA SA aT-XXT'ZS AA oasf ■••SA ADDRESS UNASSICNEO JANES n CUARY JANES CLEARY Al*9 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN SSSAA SA ■7>117-2S AA •■AS aisss NiaMOoo la ERICR 0 I LAURIE S CELHS ERICX 0 ■ LAURIE S CELHS 1S3S HICIWOOO LA HOUND HN SSSAA PROP AOOR OMNER NAM TAXPAYU KSHE/ADOR SA • ar'llY-ZS AA •■AA •AX2S NXCNMDOD RD JOHN If A mOERTA J NENRICN JOHN M A ROKRTA J NEMXOI A12S HX6NMOOO RD OROND NN SSSAA SA •7*1X7-2S AA ARAA ■AUA HXGNHOOD RD PHILUP n OTTO PNXUXP H OTTO AXlA HX6HHOOO RD HN SSSAA TOTAL DATCH SOS ■••X7 •1 1 1 rr. ApplicalioB Dmtc: 2/19/02 CoapktioB Date: 2/19/02 OODayDcadUoc: 4/19/02 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dcpartmest Approval: DATE: 3/22/02 Naaic Wendy ^tlenbcrg ITEM NO.: Thk Zoning Adminstrator/PIanner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #02*2760 James Cusack 4140 Highuxxxl Road Variances Zoning District: LR* 1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acres) Lbt or Exhibits: A Resolution B Siaff Report and Fxhibils of 3/18/2002 Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting lot width, lot area and an accessory building without a principal structure variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1920 will be removed. A lot w idth variance is required due to the lot being 51 feet w ide where 140’ is required in the l.R-1 11 zoning district. A lot orea variance is required due to the lot being 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43.560 s f. is required in the l.R-IB zoning district. An accessory building variances is required because Orono zoning code docs not permit an accessory building on a property without principal structure. Currently there is an existing accessory building (detached garage - 20’ X 22") located on the property. A garage is not proposed in the new residence plans, so this building will be the only garage/storage fa. ility on the property. The applicants have submitted building Ians for a new residence and the detached accessory building will remain A hardcover variance in the 500-1000’ setback zone is required because acccs: to the detached garage is in the 500-1000' setback zone. This area is a very small portion of the property. It is also the only access to the g.u-age and is provided via a driveway casement at the rear of the property There is no feasible way to reduce the area of the driveway yet have it remain functional The parking area adjacent to llighwood Road will also be retained. It is necessary given the narrowness of that road. Note: The 250-500* setback zc.^e will be at 29.3*/i where 30*/o is allowed Crediting the 500-1000' setback zone with the unused 250-500’ hardcover (77s.f) Reduces the 500-1000' overage to just 109 s.f 1. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Width: The lot is 51 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is 1 1,888.*5 s.f. {21 acres) where 43,560 .1 $.f. (I acre) is the minimufn lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 9: (Acce'tory BaBdinfs): No accessory buildings or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the tune of constrtjction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 4. SectiM I0.22, Subd. 2 and Section I0.56, Subd. 16(LK2): Hardcover In SOO-1900' setback zone; Within SOO-IOOO* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. To permit 295.23 s.f (94.9%) hardcover where 108.88 s.f. (35%) U allowed. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission recommended 1^’ a 7 to 0 vole to: Approve the application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION I6<L)(2) FILE NO. 02-2760 WHEREAS, James D. Cusack and Christine M Grace. (hereinaAer "the applicants'*) arc the owners of the property located at 4140 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 36, Highwood, Lake Minnetonka. Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter •the propert)'”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for xariances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit a new single family residence on a lot of .27 acre area and 51' width where I acre area and 140* width are normally required; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 to permit an accessory structure on a lot without a principal structure; and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10 56, Subdivision I6(L)(2) to allow 295.23 s.f.(94.9%)hardcover in the 500-1000' setback area where 108.88 s.f. (35?o) is allowed. WHEREAS, aAer 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 March 18,2002, 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 This application was reviewed as Zoning File #02-2760. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 11.888 s.f. or .27 acres. Page 1 of5 The Orono Planning Commission ic% iewed ihis application on March 18.2002 aaJ recommended ap(m>val of the proposed variances b^d upon the follov^ing findings A. The propert)’ has been developed with a residential use since at least 1950. B. The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks meeting 10* side > ard. 35* from yard and 30* rear yard as required for LR-1B zoning district. C. The detached accessory' building will be the only garage/storage space on the property. D. TTk • at size is consistent with that of other developed properties in the neighborhood. E. The adjacent properties on cither side of applicant’s property are developed with e.xisting single family residences, hence no additional land is available to make the lot larger. F. The residence and garage meet the 15% lot coverage by structures for the property. G. The hardcover variance is necessary ’ because the SOO-IOOO’ zone which contains the driv eway , is a very small part of the rear of the lot. There is no other hardcover that can be removed to compensate. The City Council finds that the conditions e.xisting on this property arc 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 diiTiculty; is necessary ’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning t ode and Comprehensiv e 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 Page 2 of 5 the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safely and ^^rlfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow new single family residence on a lot of .27 acre area and 51' width where 1 acre area and 140' width are normally required; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 to allow an accessory structure on a lot without a principal structure; and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to allow 295.23 s.f. (94.9%) hardcover in the 500-1000' setback arc where 108.88 s.f (35%) is allowed. 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 E.\hibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. Authorities granted by these variances run w ith the property not with the applicants, but arc permissive only and must be e.xercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will e.xpire on that dale (March 25, 2003). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of these variances 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 ard 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 oi Title K,f the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono. Miimesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of March, 2002. ATTEST: Page 3 of 5 Lindas. Vcc.Cily Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instnimenl was acknowledged before me on this 25lh day of March, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vec, Mayor and 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 ) On this.day of., 2002, before me a Notary* Public within and knownfor said County, personally appeared ______ to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of. Notary Public 2002, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared ___________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 ofS 7v o ... /Building Permit Survey tgtL5rr"^0 M « aMM mmmrnt Jim Cusack C av TTO SXtSA •»«* mt0 1 •#» w 1 1 fcrr-:=------------Wl!r 4 rjt y er > FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administralor/Planner March 13.2002 SUIUECT:«02-2760 James Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (i acre) 11.888.75 s.r. (.27 acres) List orrxhibiu: A Anal>*sis Worksheet Application Survey House Elevation/Floor Plans Hardcover Worksheets Plat Map Property Owner's List PcrtiDcnt Code Sections: I. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 51 feel wide where 140 feel is the minimum lot width for the LR*1B zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 9:(Accessory Buildings): No accessory' buildings or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the lime of construction of the principal building to w hich it is accessory. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(L)(2): Hardcover in 500-1000' setback zone: \\ iihin 500-1000' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. To permit 295.23 s.f. (94.9%) hardcover where 108.88 s.f. (35%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting lot width, lot area and an accessory building without a principal structure variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The cxisiinj’ residence that w^ built in 1920 will be removed. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 51 feet wide where 140' is required in tlie LR-IB zoning district. V02-2760 Jim Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Variances Paget A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 11 ,»88.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43. 560 s f. is required in the LR-IB zoning district. An accessory building variance is required because Orono zoning code does not permit an accessory building on e property without a principal structure. Currently there is an existing accessory building (detached garage - 20* x 22*) located on the property. A garage is not proposed in the new residence plans, so this building will be the only garage/storage facility on the properQr. The applicants have submitted building plans for a new residence and the detached accessory building Mill remain. Hardcover: A hardcover variance in the 500-1OOO* setba.k zone is required because access to the detached garage is in the 500-1000* setback zone. This area is a ver>' small portion of the propert>\ It is also the only access to the garage and is provided via a driveway easement at the rear of the property. (Exhibit C). There is no feasible way to reduce the area of the driveway yet have it remain hmctional. The parking area adjacent to Highwood Road will also be retained. It is necessary ’ given the narrow-ness of that road. N^e that the 250-500’ setback zone will be at 29.3% where 30% is allowed. Crediting the 500- 1000 setback zone with the unused 250-500’ hardcover (77 s.f) reduces the 500-1000* overaee to just 109 s.f ^ Statement of Hardship: TOs is an existing lot which was planed prior to current zoning standards. There Is no additional property. The detached garage is in good condition and will be used as Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot was planed prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the property. 3. The detached accessory building is in good structural condition. •02-2760 Jim Cusack 4140 Hifh\%ood Road Variances 3/13/2002 Page 2 4. There is no additiofial land to combine with the propeity. 5. The proposed new residence eliminates the side setback encroachment of the existing residence. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. «02*2760 Jim Cusack 4140 HifhwoodRoad Variances 3/13/2002 Pa«c3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR'IB Lot Requirements LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 1 Acre 140* Actual .27 acres 5r Structural Coverafe Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 11.888.75 S.L Existing: 1,432.13 s.f. Proposed: 1,769.33 s.f. 12% 14.8% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shoreline Total area in Setback Allowed Hardcover E.xisting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-500*11,577.8 s.f 3,473.34 s.f (30»/.) 3,346.86 s.f (28.91%) 3,396.17 sf (29.33%) 500-1000’311.1 s.f 108.88 s.f (35%) 295.23 s.f (94.954) 295.23 s.f (94.9%) ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Requirements LR-lB Lot Area Lot Width Required 1 Acre 140* Actual .27 acres 51’ Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 11,888.75 S.L Existing: 1,432.13 s.f. Proposed: 1,769.33 s.f. 12% 14.8 % Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shoreline Total area in Setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-50(y 11,577.8 s.f 3.473 Mj.f. (30*/.) 3,346.86 s.f (28.91%) 3,396.17 sf (29.33%) 500.1000*311.1 sf 108.88 s.f (35%) 295.23 s.f (94.95'fl) 295.23 s.f (94.9«/«) ^ » 6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee Si50.00 (no change from ori^nal application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION , . Site Address Pf! Ufi Property Identification Number (PJJ d7) D ^- / / 7 - i AppBcalion # Date Received j Amomit PiakI ^ktSiSn^oo -0030Property Iden Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of Und Present use of property: V resident!^ ___pother (specify) Zoning District: IJQ______________________” (month/year) AiiresTnTNC) ttl^yyWCd. fLoL Phone (home) ^6 St' • 7 7^ V Phone (work) City: Mconc^ 0^^■^*ER (if different than applicant) Name ________ ___ Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Coistruction Cost $ I^OiOOO_____ Describe request in detail: JL Hp/tp fJ4tA/ Ab/wE- ----- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X* Lot Area ^ Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore X Other (specify) AlC. CG[J^dtni.thas^\ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difBculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning ^e requirements: prTc r io C Tb4d pj-Qj/it OTt \CLCC I's t'n<9^yyt rAt>^iT^n . r ’ C&ach additibdal sheets if oecessar^ #2760 a CO CQ mw 1 ♦ > ft»•z 3 O"u N • N I M SECOND PLQOR FLAM TSssT.izionoao I^S.r.(9CnXNB)rORQQ o CQ ir« ♦ <r p- ♦ «u 3II ►m 0eo X >u h Xaou ^ • fr '•* I I ? .) ' ) c' ■) a>: FIRST FLOOR PLAN 10625/.!»•- v-cr m* A* SETBiLCKZO?<Et (CmCIXONZ) 0-75* y^^^crrOftHAMICOVEn INTONE A. Hoom :____:- JABDGOVER CALCULATION ^ BKSgFJT RCIX ONE) 0-75* 7«50* /^JO-SOO^500*1000* X X X }' X * * X X X X X X X X ■ - .'v ‘ o. Other fX TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________+ » - HAEDCOVira IN ZONE ' A. Kooie » B. Ginse C Driveinor D..Stdewi!k £. Ti&ofDtcY pVir.Ay X X X ,x X X fJfi (Js X o. O^ X100 ■ wei. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE -------------*— ♦ B //S77.frg*xi00 - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 3 z9L j2. .S.P. S.F. !s.p. S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. "S.F. S.F. ‘S.F. S.F. ‘s.F. *S.F. ; s.F. // <*7-7 S.F. S lon^ s.F. ’s.F. S.F. ^7^. /L> 73*7/? Eg S.F. >.F. S.F. ’S.F. «/■ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /7_S.F. -34.33ZZ* C^.^0-7- tt~r~ 23-(£^ 0 f^;m MM MU ffZ/19/12 MTCN MX WMNtriN COUNTY riMrCITV INromUTlON XVXTCn rRorurv ohncrx list RtroRT NO. ri^sMti TACC 7 M tr-iir'zs M HIS MMf MM him NBONMOOe RO ONNM MIK • N t J L ATrLEMUH TARTAUI SCOMC H/JMMi L ATTLIMIM NRMi/RHO «IH m«MM R0 mUNO IM SSSH SR RT'liT-ZS M tfllR RR1R9 N16NMOOO RO LRiraV M RRRRCIA LARRY N KARRELA A149 NIONHOOO RO HOUNR HN SSXM M 17-117-25 H RRIY •91M NIONNOOO RO FRANCES W UXl^ON FRANCES 1ESAR A1S4 N26HWOUO RO NOUNO HN SSSM MRMR MM TARTAYER tIRM/ARM U R7-117-2S H RR2R RR1A7 NIRNMOM RO MRLIN L MLVERS4M MRLXN L HALVERSON R17S NlRNNOeO RO HOUND NN SSSM SR R7-117-2S M RR21 M17S N16HH000 RO NERLXN L NALVERSON HERLXN L NALVERSON 417S NIONNOOO RO noiMD m SSSM SR R7-117-25 M t«22 R419S NICNVOOO RO 0 N SNITN A R O SNITH 00U6LAS H A RORAN 0 SIUTN 419S HICNNOOO RO HOUND HN SSSM OMHIR NAM TARRAUR NANE/AOM SR R7-117-2S M RR27 MIM NISNHOaO RO R 0 A A L RUnSCN ROOtRT A ANY RUNKH AIM NIONNOOO RO NOUNO HN SSSM SR R7-117-2S M AA2R MISR NXGNHOaO RO J L RAKE ASH CLVIM JON L RARRE AlSt NIOtRfOOO RO HOUND HN SSSM SR R7-117-2S M M2S MIAR HICNNOOO RO JAMT L EIOC JANET L EIRE AlAR NIONHOOO RO HOUND NN SSSM "l I OMNER NAM TAXRAYER NAM/AOM SR R7-117-2S M RtSI RAIAR NIONHOOO RO J 0 CUSACR A C N ORACE C ORACE A J CUSACR AIAR NIONNOOO RO HOUND NN SSSM SR R7-I17-2S M RASl M1S2 NIONNOOO RO SCOTT 0 A CATNERIM ANDERSON SCOTT 0 A CATMRIM ANDERSON A1S2 NICHNOOO ROAD NN SSSM SR A7-117-2S M RtST ARASR AOORESS UNASSU JAMS H CLEARY JANES CLEARY AIRY NORTH SNORE DR NOUNO l« SSSM fROr ARM RNMR MM TARRAYER MM/AOM SR R7-I17-2S M MSR RAIRA NORTH SHORE M JANES H USARY JAMS CLEARY AllA NMTN SNORE M HOUND HN SSSM SR RT-llT-ES AA RASA RRRSR ARMESS UNASSIGMO JAMS N CLEARY JAMS CLEARY AIRY NORTH SNORE M NOUNO HN SSSM SR R7-117-2S AA OAS RiSSS NIONHOOO ERICK 0 I LAURIE . .IS ERICK 0 A LAURIE S ULUS ISSS NIONHOOO LA HN SSSM fOOR AMR RNMR MM TAXRAYER MM/AOM U R7-IIT-2S M OROA M12S NIONHBM M JOHN H R RRMRTA J NCNRXCN JRM M a aORCRTA J NMRICN AI2S ORONO m SR R7-I17-2S M RRU MIIA NICHNOOO RO RNULIR N OTTO RNILLXR N OTTO AllA NIRNMOM ID HOUND HN SSSM TOTAL SATCH SOS MOST I • « ^27 6^0 1 Application Received: 2/18/03 Application Complete: 2/20/03 60 Day Deadline: 4/21/03 Extension: 670/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chapul, City Planner DATE: April 10.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2876 Sevic L. tanning 3329 Cr>'stal Bay Road Variances ~ Public Hearing Zoning Dulrict: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (0.5 acre) Lot Area: 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) Application Suromao : The applicant requests the foIlo\N ing variances for consuuciion of a new 1,200 s.f. residence on the propeit>’: 1. lot area of 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) where 21,780 s.f (0.5 acres) is required; 2. a lot width of 50 ’ where 100 ’ is required; 3. setback of 48* from the OHWt of Lake Minnetonka where 75 ’ is required; 4. rear >-ard setback of 10 ’ where 30 ’ is required; 5. an encroachment of 16* into the average lakeshore setback; 6. 1,121 s.f. (40.82%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; and 7. 285 s.f. (28.64®/i) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 248.75 s.f (25®/^e) is permitted. This application was tabled at the 3/17/2003 Planning Commission meeting for the applicant to provide elevations of the proposed home. At the n.ceting, concerns were voiced regarding the proposed encroachment into the av erage lakeshore setback and how the height of the home might affect the neighbor ’s lake views. The Planning Commission also found it difficult to determine if additional hardcover may be necessarv- (for sidewalks, door landings, etc.) w ithout elcv ation v iew s of the proposed home. New plans have now been provided for review. Exhibits: A Analysis worksheet of three alternatives B Surv’cv’s depicting three alternatives C Proposed building elevations and floor plans D Staff Report and exhibits of 3/17/2003 M03-2876 Sexie L Lanning 4'1 7/2003 Page I e/5 Discussion: Average Lakeshore Sgih^<p|<; The existing house encroaches 9* into the average lakeshore setback and abuts the side lot line to the ^t. Mgling back to the rear lot line. The current configuration of the house leaves a large ^rtion of the lot undeveloped, providing open views for the neighbor to the west at 331S Cr>s Bay Road. The neighbor to the east. 3325 Cr%sial Rav Rna/t ____ . • . : o r I unaeveioped, providing open views for the neighbor to the west at 3335 Cr>slal Bay Road. The neighbor to the east. 3325 Costal Bay Road, currentlv has obstructed views as a result of the 9- encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and position of the house directly on the side lot line. The proposed houro iseenlercd on the property with 10' setbacks on either side, encroaching I6’ into the average lakeshore setback. The position of the home will change views dramatiealiv for . "'s* stnee ‘here "ill now be structure where there was not before For the neign^i to the e^t, the house will be located farther away from their house (setback lO'l which should improve the vicw^. There are also second level decks on this side of the house, minimizing the amount of structure. Also, the garages are staggered back so that the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on this portion of the home is 8‘ co 11 on the west side.' compared to To reduce the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and mainuin I O' setbacks on the footpnnt. A third alternative is to mo%x the 30 ’ x 40 ’ footprint back on the lot so that it is 5’ from the rear lot line rather than 10’. In this case, the encroachment into the average lakeshore Alternative 1 lca\cs a driveway only 10-12’ deep, not enough to park even a small vehicle head- im A temative 2 yields a 16’ depth of driNcway. barely enough for a compact car. Alternative 3 results in the best dnvewny situation, leaving 16’-17 ’ depth off the traveled roadwny. Rear Setback & Culvert Relocation nc e.visting home is located on the rear lot line. The proposed home is located I O’ from the tear ot Itne where 30 ts required. The alternate setback, as mentioned above, is 5’ from the rear lot Ime to reduce encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The property to the south of the lot is owned by the Hennepin County Rail Authority for potential use as a regional trail in the future. The Dakota rail right of w^y is approximately 100’ iriwidth Since ihis property does not have the potential to be developed by structures, a substandard setback from the rear lot line will not negatively impact the propeny oxsners to the south. It was discovered that there is an existing stomi sewer culvert that runs directlv beneath the pasting home, extending from the pond on the south side of the railway tracks and emptvinc into Cryst^Bay. Since the City will not pennil a structure to be built over a storm sewer, the'culvcrt must be relocated on the lot at the owner s expense prior to construction of a new structure. The culvert currenUy runs straight under the house from the pond to the south. To avoid the *0S-2ST6Sevt« L Laming rir,7003 Pagt2o/S proposed home, il ^^'ouId need lo be located along the inside of one of the side lot lines. To accomplish this, the culvert \\ould need to change direction from running straight north, lo the cast or west, and lo the north again, into Ci^-sial Bay. This switchback of the culvert should be located on the property in question, along the rear lot line. A drainage and utilit>’ easement. t>pically 10 ’ wide, would be required over the relocated culvert. If a 5’ rear scilack is approved, the applicants would need to prove that the culvert can be relocated within this area or that permission has been granted from Hennepin County to partially complete the work on their land. If it is not possible to do within the 5’, the house w ill need to be reduced to meet the setback necessary to accommodate the culvert relocation. Building Height The applicant is requesting lo construct a house 30* high and 2 '/j stories. However, the plans do not accurately reflect a half stor>- by the following definition: Half Story. The uppermost floor of a building in which (i) the inicrscctir - -jf the exterior wall and the roof is not more than three feel above the floor elevation, and (ii) nut more than 60 percent of the floor area w ithin the exterior w alls of the uppermost floor exceeds five feel in height as measured from the floor to the rafters. Floors not meeting this definition shall be deemed a story. The front elevation (Sheet A4) shows exterior wnlls on the upper stor>', exceeding 3 ’ (4’ and 5’) from the floor elevation to the roof intersection. A section illustrating that no more than 6(W4 of the floor area exceeds 5’ in height was not submitted with the plans. Sheet A3 (upper floor plan) shows calculations that this area is S9.9%. A house e.xcecding the maximum permitted height will not be allowed. The plans will require revision to meet the requirements for a building permit. Hardcover The lower floor plan shows a back door, front door and two garage stalls. The only hardcover shown on the lot besides the structure is a 16* wide driveway. Both doors are approximately 1' above grade. It is presumed that each door will require a landing. It is the City ’s policy to allow one 4’ X 4’ landing for the main door. Although a landing is not shown on the plan. 16 s.f of hardcover has been added into the proposed hardcover in the 0-75 ’ hardcover zone to accommodate a landing at the front door. 0-75'setback zone The majority of the lot is located in this setback zone. The proposed home shows 1.121 s.f. (40.82*/«) of hardcover where none is permitted. If the house is reduced in size to 33* x 30* (at the e.xisting average lakeshore setback line with a 10* rear setback), the hardcover would be 1.024 s.f. (37.29®/o). Alternatively, if the house is moved 5* back on the lot. the hardcover would be 1.029 s.f. (37.47%). Reducing the amount of structure within this zone further reduces the hardcover. 75 '-250 ’ setback zone The proposed home shows 285 s.f. (28.64%) hardcover where 248.75 s.f. (25®/'o) is permined. If U0}-2Sr6 Sexie L Laming 4/17/2003 Page 3 qf 5 Ihc hot« is reduced in size to 33’ x 30* (as mentioned above), the hardcover uiihin this zone h maintained at 285 s.f. (28.64%). However, if the house is moved back 5’ on the lot, the hardcover in this zone would increase to 420 s.f. (42.21%). Issues for Consldcralioa: 1. The proposed footprint can be adjusted to reflect a smaller footprint, meeting the e.xisting average lakcshore setback, or it can be moved back on the lot 5’ to reduce the average lakeshore setback and the rear setback; 2. The existing house encroaches 9 ’ into the average lakeshore setback and is located on the east side and rear lot line; 3. I he proposed house is located 10’ from the side lot lines with a staggered front and second stor>' deck to reduce the visual impact on the neighbors; 4. The existing culvert requires relocation on the property along one of the side lot lines. If the rear setback is not adequate for the culvert, the house would need to be located to accommodate it by moving no closer to the OI1WL of Lake Minnetonka than he setback approved; 5. Drainage and utility easements will be required over the relocated storm sewer; 6. The majority of the lot is located w ithin the 0-75’ setback zone. 1 lardcovcr within this zone can be reduced b) shifting the footprint back on the lot. furtlicr reducing the setback from the OH WL; 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Rcconmendalions: Staff supports the lot area and lot w idth variances. Staff recommends that the proposed 40’ x 30’ footprint be located 5’ from the rear lot line, as outlined on the Analysis Worksheet ns Alternative «3. to provide enough driveway length to safely park a vehicle. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on the lot per Alternative «3. including lot area and lot width variances, with the following conditions: 1. A building of no more than 30’ and no more than 2 '/» stories in height w ill be permitted to be constructed on the lot; 2. 1 he existing culvert must be located prior to discussions w ith Citv staff regarding relocation. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a survey showing the proposed relocation of the culvert will be required A drainage and utility easement will be required i>\er the rcUKaied culvert as well. The costs of these improvements will be the financial responsibility of the property owner; 3. Existing and proposed grading and drainage waxs should be shown on plans submitted for a building permit; and ** thTIiur" ^^"*^*"* installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on liOS-JS'dS€\i* L Laming 41":ooj Page 4 €^5 r- ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Altcmalive 1: Proposed foolprint (40 ’ x 30 ’) Alternative 2: Reduce the footprint of the house to 33’ x 30 ’ to meet the existing average lokeshore setback Alternative 3: Movt the proposed footprint 5’ toward the rear lot line (south) B03-2S765tvkLLamibig 4/15/2003 Page 5 (^5 DimcBsioBS Permitted Existing Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Altemalivc3 Setback from 75’49’48’50’53’ OHWL Rear Setback 30’0’10’10’5’ Side Setbacks East 10’0’10’10’10’ West 10’17’10’10’10’ Average Lakeshore n/a 9’16’c*8-1 r Setback Encroachment Hardcover in None 1,059 s.f.1,121 s.f.1,024 s.f.1,029 s.f. 0-75’ Setback Zone (38.6%)(40.82%)(37.295i)(37.47V.) Hardcover in 75’-248.75 s.f.779 s.f.285 s.f.285 s.f.420 s.f. 250’ Setback Zone (25%)(78.29»/«)(28.64%)(28.64%)(42.21%) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SEVIE LANNING OF LOT 6, WALLACE' S ADDITION TO MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR LMEx. pdofweo % o-^ ^''SSO' CHUVCUJWf XxSt legal descript I OtN OF PREMISES : Lot 6, Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach U34«f, ' o : denotes iron marker foutid Bearings shown ore based upon an ossimed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the iocotion of on existing house, one the proposed location of a proposed house thereon.lt does not purport to shpw any other irrprovennent s or encroochfrents. riL.iMiNi_r iiM < I I I IVIN I . * LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY •29.4 CONTOUR UtC- A* PCOftjeCD % LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6, Wolloce's Addition to Minnetonka Bench o : denotes iron marker fourid Bearings shown ore bosed upon on ossimed datum. rttwc Pttvwu«< U34«r, C4o.tam This survey intends to show the boundories of the above described property, the location of on existing house, ond the proposed location of o proposed house thereon.lt does not purport to show any other improvements or encroochments. GSONBERG k ASSOCIATES, INC. . OOBUKOaa&UNUmKUME 1 hadyf cetHy Ihd L‘*$ sorwy ta prepacd by me or twier my (S'ecl SEW- ond Ihd 1 am 0 diy Civi [rvjineef ond LffxJ Stf»eyor jAJef Ihe lo*$ ol Ihe dole of Vtmesoto SCALt r»20‘ id OAlt 02-11-03 V I V 445lilll0iai« lONBUIff.lll56» 98H7WW1tco JOB NO 03-036 03-036 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SEVIE LANNING OF LOT 6, beach MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR LINE /I ^S' survey X ^ X V *' ^ EXISTNG HOUSE -•» Q. PROPOSED {4i\^ house ^ #332^ o® EXISTNG HOUSE EXISTNG '•/- ^ % AUfcw>iMive z •■citmtcs m&i6*s^ Q '^^^"iweine oF tue House j^i*gpv*ueg. sowciJe tb MO fH4en«€i2’CNcooftct+rvieAT •WFiN eiClS«Vli&-HeyE€ CW*'iO’)O-PS' . ir-OfiO' %@tAWMmiw lO'Rew-oersncM- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6, V/aI lace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach t{«tue 20S9P ofavoitrsMSP —- uMlwMflF Ur<r . o : denotes iron nnorker found Beorings shown ore based upon on ossimcd dotum. This survey intends to show the boundc''ies of the above described properly, the location of on existing house, ond the proposed location of o proposed house thereon.lt does not purport to show onv ■ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SEVIE LANNING OF LOT 6. WALLACE' S ADDITION TO MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR LIC jrtuee x.oyftnn c*e3~ox*P) Lot 6. Wolloce’s Addition to Minnetonka Beoch ®»»(WWE. PRopocep ttoAse wot <»i -we Mr er 6' 0 6' Rppdt serwot. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES % o : denotes iron morker found 8eorin9s shown ore based upon on ossimed doti/n. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, and •.r <! ___J»_ ___ _ _ _ AL^_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR UNE 4^' % (pwve THC. profoeet) ««Mse M7T IPy ® %0 g'serMoc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6. Walloce's Addition to Minnetonka Beoch ivauee ^veuiM 3*#^ O : denotes iron morker found Bearings shown ore based upon on ossu^d doti/n. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, and the proposed location of o proposed house thereon.lt does not purport to show any other innpr overrents or encroochnnents. & GRONBERG k ASSOCUTES, INC. omic DOiDi^ iM asm K RAin NSmUOinNE L09UIIC.IIi55a I htfibr ceWy thd Ws wwy ■« frepored by me ff my 4retl visim. ot4 Ihol I om 0 dJy revered M Cnyiv^ and Lm) Su»ey« jvStr the lows of the Stole of timesota Uork S Gronberq Bbtesolo Lkem^NtOrter 12755 scale r*20' OAft 02-11-03 JOB NO. 03-036 03-036 C04\o 60/10 DATE: 03-3O-C3 REVISED: 4.S-03 |o_e QSS,; Q < g < (D -j < H iO y~ o (p CN rO rO JOS 332S I 6MEET NO. • A5 C^/(0 DATE=03.3^.03 REVISED; 4.0.03 §<D E O^Sc 3 q|I?§§*5 Q <1 O >-<t IQ <D )~ Q^ O <P CN rO fO JOS 332sj r I ! I : ax4owmiMeft (X4 MAMO iTK iM IK* MAM9<m.M - 3*’ m59 WLOm BATT •eU.ATlON MA«P!EftOrriT rVAHTtW CNBveCMSD mfMC» • 34- OC iia^nsiensnsi */•’ a >«mo« bout * free iilSsM © LQiSIi^SitEi BUILPINGi SECTION laiG 4- SUAB T «.»<o i»acuATi0A 4- *A»0 •• XUASTii Ae4.»OXATE3 P«Ai>t A-.Af t»T II -Mi »»T IN BXAVr. oo>*s:cr TO Sfcvx SCALE: 1/4" . r-0’ •a»50 ^OlAOATiCN inAU t iC' i«4u.AnsN *<ul DATE 03-30-03 REVISED: 4.0.03 JDS: 332E BaAii A94M4CT B^IMakl* b *moc **clt V4* M4TM40 T«4At9 4J4* OC KXTIMlOlt AM »cn ■ *1 BL04N M9U.ATI0N M99B 40CT VB >« OTP BOABp MM NTtMOn AMPKjn ■ Ol TOTAL M.M9AM ice OUAM9 •• HCCP 5/4* Pirv^ocO 2* AiH VtUT 2X4 ountiMSW iS’SSg:;;^ OVM«AM» BerOiO•X* nO»r AT l/2*ftl«eT MOCA VAPOM BAMMlSM 2m* OC M22 SB ««ULAnON 1/2* P*« fr«ATMU« BUILDiXft MtAP 4*MAH9C»<9>« CCMTAHTtSO PO*r* AND KAILIAM /VSMjPYI >/4«» CfMTAINTtCO PSCKIh* rvCMiPT/ CAHM'’ VAPOM BAMKZM OM T»« a/r*oe 04 Mp> jo-if 2'2XlO* r«TH NAM6CM5 MIM JOi»T la* jot*T* OCXflLfi 2 X » PI.ATC M)4 901*0 WrfAATlON 2 LAma 9/B ’ 9«<eT mock 2-M •»/•• l-t »«A9eM fTYP/ 4* TM.«4 •*MAMO«9t9M* BUILPINIG SSCTIOlst SCALE: 1/4- . r-0- •• 40*120 4a*OATlON nAU. I^ALAST iC PSM40MATC9SR^SSJva - .4>4eCT TO au-p pootmo*.th \ '—4* 9CA8 '-----------2* Kioto INSU.ATION --------------4 ’*AIO •* MLABTIC 4BMPOMATEO DMAA PlPt KT MAMAVn. * COi#«&T TO ! • •* 40Mf O *Ol*OATl^ • ' »/2* IV9U.ATI5A ■ M.O 9»tL • *• P-ASric PSMfCMATCOOMa-h Pi»t 45T A AM a VEl • CO**«CT TO 90^ CUf/lO DATE; 03>3C*03 REVISED: 4.0.03 IU"TS Ql“Se Q<t O >- (Q <f) >- O <P CN fOm JD3: 332S S^EET NO. A9 3' L Application ReceivTd: Application Complete; 60 Day Deadline: 2/18/03 2/20A)3 4/21/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jennifer Chapul, City Planner March 4.2003 SUBJECT: «l03-2876 Sevie L tanning 3329 Crystal Bay Road Variances -< Public Hearing Zoning Dblrlcl: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (0.5 acre) 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) Appikation Sunmury: The applicant requests the following variances for construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) where 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required; 2. a lot width of 50* where 100* is required: 3. setback of 43’ from the OHWX of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required; 4. rear yard setback of 10’ where 30’ is required; 5. an encroachment of 16* into the average lakeshore setback; 6. 1.081 s.f. (39.4%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; and 7. 292 s.f. (29.35^o) hardcover w ithin the 75 ’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 248.75 s.f. (25%) is permitted. 'The owner is In the process of selling the property. A potential buyer has signed a purchase agreement contingent on the ability to build a new structure on the lot rather than remodel the existing house. The proposed home shown in the elevations is not necessarily the home that w ould be built. The purchaser wants to be able to build w ithin the proposed footprint. Eihlbils: A Anal>-sis Worksheet Application Hardcover Calculations Correspondence from City Staff Survey Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans Topography and Storm Water Culvert Location Maps Plat Map Property Owner's List Permit Record Photos of Property B03-2876 Sexi* L iumning H3'2003 Page / 0/7 PcrliarBl Code ScctioBs: 1. SecUon 10.25, Subd. 6 (A & B): Area, Heiglit, Lot Width and Yard RequireneoU: llw following minimum requirements in the LR-1C zoning district shall be observ ed; lot area '/i acre; lot width 1 00 ‘; rear yard 30*. No structure or building shall exceed 2 ’/»stories or 30 ’ in height. (Request: To allow lot area of 3.741 s.f. (0.09 acres) where 21,780 s f. (0.5 acres) is required; a lot width of 50' where 100 ’ is required; and rear yard setback of 10' where 30 ’ is required). 2. Section 1 0.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 1 6 (CX1 Structure within 75’: Structures shall be set back a minimum of 75’ from the OH VVL (929.4 ; of Ia!:cs classified as General De\Tlopmcnt. (Request: To allow a setback of 43 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75’ is required). 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C)(6); Average Lakesbore Setback. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakcward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots (Request; To allow an encroachment of 16 ’ into the average lakeshore setback). 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd 16 (L)(l) & (2): llarticover within 75’ and Hardcover within 75’ to 250 ’; Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temponuy or permanent structures. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there slull be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To allow 1,081 s.f (39.4%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted and 292 s f (29.35%) hardcover wiihm the 75’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 248.75 s.f. (25%) is permitted). Diseussion: Lot Area &. Lot Width The existing area of the lot is 3.741 s.f (0.09 acres) where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required for the zoning district. The existing lot width is 50* where 100 ’ is required for the district. Neither the area of the lot nof the width is proposed to change with this application. How ever, variances are necessary because new construction is proposed on the lot. Lot Coverage Bv Structure While a lot of less than 10,000 s.f. allows 1,500 s.f. of structural coverage, the applicant proposes a smaller footprint of 1 .200 s.f No variance is neccssar>' for the proposed lot coverage by structure. Side Yard Setbacks The proposed structure meets the required 10 ’ side yard setbacks. Therefore, no variances are required Setback from the OHW'L of Lake Minnetonka &. Rear Yard S<pih.irl The c.xisiing hoi« on ihe lol is locaied 48' from the OHWL. However, it nl.w has a zero setback from the rear and cast side lot line. The proposed house is located 43 ’ from the OHWL where 75’ is required. Given that the majority of the lot is located within 75’ of the OHW’L. it would be *0)~2S'6SivieL Lanmng i/IS'200i Page 2 ef 7 J dimcutt to propose a home uhich met this setback. The proposed house is located 10’ from the rear lot line where 30' is required. If the required setbacks from the OIIWL and rear lot line arc followed, the setbacks overlap, providing no legal building envelope. With the proposed 10’ rear setback, there is only room for a driveway of appro.ximately 10' in length off of Cr>'stal Bay Road. With this length. \ chicles w ill not fully fit on the driveway on the lot and may end up jutting into Cr>stal Day Road traveled right of way. Given this information, staff would recommend that a driveway of at least an additional 5' in length be provided from Cr>*stal Bay Road, moving the house 5* closer to the rear lot line rather than the 10’ proposed and the 30’ required. The footprint of the home w ould also be 48’ from the 011WL of the lake (same as e.xisting home) and lessen the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback with a S’ setback from the rear lot line. The rear lot line abuts Dakota Rail right of way which is not currently in use for rail but is proposed to be a future regional trail. To the rear of the property, the right of way is flat then changes significantly in grade. Since the existing house is located on the rear lot line and does not appear to have a negative impact on the abutting property, a 5’ setback would seem reasonable in order for the lot to accommodate a properly sized driveway. The alternate would be *o reduce the length of the house by 5’ to retain a 10’ rear setback. Rear setback approvals for structures i.i the neighborhood have varied from 7.6* to 19’. Averace Lakeshore Setback 'The proposed house encroaches 16’ into the average lakeshore setback whereas the existing house encroaches 11 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. With a decreased setback from the rear lot line of 5’. the encroachment into the average lakeshore setba k would not change from where it exists today. The property to the west (3335 Crystal Bay Rood) has a rear lot line that extends into the Dakota Rail right of way, beyond that of the applicant’s property. In 1996, the ow ners of 3335 Cry stal B.;y Road combined a small portion of Dakota Rail property with their lot. Tlic property to the east (3325 Cry stal Bay Road) is approximately the same size as the lot in question. The views from either adjacent property will not be obstructed by a home in the proposed location All properties face directly onto the lake. Hei&bl The proposed elevations of a new structure on the property are taken Irom a previous application by Ace Properties (Zoning File U 2730) on 3375 Cry stal Bay Road for new construction. The elevations are the same although the footprint has been reduced to fit on the lot. As mentioned previously, the owner does not necessarily wish to build this particular home but wants to be able to show potential buy ers that something can be built. The home that was built based on these plans was constructed on a lot with changes in grade *0)-28 ’6 S€\it L Lanmng 3 13/2003 Page 3 of! elevation. The zoning ordinance states that the height is measured from the highest grade at the building or ten feet above the lowest grade, whichever is lower, to the average height of the highest gable. Given this, the house met the height requirements on 3375 Cr>'stal Day Road. However, the topography of the applicant ’s property is much Hatter and would not permit construction of a home such as the proposed because it would exceed the height limitations. Any home that is built on this property must be no higher than 30 ’ and no more than 2 'A stories in height, as required by the zoning ordinance. As proposed, the house elevations show three full stories. Hardcover 0-75' Hardcover Zone: There exists approximately 1 ,059 s.f (38.6%) of hardcover w ithin this zone where none is permitted. The applicant proposes a home with 1,081 s.f (39.4%) of hardcover. Crystal Day Road is located within 12 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Tlie City has a prescriptive easement over the properly for the roadway. Therefore, it is not considered part of the hardco\-er or lot area calculations. The majoritv of this lot is located within 75’of the OHWL. ' 75 '-250'Hardcover Zone: There is approximately 779 s.f. (78.29«/o) of hardcover existing in this zone where 25“/o is permitted. This is largely due to the fact that the home Is positioned right on the rear lot line. The proposed home has 292 s.f (29.35%) hardcover, reducing the existing hardcover in that zone (while increasing hardcover in the 0-75’ hardcover zone). Other Comments: City Engineer The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and has the following comments: 1 . existing and proposed grading and drainage ways should be shown on plans; 2. the existing storm sewer should be located; 3. drainage and utility casements 10 ’ wide over all existing utilities and 5’ wide along the south, east and west lot lines should be requested (However, except for the storm aewer noted below, it would be inconsistent for the City to request these casements as part of a variance application); 4. erosion control measures must be installed, inspected and approved hv the City prior to any work on the site. Existing Culvert L’nder House There is an existing storm sewer that runs from the pond on the south side of the railway tracks into Cr>stal Day, and it is believed this pipe is beneath the existing house. The culvert, as it exists, must be located on a sun ey. If a new house is to be built on the property, the culvert must be relocated along the property line. To the south of the railway tracks, two manholes should be placed to turn the culvert from its existing location A drainage and utilitv easement of 10 ’ in width required over the culvert. The c.xact relocation of the culvert will be determined bv City staff. These impro\cments will be the financial responsibilitv of the propertvy owner. ^0J-28'‘6 Seue L Lonnmg, 3 a :oci Page 4 of? .J lakeshore setback and setback from the OHWL would not change from the existing structure; The bouse could be shortened 5’ to meet a 10’ rear setback; I. The proposal meets the 10’side yard setbacks and is less than the 1300 s.f. lot coverage by structure permitted for the lot; 9. There is a culvert draining under the lot from a wetland to the south and into Lake Miruietonka. The City will not permit a home to be constructed over an existing culvert; 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commissioa Staff Rccommcndatioos: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on the lot, with the- following conditions: 1. The rear setback should be redu^ from the proposed 10’ to 5’ (or the length of the home should be reduced by 5’) in order to provide adequate driveway depth from Cr>'stal Bay Road, maintaining the existing structure’s setback from the OHWL and encroachment into the average lakeshore setback; 2. A building of no more than 30’ and no more than 2 V'j stories in height will be permitted to be constructed on the lot; 3. The existing culvert must be located prior to discussions w ith City staff regarding relocation. Prior to obtaining a building permit, a survey showing the proposed relocation of the culvert will be required. A drainage and utility easement of 10’ in width will be required over the relocated culvert as well. The costs of these improvements will be the financial responsibility of the property owner, 4. Existing and proposed grading and drainage ways should be shown on plans submitted for a building permit; 5. Erosion control measures must be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any wnrk on the site. »0S~2876Sevit L Laming S/Ii/2003 Fagt6qf7 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Rcquirrmento: Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Staff Recommendation Lot Area 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 3.741 s f. (0.09 acres) 3.741 s.f (0.09 acres) No Change Some Lot Width 100*50’50’ No Change Same Front Setback (Lakeside)75*48*43’48* Rear Setback 30’O’10 ’10* or 5’ Side Setbacks East 10 ’O’10*Same West 10*17 ’10 ’ Lot Coverage 1.500 s.f.1,103 s.f.1,200 s.f 1,200(32%) by Structure (40%)(29.5%)(32%)or 1.050 (28«/«) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback AlloHcd hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’2,746 s.f Os.f (0%)1.059 s.f 1.081 s.f (38.6%)(39.4%) 75 ’-250’995 s.f 248.75 s.f 779 s.f 292 s.f (25%)(78.29%)(29.35%) Average Lakeshore Setback: •01-2 S’’6 L Lannmg 31P2003 Pagt7c/7 Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment Staff Recommendation ir 16’ir .. •___M r crrv OF ORONO - variance apfucahon Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for nonconforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the<Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application #03 Date Received*^3^" Amount Paid PROPERTY INFQRMATION Property Identifrcation Number (Pj.D.) J-^ J y ^ lOPERTY INFQRMATION , ^ . Site /PI/L/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_ I (do) (do not) also own the ad|aocnt parcels of land. Present use of prope^ u^idential ___pother (specify) SL2J^—_____ _(monthfyear) Zoning District: £ p APPLICANT-, Name Z. Address: Phone Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name City: jr^ (home) "0 (work) jpzl y /» Zip: Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST--------------------------------- Estimated Censtruction Cost $ 3./0/J Describe request in detail: Idilional sne ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area n Lot Width ^ (attach additional sneels if nece^ary) X Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)_________________ Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _______ (anach additional sheets if necessary) 76 V»9 5£2££^ ,>it^ oL?^ s^iT ,^<;:ws<-^J^ —fiCa <^S::fe>s.t.»__^ (.^-t^y „-*«-«!>x^ yiii, .„-r%,t^^ -«,-^2S*s^ C^%y ^*(3^ -*^T^ 2^-' -c^/^ '=^OA-f^'7, a. >^*^%«£» ..y^c^y •'^ >4? -^6<^ i.^:^ ^'''5s3 ^iyt>cyt,^>‘^>^*y' j yini-t^.^ J -^^^«:^*=«-<S»^ g^7- r \l *1 “^^Ve--- L-/v1'4U |{-*6t SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONI) tXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. H qum _____________ UARDCOVEK CALCULATlQiS WORKSUEET 0-75‘C 75-250,)250-SOU' U rj Vr«.-•.-»«- Aod. -O Afri^A, Z^//-aS 500-1000' B. Oar«|t C Drii-ewiy D. Skkwtlk E Pttio/Dtdc F. Undseape Underltin By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZO.V" TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B X ICO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ____________ Unfih B. Oarage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 2-?2 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOXTR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONc A __________ ___ - B X 100 29. 4.L-- *.»L?.' . j i.// SF. SF SF SF. SF. SF SF. SF SF. SF SF SF SF. SF. V. .SF. - SF. SF SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF SF SF SF. SF. SF. SF.n •amtMM. ••«««•. AM««rMi an« AiiMWiet. mt H Jn tkttwmmn* OA#«ttm«Wr ■w* 0»»»X fttnclAMf Otia O •wiaitroo ai • w«r*», i WmU »l • C'vxn a Co«« A| . aoMfi C VxiAMat A| tttif A touidon at • Ua« a Hantan. at . lutan M C aAttfwa* CanMNanli tea«Tt W aeiant at • ioiapA C An«*>iu at • a^xara I Vano at AuacuNt arnMiaaai at«*i a coraao at • aob««t a ai*»f»r*« at . a^'^a w »aua< at . o#«<a o icitata at • aatnaat t aMmjnn at • bai *«ia at • ltrr«t« a A>«ar<tca at • WAt a aarf> at • O*^ a taxaif'aa vs A • VO«y a at IS . Ag^iy us a . AfaaS^. s<*<nsai at . tnoav«t * artf^Mx at . i»xr» a VAjra at • u«n s J»*»vx at • I axa»* ■ at . j lasr'iox at . u»tx«( at . Taomat A S|f«a at . 1lv<«on j MXnion . OAr A OoM at • tno>xai A aowW> at • ae®*ft j at OtfNat: Si aaui ti OouA toci«aiit> ana wmiw %ts >> uiAAAra «!• Civcago A Wbtita wAbexatnoocoM Bonestroo vS Anderlik& |\]| Assodaces Engineers 4 Architects March 4.2003 icnfii'*TChaput Planner City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 3329 Crysul Bay Road File No. 139-03-000 put No. 03-2876 Dear Jennirer. We have reviewed the certificate of survey showing the proposed new home construction on the property located at 3329 Crystal Bay Road. An existing hooM will be removed prior to the new' home construction. We have the following comments with regards to engineering nutten; • The plans should include contours showing existing and propoicd grading and drainage vve>s. • Plans should identity existing stonn sewer (if any) on the projKiscd property. • The City should request drainage and utility easements 10-teet w'lde ov er all extsliiig utilities and 5* feet wide along the south, east and west lot lines • Most of the proposed construction is within 75-feet of the lake. It is critical that erosion control be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. If you have any questions please call me at (65 1) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, .ANOERLIK ft ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2JJS west Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SI13 • 651-636*4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-I3II CERTIFICATE Or SURVEY FOR SEVIE LANNING OF LOT 6. WALLACE'S ADDITION TO MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR UNE % 5^^ % LEGAL DCSCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6, Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonka Beach I ; o : denotes ironmorker found Bearings shown are bosed upon on assumed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above 9 •! ■ ^ ___A AA_. I . -A* ^ ^ idescribed property, the location of an existing house^^ond the proposed location of a proposed house thereon.lt does^ not purport to show onv other innprovements or encroocnments f. • •::> CERTIFICATE OK SURVEY FORSEVIE LANNING OF LOT 6, WALLACE' S ADDITION TO MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY sm CONTOUR Ltc '<b % LEGAL DCSCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6. Wollace's Addition to Minnetonka Beoeh o : denotes iron morker found Bearings shown ore based upon an assimed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of on existing the proposed location of a proposed house ‘not purport to show ony other innprovements or encroocnments MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY «2».4 CONTOUR LICx^ % % legal DCSCRiPTION of premises^: Lot 6. Wollace's Addition to Minnetonka Beoch o : denotes iron marker found Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. This survey intends to s'?®* {'?® ist!ng'’h^^^ described property. Jhouse thereon.lt does the proposed location of ° or encroachments,not purport to show any other innprovements or encrou GRONBERGfc ASSOCIATES. INC. (MW DaBt iM sinnai^ 9C lUKK I hnb, c«iii> iw te »«r »hi « ««v. mllhiil lOT 0 4i» >«9sl"«l W !")««viskin, and lhal I oni Ihe lows of Ihe Stole of tfnnesota scale r=*20' 0 f. ■ : \ DATE 02-11-03 JOB NO. 03-036 rt /C;* if O fa/5 \- \ l\ O' • t- • Twflwr V«l«# tjo.r (10-1)S8).m <^>7 '81 #. • td^ OL B ;93) g -'f rNWJSJi t^nhw. II ^om CULVEKT Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department y ‘^^Parcellnfor* nation Parcel ID 1711723410019 House Number 3329 Street Name CRYSTAL BAY RD TNs it net 9 legtty rtconied mtp. n rtpnttnia a compOatun ofinfoanatnn and data from Cdy. County, and State road aiOhoritiat and othof tourcot. PERMIT RECORD P«r«it Mo,JSRte, mti _ -3^4^ Az3o-i,g -Bno 3/i^ n -v>7S 6/?3 n « L ■ n ■ <}(i L Type of pgf i^ <7d^l44ttn^l / .JtMiaufH 'lOthr ■^^IjLs/kn dlcJc^, ' n/r VxXi P: »'Mf.i mm-t v>ai:ay: . a ,! '; ar jn j ! •< « ?> Urc-. *. ' r /•■I*** , f.HlAi fT ‘4r •!|l)^ II SI, •'i- fill *. • * !*• ■ /: uv:es\oe ^pp hqwP r PK« 1 ' ^ Pll s -f“n :\-■■ vn'- ^]• 4a f'»?S !. O Pi2c?PEieTr i^iNe (cu.iye&.TLY sersfcrt.) f\wmm * A ® * 5«tj iil mh liJ ffj cr HO(V\e M z?' sertf^ Cf^lL Pl2f?fmY IS’ fZMH^QM) P^^Hf lUfW) TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, City Planner April 14.2001 lUlfcl ^ SUBJECT: «03*2880 Fred Johnson 1926 Fagemcss Point Road After-thc-Facl V'ariances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR-IC One Ftunily Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) Lot Area: 8,018 s.f. (.18 acre) ExIiiblU: A Application B Memo from Building Official C Memo from architect C* 1 Page of plans builder used to construct decks D Plans used for variance approval E Resolution #4579 F Minutes PC and CC meetings G Plans Subini >ted for Building Permit including building inspector plan review tiuirkings II Surs'cy Submitted for Building Permit I Certificate of Occupancy J Letters from Building Official to applicant K Staff Reports -12/6/00,11/13/00 including building plans submitted for variance application L Photo of Properly M Plat Map N Properly Owner’s List O Neighbor’s letter Application Summary : The applicant is requesting four after-the-fact variances for a second stor>' deck attached to a newly constructed single family residence. ‘1 hey are as follows: • To allow a second story deck that is located 27.5’ from the OHMX of Lake Minnetonka where no structure is allowed. • To allow a second story deck to encroach approximately 5’ into the aserage lakeshore setback. • To allow a second story deck that is an aJditional 120 s.f lot coverage by structures for a total 1,620 s.f where 1,500 s.f was previously approved. • To allow an additional 36 s.f. of hardco\ er in the 0-75’ setback zone where 2,079 s.f. was previously approved for a total of 2.115 s.f. K03-28I0 Fred Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road 4/|4'2003 Page I of4 Pcrtincnl Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C); Structure within 75’ of lakesbore: To permit a second stor>- deck to be located 27.5’ from the OHVVl. of lake Minnetonka where 75* is required. 2. S.ction 10.22, Subd. I (B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(CK6): 1 o permit encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The total encroachment is approximately 5*. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage: Regardless of lot area. e\er> developed lot s^tall be allowed at least 1.500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and parage structures. To permit a vari.'’;ice to allow lot coverage to be 1.650 s f where 1.500 s f wa, previously appros ed. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(LXI): Hardcover in 75-250’ setback: To permit 2.115 s.f (26 4%) of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone where 2,079 s.f, (26%) was previously approved. Discussion: The subject property was purchased by the applicant in 2000 The plan was to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence on the propertv. Due to the size of the lot and all of it being located within 75’ of the OHWl. of I ake Minnetonka variances were reuuircd to redevelop the subject property. ^ The applicant submitted a variance application September. 2000. After discussions with staff and some redesigning the application was heard at the November 20. 2000 Planning CommisMon meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project w ith hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone to be 2.079 s.f. Cblo) and lot coverage by structure not to exceed 1500 s.f both of which all lie within 75’ of OllWL of Lake .Minnetonka, lire recommendation vv;is based on the property was currently developed as a single familv residence with 2.328 s.f. of existing hardcover and over 1.500 s.f of structure. The hardcover and structure on the lot would decrease with redevelopment of the propertv. The application moved forward to the City Council and was approved at their December II. 2000 meeting. The council approved the application and resolution which stated .3 original copies of a rev ised survey showing the building plans and all proposed hardcover be submitted. Also, the site plaa'suney shall be in substantial conformance with the plan attached to the resolution. The surveys and building plans were submitted for review by the building department. survey had been rev ised and was in substantial conformance with the hardcover and strvK'tuie approvals granted by the City Council However, the building plans submined showed a dtfferen ’ ground level deck, a screen porch, and a second level deck. The building official made H03-3880 Fred Johnson 1926 rjietness Point Road 4 142003 Pa|e2of4 notations on the plans regarding the decks. The ground level deck uas pcnnincd but not the screen porch, not the second story deck, and not the extra portion of the ground level deck. A building permit was i.ssued on May 18,2001. The building ofilcial made notations on the plans regarding the screen porch and second stor>' deck. (Exhibit F). Many inspections took place during construction of the residence. The building inspector at the lime, Marc Davis, never noted that the deck’s which were constructed and the decks on the approved plan were not the same. The final inspection by the building inspector was March S, 2002. A certificate of occupancy was issued on March 8.2002. Shortly after the certificate of occupancy w^ issued l.yle Oman. Building Official, noticed the decks. The approved plans were reviewed and the builder was contacted by the building ofTicial. The contact was initially by phone and then later by letter., on February 24.2003 and March 5, 2003. On March 17.2003, the applicant made application for aftcr-ihe-fact variances for the decks. With the application, die applicant submitted a copy of the plans that he used that he feels indicated he was able to construct the decks. (Exhibit C*l). SUtCBCBt of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues fur Consideration: 1. The building plans submitted to obtain a building permit indicate a lakeside screen porch, second story deck, and additional lower ground level deck. The building official did make notations on the plans indicating the screen porch and upper deck were not allowed. 2. The lakeside docks on the plans submitted to the building department are diffeicnt than indicated on the sursey subm'Med The deck on the original Planning ('ommission submittal w n about 1 r X 16’ with angled comers, or about 160 s.f I he deck shown on the sursey submitted for building permit was 10’ X 15’ with angled comers of about 125 s f. The plan submitted for building permit show a deck 10* X 12’9" with an additional 4’ X 8* 6" adjacent portion and 2 steps, for a total of 170 s f. 3. The inspection slips and Certificate of Occupancy do not note any discrepancy with the lakeside decks and the approved plans. 4. The discrepancy of the decks was not discosered umil after the Certificate of Occupancy was issued. «03-2880 Fred Johnson 1926 Fafemess Point Rv id a 14 2003 Page 3 of4 5. Because the building plans show doors which open to the outside on the second level, should these doors be permanently barred and the upper decks removed? 6. Should the lower level decks remain but be reduced in size to better adhere to the hardcover previously approv ed? The lower decks with railing do not contribute to the 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures 7. The properly is vcr>- undersized for the standards of the LR-1C zoning district 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff RccaMmcndaiion: 1. In the opinion of staff, the approved, stamped plan set contains substantial notations and markings to indicate the upper level deck was not approved. The approved plan set is supposed to be used for construction. 2. The plans used by the applicant to gain variance approval clearly did NOT show a second story deck (Sec Exhibit D of report - excerpted from 11/13/00 staff rcp<ui). 3. The fact that the proposed deck w-as merely a ground level deck and therefore not contributing to lot coverage was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of 11720 00 (See Exhibit F, page 2). Based on the abov e, staff recomntends removal of the seeond stor> deck and requiring the applicant to take steps to make the upper level door safe by adding a railing or permanently blocking it. Because there are two lower level doors exiting the house, staff recommends retaining the lower level deck with railings as-is, and grant a variance for the additional 36 s.f. hardcover, yielding 2,118 s.f. or 26.4% where 2,328 s.f. or 29.0% had existed and 2.082 s.f. or 26 0®o had been approved. M03-2880 Fred Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road 4/N/2003 Page 4 of4 cm' OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S2S0.00 Afler-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^ 3 - Date Received 3- /7-0*a Amount Paid p d. PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Fi mbdr (P rtMLZib "p-l. {Zocxdi Property Identification Numbdr (P.I.D.) 11 - C>0 lC/> Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_________________________________________ I (do) (do not) also o^^m the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (q>ecify)_ Zoning District: _____________________________ _(month'>ear) APPLICANT Name Jokr\t300 Phone (home)_ ___________________________________ Phone (work)//!ta-Hot-5! Address: Mf) 1*7 hJov-tfA 6?i\or€. Dr. Citv:r)rPr\n Zip: OWNER ^ different than applicant) . Phone (home)_ Name yft /KTP |l ^ chuJrfi j koLOdu. Phone (work)_ 5s: " VvLn y s jQAddress:Q.<i. City: OvoAO DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S_ Describe request in detail: ’ rkt.cM^_____________ (attach additional sheets if nccessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width ___Hardcover Setback: __Front ___Side __ Rear Other (specify)___________________________________ .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe un.^ue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with^Zonmg Code requirements: •;iT A -(onpliance with zoning Loae requirements: 'p.'T A -fO (VizSb n>ce/io<0 P//o (attach additional sheets if necessary) M Ol f\ Date; 4-1003 Memo to; Wendy Bo^berg From; Lyle Oman (fC- Re; 1926 Fagemess Point Road This memo is to document activity at the above referenced property. The inspections were conducted by Marc Davis a former employee. A final inspection ys’as completed and a certificate of occupancy ^%’as issued on 3-8-02. Unfortunately he failed to compare the approved plans ^ith Vk-hat %%as constructed and missed the fact that iia only a grade level deck uith out a guard rail was approved and that the builder had added a deck illegally. I passed the property at a later date and noticed the violation. I called Fred Johnstm to discuss the problem and we spoke on 6-28-02 and on 7-1- 02. He indicated he would apply for a variance and after a period of inactivity 1 wrote a letter to force the issue. The first letter was on 2-24-03 to the property on Fagemess point road and was returned as unable to forward and the deadline of 3-19-03 was not met. A second letter was sent on 3-S-03. The approved building plan were clearly marked on each page to show the deck w*as not allowed. L--., Rp'r IS 03 02i2Sp Todd Knutson 612-332-7504 L TODD KNUTSON c saoNORTH 3**ST.mrTESMMPLS.IM.IM01 •12-9U4000 r. eia-332-7904 M. SU-SSl-tO*! Response to the City of Orono Pluming Commission memo. Per my discussion with Wendy Botenberg, 1 am drafting a letter addressing the variance for the deck at 1926 Fagemess Point Road After reviewing my noted and drawings dated from S-7-01 to 9>1 1*01.1 have determined that a deck has al^avys been included in plan, section and elevation. The only request forwarded to me was to remove the main level screening creating a open dc^ design with railings. To the best of my knowledge, from photos and site observation, the builder has constructed the deck's according to approved plans, elevations, and sections. Any further questions or documentation will provided. %• t GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^579 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDrVlSION 8, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (L) (I) FILE NO. #2623 WHEREAS, Fred A. Johnson (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 1926 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Sututes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 20. 2000, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant has revised a variance application to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit 1,500 s.f. of structure within the 75’ protected lakeshore setback to Lake Minnetonka where no structure Is permitted, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 2,079 s.f. {26%) of hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback where no hardcover is permined. Minnesou: NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOL\TD by the City Council of Orono, 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2623. The property is located in the LR-IC (V4 acre) One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on November 20, 2000 and recommended approval on a vote of 6 to 0 for variances based upon the following findings and hardships: Page 1 of 6 e CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ S 7 9 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of ihe above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.55. Subdivision 8 to permit 1,500 s.f. of structure within the 75' protected lakeshore setback to Ukc Minnetonka where no structure is permitted, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 a) (0 to permit 2,079 s.f. (26%) of hardcover within the 75' lakeshore setback where no hardcover is allowed subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant shall apply for a demolition permit and remove all existing structures and hardcover prior to Issuance of a building permit for a new structure. Applicant shall provide 3 original copies of a revised sur\’ey showing the building plan and all proposed hardcover. Such site plan/sur\'cy shall be in substantial conformance with the attached approved site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3.The surveys shall also indicate the lowest floor elevation for the new residence to determine the house will be located 3' above the OHWL (929.4'). No land alteration can occur below the defined flood elevation of 931.5*. 4.Authorities granted by this variance 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 this variance will expire on that date (December 11, 2001). 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 applicant has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Tide of the property. Page 3 of 6 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _4K7 9 .• I. M ^ M'nnwoa « » fcguUrmeeiing held on the 11th day of December, 2000. * ATTEST: GabrieX Jabbour, Mayor \ ) 8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN »"ss ?”!!!?: * municipal corporation and said insinimeni was executed on behalf RACHEL DOOQE MTMVfUlW-lMCSO^ 1% OMRMan e^tai Jn lU ATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) A_i_^ /DcC)t Notary Public On this —day of —L.g^rv**^^Lj--------. 20_£_j_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county personally appeared ^ Prect n ^ toown to me JO ‘he person(s) described^ and who execut^ the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that hc(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. RACHEL OOOGE NOTARY PUaUC -IMCSOrA lAf CcBiDkitoa beSMiMi SUM *- t DvcA^t. Notary Public Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT A 4579 CERTIFICATE OF .TITLE NO. 776442 Thot port of Lot 27, FagtmESE ond the occretlon therto described os follows: Commencing at o point on the Southerly line of Under the Unden Avenue which point Is distont 75 feet Northeasterly from the. Southwest comer thereof; said point being marked by the judicial tondmork; thence Northeosterly olong the Southeasterly line of Under the Unden Avenue o distonce of 100 feet which point is marked by o judlclol londmork; thence South 34 degrees 14 minutes Cost a distonce of 69 feet which point Is marked by o judicial landmark; thence continuing South 34 degrees 14 minutes Cost o distonce of 6 feet more or less to the shore of Loke Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly olong the shore of Lake Minnetonko o distance of 97.7 feet nftore or less to its intersecUon with a line which boors South 33 degrees 46 minutes Cost from the point of beginning; thence North 33 dearees 48 minutes West o distonce of 8 feet more or less to o point which Is marked by a judiciol londmork; thence continuing North 33 degrees 46 minutes West a distance of 64 feet to the point of beginning. For purposes of this description the North One of Fogemess is ossumed to be o due Cast and West line. Subject to the reservation by the Stote of Minnesota of oil minerals and mineral rights In ond to the said Northeasterly 100 feet of the Southwesterly 175 feet of sold Lot 27; Page S of 6 EXHIBIT B O' 4579 \ -----------'TTS^o* 12’ •»' -^.^211-- ■ r .-I \ •r* '^'JSX. \ <J{ )yjy . I ^100.17 5 W • S^'< tiA* r \ lake MINNETONKA < i: Ul P«gc 6 of 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, No\‘cmb€r 20,2000 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jay N>-gard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, and Sandra Smith. Commissioner Daniel Kluth was absent. The following represented City Staff. Senior Planning Coordnutor Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenbcrg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representatives Gabriel Jabbour and Wchard Flint were present. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS («I) W2623 FRED JOHNSON, 1926 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m. - 6:<tS p.m. Fred Johnson, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Afiidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger slated the Applicants arc proposing to remove an existing residence and detached garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75' lakeshorc setback. Weinberger stated this is one of three lots that are all located on tlie south side of Fagemess Road, with all three lots onlx having a depth of 70* from the lakeshorc. Original]/ the Applicants had requested variances to lot w idth, lot area, lakeshorc setback ‘*nd hardeev cr in order to construct a house consisting of 1,690 square feet After discussions vxith Staff, the Applicants were advised to reduce the sire of the house to comply with the structural coverage limitations. Weinberger noted for lots under 10,000 square feet, the property can have a maximum of 1,500 square feet of structure The Applicants have revised their plans and have redesigned the house to reduce the structural coverage to 1,495 square feet, with the elimination of additional hardcover that would have been required for a third stall to the garage Weinberger stated th.- amount of hardcover ilut exists on the property currently is fairlv equal to What is being proposed Weinberger stated since the property is located enti.civ within the 75‘ lakesliorc setback, it has had variances granted in the past to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s Conditions r!c;cd on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed what had prev lously existed since no hardcover is normally permitted within 73* of the lakeshorc Weinberger noted the existing house and deck are located only a few feel from the lakeshorc, with removal of the house and construction of a new residence resulting in a setback averaging 30 feet to the house Relocating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate setback to the street, with 30 feet being the required setback to the street Weinberger noted the Applicants are proposing a setback of :0 feet, which would allow sufficient space to back out cf the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street and would provide off street parking for the propertx . PAGEl ^^NUTESOFTIlE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Novtmber 20,2000 («2623 FRED JOHNSON, Continued) Weinberger stated the Applicants are also proposing a small covered entrance consisting of 36 square feet to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. This uould result in total structural coverage in the amount of 1,531 square feet, which equals the amount of structure that currently exists on the property. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting a variance to structural coverage to permit replacement of the 1,531 square feet of structure where 1,500 is allowed by Code, a variance to permit structure tao be located within 75 feet of the takeshore, and a variance to permit 2 079 square feet of hardcover where none is allowed. ' Weinberger stated Staff would request an updated survey prior to review by the City Co .cU with the updated survey also indicating the lowest floor elevation for the new residence in order to determine whether the new house will be located three feet above the Staff*s only concern with this application is that structural coverage exceeds the allowable 1,500 square feet allowed under Code Weinberger noted the amount of structural coverage being proposed is equal to what currently exists on the propeny. Johnson commented he would like to co' struct a larger residence, but due to the limits set bv the City of Orono, he has reduced the size of the building. Lindquist inquired whether the existing garage will also be removed. Johnson stated it will be. Hawn inquired whether the deck has been included in the hardcover calculations. Weinberger staled the deck has been included. Weinberger stated the deck proposed is a ground level deck and would not be considered structural coverage Stoddard commented in order to be consistent the Planning Commission should look at requiring the Applicant to reduce the amount of structural coverage to 1,500 square feet Hawn stated that was her only concern with this application as well Hawn noted the Planning Commission has tvpically not granted variances to structural coverages in the past. Lindquist inquired what the size of the garage will be. Johnson staled it will be 22.5 feet Lindquist inquired whether the garage could be reduced bv one foot. Johnson commented he wx uid be willing to reduce the garage bv- one foot in order to keep the front entry way. S^^dard suggested that approval be made contingent upon structural coverage not exceeding PAGE 2 c- City Council Meeting a Deccii.ber 1 1.2000 •9. #2623 Fred Johnson, 1926 Fagemess Point Road—Variances—Resolution No. 4579 Sanscverc moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4579 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit 1,500 s.f. of structure nithin the 75 foot protected lakeshore setback to Lake Minnetonka where no structure Is permitted, and Section 10.22, Subdivbion 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(I) to permit 2,079 s.f. (26%) of hardcover within the 75 foot lakeshore setback svherc no hardcover is allowed subject to all conditions listed in the resolution. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. #2625 Morgan Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road—Variances—Resolution No. 4580 Sanses-ere moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4580 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code SectionlO.56, Subdivision 16(C)(1) to permit ■ the construction of a sw imming pool 123 feet from the OHWX of Lake Classen where 150 feet b required to lakes classilied as NE, Natural Environment and to Section 10.56, Subdivbion 16(C)(3) to permit a 9 foot encroachment Into the average lakeshore setback for structures where no encroachment b allow ed subject to all conditions listed In the resolution. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. #2633 Jerome Laguc, 2138 Shadpvood Road—Variances—Resolution No. 4581 Sanses ere moved, and Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4581 granting a vari.'mce to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivbion 16(L)(2) to allow 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75 - 250 foot lakeshore setback where 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) exists and 4,137 s.f. (25%) is allowed and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow encroachment of 8 feet into the average lakeshore setbaek to permit a lakeside deck to be replaced subject to all conditions listed in the resolution. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Items 12 and 13 appear after item 14. 14. #2640^641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayiata Boulevard—P.U.D./ Subdivision/Rezoning/Commercial Site Plan Reviews Frank Dunb.-*.:, developer, was present. Weinberger stated that Orono Ambar. LLC submitted an application for a two-lot plat of a 6.7 acre propeny, splining it into a 4 acre and a 2.7 acre site. Proposed is a rezoning for the two properties from B-l, Retail Sales Business District to B-6TUD (for office use of the proposed west parcel) and RPUD TLT) (for multi-family residential use of the C0NTMU0U6 moos VENT. TTP ASPMALT 60MMtU.E8 BY CONTRACTOR *' ICE 6MIELD. TFT. W TRIM BY CONTRACTOR bte* TRM BY CONTRACTCR • g^i agu lOeuL 3X4- DECKING 3 X IB* J01ST5 IT I I I I I i II II II li ij_u____ii_ll----------------li----- ©■ PROJECT SOUTH ELEVATION • r-o* I r \ ■] Q. i ^ V / / A \ IT PROJECT EAST ELEVATION @ m — T~ % 1 !=^.= rr:t. 1/4- • r-®- I^AG, FA6^ajpss P t. Z O z T O Qm(KU- JOB NC SHEET Pk SPECIAL NOTE see attached sheet tS“Tx3COO________ CODE REQU!R£Mi£^ Ptovida 2 lEi'ers Of lai-fl-^v ■" ■ •■, Halt oolid Mcppad Tosai'.^' f 24" Inside EXT. Watt Una For Wood Shingles Or Shakes V'* PROJECT ULIE6T ELEVATION 1/4" • I*-®- !9J^g rr. fP •r^4* ! I- L 1 ! 1 1 b 1 1 Ij 1 1 ' ^1 1 < 1 ►«1 1 r•*«1 1 r-te«j2 ,0'>«=P * P(ODf r ^-<1 4b" • *rn-ioe*«/ irtrfJ. V., .....''."fioMa |.A CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 77S442 TImI p«r1 •> lot 27, r»9«fn«M on4 tM occr«l toaowt: Co<Twn«ncln9 «t • p«in4 on l^« Sov«n«< Undon A««nwo orweh »oint ti «itton( 7S >■•« h Soutn«*tl corrvtr lh«roe«: OOid point oon^ mo< londmar%; Utonco No/tnoo»lofV olong Iho South UM Undon *»onuo o diolonco of 100 foot on< a iudkidf tanOmofli; thonco South 34 dogroos ' «stonc« of M foot ahich point is morliod Py • thonco contVtuing Sotrfh 3* dogroos l« minulo*. fool moro or IMS to tho shoro of leko u,nnol Sewth*oslon)r olong tho shoro of less Ihnnolo*- fost mors or Ims to Ms intorssclion wth o sn. S3 dogroos OB minutos Cost from tho pouM of North XS dogroM «8 minutos ISost o distonco loss to O poutt ohiefl io morSod by s iudcisi I continuing North ii dsgross «8 minulM Wotl ( Is tho point of beginning. For purposes of this lire of regornMS is essumsd to bo s d«o Cos' Subject to tho rosorvolion bp tho Slolt of Nunn ond mir\orol rights in sr4 to Iho soid SMrtitoov SeuthMSlorip I7S foot of soid lot 27. GENERAL NOTES • Osnolos iron mormmoni fotmd. O OonolM Iron monumonl sot. B 928 27 Osnolos spot siovalion C>OMtien of oaisUng house Krst floor ■ 933 S9 CiMoton of proposed house rest floor • S33t Caisting Hordeevor coNidoGons Ul Stouts Corogo S<ds«oOi PoUe/Oscb Stops Cro«dl OriM 8,018 S« 1.187 Sg 344 Vt 129 Sg 419 Sg 43 Sg 210 Sg n rt. ftn. ri. ria S«< 1/2 Mch bo. 0^ . ■Oh OtS ISS44 »iu»X (M IMm tou^tfi Ibuu} lotol Hard CoBor 2.328 Sg. a (2 Proposed Hordcouor cotcutolions lot S«OHSo Ornouep S>do*aib Oocii Stoop 8.018 Sg a I.4B4 ^ n. 401 Sg. a 43 sg. a 140 Sg. a 34 Sg a foM Mord CoBor 2.082 Sg n C .r t i.'- This droo'M tier Choeliod ond roBioosd Vtai t^s*-»- of Scol« irt Feet CERTIFICA TE OF OCCUPANCY City of Orono BuUding and Zoning Department SITE ADDRESS RJ.D. OWNER 1926 Fagemets Pt Rd. Datt Approved:3W2002 17-117-2323^16 Fr«d Johnson ZONING DISTRICT HRE DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE _ BUILDER _ ADDRESS LR-1C Mound Wayuta 55391 Caliber ButIdefS 4017Nof1hSlwDfh/« Mound. MN 55364 BUILDING PERMIT NO. TYPE P03656 Ne.' 5/150001DATEISSUED ______ % SEWER P04132 SEPTIC ^C UNITS 1 WATER P04133 PLUMBING MECHANICAL P04143 P04144 FIREPLACE P04733 T\‘PEi Residential APPROVED OCCUPANCY USE: Single Family NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS:1 Commercial Structures: This certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not he removed except by the Building Inspector. Residential Buildings: Need not post il l* certificate of occupancy. No change In the use is aUowedprior to obtaining new certificate of occupancy REMARKS: Approved Resolution #4579 FOR rOURJMORMATION For any police, fire or ntedical emergency - Call: 911 Posting of your assigned street number is required h purchasing a new home. fiJr for your homtueod at the C$ty ojjiees hegiuer your address for \oting. drixers license end iTTifiTfnrtiff regatretion City uater and seuer is btUed quartets Septic inspection feet are bitted annually Permits art required far any additions or alterations on your property or for construction of any garages, deck dock or other accessory strsicture. Special regulaitont prohibit any eieaxaiion. filling, g 'ding, dredging, tree remoxot. or eonstruction of any kind uithln 73 feet of any lakethore or uithin 7t feet ^any uetlauds Till is to certify tkat tksie inipetteJ the premises ai ike aba% e address and ikai ike buildirg sabitantia:!} eonforms to ike reqairemenu ^tke o ’dinentes of the On eppUeebte to neufy eenstraeied buildingi, or to such aiieratlons or repairs as uere toxeredby this baiUmg permit nan^r and Ikai ike eonstraetlon. eherations or repair has been sabiianaaUy eomp.’nedin aerordaree mik ikt plans upon a kick the bailding permit req tired by ordtoatce aOS isiaed V Building Official Zoning Administrator Feidv, March tS, 2002 0%Ue OanerfBidIder Canary: Atsesioe PuL finaace CoUenrod Street PUe .JBu. r" CITYoTORONO Mwddpd Offlcts SMMIrtn: 2750 Mty fiAway OniM. MN S5356 P.O. Iv 66 Cnrttai i9i. m 55323 ooes Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road OroooMn. SS391 Re; Illegal Deck Dev Mr. Johnson As Vie have discussed in the past the second level deck on your house at the above referenced property was not approved and must be removed. Enclosed is Cit>‘ of Orono Planning commission minutes. Page three discusses the deck issue. The discussion was regarding structural coverage. The ground level deck is not structural coverage because it is less than 6 feet above grade. Hov'ever the second level deck is considered structural coverage and therefore puts the p.'openy out of compliance with the Orono Zoning code. A deadline of 3-19-03 has been established for removal, or (if you feci you have a hardship) for variance application submittal. If this deadline is not met the matter will be referred to the city attorney for le^ action. If >*ou hav*e any questions please feel free to contact me at my ofHcc. . Sincerely LJIeOman Enclosures; 11-20-03 Orono Planning Commission minutes Orono Municipal code section 10.03 subd. 14 C 2 [jfiu C.,V.mA.VD. TdcplMM(952)24M6M • Fai(fS2)14M6l6 r 5 crnror orono Mnic^Omctt toMtlMnss: mOMtjfmkm Orano, im 5S3M MNMnn: P.O. •« S6 CiysUI Bay. HI 55323 0066 Fred A. Johnson 4017 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 5S364 RE: Illegal Deck -1926 Fagemcu Point Road Dear Mr. Johnson: Ajji^ve <lucimed in Ihe past the second level deck on your house at the above lefetnced “* "21“' *“ i» e copy of the City of Orono ™ P**e Ihiee discusses the deck issue. The discuuion was puts the property out of compliance with the Orono Zoning Code. * i^li« of March », :003 has been established for removal, or (if you feel you l»ve a »«bmittal. If this deadline is not met *e matte will be coSmei rS om“'"‘" “yiucstions. ple«e feel free to Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building OfTicial Enclosures: -11-20.03 Orono Planning Commission Minutes - Orono Municipal Code: Section 10.03, Subd I4C2 Cc: Randy d: Michelle Chwialkowskl. 1926 Fagemess Point Rd.. Wayrata MN 55391 rd Tikphoot(f52)24M<lt • Fas (912) 24M4i( wwwxLoreaoiMun \ , MINUTES OF THE"' ORONO PLANNING CXIMNnSSlON MEETING Monday* November 20,2000 ROLL The OroDO Planniog COmmltsloa met on the above date with die following members present: Chair EUzabedi Hawn, Commissioners Jay Nigard, William Stoddard, Dale Lindquist, Janice Rer|, and Sandra Smith. Commissioner Daniel Khith wns absent The foUomog represented CiQ* Stall: Senior Planning Coordinator Michael OaSron, Zoning Adimnlstrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council RepresentaUves Gabriel Jabbour and Mchard Flint w*ere present Chair Hawn called the meetiitg Co order at 6:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS (»1) 192623 FRED JOHNSON, 1926 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 6:31 p.m. - 6:4S p.m. Fred Johruon, Applicant, was present The Certificate of Mailtog and Affidavit of Publicadoo w’ere noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to remove an e.\istiAg residence a::d detached garage and construct a new* residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75' lakeshore setback. Weinberger stated this is one of three lots that are all located on the souA side of Fagemess Road, with all three lots only having a depth of 70* from die lakeshore. Originally the Applicants had requested variances to lot width, lot area, lakeshore setback and hardcover In order to construct a house consisting of 1,690 square feet. After discussions with Staff*, the Applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply wish the structural coverage limitations. Weinberger noted for lots under 10,000 square feet, the property can have a ma.\imum of 1,500 square feel of structure. The Applicants have revised their plans and have redesigned the house to reduce the structural coverage to 1,495 square feet, with the elitniaaiion of additional hardcover that would have been required for a third stall to the garage. Wcutberger stated ih: amour.i of hardcov er that exists cn the propert>* currently is (airly equal to what is being proposed. Weinberger stated since the propertv* is located entirely w ithin the 75* lakeshore setback, it has had variances granted in the past to aliovv replacement of structures in the 19S0s. Conditions PAGEl Miriliiaiiimiirir MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, November 20,2000 placed on the aqiacentt»rup€itiea xsxn that the amount of ftnietmaiid hardcover noc exceed----- whal had previously existed since ho hardcover is nomuUy permitted within 75 ’ of the lakeihore. Weinbeiier noted the existing house and deck are located ody a few feet fiom the laloeshoc^ with removal of the house and coostiuetton of a new residence resulting in a setback averaging 30 feet to the house. Rdocating the house further from the street wmild not allow Ibr an adequate setback to the street, with 30 feet being the required setback to the street Weinberger noted the Applicants are proposing a setback of 20 feet, which would allow sufiicient space to back out of the garage into the driveivay without backing a vehicle directly into the street and would pronde .oflf street parldrig for the property. Weinberger stated the AppUcanu are also proposing a souU covered entrance consisting of 36 square feet to the from of the building that technically would be considered structure. This would result in total structural coverage in the amount of 1.531 square feet, which equals the amount of structure that currently e.\ists on the proper^'. Wemberger stated the Applicanu are requesting a variance to Kructural coverage to permit repUcemeot of the 1,531 square feet of structure where 1,500 is allowed by Code; a variance to permit structure tao be located withm 75 feet of the Iskeshorc; and a variance to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover where none is allowed Wcinbeiger stated Sta£f »x>uld request an updated autxey prior to review by the City Couned. with the updated survey also indicating the lowest Boor ele vaiioa for the nen residence in order to detetmine nhether the new house Bill be Icated three feet above the OHWL. Stars only concent with this application U that structural coverage exceeds the ahowable 1.500 squste feet allowed under Code. Weinberger noted the amount of stnictmal coverage being proposed is equal to what currently exists on the propertv*. Johnson commented he would like to constnict a larger residence, but due to the limits set by the City of Orono, he has reduced the size of the building. PAGE 2 L MINUTESOFTHE ‘ ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING Mood*}*, November 20,2000 Lindquist inquired wbethertiie existing gnnge svill also be removed. Jobnaoa staled It %\ill be. Hawn inquired whether the deck has been included in the hardcover calculations. . Weinberger stated the deck has been Included. V.*;lr.b rtet; j !ht det!: rrcrrrrd jg levd deck and would not be considered structural coverate. Stoddard commented in order to be consistent die Planning Commission should look at requiring die Applicant to reduce the amount of structural coverage to 1,500 square feet. Hawn sttted that was her only concern with this application as well. Hawn noted the Planning Commission has ^ically not granted saiiances to stmctural coverages in the past, lindquist inquired what the sixe of the garage will be. Johnson stated it will be 22 J feet Lindquist Inquired whether the garage could be reduced by one foot. lohiuon commented he would be willing to reduce the garage by one foot in order to keep the front entrywny. StorMard suggested diat approval be made contingent upon structural coverage not exceeding 1,500 square feet. There w ere no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2623, 1926 Fagerness Point Road, granting of a variance to permit structure to be located within 75 feet of the lakeshorc and a variance to permit 2,079 square feet of hardcover where none is allowed, with the understanding the structural coverage will not exceed 1,500 square feet, subject to the conditions outlined in the November 13,2000 Flanner*s Report. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #2625 Morgan K. Nelson, 3145 Jamestown Road, Variances, 6:45 p.m. - 6:52 p.m. PAGE 3 § 10.03 MtOiat OunutnlitaStJ^US '«Unil«. w tcwMiy Source: Ordinance 72,2nd Series Adopted: 8-14-89 Subd. 14. Yards and Open Spaces. mimmum lot area rt.|uirements for any other building or dulling gr^. ^ lot area. The following shall be included in calculation of lot coverage by structures: 1. All roofed stnictures which extend more than 6' above grade level. r«rtt,]iJAP fi.M t J U r^' *”*‘°** "open** siruciurcs when V6* above grade level counuoCd;*■ rcg„dlessof«hether,uchp,ol-"rul:d “a^^^^ ORONOCC 255-3 Source: Ordinance 80,2nd Series Adopted: 2-26-90 . (4-1-84) ComplclioD Dale: DeadUnc: 11/13/00 1/11/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 6,2000 ITEM NO.: ^ DcpartmcDl Approval: Name Paul Weinberser TMc Zoning Administrator Admioistrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning llcfli Description:#2623 Fred A Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-iC One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 8.018 s.f. (.IS acre) AppUcalion: Applicants have proposed to remove the existing residence and detached garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75* lakeshorc setback. Lilt of Exhibits: A B C D Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Site Plan Planning Report Background: Applicants have reduced the size of the proposed house and reduced the size of the garage to « r« stall garage. Original application requested a 1,690 s f house. After a series of discussions wr*. It’ju': the applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural coverage ' ions For lots under 10,000 s.f. the property can have a maximum of 1,500 s f. of structure. The revises '.an has reduced the structural coverage to 1,495 s f and has eliminated additional hardcover that would ha»e been required for a third stall to the garage. The plan indicates a covered entrance to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. 36 s.f. of additional structure would be added to the 1,495 proposed ■■ 1 ,53 1 s.f. equaling the amount of structure that has previously e.xisted on the propert>‘. Both adjacent properties are also located entirely within the 75* lakeshorc setback and have had variances granted to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions placed on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not exceed what had previously existed since no hardcover is permitted within 75' of the lakeshore. Planning Commission DUensston: PianningCommissionMinutesareattachedasExhibitB. The PlanningCommission voted 6to 0recommend approval of the application permitting 2.079 s.f of hardcover and not to e.xceed 1,500 s.f of structure. The recommendation was based on the fact the property is developed as a single family residence with 2,328 s.f liitra II ir Riquat for Couadl Actfoa MMCbMK/ DMMber 4.2000 i242S Fwd A. Iniwiflii___________ JpoonStvdS!^ «~cturt existing. The toUl herdcover and structure would decrease StelflUc—fJntion; COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached ftflohitioii. L Completion Date: 60 Day Deadline: II/I3/D0 1/11/01 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Manning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Cit>- Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: November 13,2000 SUBJECT: «2623 Fred A. Johnson 1926 Fagemess Point Road Variances - Pubiic 1 tearing Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 8.0 18 s.f. (. 18 acre) Application: Applicants have proposed to remove the existing residence and detached garage and construct a new residence on a lot that is located entirely within the 75* lakeshorc setback. List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Survey D Oevation Views Background: Applicants have reduced the size of the proposed house and reduced the size of the garage to a two stall garage. Original application requested a 1,690 s.f. house. After a scries of discussions w ith Staff the applicants were advised to reduce the size of the house to comply with the structural coverage limitations. For lots under 10,000 s.f the properly can have a ma.\imum of 1,500 s.f. of structure. The revised plan has reduced the structural coverage to 1,495 s f. and has eliminated additional hardcover that would have been required for a third stall to the garage The plan indicates a covered entrance to the front of the building that technically would be considered structure. 36 s f. of additional structure would be added to the 1,495 proposed = 1.531 s.f. equaling the amount of structure that has previously existed on the property. Both adjacent properdes are also located entirely within the 75* lakeshore setback and have had \ ariances granted to allow replacement of structures in the 1980s. Conditions placed on the adjacent properties were that the amount of structure and hardcover not e.xceed what had previously existed since no hardco\cr is permitted w ithin 75* of the lakeshore. •2623 FitJ A Jokitson 1926 F*jemeu Pdi M Road Vananen - R h Mk Hcarmf Patti StafT would reconunend an added condition that the property not be developed beyond the 1 500 s f of structure that is permitted by Municipal Code. The existing structure is 1,531 s.f. Lot Area Lot Width Lake Setback REQUIRED 21.780 s.f. 100' 75* Front (street) Setback 30’ Left Side 10' Right Side 10* PROPOSED 8.018 s.f. 100* 26* deck, 30'house 49* 20’ 10* 23* 16* VARIANCE 13.762 S.L Hardcover Hardships: Existing 2.328 s.f. (29%) Proposed 2.079 s.f. (26%)0% ballon cd The applict;.!:. hd- .iated m their hardship statement that the existing house is not livable and the existing garage is in poor sondition. (See Exhibit A) The existing house and deck arc located only a few feet from the lakeshorc. Removal of the house and construction of a new house would leave a setback of an average of 30’ to the house. Locating the house further from the street would not allow for an adequate setback to the street 30* is the required setback to the street. The proposed setback is 20'. 20' allows space to back out of the garage into the driveway without backing a vehicle directly into the street, and would provide off street parking for the property. The lake and street setbacks would be consistent with those approved for the two adjacent properties. The hardcover variance is required as the entire lot is located within 75* of the lakeshorc The profwscd hardcover w ould include 1.495 s.f. for the house. Additional hardcover would be required for the sidewalk connecting the driveway to the front entrance and the front steps. A 164 s.f. deck has been proposed on the lakeside of the new house and \\t)uld be located 26* from the lakeshorc A hardcover summary is located at the top of page 3 of this memo. • :62JFftdA iohmofi 1926 Fatrmeu Fomt Road Vanaocci - FhMic Hcviaf F«|<2 Hardcover Existing Proposed House 1,187 s.f 1,495 s.f (With Attached Oarage) Garage 344 s.f Sidewalk 125 s.f 90s.f Patio/Dcck 419 s.f 164 s.f Steps 43 s.f 36 s.f Driveway 210 s.f 294 s.f Tout 2,328 t.f.2,079 s.f. Variance Aorirovals Reouested 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C) Structural Coverage-to permit a replacement of the 1,531 s.f. of structure \%iterc OOO s.f. is allo^^-ed by Code. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision I and Section lO.SS, Subdivision 8 • to permit structure to be located within 75' of the lakeshore. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.S6, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) • to permit 2,079 s.f (26%) hardcover where none is allowed. Additional Information Requested 1) The updated survey does not show the revised footprint for the site plan under review by the Planning Commission. Should the Planning Commission make a recommendation of approval an updated survey shall be provided before review by the City Council. 2) The survey shall also indicate the lowest floor elevation for the new residence to determine the house will be located 3' above the OHWL (929.4*). No land alteration can occur below the defined flood elevation of 93 1.5*. Staff Rcconmcndation: Staff recommends the fmal site plan not exceed 1,SOO s.f The covered entrance on the street side of the house constitutes 36 s.f of structure. The overall plan is consistent with the approvals granted for the two adjacent lots (both are similar situations being located w ithin 73 of the lakeshore). •2633 Fit4A.MHwa 1926 Fafcmns Fdmi Road Vmaoca - fuWic Hcaraig r aXY OF ORONO - VA UANCE APPLICATION Initial Appliceticm Fee S2SO.OO (S50.00 per each adc Uoael variance) Kenewal Variance Fee 5130.00 (oo change fioni ori] inal appticadoo) Variance for non-confo ming atniclurea S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (D« uble appUcalion fee) property INFORM/nON ^ ^ P Site Address Property Identification \uober (PJv.)____________ AppUcatioo # Date Receh-edy Amount Paid Property Identification 'sudber (PJx).)_________________^------------- Attach legal descripdo i to appUt^on if not included on required survey. Date Propttty Acquire* ___________________ ____________^(inonth/year) I (do)' ' ^ - Preset Zoning District J) also O' m th^djacent parcels of land. Pi^'n^Sise^ptopeilj: .^presidential ___pother (specify), APPUCANT a Name ‘ Address; k, . X >:...VdQ. j£S£a OWNER (if different tl m Mpllcant) Name ^ ^ Addres*: l*i AL ^<L City: Phone fbomel Phone fv^-ork^ Zio: c: DESCRIPTION OF RCQUEST Describe request in d tail: ___ Phone fliome^ ^ ^ Phone fworki 36^4 Cit\*: ________Zip: Estiinated Construction Cost S_ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUI lED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover jLot Coverage Setback:__Front Other (specify) __Side ___Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRE TION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue bar* ship or practical difhculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance tvith Zoiing Code rcQuIre.^eots: ^kcust fLit t\ti tiJTli Ai.ll Cx.tr . ——— (attach additional sheets if neccssarj) I 7-II%S3--A3 % ft,-*.' V V* ‘ . • Ja .) ..V'""^ ••or <T' \ UNDER LAKE MINN^ONKA '•« 4» <r«^‘Vi<W' ./ • HT.IW ■ -, ^ •**n S«««v«<«—Ta«i» •If *nM/^^ ____________________ C*W<^C>». 4J**^*> • ■D^ C? ■ 1 ‘ _ /• -r*t- •n-, •: •’•T / •> r- L.--- L- mc^m Em i; V 17117233230016a 1711723230016b V;;' ; an K-OT 1711723230016b! Pex L 1 .-.'7 • .'-< -j ^#1 .. „. -ftU *s*^ ^*5 ^ t V: " ii!8i?(im \ \ r> •*\ ^'>• vV>Vc- '-Kv: N' County Taxpayer fv •rrt‘.tty. f . rr »C> <[> Q (f'> n- tl'7-’:2'Z-(^ \rcel Information :•! ID 1711723290016 Houm Number 1926 8tr«ot Name FAOBRNE8S POINTJll i 7fHaisnot»l0ga»yncofti§ant§fi.h/9pf999nt»»compil9iionctMonnaem *' tmidatakomQty. County, mi StrnntamMhoriimvtitoltmmMiicn. ■/ J« l7ll7U2innot rnOPADOR IMS FAOllRNnSSKtlNTItO OWNUl NAMC WIUJAM A IIIODS TAXPAVGIt WIUJAM A imiDS NAMli/ADM IWSFAGERNnSSrOlHTRD WAVZATAMN SSJ9I IICNNETIN CCM >ny TROPt.,. V INFORMATION SYSTEM PROI”3n YGV.NERS LIST PACE: I It nimJlMOOO PROPADOR 1913 FAGCRNESS l*UINT RD OWNFJlNAMe DRANOONCSTOVERN TAXPAYER DRANDONCSTOVEIW NAML/AOOR 1913 FAORRNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 )t 1711733330010 PROPADOR 1931 FACERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME 0 L POERSON ACM PETERSON TAXPAYER DARRYL L PETERSON NAMGADDR 1931 EAGERNESS POINT RD WAYZATAMN S539I 3t I7II7333300II PROPADOR 1939 FAGERNCSS POINT RO OWNER NAME LLOYD DRAPER TAXPAYER LLOYD It DRAPER NAME/ADOR 401S GIRARD A VE SO MPLSMN 55419 3t 1711733230013 PROPADOR 1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD OWNER NAME R D ROOdRTS ET AL TAXPAYER RiaURODROOERTS NAME/ADOR 1937 FAGERNESS POINT RD ORONOMN S5J9I 3t I7II7332300IS PROP ADDR 1932 FAGCRV'JS POINT RO OWNER NAME BARRY JMARON TAXPAYER BARRY JMARON NAME/ADOR 1932 FAGERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1711733330016 PROP ADOR 1936 FAGERNESS POINT RO OWNER NAME RANDY OIWIALKOWSKI ETAI T/OlPAVER RANOV/MKTtELLnaiWMUCOWSXI NAME/AOOR 1936 FAGERNESS POINT RO WAVZATAMN 55391 31 1711733330031 PROP ADDR 1930 FAGFJINESS POINT RD OWNER NAI4E BRUCE A CAMILLE OBITTSS TAXPAYER BRUCE A CAMILLE CURTISS NAME/ADOR 1930 FAGERNCSS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 I CERTIFY THAT T1 IE FACT5 REPRESEVTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. /) DATE BY :ai K.’.f ■< -r ...V O -f\ c bJBiKiMrmr><tf*te>vv%A..-, Application Complete: 3-264)3 60DayDe«iniie: S-23-03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, City Planner DATE: April 18.2003 SUBJECT: «03-2881 Curtis & Kathleen Midthun 2941 Casco Point Road Variances -- Public Hearing ZonlDg nislrict: 1 R-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 27,616.42 s.f. (.63 acre) Exhibits: A Anal>‘sis Worksheet B Application C Sur\cy D Letter from Applicant E Elevation Views F Floor Plans G Letter fiom City Engineer H Hardcover Calculations I Photos of Property J Plat Map K Property OwTiers List Application Summary : The applicants are requesting side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback variances to construct a three stall garage and additional living space to the existing residence. Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25. Subdivision S (B): Side Yard Setback; To permit the construction of additional living space to be 5 ’ from the side lot line where 10* is requir^ for the LR-IC zoning district. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (LK2); Hardcover in 75-250 ’; Within 75-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4.894 s.f. (3 I"/p), where 4,998 s/ (31.7%) exists and 3,945.1 s f (25®/i) is allowed. •0!-2ltl CurtiiXathleen Midthun 2941 Casco Point Road 4/1X2003 Page I of 6 3. SecUon 10.22, Subdimion 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (CK6): Average Lakeshore Setback: To permit an encroachineni into the a\‘enige bAcsbore setback. The total encroachment is approximately 84’. Dtocustioo: The applicants ha\*c met with suff several times regarding the proposed project. The plan review^ for this report is the latest submittal by the applicant ’s. Because the applicants have ^e char^ to the proposal, the surve>' included in this report does not reflect the changes Only the elcvauon vie>^^ and floor plans reflect the changes to the project. The existing residence was built in 1934. There have not been any additions Just upgrades to the ^ residence and a detached garage was built in 1986. There have not been any variances granted for this propert>’. •‘Milions. changing (he roorand caniilevering a wall 1. An attached garage/mudroom/bedroom addition to the north side of the lesidcnce 2. Enlarging the kitchen on the south side of the residence. 3. Cantilevering the wall by 2’ on the lakeside of the master bedroom. 4. Raising the roof to accommodate a new patio door on the second level with a deck and to connect the additions. Additions: (North side of residence) Garage Mud room Bedroom (South side of residence) Kitchen area Removab: Detached garage Concrete water basin Concrete Drivoway 24’x34 ’ -816s.f. 18x18 ’ -324s.f. I0*x34.8 ’»348s.f. 18’x26 ’ =468s.f. 373 s.f. 303 s.f. 200 s.f. 729 s.f. Side Yard Setback: Garage/ Mudroom/Bedroom Addition: The addition on the north side of the residence meets the required 10’ setback. The origin.?! *03-2811 CimislCathlecn MidUiun 2941 Casco Point Road 4'l|.7003 Pagc2or6 design had the garage setback 8.S* from the side lot line. The applicants have redesigned and the garage meets the 10 ’ setback. (The suney does not indicate the change). Kitchen Addition: The e.xisting residence is located 1.3 ’ from the side property line. As is the existing basement room. The original proposal was to add a stoiy (kitchen addition) over the basement room which would also be located 1.3 ’ from the property line. It has been determined that the existing foundation needs to be demolished and a new one constructed. The new foundation and story above it (kitchen addition) will be located 5’ from the side property line. (The sunc> not indicate the change). Drainage: The caves on the south side of the residence are shown at 1 ’ leaving a 4’ setback from the lot line. Drainage and excess runoff is a concern. With the construction of the addition so close to the property line there is not room to build a swale to direct the drainage/runoff around the side of residence to the lake side. Rain gutters will be required on this side of the residence. The rain gutters need to discharge at a location on the property where excessive runoff is not added to neighboring properties. The street side of the property is graded such that the drainage will be going directly onto the adjacent neighbor ’s property. The swale should be extended around the : sidence towards the lake. A revised drainage plan should be submitted and approved before building permit is issued. Ci'v Engineer, Tom Kellogg, reviewed the initial plan and his comments are attached as Exhibit F. Due to the changes in the proposed plan, staff suggests the applicant ’s builder w ork with the City engineer to work out drainage issues. Hardcover in 75*250’ setback zone: The existing residence and proposed additions are located in the 75*250’ hardcover zone. The existing residence is currently at 4.694.8 s.f. plus a 303.2 s.f. decorative fountain which will be removed. Existing 75-250’ hardcover is 4.998 s.f. (31.7®i) The proposed additions and removals result in a net decrcascl04 s.f. final hardcover will be 4.894 s.f (31®/o). P'Cks: The applicants are proposing to replace the existing deck on the lakeside of the residence. The square footage and placement of the deck is not changing. It is starting to deteriorate and the applicants want to update it at the same time as the additions. However, the deck is shown in the plans with a railing, therefore is included in the lot covc'^.ge by structures calculations. •03-2881 CimiiXaihken Midihun 2941 CaKo Point Road 4182003 Pagc3or6 The upper level new deck/patio door is over hardcover, therefore does not increase the amount of hardcover. Cantilevered walls: The cantilevered wall on the north side to the bedroom addition (Lakeside) is new and not over hardcover, therefore the amount of hardcover has a net increase of 32 s.f. The cantilevered wall on the street side of the kitchen addition is under the cave, therefore w ill not increase the amount of hardcover. Lot Coverage b>' Structures: The subject property is 26.616.8 s.f. in size and is allowed 4,142.4 s.f. of lot coverage by structures. Currently, the property has 2,578 s.f. (9.3%) of lot coverage by structures. The proposed additions and lake side deck increase the amount to 3,572.8 s.f. (12.9%). Foundation: The applicant’s builder, Tom Bricko, checked the foundation prior to submittal of the proposed addition plans to assure the foundation could handle the additional load of another story above it. Initially, it appeared to be sound. Building inspector, Bruce Vang, visited the site and had some concerns regarding the foundation and if frost footings existed. Staff forwarded those concerns to the applicant’s builder. The builder then dug dowa 4 W to verify if there were frost footings. There were no frost footings. The existing foundation will be removed and a new one constructed. The set of plans of which this report wa« written indicate the existing foundation will be removed, howaver the new foundation has slightly increased in size. The increase is approximately 20 s.f. Average Lakesbore Setback: A portion of the proposed addition on the north side of the residence, all of the proposed additions to the south side, and the cantilevered wall on the lakeside of the residence lie within the av crage lakeshore setback. The propert) to the routh, 2967 Casco Point Road, had a ttiUin residence and caretaker's house on it until 1977. In 1977, the caretaker s house was subdivided off from the property. The property with the caretaker’s house is addressed 2965 Casco Point Road. When the property at 2965 Casco Point Road was subdivided off. it became unusually shaped and significantly changed the average lakeshore setback for the two adjacent properties. (See suixey) P03-28SI Curtii'Kathleen Midihun 2941 Casco Point Road 4’I82003 P^4of6 The property at 2965 Casco Point Road is the adjacent lakeshorc properly, and the home at 2965 Casco Point Road is located slightly behind the subject property. Attached to 2965 Casco Point Road is a strip of land approximately 20' X 230 ’ that goes to the lake. Because 2965 Casco Point Road has lake frontage it is the adjacent property which is used to determine average lakeshore setback. Currently, 2965 Casco Point Road view^ of the lake are straight ahead, almost a timnel. The additions to the subject property will minimally if at all obscure existing views of the lake enjoyed by 2965 Casco Point Road. The addition on the south side of the residence will raise the height of the residence significantly higher than currently exists. However, there is a row of trees along the shared lot line and the topography is such that the existing lake view across the subject property is minimal. The additioiu will have little impact on 2965 Casco Point Road's view of the lake. Stalcncnl of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimon>’ regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1934. 2. The property is in the LR-IC zoning district and is a conforming lot. 3. The hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is being reduced slightly to 305o. but above the allowed 25%. 4. Is there any additional existing hardcover that can be removed to make the property more conforming? Should the shed near the driveway be required to be removed? 5. Should the 1st stor>' addition on the south side of the residence, which is proposed to be 5’ from the property line, which is better than the existing 1.3 ’, be required to meet the 10* setback? 6. The proposed addition w ill minimally if at all obstruct the view of the adjacent neighbor. The suMivision which occurred in 1977 drastically changed the average lakeshorc setback for this property. The proposed additions, except for the 2* cantilevered wall, are not any closer to the lake than the existing residence. 7. The proposed additions increase the lot coverage bv structures to 12.9®/'o, still below the allowed 15%. ■03-2881 Curtis Kathleen Midthun 2941 Casco Point Road 4'ia2003 PlfSSof6 8. Other issues raised by the PUuiniog Commission. Staff Rccommfdrtiao; With the existing foundatioo be removed and e new one constructed to accommodate the one story addition above it. it is an opportunity for the city to have the residence conform to the required side yard setback of 10*. Staffhas reviewed the application and the hardship provided and does not see a substantial hardship which would justify the side yard setback variance. If the Planning Commission feels there are substantial hardships for the replacement construction of the foundation to be 5* rather than 10* from the property line, then a recommendation of approval would be appropriate. **Due to the plan changes being submitted on Friday morning, on Monday staff will have detailed hardcover and structure calculations that will show the difference in a S* side yard setback versus a 10* side >ard setback. »03-2SII Curtis/Kathlecti Midthun 2941 Casco Point R<Md 4/11/2003 PV6oT6 ___ ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.r. (1/2 acre) Actual 27,616.42 s.f. (0.63 acre) Hardcover CalcuUtiou: Dbtaace froai Total area la Allowed Eiistiag Proposed ihoreUae setback hardcover Hardcover Hanicover 0-75’6,829.24 s.r.0s.f.354.1 s.f.354.1 s.f. (0%)(5.2%)(5.2%) No Change 75-250 ’15780.39 s.f.3945.1 s.f.4,998 s.f.4,894 s.f. (25%)(31.7%)(30%) 250-500*5,007.18 s.f.1502.15 s.f.293 $.f.293 s.f. (30%)(5.9%)(5.9%) Stnictural Lot Coverage: Total Lot Slie Total Structural Coverage 27.616.8 s.f.Allows: 4,142.4 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2.578 s.f. (9.3%)* Proposed: 3,572.8 s.f. (12.9%) •The existing foundation is deluded in the structural coverage calculation. CITY or ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoitning strxKtures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY Application # 03I Dale Recelved~32^S3 Amonnt Paid m €/)m4- (mJ ,^£pnn, Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ^)r)- n't - OO V' /Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) -^7^^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required itirvey. Date Property Acquired. ppucationimi I aduccnl _(month/ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land Present use of property: /-^^rCTidential 2foning District: L P — I (^ other (specify). APPLIC Nam Address: CANT Phone (home). Phone Ovorit)_ City:. OWTVER fif ^ffj^renl tjjan appHcjyit)yy Name^// Address:jg Tin JIM Phone (home ) ^_______ Phone (work) _____ _ City: Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost S VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area (attach additional sheets if necessary) / l-b-zso Lot Width V Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: __Front Other (specify) _J^ide __Rear l/ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical di.Ticulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Fr - i.iL REQUIRED SUBMITTALS .............................................................................................. *• __ Completed Application Fonn «. ---- Lut of the kpl namej (laclude mariul sutiu) of all perjonuriih «i intfeli /„ .», 8. — Additional items as may be requested by City stafT The Applicant and Property 0\\Ticr must sign this aoDllcation • Plf.aca» r*. u i. niiiMc, pppiKptiw Is pqf .pippim If throve info^m„.nn ^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Uc applicant hereby agrees to provide all informaUon required or requested bv tb. 7. • suppUed is true and correct to the best of his/her Swledge! infor-iation Applicanfs Signature .________ Date 3-/7- OWTVER’S SIGNATURE JmVz ci:; «aV —rr mombors forpuT.os^invcstig,«^v.rinca;ion oflku^^^^^ Owner’s Signature/^^^j^^^C 7 • r-ti. L ♦ NOTE: Verify all elevation and dimensions v/ilh Conlroctor prior to any Footing Construction /H)p A&ove> fiO • /l^eTO /-crofey ^ I si-BAy AFIV rc'i. 7/ *» /•. / TCHcf^ eKfim-iaf^ Ol/Cii ,V£-iv 761C • NOTE: Veri»y e« tfewoUon 0^4 «»h CoctfOcUK prior to oi»y FoolrfJfl ConsUweton pi njnsr. m li'o« a<t n. •:o\cKm: • m.3 rt. V£Ck' • IKt S-j. ft. Torn iUMncoxcK « sm.i Si- ft> mra ahfx is zosf - • CBst tt s<f rt. i SX lUFOCOXtK. OS AUOOtO <-\'' \ t '' \. Owners: Curl f: K»thy MiJUnni Z9it Casco Point Road Orono, Minncsuta. 3-29-03 cmr9>m% /?fr*J«0! 2-oy-Ol 0 ‘-73* tost BiiLOiyc • ISO e so- rt- roscHcrt ■ ps a s» rt Diet m tut sq n. a O i'0« OOOO C«no*«« Vmt (000 0) Uxol** 0#«90M« »vooo»»^ •’•O' r*. 1? C»t<«<0 •lo*' • NOTE Verify on e«evof«r» o«d O^nenttont • >lh Cor>?ro:tor pr.cr tO ony Fool'O^ Conslrucl>on rftopttTy pzscniPTios (.is phoudip by cuesv tnt Pif anif l/iol p«r» cf lot P.l Ijtng »oulftr«flrr// of • hnr runnlag ptratM •lift M«f 30 (r*l dxlanl Irom the noulftc«»lrrf/ tine of mW lot 8-t; •/»«• iforl vt lot t04 Ijiag aouUt fieri/ of o llae running parallel »llf» and 30 teal ditlaal from the eontheafterl/ line of aald Lot 101. Inriuding that part of tacated Lake Shore Aernue l/ing •croft the aborr tot 03 and the a bare part of Let 03. oil In Spring Park, according to the plat thereof on tile n. of reco.-d in the Office of the Count/ ^reorder. Uennepm Count/, ilinneaola. pttoposto HABDCovrn n'-tsQ' tost OVtLDISeS m 3.003 Sif PI. OKiir/olus « J.5P0 -S OCCh > Ml 5« II. «£T. sails • 03 Shj. n. sso’-soo' /n\t BITViliSOVS tDOY.f • »• Sf ft. TOTAL IIAHOCOVCIt m 4.000 Sq PI. jor.it Ann IX tost • <tq rt. TOT.XL lUHBCOVLM - 301 Sq Pt TOUL AfiPA i.v znxr i anur.iii Sq Pi :ii.7 s litKiiroUk 3 os iiLKOLonn. jot aihioi u EUSTI.VC HARDCOktn TS'-SSO' tost Bvnotxcs ■ 1007.1 Sq Pt co.\citnt a too 3 Sq Pt DCCk a 000 3 .<q ft. ft.,-'- ..,w W'VOIS (oor.i » tsio.i Sq PI I iru iifTrirrimr min • 3033 sq P* t-W'-soo’ /nst BfTt:ui.\0LS forrt a aos sq ft » ,e |«M TOru UAMOCOttn • 334 l Sq PL fiUL j«r.i IV toxP • o»to34 Sq. rt i ts HAMOCOtTB, OS AllOttB TOTAL BAXOrmCft * 4090 Sq. PI, Tor.lf. .«W« f.V tosp e 13700.39 Sq PI. joru lussrortK a ru sq rt Tora AMPl IV toxp • S007.I0 Sg PI. 3I.7S IIaMOCOVCH. 335 AUOOtO 5.9X H-inorOlPM, 305 .tuono DFitARS-CABlUa USD SlTlVnOBS. is( MO tear, nm ot oao run e> ue*-> -at erre—a >» vnM •• a—-I atO— Pt- act It* • a-, t a,h t»fat —e net er tt-t t* It •» • -Ofc-o *.1tna* e • //IV e Otet-Pete *ab-U rFUTIFICATR OF SURVEY PRCPAKCD FOR: n&D CONTRACTING ■ff-oi-diS! i^A«. ^OA- "1 (-,'Wvx- )V\ Aj^C7#2lvA'i- 6TW f^€-Q,vxC-^ rS* aJ*'";p ^U&L jl>^&0 • A% p A ^'A Ti-vc |4is ^o<2-vc l\Jof- 7^i-»s S it<£. . (^^<fZ. of O^/z^i IS To ^$Cra^3 /2c of SiT<£. . (s AJor /V T^^/2_ Ajv^/u I VAC • 6-vc;ir- £f,-t/L.r To tv Tit-e Ti^t> P/2^.pcv2,rlive o^-\nvt> /^/2^.pc=/2-r-n Xlf^ivSc.^ <^//liHro ^tTn^/f^-wsc-*- ^/H2 g/5*^ ^5 /f.*— 1 /fAr//^f^r~ oG Iju <s /lO/x/A fc-?^o>\K/i-s yJ-<sro/3y . ^(i-V£'«-‘jpt=t3 UJti~^~ ^U/A\Ce TTrC fUt/2^ U^‘-‘•y /^C.CT“A-- V-vJti 'RM^civvdtib VTv^s r?^0t-2.r*-| ^,^sco 'j^p ii^ of" c^Odt • JTlr-<> 06^ p" T*) Us Ou£r/t Ti-^? Tea /*U}i/^ 7-/}f/^ TT4t ^'psp/'^c® ^Ty^<u.^u'2e^ ^ C<y/r^ On& of lltf- !f\\(^(^ 77+-/^ /i^rf^^refo 7^ 77// e&im- I ’7^©FROMT ELCVATtON BEYOND OAWAOE »c^ >• • • •#• •c**-----------S >oT y \ trfrftwi r HH •■■xarTO* > FROMT ELEVATIO»i a OAWAOE r iejkA ^ Qesigne Tm »ctot —■!■» ^ «c auMT M rU4F« a.^- 2 ^(S U !2 ^ u o er rai-I? ^ «N 'All TT-. Qcsienct living Fff flf>% ti • ■ m ««i . • .9 rsQ. X ^ Li I W Qi QJ C.g -g£ *gc r- C|u ^ O' ^ <N 7\2R m BSS iiiiilftllili'ii i •! •• atttr.::: i:: srx-.^. ®LAKE SIDE ELEVATION dTh 'esigtKt AAB oisula Km^murnm I ft-•s '7V3R h. c *In hi2 o ^S 0) o T3 D- (U O ^ W> £. raI-■B ^ ^ CN "A4F 47/vles^net J!i»^ fevvwS*!! S<^BcmLU' T^twA. ^ ai-auM <«M •B-4f« c.2 c S-'S UJ O " 0^ QJ ^ '‘.s *D £ ■go“ a I O'CM ■^5R desighei iMrrg Jg««L § •g s- S o "O a. 0) o I;! t9U R I "A6R Aim Bonestroo MM ftosene Anderlik& Associates Engineer 1 4 Architects April IS. 2003 Ms. Wendy Bottenbcrg Planner City of Orono Post OfTice Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 5S323 Re: 2941 Casco Point Road File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2881 •wwtn** aMM*. Int it «• AN»m««i«« AitiM f Aval OaMiMwilf an* I "«>»«.»» OttnaA AiMKiAait Oi'o O Araa,* ..c ». • Vv.a. i v».a. »» • * ?.><!. ai • » ,*».• r, V<Xun.<K| PI • l».<. a ■ou'iton • V*"* a Maitan A| Wma* Cantiillanlt A loia"* A| • C an<»r.u ff • tK"a<dl tu*ra< Af • Vawai V Iba'iai c Aa Aitatiala A imcim ** «r.n< a Oe>dra< At • loAr-t I At • A r«u>j* taita- At .Oa.^O lew^'i A| • M •>a»' » ••aaijar A( . Ird ( • A| . a a>«ar>toa A| • Va>. ■ AoAi A| . Oa«A A A^•^au>o<| v«a »•<»•*, P a.- Af I j . ag..*! W A-s Mia * a.uni4. tci*a.<A At . tiuoa^ A Arr»Mo»' »l • ta-aiA Ma«st A| . «Mrt • lA-iaa At • I A*wi* &».*<■ At • Oar-*- J At • Kmaa! At « *»'0<*ai A t.i.a A| . WiABx < tsiviAx • Oa» a O'M* A| • a At • Asea-t J O*.*'. A| OMH*t tl A a / U C ax ^ A»**ir*> a*4 irt. Wjaaa ** • CiMagc A Dear Wendy. We have resnewed the ceiliricale of surv ey and proposed grading plan for the home additions to 2941 Casco Point Road. W'e haw the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed silt fence immediately north and south of the home is shown running up the hill. This silt fence configuration will concentrate flows draining towards the lake and increase erosion potential adjacent to the home. The silt fence north and south of the home should be eliminated and the silt fence shown lakeside from the home should be e.xtended at least 10-fect on to the adjacent properties. All silt fence should be heavy dut>’ with steel t-posts. All erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. • The drawings showr the existing home and a proposed addition within 7-feet of the south lot line. It appears temporary easements will be necessary from the property owner to the south to complete the construction and install the proposed draintile. • The proposed swale shown on the street side of the home drains southerly and appears to discharge onto the neighboring property. The swale should be extended around the home and towards the lake to convey (lows away from the neighboring property. A temporary construction easement will be required to complete this work. • Rain gutters should be installed on the home to direct water away from adjacent properties, particularly along the south side of the property. • The dnvaway shown to the property is mostly on the adjacent lot. A driveway easement should be acquired if one does not already exist. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you haw any questions regarding this maner. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. TomKellou^'^^’ cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 231S West Highway 36* Si. Paul. MN SSII3 • 6Sf'636*4600 • Fax: 6St*636*l3ll ..‘tA' M BAia>C0VERXAU:ULAT10N ^YORKSHEET SEXBACKZ<KfEt (CIRCLEOKI) 75^0* 250^00* fcJ^^TPIQ HARPCOVPt IM ZONE A. Bow* • . X • # I 500-1000* B. '..V. .. •jc C. Drtvtwv S. SMtwdk E. MofDtc\ X- X F. Lindsey Vo&cilila ByFUsde OrF5bde f. oJi6f (BcM X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• • _ _ _ _ • -h. B .X100 » VaOPOSEn HASPCOVraiN zone • A. House •«UA B. Oir«|> C. Dilvewior D. . Sidewalk E. Petlo/Dcde • ‘ P. Laadsetpe Uodcflala BrPlutle OrFabiie o. qdu Pi£d'(-kloit(^!iiU)C'J^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREAIN ZONE ‘ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B.xlOO - ^*5:3 /jiCr b 36^.1 5.4?- /^ •J c?. S.P. .S.P. .S.F. .S.E. .SB..S.F. .SF. S.F. .S.F. S.F. SP. S.F. ' S F. S.F. S.F. ’ R S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F S.F S.F 'S.1 S.1 s.* ■ R ..'fVv..HARDCOVER CALCULA-nON WORKSHEET SETBACK ZCKCEt CCOICLEONE) 0-7i* 250-S00' |LMaTPIQBiAimCOVKKPfgg>WE A. How • . % ' ___ 500*1000' X X X B. *Otnse- •. «••• V, . C. Difvcwqr D. SIdtwdk E Fcdonscdc v./> ••• • • . • r X- X V* ■* *. F. Xfndsc^e/Ocki^l'^C^ , x _______________ X C^Fi O. OAcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • •________ . B _X ICO - TOQPOSCT BABDCOVI^R IN ZONE * A. House ______________ X UiiX ■ XMA B. Otnie X X X ,x X X X X X i i\/M TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A ____________ ♦ B_xlQO « s.»* S.F, : SF. s.T. ■S,F. -S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. •S.F. C-Cfr.3 S.F. S.F. ^03.c3l SE S.F. S.F. L-0 S.F. S.F. S.F. =<in ___ r?rS«L S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 1‘^V'S.F. S.F. S.F. • ••S.F. S.F. S.F. (-C S.F S.F ---------------------^S.F V S.F S.F __f» BA10>COV£R CALCULATION WOItKSHEET SEIBACKZONEt (CIRCLEONE) 0-75* 7^330* ^^^-500*^500-1000* A. Hoost B. ‘Otni*-* C. Dcivcwqr D. SldtwiDc E. Pailo^Dcck F. Xjindscape UodeiUI& ByFlastie OrFAde aAUPCOVERlN EQNE Tnui X X X V >■» • • 1 / • O. 0(bcr ;v X * _ ______ X — X ______________ X ______________ * ___— X - * • * _ X _____________ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• • ■ ________ . B . .JQJ xlOO- - toqposed hardcover in zone * A. House ____________ 3 • WM& B. Genie C. Ddvewty P. SIdewdk E. Petlo/Dcck F; Ludscape Usdedala By Plestle OrFAde •> O. Other X X X .X X X X X X .S.T, .S.F. .S.E. .SF. -• •.lli£3_s.F. - •___________S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. _S.F. S.F ZSJF S.F vrv./r. ‘3.*= ______.fi S.l 's.l >.i .S' s. "s. s. 's. TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE ’ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ »-XlOO » r ■:• ■ir v: ■'v«-‘': *^ " V '^»- > . ^i;IBB .1 ■^■ --1 r^m " ? I" I•il '.l 5-. ! Iwm.-.. 1 ,.• C. i!r;'-'*v*- I; ' h ‘ -Si!4ri 4li:m 1 ■V--.. ' iii3yi yas ;j^aiz 'WSM m vS>. V '• ■ / ‘ >i I',,( L >- '• ^.1. . • / •■'iV • 1 w ta u gB i|H P Kli /ME;yyl f.!;!j iilllMlillj Y-^tsiy; ^11^ i\f tm wmm i,iiili■H .. *. i 'mamm j •.» i mm SM \^^'immwm > » ^r/. ' . ®ai:-. . - v H . Si .fc. *-r 'mi 13 !: -H J ,w.iL,v.» 4 VT ,«i«r*. 'I 1 ’ * ; ;. i'. 1 ‘ ;• . 1 '~'RUNOAU:J/IWiOU M »ll7233l002t rHOrAOOK MIO casco point IU3 OWNERNAME PMUJPABETPr NICCUM TA3CPAYER PHHXJP J NICCUM NAME/AOOR 29IOCASCOPTIU> WAYZATAMN SSJ9I MbNNIU*IN CUbNT>‘ PKOPtK IY INhOKMAIIUN SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PAt.l I 3S 2011733310034 PROP ADDR 2930 CASCO POINT RO OWNbRNAME X3NATIIAN A MENTH SUimJ: TAXPAYER JONATHAN A MEKHI NAML/AOOR 23MO SUNNYVAU: LANE EXCLUIORMN 3S33I M 30II7233IOU33 PROP ADDR 2940 CASCO POtNI RO OWNERNAME SCRLMIIANSON TAXPAYER sain C A LYNETTE M IMNSON NAME/ADDR 2940 CASCO POIN7 RD WAY/ATAMN S539I 31 20II7233I003A PROP AOOR 2941 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME PAULFJOHNCOX TAXPAYER PAULFX3HNCOX NAME/AOOR 29a CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 35391 3t 20II7233I004I PROP AOOR 2933 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME AUDREY A GAUISTEL TAXPAYER AUDREY GALUSTEL NAME/AOOR 2933 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 2011723310043 PROP ADDR 2975 CASCO POINT RD OWNERNAME SRAKKPERRY TAXPAYER STEWART R A KATin FEN K PERRY NAME/AOOR 2975 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2011723310049 PROP ADDR 2927 CASCO POINT RO OWNER NAMF FREOmCKJMEYETAL TAXPAYER FREDRICK J MEY ET AL NAME/AOOR 2927 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2011723310047 PROP AOOR 2941 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME COMIDTIIUN A K A MUHIIUN TA3CPAYER CIIRTTS A KATIIIEEN MIDTHUN NAME/AOOR 2941 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2011723310030 PROP ADDR 2925 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME DUNAIJ3 A DRKRiS TAXPAYER OONAIO A DRKXiS NAME/AOOR 2925 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 20II7233I00M PROPADOR 2970 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME IABMART1NSON TAXPAYER JERRY A BONNIE MARTINSON NAME/AOOR 2970 CASCO POINT ROS WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 2011723310063 PROPADOR 2965 CASCO POINT RO OWNERNAME KERICADERC3 TAXPAYER K ERR- A BERO N-AML/AOOR W65 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2011723310064 PROPADOR 2967 CASCO POINT RO OWTiERNAME TAOROZJiUUOM TA3CPAYER Till OOORE A OEUORAIIROZEUOOM NAME/AOOR 2967 CASE O PT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2011723310065 PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CTTYOf ORONO TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR THE CITY OF ORONO POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 >50 OO . m I CERTIFY TMATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPRESEKTAT10NOP INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OF THE HEhWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TNE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE-lIlL^ BY ^ Afd. >V>A^-"l -------- ^iiHt- G?v^0.v- , Oa-T2_ ^^v-otch^,-<^ f^t&nc.A9ncyv ^icA-^T” l^iTcne^, f;/On* 1/s/ 1^3^ ^ f^^jo 7>H. K\rci*^^ t\Ja^ Hrcw .Trt y^6: /we /l^irr^VN 0^ Tfie ^06 of o^u^ /4wK<r /^ 77>£. To ^ “Jl4(i^ ^Y-I^T7^C^ Sf^svvTtt BeSSrt^a^'-T uj^9<^ IS ix>c»^^rv^ 1,3' C\^ ^!0l- Thuf^*^ • L^r~ o«^<? ^^^9X^iO>//Mt50 ' “T^y^T- TFe' UJiu^ f'^oT ^tyjipjjzjs^ 0^*z f^CQiTfC^^ “Th6^ K\tm<^ Pu^^fO ^ ^<3 /i^rcvt Tl+e- (ou^ TlvCK To 7w^<r a/c^g^ To c$P#vv^-lis.u 7//^ Olo (^Tuc^v AiZC'/i) jTvsv^ul fccfT7f^cs^ ti/g £irqt.*.i^Ti^Ct> ^ L^P^Cti^cCr fCi’k^ lii&^ ^To /§'Cl,4j'^ ^ ^ fit'K’^ OH/L^ Li^f • ^rs S^rc 75ie Liut^ ^P^¥<€ UJt l4^ Jjcfeo Cr^ /^ Tam? K)e^ , A^-^c OH^*cx. ^l&<-o«o K/(Tk-«» ^ ^ava«^CfcV2 S^t^A/Z^ ! i\j^ ifi^i/e kJciJt<BO /(f4^i) i^i<rH Oif^ ^uLO^iC, ^P ^esf(o^ ^ Tlh^t^Jtr Al^#/xyT/tv/w 5 77^^ Lo<^k Ti*e Jo*o /(H^O *7j4£ (issts*^^ Cffv^c-O Cf>»^ (a^ ^^JiCii. 7^ *r (9*^^ tJ^eefuj L^cr. Me. ^1- A4f^i4>e^s j^uSO (DkiS. Fca»^ 6-S IT 4l.S6 JOv^^3<C4^'€ 5r<4^04<eos •1 7 t • ^ rtimm 1600Praif<tOrlvt Mcdina.MN 55340-5421 ——jl- 763-745-7500. Pftoo* 763-478-4000, Fa* ' ‘ • 763-478-4030.TDO www.co.hennepin.mn.ut April 17,2003 Ms. Jennirer Chaput, Planner CityofOrono 2750 Kelley Parkway POBox66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: Minnetonka Custom Homes, App. # 03-2887 Jennifer. Thank you for the submittal regarding the site at 4753 North Shore Drive (CSAH 19). Althou^ Hennqnn County has no land-use/zoning authority, the setback variance could be viewed in light of creating a turnaround for vehicles exiting the site; in other words, could a reasonable turnaround be provided if this variance were allowed? Under new construction scenarios we normally require turnarounds through the entrance permit process. Precluding vehicles backing onto county roads is in e\’eryone*s best interests for obvious reasons. We also stroitgly support the removals of the existing garage and concrete pad from the right of way. Not only does the garage present a hazard to motorists, but also the structure and the pad cause problems for utility installadons. snow-plowing, pedestrian activity, signage, roadway maintetumce etc. Finally, an entrance permit must be processed for the activity within the right of way as well as the construction of the new driveway. Again, thanks for the review opportunity and please call me at 763-745-7643 with further questions or discuuion. Sincerely, A David K. 21etterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZtjh c: GregGappa,CityofOrono Cathy Ab^ Hennepin County Operations 1 4n ORPortUfWy nivtoiw ftKytkdPoptr * fipr^ei eooa iii48fin ■oHCSTiiao rosene rhderlik ssieasiaii p» i • '4 \ • I «wt». (M. m m Affira ion Mty ■WjlRlirt 4 AfCtRfcti April 21.2003 Chipul Otio O nowmao. P§ • i U timMl »# • 0«»"n t C«M. Pt • to*«<i O M . tm»tr A a. Pt • u«.* A Naman. Pt tpntmr €mmtt mamtr ■a»rl W HawfO. U • Joinm C. M • aicnard I Vmat. M • Imma M lkt««A.C#A A mmIAM arlMCi#«H RMA A OoiABn. Pt • •oMri ■ AfafftA*. Pt • ticIMrR W fupi. Pt • Oaw M O lOWoia. Pt • •AcfiMl T tMmann. M • «M C. AaiA Pt • SawiMA P AnAt/iaA. Pt • Mwa t Anil. Pt • 0*n« A •w.cnfM Ml A li*wy P wmumton. Pt.Ll‘ Afnt« M tny M«A • AA«n UlandL ff • TAomM W PpfPnor Pt • Jsm»t ■ tMana. At. • Man ■ Mama . At • I A ma * Crp—t a. At. • 0«na< i lAytfMn. AC • ivami Matrai. At * *r»mm A l|r^ Pt ■ |a »A»w i iai ww • 0«« A 0>AM. At • Pnpmm A •■»«>•>. At • A ba t. i Omff At 0«A ma « M A ma ti CiauA ■acfwa«« an« «wwr. mn . Mf imMa . «i • OwA^a. A OtyofOraoo PoriOffiofB<n66 Or>italB«y.MN 55323 - Rr 4753 Norih Sbora Driv« Fik No. 1394)34)00 PtalNo.03-2tt7 Wo luvo foricwrf Ihe owtillctie of ninety riwwiBf ihe propoiod now hoB» coo^niclioR on the prepwty loooitd M 4753 North Stert Drhro. Aa ORMiiihaiBB win bo lOOMfVod prior to dw iMwboRH conMvelion. Wo lw«« iho fbUowing coanntt with logardo to eofinccring BMitoi: • Tlie plans diould include oontoun showing proposed gradtaig and flow mws indicatinf drainage ways. • ThtpiMisihould bo submitted to Hennqtin County for Ihoir review and approval. • The plans should show proposed rain gutter locations and proposed discfaerae points. • The plans show that the existing steps and rsfaiaing wall will re ma in. If this is incocrect the plans riiouhl be revised to show any improvcinents south ofthe proposed horoe and show all inpacts to the bkift The City should review wbsdier any bluff impscts arc permissible. • Heavy-duty ri>ftncc with steel t-posts should be instal led south ofthehoene and norih of the retaining walL It is critical that erosion control be installed, inspe cted and ap proved by the City prior to any work on the site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 6044863. Yoaae very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLOC ft ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: OiegOappe,CityofOrono 2J1S west Highway M • St. Raul, MN gSIU • 6f I-6J6-4M0 • Fan: 4SI-6M-UI1 Tt'*-^ ■ t'*' ■ s’"'t‘ '*»* ■ ‘ ' f vr ^ j Application Receivol: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 3/19/03 3/27/03 5/26/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner Apnl 17,2003 SUBJECT: HK)3-28S4 John L And Cheryl A. Fiebelconi 2730 Shady^ood Road Variances ~ Public Hearing ZaniniDbtricI: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.48 acres (21,049.5 s.f.) AppUcatioa SaMUuy: The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 399 s.f. lakeside deck with a 550 s.f. lakeside deck: 1. lakeshore setback of 68.3' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75' is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone: 593 s.f (6.8%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75’ to 250* lakeshore setback zone: 6,449 s.f. (52.3%) where 3,085 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 4. an encroachment of 22* into the average lakeshore setback; and 5. lot co\’erage by structure of 3,225 s.f. (15.3%) where 3,157 s.f. (15%) is permitted. The existing deck is beyond repair and requires complete replacement. The deck is currently **u- shaped" and the applicants propose to fill in the “u** area and replace the rest exactly as it exists. Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Sur\*ey Hardcom Calculations Existing and Proposed Plans Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Issued For Deck Repair 10/23/2002 Permit Record Photos of Property ttOJ-288-l John and Cheryi FiebeUtom 4 17/2003 Fagt / pfS Pcrtiaent Code ScctioBs: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2and Section 10.S6,Subd. 16(CX1): Stniclurcwithio 75*: Structures shall be set back a minimuni of 75’ from the (929.4’) of lakes classified as General Development (Request To allow a setback of 68.3’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75’ is requir^). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (LXl) & (2): Hardcover within 75*: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no e.xcavating, filling, hardcov er, iemporar>’ or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 593 s.f (6.8%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LKI) & (2): Hardcover within 75*: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporar>' or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 593 s.f. (6.8%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (D) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CK6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrtisions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. (Request: To allow an encroachment of 22' into the average lakeshore setback). 5. 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. EXCEPTION: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by a principal residence and garage structures. (Request: To permit 3.225 s.f. (15.3%) of lot coverage by structure w here 3.157 s.f (15®/i) is permitted) History: In the summer of 1988, the property owners constructed a pool, spa and pool equipment building in the 0-75’ setback zone without City approval. In April 1989, the property owners applied for after-the-fact variances for hardcover on the 0-75’ setback zone; average lakeshore setback; structural setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka; and a side setback variance for the pool equipment building (Zoning File /^I353, Resolution 1^2620). The requested variances were denied because a hardship could not be determined for additional hardcover within the setback zone. The owners were required to remove the pool and spa and fully restore the property. The pool equipment building was permitted to remain for the time being, pending an application for a lot line rearrangement. In June 1989, property owners were granted a lot line rearrangement (adding up to 20* in lot width from the property to the southeast) and an after-the-fact structure to structure variance (Zoning File #1401. Resolution #2640-A) to keep the pool equipment building where it was constructed on the southeast side of the house. The surv ey w ith this application show s a portion of the driveway to be removed. However, the resolution does not reference any required hardcover remov als and the driveway has not changed to date. John and Chen ! Fiebelkom 4'n. 2003 Pate 2 €f 5 In Oclober, 2002, the property ouTiers ^>plied for a building permit (Pennit #P05705) to repair their existing lakeside deck. At the footing inspection, the Building Inspector determined that the deck could not be repaired due to excessive rotting. The property o\Miers were informed that a new deck would require \-ariance approval. DI scuss Iob: Setback from the OHWL of l.ake Minnetonka The existing deck is located 68.3’ from the OH^X of Lake Minnetonka and it is proposed to be replaced in the same location. As it exists, the deck is “u-shaped” and the most lokeward protrusions are 68.3’ from the OHWL. Although the applicants are requesting to remodel the existing deck to fill in the ’*u” area with deck, they do not propose to go any closer to the lake than what exists. Therefore, there is no change proposed for the setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Hardcover 0-73 ’ Setback Zone There exists 8,709.75 s.f. of area within this setback zone. Of this area. 586 s.f. (6.7*/o) is existing hardcover where none is permitted. The existing hardcover consists of a portion of the deck, a concrete patio, driveway and concrete steps. The deck, located above a portion of the concrete patio, is attached to the house and supported by posts, placed 4” outside the concrete patio, on the ground. Therefore, the additional deck proposed to fill In the existing “u-shape” of the deck will add 4” of hardcover along 19.7’ of width or 6.57 s.f. Given this, the hardcover within this setback zone will increase to 593 s.f (6.8*/i). In the 1989 lot split application, a portion of the driveway (488 s.f.), located from the north side of the garage to the west lot line, was shown “to be removed"’ on the surv ey. Of this area. 189 s f is located within the 0-75’ setback zone. If this area of the driveway was removed, the hardcover would be reduced to 404 s.f. (4.6%). 73 '-230 ‘ Setback Zone There c.xists 12.339.75 s.f. of area within this setback zone. Of this area, 6.449 s.f (52.3%) is existing hardcover where 3,085 s.f (25%) is permitted. There are no hardcover additions proposed in this zone. If the area of the drivoway proposed to be reduced in the 1989 lot split was removed, the amount of hardcover in this setback zone would be reduced by 299 s.f to 6,150 s.f (49.8®/*). Average Lakeshore Setback The existing deck encroaches 22* into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed deck is not proposed to encroach any further into the setback. The proposed deck will not change the existing views of the lake from the neighboring properties. •0i-2S84 John and Cheryl Fiebetkorn 4'17,2003 Page 3 3 Lot Coverage Bv Structure The existing structures on the property include the house with lakeside deck and pool maintenance shed, totaling 3,074 s.f. (14.6%). Since the deck is proposed to increase in area from 399 s.f. to 550 s.f., the structural coverage increases to 3.225 s.f. (15.3 “/o) where no more than 3,157 s.f. (15%) is permined. 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 forCoosMeration: 1. The deck has existed in this location since 1972; 2. The proposed deck replacement and addition will not change the structural setback from the OHUl. of Lake Minnetonka or the average lakeshore setback; 3. The additional deck will increase lot coverage by structures by 151 s.f.; 4. The proposal will add 6.67 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone and will not increase hardcover in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone; 5. To reduce hardcover in both setback zones, 488 s.f. of driveway could be removed; 6. There exists 87.5 $.f. of driveway encroaching onto the neighboring propertv that should be removed; . 7. The deck would continue to provide a landing for two sliding glass doors located on the lakeside of the house; 8. There is an existing door that opens from the lakeside of the garage to the concrete patio; 9. The neighbors’ views of the lake are not greatly affected by the location of the deck, and 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Rcconmeadations: The proposed deck expansion increases the amount of structural co\ erage on the property be) ond the 15% limit and increases hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone, increasing the norKonformity. Therefore, staff can not support the proposed addition (filling in the “u” area). Staff can support Utc deck replacement as it exists today, without the expansion, if the following hardcover removals are completed prior to footing inspection: 1. 87.5 s.f of driveway encroaching onto the neighboring property; and 2. 488 s.f. of driveway, reducing hardcover to 404 s.f. (4.6%) in the 0-75’ setback zone and to 6.150 s.f. (49.8%) in the 75’-250 ’ setback zone. H0S'28S-I John and Cheryl Fiebelkom 4/17,200) Page 4 <^) ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Rcquircmcnto! DiBeaiioas Required Exbling Proposed Lol Area 43,560 s.f. (lacre) 21,049.5 s.f. (0.48 acres) 21,049.5 s.f. (0.48 acres) No Change U( Width 140*I27.5* (at 75’ setback) 109’ (atOHWL) 127.5’ (at 75’ setback) 109’(at 011WL) No Change Setback from the OH\\L 75*68.3’68.3’ No Change iordcovcr Calcnlatioas: Distance from shoreline Total area In setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’8,709.75 s.f.None 586 s.f f6.7%^ 593 s.f. f6.85;t 75’-250’12.339.75 s.f.3,085 s.f. (25%) 6,449 s.f. (52.3%) 6,449 s.f. (52.3Vo) No Change Average Lakethore Setback: Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment 22*22’ No Change Lot Coverage By Stnietvre: Permitted Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 3,157 s.f.(l5%)3,074 s.f. (14.6%)3,225 s.f (15.3%) 1 i03 2U4 Mm and Chery l rteMkom 4/15/2003 Pott 5^5 1. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^tyfor*wur"!Tn'iifr»nr^^^^ ‘BBliwllon Itfullint tfilf In ---- CompIetM Application Fonn - E™Hs.s—-5-- - ta “jss;srr.!-'-7.s*“ “j-"- persom you wsh notified of this appliLuon. ----- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please remember .b,. Tiriintt .pplkiflon I, ntil ettmidflf If the nhov, i„,.r-.i.- „„ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide ail information required or reauested bv the 7»n- information supplied is irwand^ofreci to ilw* iwa*» ^ certifies that the 5. 6. 7. 8. 03/27/2869 12:12 352-935-9544 NI^»CSaTA RUBCO L.— PAGE 82/e& 53/4 Rl 'S( ()ieaic.si73 Dr. • MianMooka. MN 5SM9 • TtltpteM (9S2) »9-9669 • Fax (9SZ) 054944 vitbonrirclMiic wwwj City ofOrono 2750KtU^Paxkwiiy Orono^MN 55356 03/26/03 SUBJECT; Zoning Application #03-2884 To Whom H n^ Concern; KQueiotiRiMco,Inc. Was to raplace all top boards ofcUitingdedc and remove old atairoaae and rqilace with new. MN’Ruaco applied and wu granted a penntt (8POS705) fir diis pndeot Webcganto tear oir Sue boards and comer plxtai and fiwMl wood rot There was enough rot diat wc concluded the dedc was not stnicturally sound. Phoned Lyle Oman who came out to job site and stopped the project and requested ttiat die Homeowner file a vanance application. In the new application it is the Homeownen request to fill in die middle space of the current deck. Deck in its current form is a *TT shqie. Ibe deck would be completely replaced stnicturally. Meet City code and would not extend any cloaer to the lakrAnre than its current firm. Under the existing dtek is an aggregate patio. We will need to cut inlo to patio fir dim new footings for siqiport posts. Again, the new deck or hardcover would not extend any closer to shore line than the exiiting patio. Tha center part of the current deck would be extended out to be flush with ends, thus some ofthe middle would he within the 75* set back, but not any Airther than the cuneat batdeover of the patio. This project would have no eficct on rainiall run-off Please do not hesitate to contact me at ^S2)93S-9669 if you have any questions. Sincerely. ToddObde Production Managtr MNRnion.Inc. i9/31/2ifla 12:12 61?>-471->B38e FM5 INTL Johi A Cbcryl Fkbdkpra 2730 Shidywood Road Excobior, MN 5S331-9S99 PME ei MWBii31,2003 Gly ofOrooo rsOKdbyFiikwdy Oraao,MN5S3S€ Sul^: Glyor<kQM>-VviMc«AppiaRioniQ3-3II4Add«duB To: QlyofOroaoFlioointCoaiBUiMm S. StiUMOrilnidlip: Our homo WM dorifoid and buamiidi dl foomi OB the Ucndi Imvhm an ilttt wiodowt ihe width of oMh room Md Ull rooiM have iKduv ilhn doon opodil OQ to thedeck. Wa an naraly requeolim approval to leplaca a deck that hu alwm baeo a part of our tKNBaaadaddtwadyieclloflDinthaBiiddteieGtioo. lofaaftClMylficbdkam f.T * , N V:J t * V * . H isasiasaias&d BA]U>C. SETBiLCKZOKEi <CDlCLEONQ gximMQ HAnaeovieR A. boom ___ ‘^yi^0C4iJCUL t^) ^IsTj ___ >AnON WORKSHEET 7MI0* 2J0-500‘ P 1/2- 500-1000* B; *Oar^t-• ••• • •< C, Dilvtingr B. SUowrik F. Laatfsopt Vodcdila ByFiude OrF^bdc X' X X .SF. .SF. .«F. SF. .'Av:**** * -.V- •;ISF. o.^sscaifc.-Ufi- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPERTY AREA IN 20NB -A - . +. B • yROPOSTO HARDCQVAt TV y.4yrE • A. Koost B. Oar^e C. Btivcway D. SidewalkAr^Jr Fatlo/M* F. Liadseape UBdcdiZa By Pltstic Or Fabric ^F7rnnt--ri.4f) - O. O^r ecNCi totalhardcovfrinzone - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA m ZONE * A _________‘ ■ + B XlOO « SF. ___________5F. TE^Ml SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. ____S.F. -__11 SF. XlOO .» SjBfelil SF. CjSS’SF. .S.F. SF. 'SF. S.F. ii SF. >F. SF. [SJ. SF. ;sF. SF. ‘SF. 'SF. A. aiMexxocob A. Boon WORKSHEET 3J0<5Q0* P^2. SOO-IOOO* AUt6BNPf)oMGM(M w X X X •JL »vv:•:-Ott^ % .S.F. .S.F. . • * • C. ZMvtwqr .W •••' .-:V.: V.•-•I D. SUtwdk F. Ludsc^ VadcdilB .• B/Pitide OrFAdc O. TOTAl.»S^^i^!SSS^S^ •* ' • ---------+. B ^xloo PROyOSTORAR A. House tlWZONr MR C««e>M#» CtHCfieit met ccmcbOR *tW> LhsA B. Gsr^c C. Dxivc^ D. $\Uwiik B. FetloMc- . *•• F; lAndscspe Vcdexhia ByFlutle OrFibcic » ^ o. 0&er9f«D ^ -----------:—. ♦ B .XlOO » -33*42ife5.r. ___________^S.F. Mt SF. ___S.F. !__SJ. _5Jf. SJ'.-----r, •«. S‘^*¥ SF. 6b PJIF-5::. .S.F. S.F. R a,^lM_5.F. 5.F. .S.F, 5^. S.F. ‘s.F. S.F. as?) -^ - a.46 s.F. 's.F. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. R A B iS'xH ^ JbS l&,Syl9 ~ /8C. y V ; ^0 V3I T ■S; M >W* ->-V4 3t" ...45 5„ • _.......<J I T • t t.^ l^ouse. \---------------------£7i gja^nufi* «scj«- riAM .aA’ »»■ s 10 V lOu a •Nfc S{ i i ' r r . I j. A| a: •r'*' ■ t :r \/ , i' i ; M'! I........ ‘ -..i ............. . .!. ■ ;l-Tizil ■ ....V I * •^'P'lC^V.i'hs I I a4fc! 5 :<4-^ 11. .i iJ i ^.. . I . • t- i i I { t i i ■ i/'l i i ' Vi * *•. I I I ; to b; iO .A Vr':-1 /!T) -*• I r- ••■ > _J____;_ __■• : I '5 , ' , • -Mm r isi • .!—. ! T ' r ’'-i-loi . j‘ 1 ; ’• . *-L..' ; r i i...!jm, I: ** ■ .1 ., - -----------------; I ‘ ...... ! . * ••! -:• Ij , ‘ . I ' ^ ' |i 1 I : ! I ! ! ' i ‘ I ■ ’ ' Vt ! ;. ___’......... :;,|j V J J...,.-^-g'>V''—H...-..U-—\ ■ ■ ”• .• i . j;, • V |rVI_ V |,.! ... V; ] .^.'r..: I' •. , ’ ! *■ ■’:;,■'■■ \'\ I rl rf ^ .'''™ i!;,; I- I f § . J ' ~! • I i i......^ i .. - ;. i. ^ ! -i • *. : I = -I.- . i ’r . ! ^ ! -i • * ^ennepln County Taxpayer Services Depahtmeht .. 21- ^ParceUnfomatlon piwc«l ID 2111723240064 Houm Numb«r 2730 StTMt Hmmm 8HADYWOOD RO 7h<s It nor • ligeiy/ecordM m«p. IT rtprvMiitt • of MbntMtfon •«rdMi*amOiy. County. 9ndStmn»amit>ofmB9nao»maounm. MM MTt ll/ir/tS MTCM Ml MMNCPIM COUNTY 0«OKITY IWTOWIiTlOM SYSHN roOfCOTV OIMOS LIST Kpoor MO. PMSMai fACC 1 poor AMO OMNCI HAM TAMPATit MAMC/AOM U 21-117-2S M otto •272S SNAOVMOOO 00 N 0 A I A KER niCNAU 0 I aOKOTA A IKER trzs sMAevMooo oo cicusioo im ssssi so 2t>117-Z5 M fOOS •27SS SNAOrWOOO 00 0 6 OAY A S L OAY RICMARO OAY A SUE 6AV 27SS SNAOVMOOO 00 cxccisiot m S5SS1 SO 21*117-23 2A 0I2A OOfSO AOOOCSS UNASS16NC0 TNOHAS J CASCV CTAL THOMAS J CASCV 2 70S SItAOVMOOO 00 CRCCLSIOO HN S' SSI POOP AOOR OMHCO NAME TAKPATCO NAMi/AOeO SO 21-117-2S 20 0021 ■OOSO AOmCU UNASUOm S 0 OCCR A P A tCCR STCVCN 0 OCCR 27YS SNAOVMOOO 00 OOOMO IW SSSSl SA 21-117-2S 20 0020 OOOM AOOOCSS IMASSIGNCO JANES 0 eiNTNU ET AL JAMES OINTNEO UNOlVXOCe SO 21-117-2S 241 Also OiOSO AOOOCSS UNASSIGNCO OAVIO r MAXSCO/MAOV A MAXSCO OAVIO P MAXSCO/MAOV A MAXSCO 7700 SHAOVMOOe 00 CKCCISIOO MN SSSSl POOP AOiO OMNER NAME TARPAVCO NAHC/AOOO SO 21-117-2S 20 lOSl 02700 SNAOVMOOO 00 OAVXO F MAXSCO/MAOV A NAISEO OAVXO F MAXSCO/MAOV A MAXSCO 2700 SNAOVMOOO 00 CICELSIOO HN SSSSl SO 21-117-2S 20 00S2 02720 SNAOVMOOO RO • A RVAN A J C RVAH TRUSTEES JONN C 0 OCVCOCCE A RVAM 2721 SNAOVMOOO 00 EXCELSIOR MM SSSSl SO 21-117-23 20 0»«iS OMSO AOORCSS UNASSXCNEO MAOCARCr L LOME MARCAOCT L LOWE 2AS0 LAFArCTTC 00 M EXCELSIOR MN SSSSl POOP AOOO OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOO SO 21-117-2S 2A OCkl OtOSA AOOOCSS UNASSIGNEO JONN P TMIMHCSN THOMAS P HUOCO 2A1S SNAOVMOOO RO CRCCLSIOO m SSSSl SA 21-117-2S 20 Alfc2 OtOSA AOOOCSS UNASSXCNCD OURT 0 PFLUe A LISA H PFLUO OURT O PFLUO 27SY SNAOVMOOO 00 EXCCUIOO IM SSSSl SA 21-I17-2S 2A ••AS •••SO AOOOCSS UNASSXCHCO S SHAMION A C SMANNON STIVCM • CXNDI S4UNM0N »••• CAMC FARM 00 HOUNO MN S5S4A PROP AOOO OMHCO NAME TARPAVCO MMC/AOMI SA 21-117-25 2A ••M •27SI SNAOVMOOO 00 jom L FICOCUOON JOHN L FXCOCLROON 27SR SNAOVMOOO 00 CRCCLSIOO HN SSSSl SA 21-117-2S 20 OtAS #270* SNAOVMOOO AO CUINC T PAAONIS ELAINE T PAAONIS 270A SNAOVMOOO 00 EXCELSIOR HN SSSSl TOTAL AATCH sn •••!% #Ja.V»r8l ...aiiiiiHMINiiiH J (>^ WN M <l/17/tS ^ MTCM »•! v5) MOMriN couNTT ftonarv iw. ^tion srsnn faortiinr pmnirs list 5 .» . ■j)' fe»0 ■' MPWIT NO. rAsc 2 isss?.!rj: CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Peilcwey- PO Box66 Cryetal Bay. MinneaoUi 65323 2)2494600 PERMIT Permit Number Permit Type: Date Issued: rt 1/6" P0S70S AdditkmKemodel/Rqiiir 10/23/2002 SITE ADDRESS: PID: 21-117.23-244W64 2730 ShadywoodUd Eicclaor.MN 55331 OE8CRIPTION: PropoMdUse: PcnnitChn: PonitType: lUftideotial Bonding Addibof^Rnoodel/Rcpoir UBC Occupancy R3 CoQitfuctioo Type VN Census Code 101 Pennit Sub-type(t): AddaTlemodel/Repsif DETAILS: Approved per rcsotutioo i: Sepinle pcnnits required: NOnCESMIAARKS: f EE SUMMARY:PernatFee: Plan Rev iew Fee: Slate Surcharge Fee: $ 223T5 S 145.08 S6.80 ValuatlMi: S 12.600.00 TOTAL FEE:S 375.13 APPLICANT: NWR uko .Iuc . S558SoetanaDr. h innetoDka. NIN 55343 OWNER:John Fidxkom 2730 SbadywtMd Rd Excelsior NIN 55331 THE utsDERSiGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFIED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WRK IN STRICT CO.MPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES AND STATE OF MIN'NESOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ^y£j/haa~~C&^ AmJCA.ST rEMlITEE SIGNATUIIE Oenie: 1-Fieranem BwnfrnB. l-Aanficnt I'MooihlvRnora. I-Aaauiit. I-Fini JotilFee: ' $_225i-l3— EoiexcdBy: _______ Ditc Received: Fennitf: t3 • ■Ha/5- •*f • r * * CITY OF ORONO - HOMING RERNOT AP^ AD kifoniurtiM matt be submitted in ftill before plan rertewwtU be itarted. . . • (please prins all i/tformetion) THE APFUCANt IS: (circle one) OWNER QRA^ONTRAC^ JOB SITE ADDRESS: ^3g7 SUoJ?l^<xJ? >?e^. ZIP; ^^“53 t NAME OF QWNERi^Trtk^ 4" 1 Vi^g I PHONE: Qiflme)*^Sa. ♦ /7 'A-ob 'MAnJNGADDRESS:3oS^<«gft«>goggfe fcTY: Dcmt, ZIP:’*g^3i CONTRACTOR: CONTACT PERSO: MAILING ADMIESS:S<^ STATEUCENSE: __ PIIONE; MOBnJE/PAGER:LtZ^g^T> >“340 v>^^.T>r-. ClTY:i^.rKx^^>^;^ ZBPtSs^yUT ARCHnECT/ENGINEER: MAILING ADDRESS:___ NAME:______________ :v.> PHONE: CTTY:________ REGISTRATION# ZIP: TYIEOFWORK: New____ Addition____ AccessoiyStructure. Move Ronodcl/Alicration Land Alteration PROPOSED WORK {fiacribe In fUtaU^: t 1------ry- r-ry LTT. ~ STORIES:_______ NO. OF BEDROOMS: SQ. FEET OFEACH FLOOR: _ GARAGE STALLS: ATT. ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): S Iflj ^OP I hereby apply for i building pennli and I acknowledge that the info.'xnation above is complete and accurate; that the work wiU be In cODfonnance with the ordiiuixes ami codes of tbs City and with the Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a permit; and that the work will b^ accordance with the approved plan. Alr-sncjefoi ifat/co, APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: /O/'T^'X___ NOTE! Pmit at Hama mult nautn ttaandt ptrmt a^nnl by PoUzt DtBaTtnunt aid Gtf Council 60 days prior to the event Son-permltted evenu wiU not bt allowed. ZO/ie 35Vd oosny VXCG3I4IH >rS6-SE6-ZS6 iz:60 Z0eZ/88/ai L., CHECK OFT LIST FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR OFnCE USE ONLY ADDRESS OR LEGAL: ^^vAOM^JLleoO Vnh _____________________ _______________ DESCRIPTION OF WORK: OacJ^ ZONING REVIEW BY: BUILDING REVIEW BY: A -------------------------------- DATE APPROVED: /0"/V-o< DATE APPROVED: /q. / FEES TO BE CHARGED: PERMIT PLAN REVIEW STATE SURCHARGE INVESTIGATION FEE SAC Numb«r of SAC Units _ Misc. Fees Ctlculated By: Yes No Yes No SEWER CONNECnON Yes No WATER CONNECTION Yes No PARK FEE Yes No SUEINSPECnON OTHER (specify) ZONINGCHEpKLIST ZoolmDUtrfci: /VO Fire Depirtmaa; LocArea: Sq.1t_ Post Office: Survey Submitted: Proposed Setbacks: Froo: (Lake): Rear (Street): ____ A4iaceoi Structures: BuUdiai Heifbt: Def.Hgt. Lot Coverage:___________ RiSbtSide Uft Side: School District: \\ldth Depth Datt of Survey: Zetland: . PakHft. Gradlnf: Staff Approval Date: Septic: Suff Approval Date: _ ZoolnfFUe: f_________Resolution: # Sborelaad District: Avg. Setback: Hardcover:0-75* 75-230* 250-300’ 500-1000’ Bluff Setback: Existing By: By: Council Approval Date: Resolution Date: LotCo^-eiage: Proposed Hardcover Variance Required: Yes. REMARKS (In bouse);__________ Date of Council Approval: building REVIEW CHEck usf w»e> iP. t Bmoeiit IK Floor 2od Floor Gar«gt - SqFootti* coNsnucnoNTYrct va J *FwSqF<| total ErtlmottdCoiutnicllonVolii.: $ r> loilMctloiisRequlnd: ____Site ------Hardcover Reoioval Foodny • FftUj ____L>-.wlartoQ Work Requirliv Separate PetnlU: WdlBoKil 2-Final __Other — Phiabiiig Mecbankal .Septk . Fireplace __(Masonry) .Fire . Water CoDoectioa . Sewer Coaoectioo Lawalrrigadoo . Gradiqf/FIIliqg Other__________ . Wei: (Scale Fenni^ . Ekcufcal (State FemilO R£MARV.^0^'^^(;SQ: review B\ OTHERS: Access: EaisUof DATE: Access Approval; Date remarks CTO BE NOTED OX PERMII) airiithliiMh PTWlt Mo. :13!1-7 PCRHIT RECORD Date ?-7-7J Type of Pernlt A/^tu ^g«; 33vy /<g »»77 ^s~7o<r I0-I7-1S /e-//~o/ /o-j^3-o^ !/ V . ^ .V ^•#■,■.•3, ! .^1 { ,' '/ • i 'li‘ •* ^ 1«; I ll^y H .-1.' &Ki!i, , I ; I -,;c " ^-r z.kfj:ill.msm^^ . / Wm^^r-:±r^i^c: .:m. <u& -' iS l j' K?\.:•!.■■.-rifev,'. \ \ A // •W’ 1 Application Received: 3/19/03 Application Complete: 4/1/03 60 E>ay Deadline: S/30/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orooo Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput. City Planner DATE: April 17.2003 SUDJECT: #03-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-ID One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 0.43 acres (18.SS3 s.f.) Application Snaunaiy: Tte applicant requests the folloiAing variances to permit construction of a new residence on the proper^’: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f, (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99 ’ at the OHWL and the 75* setback from the OHWL where 14Q* is required; 3. Ill s.f (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 4,483 s.f (38.36%) hardcom within the 75’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone wiiete 2.753 s.f (25%) is permitted; 5. 3,132 s.f (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f (15%) is permitted; and 6. grading and filling within 75* of tte OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor _______filling is permitted. _______________________________________________ Exhibits: A Anal) :.ls Worksheet D Application C Survey D Site Anal>sis E Hardcover Calculations F Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations G Topography Map H Plat Map I Propert)* Owner’s List J Resolution #2088 K Permit Record (including 1975 grading memo) ftOS-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth 4/17/2003 Pate I <46 PcrtiacBl Code ScctioBs: 1. Secuon 10^4, Subd. 5 (B); Mioiaoai Rcqaimmils: The foIlo\%1ng minimum lequixcmcnts for the LR-IB District shall be observed: lot area I acre; lot uidth 140 feet (Request: To allow a lot area of 1 8,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f.( I acre) is required and to allow a lot width of 99 ’ at the 75’ setback from the OHWL and at the OHWL vihae 140 ’ is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LKD & (2): Hardcover within 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporar>’ or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 11 1 s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone wiiere none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover within 75* to 250** Between 75 feel and 250 feet of the OHWX there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover* (Request: To permit 4,225 s.f. (38.36%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permined). 4. Section 1 0.03, 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. (Request: To permit 3,132 s.f (16.88%) of lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f (1 5%) is permitted). 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JX2): Grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards wHbin 75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 1 0 cubic yards is prohibited within 75’ of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. (Request: g^ing and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). Discussion: Lot Area A Lot Width Two lots, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, 9,253 s.f and 9,300 s.f respectivciv, are proposed to be combuned with this application to create a lot size of 18.553 s.f where 43,560 s.f (I acre) is required, "nie lots are 49 ’ and 50’ in width, to create a combined lot w*idth of 99 ’ w here 140 ’ is required. Since this is new construction, variances are required for lot area and width. Reouired Setbacks The proposed home is localed I02’ from die OHW of Like Minnetonka, meeting the required ^ setback. It is also located 35 from the street, meeting the minimum 30 ’ setback requirement. The proposed side setbacks also exceed the 10 ’ minimum requirement- The architect for the applicants has stated that the overhangs on the proposed home will not encroach more than 1 %’ into the side >ards. Average Lakeshore Setback Considering that the two properties are proposed to be combined, the average lakeshore setback IS determined by the locauon of the existing houses at 1270 and 1300 Spruce Place. The average lakeshore setback line is located closer to the lake than the 75’ setback from the OHWL Since the propo^ structure is located more than 75’ from the OHWL, it does not encroach into the average lakeshore setback. *03-:83S Cerda and Ed Toih 4'1 7/2003 Page 2 of 6 tkish! The proposed house includes a walk-out level at the 948' elevation and a first and second floor above. The proposed house is 25’ above the existing grade (measured at 956’ elevation), meeting the City's requirement of no more than 30' and 2 '/a stones. Lot Coverage Bv Structure The existing structure on the 1280 Spruce propert>’ is 1,574 s.f. of the 9,253 s.f lot, exceeding the maximum 1,500 s.f. permitted for a lot of this size. The proposed house (on the combined lot) is 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) which exceeds the 2,783 s.f. (15%) permitted. The structural calculation includes a lakeside deck which is not shown on the propos^ site plan but was shown on other plans (including the elevation) reviewed by stafl'. Hiriwygr 0-75 ' Setback Zone There is 7,540 s.f. of area in the 0*75' setback zone. There is currently 895 s.f. (11.87%) of bardcovYr within this zone where none is permitted. The e.\isting hardcover consists of a portion of the existing home, retaining walls, patio blocks, walkw ay and steps. The proposed home w ill be located outside of the 0-75* ..e'back zone. The applicants propose to keep the stone retaining wall within this setback zone due to the grade changes, totaling 111 s.f. (1.47%) of hardcover where none is permitted. 73 ’‘230 ’ Setback Zone There is 11,013 s.f. of area in the 75'*250' setback zone. There is currently 2,538 s.f. (23.05^o) of hardcover within this zone where 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) is permitted. The applicants propose to increase hardcover within this zone to 4,225 s.f. (38.36%). exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) maximum permined. The proposed hardcover is comprised of mainly the house, which exceeds the allowable structural coverage on the property. GradingTilling within 75’ of the OHWL The existing house is located within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling and grading before the new home can be constructed farther back on the property. Since grading and filling of more than 10 cubic >’ards within 75’ of the OHWL is prohibited, a variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work within the 75’ setback from the OHWL. Other Comments: The proposed plans have been submitted to the City* Engineer for rex iew. To date, no comments have been received. •03 ‘28S5 Qtrda and Ed Toth 417 2003 Page 3 of 6 Docks A dock is proposed on the property. Seasonally installed docks are permitted as an accessory use on residential lakeshore properties which contain a residence. Since a seasonal dock has existed on this property in the past, the dock will not require a City permit. The placement of docks on Lake Minnetonka is governed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Hisloty: 1 280 Spruce Place In 1975, the property owner was issued a building permit for construction of a basement under the existing house. Without knowledge of the City, the property owner excavated within .he 0- 75 ’ setback zone as part of this construction, creating a walk*out area for the newly constructed basement door. The property owners were not required to restore the grade (sec 1975 memo from Zoning Administrator Hank Muhich). 1 290 Spruce Place In 1984, the lot became property of the State due to tax forfeiture. In 1986, the City demolished the residence (as a result of hazardous building action initiated in 1983) and the lot was released for sale to adjacent owners. The lot became property of the Sutc again in 1992, released to the City in 1996 for sale to adjacent owners. Prior to sale, the City Council approved Resolution #2088, stating that the parcel did not meet the applicable zoning standards and was, therefore, an unbuildable lot. The lot has remained \acant since that time. Neighboring Properties In 2000, variances for new construction for grading within 5* of a lot line and 2,647 s.f (43 .93%) of hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone were granted to the property owner at 1270 Spruce Place. The new structure met all of the setback requirements and had a structural coverage of 1,500 s.f, the ma.ximum permitted for a lot less than 10,000 s.f. The area of 1270 Spruce Place is 9,850 s.f (0.23 acres). Hardship; The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit D. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Considcralion: 1. The properties must be legally combined prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposed new construction exceeds the maximum permitted hardcow within the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone and lot coverage by structures. It is possible to meet these requirements on the combined lot; 3. The variances granicu for 1270 Spruce Place were due to the substandard lot size. The combined lot in question is twice the size of 1270 Spruce Place; 4. Removal of the existing house will require grading and filling within 75* of the OHWL; 5. Replacement of the retaining wall is not proposed in the 0*75 ’ setback zone at this time and would require a new application in the future; e03-28SS Cerda and Ed Toth moos Page 4 of 6 8. Although there are two doors sho\^Ti on the lakeside of the walk out level of the proposed home, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors; It is the applicants* responsibility to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on Lake Minnetonl^ Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff RccaauBcadatiaBs: Staff can supfXHl the stances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone and grading within 75 ’ of the However, staff can not support the variances for hardcosxr exceeding 25% in the 75* to 250’ setback zone nor structural coverage exceeding the 15% maximum permitted. It is the City's policy that all new construction meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements when possible. Given the size of the combined property, it is possible to meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two potential SO’ lots that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single 9,000 s.f. lot next door, i e. 46% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structure. In fact, in 1986 the City declared that 1290 Spruce was unbuildable (Resolution No. 2088) and released it for sale to adjacent owners to make their propern- more conforming, despite the fact that each of the tw*o lots had been assessed for sewer. It is staff s opinion that comparing the applicant’s double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at 1270, is not a reasonable comparison. Staff would remind the Planning Commission that hardcover and lot coverage variances have consistently been denied for reconstruction on similar sized (approximately '/i acre) lots in the '/> acre and 1 acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparison with the Vi acre zone is a fair one since the hardco\-er, setback and lot coverage standards are virtually identical w ith tliose of the 1 -acre zone. Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002-2003) that compare with the current proposal include: • Soojian at 4496 North Shore Drive (100* wid'h. 0.55 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Twidwell at 1865 Concordia Street (102* width, 0.56 acres, granted 32.45o HC due to tree hardship limiting home placement, no lot coverage variance) • Lindberg at 3440 North Shore Drive (100' width, 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage limits, no variances) - Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (113' w idth. 0.68 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) • Cable at 3532 Iv-)- Place (100' width, 0.522 acres, denied variances for HC exceeding 25*/o) Staff recommends tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardco\er in the 75* to 250* setback zone to no more than 25% by redesigning the proposed home. A home located 30' from the street with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f of sidewalk could have a 2,050 s.f. footprint. M0J‘238S Cerda and Ed Toth 4/17/2003 Page 5 qf 6 r— ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Kcqairemciits: Dkoesskras Required Exbliug Proposed Lot Area 1280 Spruce PI l290SDTUce PI 43.560 s.f. (1 acre)9,253 s.f. 9,300 s.f. 18.553 sf. (0.43 acres) Combined Lot Width 140’99’ 1280 Spruce PI 49* <A* 1290 Spruce PI Setback from the 75’54*102’ OHWL Rear Setback 30*94’35’ (Street)(29.5’ at existing garage) Side Setbacks North 10’9.9’10’ South 10’ir j 10’ Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’7,540 s.f.None 895 s.f (11.87%) 111 s.f (1.47%) 75’-250’11,013 s.f 2,753.25 s.f (25%) 2.538 s.f. (23.05%) 4.225 s.f (38.36%) Permitted Coverage Exbting Coverage Proposed Coverage 2.783 s.f (15%)1.574 s.f (1280 Spruce Pi) 3.132 s.f (16.88*/a) *0i-7885 Ctrda and Ed Toth 4IS'200S Foie6c/6 hvn CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non<onfonning structures $250.00 After-the- Fact Fees (Double application fee) Appicaiioo# Date Received 3 />q / Amount Raid J2.50 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place - Orono, MN Property Identific^on Number (P.I.D.) 08-117-23-32-0014 and 0015__ Attach l^gal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired: November 2002 I (Dennis Killian) do (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. - 1300 Spruce Place Present use of property: __ksktential I ___odier (specif)__________________ 2U)ning District:___________________________________________ APPLICANT Mr. & Mrs. Goniiand Ed Toth 952-476-6993 (M 2211 FairviewLane Long Lake. MN 55356 OWNER (if different than applicant) 952-449-0226 (home) KUlian’s Gate LLC (Dr. Dennis Killian) 651-645-6111 (work)_ Address:400 Highcroft Road City Wi^2ata *5S MI Estimated Construction Cost: $875,000DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Sec .Attached VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area _Lot Width ^Hardcow _Lol Coverage ___Setback: _ Front _Side _Rear _A\entgcLakesham __Other (specify) ________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difTiculfy or unusual properfy’ conditions prevent compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Sec Attached ii liiiafii 1. M i Oerde Tetfi's Variance Apadaetfon • • u . I at riPiit .y % * a«* REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1- -------- Completed Application Form ^ mustobuDrSi'lf!i«Tlli‘'“^ 150'. labels and plat map (youFiiSSiSoScJSS "' 5. 6. 7. & reproductioi- " ^e pro;^rt>. This would include name(s) of app»ican!(s) if not current ownerfs) ~ P^™Vu'"v^"notiWo7S!L%p^^^ ■ — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE SSSpE S?vSiSr « mfomution supplied is uue and correct to the best of hisi.erkn&y!’"’ Applicant's Sipnahin^ /C/toJOLcJ^ ^ i . / /ihsL OWNER'S SIGNATURE members for pur^Uesti^j^^ -"-1 Council ^^uncr'sSignature Date 3 ci 5 Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv officer ?< k-r .u nt • 2. Ed A Q«rda Tolh‘s Varianct Aifplication / ■ •• • ! • •s -i ,.-i* ^T* i<zJ . /! ^ •. • ‘ J B2/4 Ed & Greda Toth Variance Application DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 3/18/02 Estimated Cc nstniction Cost: S875,000 We arc an “empty nest” retired couple. Wc would like to build a lakeside home to live in which is sufficient size for our children and grandchildren to \isit us in comfort. Wc have lived in Orono for 13 >ears and love it here. Our request is that wc can build a house, as it is described in this Variance application Additional Backgrot id Infomiation We have a purchase agreement to buy the properties at 1280 and 1290 Spruce, contingent upon this Variance application approval, from the Killians who w ill be our new neighbors. We are extremely sensitive to the delicate lakcfronl ccolog> and have worked closely w ith the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan that w ill significantly improve the beauty and lakefront environment of these adjacent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (lochs ’ and Killians') is to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0’-75’ lake front zone. 3,000 square feet is the equivalent of one good sized or two c.xtremely modest homes. Tlie only man made items left in that zone arc essential existing retaining walls needed for erosion control, and e.xisting stairs so that w c can walk to the edge of the w ater. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover from 42% to 39% while removing a significant portion of hardcover which is presently in the 0*-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well within present day set backs. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce the size of our proposed home until it has reached w hat wc consider a functional minimum. HardsMp/PescrIptlon of Unusual Prooem Conditiowi Response First, wc would love to continue to live in Orono. It has been our home for 13 vears and wc wish to remain among our friends and neighbors. Wc also love our garden. My wife’s gardening has been featured multiple vears in the annual garden tour. Now, regarding our new home. It is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a lime w hen the city ’s lot requirements were much smaller. Subsequently, the area has been n:-zoncd with much higher minimum lot si/c requirements. Tills re-zoning*has created a hardship by making historically buildable lots unbuildablc. We therefore request that the city grants us*a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allowable imrdcover for tiiese lots. Because two separate sewer hook ups have approved and maintained for many veare, the lots could be developed separately and nvo homes could be built, one on each lot. (See Diagnun of Proposal tf 1. Sheet ^3 of attached supporting documents.) jx O ^rr CJ bfk(i\ M example of this approach exists on our neighbors ’ property, 1270 Spruce Lane. In 2000 the city granted a \-anance request for hardcov er equal to 46% within the 75’ to 250’ area for this property. We feel that this dcnsit>> exceeds what is reasonable for this site, and we would not like to continue this pattern of overbuilding. Gerda and I wish to build an adequate retirement home by joining the nvo lots. We have diKUSsed our nee^ for our new home with our designer and they have developed the plan dw^enteV^*^^ Diagram of Proposal ¥2^ Sheet US and sketch floor plan of attached supporting We have met with the Citv' and reviewed these plans on tw o occasions, each time we have had our plans redesigned to reduce the size of the home and hardcover. We feel that the design of the home as it is now will adequately meet our needs. As we age we fmd It necessary' and desirable to live on a single lew; of the home. We therefore have asked to have a home with a master bedroom on the first floor. Additionally we have a very active extended family that come to visit us often. We arc the envy of many grandparents. Our visiting family however, requires sumdent space for our grandchildren to play while we supervise them For this reason, we have also designed the home with a Family Room on the first floor. By removing the existing home on Lot 3 to build our new home, we will removing 800 square feet of hi^dcover (or an area of 20’x40 ’) from the lakefront 0 ’-75’ zone. B} pulling our home close to the front setback, we have sited the home nearly 120* from the lakefront. lliis will snoreline additional surface area for run off to be absorbed prior to its reaching the In order to compensate for square foolagohard cover demands of the first floor, w e have located our gai^c tucked under the first floor of the home. To reduce hardcover, we have sited the home light to the front yard setback, thus minimizing the amount of driveway. With these have before you a plan in which the hardcover equals not 46% as would be possible with if Proposal //1 were pursued, nor is it the 42% hardcover that now exists as an average of the four lots, but rather we are proposing a hardcover reduction from the existing to 38%. In addition, if we follow the m o home development scheme, we would be building nvo docks but our proposal is only for one. * We know that requesting to build mo Individual homes, with 46% hardcover each, similar to the variance recently granted our neighbors, as well as building two docks, would maximize our reule value ^d profit on our lots. However it would not meet our needs for a retirement home where our children ^d grandchildren can visit. Neither w ould it be as environmentally friendly as buildmg a smgle home with significantly reduced hardcover on a single larger combined iot. Finally, we respectfully request the planning commission ’s thoughtful consideration of this vanar.ee request so that w e might continue our long-standing residenc^ in Orono in our proposed retirement home. r LOT** • Ib'-JBO* lO^C. 15 ’ .. : ZONE AREA « SO FT 15 ’-250 ’ ZONE HARD COVER AREA . 2^35 5F % EXIST. MARDCOVER AREA « 46.1% EXISTING LOT 3 PmSELOT___________ TOTAL MARDCOVER AREA . 3.433 SO. FT. TOTAL AREA . 15 60 FT. % TOTAL MARDC0VER*31% T LOT 3 - g'-T5* ZONE O*-!?** ZONE AI<EA . 3.T69 SO R 0*-15 ’ ZONE MARDCOVER AREA . ess 60 R % OF EXIST. MARDCOVER ANALY^S o n* J. * NgfTTM UiO' • r-O* MARCW U», 2003 Varlsnem for Ed * Cmrds Tcth'» Mem* 1280/12^ S^JC e TlACE - OROt^O. f-N LOTS 3/4 BLOCK lO - S4CA WILL REVISED F °ERTY ID'S • Ofl-m-23-32-O0l4/!5 0 o C*.-' LOT.iM _ ? C ZCNE ^ 'E!;: Sj:-* ••________ ^ -►./<• —r'yZ *' •• 4.t-_^ ..rf t:: ^ T C Z "* ^C*5 Z “ I -^:sizcc ZC\E *t>SfiC£2 4,'2.2?^<^^ /j ^"' £S ~~* CS ■ N C-“E ZCNE ’•i’*"'--^, PROPOSAL 2 I CfH Cfl^^eAr^ SfC»«0.yarianca fcr Ed < 6ierdfl Toth’a Wcm« .BC ::lC r=«5L-CH *^.--.E • *^N _C*5 '--i S-^C< C • 3-^- -__RE / 5£I? ‘=‘RC*^ER"'^ 1^ 3 • *i r P SEE SHEET (5) FOR enlaroedi °un PROPOSAL I mm >^5I mMSm SEE SHEET (?) FOR enlarged F14N PROPOSAL 2 'PROPOSAL 1 /iND PROPOSAL 2 COMPARISON —--------------------^ LOT SIZE NO. OF DOCKS 0'-16' HARD COVER 16’-250- HARD COVER PROPOSAL 1 PROPOSAL 2LOT 3 lot 4 S^IS SO FT «218 2 FT 2 DOCKS TOTAL III SOFT SP48 SOFT LOT 5/4 ISSS3SGFT IDOCK III SO FT H iIK 4lSi so FT TOTAL TOTAL HARD COVER 5.151 SO FT TOTAL ft total --------------------- rriJHOSAL I AND PROPOSAL 2 COMPARISflM l/S«* • r-»* MARCM IS. 2003 yarlsncm for Ed 4 Toth't Mow 1280/1290 SPRUCE PLACE - ORC3NO. MN Lore 3/4 BLOCK 10.5A04 MILL REVISED r “f^ERTT ID’S • 08-in-23-32-00U/I5 fm :- GRCMBERO t ASSKIATES «. : 952 473 4435 D c ^h >s U.1^ SETBACK ZONE; (CIBCLIONE) EXISTINC MA>T»gbv»» IV row A. Kavit E-V2. Nov/. 23 2332 BirSSPM P2 tors f^uocu. iO 5a *4 500.1000* 5SiT sr-Hflwsif B. Oartfc C. Drivtw^f D. Sidtwalk E P«tio/Dcck 0. Otistr total hardcover in zone total property area in zone ^ ^ » B PROPOSED W £» _ xlOO - 7540 K House B. Giage C. Driveway D. Sidswalk E PstloDcck 0. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone ^ __tli xJOO -JEH ■ r*.; •j: .SF. .SF. .SF. .S.F. .SE. .SF.-^ . S F. - Tie yreo ,S F-ReTio Iltoo SF. S.F. .SF. S^f r «*Ti SF •EEUihjh&h - .e«af tioRoed .SF. A _________SF. B n.g"> H .SF. SJ. SF .SF. SF. SF. -SF .SF. SF. .SF. ’s.V E6TAI»/I*rt» .SF. SF. H FROM :• GRQNBBIG & ASSOCIATES L FW NO. : SS2 473 4435 D&ttUi l^lLXJAhl Nos/. 20 2002 a2:00Pf1 P3 IXISTINC HARP^yga iiu 290-900'-nnifWTfcn IPf T,HMi T 3.*^^ 0t#oc7 A/ffcC SOO-IOOO' -^"2^ S F - B. Cvagt . C. Driv'cway ___SF. ___SF. 906 .-S25&,.SF -------- s F - Bi4fc>w /If COhC. WJSiu .SF.-4WO S7£p. ,SF -CiMc.njfJ .SF .SF. .SF. G. Olhtt TftTa,TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^- - - - - - - -- ♦ B .S F.-Mwuj >0/Rc. 2S» MOMStD HARPCftvp^p IN y|^|>i|. KiCO _ILj OI3 23^ .SF A .S.F. 8 H wkdi B. Ctrtte C. Dhvcwtj JW— /\r.o ^/iiZAz-' -S.F. .SF. .SF. 0. Siir..i!k £. PitioOeck iSsF. ___SP. F. L«.*.^«;e Undertala By Plug's Of Fabric G. Other ^ -----------------» P -A irrrs^ ■ •— • .SF. .SF. -H L ‘ ^ n y[ -u=a T KMin^t. C■ rn T i ;;liJ^^u j^a*" irn KMin^t. C ni<«WTr /TWrt* n f-i/6' v>vti4Nce ;«m.tcATiaN por ED 4 C«RDA Tam'd MOMBmac macdonild and compaii). t^awLow-wiii»in» n m »m»m A2■Ub- J VAW4NCE APPLICATION FOR ED 4 QERDA TOTW‘6 MOI-C maCs FR0PlHrr •AMkSWfli.M naodoQiIdtnd company. «MMW a» «■*««. u«sssssrirsTSc;"*'** _______• _.■e. fi\<i W W 14- IBsSlSsis L >• ». 11 . ©Muc-airuvB. •r*!^ VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR ED 4 OERDA TOTH’S HOME sod coBpttiy^A4 141■p2IIIssiestassaiisaBSSssSBiak .t II Il ia ii «• ;!!;;! Ii!; E --:^ i i 1 1 1 i^cJi lirin> L«S iw ^—t;-. hf^^saiaim MMitlM fiilililll!i,iHiH(iiiiiiliii>i :v-:v-‘' "i’* *! I ©SfBA5T ILCVATICN maCs VARIANCE APPUCATICN FOR ED 4 OHRDA TOTW’6 WOME L0r*MaLOW » • MM •« I WJKMt P<«M-tV».WH ■uodoculd and cooipaoy. kW Mi *1 tML A5 I.: hill MUM MMATim/T\»oinw V^»r*rV /T\*temutLMvAnct* mac idoaaM lad eoapuy. VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR ED 4 <3ERDA TOTM*d NOME [n.«e« •d^4> m ■ MMin v« Mot«• Mouk t«x Monarre«*Mi m *A6 aygM pnoroNO •m/TNp»>oroi VARI^VNCE APPLICATION FOR ED 4 GERPA TOTM'5 HOME •t» kW Mi ^M>liMB •!A1 T^06<2^PftY AAAP . eidisnufi- & pjeoft»sei> Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Parcel mformatlon Parcel ID 0811723320014 House Number 1280 Street Name SPRUCE PL This IS not a legally recofded map It repfesents a eompMatnn ot Inidnnation and Pata trom City. County, and State road authortbaa and other tourcdi. RUN DATE :2/k..^ M 07M7334I003I f«OR AOM Ijts smun rt OWNEK NAME CLAYTON R fUaiS TAXfAVFJt CLAVlONMnClIS NAMC/ADM 130S STRUCT! fL MOUND MN SS3M lICNNEPtN COUNTY PROPE k . 4 fNFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERrv OWNERS LIST PAGE: I 31 0711723410076 PROfADUR 1254 LOMAUNOAAVE OWNER NAME KLIIOfFMANN A LS HOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNITTH LA UNOA S HOFFMANN N a MF/ADOR 1254 lOMA LINDA AVF. MOUND MN 5SJ64 31 07 723410077 PROPADOR 1254 LOMAUNOAAVE OWNER NAME R L HOFFMANN A L S HOFTMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH LA UNOA S HOFFMANN NAME/AODR 1254 LOMAUNOAAVE MOUND MN 5S3A4 31 0711723410071 PAOfAOOA I26SSPRUCEPL OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITEO LAND TAXPAYER CTTYOFORONO NAME/AOOR PO 00X66 CRYSTAL UAYMN SS323 36 0tll72333000R PROP AOOR 1250 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME WALTER W WOLFE ETAL taxpayer PHYLLIS J WOLE 7IAME/AOOR 1250 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 55364 31 MII7233200I3 PROPADOR I2MSPRUCEPL OWNERNAME E A ANDERSON ETALTRUSTEES TAXPAYER EVAN A ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 1260 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN S5364 3S Oil 1733320013 PROP AOOR 1270 SPRUCE PI. OWNERNAME ELAINEE ERICKSON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ELAWBE ERICKSON NAME/AODR 1270 SPRUCE Pt. MOUND MN SS364 3S 0611723320014 PROPADOR I2S0SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILLIANS (i ATE LLC TAXPAYER KILLIANS GATE LLC NAMi/ADDR 400HIO1ICROFTRD WAZYATAMN 55391 31 Oil 1723320015 PROPADOR 1290 SPRUCE PL OWNFJINAME KILUANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUANS GATE LLC NAME7ADDR 1300 SPRUCE PL ORONOMN 553M 31 Oil 1723320016 PROPADOR I300 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILUANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUANS CATE LLC NAME/AODR 1300 SPRUCE PL MOUND MN 55364 31 Oil1723320017 PROPADOR 1310 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME JOHNWWALKER TAXPAYER JOHN W WALKER NAM I7ADOR 1310 SPRUCE PUCE MOUND MN SS364 31 0611733320011 PROPADOR 1311 SPRUCE PL OWNERNAME PATRIOAACROETXTN TAXPAYER PATRICIA A walker NAME/ADDR 1310 SPRUCE PUCE MOUND MN 55364 31 0111723320026 PROPADOR I330 OIERRYPL OWNERNAME JAMES O DULL JR TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR JAM ESO DULL JR l330aiERRYPL MOUND MN 553A4 .• , r^\ I CERTIFY THATTIC FACTC REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRnSETFTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ONTIE RECORDS OF THE MEPWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMTNT. TO THE DEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. ^ , C2... . ^ oa^-27-^5 m ‘7'.. // ? 7 •:) .•• V* -r-r •; 3^ 1 * I •• • • TSl-.—w. - - • >- CITY Of ORONO AESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL--'• • •"r;- «n 2oae DIRECTING THE PRIVR TO ABOTTI LOT 4, BLOCK lLE of PROPERTT TY OVTNERE BILL REVISED HBEREAS, the property at Lot 4, Revised comnonly known as 1290 Spruce Place is a SO foot parcel of lakeshore land, and UREREASe this parcel of land does not meet the City s area r.quUe“nt® for the^R-lB Zonin, District which is 1 acre, and WHEREAS* this property at one time had a house that had been ordered removed since 1982* and WHEREAS* this house was finally removed and the site graded by the City in 1985 and 1986, and WHEREAS* the property as lakeshore property requires the release from the Department of Natural Resources, and WHEREAS* such release was given in a letter dated October 27, 1986, and WHEREAS* this parcel does not meet applicable zoning standards and therefore is an unbuildable lot, and WHEREAS* abutting property owners have Indicated an interest in acquisition of this property, and WHEREAS* outstanding special assessments on this property are $2*955.66* and WHEREAS* the City has Incurred expenses amounting to $1,800.00 subsequent to the property going tax forfeit. V .. ••• • *. - .-- • .. .• i-f.- ■ •• "• Pagelp£2 • • ;•.* .. • 'r•*. * • •• *-r. •. . : i*:- • •••-** •• -.f -- “• •- 1 Of I I ORONOJ City of RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 208B_________ MOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that th« City of Orono requests a private sale of the property listed above to abutting owners# and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED# that the selling price take into account its outstanding special assessnents together with recouping of City costs incurred in preparing the site for sale has been determined to be $1#800.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono# Minnesota at a regular meeting held November 24# 1986. Mary C ATTEST: /Dorbthy M^^'lin# 'City Clerk 7 ■ ler. Mayor ^ ..... -tAv". ... WM. .» f ■•••• f. •••• # % ..r.- — - • - ■ . ;; . ..Vz. ....... Paqi’2^of 2" - - ‘ f. . »-.i - ' T—~T~.r - ^racc. PEimiT RECORD Pcflt Mo, _______ Date Type ef Permit y- .afe-y?£gatg<»^^ 23V ^--r-<.3 —RfflPrt/k vw£<~cg 5-^1 ■^'f i____ U.272. :■ Hani '^e^lch *^>': ••Uc 'c'cHcr '\\TT: Auni.<»t 25, IP75 RF:*^iil Schuller • pni'!inp <P^ 5i«4 ^\L •’•" *» It behooves its to he wn* careful v^jcn isvjinr rer-lt« m iri« iwl'tS? J*; ^‘"' I*"’' The wplr -■erp <1-p'v -eta-pre that tVtp couW nat ho anv nltcrationa In tV 7V .oirac”™. J : * 1. •; • » , ] .* • Application Received: 3/19/03 Application Complete: 4/1/03 60 Day Deadline: 5/30/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROtM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: April 17.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2886 Dr. Dennis and Diane Killian 1300 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoafof Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 0.47 acres (20,300 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the follo\\ing variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (I acre) is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone: 274 s.f (2.47%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75* to 250* lakeshore setback zone: 3,367 s.f (36.65*) where 2,298 s.f (25%) is permitted; 4. grading and filling within 75* of the OHUT of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and ______5. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.____________________ Eihibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Sur\ey D Site Analysis E Hardcover Calculations F Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations G Topography Map H Plat Map I Propertv- Owner’s List J Permit Record itOS-28S6Dr Dennis and Dutne Kdlutn 417^003 Page I ef 7 Pcrtwcal Code ScctiMs: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): MinimuiB Requirrments: The following minimum requirements for the LR-IB District shall be obser>ed; lot area 1 acre. (Request: To allow a lot area of 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LKO & (2): Hardcoscr within 75 ’: ^^ilhin 75 of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, icmporar)* or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 274 s.f. (2.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover within 75 ’ to 250': Between 75 fed and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To permit 3,367 s.f (36.6”/o) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,298 $.f. (25?o) is permitted). 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JK2): Grading and Tilling of more than 10 cubic yards w ithin 75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 ’ of the Ordinary High Water I.e\ el of public waters. (Request: grading and filling within 75 ’ of the OHUT of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted). 5. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(J)(5)(h): Fining in bluff impact zoms: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. ^Request; placing fill in a bluH'impact zone where no fill is permitted). Discussion: Lot Area The existing area of the lot is 20,300 s.f (0.47 acres) where 43.560 s.f. (I acre) is required for the zoning district. The existing lot width is 117 ’ at the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL where 140 ’ is required for the district, meeting the 80?o requirement and, therefore, not requiring a lot width variance. Neither the area of the lot nor the width is proposed to change with this application. Hovsever, a lot area variance is necessary because new construction is proposed on the lot. Required Setbacks The proposed home is located 80 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, meeting the required 75 setback It is also located 35 from the street, meeting the minimum 30* setback requiremenu The proposed side setbacks also exceed the 10 ’ minimum requirement. The architect for the applicants has stated that the overhangs on the proposed home will not encroach more than I Vt into the side yards. Average Lakeshore Setback There is one home liKated to the south of the property and a vacant lot to the north. Since there is only one adjacent neighboring lakeshore home, the average lakeshore setback is calculated according to the setback of the adjacent residence from the OHWL. The house to the south is located 75 from the OHW L. The applicants’ proposed structure docs not encroach into the average lakeshore setback. ileight The proposed house is 29 ’ in height from the existing grade of 966’ with a walk-out level on the Dr. Denna and Dtane Kdltan 4 17,2003 Page 2 ef 7 lakeside and tM^o stories above the original grade. The proposed height meets the City’s requirement of 2 Vi stories and 30’. Lot Coverage Bv Structure The proposed lot coverage by structures on the property is 2,551 s.f. (12.6%). Since the proposed structural coverage is below the ma.\imum allowed of 3,045 s.f. (15%), a variance is not required. Hardcover 0-75 ‘ Setback Zone There is 1 1,1 10 s.f. of area in the 0-75’ setback zone. There is currently 2,254 s.f. (20.29%t of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The existing hardcover consists of a portion of the existing home, various retaining walls, stairs and landings presiding access to the lake. A steep slope from ihe house to the shoreline exists, requiring retaining walls and stairs to the lake. The proposed home will be located outside of the 0-75’ setback zone. The applicants propose to keep some of the existing retaining walls and stairs within this setback zone, totaling 274 s.f. (2.47%) of hardcover where none is permined. Stairwa>a within the 0-75’ setback zone arc permitted if they do not exceed 4’ in width and are built on the most inconspicuous portion of the lot The stairs that arc proposed to remain on the property meet these criteria. However, they do not reach the shoreline nor provide direct access to the proposed dock. 75 -250 ’ Setback Zone There is 9,190 s.f. of area in the 75’-250‘ setback zone. There is currently 2,785 s.f. (30.3*/o) of hardcover within this zone where 2,297.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted. The applicants propose to increase hardcover within this zone to 3,367 s.f. (36.6%), exceeding the 2,297.5 s.f. (25%) maximum permitted. The proposed plan view s of the home indicate two doors and an optional lower garage on the walk out level. The applicants arc not proposing to ha\ e any hardcox er landings outside of the doors nor in front of the optional garage (used for seasonal storage only). Gradinc/Filling within 75’ of the QHWL The existing house is located within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. Demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling and grading before the new home can be constructed farther back on the property. Since grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’ of the OHWL is prohibited, a variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work within the 75’ setback from the OHWL. If any changes to the retaining walls are necessary in the future, the applicants will be required to go through the variance process for approx al. ^03-2886 Dr Demis and Diane Killian 417^2003 Page 3 of 7 BMEi Analysis A bliifrin.l),i, conducted to detcnnine inhere is a blulTon the propcit)’. The following cnteni wttc analyzed and all %vere found to be true: 1. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area: Yes 2. The slope rises at least 25' above the OHUT: Yes "* ““ff >0 • P0in< 25’ or more aboK the OHWL averages 30% or greater; Yes (92.6%) 4. The slope must drain toward the water body: Yes. Blt^ Impact Zones V ** Th' bluff impact zone isdefined as the land within 20 from the top of the bluff. Within this zone, no structures or accessoiT teiltt.es (except stairwa>s. lutdings mtd lock boxes) arc permitted. The existing house IS partially located within the bluff impact zone whereas the proposed house is completely outside of the zone. Howiwer. existing retaining walls and stairs are proposed to remain within the impact zone. Gradir^ Hlihin BU/0Impact Zones Since a ;»nion of the exisUng tome is located within the bluff impact zone, some grading and filling will be requurf when it is demolished. Placement of fill or excavated material is not permitted within blulT impact zones so a variance is ncccssar>-. Setback from the Top of the Bluff e’^'re ‘ "ome is located as S u« bluff whereas the propped home is 42' from the top of the bluff. Other Conments: City Engineer luve'^TOc^red* T® <•»'«•"® commenls Bask? A dock is proposed on the property. Seasonally installed docks are pertnined as an accessorv use on residential lakeshore properties which contain a residence. Since there has been a seasonal d«k at this propetly in the past, the dock will not require a City permit. The placement of docks on fjike Minnetonka is governed by the Lake Minnetonka Consenation District. e03-?S36Dr Dennis and Dune Kdlum 4/17/2003 Pate 4 qf 7 Hblor>’: In 1972, variinces for lot area and lot width (zoning file #S-57) wrc approved to permit construction of a new home on the property. Lots 5 and 6 uere combined, creating a lot area of 28,000 s.f. and lot width of 65* at the street and 160’ at the lake. The variances were granted because the combined lot w^ equal in size to most lots in the area. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibu H rite applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues far Cousidcnilion: 1 . The proposed structure meets the minimum setback requirements, height, structural coverage and average lakeshore setback; 2. The hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone will be reduced from what e.xists. maintaining a portion of the stairs to access the lake and retaining walls; 3. Replacement of the retaining walls and stairs is not proposed in the 0-75' setback zone at this time aiKi would require a new application in the future; 4. The proposed home is located outside of the bluff impact zone and meets the required setbKk from the top of the bluff whereas the existing house docs not; 5. Removal of the existing house will require grading and filling within 75’ of the and within the bluff impact zone; 6. Although there are tw o doors shown on the lakeside of the walk out level of the proposed home and an optional bclow-grade garage, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors nor driveway extension scr\ ing the garage; 7. The hardcover in the 75’-250* setback zone is proposed to exceed the maximum permitted; 8. It is the applicants’ responsibilit>’ to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on Lake Minnetonl^ 9. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff can support the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone, grading within 75* of the OHWL, and filling in a bluff impact zone. However, staff can not support the variance for hardcover exceeding 25% in the 75’ to 250* setback zone. It is the Cit> *s policy that all new construction meet the hardcover requirements when possible. Given the size of the property, it is possible to meet the hardcover requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two potential 50‘ lots that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single 9,000 s.f. lot at 1270 Spruce Place, i.e. 46% hardcover and 1500 s.f of structure. In fact, in 1 972, two smaller lots were combined to create a larger lot for new construction. It is staff s opinion that comparing the applicant's double lot with the extremely substandard lot at 1270 Spruce Place, is not a reasonable comparison. »OJ'2S55 Dr Dennis and Diane Kdltan 4.l7i200S Patti of 7 Staff would remind the Planning CbnunisMoo diat hardcover and lot coverage variances have consistently been denied for reconstniction on sunilar sized (approximately acre) lots in the acre and 1 acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparisor with the aae zone is a fiiir one since the hardcover, setback and lot coverage standards are virtually identical with those of the 1-acrc zone Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002.2003) that compare with the current proposal include- - Soojian at 4496 North Shore Drive (100* width, 0.55 acres, no HC or lot coverage vreiaocesgranted) - Twid\iell at 1865 Concordia Street (102* width, 0.56 acres, granted 32.4% HC due to tree hardship limiting home placement, no lot coverage variance) - Lindberg at 3440 North Shore Drive (IOff width, 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage limits, no variances) - Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (113* width, 0.68 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) ■ Cable at 3532 Ivy Place (lOff width, 0.522 acres, denied variatKes for HC exceeding 25%) Staff recommends tabling the plication to allow the applicants to decrease hardcover in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone to know more than 25% by redesigning the proposed home. For example, a home set at the 30 ’ street setback with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f. of sidewalk could have a footprim of 1,600 sX. *03-2886 Dr. Dttmis ondDiam KUluxn 4/17/2003 Page 6qf7 1 A . ANALYSIS WORKSHEET DimeniioBS Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (lacre) 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) 20,300 s.f. (0.47 acres) No Cbauge Lot Width 140’117* (at the 75' setback) 163’ (at the OilWL) 117’ (at the 75’ setback) 163’ (at the OHWL) No Change Setback from the OHWL 75’42’80 ’ Rear Setback (Street) 30’82 ’35’ Side Setbacks North South 10’ 10’ 25’ 32.5’ 13’ 10’ Hardcover Calcylatioas; Distance froni aborcUue Total area in setback Alkmed hardco%er Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’11,110 s.f.none 2,254 s.f (20.29%) 274 s f (2.47*,i) 75’-250’9,190 s.f 2,297.5 s.f (25%) 2,785 s.f (30.3%) 3.367 s.f (36.6%) Permitted Coverage Exbting Coverage Proposed Cov erage 3.045 s.f (15%)1.815 (8.9«%)2.551 s.f (12.6V.) 1 Setback from Top of Bluff; Required Setback Existing Setback Proposed Setback 30’12’42’ •03-:S36 Dr Demis and Dumt KUUan 417,2003 Page 7 qf 7 e>v/i+ Annlartioa# CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Inidal Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structuies $250.00 After-the- Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 1300 Spruce Place-Orono,MN DateRccdveti Amount Paid OC> Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 08-117-23-32-0016___________________ Att^ legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acqttiied: November 2002 I (Dennis Killian) do (do wot) also own the adjacent parcels of land.- 1280 ft 1290 Spruce Place Present use of property: __Residential I ___other (apaeift)_______________ Zoning District__________________________________________________ APPLICANT Df. Dennis and Diane Killian 952-449-0226 (h) 400 HighcroftRoad Way7Tia.MN 55391 OWNER (same as applicant) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Please See Attached. Estimated Construction Cost $750,000 VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area __Lot Width ^ Hardcover __ Setback: __Front ____Side ___Rear __ Other (specify) ______________________________ _Lot Coverage __Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual propero^ conditions prevent compliance vv iih Zoning Code requirements; Please See Attached # .-V.SO L. Dr. Dennis and Diane KiUian Variaacc Applicatioa 3/18/03 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST We are a couple ulio are raising otir niece in oiff home. We would like to build a lakeside home to live in which is suflicient size for us to comfortably raise our niece. Our request is that we can build such a house, on our double lot, as it is described in this Variance application Additional Background Information: (This section ^ written with the Toths, our new neighbors, with whom we coordinated our home design. So, it U very similar to the description in their Variance application) We own 3 adjacent properties and are planning to build a home for ourselves at 1300 Spmee Place and sell 1280 and 1290 Sprtice to the Toths, a very nice couple, for their retirement home. We are extremely sensitive to the delicate lakdront ecology and have worked closely with the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan, which will significantly iinprove tiie beauQr and lakefiront environment of these ar^acent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (Toths* and Killians*) h to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0'-75* lake front zone. 3,000 square feet is the equivalent of one good sized or two extremely modest homes. The only man made items left in that zone are essential existing retaining walls needed for erosion control, and existing stairs so that we can walk to the edge of the water. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover from 42% to 39% while removing a sipiificant portion of hardcover which is presently in the 0*-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well within present day set b^ks. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce the size of our proposed home until it reached what we consider a functional minimum. UARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTT^ CONDITIONS As is the case with our future neighbors, the Toth's, it is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a time when the cit> 's lot requirements were much smaller. Subsequently, the area has been re-zoned w ith much higher minimum lot size requirements. This re-zoning has created a hardship by making historically buildablc lots unbuildabic. We therefore request that the city grants us a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allow able hardcover for these lots. Additionally, this double lot, which we purchased, has a “fan” shape, in which the largest part of the lot is facing the lake. This is one of the things, which made this lot attractive to us. (See Sheet #2 of attached supporting documents.) Unfortunately, this fan shape creates a configuration hardship becau:>e the shape of the lot places a 1^ peicentcge of the lot area in the 0*-75' setback. At the same time the “*• In' in <he 75’-250’ zone. The ■ctuel builihble afea,wiflunlfae75-250 Mne,coin|»ises*ielMivelysni»Uijropo»tionofihelol«llM cmw undue hardship we «p«3,, hardcover variance to build our proposed hSTe. «virom«3Ual impact of a new house on a lalcefroni in regards to hardcover and preservation of lalaBtmt For thatnmsoo. we are elnntaiating more than 2,000 square feet of existing hardcover in tl» O'- e»^ hardcover on t|^ double lot is over 5.000 square feet We are ■*?!*" **“ hnnicover. for a reduction ^hardcover of over r^o^S^fSbSS^^*’^ OurtotalhardcoverbaslgniHcant “«*™- «*i“ve already metseveral Uto wift planning staff and reduced the size of our house 6om the original pimts we discussed. We feel that now our home plans have been reZld m2 mZium. .ti (H):.fy 7J' /wci) OO o «A»VCY Op ^MSKVUtr V3C • 1 .D ■ NORTkl rAR04 -3. :CC3,0,yarlanca for Dr. Dannl> 4 piana <!llijiw o Uomm 1300 SPRUCE PLACE - OROSOrX "" LOTS 5/6 BLOCK lO - 5ACjA WILL REV'SED PROPER ' ID’S • O6-in-23-32-0O!6 •0 PnOPOSrD DUORAH i/ic- • y-o ‘r-JXRC.4 Ifl. 2002 varlanea for Dr. Donnfe 4 Dl4ino Klllfan'e Momo 1300 SPRLiCE PLACE - CRCNCrN LOTS b/e BLOCK 10 - SAGA MILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • OS-111-23-32 -0O!S ©5 FROn : GR04BBV 1 ASSOCIATE FAK K). : 952 473 4435 kfCUAM Nov/. 22 2202 e2:2Crn P4 **>> '>•(), Buck IC Miu «. uarocove SETBACK ZOr^t (CtKCUONE) EXTtTINC HABDCOVIB IN TONt a ! Koum ALCULATION WORKSHEE i* 75-aSO’ 250.500-500.1000' WMi B. Cirafc C Ofivtwijr D. SMewtlk E. FitioAkek TOTAL Hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ * B FROFOltD HARDCOVER IN 7.QN7‘ A. House ____ a KlOO B. Cs:«|e C Dnvewsy 0 Sidewilk E PitloOeck F. Lsj2dsea^ Un%4ia ByK^de 0/7i!ne O. OMr 1044 1*70 ZP.Z4 lo9- TOTAL Hardcover in zone g-lijitL 1 100 “jl IP .SF-NtwSZ B.7.r»£ SF.‘R£V^M/HA%4i .SF. s F C*M< _ . S F 'oAwcw^y . S F.'C4i.atrrf AC r* SF-0ft:4. SF.-CONt(jfTE yrvQCR OCc/< .SF .SF. .cfiwii .SF-5T%f»^ DOlAN T# .5-F- ^ Hi.no ± SF. .SF. H S.F. SF SF .SF. SF. .SF SF S F. Wfv v»;»g o 4Tyf < SF" SF-SF WAUV^ SF SF [SJ. H FRGn.: GRCKBERG 1 ASSOCIATES rm NO. : 952 473 4435 Of>4M(5 No^/. 2B 2022 e2:eePn Exmmc juitproway A Koum " Lots S^C ^ , Sa64 WitL ^R^</lsro 0.73- r7SJ«fli 25<,.J00» SOO-IOOO* B. Oirt|t C Drivtwijr .SF. .SF. SF 2030 S.F.‘-^UW4»P Oliiu D. Sldewtlk _SF cancAmpif -SF -vMW JS-VWp E Patio/Dcck F. Liadacipc Underlain ByPluUe OrFiWe SF.SF. -5F SF. 'iP. G. OOur total HaRDCOVERIN ZONE total property area in zone ^ -________♦ B .s.f.-4#h) fimosas raopQSRQ MARPCQVrw P>i tak.>* • A. Houts " klOO -30.3 .SF. A .SF. 5 % B. Ca.*«£s S.F .S-F. .S.F P;'Ak \-By C. Dnveway .D/sidtvkir< .SF- SP. ^ ^, E .^tuo/Deck .SF. .SF E.Liadieapt (• . VederUia -V pyPlwUe ■ .>• ..'Of Fabric ,S.F. S.F. .SF. .SP. SF L ^ ______________♦ B K too ■ SF. A ________»r. B »if tO» at i I W * p-- o—» filoVT • ' ilX^^'-D‘ ^cotJO pl/OOB- f MtHii^Mii \ /AOI AKl/^tr lUALtC-OUT LEVEL ^L00e~ r^AM P2>/% VARIANCE DR. DENNIS I f-4/^ iiil i<TU< I'.- /TV^ v37^ U€6T ELEVATION r » <-; :;*.;*r?^V /T M IS '. .. .u *.'.* .•• • 7\ ILHST elevation y^- r-s3‘ -------- i/lU /* - ■ ’ 'i'-' '■■^MM<C NORTW elevation V y>a- ■ !•.©• Ba^ tin-1 7^ SOUTH ELEVATION rr IUN04TE:nMa)HENN£FIN COUNTY PROPEJITY INFORMATiaS SYSTIM nuramr OWNERS LIST lACE:I N ninMioui ntOPAOOR IMSSmCBPL OWNER NAME CLAYTON R FUCUI TAXPAYIR CLAYTON RFOaB KAMWADOR IM5SPRUCEPL MOUND MN MM« M 071I72MIOOM PROPAOOR 1354 LOMAUNOAAVE OWNERNAMB KLHOnFMANNALSHOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH L A UNOAS HOFFMANN NAME/AOOR 1254 lOMA UNOA AYE MOUNDMN 55JM PROPAOOR M 071172)410077 1254 tOMAUNOAAVB OWNER NAME K L HOFFMANN A L S HOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNEni L A UNOA S HOFFMANN NAME/AOOR 1254 LOMA UNOA AVE MOUNOMN 55)44 M 07ll7234IOEf7l PROPAOOR 1213 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAMB HENNEPM PORPEITEOLAND TAXPAYER CnYOFORONO NAMf/AfWR POaOXM CRYSTALRAYMN 55)23 n 0BII72332000I PROPAOOR 1250 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME WALTER W WOLFE ETAL TAXPAYER PHYIUSJWOIP NAME/AOOR I25RSPRUCEPL MOUNOMN 55)M )l MI172J)200I3 PROPAOOR 1360 SPRUCEPL OWNER NAME E A ANOERSON ETAL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER EVANAANOCRSON NAME/AOOR 1360 SPRUCE PL MOUNOMN 5))64 To. / M MII723)J0tl) PROPAOOR I27«»RUCEPL OWTCRNAMB BLAMEBERJCKRONTRUSTEE TAXPAYER ELAWEEERJCnON NAME/AOOR I2F0SPRUCEPL MOUNOMN 553M 31 0111723330014 PROPAOOR 1210 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILUANSCATELLC TAXPAYER KJUIANSGATEUC NAME/AOOR 400 MCHCROPT RO WAZYATAMN 553fl )■ OIII72J)200IS PROPAOOR 1200 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME KILUANSGATE EEC TAXPAYER KiUJANSOATELLC NAME/AOOR 1)00 SPRUCE PL ORONOMN 55364 * •* (.1 •S %31 OBI 1723320016 PROPAOOR IJM SPRUCEPL OWNERNAMB ULUANSGATEUO TAXPAYER KJLLIAKSGATEUO NAME/AOOR I300SPRUCEPL MOUNOMN 55)64 31 OBI 1723320017 PROPAOOR 1)10 SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME lOMNWWALKER TAXPAYER »NN W WALKER NAME/AOOR 1)10 SPRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 55364 31 0111723320011 PROPAOOR DIB SPRUCEPL OWNERNAME PATRICIA AGROCTKEN TAXPAYER PATRICIA A WALKER NAME/AOOR DIO SPRUCE PLACE MOUNOMN 55364 30 0011723320026 PROPAOOR I330 CNERRYPL OWNERNAME JAMBOOULLIR TAXPAYER JAMESOBUajR NAME/AOOR I330CHERRYPL MOUNDMN 55364 I CDtrifY THATTW FACTS WFHESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TILUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATXM AS tTAPPEARSTHISOATEONTTCReOORDS OFTHB tCK.>4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES mPARTMENTTOTNE BEST OPMYKNOWI£DOBANDDEUEF.^^^^^^^^^ l^oO SfruCC PtfiJCJL <r PBRNIT RBCORD Paflt Mo. _iOjs:-7a Type of Permt^ ifg< LAJRLjL. S- 33J-1 /O j).■5gt.>i=rx w. /U.-A&rr^ J||3L Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 3/19/03 4/11/03 6/10/03 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Achninistrator FROM: DATE: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner April 17.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2887 Minnetonka Custom Homes 4753 Nor»h Shore Drive Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.19 acres (8.172 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the follo\^ing variances to permit construction of a new residence on the proper!): 1. lot area of 8.172 s.f. (0.19 acres) >»'here 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. lot width of 50* where 140’ is required; 3. rear yard (street) setback of 22’ where 30 ’ is required; 4. side yard setback of 7.6’ where 10’ is required; 5. 480 s.f. (12.6Ve) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 6. 5,051 s.f. (46.8%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1.095 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 1,504 s.f. of lot coverage by structure where 1,500 s.f. is permitted; 15’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30' is required; 6’ -t^/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone w here none is permitted; and 7. 8. 9. 10. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is pemiitted. L_. Eahibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Survey Hardcover Calculations Proposed Elevations Topography Map Plat Map Propert)' Owner’s List Permit Record Photos of Property idJ-.ifir-ienmka Cia$om Homo 4/I7/200S Page i 0/7 •1 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Minininni Requirements: The following minimum requirements for the LR-IB District shall be observed: lot area 1 acre; lot width 140 feet; rear >ard 30 feet; side yard 10 feet (Request: To allow a lot area of 0.19 acres (8,172 s.f) where 43,560 s.f (I acre) is required; lot width of 50* at the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL and at the OHWL where 140* is required; rear yard (street) setback of 22’ where 30’ is required; and side yard setback of 7.6 ’ where 10’ is required). Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)(I)&(2): Hardcover within 7S*: Within 75 of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: To allow 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75 ’ lakcshore setback zone where none is permitted). 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% hardcover. (Request: To permit 5,051 s.f (46.8%) hardcover within the 75* to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1.095 t.f (25%) is permitted). Secuon 10.03, Subd. 14 (Q: Lot Coverage By Stniclnre: 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. EXCEPTION: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f of lot coverage by a principal residence and garage structures. (Request: To permit 1,504 s.f of lot coverage by structure where 1,500 s.f is permitted). Section 10.56, Subd. 3 (2 A3) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CX2 &3): Top of Bluff Setback & Bluff Impact Zone: Structures must be set back 30’ from the top of the bluff The bluff impact zone is defined as the bluff and land located within 20’ of the top of a bluff Structures and accessory facilities, except stairwa>^, landings, and lock bo.xes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (Request: To permit a structure 15’ from the top of the bluff where 30’ is required; and an encroachment of 6* +/- into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted). Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JX5Xh): FUUog in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). Dbcussion: Lot Area A Lot Width The existing area of the lot is 0.19 acres (8.172 s.f) where 43.560 s.f (1 acre) is required for the zoning district. The existing lot width is 50’ at the 75 ’ setback from the OHWL and at the OHWL where 140* is required for the district. Neither the area of the lot nor the width is proposed to change with this application. However, variances are necessorv- because new construction is proposed on the lot. Required Setbacks Setback from OHU’L The proposed house is located 96 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, meeting the required 75 ’ setback. Side Setbacks The proposed house has a 10* setback on the east side and a 7.6 ’ setback on the west side w here 10* is M3~2887 Minnetonka Custom Homes *'17.2003 Page 2 ef 7 L required. It is the City’s policy to require that new construction meet the required side yard setbacks on a lot The applicants arc aware of this but have asked for the Planning Commission to consider the request. The proposed overhangs encroach I '/i* into the setbacks. Rtar (Street) Setback The proposed house is located 22’ from the rear lot line where 30’ is required. Currently, the c,xisting detached garage and driveway area arc primarily in the County Road right of way. With the proposed plan, the detached garage is removed and the driveway is relocated onto the property. The 22’ setback will leave room to park twx> or three vehicles off the right of way. Average I Akeshore Setback The proposed home is located behind the average lakeshore setback of the neigliboring homes. Therefore, a variance is not required. Height The height of the proposed structure is two stories with a walk-out level on the lake side. The total height does not exceed 30’ as required by the zoning ordinance. Lot Coverage Bv Strxicturc The only structure proposed on the property is a 1,504 s.f. house, e.xcecding the 1,500 s.f. permitted. Due to the size and dimensions of the proposed house, a number of other zoning ordinance rmuirements arc unable to be met. but could be met (or magnitude of variances reduced) by making the iiousr N'.ialler. Hardcover Setback Zone There is 3,791 s.f. of area In the 0-75’ setback zone. There is currently 480 s.f. (12.6%) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The hardcover is not proposed to change with this application. The 0-75’ existing hardcover consists of one set of 4 ’ w ide stairs providing access to the lake. There are also two decks constructed within the stairway. Although the stairs are permitted for access purposes, the decks arc not unless they do not exceed 32 s.f. in area and scia c solely as a landing Neither the stairs nor the decks have building permits on file. Each deck exceeds 32 s.f in area. 75-250'Setback Zone There is 4,381 s.f of area in the 75’-250* setback zone There is currently 1,512 s f (34.5*/o) of hardcover within this zone where 1.095 s.f. (25%) is permitted. However, part of the existing garage and driveway is located within the County right of way and therefore excluded from the hardcover calculations. With this application, the hardcover is proposed to increase to 2.051 s.f. (46.8%). Other than reducing the size of the home, there do not appear to be any other potential hardcover removals. nOi-2887 SUnnetorAa Custom Homes 4/17/2003 Pate 3 cf 7 Bluffs Bluff Analysis A bluff analysis was conducted to determine if there is a bluff on the property. The following criteria \>ere anal>-zed and all were found to be true: 1. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area: Yes ?. The slope ri< : k.4St 25’ above the OIIWL: Yes 3. The grade of tl e slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25’ or more abo\c the OHWL averages 30% or greater: Yes (62.5%) 4. 1 he slope must drain toward the water body: Yes. Bluff Impact Zones The top of the bluff is located 84’ from the OIIWL at 976.1 ’ in elevation. The bluff impact 7one is defined as the land within 20 from the top of the blufl. Within this zone, no structures or accessory facilities (except siairsvays, landings and lock bo.xes) are pennitted. The lakeside of the proposed house encroache:. about 6’ into the bluff impact zone where no structures arc permitted Grading IViihin Bluff Impact Zones Since the deck of the e.xisting home and the prop^^)>ed home are located within the bluff impact zone, grading and Filling will be required to demolish the existing structure and construct the new structure. Setback from the Top of the Bluff There is also a structural setback of 30 ’ from the top of the bluff. The proposed home is located 15’ from the top of the bluff, requiring a variance. Other Comments: City Fneineer The p-^oposed plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for review. 1 o date, no comments have been received DNR 1 he topographic surscy. illustrating the proposed home, has K»en submitted ti» the DNR Waters Division for review of impacts to the bluff on the property. To date, no comments have been receiseJ. Hennepin County The County reviewed the application and is supportive of the removal of the garage and concrete driveway from the County Road 19 right of way. The applicant should K- aware that a permit will be required for a change in the access to the new home. The County would prefer that a turn-around be provided on-site instead of requiring a driver to back out onto the County road. This wouH require additional hardcov er No b.icl up apron is currently proposed. History: 1 he lot was platted as part of Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park in 1888. The house on the "ropenv has been in e.xistence since the early 1960s. •0J-2SS ’ Minnetonka Custom Homes 4 IZ2003 Page 4 of 7 In late 2002, the property owner was granted a vacation of the unintproved dedicated right-of-way of Lake Street at the shoreline of 4753 North Shore Drive (zoning file #02-2846). The vacated right-of- way has not been added to the property owner's total lot area. Neighboring Proper res The neighboring lots. 4745 to the cast and 4755 to the west, arc much larger in area and lot width, permitting larger stnictures to K* constructed. The property at 4745 North Shore Drive is 21,377 s.f. (0.491 acres), the result of three combined lots, and 150’ in width I he property at 4755 North Shore Drive is 19,173 s.f. (0.44 acres), the result of 2 Vi combined lots, and 125’ in width. In 1999, variances were granted to 4745 North Shore Drive (zoning file #2532) to permit construction of a two stall attached garage 23' from the rear lot line w here 30’ is required and 3,912 s.f. (29.08%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone where 3,363 s.f. (25%) is allowed. I hc findings of fact stated that the proposed attached garage would be located within the propert) lines whereas the c.visting detached garage was not. Recent Bluff Encrvachment Application In early 2002, variances were granted to 1405 Sixth Avenue South (zoning file #02-2772) to permit construction of additions onto an existing home, encroaching on the blulT impact zone and w ithin the 30' setback from the top of the bluff. 1 he following hardships were identified: approximately 40'*.o of the ten acre property was buildable area, excluding wetlands, bluff impact zone and required setbacks; the home existed in a legal location prior to adoption of the bluff ordinance; the topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make nn addition onto any part of the house; and no addition could be built on the hou.se that would not fall w ithin the bluff impact zone. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship In F.xhibit H. 1 he applicants should also be asked for their totimony regarding this i'sue. Issues for Consideration: I Ihe lot was platted in 1888 and the existing house was built in the «.arly 1960s. prior to adoption of the current zoning ordinance and requirements tor bluffs; 2. There arc no permits on file for the stairs or decks liKated within 75' of the OllWl.; 3. The average lakeshore setback and 73' setback from the (U IW'L arc met vsith the application. 4. The proposed west side yard setback is substandard. It is the City's policy to not allow substandard side setbacks for new construction. 5. The properly to the cast. 4745 North Shore Drive, was granted variances in 1999 to construct an addition X from the rear lot line where 30’ is required; 6. If the proposed house met the side lot line setback requirements on either side, the house would be reduced fn>m 1.504 s.f to 1.391 s f; 7. The bluff impact zone and structural setback from the top of the bluff include approximately one third of the proposed structure Comments from the DNR regarding impacts to the bluft have not been received at this time However, avoiding any bluff impacts would severely limit the size of the house. *07-255“ Minnetonka Custom Homes a 1-2003 Page 5 of' 8. 'fhcre is 480 s.f. (12.6%) of hardcover existing and proposed to remain in the 0 to 75* setback zone. Although the existing stairs are compliant by width, the deck areas are not pcmtllted. ReducUon of the decks to a permitted landing size (32 s.f.) would reduce hardcover in the 0.75* setback zone; 9. The application proposes to increase hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone to 2,051 s.f. (46.8%), exceeding the 25% maximum permitted; and 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commissioa Staff Rccommcodations: Since the proposed home is new construction, staff can ngj support the side >*ard setback variance. Although the applicants are proposing a home of the allowable size for a lot of this area, the lot coverage by structure and side yard setback variances can be eliminated and hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone can be further reduced by reducing the size of the proposed home. Staff recommends approval of the following variances, amended from the origirtal application to reflect 10’ side setbacks, to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area ofO.19 acres (8,172 s.f.) where 43,560 s.f.(l acre) is required; 2. lot width of 50* where 140* is required; 3. rear >'ard (street) setback of 22’ where 30 ’ is required; 4. 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshorc setback zone where none is permitted (staff would also support a reduction in deck sizes—.sec below); 5. 1,957 s.f. (44.7%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshorc setback /one where 1,095 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 6. 15’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30 ’ is required; 7. 6’ +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone where none is permitted; and 8. placing fill in i bluff impact zone w here no fill is permitted. Approval of the above-listed variances si. .uld be conditioned on the following: 1. a permit must be obtained from I Icnncpin County to change the access to the property. 2. comments from the City rngincer should be incorporated into the proposed plan wh^n received; and 3. comments from the DNR should be incorporated into the proposed plan when received. The Planning Commission may choose to further reduce hardcover in the 0 to 75’ hardcover zone by requesting that the two existing decks be reduced to the permitted 32 s f. landings. "OJ-283" Minnetonka Custom Homes 417/2003 Page 6 e/7 r ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Rcquiremeots: DtaMttskMu Rebuked Exisflnf Proposed Lot Area 43^60 s.f.(l acre)8,17: s.f. to 19 acres) 8,172 s.f. (0 19 acres) Lot Width 140'50’ (at the 75’ setback and the OHWL) 50’ (at the 75’ setback and the OHWL) Setback from the 75’96.9’96’ OHWL Rear Setback (Sireci) 30'24.7’ (house) 0’ (detached garage) 22’ (house) Side Setbacks East 10 ’15.2 ’10 ’ West 10 ’14 ’7.6’ Setback from top of bluff 30*15 ’(deck) 29’(house) 15 ’ Encroachment into bluff impact zone No structure permitted 6’ encroachment (deck) 6* encroachment Hardcover CakulatioBs: l.ol Coverage B> Stmclure; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’3,957 s.f.none 480 s.f. (12.6%) 480 s f (12.6%) 75-.250 ’4.453 s.f.1.095 s.f.1,512 s.f.2.051 s.f. (25',o)(34.5%)(46.8 “o) Permitted Coverage Exbting Coverage Proposer^ Coverage 1,500 s.f.1,127 s.f.1,504 s.f. L ltOS‘2887 Minnetonka Custom Homes 4/1 7/200S Page 7 (ff 7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U Date Received 3 lO 3~ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFOR^UTION Site Address KIoO-th nn, /niw Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) o7>/n-Jte . y . Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. - “ • •Date Propedy Acquired__________________ I (do) ftp ri^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Jmonth'year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: / R ~ i ft__________ .other (specify). APPLICANT Name Address: \/n >o T>l Phone (heme) Gf2 • C»oo - ts'/a - 6.» __ Phone (work) 6/iP -3 » wyp. ^ City: O^M^'ER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S________________ Describe request in detail: . /rVa r»wrp.t,Ait- L^Afl-iAt/CC < (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width V Hardcover .Lot Coverage JS_ Se.b«k: JL Side^^ _ R„r ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) UARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS DescriLe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Set Attac ^r- (attach additional sheets if necessary)omr o O OY nn6l 7 ->117/23 LEONARD. PELLET. LOREN ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 53C0 S. No. 101 Minnetonki, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 474 8267 R-2B02.15 L-29.75 ?-0* 36*30i-^ • ' ?-0*36'30 ^ ^RD-Tf^----------NQJ3____ RPvy«n?' DRAFrED:Decemb<,l|,200l ISED: Janua.'y 24.2002, to show changes in hardcover ubulations. REVISED: February 20.2002. to show proposed const « LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L« 4. Block 6. BERGOUIST 4 WICKLUNDS PARK. Hcooepin Couniy. Minocwoi, SCOPE OF WORK: 2. Shotting the location of existing improvements v j deemed unaoriant 3. Strung new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark U e comers o®jJfe,3. Strung new monuments or venfymg old monuments to mark U e comers of^l&Sfencrtv f ________ fw ''■" **** of the property as an exten ion (dashed) of die orSna! nTt.yr if shortime shown on the plat to the o'dmary high ttaier mark, there ire lee,! 1 teHuicj fium i* ongmal .. Muc Mve snown me ooundary ol me property as an exten ion (d shoreline sho^ on the plat to the ordinary high ttater mark, there ire leral quesio^ni: Tw le scope of our services cgal description u ith your . and that any matters of C3STINC RCSiOENCC »*rwfl5*o ptkvenAM £^rx«oj/3' ~\----------- 2a-----19,88— N B775-03" E procedure ,0 set a coun to resolve thii question. ' ^ ^ ““"j w|fh ------------- •v in , P-.ww.uuic lo gci a coun to resolve this question. ----------- ^ ------------v..^u. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS Denotes I/2" ID pipe »ith plistic plup bcarinp Stole License Number 9335. set. unless olhcruise noted. r\ ■Cl,...."? (Q-fe-- ^omtv H. Piik.-i P.E. 4 P.S. No. 9235 \J under my direct IM S of PROPOSED House EXISTING RESIDENCE ms TWO DCCK ^^SCRIPTION, Port of Loke Street proposed to be vocoted- P'=ir^?[‘ dedicoted in BERGOUIST & WICKLUNDS P-n..l<, Hennepin County. Minnesota, which lies between the souinerly extension of the eost ond west lines of Lot 4 Rime-L s in sold BERGOUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK. ‘ ® ^ ® Portion of Loke Street proposed to be vacated. if OSSTttC ST*«S — a«8 •4.n *-Z‘ graphic scale ZJAT crynsc IXCK fOMC t/i- _tW0»0N 0«3tf>AKr M04 .* •ATEX CLfVATiaK trf«u/x » Sp'3»tJ».t AS or '------12/5/axi Tc* or ««n* cuvAnc»b>t7i a A'O. n/J6IT\ Ul 1617 7/1 17/7J LbUNAKU. FtOXlfl. LUKliN C\/2. ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300S.Hwy.No. 101 Mjnneloiila. MN S5345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fm (952) 474 8267 LOREN PELLETJRVEYFOR; CO~~^£f-x^ r.=2802.15 L*29.75 A*0* 36*30"J9 SURVEYED: December. 2001 DRAFTED: December 1 1,2001 REVISED: laimaiy 24.2002. to show changes in hardcover tabuladons. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4. Block 6. BERGQUIST & WICKLUNDS PARK, Hennepin County. Mimiesotn. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direcdoo of boundary lines of the above legal description- The scope of our services does not include determining what you own. whidi is a legal nutter. Please check the legal descriptioo with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the locaiioo of existing improvements we deemed impottaoL 3. Settmg new monuments or verifying old raomtmeiits to mark the comers of the propeity. 4. While we have shown the boundary of the property as an extention (dashed) of the original lot lines from the original sboreUne shown on die plat to the ordirury hi^ water mark, there are legal questions, that only a court can decide, on how the property the lots in this plat gain as the lake recedes should be divided among the lot owners. If this is of sufficient interest to warrant the expense and time involved in a legal proceeding, you could consult with an attorney about the procedure to get a court to resolve thb question. 5. Showing and tabulating hard cover arul area of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agendes as may have jurisdiction over hard cover requirements. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS; *•* Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision arid that I am a licensed Professional Engineer and Professional Surveyoc under the laws of State of Minnesota. EXISTING RESlOENCe 0 /Wioa lesoia.•H (SA H. Parker T.E. & P.S. No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE 2C 0 10 30 ( IN FEET ) #2346 OKOowar mgh mAta nxvAiMM ma lAAF MINNETONKA \ VtORnjNC AS or X—IJ.S/J001 TO or WATCT a£V*T)ON«t200 DM(t NO. OJJ6J7 r .A. A. Bouse ram ) ^0-7 j T t> i/2 I.*. :•. *. .• •• • B.* ‘Oar^e- • ••• • • • • C» Mwny D. mdcwiDc B.-MWDcdc F. Laadso^ VededaZa B/Plaitle OrFAtte o. otenner TV •... X’ X X X X X X X X X X X .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. .V-V: •; A -5.F. S.F. S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F. SF. — S.F. S.F. T0TAL?S4^1?z“^ *■ • •• ___ +. B ----------::__LS.F. __S.F. PROPOSED KARDCOVra 1^f ioST. A. Kottse _____________ xlOO I .S.F. Pi-ni___S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Ganze X _S.F.• C. Driveway X S.F. X I S .F. D. Sidewalk X •« m S.F. * ’ — • - •• *•*. •* .••I S.F. E. IWdfDeck • X • BB S.F. .X *I S.F. F. Landscape X S.F. UodedaZa X m ■"S.F. By Piusie X •3 "S.F. Or FAric , ■o.JOimtUdtOKm X • 1^2.^S.F. * AUAMU hardcover Di ZON; TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * ^ ----------------- ♦ B XlOO •> AfiC 4i S.F- S.F. VO__ *». SETBACK Z<K<E> tlU«lHgBmP<ic.iv;|||^^ e«!iMiU9< —sa ■■ * ■ — LXietHVORKSHEETajo^oo*02|^ 5OO-1C0O’ - .-&93i. B.* c. iMv^y ‘ • -vv *»n/ksr - 7W *«M»iw7Dl!E E. P«eIo/Dcdc X **" ■ • • • .. .s.p. .S.F. .«.F. F. Isndsc^ UodedaZa B/ Flutlc OrFiCbrfc G. Other X X X X X X X TOTAL FROPOSEP KABDCnypR tv ' xlQO « B. Otnie C. Pnvew^ / INMiUUKV! ^^**vS3RUS; £. Fatlo/Deck F. Ixadscape Ucdede!a B/ Plutic OrFabdc 0. O^r i««.SS5SSrS£S “ ^ ^------- + B XlOO •• :------StF. -----------—«5.F. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. S.F. _____SF. ____s.F. __115F. 5.F. ifcS: J _ g fi ;goM- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Oo: “ s.F. s.F. S.F. ;s.F. s.F. 's.F. S.F. g.oS'l fi), B^2ri IS £ ■/ Xc-isi m «s;n*CCT9lDE vijorogeo t*wv£ ei/evMictJ •^i^t. - y-cT w \ V3> r. r ItM UTI MTCN 5M M 12*X17-M 41 Mil PMT MM M4II NXIMMM.XS AVt ONwa Mm c s tnonas « f h tiamr TAMAVC* C S TtmiAS A E N TRAMR MHC/AOM 4M1 rUNNEAPOlIS AVC raUNO m 5S5M WlMiRXN COUNTY NOOfOTV XNFORtlATXON SVSTCn PtOrCRTY ONNMS UST SO tr-llT-XS S2 4MS ■472S TONRAVXIW U E « T CNRISTIANSON CAOL • TCRirV CNRISTXANSON 4M1 TONRA VIEW LANE HOUND HN S59A4 RCrORT NO. riASSAIl PACE 29 M IT-UP-ZS 32 MM M7S5 TONKAVICW LA S V HNITIUN A N E WNXTRAN STUART V MHXTIUN 4735 TONKAVIEM LA HOUND HN S53A4 34 A7-X17-23 32 AM9 PROP AOM M734 NORTH SNORE DR OMHER NAHE CNRISTXNE J SCMNXtMOACN TAKPAYCR CNRXSTXME J SCNANZENOACN NANE/AOM 4734 NORTH SNORE OR HN 5SS44 SO 47-117*23 32 4114 M745 TONHAVXEM CT JANES R THORSON ETAt JAMES TNOmON 4745 TONUVXEM CT ORONO HN 55344 34 47*117-23 32 4411 M757 TOMAVXEM LA T 0 OLSON 4 L N WALLACE T 0 OLSON 4 L H WALLACE 4757 TONKAVXEW LA HOUND HN 55344 34 47*117*23 32 4412 PROP AOM M7S1 TOMAVIEH CT OWNER MM S A SCNAUER APE ROUOSKV TAXPAYER S A SCNAUER APE ROUOSKV mm/MM 4751 TONKAVXEW CT HOUND HN 55344 34 47*117*23 52 4414 M739 TONKAVXEW CT LARRV A ORCENNAOCN ET AL L CRCCNNAOEM 4 V CREENNAOCN 4739 TOMUVXEW CT IM 55344 34 47*117*23 32 4414 44731 NORTH SHORE OR DENNIS A NEVER DCMUS A NEVER 4444 NORTH SHORE M HOUND rW 55944 34 47*117*23 92 4417 PROP AOM M72S NNTN SMME M OWNER mm J P NEMV ETAL TAXPAYER J P NEMV NAHE/AOM 4725 NORTH SNORE OR HN 55944 34 47*117*23 92 4414 447S1 NORTH SNORE DR DENNIS A NEVER DENNIS A NEVER 4444 NORTH SNORE M HOUND HN 55944 34 47*117-23 32 4419 44745 N04TN SNORE DR NERHAN CRAMFORD ETAL HERNAN CRAWFORD 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE HOUND HN 55344 34 47*117*2S 32 4424 PROP AOM M7S3 NMTH SNORE OR OWNER NAm L PELLETT 4 S PELLETT TAXPAYER LOREN PELLETT NAHE/AOM 4753 NMTH SNORE OR HOUND HN 55544 34 47*117*23 32 4421 M755 NMTH SNME OR 0 R EVERSON P H E EVERSON 6MRV 4 HARIE EVERSON 4755 NORTH SNORE OR HOUND HN 55344 34 47*117*23 32 4422 M775 NORTN SNME OR 0 E ROLL 4 S E ROLL DOUCLAS E 4 SANDRA E ROLL 4775 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 34 47*117*23 32 4423 PROP ADM M795 NORTH SNORE M OWNER NAm NENNEPXN PORPEXTED LAM TAXPAYER CXTY OP ORONO NAHE/AOM P 0 RM 44 COYSTU DAY Ml 55323 94 47*117*23 32 4457 M755 TOMIAVXCV LA DANM 3 MXONT/NARV P JONES OAHM 3 MXONT 4755 TOMUVXEW U HOUND Ml 55344 94 47*117*23 32 4454 M745 NMTN SNME M A N 4 V R RASCNER ANDREW N 4 TRACY K RASCNER Ptialt Wo. Iai6 6011 ■7Sfo 9yat. •^TS^S AJor'f-A. •Sphere . Kmir RBCORO J>*t« dllQdltL //-<<»> -grv 47 ;?-f- gy Type of Permit ld^UI ^yytn /^^I? 4- y TV; m ’ f \ g mS i^'H'V'Mjljfi;.^4V i'.5im,f :v f ;..t:3T» •». •:• :•!//•■ V.f,v'vi .,;. V.. -V .y L''■'^-v vj ^ ;,V: ,;;p> ■ Ylglri fieotVN (^etWN>^^^> W^l/L -rt -v^\Mie i^lf %MIi ® j $■ I i H wm & If lilt': mu.- r ^ ' '^ r '^’ nmr■ ^wf%anha; g^agsa . ^B&^sfflSSP? •; > -ifjfc, • •■ ,'7 * ;.:-v •.'w '.’• >-*•:, ■ V.l'A T'»:c.v- V :i -' ^"Atirr 'Ai-T;-:; 1 r c-r V,- isr r r ^ ’.v*;'. K c- '* 11S C ’ DateAppIkallMlItMfvcd: 3/1f/t3 Date AppttcatiM CoatMcrc4 as Caapl«i«: 3^4/03 M-Day Review Period Eipirca: SO3/03 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafFron, Planning Director April 14,2003 #03*2883 Dennis A. Meyer, 4655/4685 Tonkaview Lane - Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement • Public Hearing Zoalag District: Lot Area: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential. l*acre min. (43,560 s.f.) Existing 4655 Tonkaview: 24.960 s.f. (0.57 ac.) 4685 Tonkaview: 29,478 s.f. (0.68 ac.) Proposed 20,200 s.f (0.46 ac.) 34,239 s.f. (0.79 ac.) Application Summary: Applicant requests approval for a lot line rearrangement between these two developed residential lots. Applicant owns both properties, and each contains an existing single family residence. Both lots are substandard in the LR-IB 1-acre zone; the lot line rearrangement would make the larger lot slightly larger (nearer conformity) and the smaller lot slightly smaller (reduced degree of conformity). Pertinent Code Sections: 1. 10.24, Subd. 5B: Minimum lot area required ° 1.0 acres dry buildable Minimum lot width required * 140' (measured at rear of front yard) List of Exhibits A - Application B * Plat map C - Survey - Existing & Proposed Lot Lines D • Staff Sketch: Buildable Envelope for 4655 E - Topographic Map F • Property Owners List G • Plat Map with Area Lot Sizes Background Applicant proposes to move the boundary between his two developed residential lots to reflect the visual lines of occupation as delineated by an existing tree line. The easterly lot (4655) has contained a residence since the early 1900's, which encroaches into the street ri^t-of-way. The westerly lot (4685) has a relatively new home constructed in 1998 pursuant to a lot area variance granted in 1997. No other variances were granted for this lot, which met the SQ% standard for lot wridth. M2-2m April 14,2003 Ptf«2 Lot SUndirdt Lot Area A Width Each existing lot is substandvd as compared to the I -acre LR-1B zoning district requirement. These lots have remained uncombined and each contains a single family residence, hence they arc each considered as lots of record’ and stand alone in terms of their zoning status. For substandard lots, the City in many past applications has approached lot ime rearrange^'en's from the perspective that the lot areas should remain the same, neither gaining nor losing area but doing an equal trade. However, that scenario would not accomplish this applicant’s goal of having the lot line match the perceived visual >*ard boundary. The result is that 4655 is reduced from 0.57 acre to 0.46 acre, and 4685 increases from 0.68 acre to 0.79 acre. Addition^ly, the width of 4655 decreases from a conforming 148.75’ to a substandard 122.81 ’, while the width of4685 increases from a substandard 114.34* to a conforming 140.28*. Exiting d^elopcd lot sizes in the Tonkaview neighborhood range from 0.17 acres to 1.67 acres. Exhibit G illustrates the lot sizes in the immediate area. At 0.46 acres, 4655 will not be the smallest lot in the neighborhood. Setbacks Both existing homes meet the required setbacks, with the exception that the home ut 46^5 encroaches not only into the required 35* front >>ard but also into the right-of-way of Tonkaview The lot line rearrangement has no impact on this setback situation The only accessory structure on the two lots is a detached 20* x 23.1* building at 4655. This 462 s f. structure meets the required 10* side setback for such structures, both before and after the rearrangement. The buildable envelope for 46SS after the lot line is moved is shown m Exhibit D. There still will be a substantial envelope for construction of a new residence on this site in the future. Hardcover Both lots arc in the 500-1000* hardcover zone which allows 35% hardcover. The home at 4685 was constructed in 1998 and staff has confirmed that the hardcover is w ithin the established limits and as ap^ved with the building permit. The property at 4655 has substantially less hardcover than a owed by code. After the lot line reanangement. each property w ill be well within the hardcover allowances, so hardcover is not a factor at this lime. " re-developed, the 25% limit will come into play (35% of 20,200 s.f IS just over 7 m s.f. wWch would allow for a 3.000 $.f. (I5%] structural footprint, similar to the house at 4685, plus 4,(XX) s.f of driveway, walks, etc.). M2-2tt3 AprU 14.2M3 Page 3 Coverage bv Structure Each lot in both the ‘before ’ and ‘after' condition contains substantially less than the 15% limit on structural coverage, hence no variance situation Mill be created. l9l Slindar<^s TaWt The ‘before* and ‘after* lot standards are summarized in the following table: 4655 Tonkaview Lauc 4685 Tonkaview Lane Standard Required or Allowed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Lot Area 43,560 s.f min.24,960 s.f. (0.57 ac.) 20,200 s.f. (0.46 ac.) 29.478 s.f. (0.68 ac.) 34,239 s.f. (0.79 ac.) Lot Width 140* min.148.75 122.81 114.34 140.28 Hardcover 35% max. (500*1000') 11.3%14.0 »/o 27.9 %24.1 % Lot Coverage by Stmetnres 15/«max.7.8 %9.7 %11.0%9.5 % Side Setback (Acc. Strut.) 10*35‘10*N/A N/A Utilities Both lots are served by municipal sewer. The existing sewer connections arc generally centered on the lots and the rearrangement w ill not create the need for any sewer easements. Each lot is served by a private well, and the rearrangement has no impact on those wells. Easements Staffis unaware of any existing drainage and utility easements w ith RLS 1036. However, given the sloped nature of the properties, it would be appropriate that the applicant grant a drainage and utilities casement 5* either side of the new* lot line. RLS 1036 created these lots in 1962, prior to the current 2oning standards. The lot line rearrangement generally meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan because it will not increase the existing density of the neighborhood and will not create additional building sites. Both lots are record lots and the lot line rearrangement will create new* record lots. 902-im April 14,2«» Paf«4 Approval of the reaffangement involves the granting of lot area varianegs for gach Ir^i « well a addth variance for 4655. Therefore, future redeveloDment of 4655 meeting all ««andar^< yi ry>pt area and width, would not be required to go through the lot araaAyidth variMce Ittiin for CoBiidcratioB ' S* the l«w««:h lol wiih area and widlh dimensions in keeping 2e Any other concerns about the proposed lot line rearrangement? Stair RccoBuncBdatioB Stair recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the following: 1. Applicant to grant a 10* drainage & utility easement (5* either side of new lot line). 2. Applicant to provide title opinion to confirm ownership of both lots. 3. Lot area and width variance granted for each resulting lot (4655 can be redeveloped subject to all zomng standards without having to go through area/width variance process again). e r RUN date J/MOVBJ M 07II72J2100I0 rHOf AUDR ]l AUOKliSS UNASSIKN1;I) OWNiRNAME STEVEN P VALFJC taxpayer STEVEN VAU3C NAMC/AOOR 4730 tonka view U MOUND MN S5304 31 07II7332J0QM PROPAODR 4730 TONKA VIEW LA OWNERNAME S F VALEK A J VALEK taxpayer STEVEN FA JOAN VALTJC NAME/AOOR 4720 TONKA VIEW LA mound MN 3S344 31 0711723)20004 PROPADOR 473) TONKA VIEW U OWNERNAME S V WHITMAN A M L WHITMAN taxpayer STUART V WHITMAN NAME/ADOR 473) TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN ))3A4 3S 0711733330014 PROPAODR 4739 TONKAVIEWCT OWNIANAME LARRYAGRELNHAGENrTAL TAXPAYER LCREENHAGENAVCRELNIIAGEN NAME/AOOR 4739 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN ))3M 31 0711733)20011 PROPADOR 4731 NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME OENNtSAMEYER taxpayer OOMSAMCYCR NAME/ADOR 4410 NORTH shore dr MOUND MN )))M 31 0711733)2002) PROPADOR 442) TONKAVIEW LA OWNERNAME RICHARDOAiUUEAROELOTS taxpayer WaiAROOAAnJEAROELOfS NAME/AOOR 4«3) TONKAVIEW LA mound MN )))A4 PAGE: I 3t 07117233)0011 PKOI* ADOR JR ADDRESS UNASSICNCO OWNERNAME RALPH WINTON PALMER taxpayer RALPH WINTON PALMER NAME/AOOR 47)0 TONKAVIEW LA mound MN 3)344 31 07117332300)1 PROPAODR 1110 GARDEN CT OWNERNAME STMKELLLC taxpayer SHMKELLLC NAMH/ADOR 6424 GLEASON lER EDINA MN 3)439 31 0711723)20009 PROP ADOR 4734 NORHI SHORE DR OWNER NAME LONG YANG A ANJER X YANG taxpayer long yang NAME/ADOR 47)4 NORTH SIK3RE DR MOUND MN 3)344 31 0711733320016 PROP ADOR 47)1 NORHI SHORE DR OWNERNAME DENNBAMEYER TAXPAYFJI DENNIS A MEYER NAME/AOOR 44R0 NORHI SHORE DR MOUND MN 3)364 31 07II723J200I9 PROP AODR 474) NORHI SHORE DR OWNER NAME HERMAN CRAWTORO ETAL TAXPAYER HERMAN CRAWFORD NAME/AOOR 4745 NO SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 3)344 3f 0711723320024 PROP ADOR 4429 TONKAVIEW LA OWNERNAME IRAfiRANAMSON/DABRAHAMSON TAXPAYER JAMES R A DAWN ABRAHAMSON NAME/AOOR 4439 TONKA VIEW LA MOUNOMN 5)344 3R 07II733330UI9 PROPAODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED 03YNERNAME CfTVOFORONO taxpayer CTTYOFORONO NAMDADOR P 000X64 CRYSTAL MN 3)323 31 071172333000) PROPADOR 472) TONKAVIEW OWNERNAME E A TaiRBTUNSON taxpayer carl a terry aiRBHANSON NAME/ADOR 4611 TONKA VIEW LANE MOUNOMN 3)364 31 07II733J300IO PROPADOR 474) TONKAVIEW CT OWNERNAME JAMES R HIOMSON ETAL TAXPAYER JAMES HIOMSON NAME/AOOR 474) TONKAVIEW CT OKONOMN 3)364 31 07II723J200I7 PROP AODR 472) NORHI SHORE OR OWNERNAME JP HENRY ETAL TAXPAYER J P HENRY NAME/AOOR 472) NORHI SHORE DR MOUNOMN 3)364 31 0711733320024 PROPAODR 441) TONKAVIEW LA OWNERNAME KAHILEENGASH TAXPAYER KAHILEEN GASH NAME/AOOR 441) TONKAVIEW LA MOUNOMN 3)364 31 0711723320027 PROPAODR 46)5 TONKAVIEW LA OWNERNAME II BOON A M II BOON TAXPAYER HENK BOON A MARK II BOON NAME/AOOR 463) TONKAVIEW U MOUNOMN 3)364 i.>i:> •) /~<PT (^CiCes^ L 1 Dale AppBcatfoii Received: 1/24A)3 Date ApplicalioB Complete: 3/24/03 60-day Dcadlloe: 5/24A)3 Chair Ha\Mi and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, City Planner . Mike GafTron, Planning Director ^ nlA . DATE:April 18.2003 SUBJECT: «03-2889 Ravia Real Estate. LLC 2060 Way2ata Boulevard PUD • General Concept Plan Review / Preliminary Plat Review Zoning District: Lot Aren: B-6. Highway Commercial District 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Appliention Summar}’: Applicant has submitted an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzala Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6 PUD in 2001. The intended use of the property is a 13 unit ofTice development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed ofTicc buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately ISOO s.f. The 3 office buildings w*ould include one 3-unit and two S-unit buildings. Total gross square footage of office space is 41,000 s.f. The intent is to sell each individual unit into independent ownerships and plat a common area to be owned by the building ownership group. The common area would contain the shared parking facilities, landscaped areas, and sidewalks. An ancillary need will be to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals. ___ Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.40 • B-1 Accessory Use, Fence Standards Section 10.43 - B-6, Highway Commercial District standards. Section 10.52 - Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor Study Area. Section 10.53 - Standards and Review process for Highw ay 12 PUD Section 10.61 • Signage and Parking Standards m-2889 April IS. 2M3 Pafcl List of Eihibits: A B C D E F G Plal Map Application & Supplemental Narrative Applicant's Submitted Plan Sheets: - Cover Sheet - Cl: Siteuork Information & Details - C2: Existing Conditions • C3: Removals and Erosion Control - C4: Grading Plan - C5: Utilities - A1.1: Architectural Site Plan - A 1.2: Landscape Plan - A 1.3: Undscape. Signage & Trash Enclosure Details - A 1.4: Exterior Site Lighting Plan • A2.I : Triple 48 ’ Walkout T>‘pc Plans • A2.9; Triple 48 ’ Walkout T>pc Elevations - A2.I0; (5 unit) Walkout T>-^ Plans / Roof Plan - A2.1 1: (5 unit) Walkout T>pc Elevations Engineer’s Letters (Dated April 7,2003 and April l.'^. 2003) Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District PUD No. 2 Approved Site Plan (October 2001) Properly Owner’s Notification Lbl General Concent Plan/Prellmlnarv Plat Revlrw Process The current proposal is being processed as a new Planned l»nit Development proposal for the site, and if approved will result in new General Concept Plan and General Development Plan approvals, preliminary and final plat approvals, as wril as a new PUD Agreement. The properly has prev iously K-en platted, but will be rcplatted as part of the process of creating separate ownership capabilitv for the various units. This application is at the PUD general concept plan'preliminary plat stage, vv hich requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PID process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commercial \>fficc development, os well as anhance the qualitv of such development. #03-2889 April 18,2003 Page 3 Site Background The property was part of a 7-acrc tract that was platted into two lots for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2,4.5 acres) was rezoned to RJPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. T^e west 2.6 acres became Lot 1, Orono Ambar, and was rezoned to B-6 High\say Commercial District. Lot 1 is the subject of the current application. Development of a 25,000 s.f. ofllcc building on Lot 1 was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22,2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established that the only permitted principal structure on Lot 1 is a 25,000 gross s.f. 2-story office building with underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that building arc general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may irKludc a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the office building, and filed Application No. 02-2771 with the City in March 2002, proposing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1. That application resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant opposition to the project based on the si/c, orientation and intensity ofthe proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real Estate (one ofthe principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the proposed office project. Surroynding Land Use Directly to the north of the subject property is a residential neighborhood called “Sugarwoods ”. The only buffer between the applicants ’ oflicc site and the residential use in Sugorwoods is a 40* wide platted outlot that is ow ned by the Suganvoods Homcow ners Association. Restrictions w ere placed on each lot w ithin the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits rcmo\ al of trees greater than 2" in diameter w ithin the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The 40’ buffer outlot is generally wooded. The subject property is located on Highway 12 and the Orono Ambar Senior Housing development is located to the east. Two parcels that arc located west of the subject property are develop^ as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the west and surrounded on two sides by applicant ’s propert>’ contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop. That property is zoned B-1 Retail Sales Business District. Future redevelopment of the adjacent welding shop parcel is anticipated; both the residence and the welding shop are nonconforming uses in B-l. L April It. 2MJ P«|t4 US. Highway 12 is in Ihc process of being relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the existing 12 and Brown Road intersection. Currently, Brown Road North ends in a T inter^tion with 12. Broun Road south of 12 will be realigned to create a cross intersection with listing 12 directly across from Broun Road North and a signal light will be installed at that intersection. Comlstcaev with Orono 2000-2010 raip Uses withinthe may include only those uses designated by the ofllcial Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The 2000-2020 Community Management Plan has guided the property for commercial use. This use would not require a CMP amendment as the underl>ing land use designation is for commercial use. The use of tlie property as office is permitted under Ihc B-6 district. Ceaeral Concept Plan A Site Plan The General Concept Plan Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rc/oning and development process. A General Concept Plan Approval would be similar to a Preliminary Plat approval without actually approving the Preliminary Plat until other issues have been resolved Review of this application will focus primarily on the following areas: • Impact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design - Landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs - Parking arrangement The 3 proposed office buildings arc one or onc-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level with approjnmatcly 3,000 s..f of gross floor space in each unit (1500 $.f per level). The units are attached in OIK building containing three units and two buildings each containing five units The ftKtpnnt of the th^ unit building is 4.608 s.f The footpnnt of the five unit building is 7.680 s f The three unit building and one five unit building arc oriented in a row along the cast property line w ith parking to the west. The other five unit building is on the northwest part of the property, along the southerly property line with parking to the north. The north end of Ihc easterly five unit building will be imm^ediatcly adjacci.t to the Sugarwoods neighborhood, exposing 48 ’ width to the neighborhood. r M3-2Mf April It. 2MJ PafcS Site Characteriitici. B-6 coBformit^’; Reouired'Allowed ProDOsed Site Area:2 acres 2.64 Acres Defined lot width:100*190 ’ abuning Hwy 12 Parking Setbacks (used stds. adj. to “R** District): (Note: ‘Proposed* also accounts for proof of parking areas) Required front yard :20*1 9-20 ’(rcvisc 10 avoid \ ar J Required rear>^:10*24 ’+ Required yard adj. to “R" district:10*17 ’+ Required yard adj. to “B** district:5’12 ’+ Building Setbacks: Front lot line:35*75 ’ Rear lot line:35 ‘35* Side adj. to “R** district 35 ’3*?’ Side adj. to “B** district 10 ’35 ’ Building Height:30 ’ (2 '/i stories)25*and2r Signage Allowance:190 s.f.*60 s.f. • 1 s.f. per each front foot occupied by building plus 1 s.f. for each front foot not occupied by building per 10.61 Subd. 3 A Additional standards required for the current B*6 zoning district appear in Section 10.45. These standards are attached as Exhibit F. Parking ReQuIrementi A. Location. Parking areas are required to be set back at least 20' from the front properly line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3* of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an **R** district require a setback of I O’. The property is surrounded on tw o sides by residential property and therefore the required 10 ’ setbacks are critical. No parking areas are proposed closer than 10’ to any lot line. Along the north boundar>*, the proof-of-parking setback is proposed at 20-25*. with initial parking to be more than 40* from the lot line. Parking along the w^st boundar>- (abutting the B-1 District) is proposed at approximately 13*. The additional yard area provided by these ample setbacks will allow for substantial planting of trees or other vegetative screening along the property lines where needed. M3.2Stf Aprils, 2193 Pages B. Number of Parking Stalls: Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “nci usable floor area for office use” (Net = 39,000 s.f. + / 200 = 196 stalls required) Total stalls required » 196 Total stalls pressed » 71 Proof of parking = 42 Total parking =113 (short 83 stalls) Parking spaces required by Orono Code for office use is one space per 200 s.f of net usable floor area. The proposed plan requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total number of parking stalls shown on the plan, including proof of parking, is 113. A 42"/5> variance is required for the number of parking stalls. It should be noted that the Dunbar office plan approved per PUD Agreement 2A did not require a parking variance, had substantial parking underground to reduce the intensity of parking aboveground, and provided for weekend overflow parking for the Senior Housing building. On April 17 MPG visited two similar developments noted by the developer - Fembrook Town Office Park in PI>'mouth (west side of Fembrook Lane 1/4 mile north of Hwy 55) and Forcslvi Town Office Park in Maple Grove (south end of Forestview Lane, 1 block cast of Hemlock Lane on south ser\'ice road of 694/Hcmlock c.xit). Both sites had 2-Icvcl office units similar in size to those proposed. Fembrook has rear walkouts. Forestview has rear lookouts with no lower level exits. Parking at Fembrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at 5:15 p.m. There is no on-street parking available nearby, but it didn’t seem to be a problem. Parking at Forestview (8.2 stalls per unit) was nearly full at 5;40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. This site had a parking issue in my opinion. Applicants arc proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per 13 units or 5.5 stalls per unit, with a maximum potential for 113 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit. By contrast, Orono code would require 15 stalls per unit. Despite the attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now, staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per unit. This may be overkill, but it decreases the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots. Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. Surface Water Manaecmem Plan All roof and parking lot runoff will be collected via catch basins and transported via underground storm sewers to the existing storm sew;r system serving the Senior Housing site, discharging to the existing NURP pond located at the tk rthwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. M3-2SS9 April 11,200J Pace? Capacity and design of this pond were pre\iousIy deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals. Revised drainage calculations are required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to sen e the proposed use. Potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west should be addressed. Additional comments regarding engineering issues are listed in the City Engineer's comments attached as Exhibit D. iDbyJniDacts Lot 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent parcels on either side, with iu high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the southeast comer of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highet* i. les ation on Lot I. Proposed walkout floor elevation for the Northeast Building is 1012 ’ or about 12* below the high point of the hill. First s*ory floor elevation will be about 2 ’ below the crest of the hill, but due to the northeasterly slope, the 48' wide north facade of NE Building will expose 2 levels of window s and a roof sy-stem to residential properties to the north and cast. Both N’E and SE buildings will expose 2 levels and a partial half story’ to the Senior Housing building to the east. The result is visually a 270* long facade located ''5* from the east lot line and about 90 ’ from the senior housing end units. The grade at the walkout level of Nl' and SE will be about 8* above the grade level adjacent to the Senior Housing building. At the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6* high will be needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As view ed from Highw ay 12, the south end of the property w ill include a grassy slope, the service road, the retaining wall, and the 48* wide 2-levcl facade with windows. Note that the City Engineer has indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northw cst ends of the site exceeds 12*?o and should be revised to not exceed 8“g. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades arc 0«/o - 5%). The parking area west of the NE and SE buildings will be Bvo rows of 9*x20 ’ stalls, on either side of a 24 ’ center aisle, at an elevation approximately 8’ higher than the welding shop parking lot to the west. Applicants should be asked to describe what their intent is for the existing retaining walls on the adjacent site, since a handicap ramp is proposed to parallel the west side of the parking lot up to the West building. m-2taf April IB, 2M3 Paget Applicants are proposing a driveway connection directly to the rear of the Orono Shopping Center site, rather than a connection to Outlo! D. The City has no indication at this point that such a pian is acceptable to the owner of the Orono Shopping Center site. The City had not contemplated such an immediate connection in earlier reviews of proposed development for Lot 1. The ramifications of such a connection require further revieu’ by staff and City consultants to determine whether this should be approved. From a public safety and internal traffic flow standpoint, the connection may be a positi'. c feature; iu impacu lo traffic flow on the Orono Shopping Center site need anal>*sis. Exiting Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County when Highway 12 is relocated. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 13 directly across from Brown Road North and a semaphore is intended be installed at that intersection. The schedule for installation of that stoplight is still being discussed with MnOOT, but it may be dela>Td until the realignment of South Brown is completed The City’s traffic consultant reviewed the prior office proposal for a 23,000 office building and 70- unit Orono Woods Senior Housing building in November 2000. Based on standardized trip generation rates, a 70-unit building was expected to generate 120 trips in and 120 trips out per day on weekdays, less on weekends, where the medical office use as approved would be expected to generate 130-in/130-out weekdays and significantly less on weekends. Total trip generation would then have been 250-in/2S0-out on wcekda>-s. The current proposal does not specifically contemplate medical office use. and it docs not contemplate any retail use. Absent a further review by the City’s traffic engineer, slaffbelievcs the proposed ofHce use will not significantly differ in tra^c generation from the earlier review ed uses. Pedestrian Access. Sidewalks are proposed to connect betw een the individual units and the parking lot, as well as a continuous service walk along the w’alkout side of the buildi* 3s. and a handicap ramp along the w est side of the main lot. It would be appropriate to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidew'alks abutting Hwy 12. It was determined during the review of Orono Woods that walking Uail connections to the northwest comer of the property had little value at this time because they would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. Landscaping Plan Development of this site w ill be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping, attached as Exhibit F. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code in referencing the B-1 Accessory Use standards, requires a screen (fence or compact ev'ergreen hedge at least 6* high) not less than S0% opaque be located along lot lines between commercial uses and residential uses. Such screen might also take the form of a berm or retaining w alls where parking lot is recessed. «03-28S9 April It. 2003 Page II Si&nagg Proposed plans for signage are attached as Exhibit C (Sheet A! .3). The subject property is allowed 190 s.f. of signage, based on the Code standards. “Aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot ofbuilding. plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building”. The front footage of the site is 190 ’ along Highway 12, so the interpretation is that the site is allowed 190 s.f. of signage. No individual sign may exceed fifty square feel. The applicants have provided signage plans for a monument style sign of 10' X 6* to be located along Highway 12. The proposed sign location is not apparent from the site plans, but it must be set back at least 10* from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign deducted from the total allotment of 190 s.f, leaves 130 s.f. for individual businesses to identify them on the buildings. A total of 130 s.f. divided by 15 units “ 8.7 s.f. per unit, leaving approximately a 2’ x 4* identification sign for each individual unit. In visiting the Fembrook and Forcstview sites it was noted that each unit was provided a standard identification sign of approximately 2* x 2*. and a few units had additional individual small signs, but in general signage was minimal and not obtrusive. l.lghtlng Proposed plans for lighting arc attached as Exhibit r(Shcct A1.4). The applicants have provided lighting for the parking area. The applicants should address how or w hether the individual buildings, entryways or walkways will be illuminated . The walkways behind the building on the cast portion of the property are of particular conccin. Building Qaalltv and Materials Sheets A2.1 thru A2.11 depict the floor plans and elevations for the proposed buildings. The facades most visible from off-site contain substantial architectural features to enhance their appearance and break up the visual length of the buildings. The applicants have provided a design that is sensitive to the surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, while being the functional rear of those offices, have stonework, columns. ba>-s, and styled w indows. The 6/12 pitched roofs will have asphalt “shangles ” for a textured look. Siding is llardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock” and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. The B-6 standards do not specify* a percentage of the facade that must be brick; the proposed 2' high cultured stone base along the entire perimeter of each building is also a critical enhancement. The middle units (2/5,1 ^3) of each building have a 6 ’ deep prope-sed deck on the first story level on the w alkout side. These decks add to the residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and curv ed w indow feature of the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhees the quality of these units. Staffis satisfied that the building design is of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the east. M3-2nf AfriJlt,2M3 rag*12 Sureman ’ of lisuw for How do Ihc \*isual impacts of this office building complex compare with those of the previously approved office building (see Exhibit G to compare footprints of buildings and parking areas)? Is the intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with the previously approved medical office use? Under the PUD 2 A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail \an could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Is Planning Commission comfortable with that same standard, or does the parking variance suggest that ancillary retail use should be further limited? Retail uses require even more parking than office uses... Is the requested significant parking stall variance (42% variance) supported by data that allows Planning Commission to conclude there w ill not be a parking shortage once this site is developed as proposed? Staff recommends no less than 10 stalls be constructed per unit, which is a 33% variance from code... Access driveways should be posted No Parking to avoid parking congestion. Applicant should be advised to revise the front “proofof-parking ” to meet the 20* setback requirement. Applicant should address the variety of concerns noted by the City Engineer; Provide drainage calculations, drainage area map and storm sew cr calculations - Provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to sene the proposed use. Address potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate w est The grade of the access road at the southeast and northw est ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. Parking lot grades should be reduced to not exceed 4%. Applicants should be asked to describe w hat their intent is for the existing reuining walls on the adjacent welding shop site. Applicants should describe how these walls and the wall north of the main entrance drive will be designed or screened to soften their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. 8. The ramifications of driveway connection to the Orono Shopping Center site require further review by staff and City consultants to determine w hether this should be approved. Plying Commission wish any further information regarding traffic generation for Mmifimamiaiiwa r- (I03-2U9 April It. 2003 PH<I3 10. Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the oflice complex side^% alk5, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abuning Hw^ 12. 11. Plans should depict existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critical to ftll in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood. WTiat is the potential for relocating existing trees on the site? 12. Is there a need for screening and bufTering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the immediate west? Wltat landscaping methods are proposed to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, especially the viexv of retaining walls? 13. The applicants should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways or walkwa>‘s will be illuminated 14. Trash enclosure should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. 15. Applicant should indicate the proposed sign location, and indicate the nature of proposed individual unit signage. 16. Any other issues Planning Commission w ishes to discuss. Staff Rccommcndatioa: In general, staff believes the office condo concept proposed is an appropriate and relatively low- intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is attractive anvl of a residential character. Staff is concerned about the parking needs, about potential traffic flow inipacts to the adjacent commercial use, and how this site will visually impact or be impacted by existing surrounding uses. Staff also has concerns about the proposed road and parking lot grades, and would suggest that applicant should be advised to submit a revised grading plan addressing the Cit>’ Engineer’s recommendations. Planning Commission should address site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following; a) Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of: • appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. - building setbacks • building height, number of stories • basemenL walkout exposure and eles'ation views • parking location and orientation - driveway la>t)ut. site acceu, interior circulation Ml-2ta9 April II. 2M3 raf*14 b) c) <0 e) 0 Building design, facade materials, etc. Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public Landscaping, screening needs Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Parking capacity, whether variance is supported g) Pedestrian access, walkways h) Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping Center site Any concerns about the method of ownership of uniu and conunons, potential for multiple users and subleasing i) k) Any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage Any other topics of importance Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility easements required. OPTIONS FOR ACTION relating to the proposed site plan, and take one of the following I. Send forward to Council w iih a recommendation for concept piM r*^roval subject to anv special conditions that PC feels arc appropriate. Table for r^isions or additional information - specify what ‘.-visions or additional information is necessary. 3. 4. Recommend denial, state reasons, send on to Council. Other. 0«e-IQ-2Sai Q2:9Im Frea-CITY CF CIONS «SS22«$<m T-I5I P C22/32* MI5 /g- AppUcatlon# H-!t< Date RccclTed^r^/j.oci^ Amount Paid f»i^r\. oo CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Sileaddress ,AAA.^€»> Property IdendficatioaNumber (PID) 1>4 »%%t - xi- a.| > 0035 Please check one - Property____absirawn or torrens? Attach legal description to application, i. 1, | a AL . APPLICANT _________________, uuc c(o S'l^ct/c Addte;? «4>^ e»» pwA. Ph»n.n.»n,.^-------------* City . »>va _____________ -.Zip^^l Phone (work) OWNER (if di^erent than applicant) Nam e Address •x4ro e» mtb <». City. .Phone (home). (anach list if more than one) , Zip4^^1 Phone (work) ^TL. EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Sbe *Z-*Z. Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet ^ and Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ________ Other (specify) V. •AjU, 6-5 4H yot (Ci'.-O PROPOSAL . Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rcanangecient OrJy (no new building sites) Subdisision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites O Existing Units O New Units 1^ Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Z.t Acres _____Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ____ Residential ^ Other (specify) cCAca ^aall y?Cl 5t:-l0*20C2 02:5lp^ Pm-CITr Of CW»3 «SS224i4SII T-MI P 02J/025 P-511 2. Completed ipplication focm. 3. Preliminary plat infomuUon on Certincete of Survey S. At ftA Ac!d#Ai!am tn thU ________ * Govt Center 341-3271). ........of finaaceA-foa 5. Ai an addendum to this application, please anach a se^ara’c list aPanw Atk*. .ZooLii Official s Sijnamre ^ a:ucnase^ara.eiutofaayother persons you svlsh notified of thU application. rpESssSF—=i Sijned^Ce^^^^ 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 3. Developers Asreemem and Lener of Credit. Zonins Official's Sisnanire ___ wk fees If ippicable). __ Date •• wM Sketch Plan Revim* (Class I. II A: UI) S373.00 -------Subdi% ision of a Lot Line Rcs.-ranfetneni S350 00 ------ Subdivision Application (Clus I ft II) S350 00 ZZ ____ Le^al Preview and Filing: . Subdivision only SIOO.OO . Subdivision w/easemena and covenants tnin. S200.00 *t% (iQ be dctcrmiAe^ n#p <ak^trAA 11 lota^ ---------wpcaifmena ana covenant] Park Fees (to be dcterm'ined per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incuned) B. Special Improvement Tecs: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 S.50fiaeal P • _____ Pr=? Hi Public Roads $530.00 ♦ $.5aii.neal ft.;‘f t-r ruBiic ivoBcs syau.oo ♦ s.sailneal ft.;_____| Request for Ciqr to Accept Existing Private Road $950.^ Proposed Sanrtary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 ♦ $23/$a:b Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 •*• $25/stub . lin. ft. X .50 ■ $_ lin. ft. X .50 ■ $ ’ cxicnsion 5275.00 •*• $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (exeluding culveru) $250 00 iTb.oSpri«r ”'“^• fw* ^ new C. Flexible Application Fecs/Misc. Fees ■ ariifre $350.00 tSSO.OO per each addiiic.xal variance) -------- Easement Vatatiori Associated with Suldivision $100 00 .mijMce. , (7 7 p*/«n»4iiiic<i.ifcu«ab:iihti by Appl,...-: .Sir-^r^r, -2 | - Date Owmer'i Signanire ^ ' 7 — --------------------------- i.ndCcun:iI. Ifanapplicantisur.abletoisendiichiduledmeenV oleuemakrimnir*”'' '' place and to advise the Building ft Zoning Office of lMs change priSr wthTm«t3i| * - J g-z Hn-<a April 7,2003 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 Attn: Mr. Mike Gaffron. City Planning Director Subj: #03-2689 Proposed Commercial Buildings. 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W.. Orono Ref: a) City of Orono letter dated April 2.2003 End: 1) Purchase Agreement 1. Reference a) requested additional infomiation to supplement the application for the subject commercial development; the responses are as follows a. Query- Provide a narrative description of your project describing the office condo concept, and your intended market. Response- This project will create “state of the art* town offices in a park like setting providing a comfortable environment similar to a townhome environment. The f* - ^ spedfically designed to support the requirements of sm« • b .. js with professional services. The intended market is smalt business such a real estate appraisal, law firms, title companies, insurance companies and other professional senrices with 1.500 to 3,000 square feet of office space required. b. Query- Provide the basis for what appears to be a significant departure from the minimum parking requiremmts. Response- This development is planned for total of 113 parking stalls and 13 building units or 8.7 stalls per unit It has been our experience that a maximum of 8 stalls per unit Is required for this type of development. Other town office developments with similar parking ratios include' Forestview Town Office Park. Maple Grove. MN- complete •8.2 parking stalls per unit Blackberry Town Office Park. Inver Grove Heights. MN- complete •8 0 parking stalls per unit Fembrook Tovm Office Park. Plymouth. MN- complete •7.4 parkir>g stalls per unit Champlm Business Park. Champlin. MN- construction summer 2003 •8 4 parking stalls per unit The Pines Tovm Office Park, Elk River. MN- construction summer 2003 •7.2 parking stalls per unit There have not been any reported parking issues at the constructed sites including the Fernbrook Town Office Park (7.4 stalls/unit) which is fully occupied For this site, we propose to initially install 71 of the 113 stalls with the balance being “proof of parking ’ so as to preserve as much as possible of the natural screening/buffer with the neighbors to the north of the prefect We believe from our experiences with similar projects. 71 stalls will provide adequate parking for this project. In the unlikely event additional spaces are required, we would propose to add spaces starting with the southernmost areas, njaintaining the natural screening/buffer for the neighbors to c. Query- Provide information as to how the two and three level office layout is intended to function (will some portion of each unit end up being leased?). Response- Buyers of these units to date have purchased space for their use only, noting that any extra space initially is used for records or other storage and since each unit is small this discourages leasing within a purchased unit. d. Query- Provide any other information about the project that will help the Planning Commission understand your proposal. Response- The basic concept for these town office parks is to provide reasonably priced office space, with approximately 3,000 square feet of useable space, In outer ring suburbs with convenient locations for employees and customers e. Query- Provide a listing of similar projects you have completed that City Staff and Planning Commisstonei-s can visit Response- The most recently completed project which is very similar to the Orono proposal is the nine unit Burnsville Town Office Park at 11990 Portland Avenue In Burnsville ( From 1-494 south on 35W to Cliff Road exit, east on Cliff road to Portland Avenue, right on Portland about two blocks, units are on the right) f. Query- Statement as to the ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or?). Response- The purchase agreement for the property is enclosed, an extension to the closing date is in process to account for the date of final city approval. Charles A. Alcon. Project Manger, Ravia Real Estate. LLC Cc: Mohegan- Hansen (Steve Paetzel) w/o Enclosure 1) Ultieg Surveyors & Enginfers (Rich Revering) w/g Enclosure 1) AP!l.04*2333 i:::f <32 m sv.trsv.: 5rjvK£s:y •r)( ?.::3 PURCHASE AGREEMEf^ RECeiVEO Of Wire Real EMM »*" T»«my TkMsmd DoUvs (S2(M)00 00) m toitUI iSSSSlSSSlSSSSifSSmnXfSSISSSSSSSt SESSflwSSRrS?^^ direcbOBof8ellw.b.«cwKi»b«i»M»Mte«ri5r^ oTclofifii. S5S5i 5sSB;S5gS «•SSlE5M««wio wWcJido MM wtt pmtnt inproviaicflts. Odikcf IS* 2003 tf fe wWwilOMmins ww w ■« «««•■■-•• . —————.---------------- tenlndtdbMilOclobir IS. 2002 *a Buyer »nipn SI lOjMOMaddMooalcwnMinoBey onOciobtr dateaBcCwMBrOMd«aOciob«IS.2002. AflidBdoiiririfm<wnB«ypMidio8cgcfwiilbocreBiid ■I ilM cloiiiit ifaiaal «M BirdMt Pirict. REAL ESTATE TA34CS. RrelEiMMelMei due «idpliyiM» In Bc year of doling il»llbeRi»«Udlnwtwn Siller wd B jyer on • edendw y«f ball»the kumI dete of cloitag watrii otherwUe provided h «W* AifcencnL Reel eiiOe ittei peyiblt in the ywn priw to doling ehill be pild by Seller. RnlcMMMxei peynWi to toe yeen eubeeBort to e*oilac iben bo peld by Buyer. SPECIAL SELLER SHALL PAY on toe dtfo of doling dl InittlBicmi of ipecia) nne«nienocertmedfcrperiittMwitotoereele«JtoBntitoieeodpnyeMtintoey^cfclori^ SILLER SMALL PAY OH BATE OP etOSWe dl otoeripedel tmwnenmevkd M of too toil of ton BHYEH SHAlil ATWIMBipee^ew—MoeatopidiogaioflhcdUcftoli Agreement for fanprovtmena toll bive berj ordered by toe Chy Council or ototr govenuneiMl eeacHtog outoortoee. SeUet ihdl poy m ddi of doling eny defened reel erae notes or ipeeld toeeMtoempeyinemefhlch it ntfOni m • leiuUof toe doting of toil lale. pRORATfONR AUiieniicumDmerilypf«mdmde»idBdtoceniiictign>»itotoeclgelyoftocideoftoe piepaiy. It ihdi be lesmiiedtoai tot Boyer will oere toe pinpto<y for toe entire dm* of toe doting. DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY. If torre ii»»y low or damage to *e property between toe <U» hereof ■nd toe dete of doting, for eny mion. toe ritk of lom iheS be on the Seller. IS. This purditoeertonxM it eentiDfnt upon CbylppivvaL iisJi 952 <32 J7§3 fsms:-*::; sr-iMiRTr m?*! ■ f«at0Mb>« lime •fltr accwanco of ihii A«-m>nf g>*w |fc,ii c^y^cominitmcnlMdwriscnobjccdoas. BuyerilullIw(kernedtohivtwaived,tiikobjertioni iboll be poflpooed pcadiag correction ofthle. InTllpoa fwihiM«« hcreu^ to At other .nd ean.01 money •hall be refunded to Buyer. Buyfr^Soller ^5^“*- 'f **'*• *° ‘•‘'* P«P««> ^ fou«w* marketable w be so made k> wy of the etreemcflB nad continue in default for a period of 10 tSl***”‘*“*'““ “tcrmlnabon all tHp^u M^^oiftrco loch tpeciCe jMrfomiance shall be commw^cS^ta^x'SiSre*ftIlSStjS Sf^ t. BOS8BS8IO!V. Seller shall delit er possession of Ac property on Ae dmc of closing. 9. RCfRCSCIVTATIONS AND WAIUIANTIES. Set eneched eddeodum. 10. TIME I80FTME ESSENCE EOR ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CONTRACT. ’ '■ »X •UVERANOSELUKINmAL; H>«C) Idfcrf.l P0 12. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. (b) Entire Agreement; Modificolloa. Tlus Apeemeat constturcs the complete aciccncm baniu.. Om. mmU. «titiflg ceeeuted by Ac paries. «•“ '"’'•-•of'*'*-»u *.btodi.e * ^ f ^2 The Closing Drte Aill be scheduled for a mufualiy convenient dote on or before October 14. AGENCY DISCLOSURE. COLLIERS TOWLT RFAt. FFTATF IT IS REPR£SPNTrvr* tup wSSi!?rII2®^ 13. This purthaMegmement Is contingent epon City epproval. Am.Q4*2003 11:34 952 432 3713 Sr.'SMOX SMtLDOit DOUOMEATY t4734 P.331 C*d) TBiisAUCAiLYnmmiccofmucT. v Norinmimwii^siEKCOMriTiiirrAVVia ?// //Pit: an- iiab ___ warn, Arnir «r _____ i»». ^ tSLLOPGAGIIfTi, ftU09CA6Bfn. I9999U 19. IWipi li ciMfi««i opn ClV pppravaL A?R.04*203) i:{)4 9iZ 4)2 )783 SEVIWCN SKJlStN CrJGHERTr t?73« ?.536 1^ L AMENDMENT «1 TO PURCHASE AGREE^ffiNT ' Thb Amendmetit PI to Purchate Agreement (Sw **AincndmenO* *nbctive «s of the .dqr of October, 2002. is mode by and bel«vota Wert Real Estate, alto knew as Warn Real Estate Incorporated C*DuycO> Orano Ainbor, LLC ^Seller**). RECITALS A. Boyer and Seller are die parties to that certain Purchase Agreement dated June 28, 2002 (the "Agreemeot*') pursuant to which Buyer has ugreed to purchase the property described as Let l,Blodi l.Orono Aiiibar(the'*Prope(t)0. D. Biqw has served a Cancellation ofPurchase Agreement dated October 3,2002 (the *‘Canccllatioo'*). C. Buyer has agreed to rescind the Cancellation and proceed to purchase the Property subject to the tennt of this Asneitdmeot. D. in consideiation for Buyer’s agreement to rescind the Cancellation, Seller has agreed to modify die Agreeiaem as set Ibcih in diis Amendment (the Agrccroeot as modiiied by this Amendment shali be rcfcxicd to as the '*Agreetneot’7. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is mutually acknowledged, the parties agree that the Agreement is modified as follows: I.Buyek R escinds C ancfxlath >n . Buyer rcKiods the Caneellatioa of the Agreement Deletion of Paraoraph 2 . Paragr^ih 2 of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety. C ontingencies . Buyer's obligations under the Agreement are specifically concingertt Buyer receiving qiproval by the City of Orono for uk of the Property for its ,)* . posed office tovmhome doxlopments. If Buyer does net receive the approv J by April 1S, 2003, Buyer may caned the Agreement and all earnest money shell be returned to Buyer. C losing Date . The Closing Date shall be the earlier of April 30,2003 or 4S days after Buyer receives final plat approval by the City of Orono. Kotwitlv^anding anything contained hmin to the contrary, under no circuu. " V ti” shall Buyer be required to close prior to March 1,2003. TFaM? o-» .\> itPtMEST. Except as set forth in this Amendment, the terms of the Agreement shall remain unchanged. Aril.04*2Q03 lltJ< 152 U2 3710 SCVtMOIf SKElOOff OOUCKZR7Y •«73« F.037 IN WI1NU8 WHEREOF, tlitputkshavtKt their Inods to ihbcineraenl at Of UK mjYEXb Vi ^1 T Wm Rtal Eiwc IncoiporMed SELLER: Oram Ambtr. LLC 2lOI69vl/^ Iti: jJ i'j t •' v’ •% / 4 tV"'’7 GITYoTORONO Mwikiinl Offices SMtlMirau: 27S0 KdlCT Pitiwii Orooo. im SS3S6 lUilRI AMrtU: P O BoiM Cofital Uf. MN SS323 0066 April 2.2003 Ravia Real Esuie, LLC do Steve Paetzel Mohagen-Haiuen Architectural Group 1415 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: W03-2889 Proposed Commercial Buildings, 2060 \Va>7ata Blvd. W., Orono Dear Mr. Paeuel: The City of Orono is in receipt of >our application for General Concept Plan approval of a commercial Planned Unit Development (PUD) site plan and subdivision at the above referenced property. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday, April 21 at 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. You will be receiving a staff report in the mail prior to that meeting. While your application submittal appears at this time to be complete, it may be determined during the staff review that additional information is necessary. At this time, we are requesting the following additional information to supplement your application: 1.Narrative description of your project describing the office condo concept, your intended market, the basis for what appears to be a significant departure from ihe minimum parking requirements, how the two and three level office layout is intended to function (will some portion of each unit end up being leased?) and any other information about the project that will help the Planning Commission understand >x)ur proposal. A listing with addresses of similar projects you have completed that City staff and Planning Commissioners can vi<it. Statement as to ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or ?). The above information should be submitted no later than Friday, April 11 to ensure adequate staff review time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City Planner Wendy Bottenberg at 952-2494600. Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director ■ ‘McplMM(952)24MiM • Fai (952) 24MCI4 WWW^torOWB l—.IM LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK ARIMALLC LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK WAYZATA BLVD (HWY. 12) ORONO, MN 55323 PIUMMNC REVIEW V •»o I • l«»’* >w|»I ■: I ItU • r«1 M« I -F miSEiglEB H*** |wi|» I </» I V It ^ I »/■ I CODE REVIEW ’A* ^ t ..*-1««»- ~ ?3 UiVa '**iA«n*J55» J liW i/«t *• •HJ m #>f «f4i ••• IAS a M* • *M*« ^ , 9fZZ______ iMR ^ Kv> Wkm; 1 • j.oi |.« 1 *A|«• !•|«•«i • |i M m V«I‘'*1 I- ««*’ »v wn trm ! AREA MAP «1E LOCATION CODE REVIEW V V *wi I jei___!«nA«;U3:*< ' •MRim 1 9 «•H. f 1 1 •'ja • #n» iT«1 " 1 ’ 2A*»• 1 1 t I kwn it^i I > I •« I — <«i itm Ut- • •WV -M.%[semsMZBs i * I'*** I** it#B 1 I •9» AAM GENERAL SHEH SCNEODU niK( ocri ivT ^ wm NLWto c* tmi skt mm tct k ftstto jn A'i* n m laicwx »a :*c kk:>.u fpi Mcn wc«M» c^ ON wn «»« *0. y»« r»a.tr Nr:»N»*<»i e. H»n c‘A CN y«ts n im:*»»»-cn K. «»rs *.\:^. T»m *J. «*« im fcxjfv; T«ti A*. «*0 •»;«■<«.« fcU>N*. T^» AS. U*« mSC{.A)4M (MAX rt) AA. H*(J irsa^xi «.\x r>n AJ. HA« irsaaMxt iLvvc m At. «»a inxA ANi uToc At. H«0 (n»«» t ta»CA tTAtV (HAtSU ki«Ct aua « I. «■(» JTMVCVAK. AA:»MA'C" AM* C* «i 9 TKX sens 9 SKTS Ml* K AtOWt tl M CS«’».<ton OOC.n*rs Sit SA1C»C XH •«« (9 SKCS Kuconsn 02274.0 MRM 19 MARCH 03 CITY SUBMITTAL Mohagen Hansen AfcNtectural | ^ ■ I Group JtiiHii, f •’ it-irs: 1.r* i'lintiiiif Mis I WartU Bn S^t ;:o Vtntit m SSS9I Tti sutrams rti ssatrsDio li m OWOWO. WtNNCSOTA cns;"" • • »•> ■« «»>f r.«t •« 5=5£Ss;rr.-. M wiiBifa aiMi rs^tl «i« mn» ifxi c »»^ro»t OTONO, MiNN£SOTA TjiTwSrjcttwr«(ct H* :qm«m mn * t#* m mjm* 99^ MCI M W M l.<fe«urIV .Scswiisys.; -W kM 0» CM Kun I, " ‘ nna MCM m ntm sruA*Mi»«acnM« NAfanorn 0£* ;s^ ”'^'55S‘ o sbsJIks- s^sa-f r ii I’- &-4L-TU. r-ii i OWOMO. u <WW£SQTA IT^nf ggg gt ^.isr* 1 OTOWO. W!NMW?NNE50TA 1^. I '^asas \ >*r M «OT« I 5=1 Ml« M MbuM»i OflONO, MNNCSOTA ]SD **M mk M COMVlt •unMi I 09 • ((««) n |l-i O' * r 11 n b ' r «• •> V___ <••<• l« nm *M> •» •• ) ( «. •'M* IKI»« ■ • u»\ •*-.•«'<»«•• • 1MCT r Mt • 1 'r^wn •• «v«»«a M*n « «4 u«r«n m m» CJt* BLOCKING FOR V/ATERMAIN BEDDING DETAIL FOR 4" TO 15" PIPE DOWNSPOUT DRAIN *0S //**• etf«-pip« com for I'CPC A Iitt4«9i ar»/r 0tmimor» rs?.*a*"- 12“ INUNE DRAIN AOS Mtp//*«a c<39-p>pe com WATER SERVICE RISER L. •r M« CMt •r «k • AfcMtuN kM < •• PAVING SECTION ’ ?^.***** •••■• ■>••• ••A M 2CL'*' ’ •*• •m- OiO* •-•Zom'm SZm”^ * “* ’ •»’•••••. CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION a^rvrr^ig LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Developer: Project Address Orono, UN Project Code OXMI *ff*c«*c Mnn»5»5^m5r //ifflSPEN AW»»m,Crf V */• *•_ -L-) ' . “^1 ? —I r uimo tMGiNtiits. me. mmtArout mrmSOf* IWI a^^SCilSSS rl*i^“a'aEr, RETAINING WALL sniwofw (HuwtNC iNoex Cl - Piacm owMiTOi • bctms Cl . VT tIMV 0 OMMa e»» • MOO* «M tCMMT owmow CM - CMM c« - iRuno 0 r«Mi moi SITEWORX INTORliATIO* k DETAILS CITY SUBMITTAL « n\ lKJ—Tsou M no LAKEVIEV/ TOWN OFFICE PARK Developer: Project Addresi Orono. MN Project Code CUCot *W«0WH. •; ■ urtto iMGMreits, me. Ml l*ir *>r* ao«> jwrf x«tmateiM nui r£/ Mt< EXISTING CONDITIONS CITY SUBMITTAL Iff/' I .■■■'•• -.If/ / i VAWW^ ••••.. , \\Vvv\\\\WV. •X'- A . : ? . •. \ • sr*ss* < / / / : ••• ^ / / / / -•* / i ! //y t\\W‘ \\\\ -v |VW|'TI^'.I IT-\ I l~» 1 I fM I •‘‘K I'HIT I I N. Ti f T A -•■•A'A-J •A-.\\\\\\i\\\ \\ \ '. V 'J V i-b'- mm \ V-T) 2H-j^ • »■■•;■ iBMl • • %*• •> LCCCNO FOM SinWORK DRMmNCS * ..- ; r^ :i ■■'■ •;•■•••? //Is )-V/M W-:i0/0 nmiiiifi/-..- CN090N COMTROl SCHCOMl 1. NO CMTHWORK 4CTMTKS MW COWMCNCC UNTIL CNOMM controls arc WSPCCTtO ANO APPTKMO W TMT CITY CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THC CITY OT ■URNS«A1£ CNCMCOHNO OCFARTHCNT at (M2) 8tS-A4M fOR A SITE INSRCCTTON OMCt CROSION CONTROLS ARC MSTALLCO PER APPROVED PLAN. 2. RH«OlATaY POLUOMNO CRAOMC OF SLOPES M OR CRCATCR. SLOPCS MUST K STABUZCO MTH ROOD HKH •UMKCT (OR OTKR rcthoo Improved ry cncmccr ) cwi apprmo seed MonuRc ANO A MMMUM OT 4* OF TQPSOC X A - NWM CONTROL MSTAUAT10NS SNNX ROMAM N PUCC AMO .NTMNCO W 0000 COKOnON or T>€ CONTRACTOR UNTS. ^TC HAS DON RC-«CCnATCO AT RMCH TRC IT SNAU K RCMOVEO FOR PROPOSCD PANIO SURFACE AREAS. TX _ CONTRACTOR MAY HCM9« XCtSSARY SiLT FCNCMC TO OONSTRua ROAORATS. *mu marfimm aocouaie crosoa control m AOOACCNT AREAS. 4 SUFTOCNT TOPSOl SNAIL K STOCKPUO TO ALLOW FOR INC REPLACEMENT OF 4* OF TOPSOt. FOR 06TUR8C0 AREAS TO SC RCVECnATCO 5. THE CONTRACTOR SMAU SCHEDULE SITE CRAOMC. UDLOY MSTALLAT10N AM) RTMORAY CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THE GENERAL SHE CAN BE MULCHED ANO RE-SEEDED SOON AFTER OTSTUROAFACC. ALL OiSTURBEO AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED ANO MULCHED MITHM 14-OArs AnCR COMPLETION OF FWML GRADING OR AFICR 14-OAYS OF GRMMNC PIACTfVrTY. CROSION ANO SCORCKT CONTROL MAPCDtANCC PROGRAM 1. RISPICT W.T FENCES BAMCDlAiaY AFTER CACN RAAMAU AM) AT LEAST OAA.Y OURMG PROLONCCO RAMFNJL RMCOIATELY RSPAAI FAUD OR FAUNO SA.T FENCES. 2. SEOMCNT RCMONAL - SCORNOiT DEPOSITS SMOLAi) BE RtMOVEO AFTER EACH STORM EVENT. THEY MUST BC RCMOVEO WHEN Deposits REACH APPROtOMATaY ONC- KN/ THE HOCHT OF THE BARKER. 3 RERUkCCMCNT - FABRIC SHAa BC REPLACED PROMPTLY »»<CN IT OCCOMPOSCS OR BECOMES KEFrCCTIVC BEFORE THC BARRIER IS NO LONGER XCOCO. LAKEVIEW • TOWN OFFICE PARK DovBloper: Project Address Orono. MN Project Code CUCHT AA^AOVAi. rJ-SSU^ ■■/////// ANY SCOWCNT RCHAINMG M PLACE AFTER THC SA.T FENCE OR filter FABRC 6 NO LONGER REOLARCO SHAU BC DRESSED TO CONFORM WITH TX OUSTING CRAOC PRCPAPCD. ANO SECOCO MTTH TX APPR OPRWTE seed MDL AS OMCCTEO VT TX CNCMCIR. M THOSE AREAS MHCRC WOOD FMCR BLAMta OR other slope STABRJlAnON NCTHOO MAS FARED. IX SLCPC S»MU BC RCCSTABUSMCO. SEED ANO lOPSOR REPLACED. M« ADDITIONAL SLOPE TREATMENT PirALLCO. removal of SR.T FENCE - SRT FENCES SHAU K RCMOVtO RMCN TXY MAX SERVED THEN USEFUL PURPOSE. BUT NOT BEFORE TX UPMARO SLOPM) AREA HM BEEN XRMAXNTLY STABRJZCO. ± ) z •>, T4 mmm r :.v:/i l.j uiwo BUGmana, me. tft tut MA MAP AM«f AMI—MoiiR mmnota attfi r// Mvr.m4cnr •»' PMAMJr 1 »«••«•»*•* IRUIM0 lJ’U—T SCALE M Ficr •wr «»*•»» REMOVALS & EROSION CONTRg CITY SUBMITTAL « C3 X J . •• V *• *. V \ '* •'*//\-0s\-\\\\ / / ••■•..// / / / ■■■ ■•/ / f •'' ! • / /* .. ••••..I i i <' ^Vfv l\\\\\ W\ ' •• •-A \ \ \ ••. \ \ \ V i \ \ \ \ \ • •• ' . *. \ • y . \ > V V m/M (U/////\ : / *•••***•*.• liih^Ss'! \ ■; f // /.A ; •. A V : V •. % \ i WWnn'-^ \\\\\n;-.. IfSCNO rw »TEWO« 0WWWN C5 srssus.-” » r CLM * ■ * * • ! ‘ : - y- ' . * *' iS5w OT* s®,vJSSS SC«C M I ~T----T dbssk LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Oeveloper: Project Address Orono. MN Project Code CUKT tftmooK. /S/iMSiHGiN Ai; • r\ urtK imumtusi me. $Mt Uif M* MM MIf JM «jar« «Mff ("iJ mmm»fmern$ rs)>TaiK«' WT GRADING PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL ft LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Devdoper: -HltvHi inCNO PON WPWWK WWWWOS -» • fin I_rasi_t»i W//////////A LMJ—r $ou m fOT Project Address Orono, MN Project Code CLOT saRsaas— • nn>Bm.iM 4 lLL’-v. tM.mo iUGmtn, me. IMt Mr M* «M« Mvrr JM mmtorM u*n “Hh551!5S?" utility CITY SUBMITTAL •a: /TNIANDSCAWWC PCTAIL • 5 UNIT TVfC LAKEV1EWTC5WN OmCE PARK WAYZATA BLVa (USHWY.12) OftONO MN AXIM\ lie 17U Ivrn»«« 9 «Mv* M 9I m mu «> m » __ «& muf» ja «<-----m ^uu nM«n . i .r_ onwr « llANDSCAPE. SICNACE&TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS CITY SUBMITTAL AV:> lAKfVltWTOWN OfTKI PARK WAYZATA BlVa tUSHWy.12) ORONO.MN AKIMMLC 17U * "jm* w* att mrm» m m «an «i wv—ii i « M* uBM» ^ «« IM 9 •< m V M«« ----- M ■ mzao m aw «■ MA 9 «o 9 V9«l ac Mi 9*« • • f>MMM «9 »*0 EXTERIOR SITE UCHTINC PLAN cmr SUBMITTAL A1.4 SHCn NOTES * •TmS im'S vw ^ KEYNOTES 0 am M> ■» )M I* Na IMM /J\um yu/ '/*• •' uftEK iiva nooR riAN .tM « <«i KW >»«•. • J* »T» \ •m» a t am V ____ __wr a au \ »• m0m Cj)^ooyjy '^* • KOOr flAN LAKEVIEWTOWN OFFia PARK WAYZATA BLVD. (US HWY. 12) ORONO, MN ARIAM, lie tr IL «CUV* «vi M vnBCAVi oi m m m 9 n«u 9 9 r:* mrmbb m »m»m» (MO «o«fC* iM» «« M 9 «« 1V1 9 .•__ «inr«-f_______?«::• _ •« •*« ■ BT93 « ■< V ««• •• 9^ «A iA« «• HUM •fiW p • 9>lL«a-a »aa • ■ • r 9< w »tr9* TRIPLE 48*-0" WALK OUT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL A2.1 yjj/ • ntONT EUVATION •435'!5r5S-/i ^£»*?aPflgg—^ REAR EUVATION/^RCARI yaj/ '/•• ~ SOI flEVATlON LAKEVIEWTOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA K.VDL (USHWY.12) ORONO.MN ARIMA.UC VU. ^mSmm mwt£/m9mr^ m twmi mm m tma m me m •« * • « M< 109urn m m wm m mmw^ m 9m I TRIPLE 48 ’ 0" WALK OUT TYPE ELEVATIONS CITY SUBMITTAL A22 iSHgTNOTB RSRTJS; KEYNOTIS 0 «n •« worn *u MM >v m I lAKEVIEWTOWN OfTia PARK WAVZATA BtVD. (US HWY. 12) ORONO.MN ARiMMlC VIL ** >«MF VVVWISRA m9t^m m w» m mwo m m m 0m9 » wn tmmm m ©UTfER lEVa FIOOR PLAN ^isi* mm mi mm mmmmm m • __^ ■P •Hf"; V o /».. *• ««wwis*w. /■tmr^ mtk mv \ SHCHNOTIS KEYNOTES 0 >v«aB-aaiMiM* •»■««)« Mi I ROOT PLAN LAKEVIEW TOWN OfTia PARK WAYZATA BlVa 0;SHWY.12) ORONO.MN ARtMAUC V U Hmm On* • IMi*** Sg SuSkT’m •n moiR R»~ «« «MP • mm9 m c»«»» » ••• ir^rM V VMQ i« vri* ccMCw kM r*v:w mm r>4»«i ccMCw kM r*v:w mm • vuPRj m w cr^«e M crjH«% 9 ' (5) 48*.0" WALK OUT TYPE PIANS ROOF PLAN cmr SUBMITTAL A2.10 . i-. ^ «l •■Mfl'V -SS7S ’ ia - D ' i ^VSV mam S I , /:::::::::::::::”:::::::r:"::::i:::::3K:r:::"ri:::tr:::::::::f::r:::::::::3*:n::::;.i::::::::::;:;::::::::::i;:":::::::t*:n:::;:fr:::irt:t:::::::::::;:::::::«-:""5”*:”"n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i kREAR OIVATION ---^ II Dng^hO^MATPtiAiS (*T> ct'jic V9* • wm !>•* tMirm w» n «» m> «3> Ei;s???S5tr* mi mm mm mm »nr-i mi mir Mia, m tm r |«>M nw « ■ ■'•OT* •!*-• <* wm mtmmt • Miami (fTT) mimnt vf mm mm trcii* Mw^aaiiM OM| OM « ■ (<T> «aa>if«aaaM«is«art<i*a> 1%^ mm’ aaMn ^laiTO MM«r<a tHT> » wnm» (ffTk mixm mmm mm mmvu n • ^( KUMP OMI • mmim nmx LAKEVIEW TOWN oma PARK WAYZATA BlVa (US HWY. 12) ORONQ.MN ARIM\ UC 17 U ^wrn^ tfRCn^ »« V tftt* * ma •0^fmKm mm mmtmtmA* ichb imv ------ a«!gy .*^_____-!»«„ M«U«IP% 9 •• IMU 9H0 4iCDiMr«ij« iMPinr yM MA *»n MU—< B—9 m A-tfsQ «cm9i >m tmimmm jm -r>K •y \ ^ ■ • 7 .*s ■Mr m^ MMir M (5) 48*-0* WALK OUT TYPE ELEVATIONS OTY SUBMITTA'. A2.TI ..wmiHj > I m mr m^ m i i''r*tw»Mm i.n?r::::u::n:::n::;3t:;n::tcn;:::su:=::::::::::::::il:::u:;i: kRONT aiVATlON r.\; ' - JSK5SS/1 iWVSr.-SB I /^«AK niVATlON yaty ■/** * *'•*• y^SIDE v^iy •'•• • SIDE EUVATION LAKEVKWTOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA BLVD. (US HWV. 12) ORONO.MN ARIKVVUC 17 It m m mu u W • • • M* < \m w mm% w mi ^ iiqm m mmr m • mmi m •• BP<U% » RVfrM WMiiM fil •• mm mi CM« m m smb«nm mm* M r*«io mcMfn m «1CM^_________ I OPtMI<________ .*<1 •oor ■»*C- (5) 48*-0 ’ WALK OUT TYPE ELEVATIONS CITY SUBMITTAI. Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& Associates neers & Architects liH «• «A Al AMn<>A«4t Ot»€) o • •VwaMl Vj>.A l*‘>0 A IlMatOrn H • Vn‘ A *tjr|on f| trn<«f C«A>U«|JA|| »40*'* Af A| • t A»sd»fi.» r| iMtrr Atli«A I^iuM 0»p*«twMlr o VNyMAt n *f-/po3 WU" w It*' " C AA r>'r*»i » r m» Ai ' ■ «A<» J I A| AltattAl* A OvOor< Af • tae*>l t A«*aftrr* At • A iiha 'J W Aatt*< Af aOAaxlO loitot* A| • w-ax**' I t4u(*unr> A( • lrd« A| • •***>«»♦< A Ax<*r<to« AI • Vt»» • ioifi A| • A VIA ^ A' Af ti • »)T*t V t V A A • A *■ * «t f<iv* .J: Af • A A*f»-ion *| • A Maj »«A Af • 4M*t ■ J*X|*X Af • I Ax »P o.,»< af Af • 0«x*< J laijr'tex A| • ii«**4 va *x«( Af • lxo<as*t A fflao Af • t A jA xiox a Oaw AC- .*A|a »xo**At A A qui *.*' AI • ■.0*«t I L>*.*<, Af OH ma * fl A aj tl C««s.d AmAi*ii** jrsf A. axjif v. * U<aaa *t «i <> CXrfxgo « M»A«AA AAAtO'Vtl'OOCaApril 7.2003 Ms. Wendy BoUcnberg Planner City of Orono Post Office Bo,x 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Lakcviciv Town Office Park Pile No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 Dear Wendy, Wc have reviewed the prcliminar)’plans fw the proposed Lakevnevv Town Office Park. The site is located jum West of Orono Senior Housing site in the northwest quadrant of Wav-zata Boulevard (T.H. 12) and North Brown Road Wc hav e the follow ing comments with regards to engincenng matters: 1. Traffic: The projwicd access road grades on the east and west sides of the site exceed I2J b. This is exceptionally steep and w e recommend street grades be revised not to exceed 8®/i. Stop signs should be installed for vehicles castbound from the subject site at the intersection of the access road from T.l I. 12 Streets and parking areas should be constructed to the City's commcrcial'industrial street section as per City Standard Detail STR-7. All streets and parking areas shall have B618 concrete curb and gutter. 2. Grading: Wc recommend that parking lot grades not exceed 4t ;. The proposed removal of the existing timber retaining wall along the west side of the site is on the adjacent property. Easements will be required for the retaining wall removal and the ccmsirucuon of the new- retaining wall. All ictaming walls over 4-feet in height require an engineered design and details. All silt fence must be in place prior to any grading activity. The applicant should provide an overall site plan showing building elevations so the City Cmm evaluate bwalding Mvigltts arid appcararicc f the ncirtli aad souttf. 3. Drainage: A drainage area map and storm sew er calculations should be pros ided for our review. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review. The applicant should prov ide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use. 4. I'lilities: The proposed sanitary sewer design appears acceptable. The City should be notified v.hen the sewer and water connections will be made to the Ciiy facilities. Water mam connections shall be by culling in a tee, no wet laps are permitied. Final plans should include sanitary sewer, storm sewer and w ater main plan and profile views Hydrants should be located at all dead end lines and at all high points. 5. Kavemcnls: New utility easemmis w ill need to be provided for all constructed water main, sanitary and »:omi scvvcr. Diainage easements should be provided across any existing or proposed drainage ways. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 10-fect wide along all lot lines. A final plat should be submitted for review. 2J3S West Highway 36 • Si. Paul. MN 55IIJ • 6SP636-4600 • Fan: 651*636*1311 Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if you have any questions legarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg \Jj ec: Greg Gappa, City of Otono r Bonestroo ^osene Anderfik& Associates Engineers & Architects April IS. 2003 Ms. Wendy Bottenbcrg Planner CityofOrono Post Oflice Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota SS323 Re: Lakeview Town OfTice Park File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 ••<«««. AA«*fM atM AUMMf*!. IM •« an AtlmmMtww A<i.nn,|«u«i Op*wi«nMa |-rara. an# Own*# * Atmttptlt Otto O •or*tt-oo at • Wa-a.n I a» • a C<>a* ff • O ia»»» n tourtfon at • wjri a Mjntan ai Mf_fn aoiapn C an#r*t.a at • Vsna-a ( a§ • twkn- V te^* ^ c aa p>2.<n« at »anin» Cnnuaianti Coea-l * ts^n* a| AliMMta artnoaaH aetn a Cor«>n af . tq«an # af.ffr->a af . t.«fv,rd A foxtt’ at . Oa..a O lewota ai . M—a« I tautnunn at . M I *.««■ ai . amwtn a anor-wy. a| . v«» t awM at . Da.# a ionaif.*, Via V«-», a a-.?.a>-ncn at n . a«nvt V an.* via . aia,*.,. unn-.^; at . rr«<.-ai * anr-uv^ at . ur-ri • Maun# ai . Ui«t ■ Jaman a| . I an.-^) G»a.ai ■ at . Cava< I f<t9a-ten at . lyaja' Va.|a«, af , T-oma, a t,».3 at . J ionntcn • Da.a a G»o.a ai . facn-at a ax.tf.« at . a^ca-i J Oa-a-, a| OtfKat U aa.a i» Cww# *0<f>aWa> an# ««ma> wa.« VU*agaaa «t. C'w<a9o R w*^bMta n*i*banait'C9(o»* Dear Wendy, We have reviewed the storm sewer calculation submittal for the proposed Lakeview Town OfTicc Park. We need clarification and the following additional information to complete our review: • The calculations show structures 4B, 6A, 9A, 12A, and 12B that are not identified on the plans. The applicant should provide a plan sheet that clearly shows these structures. • The applicant should provide a drawing showing the drainage boundaries to all structures so we can verify the calculations and finish our review. • The applicant should provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use. Please contact me at (65 1) 604-4863 if >t)u have any questions regarding this matter. Yours ver>' truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg ^ cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 • $l. Paul. MN S5II3 • 651-636-4600 ■ Fan: 651-636-1311 § 10.45 SEC 10.45 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 1 . Purpose. The purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of the Highvray 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehettsive Plan. Subd. 2. Application. All qiplicants for a building permit in any "B-6’’ Highw ay Business District shall be reviewred by the Council and rcfcixcd to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" Highw*ay Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the follow ing uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Offices (business and professional). B. Banks and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotel*. C: Restaurants (Class I>;Deleted via Ordinance No. 152, 2nd Scries Effective Date: 10-28-96 Subd. 4. Relationship w ith Chapter 10 53 Planned Unit Development. Other l>pes of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning district. Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses. A. Within any "B-6" Highway Bu:>iness District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the follow ing uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Restaurants (Class I). 2. The following uses w hen such use includes a drive-thru condition; a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. c. Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Source: Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series EfTcclive date: 10-28-96 ORONO CC 35M (Sec. 10.45; 5-S-89) § 10.45 A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Business District. A. Lot Area:two acres B. Lot Width:100 A. C. Setback - Principal Structure: Front Side Interior Side Street Rear 30(35) ft.* 10(35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30(35) ft. D. Setback - Accessory Structure Front Side Interior Side Street Rear 30(35) ft.* 10(35) ft. 30(35) ft. 30 (35) ft. E. Setback - Parking Front Side Interior Street Side Rear 15 (20) ft. 5(10) ft. 10(15) ft. 10 (10) ft. Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts. “J. "scsi’iT' *■ ORONO CC 351-2 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 shall be reviewed by Ihe City Engineer before submission lo Ihe Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such rimofT may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water rtmofT whether onto adjacent properly or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent w ith other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to Ihe approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feel in height except as provided in Section 10.75. II. At least twenty five percent v) of the land ai ea shall be landscaped with grass. Approved ground cosei, sluubbery and trees. At least three percent (3*h>) of the land area w itlun a parktiig aica slull be landscaped. -The following i lilllllllUIII sires shall be required a t the time of planti ng: “GveRto^T'BecTdflons'Xrte! -Omam ernal Trees---------- -2>l^ inches in dklOTTTCtCT inches in iliSTnct^r ■C<wifereusTfr«■6fcettaH Nidjor Sh/ub Pljnttitjy*mH ohs I. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal within an attached structui. accessible fiOiU within the principal stnicture, or totally screened frotu c^e-lc^cl view ficwii public streets and adjacent residential propcilies. If accessory sUuctutcs are pioposed, they shall be constructed of the same building mater ial as the principa l stnicttiTe"8nd“beTeadil3r"se^ td through sw ingiug doors. J. GaragkS, accessoi^ stiuctures, scicci* walls and exposed areas of retaining ^alls shall be of Siiudar t^^c, quality* anePappe the principal structuie. -----------------------Kr-The groundHevel view of al l t:iechanical utilities sha ll be completely reened front contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compa tible with the chitectural trea tment of the urine ipal structure. E. Extcmal loading and scixicc areas uiust be coiiipletelysereened-fri ground lev cl \ iew fioiu contiguous residential < ftt 21CCCSS points* risi properties Jiid sircctSi except ihenever it may be diiected onto adjacent residential windows. (Subd. 6H ihrcagh 6M deleted and new Subds. 611 and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201, 2nd Scries adopted Fcbruar>' 12,2001) ORONO CC 351-3 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) H. Landscaping. §10.45 ... *• Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be requi^for any proposed commercial site and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qwifiM person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; . b) locations ofexisling and proposed buildings, parking lots,roads and other improvements; c) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals; location, approximate size and common name of existingtrees and shrubs; c)aplantingschedulecontainings>mboIs,quantities.common and botamcal names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; 0 planting details illustrating proposed locations of all newplant material; berms, fences and planter boxes; be sodded and seeded; g) locations and details of other landscape features including h) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to i) location and details of irrigation systems; and j) details and cross sections of all required screening. 2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. _ ._, .. ,, * I®* which arc not used or improved for requi^ parking areas, dnves or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coiufcrous jyecics including overstory Uces, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover matenals. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture foundations, dwoiative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantitv having a minimum value in conformance with the follow ing table: ' (Including building construction, site preparation, and site improvements) .^linimum Laodican# Below SI.000.000 2.0 •/• of Project Value Sl.000.000-$2,000,000 S20.000 1% of Project Value in excess of Sl.000.000 S2.000.00l - S3.000.000 S30.000 0.75% of Project Value in excess of S2.000.000 S3.000.001-$4,000,000 S37.500 ♦ 0.25*0 of Project Value in excess of S3.000.000 OverS4.000.000 1.0 •/# of Project Value ORONOCC 351-4 (Sec. 10.45:5-8-89) $10.45 In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserv e as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlappcd or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/j inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 '/j inches. d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, drivew ays. patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered w ith sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and twx) family dwellings and additions to existing structures w hich do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler s>-stem shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. 0 Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. 3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. a) All parking lots containing over 1 50 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of ISO square feet. Islands which arc necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the ** 1 50 stair standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or i ‘ergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch anddr shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Plaruiing Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equiv alent approved by the Planning Commission. ORONOCC 351-5 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 m a condition pr^Ung a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris P®“***! required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. and staged wilb which cumulatively nceed 16 fj'in h^™or*invlt“^‘11^4 tlm' coustiucted in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. ... ^ Lan<*scaping Performance Security Required. WTien screening. lan^apingorolhcrsirailarimprovemcntstopropcrtyarcrequircdbythisordinanccaleucrofcredit shall be supplied by the oumer in an amount equal to at least one and one-halftimes the value of such screwing, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimburs^nt of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided ^or to the issuance of any building permit a.nd shall be valid for a period of time equal to one fallgrow.ngsc«oi«.flcrthedaleofin$l.llmionofllieUndsc.ping.Thccitymsy«:ccptsomeotofom of secumy in lieu of r letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may The city may alIo\v an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to c^ditions which are reasonably bc>t>nd the control of the developer. Extensions which may not months may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. WTien an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 7. Screening and Buffering. . ... a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: _______ - . . . External loading and service areas must be ORONOCC 351-6 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) § 10.45 4) All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible Trom within the principal structure, or totally screened from eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential propenies. 5) The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural treatment of principal structure. 6) The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent residential >%indows. b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slopeof 3:1 . The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. Architectural Standards 1. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when review ing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all structures in the B-6 District: a) elevations of all sides of the building; b) type and color of exterior building materials; c) a typical floor plan; d) dimensions of all structures; e) the location of trash and recycling containers and ofheating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. 2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. ORONOCC 351-7 (Sec. 10.45:5-8-89) t __ __^ § 10.45 Acccssocy buildings shall be architecturally comiMdible ^iih equipt^^ same building material as the principal structure and be readily served through All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior traA ^ rccych^ sto^e areas shall be fiilly enclosed or screened so as to not be visible with matenals compatible with the principal structure. . / u 5. Underground utilities shall beprovided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre>raK>vation value of the structure). (Subds. 6H and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201, 2nd Series, adopted February 12,2001) (Oidiiiance No. 67,2nd Series, Adopted; 5-8-89) (Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for ftiture expansion.) ORONOCC 351-8 (Sec. 10.45:5-8-89) EMIIMTA- I•''' ->t%*ri.&a\-irr RUnwitIt.. J M 3411123210002 PtOTADOR 2140 WAVZATADLVDW OWNOINAM6 WUJAMWWEAliAWIFE TAXPAYER WnXlAM W WEAR NAME/AOOR 2IM WAVZATA DLVD 03M UMOLAKEMN 353^ 31 34lll232IOOIt PROPAOOR 2103 SUGARWOOD DR OWNERNAME RJRSGIIOGAN TAXPAYER RANDALLJASARAGIIOGAN HAME/ADOR 2103 SU3ARWOOD OR IjONGLAKliMN SS356 30 34ilt?32l0022 PROPAOOR 2IM SUGARWOODDR OWNERNAME OZGHLRFSGIU. TAXPAYER CRETCHENZ A FRANCIS SOlU. NAME/AOOR 2I04SUQARWOOOOR tONOLAKEMN 33334 IILNNUMN COLTm' TROr PKa*UlTYO\ 34 3411123210016 PROPAOOR 2107 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME TJAVASMmi TAXFAYER THOMAS J SMItll NAME/AOOR 2107 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 31 34IIS232IOOI9 PROPAOOR 2101 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME RICIUROIA CONNIE L APPLE TAXPAYER RICHAROJ A CONNIE APPLE NAME/AOOR 2101 SUGARWOODDR LONG LAKE MN 33336 31 3411123210023 PROPAOOR 2106 SUGARWOODDR OWNER name R M SaiOMMER A E M SCItOMMER TAXPAYER RMSaiOMMERAEMSOIOMMER NAME/AOOR 2106 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 * INI-ORMATION SYSTl;M A2>LISr PAGE 36 34III232IOOI7 PROPAOOR 2103 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME THOMAS J A VMCINIA A SMITH TAXPAYER THOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH NAME/AOOR 2103 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 31 3411623210021 PROPAOOR 2102 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME T M KIMMES A A E KIMMES TAXPAYER TOGO M A ANITA EKIMMFS NAME/AOOR 2102 SUGARWOOO OR LONOUKI MN 33336 31 341112)210024 PROPAOOR 2108 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME M L RICKS A J M RICKS TAXPAYER MKIMELL/JACQUEUNEMRXXS NAME/AOOR 2106 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 PROPAOOR 36 3411623210023 2110 SUGARWOODDR OWNERNAME OEMILEUSNR:AMMREUSNIC TAXPAYER GEORGE E A MARILYN MILEUSNIC NAME/AOOR 2110 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 3411823210026 PROPAOOR 2112 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME KGBERG A KM DBERQ TAXPAYER KOBEROAKM DBERQ NAME/AOOR 2112 SUGARWOOO DR LONG LAKE MN 33)36 36 34IIR32I0027 PROPAOOR 2114 SUGARWOOOOR OWNERNAME OJSYMINCTONA:TSYMINGTON TAXPAYER (XNGERAGARYSYMMCTONJR NAME/AOOR 2114 SUGARWOOO OR LONG LAKE MN 33)36 36 3411623210026 PROP ADOR 36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME SUGAR WOODS IK3MEOWNERSASOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NAME/AOOR OD REOERS CONSTRUCTKIN CO 3323 WEBSTER AVE MPLSMN 33416 38 34111132100)3 PROPAOOR 30 ADDRESSPENOmO OWNERNAME SIDNEYB A BARBARA REOERS TAXPAYER ORONO AMBAR LIT NAME/AOOR CA> DUNBAR DVLPT COUP 3000 GLENWOOD AVE OOLOEN VALLEY MN 33422 36 3411623210030 PROP ADOR 36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS IK3MEOWNERS ASSOC NAME/AOOR OO REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3523 WEBSTER AVE MPLSMN 33416 36 3411623210036 PROPAOOR 36 ADDRESS PENDING OWNERNAME ORONOHSGARDVLPTATHY TAXPAYER ORONO HSG A RDVUT ATHY NAME/AOOR 2730 KELLEY PKWY ORONO MN 33336 36 341162321003) PROP ADOR 2190 WAYZATA BLVO W OWNERNAME GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC TAXPAYER GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC NAME/AOOR PO BOX 100 2190 WAYZATA BLVO W LONGUKEMN 35336 36 3411823220013 PROP AOOR 36 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYFR CUPTORO A LOUISE OTTEN NAME/AOOR BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 33336 •UN0A1£:J/2I/MU M 14IIIIJ»0020 rMOPAOM M ADORESSUNASSICNtlD OWNER NAME CALOTTEN taxpayer cuproROALOuBnorrEN NAMli/ADOR DOX2M LONG LAKE MN 3S3S6 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPGRl Y OWNERS LIST PAGE! M 34IIKU24000I PROP ADDR 2120 WAY/ATA OLVD W OWNFRNAME WILLIAM WEAR ETAL TAXPAYER WtlllAM W WEAR name /aour 3a iiacxuerrv mu. LUNG LAKE MN 55J5A 72 34III2J240023 PROP AOOR 2043 WAYZATA IILVO W OWNER NAME DCREAR A M DCRCAR TAXPAYER DANCRGAR NAME/AOOR 1910 SPATES AYE WAYZATA MN 33)91 72 J4lil2J24O0M PROP AOOR 543 VWCINtA AYE OWNERNAME OCREARAMDCREAR TAXPAYER DAN CREAR NAME/ADUR 1910 SPATES AYE WAYZATA MN 35391 72 3411123240027 PROP ADOR 333 YIRCINIA AYE OWNERNAME KEJTIIDMILLER Taxpayer KEini o miller NAME/AOOR 533 VIRGtNIA AYE LONG LAKE MN 33336 72 3411123340034 PROP AOOR 20M WAYZATA BLYDW OWNERNAME HIRAM ETrTERPRISES ILC TAXPAYER HIRAM ETOERPRSES LLC NAME/ADDR IU3 WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE MN 353)6 72 3411133240039 PROP ADDR 3043 WAYZATA OLYOW OWNER NAME JAM MYESTMENTS TAXPAYER JAMINYESTMENTS NAME/AOOR 4341 MNGSVIEW LA N MAPLEGROYEMN 33311 72 3411123340067 PROP ADDR I PREMIER DR OWNERNAME RJR HOLDINGS CO INC TAXPAYER RJRIIOUNNGSCOINC NAME/AOOR I PREMIER DR LONGLAKEMN 33336 72 3411123240040 PROP AOOR 3063 WAYZATA DLYD W OWNERNAME JOHN 0ORiSCOU TAXPAYER JOHN B DRISCOLL NAME/AOOR CA3PC1 3)2 MINNESOTA ST 43100 ST PAUL MN 33101 72 3411131240061 PROP AOOR 2073 WAYZATA BLYO W OWNERNAME GREGORYMSHAUGNESSY TAXPAYER LONG LAKE PORO TRACTOR me NAME/AOOR 2073 W WAYZATA BLYO PO BOX 697 LONGLAKEMN 33336 73 34III333400S3 PROP ADDR 3003 DANIELS ST OWNERNAME QPNLLC ETAL TAJIPAYER QPN LLC NAME/AOOR OOJHXAHUNZ 7272 32NDSTSE BUTEALOMN 35)13 72 3411123240069 PROP ADDR 309 SIIAUCIINESSY AYE OWNER NAME GREGORY M SIIAUOIINESSY taxpayer LONG UKE FORD TRACTOR INC NAME/ADDR 207} W WAYZATA BLYO PODOX697 LONGIAKEMN 35336 I CERTIFY THRTTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN AOCURATE AND ^ ^ APPEARSTHIS DATEONTHE RECORDS taxpayer services DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST ^ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. _ ^-------- ^ DATE?ry/-OJ BY MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17.2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned dale with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn, Liz Hawn. Janice Berg, and J. Mark Fritzlcr, Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Planners Wendy Botlcnberg and Jennifer Chaput, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and late arrival Council Representative Bob Sansevere. Commissioners Cynthia Bremer and Jeanne Mabusth were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. OLD BUSINESS (•I) W3-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, II4S TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES 6:32-7:28 P.M. Dan Adams, applicant, and Kathy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, were in attendance. Botten^g stated that the application was heard at the February 19.2003 Planning Commission meeting. She indicated that the application was tabled w ith direction given to llie applicant's representative. Since that lime, the applicant has submitted a new site plan w ith minimal changes from the prior plan. Bottenberg explained that the required variances arc as follows; structure within 75’ of lakeshore to permit construction of a second stor>/dormcrs 62*. a screen porch 70’and a bay window 69’ from the OHWL. structural encroachment into the average lakeshore setback of approximately 17’. hardcover in 0-75’ setback to permit 1.343 s.f. of hardcover where 0 s.f. is allowed, and hardcover in 75-250’ setback to permit 9.117 s.f. (33%) of hardcover where 25% is allowed Bottenberg pointed out that the applicant w ishes to remodel and update the existing residence by attaching the detached garage, adding a second story w ith donners and w idcr overhangs, and converting a portion of an existing deck into a screen porch. Bottenberg reported that the revised plan increases hardcover by 188 s.f. from the first plan in the 0-75’ by allowing the existing lakeside deck to remain. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is reduced by 703 s.f from the first plan with the removal of gravel area from the drivew ay. With regard to tbc screen porch, the first plan indicated that it would be moved back out of the 75’ setback, whereas it is still located 70’ from Lake Minnetonka in the revised plans. Bottenberg slated that the engineer ’s report has indicated that the foundation would support the additional load of the second story to be added, and staff has no further issues with it. PAGE 1 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17.2003 6:30 o'clock p.in. (M3.2M7 DANIEL ADAMS. CMtiaacd) Bottenbcrg staled that stafT recommends approval of the required variances to allow the second story addition over the existing residence and garage with the following conditions: 1. If during construction It is determined that the portion of the foundation within the 75’ setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the Planning Commission and the City CoutkII for further review. 2. If the larger deck located by the lakeshore should need repairs or replacement, it is non conforming arui would need the necessary approvals to remain. 3. Planning Commission should review the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone for further removals if necessary. Furthermore, because the screen porch and bay window ore new* structure to be located w ithin the 75’ setback, Bottenbcrg stated that staff recommends denial of these two proposals. Chair Smith asked if the net hardcover of the new plans was less than what was proposed in the first draA. Bottenbcrg stated that the hardcover is more than previously proposed, since the screen porch was not moved back out of the 75’ setback as originally shown. She indicated that the deck, staff believed would be removed, remains. Chair Smith asked if, during the process, there w ere problems discovered w ith the foundation, whether the applicants understood that they could not proceed. Mr. Adams passed out prepared colored la>’outs displaying the hardcover removals and additions, as well as. the new home as proposed versus the existing. He maintained that the existing screen porch would protrude no more into the 0-75’ setback than it does today. Berg asked if the proposed bay window would be over the deck. Mr. Adams explained that the bay w indow would be to the side of the deck and porch With regard to the overages in hardcover. Rahn questioned, as Mabusth had in the February meeting, why the applicant needed so much hardcover in the driveway. He argued that more removals could be gained in the driveway. Adams pointed out that the driveway was purposefully cut between trees in order to avoid their removal. He staled that large vehicles or trailers could not maneuver the driveway without the circle, and could only enter and exit from a certain direction. Chair Smith questioned the need for the second turnaround. PAGE 2 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAI^IS, CoDlinued) Adams indicated that the second tumaionnd serv es the second set or garages. He added that he was having a storage garage built ajid would soon be storing some of his things off Alexander stated that the applicant had obtained neighbor's signatures in support of his design. There were no public comments. Hawn asked if the Planning Commission could set out explicit consequences to the applicant, if it is uncovered that the foundation or headers cannot support the weight of the additional story etc. She was anxious that the applicant know whai to expect if they arc forced to return before the Commission and Council. With regard to the structural engineer's report, Alexander c.xplained that the headers are above the garage and not foundation related. Chair Smith asked if staff found the structural engineer's report acceptable. Bottenberg stated that staff had accepted the report. Hawn asked if it would be possible to push the screen porch out of the 0-75' setback. Adams stated that the current proposal does push the screen porch 3’ back from where it exists currently. He was hesitant to cut it back further in an effort to keep the porch function.il. Alexander staled that they had removed 48 s.f of deck from the 0-75' setback, and that only 38 s.f. of the deck still protrudes into that setback with this design. Chair Smith complimented the applicant for looking at what could be done, providing color niuslrations, and not increasing hardcover. She indicated that she could support staff recommendations, which included denial of the bay window. Rahn felt the massing issue was taken under consideration w ith the design; however, he believed that overages in hardcover clearly dictated the need to lose additional hardcover in thv driveway. He reiterated that the applicant needed to do more to come in under the 33°> hardcover amount. Adams maintained that he would be required to lose trees if he were forced to widen the driveway. He indicated that the cuircnt configuration allows him to maneuver the driveway more easily in the w inter due to grade and elevation difficulucs. Adams stated PAGE 3 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (M03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Conliaoed) Adams oITcred lo remove or reduce Ihc patio deck on the lower lakeside of the home in lieu of removing driveway. Berg pointed out that applicants cannot trade non-conforming structures for conforming space. In fact, she believed Ihc patio should be remo>td altogether. Chair Smith asked if the applicant would prefer they table the application. Berg argued that, during the February meeting, the Commission gave direction to the applicants representative which required removals in the 0-75’ setback. These removals did not occur and the Commission is once again asking for the same thing. Chair Smith asked Ihc Commission what they could live with based on what was in front of them. Although more hardcover reductions were necessary, she asked if the house, the removal of the bay window, removal of Ihc lakeside patio, and pulling the porch back from the 0-75’ was acceptable to the Commission. Bued on discussion held in February, Rahn stated that he rould not accept Ihc bay window, when the direction was given that nothing be added to Ihc 0-75* setback. Adams asked if the dnvew ay were reduced, could the Commission allow the house as presented. Berg pointed out that the two issues were unrelated. Adams stated that the deck and screen porch arc 3’ off the groi-nd and require steps lo access them and the sliding door. He believed that he was presenting less than the previous application. Chair Smith stated that the Commission felt more reductions were necessary. She was hesitant to redesign the proposal further this evening. Adams asked for further direction w iih regard to how much percentage needed to be removed. Overall, the Commission could accept the deck olTihe screened porch, however, would not allow the bay w indow. Further, they w ished to see more reductions in hardcover from the driveway. Chair Smith suggested the applicant w ork with staff to elongate the circle grcenspace. PAGE 5 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17,2003 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#03*2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Conlinacd) Adams asked if he could be allowed to construct the bay window within the roofline. He fc’t the home would look like a box w ithout the bay window addition. Rahn slated lhal the bay w indow would be allowed if the encroachment did not currently exist and it was in a conforming location. Berg stated that the Commission could move or table the application Adams asked for the motion. ^rg noved, Frltalcr sccoadcd, to recommend approval of Application #03-2867, Du Adams, 1145 Tukawa Road, granting approval for structure w ithin 75 ’ of the Inheshore to aUow the second story addition construction, 17’ encroachment into the ‘f**»*'*^ hardcover in the 0-75* setback, and structure w ithin the 75-250 setback variances to allowr a second story additioa over the existing residence and garage with the following conditions: 1. The bay windowr be eliminated. 2. The patio on the lower lakeside level be reduced by half. 3. The screen porch and deck be allowed to remain. * 4. The dri«ewray be reduced to some degree, as suggested hv Planning Director Gaffron on the overhead drawing. 5. If during construction it Is determined lhal the portion of the foundaliu within the 75 ’ setback needs to be repaired the application must come back before the Planning Commission and the City Council for further review. 6. irtk, Iai,cr deck healed b> the lakeikore should need repaln or replacemenl. Il b ■on<oarormi*s would need Ike neeeuai>' approvals to remala VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Bottenberg asked Berg to address the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Berg amended her motion to reflect lhal no further encroachments into the averaee lakeshore setback should ever be allowed in the future. Fritiler seconded the amended motion. \'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 7*28-7^*3^^^^ CARPENTER, 480 RUSSELL AMINUE, \ ARlANCE Tim Lo\ ett, applicant’s represent.!tive, was present. PAGE 6 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. ((V02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER, Continacd) Chaput reported that the applicant was requesting a variance to permit construction of a 408 s.f. (16.8'X24.4') detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence. She explained that, in August 2002. the original 239 s.f. (20.1’X 11.9) garage burned down on the property and the applicant wishes to replace it in approximately the same location and directly adjacent to a second nonconforming garage which was not destroyed. Given the odd lot configuration. Chaput stated that the detached garage would be placed approximately 19* from the west side lot line and about 346’ from the rear lot line. She rc\'iewed the numerous issues for consideration for the Commission and stated that staff recommends appro\ al of the requested variance to permit construction of the 408 s.f. (I6.8*X24.4 ’) detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence, with the three conditions noted in the sialTmemo dated March 6,2003. Mr. Lovett informed the Commission that the applicant had decided to rebuiiJ the garage in the same di mensions (20.1’X11.9’) as the one that had prc\iously burned. Chair Smith asked what the additional nonconforming sheds were used tor. Lovett explained that he owned a landscaping business and had kept some of his equipment in the sheds, but would be moving those to a different location. He indicated that Ms. Carpenter w ould be using them for her ow n storage. Chaput stated that, given the odd shape, the only logical location for the sheds and garage is w here proposed. Rahn stated that he had no issue allowing the applicant to replace what had burned down and asked if the applicant had any problems with regard to the required removals. Lovett stated that he belies cd the ^licant could accept the removals in order to get the new- garage. He indicated that he would also apply for a permit to continue residing. There were no public comments. Haws moved. Chair Smith secoaded, to recommend approval of Application 1102- 2864, Josephine Carpenter, 480 Russell Avenue, granting the requested variance to permit construction of the 239 s.f. (20. rx 11.9’) detadred garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence, with the following conditions: 1. A building permit application be made for residing the existing detacher garage. 2. The canvas covered shed must be removed from the property prior to building permit application since it te not a dennable structure by building code. 3. The two exbtlng metal sheds without buildiag permits must be removed from PAGE 7 of 24 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 1 7,2003 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (W02-2864 JOSEPHINE CARPENTER, CoaliMiied) Ihdr CMiTCBt location on the lot prior to building permit applicatloo for the detached gunge. To he conforming, the sheds require relocation on the lot to a conforming locatioa and bnildlag permit approval. VOTE: Ayes 5, Navs 0. (#3) m-2874, RICHARD KAIL, 3753 CASCO AVENUE, VACATION 7:36-7:45 P.M. Richard Kail. Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant was seeking approval to vacate T of that portion of the unimproved dedicated alley adjacent to his property. The alley was originally dedicated in the plat of Casco Heights in 1911 . The alley is 14 ’ wide and 317.8’ long. Bottenberg indicated that the applicant was proposing to vacate a 7’ portion adjacent to his property, whereas, the remaining 7’ would go to his neighbor at 3721 Casco Avenue. Bottenberg pointed out that application «03-2863, an application for lot area and lot coverage by structure, was heard by the City Council at its February 24.2003 meeting. While the Planning Commission had approved the lot area variance, it had denied the lot coverage by structure variance. The applicant chose to pursue vacating the adjacent alley next to his property. WTiercas there have never been any vacations of alley in the Casco Point area, there have been vacations only where the dedicated right of w ay w as betw een the lake and the residence on the property. AAcr speaking to neighbors regarding the vacation. Bottenberg indicated that they do not have any objections. Based on criteria for vacation. Bottenberg explained that, in the past vacations arc appropriate when the vacation docs not affect access to or use of any adjoining property, the City docs not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated right of w ay as road except for utility purposes, and the unimproved dedicated right of way as it exists serv es no public purpose. It is staff s opinion that these three conditions are not applicable to the segment of alley adjacent to the properly. Bottenberg reported that the Public Works Director reviewed the proposed vacation and recommended the City not vacate this alley. He felt the alley was necessary for several reasons: stormwater drainage management, possible future utilities, and public access for the neighborhood to reach Lake Minnetonka. In addition, Bottenberg referred to the, attached. Planning Director ’s comments that it would not be in the City’s best interests to vacate this alley. She noted that the gas, thc*vMaf^*^^°”*^' ' utilities had been notified and expressed no concerns with PAGE 8 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17.2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2r74. RICHARD KAIL, CoatlBMcd) BoOenbcrg reported that sufT recommends denial of the vacation application as proposed by the applicant in this case. In review of the February 10 2003, City Council Minutes, Chair Smith noted that Ma>t)r Peterson stated that the City would not consider vacating the alley at this time due to stormwater issues, in particular. Bottenberg indicated that a Council member had suggested the applicant research vacating or purchasing the land owned by the City, thus, the basis of this application. Mr. Kail staled that he understood the concern regarding lake access off of Casco Point Road and identifled a second alley off Casco Avenue. He questioned the need for both sites. Gaffron sUted that, as continuous alleys, either could provide potential pedestrian connection, howo cr. the other location may be obstructed by wetland ^ therefore offers strong potential stormwater management solutions. He could not support vacation of the alley, not knowing what the future use may be for it. and reminded the Commission that both do provide access for the neighborhood to the lake. While Kail indicated that he could understand the stormwater dilemma, he argued that the water doesn’t flow through his alley an>‘wtiy. Rahn agreed that no one know s w hat the future use of this alley might be and he did not wish to cause further stormw ater runoff problems. He w as concerned that vac'nng would benefit merely one resident now , whereas, a multitude of residents might benefit from the use of this alley later. Chair Smith sUted that, in her opinion, there was clear input provided by both staff and the Mayor with regard to this vacation. Kail stated that he w as striving to bring his structural coverage down from 1 S.07% by obtaining the alley. Berg stated that she w*as in support of staffs recommendation. There were no public comments. Haws moved. Chair Sailth seconded, lo recommend denial of AppIkatloB M03-2874, Richard Kail, 3753 Casco Avenue, for vacation of the alley adjacent to his property*. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 9 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17.2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (*4) ##3-2r75 SANDRA ANN BENSON, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD. VARIANCE 7:45-7:55 P.M. Sandra Benson. Applicant. Wes Sampson, the Architect, and Dan Larkin, the General Contractor, were present. Ch^t reported that the applicant was requesting variances to reconstruct and expand the roof ofan existing principal structure and replace windows and doors on the second story. The required variances would include principal structure located 25.1 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75’ is required, a side yard setback of 6.6’ with a I’ overhang enen^hment where 10’ is required, and a 48.7’ encroachment into the average lakeshorc Chaput explained that neither the footprint of the structure nor the hardcover was proposed to cluinge with the ^f expansion. She stated that the applicant proposes to remove a irartion of the existing roof of the original structure and replace it with one continuous ndge. approximately 14” higher than the existing roof structure, or 1 ’ 10” below the roodin^tached to the west. The exact height may vary w ithin inches from what is proposed once the structure is worked out. Chaput indicated that the structure w as not proposed to be closer to the OHWL than what exists currently. With regard to the structural engineer’s report. Chaput reported that the engineer reviewed the proposed roof reconstruction and found that the existing foundation and walls can support the proposed work. The extent of the proposed work includes replacement of Mme windows, doors and walls on the second story of the house. Chaput indicated that the Ss pro^*' **™*^*“" "w* o‘hcr portions of the home will not be modified as a result of AftCT review ing the issues for consideration. Chaput stated that staff recommends approval of the requited variances to reconstruct and expand the roof of the existing principal structure with two conditions mentioned in the memo dated February 25,2003. Benson commented that they hoped to obtain more living space from the remodel. Hawn asked if the applicant objected to planting more trees. Benson stated that she could plant additional trees. PAGE I Oof 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (MI3-287S SANDRA ANN BENSON, Cooliniied) Haws BMvrd, Chair Smith iccoadcd, to recomaMod approval of Applkatioa a03- 2I7S, Saadra Bc«mw, 1376 Baldar Park Road, graattog the variaaccs for stractarc withia 75* of the lake, a tide yard tethack of 6.6*, aad a 4S.7* cacroachaMat iato the average lakethore tethack to rccoattract aad eipaad the roof of the existiag priaclpal •tractare with the coaditioat that tcrreaiag with trees be added aloag the lakeside of the retideace to adtigatc the vbaal impact of the siractare from the lake, aad if stractaral reaiov’ab eiceed what b showa on the proposed plans, farther review by the Plaaniag Comaibsion aad City Council would be required. \'OT£: Ayes 5, Nays (#5) (W3-2876 SEVIE LANNING, 3329 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 7:55- 8:58 P.M. Sevie Lanning, the Applicant, was present. Chaput reported that the applicant uas requesting lot area, lot width, a setback of 43' from the OHWL, a rear yard sctl^k, a 16' encroachment into the average lakcshore setback, hardcover within the 0-75* setback /one, and hardcover within the 75-250’ lakcshore setback zone variances for construction of a new residence on the property. Chaput explained that the owner was in the process of selling the property and a potential buyer had signed a purchase agreement contingent on the ability to build a new structure on the lot rather than remodel the existing house. Chaput pointed out that the proposed home shown in the elevation is not necessarily the home that would be built, rather the buyer wants to be assured that he could build w ithin the proposed footprint. With regard to the proposed variances. Chaput stated that the existing lot width is 50* where 100’ is required and variances are necessar>’ for new construction. She indicated that lot coverage by structure and side yard setbacks arc not required for this application. The existing house on the lot is located 48' from the OHWL. The proposed house would be 43* from the OHWL where 75’ is required, and 10' from the rear lot line where 30’ is required. Chaput pointed out that if the required setbacks were followed, the setbacks would overlap, providing the applicant with no legal building envelope. Given the fact that vehicles would not fully (it on the drivcw ay as proposed. stafT would recommend that a driveway of at least an additional 5' in length be provided from Crystal Bay Road, moving the house 5’ closer to the rear lot line than the 10’ proposed and 30’ required. The footprint of the home would remain at 48’ from the OHWL and lessen the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback with a S’ setback from the rear lot line. Chaput explained that the proposed house encroaches 16’ into the average lakeshore setback, whereas the existing house encroaches 11 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. PAGE 11 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Mareh 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. («03-2876 SEVIE LANMNG, Conlinaed) ------------- even with a decreased rear lot line setback. She indicated that the proposed elevations of the new structure on the property arc taken from a previous application for new construction and have ^n reduced to fit on the lot. Chaput pointed out that the topography of the applicant's property is much flatter than the lot where this particular home was built, therefore, it would exceed the height limitations on this lot. Chaput referred to the engineer’s comments and indicated that a culvert exists under the current home. Since the culvert must be located on a surv ey, if a new home is to be built on the property. *e culvert must be relocated along the projwrty line. In addition, a 10’ drainage and utility easement would be required over the culvert. Chaput identified 10 issues for consideration and stated that sialT recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on the lot, with the 5 conditions cited in the staff memo dated March 4,2003. Chair Smith recommended that the front setback be maintained at the current 48 ’ from the OHWL. She asked if the applicant had a potential bu>er. tanning felt that, due to height limitations, she would like to keep the lakeside variance. She indicated that the lot has proven very difficult to redevelop, and turned into a money pit having to contend with the culvert, hydrant, and size restraints. Denny Stanton, 3325 Crystal Bay Road, voiced his reservations with regard to new structure encroaching further into the average lakcshore setback. He argued that the 2 Vi story height limitation failed to go far enough to protect his views. If the home were closer to the lake and 2 Vi stories tall, his view^ would be obscured. He felt it would be great to see a new home on this property, but at what cost. Paul R^man. 3335 Crystal Bay Road, pointed out that, not only centering the home on the lot would change his views, but also the encroachment into the average lakcshore setback and height allowanec. He was curious how the height and side vard setbacks would afifcct neighbor’s views, m an otherwise, mostly single story' neighborhood. Berg stated that by adjusting the home on the lot to meet side setbacks, both neighbors’ views would be affected. While RiAn could support allow ing more space for the driveway, he had difllculty using the submitted three story clcv ations that would never fly on a flat lot such as this. Since the Comrnission was not talking about a specific design, he felt the submittals and pictures w ere dKciving and should not be part of the proposal. He maintained that the Commission w as merely considering a footprint which meets height requirements. PAGE 12 of 24 MLNUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (W3-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Coatiaurd) Gaffron concurred, stating that the virtual three story plan before the Commission was something that would not be approved in this situation. He asked if the Commission could support a 5* rear yard setback as opposed to 10'. As a minimum footprint house, Rahn found shining the house back 5 ’ acceptable. Fritzler maintained that the City does not know what will become of the railroad behind the home. Rahn agreed that a potential buyer should be made aware that the railroad could be used for something later on. Gaffron pointed out that this residence encroaches less into the railroad right-of-way than either neighbor’s parcels. If the applicant tried not to obstruct the neighbor’s views. Chair Smith asked what would be left for construction. She indicated that the new owTter could legally build a 2 ‘/s story home on the lot. Haw-n asked if the neighbors could accept the current height restrictions, or whether the City could impose further height limitations. Stanton stated that a new home would be better than what currently exists, realizing that there is little space to work with. He indicated that he felt better having stated his peace. City Council member Sanseverc arrived at 8:16 P.M. Since the lot is flat. Gaffron indicated that it would be difflcult to build a 2 '/j story home on this parcel. Based on height restrictions, he pointed out that the home could reach 34- 36’ tall at the peak of the roof. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission could further limit the height of the home by adhering to the average lakeshore setback. Hawn asked if the Commission could assign an absolute limit to the height at the average lakeshore setback. Chair Smith suggested taking the idea one step further by limiting the home to a single story at the average lakeshore setback. Canning argued that the Commission was virtually making her home unmarketable by limiting her too much at this juncture. She believed a home under 1,200 s.f. would be unsaleable on Lake Minnetonka. PAGE 13 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. («N»-2876 SEVIE CANNING, Coatiaacd) Chair Smith commcnicd that if the home was to be 30* tall and include a luck under garage, the top IS’ must include the top floor and roofline. Gaflron clarified that the portion above the garage could be limited to a certain height to protect views. Based on the ev'ening ’s discussion. Chair Smith cautioned the Commission that they could be setting a standard to which the whole street would be based in redevelopment. While he felt setting a height limit to be a great idea, Rahn stated that it makes a difificult situation even worse in the case of non-conforming lots. han^”^ *”^'^***** ******** prefer to be conserv'ative without a specific drawing in his Without an actual design in hand, Gaflron suggested the Commission consider granting all of the variances except the average lakeshorc setback variance to ensure that a design is submitted to the Commission prior to construction. Chair Smith concurred that, somehow, the Commission needed to see a plan of what would end up on this property. Lanning pointed out that she was not asking for a height variance at this time and w ould ijot^need a height variance for the footprint as proposed. She felt that, to hold her to a diflcrenl height standard than what code mandated, was unfair. Chair Smith asked if the City had ever set height limits in the past. Gaflron indicated that, to say that the opportunity to provide average lakeshore consistency has never been done before, would be inaccurate; how ever, he felt this situation to be unique. Lanning felt the height restriction would be addressed at the permitting stage. Galfron maintained that parameters need to be determined at the Planning Commission ihrioHs^Si'^ ***' “ opportunity to conclude if a new design proposal for PAGE 14 of 24 ... . J rL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17.2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2876 SF.VIE LANMNG, Conliniicd) Hawn pointed out that, while the Commission would likely grant variances, they would prefer to see specific plans for the lot. She reiterated that the Commission could not approve the application without seeing some kind of accurate plan. tanning stated that she had been working on this application for months and plans to move to California next week. She noted that the bu>tr does not uani to go to the expense of providing plans before he purchases the property. Chair Smith suggested the Commission grant all but the average lakeshore setback variance. Councilman Sansevere stated that it is a matter of comfort level. He indicated that the Commission and City Council arc rwt comfortable approving an application without specific plans before them. He questioned why the bu>-cr had not accompanied her, and felt it was unfair of the buyer to allow her to carr>' the entire burden alone. In most situations. Sansevere indicated that, potential bu>ers come before the Commission themselves to have their questions heard. Berg stated that, as a construction lender, in contingency offers, most ofien the buyer is the one who comes before the \ arious Commissions. Lanning stated that the buyer had told her that the City would provide her with the limitations of what could be built on the property. She asked if she could get approx als for the footprint at this time. Rahn stated that, in his opinion, her neighbors didn't have a big gripe with her and merely voiced their concerns with regard to heiglu. He maintained that the current elevations included in the packet don't do her justice or work in her favor to this end. Hawn questioned whether the ncighKxrs could lix e with a 30* height limitation x ersus a potentially 34-36' height building, in its current average lakeshore encroachment position. Gaffron staled that, w hat he has heard, is that the neighbors have a problem with the 30* wall at the newly proposed location. It is not a matter of 30* versus 34*. it is an encroachment at either height. Rahman asked if the home could be slid back 5* to the original average lakeshore setback. Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application and the applicant invite the potential buyer to accompany her next month to discuss their options. PAGE 15 of 24 MINUThS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17.2003 6:30 o'clock p.tn. (#03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Continued) Since she would be moving to California next week, tanning slated that this uould impose an extreme hardship upon her. Chair Smith asked if the buyer could attend the meeting next month either w ith her. or as her representative. She then asked the Commission if they would be comfortable movinc this forward to City Council. Sansevere reminded the Commission that the City Council strives to adhere to new construction codes. Whereas delaying the application wouldn’t help the applicant, he felt that moving it forward would not either. tanning maintained that any potential buyer is going to want to go up as high as the current codes will allow, based on a 30X40* home with a tuck under garage. Chair Smith stated that the Commission was hoping to find a compromise; however, without anything to look at to make a determination, the Commission was at a loss khc encouraged the applicant to bring the potential buyer in with a suggested plan Berg stated that the Commission would likely consider a tuck under and first floor, with a second story that tapers off, perhaps with a deck, somew here near the average lakeshore setback. Berg reiterated that it was difficult to approve a design witliout anvihinu to consider in front of them. Lanning asked if there was an>lhing she could do to move th ■ fonvard to meet her closina deadline at the end of the month. Hawn suggested the Commission approve the variances and set a height limit. The Commission felt this was not a good option, although the applicant liked the idea Berg feit the application should be tabled. Having been present in the audience, the potential buver's Broker interjected with a comment. W'hilc he understood the City's position, he indicated that it would be the potential buyer's position to build a residence which maximizes the amount allowxrd for this parcel by code. ^ felt that, other than the objections voiced by the neighbors, he had little problem with the proposal. He maintained that it would be difficult to set limitations or requirements spwific to this property, since the Commission needed a three dimensional proposal to PAGE 16 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2876 SEVIE LANMNG, Conliimcd) While neighbors* comments arc appreciated, Sanscvcrc staled that they are not ific hardship. Stanton indicated that he would like to see new' construction on this site. Based on a mere footprint, Gaffron questioned w here doorways, landings, sidewalks, and the overlooked details would be placed. He cautioned the Commission to not overlook these details when forced to look at the big picture, as in this ease. He fell there were too many variables present to approve all the details included as part of the proposal. Chair Smith reiterated the necessity to table this application and allow the applicant the opportunity to come back. The broker stated that the applicant could not be assured that the buyer was still interested at this point. Berg indicated that the buyer should have been present to make his position known or put some thought into what he wanted. Hawn stated that, unfortunately for the applicant and buyer, the process the City goes through relies on a specific set of plans to base its recommendations. Berg moved, Hawn seconded, lo table Application #03-2876, Sevie Lanning, 3329 Crystal Bay Road, a reqnest for variances to construct a new residence on the property. 3'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess was taken from 8:58 - 9:03 P.M.) (#6) #03-2877 SHANE RUDD, 601 PARK LAND, VARIA.NCES 9:03-9:38 P.M. Kns Rudd, the Applicant, and Brian Novak, the architect, were present. Chaput reported that the applicants have requested the following variances to permit a 219 s.f. first story garage addition with a second storv' bedroom onto the street side of the e.xisting home and to reconstruct a main entry landing on the roulh side. 1. Rear yard setback of 28.3 ’ w here 30’ is required. 2. Side >ard setbacks of 8.4 on liie north and 6.5’ on the south (for main entrv' landing) where 10’is required. ' ® 3. An overhang encroachment of 2.5 ’ on the north and south substandard side setbacks 4. A decorative wall, located 2.5 ’ from the south side yard setback where 10’ is required encroaching an additional 1.5’ with overhang into a substandard setback 5. A lot coverage by structure of 2,175 s.f. (24.3%) where 1,500 s.f is permitted PAGE 17 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2877 SHANE RUDD, Coaliiacd) Chapul explained that the proposed 219 s.f. addition is for the expansion ofgarage space on the main level and living space (master bedroom, bath, and closet area) on the second level. A new steeper pitched roof would be constructed from the main entry (located at the south side) eastward. The existing roolline would remain as-is west of the entry door. Chaput maintained that a majority of the interior of the second floor w ould be remodeled with the addition. Finally, Chaput explained that the decorative wall on the south side is merely an opening which leads to the main entry of the house and is. essentially, a false facade. With regard to hardcover, Chaput pointed out that the applicant intends to remove an existing deck at the shoreline and shed which w ould reduce the hardcover in the 0-75' setback to 10.03%. In the 75-250’ hardcover zone, Chaput stated that the changes to the house and deck and steps on the south side result in a net decrease of 20 s.f or 67.2% from 67.58% In reference to overall structural coverage, the ^^.oposed structural coverage is reduced from 25% to 24.3*/«. Chaput indicated that if the Planning Commission feel'/ that fhe applicant has shown undue haidsh'o and should be able to construct an addition ^ dUr stx:t side of the home and rcconsU . t a main entry landing on the south side o. iiic •' -v.ng home, then the requested variances should be granted w ith the four conditions idciMV -ftd in the staff memo dated February 26. 2003. Chaput added that as of March 14, the proposed overhangs have been changed to 1 .75* from 2.5* which further decreases the structural cover from 24.3*i to 23.7«/i. Mr. Novak indicated that the applicants would attempt to come up w iih an alternative to the decorative wall by creating something that directs people to the entrance. Although they felt the attached decorative wall was more aesthetically pleasing than a free standinu structure, the applicants would consider other options. Scott Burger. 594 Park Lane, neighbor across the street, indicated that he bought his home with lakcshorc views several years ago. He was concerned that the decorative wall would totally obscure his lakcshorc view s altogether. As he is situated, the only views he had of the lake were those between the two properties across the street, which would be entirely eliminated if the decorative w all w ere allow ed to be constructed. Although she felt the property to be high in overall structural coverage, Haw n recognized the applicant's reductions in structural coverage as proposed. She asked the applicants to design a more aio' gate versus a solid structure which deters her neighbor's views. Novak asked w hat the officia* ordinances or rules with regard to decorative w alls were. PAGE 1 8 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Maiw!. 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#05-2877 SHANE RUDD, CoBliaucd) GafTron indicated that walls and fences could tc no higher than 6’, although vcgclaiion is not held to the same standard. Hawn encouraged the applicant to work with her neighbors in a way that would allow them to have a view, while still signifying the applicant’s entrance. Novak pointed out that the front overhangs had been cut in half, from 49 s.f. to 23 s.f. Chair Smith felt the use was intensive, but improved overall. Since the structural coverage was way over to begin with. Rahn had difllculiy accepting the elimination of a deck and shed that were non-conforming in the first place, in e.xchangc for an addition. He felt that little had been done to meet the City’s building criteria, for example, he felt the applicant could easily meet the 30 ’ rear yard .setback in order to avoid the need for a vanancc. Novak a^e^ that they could probably meet the rear yard setback number. He pointed out that they had reduced hardcover and structural coverage in the proposed plan. Fritzler agreed that non-conforming items could not be traded for conforming ones. Berg suggested that the applicants meet the .10’ rear vard setback and rework the decorative wall to be compliant. Hawn indicated that she was not having as much trouble supporting the application as other Commissioners. She agreed that the decorative wall should be redesigned to be compliant, however, felt the applicant had done a good job bringing structural cover dow n and not intensif>ing the use. She felt that drainage should be considered. Chaput indicated that, while no plans had been submitted, drainage would be considered on the building plans. Hawn fell much of Ihc hardcover in rclaininu "alls could nol be removed. Rudd staled that Ihc home is merely a two bedroom residence and needs to be expanded. Neighbor to the north. Judy Hanson, indicated that she had no issues with the variances and would simply encourage the applicants to consider Ihc views of other neighbors. Novak indicated that the applicant s plans do nol change the cunent drainage pallems that PAGE l9of24 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. («I03.2877 SHANE RUDD, Continued) Rahn asked about the potential for partial removal of the large brick patio on the lakeside of the property. While the patio was on the opposite side of the proposed changes. Novak stated that the applicant could make concessions regarding the patio. Rudd stated that the brick patio extends from the covered porch below the deck. She agreed that some removals could be made. Rahn suggested the patio be reduced to a 4* walkway from the porch and along the back. Berg agreed that reductions in the brick patio made sense. The Commission agreed that they could support the application with those removals. Bottenberg asked if the Commission could accept the side yard setback variances. Since the side yard setbacks were not changing from exisiinu, Fritzicr felt these were acceptable. Rudd pointed out that the overhangs were being reduced. Hawn moved, I-ritzier seconded, to recommend approval of Application #103-2877, Shane Rudd, 601 Park Lane, granting the requested side yard setbacks of 8.4* on the north and 6.5 on the south where 10’ is required, an overhang eneroachment of I 75’ on the north and south substandard side setbacks, and a lot coverage bv structure of 23.7 /•, variances in order to construct an addition on the street side of the home and reconstruct a main entr> landing on the south side of the existing home, under the conditions that the buiMing plans include rain gutter and down spout locations, directing water away from adjacent neighbors: erosion control be installed, inspected, and approsed prior to work on the site; and proposed hardcover and structural removals of the brick patio, shed, and lakeshore deck be complete before footing inspections are approved. \’OTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. VAW^N^eV^^ HAM.M, 485 ORO.NO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, Tom Roddy, representative for the Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant was proposing to construct two monuments and gates on the property. One monument and gate would be at the drivewav and the other would be at the pede.strian entrance 300'-^ to the south. Bottenberg explained that the main PAGE 20 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (W05-287S EDWARD HAMM, CoattaMcd) entrance gate would be for the principal drive into the property and would align with the existing fence wliich is about 6' inside the property line north of the driveway. The metal gate at its highest point wns proposed to be 8.5 ’ high and supported by brick and some monument of almost I r in height. The pedestrian gate would serve a sidewalk from the main house to the road and would align with the existing fence which is about 3* into the ri^l of way at this location. Bottenberg pointed out that the metal gate at its highest point would be 6.S’ high and supported by a brick and stone monument of almost 13* in height Bottenberg stated that research had shown numerous properties with monuments artd gates in Orono, however, mott of these are lakeshorc lots along county roads w hich are allowed to be 6’ in height and meet certain setback requirements. She did cite three examples similar to this proposal, first 450 Orono Orchard Road South, 480 Deborah Drive, and 2710 Pence L^e. With regard to the Fire Marshal's comments. Bottenberg stated that the City was advised that the required opening excluding the gate portion of the structure must be at a minimum 20' based on width of fire emergeiKy vehicles. Also, since gates would be electronically controlled, the emergency agencies have requested that a lock box '*knox box” be provided for ease of access by emergency vehicles. Based on the numerous monuments/gates throughout the city, Bottenberg reported that staff recommends denial of the monuments'gates as proposed. If the applicant chooses to redesign the proposed monuments and gates keeping the height to 7*. moving the pedestrian gate back out of the right-of-way and meeting the recommended 20* width by the fire marshal, then a recommendation of approval would be justified based upon past approvals. Chair Smith asked why the taller monuments have been allowed throughout the City when code mandates a lower height. Bottenberg explained that monuments on lakeshore County Road properties are allowed by code to be higher than others in the community. Chair Smith was concerned that the examples, w hich arc not County Road sites, had been approved. Mr. Roddy stated that the applicant has been undergoing major renovations and is highly security conscious. Chair Smith asked the representative if the applicant could accept the staff recommendations. PAGE 21 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MofxUy, March 17.2003 6:30 o’clock pjn. (#03-2178 EDWARD HA3IM, Coaliaacd) Roddy indicated that the applicant could accept the height variance, howc\'er, questioned the need to be out of the riglu-of-way. Berg reminded the applicant that the entire height of the gate and monuments cannot exceed 7*. Hawn reasoned that, if the applicant was truly concerned about security, he would rcali/c that the current old fence is doing nothing for security. She maintained that, if the applicant wished to build a replacement fence at a later date, the City would require it be buih furtho^ back from the lot line than what is there. Hawn encouraged the applicant to reconsider where they place the gates and monuments if they w ish them to line up with a new fence in the future. Roddy asked if the location of the fence w ould be grandfathered in. The Commission indicated there would be no grandfathering of the existing fence location. There were no public comments. Fritxkr moved. Chair Smith iccoadcd, to recommend approval of AppUcalhw #03- 2878, Edward Hamm, 48S Orooo Orchard Road Sooth, graatlog the applicant's reqactl for a mala gate and amanment, as well as, pedestrian gale and moaameat, on the coadMoa that the galca/aionaairBU do aot exceed 7* la height, the> arc both stepped back oat of the public right-of-way, the gales are 20' wide, and that a lock box be provided for ease of access by emergency vehicles pursuant of the fire marshal's request. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #03-2879 CARY HEGENES, 2675 SHADWOOD ROAD. VARIANCES 9:53- 10:00 f.M. Gary Hcgcncs, Applicant, was present Chapul explained that the applicant has requested a side >'ard adjacent setback to street setiwk \-ariance to allow a 20.I* setback where 35* is required to construct a330 s.f (13 X22 ) single stall attached garage addition to the existing attached garage. WTiile the applicant had suggested that a detached garage could be located 10* from the lot line in this location w ithout variance approval, Chaput explained that he believes it would be more appealing to add onto the existing structure. Further, Chaput reported that the current 21.82% of hardcover in the 75-250* hardcover setback zone does not reflect a 603 s.f. deck addition that was approved in 2002, but yet to be constructed. With the deck. PAGE 22 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17.2003 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#03-2S79 GARY IIEGENES« ConliBHcd) --------------- Chaput repotted that the hardcover increases to 23.99%. Once the additional garage space in the driveway are considered, Chaput stated that the hardcover equates to Chaput referred to the issues for consideration and stated that staff recommends the side yard adjacent to the street setback variance be granted on the condition that any existing fabric and plastic hardcover on the property must be removed before a footing inspection will be approved. Berg complimented the applicant on his improvements to the property over the years. There were no public comments. Hegenes asked if it were too late to keep a larger portion of the blacktop turnaround area in tact. Hawn indicated that it was too late and that the blacktop would put him over his hardcover limit. Hegenes stated that he could accept staying within 25% hardcover. Chair Smith moved, Hawn secoaded, to rccommead approval of Applkatioa «03- 2879, Gary Hegeaes, 2675 Shad>’wood Road, graatiag a side yard adjacent to the street setback variaace on the condition that any exbting fabric and plastic hardcover ^TE**A ****?N*****0* ****®^® * footing inspection will be approved. PLANNING CO.MMISSION C05I5IENTS (r9) report of planning COM5IISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF FEBRUARY 24,2003 AND MARCH 10. 2003 Fritzler reported that all of the Planning Commission items were placed on the consent agenda for February 24, 2003. Gaffron noted that on March 10,2003, the Bichanich application was tabled and would be going back to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Commissioner Hawn left the meeting at 10:00 P.M. PAGE 23 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. March 17,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION GafTron reminded ihc Commission that a work session was scheduled for April 2,2003 at 5:30 P.M. He asked if a rcprcsenlalive would like lo anend the City Council work session scheduled for April 3,2003, during which Ihc issues over iciecommunicalion towers would be discussed. Frilzler indicated that he would anend on behalf of the Planning Commission. GafTron asked if there were additional topics the Planning Commission wished to sec on the work session agenda, other than the ongoing rebuild versus remodel discussion. Rahn questioned the detached versus attached garage stance that the City should take in regard to lakeshore lots. Due to a zoning inadequacy, he fell Ihc City had been somewhat blackmailed in allowing attached rather than detached garages in several cases. GafTron indicated that he wrestled with that question over atlached/detached in several instances and the legitimacy of the hardship argument. (Thair Smith suggested that staff encourage new members and alternates to attend the workshops idenlined in the handout GafTron provided the Commissioners. (#1 1) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 19,2003 Berg moved, Fritzicr secooded, to approve the Mlautes of the Febroary 19,2003 Planiag CommlsskNi Meeliag as preseated. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MARCH 24,2003 AND APRIL 14,2003. March 24 - Fritzicr ADJOURNMENT April 14 - HauTi There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:17 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 24 of 24