Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-15-2003 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moflday September IS, 2003 6:00 PM 27S0 KellevParkwav - Coaacll Chambers AGENDA Coaaeil Represeataiive: Jim White AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please si|B la for the public record at the froat podium if you wish to address the PlanaiaK Commbsioa. Applicaats will be asked to mose to the froat table to aaswrer qaestioas when the Chair aaaoaaces the appikatioa. The PlaaaiaK Commissioa b aa advbory body to the City CoaaciL If actioa b takea oa aay bean oa thb aseada. they will be Khedaled for the October 13,2003 City Coaacll aweiiag aaless olherwbc aoted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 03>2935 Scott and Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadswood Road, Variance (Staff requests tabling) (Staff: Melanie Folh) 2. 03-2939 Pete and Maxine Thorkclson, 440 Big Islaad, Conditional Use Pennit (Staff: Melanie Foth) 3. 03-2949 Doug Olson and Barb Bowers. 2601 West Lafayette Road, V'ariance (Staff: Melanie Foth) 4. 03-2941 Paul Cady. 465 Turaham Road, Conditional Use Pennit (Staff: Janice Waataja) OLD BUSINESS S. 03-2905 Heidi B. Nagel. 995 Wildharst Trail, Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 6. 03-2929 Jeff Maitineau. 2565 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit (Suff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 7. 03-2938 Sandra S. Larson. 540 Oroao Orchard Road South, Variances (Staff: Melanie Foth) 8. 03-2940 Scot and Lissa Harx ey, 1199 Elmwood Avenue, Variances (Staff: Janice Waataja) 9. 03-2942 George and .Marilx-n Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Foth) 10.13-2943 Robot and Janet Labalt, 3202 North Short Drive, Variance (Staff: Janice Waaliya) ll.fO-2044 Jonathan Mcfilh. 2930 Como Paint Rood, Variances t Staff: Janice Waataja) 12.03- 2940 Clifford L. Otten, 2350 West Wa)’zala Boulevard, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 1 3.03- 294S WJM Properties. LLC, 2605 West WayaaU Boulevard, Conditional Use Permit Extension (Staff: Mike GafiTon) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings August 25. 2003 and September 8.2003. 15. Other issues for discusston. 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes for August 1 8.2003. 17. Planning Commission approval of minutes for September 3.2003 work session. 18. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on September 22,2(X)3 and October 1 3.2003. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Miiei ing D atl KS ?c f'r ’j □ Council Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other____________ NAME (please prtol) Pleasc rii.LOLTTiii: information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS PRESENT EUR (from axcada) NA.ME OR NUMBER 1.t U ( AlZ/t Kf L 2.3>cv'Vt <// / 3.\*=Vt c T/^V6 ‘ 4.f \ !t.<^ f / i'L> {' ^.. . 6 f* ■ L ' A''“k> L<Fwx. 1'y n*..- 5. ! ^ .Af-tL uv A. 6. 7.1...1 /f/Vi-.n.,-7'oc^ (!,. u ' /?y Or ,,>•,U 8.K\V<^1*^71'1' (r^Plv hh V ^ r ^t»ol tu^S7 /5L<^ 10.-r 11.<r-» y-i;.( oL — 12. 13. 14. IS. .*$a»VM«(rwwfNI ORONO rLANMNG COMMISSION Mmtmy SfHwfctr IS. 2M3 *.-«• r>l 2750 Krikr - C—c« OiiOm AGrND\ I'Mactt iUpmrataUtt: J«n >»Tute AI DIL.NCC .MEMIERS: ritaM lita hi fOr iS« prtMc marO at ikc Araat ^atfiaai IT jaa la atfdmi lit rbaalai C'eaiaihtlaa. AffHcaaft «■ it aiktO M BM«t lo lit froal uile tm aaiatr qatttUai «kta tir C iair Maaaam lit a|i(iHrMtaa. Tit rUtalai CoaiaOttlMi h aa aifttior? iml) la lit CM) CaaarIL If antaa te laita aa aajr Mean aa lilt atcaOa, lity aill it icitOaM for lie Otieirr II. 2003 CMy CaaarH aittliag aalm olirrMbt aolH iy lit Ciair. CONSENT I. 03-2035 S<o« and Kara HuRon. 1135 Sbad)-aood Road, Vanance(Siafri«que»ii ublwg) (Su(T. McUiuc Folhl .ilap C-0 2 03-2*30 Pett jnJMauncTliorVflton. A40Rig|Uaad.Coaditioiull'Kpcnnil lM4fr Mrijnic I tNlii %|a^||.|| 3 03-2*'l* Doug Olictn and Barb Boarrv 2601 Unit.ara)r4lrKaad.VjnaiKe (Staff .Mctanic Foihi .Ma|*F-IO ■3 03-2*41 Paul CaJ>. 4*5 Tarabam Road. ConditMNialL'tcPcnnii (SufT ianKc Waau^a) 5lag A-2 OLD BUSINESS 3 03-2005 .Ma^ A-4 Heidi B Nagel. 005 WOdiartl Trail. Vjiukc (Suit Mike GafDon) 6 03-2020 Jeff .Maitineait. 2565 .Noni Siart Orht, Conditioiul Cte Pcmul iSlafT MikeCafTron) SlapF-7 NEWBUSLNESS 7 03-2031 SMiraS Lmon. 540 Oroaa Orchard RaadSaali.V«iance« (SufT Melanie Fodil Slafl-5 I 03-2040 Scot and Lim Haney. 1100 Elmwood Atraar.Vahancn (Siair Jaiucc Waat^a) .5l«p R-6 0 03-2042 George mdMan1)i)M.!niMic. 3243 Cawa Circle. CombtMnalUw PenniKSiarr Melanie Fo<h| 5lapD-ll 10 03-2043 Robert and Janet Laba!!. 3202 North Short Drlte, Vanance (SiafT iamceWaama) MapD-7 II 03-2044 lonaihanMcMh.2030CauaPalaiRaad.Vananccs (SufT lanicc Waataja) Map D-11 12 03-2*46 aiffoid L Oiien. 2350 Wrat U aycata Raaltrard. Conditional Ute Pcmul (Suit Mike CaHroa) MapC-2 13 03-2041 W7M PropcTtie*. UC. 2605 We*l U aytaU Raalcosrd. Conditional C»e Permit Ettenuon (SufT Mike Caffion) .Map F-2 PIAN.M.NC CO.MSIlSSIO.N CO.SI.MC.NTS 14 Report of Planmng Conummoo itpfcacniali»e» attending Coimnl ncctmgt Aiigim 25. 2<a )3 and September 1.2003 1$. Other ittiict for ditcuuion 16 PlanwimCommiuion approtal ofnuautet Ibr Aiigiat II. 2<X>3. 17. Planning Conumuioo approval of raimiict for September 3.2003 work icnion 15 Selection of lepretentaiiiet for City Council mcetingt on September 22.2003 and October 13.2003 AIUOi'R.N3II.Vr Dal* AppUntiM Rcc«Kcd: rT-2*4l3 Dale AppMcsttoa CouidcrH M Coaipittt: §7.29-03 t§^Hntr»PcrME«p«m: 10^1-03 Chair Smilh and Planning Commission Members Ron Moonic. Ciiy Administrator Froni: Dote: Svbjcct: Melanie both. City Planncry^ j// September 12.2003 «03-2935. Scott & Kara Hutton. 1835 SbadyA^ood Road - Variance - publie hearing .REQUXSXTO.XABLE ZoBing Districi: Lot Am: LR-IC. Single Familv Lakeshore Residential, 0.5 acre min 0.55 Acre (24.252 s.f.) AfpUcalkm Summary: The applicants request aftcr-the-fact hardcover \ana.’'.ces and an aRer-the-fact lakeshore setback variance in order to all«>\v a 10 ’ .x I2 ‘ shed within the 0- 75* /one. The propert> cuirently has hardcover within the 0-75 ’ /one at 1.7®, when ()•« is allowed and hardcover within the 75’-250 ’ zone at 31.9“« when 25 “o is allowed. Additionally, the applicants have constructed a 10 ’ x 12 ’ shed within the 0-75 ‘ setback where none are allowed. Staff kas atleMpCcd to meet wHb Ike appIkoBlt to dbenss Ike removals recomBMBded at Ike AngBst 18,2003 Ptaailag ComndstioB meeting. To date staff kas been unable to reach the applkants. Proposed Motion: Moved by._. seconded by_ 2935 to the October meeting at the request of stall' to table application 03- MiMii 003-2939 ScpttmMr 11.2003 Pag* 1 0(2 D»tt ApplkPdM lUcchfd: M-12-4U Halt Ap^ttcatto* CoaiMcrH ai CoapkU: (M-2I4J M-Da> Review Period Ftpim: KK2S-0J To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cit>- Administrator From: Melanie Foth. City Planner |l^^ CONSENT AGENDA Dale: September 9.2003 Subject: <503*2939. Pete & Maxine Thorkelson. 44U Big Island • CUP • public hearing Zoning District: RS, Seasonal Recreation District. 5 Acre Lot Area: 1 024 acres (44.612 s f.) Appilcation Applicant requests a conditional use permit to allou septic system improvements in street right of way. .Any work within the public right-of-way requires a conditional use permit.________________________________________ Staff/tecommendation: Staff recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit provided the following conditions are met: 1 . The applicant acknowledges that placement of septic system connection pipes within the right-of-way is at their own risk The sy stem should be constructed so as to minimize the possibility of damage by vchicuiar traffic on the right-of-way. 2. Applicant shall, prior to placement of improvements within the right-of-way. execute a hold harmless agreement which releases, indemnifies and holds harmless the City and the public from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or their invitees. PciiinenI Zoning Ordinance Sections ^ 10.31 5(D) Encroachments Prohibited; No private property, buildings. structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be build, stored, parked or kept at any time within an> planed right-of-way ...except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this Subdiv ision. ^ 10.31 .5(E) Permit Exceptions: Persons whose record lot established by Subdivision 6 consists of ta.x parcels divided by planed, unopened public right-of- way may incorporate and use such nght-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way. ^ 10.31.5(G) Permit Limitations: A permit issued under this Subdiv ision shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements made thereto. ^ 10.31.5(H) Hold Harmless: As a condition of issuance of any permit, the ■03-2939 8*pl«r«««r11 2003 Pag«2er2 applicant shall in uriiing release, indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees. 10.3 1.5(1) Pcrmil Hearing A Notice: The Planning Commission or the Council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit. Lbt ofEihibHs A. Application E.xisiing & Proposed Surv ey'Site Septic Svstem Plan Property Owners List Plat Map Background The property is located on Big Island and zoned Seasonal Recreation District (RS) with a minimum lot size of 5 acres. The lot is a legal lot of record and is a combination of two non-cc-.iiguous parcels totaling 1.024 acres. The applicant, in updating the private septic system, was notified by City staff that a conditional use permit would be required in order to run a private sewer line beneath the platted public right-of-way for the purpose of* connecting the drain field (located on the interior parcel) to the l^eshore parcel where the home is located. Conditional I'sc Permit Analysis Cit\ zoning code requires a conditional use permit for installation of private sewer lines within Lhe public right-of-way per Section 10.31 Subdivision 5. Issues for Coasidcratioo 1. .Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Suit Recommendatira Planning Department Staff recommend approval of the requested conditional use permit contingent on the following; I.The applicant acknowledges that placement of septic system connection pipes within the right-of-way is at their own risk. The system should be constructed so 05 to minimize the possibility of damage by vehicular traffic on the right-of-way. Applicant shall, prior to placement of improvements w ithin the right-of-way, e.xecule a hold harmless agreement which releases, indemnifies and holds harmless the City and the public from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or their invitees. 2. "7* 3 required SUB^nTTALS *• Completed Applicidon Form. Describe request m detail. must ob^^riisUrt)”. !PfP 5. 6. must obtain tEriisUrflds wd mlp^^m^HrilllSin^Cou r* A-603, Government Center, 348-3271) ^ Depanment of Finance, ; Sul"' - «f« <0 l.^.dou, fo, survey /\*0UJ, oovemment Center, 348-3271) y Sul"' • "■«-<* - -uou Attach legal description to application if not includmi nn ^ 8. 9. /property. Thif *'''’ *" STS'"’ ‘!As UI iddendum to this ippUcsUon, please ..../-i. , ,- . . persons you Hishtotified of this application " ^ “of any other FOR ^PTODUCTITO™ ^ oT s*i^LE w'^FOb ‘^‘''’^'''^® =e^”- •» -iro^iurumC^is': z'Tir,. applicauSnisno!lra;?intS‘r^vrtaUlo^L*^S incS ^ Sof"aJJrca?stf? ^ « ‘omplete, ■---------------------------------------------Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE AdmwSralor. ^dit^'nlllVw (513^^0" requested by the Zomnj and/or unusual expenses incurred in review,- o/thi* pa>inca:) supplied is true and correct to the best of hiiL? lmowlrt*r"'.upplicd is uue ^Tl^tT-eirrHir^^^^^^ Applicants signature . ^}TL /r Date I'/i-rr •? 0>\7VER’S SIGNATURE entry onto the property by”c[^-Ttafn^^c^mu*Mentt authorized reasonable members for purposes of investigation and verification of mis^'Je'^st^^ Ourters signature~;^Ly./,oX^ ^_________^ Appliwi imiit have all lubminali isto the Ctrv oftifM it j Meetinis are held oo tbe ilL M<Sdav PI«nin| ComnujiioD Meciug. ®^ ^ Cbaaijittioo ai Applicaau inust be presett « all Kb^lcd iBeetujj. please make axrasiemectt 10 haw an ^ “ appUcani is icab’.e 10 aacod a Buadinj A Zooiog Office of this chauf; prior to the^B»e«io|^"**^ **”* in yoor place aad advise the #2O Q O O ■(■J) <i^> 1 L.,, fouNO iiisi't*!; \ REBAR 0.J4 East of true cofnof 100 H Be*38MJ“ E —t50.l3"-, H. Una ot S 1/2 o' Lot ^ FOUND EXISTING REBAR lure^^pl^ y S«t 9235 copped 1/2" iron plot distance NE of Iron to SW ond on line for found Iron to NE. J ^ ^- /-^ ^ ( ^ * > / '■^Zv^/ ^ ^ y I / \ y^ r ound 5/8 Iron ^/ ^ • r^ 0 38 Nt of line ' '1 . / FOUND EXISTING REBAR '"P'" Set 9235 copped 1/2“ iron plot dislonce NC of iron to SW ond on line for found Iron to NE. •Foun ’ 1/2" Iron 0.13 NE of line Found 3/4" iron r tiaxsBXic ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. S300M^«VlOI 3SHS Aow (9S3) 474 7964 9*1(932)474 067 August 11.2003 Mr. Peter ThorkdsoB RE: c:raesti« of street with sewer Ine on Big Uni Deer Pete: We hive uBaiM s DelU ipeci^riBg how to protect your propoMd crossiog of the rowiwsgr ooyov Big UsDd property. The doctik iron pipe will protect the sewer line fiom being oushed nl die styrofiMBi will protect it from fieenng. We hed done a surve)* of the propeity for you in 1999 nd Eco Systems Engineering bes designed sn on she sewage trestment system for you. The Eco Systems Etwneering dmwing shows the locatioo of the proposed crossing. Ihis is to certify thst diis plsn wee prepsred by me or under my direct superviskm sad Ihst I sm a lews oftiic Stale of Kfamesota. •• Sincerely. DETAIL M < r RUN DATE. VIVmj Iir.NNIU*IN COUNTY l’KOIM!RTY INI OKMATION SYS1I.M PKOPtRI YOWNlikS LIST PAGE: I rRdfAOOR mwaisLANu OWNERNAME WAGHMC TAXPAYB WHliAMAGUMUAnMC mm/MOtm ASIlVAtUEYVCWRO HAMEL MN SSMO M UII72))20(M PROPAOUR 3MmCJUAND OWNER NAME TPEGANACAECiAN TAXPAYER TtlOMAS P EGANATIl RYL A UiAN NAMUAOCNI I40IIRXJMJOGECTR WAY2ATAMN 55J9I PNOPAHm M 2JII72JJ200bl )2U URi bLANU OWNER NAME BAKUARA DOORMAN TRUSTEE TAXPAYER X)HNSI)tAN NAME/AUOR U7NEJROST WAUWAIOSAWI 3UIJ M 2JII721J200U PROPAOOR 43» IMQBLANO OWNERNAME M«FRUINARIIERIRM TAXPAYER GREGORY BOEONNOR NAMFyAOOR iSMLIVMnSTONAVEPIOT WEST Sr PAUL MN 331 II 31 23ll7233200k3 PROPAOOR 4IOBIGBLANO OWNIXNAMH RHTIARIJWERUINITAI. TAXPAYER GREGORY BOCONNOK NAME/AOOR I5« IIVWOSTON AVE Sit 107 SAJNrPAULMN 33III 31 2311723320067 PROPAIRM 430 BHiBEANO OWNIiR NAMI IT VAIIEIII ANN MRIilNAN TAXPAUR IIMOIlIVCLOVtrr NAMiyAIMNt 12400 MARION LNW 43306 MINNEIUNJCAMN 33303 M 2311723320070 PROPAODR 4M BIOBLANO OWMRRNAME GAMUELElABBOUR TAXPAYER W Of MINNF TONKA RC NAMI7AUOR 21 UNIVERSnY AVE N E MPUMN 33413 31 2311723320071 PROPAmiR 44HNUBIANU OWNER 7«AME PtTERATlHMUCELSUN TAXPAYER PETER A TIIORKEISON NAMiyAOIIR CA) MAXINE UTIRMKUSON TOOOMNJNNVAliEY R1742U9 CX)tiRi< VALLEY MN 33427 31 2311723320072 PROPAINNl 470 BIOBLANO OWNER name: aiNBTUPIILRR)IINSONIXNEIS TAXPAYER aiHLSTUrilERTOIINSONIJOitlS NAMIMODR 220 STIIBIIS BAY RO UKONUMN 33336 ( ( I CrimiY TIIATTIK FACTN RIT»RI-VllNrm ARI! AN A( nUATT’. AND TRUE M-nUiSEhTTATION Of INfORMATION AS IT APPEARS TIRS DATE ON TIRi K1SORI3S OPTIC ICWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVH IS DEPARTMENT. TO THE OIST OF MY KNOWUIOGE AND Uli IJfP. DATE ^ IIY ( ) ( ^ fe- . l.: RUNIMIE.r HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPF/ PROPERTY OV^ INFORMATION SYSTEM iLisr rAGE; I . M Ul 1723410002 mOPAOIM 470 BIG BLAND OWNfRNAME OIRBTOPIIERXNINSONilOLLB TAXPAYER ONIBTOniER JOHNSON DOUfi NAME/AOM 220 STUBBS BAY RO ORONUMN 533)6 31 2211723410003 PROPAOOR 4MDIGBIAND OWNER NAME NANCY L FARNliS TAXPAYER NANCY L FARNES NAMiyAtXW 2710 mXGATE UR MINNFIONKAMN 3)303 l‘ROPAi>UH M 231172)320001 31 AODRiSSUNA&SKMLU OWNER NAME ilAKOli) E FARNES TAXPA5IX NANCY L FARNES NAME/AINJR 2710 lOXCiATL UR MINNI.10NKAMN 53)0) 30 23li723320SB2 PROPAODR 440 BIOBLANO OWMERNAMB NANCY LFARNES TAXPAYER NANCY L FARNES NAUr/AODR 3710 POXGATE UR MMNinONKAMN 3330) 30 2311723320010 PROPAOOR MOOtOBIAMl) OWNER NAME NANCY LFARNES TAXPAYER NANCY L FARNES NAML/AUOR 2710 lOXGATE UR MINNI.IONKAMN 5)303 31 2311723)20011 PROP AJM3R 460 UK3 BLAND OWNER NAME NANCY LFARNES TAXPAYIR NANCY I. FARNES NAML/AIXJR 27IOIOX(iATI IM MtNNElONRAMN 33303 M 2311723)20012 mOPADOR 4MmOBI>Nn OWNER NAM! NAMYI.FARNIX 1AXPAYI H NANCY L I*ARNI <i N6MI/AINIM IMOMIXIIAM UN .IIINKAMN ))M) 31 2311723320023 PROPAUOR 2S0IWiKJANU OWNIJI NAME RK1IAMU W PARSONS lAXPAVIR RKTIAHOWrAHSUNX NAMI/AIHm 44i4R;NUMW UlOUMURilUN MN 33437 31 2311723320037 ntOPAllUN 370 IUniMAM) OWNIX NAME (iWI NIKN YN NI ARSON L lAI. lAXPAVIR nWINiK»IVNMARV)N NAMI/AI>|IM IUI|( lltMHHMt IHNI. UNO II ULAINEMN 3)449 o:> J )■ 231172)3200)9 milPAINJN 330 IMUMXNII OWNER NAMi O WCRASWELL ACDCHASWELL TAXPAYER GARY WR CYNTHIA OCRAS WELL NAME/AUOR 34) I CALLE QUATRO W URLLN VALLEY AZ U4I4 34 211172020044 PNUP AINW 34 AINNII.Vt IINAVSHiNUI OWNER NAME CIMBIWIA URUNIJLN TAXPAYER aiRBIINA ORUNIIEN NAME/AUOR 10631 FIVE HAWKS AVE 4103 PRK)RLAKI:MN 5)372 IK 2III72I32UM(. I'KtirAINMI 3IOIMilMANII OWNER KAMI NANCY UE FARNIX TAXPAYER NANCY U.E FARNES NAME/AUOR 27IOFOXGATL OR MINNEIONKAMN 3)303 ( c;.i C\) M 2311723320047 PROPAODR 310 IMG BEANO OWNERNAME NANCY LEE FARNES TAXFAYER NANCY LEE FARNES NAME/AOOR 27IOFOXGATEOR MINNEIONKAMN 33)0) 31 2311723320041 PROPAUOR 3IOU)OBLANO OWNERNAME NANCY LEE I ARNES TA3CPAYER NANCY LEE FARNES NAME/ADOR 2710 foxgate dr MINNEIONKAMN 3)303 34 2311723)20049 PROP AOOR 310 UK] ISLAND OWNERNAME NANCYULFARNES TAXPAYER NANCY LEE FARNES NAME/AOOR 2710 FOXGATE DR MINNETONKA MN 3330) 34 2311723320033 PROPAOOR 400 BIOBLANO OWNERNAME NANCYLORANRUOETAL TAXPAYER ROBERT EGRANRUO NAME/AOOR IM9COLVMAVE STPAULMN 3311* 30 2311723320037 PROPAODR 390 BIOBLANO OWNERNAME ROBERTWHAILEYETAL TAXPAYER SUSAN BAILEY NAME/AOOR 2700IRUOALE A VE HE STANTIRWYMN 33414 34 2311723320030 PROPAOOR 3I0 0IQBLAND OWNERNAME KATHERINESCRIVERETAL TAXPAYER JEANNETTE S UURai NAJME/AOOR BOX I CANNON FAILS MN 33009 IjiHeni^nn ;wer Stmces •■■ v^sr ces inmartment - ' ^ • .'•?: H^»rcel InShfnmtloa Nan^lO ISLA^ *>diiwp.«tiwMnri • eowi»jfc|iBnC^'TMs a noi # J m». • e offyifcttoi o^MbrmMton Pjk O9un0^, antf SMiiMtf FIUM3-2949 S«plt«TiMr 10. 2003 PagclofS Dalt Aypicartro Rtctivtd: 9MM3 DauAf^tkMCMuidmtfMCMipki*: M-Dty Review Ptrlod Expim: 11-03-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth. City Planner September 10.2003 CO.NSENT AGE.ND.% 03-2949. Peter Jacobson for Doug Olson & Barb Bowers 2601 West Lafayette Road • V'ariance • public hearing Zoateg District: LR-IC. Sisgic Family Lakesborc Rcsidculial Lot Area: 1.91 acre (83.575 s.f.) Antiication Summary: Applicant requests an average lakeshore setback variance for construction of a 2"^ story addition above existing living space on a home situated approximately 90’ into the average lakeshore setback._______________________ SUfff Recormuendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as requested. Hardship: Staff finds that the peninsula constitutes a hardship due to the/act that the existing home is entirely u ithin the average lakeshore setback.__________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.22.1(B) & 10.56. 16(CK6): Average Lakeshore: Tlte a\crage lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Sutement C. E.xisting & Proposed Surv cy/Sitc Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Property Owners List &. Plat Map G. Photos H. Average Lakeshore Setback Illustration .• Background The applicant has applied for an average lakeshore setback \ ariance in order to construcl a 2"^ story addition above existing liv ing space on a home situated approximately 90* into the average lakeshore setback. This addition is the fourth phase in an ongoing remodeling project. The existing home is simated on a property that is a peninsula. I L... FILEI03-2949 SwiMMr to. mn P«9t2gfS Shordim of L^e Mimictonka exists on both the north and east sides of the property. The residence is located entirely uithin the average lakeshore setback, but due to the nature of the property the lake views from the adjacent homes arc not affected. In 1996 variances for average lakeshore setback, lake setback, and hardcover were granted for “Phase IP of the remodeling project. In 2000. “Phase IIP of the remodeling project consisted of a 1500 s.f 2"'* story addition above the eastern ponion of the home. Variances were granted at that time for lake setback and average lakeshore setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Afea/\Vidth! LR-IB Lot Area 1 Rei|uired 43.560 s.f (1 acre) i Actual (Cross s.f)83.575 s.f (1.91 acres) Calculated Net square footage (minus the shared driveway easement) 78.055 s.f (1.79 acres) SfthKfci; The property is a peninsula which causes the average lakeshore setback to be located between 150 to 250 feet from the OH\^ L. The existing home extends bevond the average lakeshore setback up to 90 feet. The entire home is within the avenge lakeshore setback area Structural Coverage; • Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage Gross - 83.575 s.f (1.91 acre) Net lot area (minus the square footage of t the shared driveway easement) = 78.055 s.f ' (1.79 acre) Allowed: Proposed: 11.708 s.f (15%) 7.480 s.f (9.5%) No Change FiLEi03-2«49 10 20w3 Pag«3of5 H^pdcovcr CalcuhitiQBs; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone .Allowed 1 Hardcover Exbling Hardcover Proposed Haid cover 0-75 35,961 s.f.Os.f ! t0%) 1 1 3.273 s.f (9.10%) .No Chance , 3.273 s.f ; (9.10%) No ‘ Chance 75-250 29.551 $.f. i 1 7.587.7 s.f. i i25%) 1 8.750 s.f (29.0%) No Chance 8.750 s.f (290«.i,)No Chance * After exclusion of fabric or plasiic-lineJ landscape beds Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The property is situated on a peninsula. %\hich places the existing residence entirely within the average lakeshore sct^'ack. Due to the nature of the property it is both implausible to meet the average lakeshore setback and to block the views of the lake from the adjacent properties. The applicani’s are proposing a 2"^ story addition above existing living space. Hardship SlalcmeBi Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in txhibii B. Hardship Analysis /« conilJerlng mpptlcatioHt for ytarlAnct. the Planning Conunistlon %hall coniiJer the ejject of the ffopoud roriente upon the heobh. safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unl4fue to the individual ptapifty under consideration, and shall recommend approsal only when It Is demonstrated Aat suck aertoms wUI be In keeping wbh the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code.___________________ Staff finds that the applicant's proposal would not further restrict the views from the neighboring properties than that of the existing home, and a hardship exists due to the nature of the property being a penin' -la Staff w ould make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The properly in question ca.-j'.oi be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofllcial controls." The propern is localeti on a peninsuta with ahnosi half of the area w ithm ihe 0-75 zone In (he opinion of staff this criterion is met i____ L FiIE»C3-2*49 8«pt*me#f 10 2003 Paot4afS 2. "The plight of the landouner is due to circumstances unique to his proDem* not created by the landov^ner.” In tht opinion of staff this criterion is met. y The vanance. if granted, wilt not alter the essential character of the localits .* The proj^sed addition will not affect the vieu s of the lake enjoyed by adjacent properties In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter" The applicant has not indicate J economic considerations as a factor h the opinion of staff this criterion is met 5, -Undue h^hip also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunhjht for solar energy ssitems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Suhd 2 when in harmony with this Chapter." ’ X/A 6. ‘The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council mav not permit as a :™?rred“!r“^ In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 7. The Board or Council may permit as a . the temporars use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. -The s^-ial eondiuons applying to the structure or land in question ate pcculiai to such property or immediately adjoining property ." The property is situated on a peninsula nith lake on the north and east sides additionally almost halfof the lot area is located within the 0-75 * setback -one In the opinion of staff this criterion is met * ' ’ XTs^d'i^d fs'’S'’-'' ■" The property,, afmnsula and the existing home is entirely uithm the merage r- FLEIOMM to 2003 PaOtSoTS II. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the Irttent of the Zoning Code." In the opimon of sU0this criterion is met. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difftculty .’ The nature of the property is such that a variance is required for any alteration or addition to the home. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion b met. Isaaes for Coasldenitioa 1 . The 2nd story addition will not increase the footprint of the existing residence and will not increase strucniral coverage or hardcover. 2. Will the views from the adjacent residences be affected by the proposed addition? 3. Does the shape of the property situated on a peninsula and the fact that most of the lot is located in the 0-7S ’ zone constitute hardships that are unique to the property? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccomaieBdattoB Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as requested. L REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^af Iftt fQ»0nin2 Iwformirion inmt h# ^nhm^n^d bv th# «qDlic«tlaii il»t* U tor VQUr IDDikation to hg cnntidgrtd fwmpletg; utiii m TfBTr 1* _i^^Completed Application Form Cemficaie of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculauons as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘.r x IP for reproducuon. 5. 6. 7. 8. rcproaucuon. __ Toj^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing ^ grade are pressed. In addition, provide one (1) copy iW x IP for reproduction" — Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views provide one (I) copy 8>P x IP). List of tlie legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property^ This would include name(s) of appUcant(s) if not current ouner(s) — As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate Ust of anv other persons you wuh notified of this application. ' ^ __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. arlMw wiilltiiilgii It Ml' ““ AfPUCANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested »*v the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pa% additional fees (staSf time not covered by original fee pavrtent) and'or consultMt expenses incurred in-rmnew of^this application, and certifies that ±c infortnaUon supplied IS true and correct to th5^^^us/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE Tt« o»T«f lereby «knowl«i|es ud agrees to this appticaUon and fiinber auihomes reasonable enny onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Coomiission m-mbers, and members for purposes of ^estig^qi^iLvenfication of this request Owner’s Signature ^2^^ Date Appltcam must have all submittals in'n the City offices 25 days before the Warming Meeting Planning Cnmmission Meetings ate held on the third Monday of each moolh Applicants must he present U nU schedtiled review meeting, of Ike Planning Con>tnl..loo and ConncH. If in appl.ceni is imable to niiend a scheduled meering. please make amagemeni. to have an auihonzed agent iRend in yotir place and to advise the Building k. office of this change prior to the meeting. LAKECCXKrror I • i fo ft r Ull COUNTIY IVIltllS, lYD. S19 IKONI tfllir IlCIltlOI. ■■ Itlll Til t>liU II lillllM t W I ■ C I T i I I iisi.ircMii Olit. «rc Itir cmr OF ORONO - variance application Dou{ OUoo St Raxban Bo«m Residenct 2601 West UCi>?ae Road. Orooo. .NIN 55391 EXHIBHB DESCRIPTION OF REQLXST tlittory Ihe applicant has obtained a vahince on nvo presious occasions in regards to reoovabocs to lhe> home in difTereat *'Phases~. Phase 1-3 has been completed to date Approval of their previoas requests acknowledged the uniqueness of the property that siu on a peninsula on Lake MinnetorJa Tbe enure house extends be>ond the lakeshore regulauons of the line of sight setback. Phase 112 renovauons inc’*ided remodelini* the Western portion of the home, adding an addition over tbe garage and remodeling interior spaces. Phase 3. tbe most recent project completed in 2001 uxluded adding a second floor addition over the Eastern portion of the horr.e The owner modified the hardcover in conjimcnon with the previous sarunce request by removing significant poruons of tbe dnveway and replaced wtth green-scape Tbe cunent proposed project does not uvrrease the footprint, affect topographical or hard cover isiues Current Situation The applicant wishes to add an addiuon over the existing kitchen' bedroom area on the western side of tbe home The general scope of wtirk iiKludes remodeling existing uitenor spaces into a famil> / enterttinment room and mo\e the bedrooms and badi to a thud level In order to accomphsh “Phase IV” a variance from the average lakeshore setback (line of sight) us allow for the addition to be built over tbe existiog structure u needed. The existing house is completely within this setback, u tbe bouse siu on the peninsula tract of the neighborhood. HAROSHirDCSCRlPTION OF l-NTSl’AL PROPCRTT' CONDITIONS Unique to the land in question Upon quick review of »he site, tt is realued that it is nearly inqiossible to situate any stnicrure on tbs property without igno.oig sotne aspect of the cunent zomng ordinances. To mainuin the line of sight setback on diis property would requue a new sarucnire be built in the middl* of their dnveway. The intent of the line-of-sight ordinance tt to prev en: bouses being built closer to the lake than their neighbors, thus cutting pcnpheral viewa from neighboring bouses dramaucally This ordinance works for straight shoreline areas, but ui the guise of a peninsula, its applicanon isn't practical. The current house, as it sits now. is not ui any neighbor's view of the lake. This would continue to be the case, even with the addition. The addition is cot changing the footprint of the e.xisung bouse. It is increasing livrg space but not increasing structural coverage or hardcover. Unique to the existing structure location Although the lot sixe is conforming with an area of approximately 1.5 acres, nearly half of the lot is in the 0-75' setback zone Tbe property tiu on a pemruula The shape of the lot and the curv^ of the shoreline as wtU as the fact that the lake exisu on both north and east side of tbe property are hardships that axe unique to the property The views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring properties will not be encroached upon by tbe proposed addition. Unique to Ihe current conditic s Hardcover ui the 0-75' zone will not change at a result cf the addinoo. Hardcover in the 75'-250' zone will not change as a result of the addition Lot coverage is ciureotly S S% and will remain with (he proposed additioa The addition will not create any new hardcover, and current hardcover levels will be maintained. No new hardcover will be added as pan of this plan. AfPLICANTS* LEG.AL N.A.MES Barbara J Bowers wife Douglas J. Olsoa husband lT .■■9^ I WHI OR. DOUGLAS OLSON EXHIBIT C iiii o .CkM.Ui/k® M'H wIOd L1 >»o«J 50*6ireh © n« «»•«•© V .V j© Ni »-’oal , C««.vfcli'©\\ \ .»»•?* Vn'fV* ^ ' •M'BossWOoJ \ 'lsA 1 ..^ i \ ©/ z'V'A yi' I / / mm ii A ^xiiTiriC //dpocovc./^ tfict,ut>f.< f fhp. o-’r^>. pfrSCRIPTIO Trad C and I QgWERALlft •\ \ ffiCLUt>r.< fftoro^e.t (flo O^A/^e,e<) 1. • -I fim. Q-’Kf. 2. ® 3. Araat i/. (C"'rr -'^. r "! o 1/1 )> (.< if MAIN LIVIL WLOOm PLAN - EXWTINg^MAIN LIVB. \^9CALM> • r-tf r ©!gg I r / . • » ;*.» ■jltp Miim :iiiiii ::iiim Mlllll: 11I li II 9 illII A2 7// f .nan m m 1 —hpfr ■'I' ilsisi;WWttird. iiii.)iBi jiigiyiMiiMaii >10 l'!''ilL'''pfiijly,V'' ■msmmmsssmsmBs Ml I *1 eSOUTM gXTCTtOW gLCVATtON - EXISTING •CALC- - !•-•• r ; .•no non III m I fiP i ffif §Hiim 1;S:v U'/i/iA iMMII « ilBi lil^ '"• '• '"ass*®' ■'liMlii VSOUTM gyrCTlOW a.gVATlON - pwo^osro ' OCALt ■ V4* • i -a* A6 liiiiSi :W:T''■■ •: v’/l‘f|j| I?} :i,l |vK''Vi l'’'-^i3i! !! 9 |B J«|«u|a|si|! :. Lh I -. I ^NOKTW EXTgW/OW gLgVATlON - PROPOSED vy *CAU|. W4* - 1-5* ------- ■jfep ^ mill :iiiiii ::iiiiii I ki:»!i!i!!! 9 k A7 HAJU >COVm CALCULATION WORKS f-7S*StTBAdCZOfll: (CUICLIONE) c HAUPCOvnnwgQwg A. K oum 3SO.SOO*soo-ioor B. Onp >><. Aapyf C Drivtmy D. SidnMik E. PatioMc ^ 40 F. Laa4icapt — UndtfUin —. ByPiMtfe Jo. ®/V-'i O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVF« IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ^ A DiZONE A xlOO xlOO panpnsn ZONE As How* ____ . _____ WMi B. Oarap C. Ortvrwajr D. Sidewalk E. PadoDcck F. Lacdscape Uoderlaia ByPlasde 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _B xlM /yd _SJ. _SJ. ST. ST. ,ST. .ST. ST. .ST. ,ST. -ST.. .ST. ST. ST. A __ _ _ _^ST. B J.9.0 % -«T. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. SF. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. A CArc/C»i4^^.»3 ^ BAXDCOVER ADDENDUM SECTION A: HOUSE ASIA A1 A2 A3 A« AS AS A7 At A9 wnyra UHCXB BELXA AB£A21.0 34.0 1312.0 4.1,924 •32 SF 904 5J 224 1244 AO 2A0 90.0 4.0 294 116.0 124 214 3364 24 90J 704 9.7 434 1594 244 AREA 434 •325 , 7Q7.Q 3416 SF SECnONO DRIVEWAY AUA aODXB Cl 4t a IS a 94 C4 pi TOTAL DRIVEWAY AREA LEW lOS 94 90 1^ delta AREA 4944.0 544.0 (-904) M 134.03 4^04 SF SECnOND: SIDEWALK AREA ymiH LEKdH DELIA area D1 44 174 6S4 D2 0.0 94 114 D3 44 15.0 604 D4 124 114 13L0 D5 154 214 •15 2904 D6 •4 t4 -M4TOTAL SIDEWALK AREA 032 SF ■UNMUWMMJ MENNtFIN COUNTY PROPI RTV INFORMA'HON SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNOCS I.IST PAGE M 2III7»2I000I PWlP AOOR 2tM WEST liU^AYbTH: RU UWWBRNAME PRALCEKJKlUt TAXPAYill PAU.REKHOUI NAmVAINMI MMWBSTIAFAVfrrrnRO PSI'MSRMMN iSIII M 2lll7iJ2l0002 PRUPAOOA 2CO> WIM LATAYI ni: RO OWNUtNAMIj PtMJJPi SMITH LTAL TAXPAYER PNHiiPISMmi NAMrVAniNI MOO WPXTIAFAYITTI Rll I'.MITMIOIMN SSIII 2III72J7IIIIIO) rxor AINW 2MII wist lAI AYLTTI; MU OWNLMNAMb IIJ OLSON A IIJ UOWLMS TAXPAYER DOUGLAS J OLSON NAMI/AIMW 2*01 WISTIAlAYiriFMII IXIIIMHRMN %MII M 2111721210007 PaOPAODR ms WESTLAPAVETTERO OWMOtNAMi ILAOMBLAMCEiaMP TAXPAYTR IMAIWURI)A HTJIRA IIIANKl'MUir NAMI/AIMW 2*B3 WISt lAI AYITil: HU UmXSRJRMN UIJI 10 2III72J2400IJ PROPAOOR 2*10 WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNBtNAME CYNTHIA N ENOQUISr TAXPAYIR CYNTHIA NINIJOIIIM NAMI/AINIM 2t>IO|AIAVl III MU W EXL-ELSRIRMN 151.11 II 2111721240049 PMOPADOR 2*15 t^rSTLAIAVETTERD OWNER NAME J R GAuNE A V LOACNE TAXPAYIR MMIXRUAIiNF NAUI/AIM>K lOlAWIM lAlAYl III Ml» IXCUSHIRMN 551JI 03 i CERTIFY TfiATTIE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACTURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTIBS DATE ON TIE RECORDS OFTie IEh04EPIN CXXJN1Y TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TIIE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND UEUEF. DATE uy 13 I Milltii h m. ,r< 'Vv:.smmrnm ;'S'. >':i : ^ ^'-c . ‘'v '-i ■•^ ; r• ^ • 1 r ' ■ ■. i^»' » i- ' ' 'i 1 d:'V.i4: :• • sSaifk mmi- iMp m-M ‘ •o €C <j^:. )’ t^vK-sidW fi •.PI ^ .; < . • '\ -V,. V *' ,4 ‘ '• ''w^M 3; .•'■•;pp 01 il"« |3 i *8. ■ SSCM ® JCo» A myiut StpMMbtr IS. 2M3 ragilafJ I: t-l94J Pit AppHriH— CoMiitrtJ m Ciwfhit; t-IMJ M>0«)r Rtvtew PtrM Etpirtt: I9-I9-0) Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Fran: Dale: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner^ September 11.2003 03-2941. Paul Cady, 46S Tumham Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zonitti Dbirkt: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR- lA. One Family Rural Residential District (5-ocre minimum) 5.948 acres (259.1 lls.f.) 424.18 feet AppUcalkm Smiuitary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a pool on a ‘‘through*’ lot SUfffRecomtmemdation: StafT recommendations: I. Approval subject to the pool location indicated on the submitted plans. Pcitiaent Zoniog Ordinance Sections Section 10.03. Subdivision 10: Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R** Districts shall require a conditional use permit Lbt of Eahibits A - Application B > Exbting Survey C - Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans E - Photographs F - Property Ou-ners List G - Plat Map Background The applicant submitted plans shov%ing a proposed pool and bam to be located on his propeity which is considered a “through lot“. At this time planning department staff infonned the applicant that the plans submitted for the bam do not meet the 75 foot setback required by Zoning Ordinance. At that time the applicant suted that he will be submitting plans at a later date showing a revised location for the bam which will similarly require a “through lot” CUP application. Therefore, this application is for consideration of a conditional use permit for the pool only. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArenAYidtk: •03-2041 IS.2ai3 raft 2 af3 RR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) i Actual 259,111 s f. (5 948 acres) j 424.18* StUttikii RR-IA Required Existing Proposed House / Pool Front 100- 1 100-100*/165* Rear 100- j 552'552*/525* Left Side 50- j98.25-98.25*7 155* Right Side 100* 1 ::7-' 1 227* / 165* StnictTal Coverage: This property is not subject to structural coverage rcquiremcnis because it is in excess of 1.99 acres. Hardcoser Calcolatioos! This property is not subject to hardcover requirements because it is not within 1000* feet of any water body. ConditioBal Use Permit Anal>*sis The Zoning Ordinance states that any accessory structure placed on a “through" lot must obtain a conditional use permit. The intent of this ordinance is to confirm that the acces^ structure conforms to the pnncipal building setback requirements. The pool is considered an accessory structure and is therefore subject to these requirements. As shown on the suryey/site plan the pool will meet all principal building setbacks, being setback approximately 165 from Watertown Road, 525* from McCulley Road and 155 ’ from the interior side lot line. The pool will be located behind the home and not be visible from any of the adjacent streets. Photographs have been included in the exhibits to Illustrate the topography of the property and that the pool will be substantially hidden. Therefore, this proposal meets all conditional use permit standards. iU-2*4l StpI fNr IS, MU NfiStrS liMMi for CMsMcratloa 1. Should additional fcnening be required? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Approval of the conditional use permit to aUow a pool to be constructed on a through lot sul^t lo the plans submitted. i AppBotioe# Date Received -O^ Amount Paid ^ P50 • CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 31 - H 6> - ~Z-~^ CCi I Phone fhor.e) ______ __________________________________ Phone (work) Address TZAfa<OV:^Y\AA^ City OP g ^K>3 Zip__________ OWNER (if diiTerent than applicant) Name ___________________ Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired l(do) Property (So no^also ou-n the adjacent parcels of land. (month/ycar) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application S250.(X) Residential Accessory Use _____S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S250.00 Duplc.x Credit/Bldg _____S32S.OO 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 lakcshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) 5300.00 Vacation 5250.00 Easement Vacation S 100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision 5350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) 5375.00 Comprehetuive Plan Amendment 5100.00 App^s Other - see Fee Schedule L. #2941 r required SUB iXUTTALS *• ------Completed Application Fomt ------Describe request in detail. ^ c(j —2 "- 0» information. ^ licensed sur\c>t>r) - refer to handout for survey changes in elevation (grades). contours) if land alterations involve property. This u-ouW include namc(s) of aorli^nfr ^ "* *"‘*"*‘, property. This u-ouW include namris of * r A - "* P«noni you uiih notified of^i ,pp,LL^‘ '«• 'f “y other FOR REPRODU^o7 ”|fi’”*’^7*» DOCUMENTS OR COPV ^^ED. (Su TT Wiu re,.d„ . .«,e drewilil^^r^i., ru.Cfl,'; Wlic1SSni,tK«"cotn'StJ^TLrtaL^^^ «■"'">'>« >hat your Stf CieS; "st? ^ Application is contplete. ---------------------------------------------Dat e______________ applic ^t-s signature Administrator, agreei" to*^ Iddi'ttana'l'fTO (starSme ’nm “rt *® Zoning and'or unusual expenses incurred in review of ihi. . T ■ ‘ *>/ original fee payTOcnll .applied is mte and cornet to theL'orhirtX^.Sl;^^"”’ ‘"^“^“^00 Applicant ’s signature ___________ Date 0%\TVER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and aarees to ih.-. «« i • entry onto the property b^City staff, consult^n^fr-lu^ authorized reasonable members for purposes ^'^gW»d ve^ »<i Council W. signature must hive ,11 jubminaU into ih/cifv ^ ^ ^r'd « held en tf» Srd C«"anm;,„ Meenn, “[ ‘‘‘•“i". Cemmissioo^ AppUentu n>m. be p,e«o. a, ,|| UTiaiementt lo hive an iutho^i?^ ^ ^ ““*»!* *® •««d aB^jZonu^ Office of diii cluo„ prior to the meeS,^"^ •!«« «i*od in yo« place «k1 advise fte “ * i ^ / fs;? ' Cadv 4*r«priiv: Silc I*1jin r-io* . \ .. ) kjs^^3sC5S Trmf^ii got >ARje5 r l,ouiufV) ‘-J ♦•»•• ’*»jr .-,5; ....................... '»owav{' M6(>vMiy ltd « IE. ' .*,< ^ .<^' /iv»'";'5 ftUNlMU VLViUiJ M llll■;tnu)ll; muTAOtM lURNIIAMRl) UWNCKNAMC L li BOG A K M UUIC TAXTAVO LBONARO A K ATIlUillN M OUKO MAMPADOB 4MT1MMIAMRO MAFLEnJUNkm SSJ)f llthNieiN CUONIY FKUfl KIY INhOKMAllON SYSIUbt PROPERTY OWNERS LEST IK iiiiii ;iiuniim PROPAMNI 4345 WAIIKIUWNKII OWNLRNAME DUNAIUKrCAJIMJNAWRE TAXPAYER DONALD K PCARSON NAMG/ADDR 4MS WATERTOWN ROAD I4APLE PLAM MN 55359 IK IIIIK/II IlKII I PRUrAIHIR 4M0 WAIIRIOWNRU OWNLRNAME JAMISJAYRNINSONAWRL TAXPAYER JAMES JAY RJIINSON NAME/ADDR 4JO0 WATER10WN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 35359 PAGE I 31 JllltJO40W3 PBOPAOCNI 425 TURMIAMRO OWNONAMB TWOTTtNAAMOTTCN TAXPAYO TBBOTHYWAANNAMOTTEN NAMr/AOOR 425 TURNIIAM BO MAPlJ-PIABIMN 55.159 31 3IIIUJ240OO4 PROP ADM 4545 WATLR10WN RI5 OWNER NAME JLAMRDROU. TAXPAYER JEFPBROa NAMC/AMM 4545 WAURTOWN Rl> (MIINDMN 5.5551 31 3IIIU324UUUI PROPAtXM 415 IMOUKAIIIIR OWNLRNAME T A IIALLQOtST/W A IIALLOOtST TAXPAYI R TOM A IIAUyOtST NAMIMINIR 4l5INiK)RAIIim MAPI I PI AIN MN 55J59 PROPAOm 34 3IIIU324UII2 525 MCCULUVRD OWNONAMB STEPHAN HOMEC0NSTRUTK3N INC TAXPAVIJI STEPHAN IRJME CXINSI Rl/I MIN INC NAMiyAINW 3775 CXI RU 92 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 34 JIII4l3i4UUI3 PftOPAOOR 445 TURNIIAM RO OWNER NAME PAULCAOY TAXPAYER PAUL CADY NAML/AIRIR 2900 tIRMAS AVI S 42412 MPLSMN 55416 14 3IIII2JJIUUU5 PROPAOOR 4550 WOLVERIONPL OWNLRNAME 2 I IIARSPAH A i R IIARSTAO TAXPAYI R 2AMIXI.IIAKMAI) NAMI/AINW 4550WIMVIKIONPI. ORtINOMN 5K|)V 3t 3IIIS255I0006 PROPADOR 3SSTURMIAMRO OWNONAMB CE PHELPS A JCniELPS TAXPAYO aURLES E/JENNVO C PHELPS NAME/AOOR 3SSTURNIIAM RO ORONOMN 55359 JS 3IIIU342000S PROPAOOR 340 TURNIIAM RU OWNERNAME OEADFMER/ TAXPAYER POUGLASEADIANLI MLR/ NAMUAUIIM 340 TURNIIAM RO MAPLE PLAIN MN SM59 I CERTIFY THAT THE F* 'TS RCPRESEWEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND IRUEREPRESEKrAlTONOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTISS DATEONTIE RECORDS OFTIE lEFWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND IlEUEP. , DATE m ■'I Memoraadvin To: Froa: Planning Commission Janice Waataja. Planner Date: September 15.2UU3 RE; Project s03-294l.465 Tumham Rt>ad. Paul Cady.Conditional Use Pcmiil The applicant (acting on bchalt'of the property ouneri originall) submitted plans applying for a conditional use permit to construct a pool and a ham on a through lot At that time, the plans submitted showed a ban that did not meet the 75’ setback lequirement. The applicant indicated tliai he would redesign the bam to meet the setback and submit plans at a later date, and that the current application was to only include the pool. Since that time the applicant has requested that the bom be included in the application. Plans were submitted over the weekend and were not included in the Planning Commission packet. The attached plans show the bam shitted back meeting a 75’ setback to the side property line consistent Zoning Ordinance requirements The ham also meets the 2.200 .squanr foot maximum >ing!e acces.si^ry building si/e limitative Idle applicant is requesting that the bam K.' approved with the pool subject to the rex ised plans. If it IS not approved with the pool a separate ciMiditional use permit must be approved for the bam. Staff has reviewed the plans and hxs identified a few issues for consideration listed below. However, the City Attorney has indicated that action regarding the bam cannot be taken at tonight's meeting K'cause it was never legally noticed. Issticf for ConsidcratioB 1. The ham shows six stalls where the pioferty is limited to housing only 3 horses. Is the Planning Commission concerned that more than 3 horses could be kept on the property? 2. Two of the outer stalls do not meet the “5* setback. The Ordinance states that the bam itself mu.st meet the 75* setback but diKwn ’t distinguish between connected outer stalls. KccommcBdation Posi-ponc action on the bam until the October 20"* Plarming Commission meeting so that proper notice for the bam conditional use permit can be legally published Cadv Proocrtv: Site Plan l”-20 ’ Cady Property: Driveway/Approach D«tt ApfiMti— K<c<hrt<! S>21<43 DMtAppicattoaCMiMtrt^HCMiphtt: S-2343 tM)ay IU««c« p«fM Eipim: 7-22-«3 lUirtow PWM EitiaM m «>24-t3 to: »-2»43 Chair Smiih and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Sabject: Mike Caffron. Planning Director^ September 11.2003 #03*2903 Heidi Nagel, 995 Wildhurst Trail - Variances - Public Hearing This item mas tabled at the applicant ’s request at your August meeting. Slightly revised plans have been submitted and are attached However, the memo of August 13 still is applicable to the roisions, and is attached in its entiretv. Eihibito: A • Revised Elevation View s B - Existing Main Level Plan C - Proposed Main Level Plan D - Memo and Exhibits of August 13.2003 (SEE MEMO OF AUGUST 13) ;.\M» -r.r-, ^ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Farlcwiy P.O. Box 66 Cryital Biy, iMN 55323 (952) 249-4600 RKEIVEO AU9 2 9 2003 ZONING RLE <503-2905 CTTYOFOROl^ NOTICE OF PLANNXNG CO.%L>nSS10N ACTION- DATE OF NOTICE; August 25, 2003 TO: Heidi Nagel 995 Wildhursl T.oil Mound, MX 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: August 18, 20u3 PlaoDins Conunlsfion recommended as follows: Table at request of applicant to allow for further plan revisions. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAISST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, September 15, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. Additional Review Period Extension Required. State law provides that Cities shai: make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended an additional 60 days by notification to the applicant. Your app'.ication was deemed complete on May 23, 2003. The initial 60-day review period was extcr.ied an additional 60 days on June 24. 2003 to September 20, 2003. However, because your application has been tabled by the Planning Commission to the September 15 meeting, the earliest petential date of final Council action falls after the authorized review period ends. Therefore, in order to avoid Council action to deny the application, you must formally agree to a further extenslcn of the review pvriud. Please sign the authorization beiote and return it to the City by September S, 2003. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review' and approval by the Planning Commission. If vc- have questions, please call Planning Director .Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. To the Orooo Planning Commission: I hereby authorize the review period for roniag application nOj-2905 to be extended an additional 60 days to November 19, 2003. ^3 ' H«N^ zotetA. \ / £*ew>fL p****A'nfc»-l 8BU>H b«w e«»i' •fefa_ae«)»y / ---^-:^ mra \ Ij i- \t'llU LI il;l .1 1 ^11 1 > ii ^"i=i• • ^<! 7[/^1__^ii:.if jtt =«!0BA-:&rti*W ■5a*wii#L-rtoM»4* ' • 1 t\\^ioaPlS*hjis2«- z2Ferpi<f:-F£»t]ki^ Rear Elevation View Seal* 1/8- ■ ror - hkg (vi^U dgct7Si>at^ -----hJaul V j— l^l / i—Tli^ I U8T7|;hrt^i*arl%: U^IC ‘i ■^r A ■*i iillililil o view • • ’ 1 t|£ L ij Zo 11 O o Si li data 7/3a revWor 8/15/ sciic lyr • v-o* 1t d o •1^ O o § lO^ 5 «o uiSs55 o §So data 7/30/03 rat^tiiORS 0/18/03 0/00/03 01 s Proposed Plan - Main Level Entry Option "B" ^ ^ CONTRACT OPTION 0 1sp^ ^ in ^ P lO j5 in Ul S I zSo dal* 7/30/03 rtvtiiont 8/1S/03 O/Of/03 07 c iU-2ft5 A«|wt 1J.2MJ Patt2 ^ludc the roIIo^^,ng (ih , is staffs interpretation subject to applicant's confirmation • see Exhibit • Removal of the rear garage apron (3* x 100 » 30 i.f. » Removal of excess deck and concrete patio areas not under the new screen porch = 50 s.f. - Remov^al ofconcrete apron between front porch and driveway = 2 5* x 12* - 30 s.f -Re^figurationoffront paver walk-reduction from 230* sf M5+sf = IlsLf ms would redu« the hardcover from the existing 5.238 s.fdowmTo 5.013 f or 103 s f Ivc REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Setbacki! LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Average Lakeshore (No Encroachmcoi Allowed)6'7* SlrUCtUral Coveragyr Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23.210 s.f. (0.53 ac.)Allowed: 3.482 s.f. (15%) Existing: 3.254 s.f (14.02%) Rexised proposal: No change Hardcover Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcoxer Existing Hardcover 1995 Approval Revised Proposed 0-75 ’9.375 s.f Os.f (0%) Os.f (0%) Os.f (0 */;) 75-250*13.835 s.f 3.459 sf. (25%) 5.23Ss.f (37.9%) 4.910 s.f (35.5%) 5.013 s.f (36.2 %) M3-2M5 A«|«st 13,2N3 ragtS Hardship Statemcat An>licanls provided a brief hardship siaicmcnl in Exhibit A of the June 13 memo, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaalyils (See June 13 memo) Issaes for ConsMcratioB 1. With the rensed proposal, docs Planning Commission have any problem with the a\ erage setback encroachment? It was determined that neither neighbor will suffer view impacts. Do the proposed hardcover removals suffice, or should applicant be required to remove an additional 103 s.fof driveway or other hardcover to meet the 1995 approval lev cl? Staff still recoi^ends that the hardcover be reduced to the 1995 approved levels before issuance of permits for new construction on this property. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns w ith this application? Staff RccommeiidatioB 1. Staff recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch per the revised plan over a portion of existing 1“ story deck. die ^^e front entry addition over the portion of the front porch per Staff recommends that in addition to the 225 s.f. of hardcover removals proposed, that an additional 103 s.f of hardcover be removed to reduce the site to the 4.910 s.f. limit of the 1995 approval. I ■ __^ 'Tn ^t^irr B fmMmrrik- (Ut<i>ik L r ( STM^ /ti r^ ^ tj f Q ^JOT jJJ—>tfH//JC» -- 30 :.“. ^ )^l/»* P£».;t F»Ci^ C»UW«=l^fcy 2.rMii *^5©'-' __^ ’': (^ p^ 2-2-S^ s.-. Is ii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (2 (#4 «03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) Hawn moved. Chair Smith seconded, to table Application #03-2905, Heidi Nagel, 995 Wildhurst Trail, for the purpose of review. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #03-2906 RICHARD ROBERTS, 1937 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES, 7:22-7:49 PM. Richard Roberts, the applicant, was present. GafTron explained that the applicant was requesting after-the-fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway s>'stem in the 0-75’ setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow* for a 4’ wide stairway but deny the retaining walls on the lake side of the road; and denial or request further design detail for a retaining wall within the property on the north (house) side of the road. The current owner w as granted a variance in 1991 to construct a new home on the property to replace an old cabin. That approval required that a cribbed sand volleyball court underlain by plastic sheeting on the lake side of the road be made non-hardcover. The sand area w as eventually removed but the cribbing remained in place for a time. This spring applicant was found to be constructing new retaining walls in the 0-75' zone between the road and the lake, and the job was stopped by the building inspector (sec letter of 4-15-03). Gaifron noted that the applicant indicated he intended to make the access to the dock safer by adding a stair%vay. This area w here walls are proposed had a slope of approximately 1:6 or 17% for a 10-15' distance, easily maintainable and not requiring retaining walls for support. This area w as not hardcover in 1991 and has never been approved for hardcover. Parking boats or vehicles on it w ould create hardcover by default. It is staffs conclusion that applicant is attempting to create a new- flat storage or parking area in the 0-75’ zone, as evident from the current storage of a boat trailer noted on 6-11-03. Gaffron continued, stating that staff has also advised applicant about apparent illegal boat slip rental at the site, as 2 of 3 boats stored at his dock arc not registered to this property. In addition, Gaffron stated that along the house side of the street, applicant states he w ishes to replace an old retaining w all that is now gone, to hold up the bank and make this area easier to maintain. Replacement of that w all in the right-of-w ay is not something staff w ould support. If it is replaced within the property boundaries, this will potentially create a parking area along the street. ‘This is a narrow street, and applicant’s driveway already has capacity for storing at least 4 vehicles. If this w all is allowed to be replaced, staff w ould recommend that the area outside of the 3’ gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather than be graveled or paved for parking area. After review ing 5 issues for consideration, Gaffron restated the staff recommendation that the retaining wall system on the lake side of the road be denied, and the applicant directed to remove Page 9 of 22 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6;00 o’clock pjn. (*4 MJ-21KB UU1>| B. NAGEL, --------------------------------------------------------------- There were no public comments. whether they could include this squ-e footage m thSLkS Jn. ^^^tioncd of properties. He indicitej that, in aidiUon it JoiM V ■ ^ **’' •« UiMe types potentislly. be precedent sening ^ -I**' »orlc N.ge.„bediftheycouIdbscbtbeg«geupn/,Mo.,,vi,,ethestree.se.backv^^^^^ ststrf ^t fte applicants woul^erf'rrhTld t'^ri7% ‘*'^«««- She by slrdrng back Ore garage the hardcover variance rcquesJ^ouMte'Sna'tiir C.,^npoi„.edoutthat«,eproposrdhun,p....wou,dbeaccep.ab,e^ Z«g«hwert. Rahn. and Brenrer co.tcurred utU, stafTs recommendation. moTfic^Lt' ■"«- recommendations «.h a few ntore :Son"u.fh^d^^^^^^^ ““ "’-'-‘"S the ,5,i strvctura, cover. Chair Mabusth indicated that she conid su;p,r, approving all but Ure garage addition. aiked whether the Commiufon P'">- She or « pXno?^^^ t«)uld wish to use w etland tecorurdered. Which sratTwouid not suppor;“h":drd:i'^^^^^^^ P*fe8of22 r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) Gtf&on pointed out that the applicant has requested a number of variances to enclose a portion of a second story deck, expand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construct an anached 2-stall garage to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Additional 75-250* hardcover in excess of 25% wth concurrent removals to result in no increase or a slight decrease. 2. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch. 3. Street setback variance of 1.5’ for anached garage. 4. Lot coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. As proposed, Gaffron noted that the applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existing 1 st story deck, requiring an average setback variance. 2) Add a 68 s.f. portion of deck requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance. 3) Add an attached 24 ’x24' 2-stall garage requiring a street setback var.anqc of 1.5 which results in a lot coverage excess. 4) Extend roof to cover entire front porch. Gaffron noted that this property has been the subject of variance applications in the past to allow the decks on the lake side as well as the ttvo-stall attached garage at the east end. The most recent hardcover approval allowed 4,910 s.f in the 75-250* zone. Existing hardcover in 2003 is 5238 s.f. i.c. an excess ot 328 s.f. It is apparent by comparing the 1995 approval and the cunent survey that this is almost entirely due to overages in the driveway and front walkway. Gaffron shared 5 issues for consideration and indicated that: 1.Staff recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the portion of existing 1“ story deck. 2. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire from porch. Staff recommends that the applicants determine where hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578. Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover removals can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the anached garage, finding that neither is supported by hardship. As such, GaHron noted that the Planning Commission could either send this forward to Council with conditions; or table for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects are feasible and which should not be pursued). Pige7of22 ■b CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdicy Parkway P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) '»49-4600 ZONLNG HLE #03-2905 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 24. 2003 TO: Heidi Nagel 995 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 16, 2003 Plaanlng ComnUssioa recommended as follows: Table to allow applicant to work with staff to determine areas of hardcover to be removed to get back to 1995 approved levels. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAISST Although not part of the motion. Planning Commission indicated lot coverage by structures in excess of 15% would likely not be approved. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: PUnaiag Commission - Monday, July 21, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. 60-Day Review Period Extension. Sute law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests w ithin 60 da>-s from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was deemed complete on May 23, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on July 22, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the July 21 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is h reby extended an additional 60 da\3 to September 20, 20(^ If you desire cenified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director .Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Ditt Applkathw Rccffhrtd: S>21*«) DsttAfpHcatiMCoMMcrtdasCoapIcIt: S-IMS M>Day lUvifw Pm M Eipim: 7.22*05 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron. Planning Director Date: June 13,2003 Sobjcct: #03-2905 Heidi Nagel, 995 WUdhurst Trail - Variances - Public Hearing 1 Zooiog Diftrict: LR-1B Single Family Lakesfaore Roidential, 1 -acre min. Lot Area: 0.53 acre (23,210 s.f.) AfpUcation Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to enclose a portion of a second story deck, e.xpand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construe: an attached 2-stall garage to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Additional 75-250' hardcover in excess of 25% >vith concurrent removals to resul: in no increase or a slight decrease. 2. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch. 3. Street setback variance of 1.5' for attached garage. 4. Lot coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. SUiff Recommatdation: Staff recommends only partial approval subject to specific conditions. List of Exhibits A • Application B - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan C - Proposed Plans & Elevations E-Resolution 3578 (7-10-95) U F - Letters from Neighbors G - Properly Owners List H -Plat map I - Site Photos Background Applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existing 1st story deck, requiring an average setback variance. 2) Add a 68 s.f. portion of deck requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variarKe. 3) Add an attached 24'x24' 2-stall garage requiring a street setback variance of 1.5' which results in a lot coverage excess. 4) Extend roof tc cover entire front porch. This property has been the subject of variance applications in the past to allow the decks on the lake side as well as the two-stall attached garage at the east end. The most recent hardcover approval allowed 4,910 s.f in the 75-25Cr zone. Existing hardcov'er in 2003 is 5238 s.f, i.e. an excess of 328 M3-2MS J«M 11.200J Pi|t3 Hardship Slatcmrat Applicants have provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaatvsb In ewmsUerimg applicmthms for wknce. tke Hant^g Commbslom skaU eonilder the efftct of the propoied oorinc* mpom Oit htmlA, ood welforo of At commtmits, existing and omtlclpotedtrmffk eondltiont, iigkt ondtir, doHgtrof/ire, risk to Atpmbiksoft^, omdAe^tetom vmlmes of property A AesmrroundAg otto. Tke HommAg Commission Aott consider recommending opprovoi for vorAncesfrom the literal provisions of Ae lonAg Code A Astances where Aeir strict enforcement wonid const undue hardship because of circumstances unique A Ae Adiridual properly under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated Aat such actions will be A keepAg wlA Ae spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1 . **The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls.” The property as it exist s b being put to a reasonable use. 2. ”The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The plight of the larJossr.er m regard to the axerage setback encroachments b a result of the locations of adjoining homes, which applicant cannot control In regards to the lot coverage excesses and setback for garage, titese are a direct result of owner‘s desire for more home and space. 3. **The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The garage addition extending forward ofthe home may be semew hat out ofcharacter with the neughborhood: the deck and porch additions will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the propert}’ exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Economics have not been discussed by applicant as a factor 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy s.vstems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." Sot applicable. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permined under this Chapter for property ’ in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Sot applicable. MS-29SS 1J.2003 Pift4 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-familv dwelline as a tw>>fainily dwelling.** * Sot Applicable 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.** The conditions apply to all other lakeshore properties in the I acre cone. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land IS located.** The condaions apply to all other lakeshore lots in the LR-IB District. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.** 11 . “The granting of the proposed variance «ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfoit. morals, or tn any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” ntgramiy o/a lot cmvnge varlanci will be cooiroty to the uttem of the lot coverage 12. “The granUng of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicanu but IS necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty.** !^harJshiphaslxendemmitratedthatstvpomtlKeKetsh.,lotcoverogebyurueturet Isiucs for Consideration '' UUs'pJ^m'’"""''' ** P"" “ Pvnnits for 5c prior approval, it will have to be det^inrf whether ha^over associated with the proposed additional deck at the NW comer of the house can be mitigated by fiitlher removal of driveway or other pavement. n'!!X'?view ‘s’^M'bS^“‘‘' Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this apolication? Ill ninfdiaiiit m M3-2MS n«is Sfiiir RtcMMMkbtiM 1.Stiff lecomniends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the portion of existing 1* story dixk. 2. 3. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. Staff recommends that the applicants determine uhere hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578. Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover removals can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage arki setback variances for the attached garage, finding that neither is supported by hardship. Planning Commission could either send this forward to Council with conditions; or* table for applicant to revise plans (provide dear direction to applicant as to which projects arc feasible and which should not be pursued). wn-tm urnthim PiftS Staff Ri 2. 3. Staff recommends ififiioval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the poction of existing 1* story deck. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. Staff recommends that the applicants determine uhere hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578, Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover removals can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the attached garage, finding that neither is supported by hardship. Planning Commission could either send this forward to Council with conditions; or* table for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects are feasible and which should not be pursued). CITV OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Rene\^al Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatioo U Cfi Date Received" /o'! Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION, ., , Site Addrcss_5[3£!—(l/llAlAUrCf "IVifi I OrhYin Property Identification Number (P.I.D.),__ C7l/*7 .iV'aL J/i Attach legal description to application if not includeuoa requirS survey Acquired_____Jii Mg- f ^<^<1Dale Pro _________________ I (do) (Sxjiojf also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Present use of property \^/^idential tricl:____L _(month/year) Zoning District:e>other (specify). APPLICANT Name ffell Addres^2cEariKf ,lu4vCf^TV7t*t T City: Phone (home) Phone (work) 6lZ ZZg ^7'/ S' Zip: £7^316 y OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ fcra\ btftv. 4k dfiTj. Tw.-h ;J T -S L ^ - ' (attach Additional sheets if r.-tessar>) ] VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover _Lol Coverage — Rear v/^veraae Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY' CONDITIONS Zoning Code uit® £ 9. Q A} required SUBi%UTTALS <>'' ftT wpUnmop deadline H... I. ^rUrr I ^ . 5. 6. 8. Completed Application Fonn “0 P'« -"V fc™ mus. Go vt Center. 348-5910). _gpm Cgunty Department of Finance. A-603, calculations as *'^u^ed*'*"h additfonreproduction. Prov.de one (1) copy Sir." , are pSpSsed. ta^dSL?provIdeTnVouT*''^^^^ changes ir existing grade Sketches or plans of floor ITvaZ i^ 'T ‘ t reproduction. List of the legal names (include marital stamsWrifn™* 'T * "■>• property. This would include namefs) of amtLt^^.fs “ **'« As an addendum to this applicatrn iL/nL >t)u wish notified of this applicaUoIi.^ separate list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT'S Sir?\rA*rirn«applic ^ms signature Adnunistrator.agrees^to^IyaddaSf^*^],,'^^/'"^ " requested by the Zoning consultant expenses incutrqd in review of this .n r fee paymec:) and/or ntpplied is true and corrcct/to the ApplicanfsSig„.tuC^^5.,4l___ Date OWTVER S SIGsN'ATURi Owner’s Sigi^ re Applicant must hav Meeting. Plannin 7 yC—-------— Meeting. Plannin^^aBiimriss"^ Meettngs*^we° held on *'ih ’ Commission Appheanta must be present at all scheduled review ibmi Monday of each month. change prior to the meeting. ^ ^ ^ Building & Zoning Office of this O C).■n. » •*- '<■•1 - c"t ■ \ \ \ »5- ^/^ne \ (Tutf ) -v\0> .•• • • 71' k■k~r^. .:/:L ? 6 » V? " •w^ WILDHURST trail .lifiid. -----------------------------------------------------------Is / A'l WILD HURST TRAIL iw) UkNDWaVByOM.INC. iMM* • h«»#bv certify that Mil it • truf and corraei rtprcianttiion of t'luivcv of tua bowisjariai of itta ado»a dataiMd land and of iht loMiion of all buildingi •I any iharaon. and all •mWa oncrnadMnanti. if any. from or on said land! File No. f2/26C At tM'aavad fey ma tfiit,.2003 ASSfSfSSSi Book - Pa^ 4f^-29 Cr00ic JPPHPP»!P ILilJi The East 111. feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23. The above property is In the naae of Barbara Kosch as evidenced in Certificate of Title No. 688946. Subject to a perwanent easewent for street, utility and drainage purposes over and across the South 8.00 feet of the above described property. NOTE; ,Jhc above described easewent is not included in hardcover area coiiputat ions. • 233 Hrf!^ M7/ * /ASA waNPcofii caucHUTiOB wamn A. a.c. Lakvvhora SeCbMk Zoiw Lae Araa III Zona • eaiacing Nardeovar la Zaaa Ealteiiif Hanfeovar Pareaacafa (■/AJalOO rifial frapeaad Wardeeaar In Zaaa . 0 - 75* ^ -f o 7? - 250*^9 250 - SM*- - -«r -f- -af U - - - - - -%-- - -ar ■avWewvwr tWr«—cage (N/AlwlM AllOTMd ■ardcwvar till ll3f!!l jY -i.: }ij #2305 : l^JCC P^C NO. : 763 323 9936 rutf. as aaes ii:e7«i p6 <T'3 IWH* # (T>r>05 1 hrl[f f iij If t{ Id ii iuiil e$fi» %aom r«v»e*« 03 m GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 578 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22. SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE NO. 2030 WHEREAS, Richard LaVere (hereinafter *lhe applicant*) is the owner of the property located at 995 Wildhursi Trail wiifiin the City of Orono and legally described as follows; The east 111’ of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23 (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to peanit construction of a lakeside deck totaling approximately 523.6 s.f. of new structural hardcover where 4,991 s.f. or 36.1 % exists and wl’.erc 4,910 s.f. or 35.4% is proposed and where 25% is allowed; and an encroachment of the average lakesliorc setback of 6’ where no cncroaclur.cnl is allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, nNDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #2030. The property Is located in Uic LR-ID Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The property consists of 23,210 s.f. or .53 acres. The Orono Planning Commiv .viewed this .ipplication on June 19, 1995 and iccommcndcd approval of • /oposed variances based upon the following findings; A. In 1992. the City approved a hardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area at 5.082.58 s.f. or 36.7%. Minnesota: Page 1 of 5 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __MS7 S' 4. c. D. have been removed and hardcover Is cu^^cnily a™^ on the curvature of the shorctine and tlw location of mature trees «' '«pansion of a deck beyond proxies * P0“* "»''•sual impact on the adjacent The propose improvements will result in additional reductions in hardcover wiihin llie 75-250’ setback area. E. The lakeside deck would be consistent with adjacent lakeside decks on residences also designed with walkouts to lakcsliorc. F. 523.6 s.f. of new deck area shall be installed over 378 s.f. of natio .ind former paved walk area approved in 1992 The City Council finds that the conditions existing on Uiis property ate peculiar 10 It and do not apply generally to other property in litis zoning district; ilial graiiiiiitMhc vaiianccs wouid not adversely affect luffie eondilioiis. light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difnculty; isnccessao' topreserve a substantial piopcrty nght of the applicant: and would be in keeping with the spirit and ir'.tcnl of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Cit>-. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and iwommcndation.s of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, coniincnts welfare o?^ proposed variance on the health, safety and CO.NCLL'SIO.NS, ORDER AND CO.NDITIONS Based upon one or more of the aSxtve findings, the Orono City Council he.eby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Secuons 10.22. Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to permit the consmiciion of a lakeside deck of approximately 523.6 s.f.. subject to the following condWons: Page 2 of 5 ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. S 578 1. Hardcover is approved at 4,910 s.f. or 35.45c. Both existing improvenems to remain and proposed improvements are shown on Page 5 of this rcsoIu'Jon. Applicant shall maintain improvements as designated oa this plan. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are pennissivc 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 (July 10, 1996). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall autoihadcally tenninate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution aiul on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title cf the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th dav of July. 1995. Edward J. CalWi^, Jr., Nlayor L CITYoftMIOirO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 57 8 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. 1995 bv Edwan'i was acknowledged before me on this 10th day of Julv LINDA S.VEE N0UAYPUluC4M«S0n leMEm COUNTY yyCowwimcnbpi»^Jw.3t.»00 /. (/je. Notiry Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) LINDA S.VEE NOTJWrnjBUC-UNNCSOn MONtPW COUNTY MyComannicntigtfqj»iSt.;000 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) NOTARY PUBLIC )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ^ndforsaidcouil^l^rsoLllyT^^ ^TAR ■^,.UN0AS.VE£ wmSSSSSili!:^ \^yn^L/iU^ y 6/jtJ ITARYPUBUC Page 4 of 5 'v- ^ *1. \ . 22. JZ V f ^st \ J^i'T *.• »J ^•»#c yr-.M K H-e-ii^ O r \ 7v*o \Hj, I ^- ■"’ • / i* f- «/ ^ ft i .*( , r^., /f..>.-jV. t • |- ?.r':: WX-:...HW... J-.y,^.,:0 «» f<»r»f» -, 940- > I ^'•'' . J ■ ■ 'h^.--» . im<fn*{ II f.*^ /H4l1 \4* ...... l/\v. S<-/ ^<6 '7 h >»*' L< "•■ \ I / X ^ ' I \ . ■ I I <»-. ,.iu, ! • I J'. ' iirf'.. '-.iL '«■ .A I ---------------- r May 19,2003 City of Orono: In reference to the variance application made by Mr. & Mrs. Scott Nagel for the property located at 995 Wildhurst Trail pin number 071172321000003 we as their neighbors at 997 Wildhurst Trail have no objection to their application. This is no way will impact our property or line of sight. Charles E. Boehm . Boehm * 7 \ iij A<Uice«t Properly Owsers* Ackaowledfeinenl Form I (we) i hxxlh^ \^>BtLKn ef LVJcl Inti'S^~th [print name(s)] [print address] haw revised the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at UitUlUiKf tv» also referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare VProval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date 0(4^^ ll wf Jiu.A:^"fv3L.jg ArTftJCJU^ (print nain^)) [print address] have J^iewcd the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use .vf WiUhlAf^f Tr» also referred to as Land Use Application No. of the property located at I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propert> or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building d: Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date.#2 O. ^ iJO Date Ayyfcaliaa RcctivH: T-22-43 Pate AfpMrart aa Caai MeraJ a» Caaiptete; 7>22-«3 «M>ay Davtew rtrtod Cifira: 9>2t^ lUvtew Ptriai EiteadH aa t-2Vt3 to: 11.1943 T#; Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, Cit>* Administrator Fron: Date: Sabjcct: Mike Galfion. Planning Dircctor^wJ^^^-^ September 11,2003 ' #03-2929 JefTMartineau, 2565 North Shore Drive - CUP • Variance - Public Hearing Zoniag Dbtrkt: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2-acre min. Lot Area; Gross: 64,250 s.f. (1.47 acres) Wetland: 33.OOOs.fi Net Dry Buildable: 31,250 s.f i Application Summary: Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory structure, to allow installation of a half bath (toilet, sink and shower) in a proposed detached garage w ith upper level exercise and sitting room. The proposed plans include a kitchenette with range, sink and refrigerator, and could easily function as a small guest house as designed. How ever, the property does not contain adequate acreage for a guest house CUP (would need 4 acres in this 2-acre zone). The proposed structure and its associated driveway are all within the 75-250’ zone. This building will replace a smaller existing storage building located northeast of the house. Si^ificani portions of the existing residence arc w ithin the 0-75’ zone. The new accessory building and driveway would increase hardcover beyond the hardcover allotment for the proper^ absent any removals. Applicant has submitted a hardcover removal plan that would result in the overall hardcover limit on the property being met, so that no hardcover variance is required. The structure will meet all pertinent setbacks. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure, subject to the code restrictions on use of that structure: - cannot be used for a home occupation unless allowed by home occupation ordinances . cannot be used as a dwelling unit unless Guest house CUP is obtained • carmot be rented, leased, or otherw ise provided for use as dwelling. Staff recommends that concurrent removals of excess hardcover be required as proposed, to result in a final hardcover not exceeding the site’s hardcover allotment of 7530 s.f for the area betw een 0-250’. Note that the unused hardcover allow ance in the 250-500’ zone cannot be transferred to zones closer to the lake. Lbt of Exhibits A. Application B - Existing & Proposed Survey'Siie Plan C. Proposed Plans & Elevations D - Submitted Hardcover Calculations E - Property 0^^ncrs List F - Plat map G • Photos H - Code Sections 10.20 Subd. 3G and 3Q ScplM*cr II. 2M3 Patti Ptrtiicat Code Scctioos 1.u'i"- ^ I®.-’’ S“>x^ HBdeovo; M proposed is ’.60S s.for 21.6% (same as existing). ?75'’Sf2nel “T “T*" >llo»o«e of 7.530 s.f. (25% '■ ^ ISaSg SIS.'SSJS'Sf-"""'’"' Plomblng In Accc«sor>' Stincturc CUP ^ »•'■• sarage wio, adjacent shop area, and a ^ ITage. or 4 ”1*^“ “^ioVdl^c^ Applicant has indicated he is tsilling to remove elements of the kitchenette nccessar>- to disquaiift- h'. M s^ch fi '0 the Planning Commission.^e requirement .pproWngthepCmL^Tn Ac^eTo'"^^^^^^ The criteria or conditions for a CUP for «:cessory simcture plumbing include: 3. 4. 5. The properly muit be 2.0 acres in area or larger. The accessor>' building must be conforming in location, si^e and height. »f* '»'«■- •" t«'o of ute property a. the tieceswiy building tvill rot be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by Cit>- or if allowed by City code. it3-292f Stpiwbrr 11,2003 rafcJ b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest bouse CU? is obtained. c. the accessorybuilding will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Conditions 4 and 5 are met. Condition 3 is not met. Planning Commission should review Conditions 1 and 2 with the applicant to determine whether they are met. It should be noted that the Council has granted a number of Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUPs for properties less than 2 acres in recent years, and as recently as last week. Hardcover Hardcover Increases . Portions of the existing house and sidew alks. the deck, and most of the retaining walls are within the 0-75* zone. The hardcover allotment for the property is 25*i of the 250* zone or 7,530 s.f. Total existing hardcover is 7,339 s.f., and proposed is exactly 7,530 s.f. Therefore, although hardcover exists in the 0-75' zone. Staff would conclude that no hardcover variance is required for this project. LOT analysis W ORKSHEET Lot Ar^|/\V|dlh- LR-IA Lot Area l.oi Width Required 87,120 s.f (2.0 acre)200* Acmal 64.250 s.f (1.47 acres) Gross 31.250 s.f (0.72 acres) Dry I57*-163* Setbacks fFronosed Structure): LR-IA Required Existing Storage Building Proposed Building Front (Lakeshorc)75*130*119* Rear (Street)30*227*227* Left (W) Side 10*130*125* Right (E) Side 15*19*15' Average Lakeshore (No Encroachmem)(No Encroachment)(No Encroachment) Structure to Structure 10'35*2Qt Stfwwbtf Il,m3 Stractargl Ciwerufei Total U4 Atm Total Slrvctural Coverage 64J50s.f. (I.47ac.)Alloued: 9,638 sf. (15.0%) Existing; 2.856 s.f. (4 4 •;) Proposed: 3.434 s.f (5.3 %) Hardcover Zooe Total Area io Zoae Allowed Hardcover Exhting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'12.070 s.f '3.5o o2.608 s.f (21.6%) 2.608 s f (21.6%) 75-250'30,120 s.f 7.530 s.f (25 %) 4.731 s.f (15.7%) 4.922 s.f (16.3%) Total 0-250'7,530 s.f.*'.339 s.f 7330 s.f. 250-500'22,060 s.f 6.618 s.f (30 %) 550 s.f (2.5 %) 550 s.f (2.5%) Issgcs for CogsMcrilioa 1. 2. 3. Whu tixluns should be eliminaied,prohibited lo ensure this accessory buildinit uith plunibing docs nol become a guesthouse or duelling unit? Range? Sink? Refrigerator'* All thri V ^ ® Does the fact that the lot is less than 2 acres in area have an> bearing on uhether the CUP for accessory structure plumbing should be granted? In addition lo the sland^ conditions noted abote and the prohibition on ceitatn fixtures, ate th«e any other conditions that should be added or addressed based on the i->nn..n use of this structure? Does Pl^ng Commission have any questions about the hardcover situation on this property? Docs Pianning Commission hav e any additional concerns about this proposal? MMflf I1.2M3 Staff Km If the Planning Conunission finds that the criteria for approval of the Plumbing in Accessory Stiucture CUP are substantially met, foes a recommendaUon for approval would be appropriate sifoject to the following conditions; 1 . The property owner must agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dw elling under any circumstances. d. the accessory building shall not be fitted with the following fixtures: (kitchen sink) (range) (refrigerator); and installation of such fixtures in the future shall be considered a violation of this covenant which the city may enforce. 2. Applicant shall remove the excess driveway hardcover prior to the footing inspection for the proposed accessory building. AppOcalloo # DateRccetvcd -7-xiT-03 Amoiiat Paid -1 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2~KC^ ^sAt>/ic Type of Application to be Filed _CLtfi:ysiiTT; iType of Application to be Filed _ CLgVNrNTT;Bv^t.\ i ^ ---------- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ~ // 7 ^ ^ APPLICANT Name -JCT^ m r\ 9 Address City O^^TiER (if different than applicant) Name_______^sv>wJ_ Phone (home)^S'^ . Phone (work)q^ t L kO^'Us'LL lA^/isp Zip I Address Phone (homeX Phone (workX Date Property Acquired_______________ I (do) (do net) also ow-n the adjacent parcels of land. --------------- FEES - ^NDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ----S 75.00 For each variance request tvith CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ____ S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5250.00 Guest House-'Guest Apartments _____S250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____S325.00 Commercial/Induslrial Use _____S230.00 Land Alteration ------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filUng - 501 cu. yd. or more ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule '^esnore -------- 5150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Cuiicr*. Application Fee ___(month/year) .^±0 3 00 • ^ OTHER APPLICATIO.NS 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) , 5300.00 Vacation ' , 5250.00 Easement Vacation 5100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision 5350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5100.00 Appeals Other > see Fee Schedule o-Jo a ' 2 »0M> 9 1 ^ * LEFTjELrvTVTSr I? 4mmmm smmm ft FIRST FLOOR PI AM n Uttftli HARDCOVEK Cjd.CLLA 1 lU.N WUKKillttl setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) T5-:50’ 2iO-5(M)» EXISTING HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House X m B. Carafe ■ C. Drivewiy D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck i/n/03 500-1000* r////«7 « 4:. A'. ^uleiuaMN£_ BrlMajih. _ OrFebrfc AS—LJP. J72S S.F. S F. • .SF. , S.F. S F. S.F. SF. . S F. SF £>£Cti^ SF /•Z G. Other ____S.F ____S.F ____S F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- ^ B /Z07C X ICO - ftoyc/ PROPOSED HARDCnVCT IN ZONE A. House B. (jarage C. Drivewi./ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Occk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric Unfin Wi4- SF. S F. ?• G. Other S F. SF. SF. S.F. I S.F. S.F. .SF. S.F. SF S F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ + 8 a :C3 - S.F. S F. % HARDCOVER CALCLLA^U.N vvtiKKNM*.ki StTBACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-73* (^»25oj) 250-500* 500-1000’ EXISTINO HARDCOXTR IN ZONE A. Hou»e _____________ t _____________ - Uniia B. Cvage C. ’ Dnveway D. Sidewalk /A-3 X/44W4CC J^A0A/4y~c7^lT7r E. Patio/Oeek F. WHatlain ____________ BrPIaaric __________ormnt 0. Oiktr / 4-'' 2 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^7?/ - 3 Sa/2o \ ICO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. H:uM ____________ \ L(»ta B. Cmfe C 6^^ ' "T 2€C €XfJtyA/C sf%ujOnveway tinrrttuc ^dtytu^*Y D. Sldrjvalk E. Paiio/Oeck 7 Landscape t'Adcrtaia 3y Plastic Or Fabric O. Other a X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE *nt TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B ___________ a lOO S F S F S F S F Z30 •^73/ S78 / 38 Q - JZg .7 9o.fZo S F . S F S F .S F SF S F S F S F S3 Jo/ 20 /S. 7/ S F. S F r. S F. S.F. S F. SF .SF. S.F. 'S F. S F ,S F. S F. S.F. S F. 1f?2Z SF. S F. % t/m/c3 T. HARDCOVEK CALLLLAllU.N vvuKM SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-T5’ 75-2£0* KMii ^ i EXISTING HARDCOXTR IN ?ONT A. Houm .. LtRftfl w/vV#/ JOO-IOOO- WliA B. Gar^t * C. Oriv-cway 0. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. landicapc Uodcrlain By PiMtic Or Fabric O. Other S.F SF. S F. SF. SF. ISF. S.F. . SF S F 'S.F. S.F fP SF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE A- ^ B X ICO S.F. A _______SF. B a PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 20KT. A. Hetua _____________ X Uft|ta wiea B. danft C. Driveway Dj Sidewalk E. Patio/Oeck F. Landscape Uaderiaia By PlaiiJe Or Fabric 0. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. < S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ ♦ B _X 100 - S.F. • A S.F. B % RUNIMaT^iV. 31 0911723140007 •tor AOOfl 1130 OLOCKVSTAL BAY RDS 3WNERNAME THOMASGAPNVLUSDCOLWELL fAXEAVER THOMAS G A PHYLLIS O COLWELL 4AME/ADOR OO COLWELL INDUSTRIES INC I23 3ROSTN MPLSMN S540I 31 0911723410004 *ROOADOR 2MS NORTH SIK3RE OR 3WNERNAME 3 LMART1NEAY A M LOTTINGER taxpayer IEFFREY L MARTINEAU 4AME/ADOR MELISSA LOTTINGER 2S«S NORTH SHORE OR WAYZATAMN 9S39I 31 0911723420001 •ROf ADDR 2623 NORTH SHORE DR 3WNERNAME ANGELA E WOOOHOUSE FAXPAYER ANGELA E WOOOHOUSE 4AME/AOOR 7623 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 35391 IfENNriMN COUNTS’ PROI'Lk . .EOKMA1ION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LlifT PAGE I 31 0911723410003 PROP AOOR 2543 NORTH SHORE DR OWN!R NAME CAROL O CAI LAllAN TAXPAYER CAROL GCAU^HAN NAML/ADDR BOX 72 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 0911723420002 PROP ADDR 2603 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME ID JEROME* S K IFROME TAXPAYER JOHN D A SANDRA K JEROME NAMFMDOR JM3 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0911723410002 PROP ADDR 2313 NORTH SHORE DR OWNER NAME MARY DALE JESTER IRUSIt E TAXPAYER MARY DALE JESTER namf /addr 2313 north shore dr WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0911723410009 PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UN ASS ION ED OWNER NAME CHARLES A BIRGITTA SOIOEN TAXPAYER CHARLES A BIRGITTA SCHOEN NAME/ADOR 2430 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATAMN 53391 31 0911723440001 PROP ADDR 2463 NORTH SHORE OR OWNER NAME SBABJ LINDAHL JR TAXPAYER BURTON JOHN LINDAHL JR NAME/AODR P 0110X26 CRVSTAI BAYMN 55323 I CERTIFY TIUTTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENTItOTHE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF w ^ w- er DATE A /■ t mrummmmri V. *C fs V : .55^5 pli * .•«>• . •• •^i.'c i3teK> 1 W ‘\'. f Jt b-., ■ -/»'»• _ . «»• w » •>'{«*■ •'•; ,«• . •■ 1 ^• •#■•.. • , V ' •■ ■<: •' • ^r, **• ^ . •• *!i-> 7^7-V ■/’ / To: Building & Zoning Sufl* «« FroB: Mike GafEron Date: July 21.2003 Sobjcct: Refresher Course on Guest Apartments, Guest Houses, and Plumbing in Accessory Buildings Guest Apartments are attached to the principal residence strucrwc, standards are established in 10.20, Subd 3(GK2). 10.20, Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any -R-IA" Che Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use pennit; G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 2) Non-renul Guest Apartmenu. An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic emplo>ees or nen-paving guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment front within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sew age treatment, entiyw ay and interior access method Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Saurcc: Ordiaaacc 29.2od Scries Adopted: 2-23-17 2. Guttl Hguaca arc free-standing accessory structures, and standards arr established in 10.20. Subd.3(GXl): 10.20, Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA" Ore Family Residential Distnet, no structure or land shall be used for the follow ing uses except by conditional use permit: G. Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. 1) Guest Houses. A separate dw elling corjoucted on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, includingtheirdomesticempteyTcsortheirnon-payinrgucsu. All regular lot requiremenu shall be met by the guest house.* Source: Ordiaaacc 29,2a4 Serin Adopted: 2-23-17 •Ed Note; **AI1 regular lot requirements** means that: 1. I^ropeny must have double the dry buildable acreage required for a principle structure; and 2. Guest bouse must be located so that it could be subdivided off from main house and both main house and guest house would have conforming setbacks from lot lines, etc. Aficawnr BwiMing w^h Plumbing are those accessory structures which arc neither intended nor used for ovenught occupancy. Overnight use would presumably make them dwelling units, which triggers the Guest House status and need for a CUP. Accessory Buildings with Plumbing are divided into two categories: a) Those that do not contain any of these fixtures: bathnib. toilet, or shower. These are subject to an administrative permit and covgnant filing- and b) Those that dfi contain one or more of any of these futures: bathtub, a toilet, or a shower (or a combination of these fixtures). These require a Plumbing in Building n TP Accessory Buildings with Plumbing are governed by Secdon 10.03, Subd. 9(E): 10.03, Subd. 9. Accessory Buildings. F. Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and w astewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the Citv to limit residenrial development density to the allow ed densities within the respective zonmgdistricts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does nai include a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fi.\tures, and subject to the property owner executing a covenant providing that; 1. a.Accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved byCityorifallowed byCity code. Accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest bouse CUP is obtained. Acc^ry building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dw elling under any circumstances. Instailation of any combination of fixuires requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toileU shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height, which meets one of the following criteria: The accessory building has been approved for a *Guest House' conditional use permit; or The accessory building has been approved for a Tlumbing in Accessory Building* conditional use permit. Soarct: Ordiaaocc No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12.9S Accessory Buildings with Plumbing that includes a tcilet, tub. or shower or a combination of these fixtures, but not intended to be used as a Guest House, are governed by the “Plumbing In Accessory Building'* CUP standards of Section 10.03, Subd. 3(Q): m 10.20. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "R-IA'* One Family Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Q. Plumbing in Accessory B..ilding. The provision of a toilet, bathtub or shower in an acce^ry buitdin r. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of mumcipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the follow ing criteria arc met: 1.The Council fir.ds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. The Council fir.ds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. 4. The property is 2 0 acres in area or larger. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 1....... yik■MBi f1 Thepropenyowneragrees to the filingofa covenant in the Ullc of the property providing that: t. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code. b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. the accessory ’ building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. SMree: OriiaaMe Na. 179. lad Series Adsplidt riLE* 03-2«3« S^pItn'Mr 10 2003 Pag# 1 Of 5 Oalt Application Rcc*Kcd: Ot-06-03 Date Applicsiion Considered as Complete: 0S-2S-d3 (O'Day llevle« Period Eipires: 10-2043 From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Foth. City Planner September 9.2003 Subject: 03-2938. Kent & Sandra Larson. 540 Orono Orchard Road - Variance • public hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acres Lot Area: 0.584 acre (25.432 s f.) Appticarton Summary: Applicants request side yard and street setback sariarKres in order to construct a 10* .x 28* addition to the north side of the existing home. The proposed addition vsould not encroach further into the street setback than that of the existing home, howeser would make a conforminc side yard setback non-conforming._______________ Stqff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the street setback v ariance 2. Denial of the side sard setback \ ariance. Hardship. Stafffinds that a hariishtp exists to allow the decreased setback to the rear yard due to platted right of way which splits the property in half however staff does not find a hardship to support the side \ ard encroachment thus making a currently conforming setback non-conforming ____________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections 10.28.5(D) Yard Requirement: Minimum of 30* side yard setback and minimum of 50* rear yard street setback is required Lbt ofExhibiu A. Application B. Hardship Statement &. Photos fro.m the applicants C. Existing & Proposed Surv ey'Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Property Owners List F. Plat Map Background The property is split down the middle by a public alley right of w ay which results in the necessity for a rear yard setback in the center of the property. A fence exists on the alley right-of-w ay ^proximately 20* nonh of the property line between 540 and 550 (property FILE* 03-2938 Stptambtr 10. 2003 Pag«2gfS to the south). The alley has historically served only the 540 and 500 Orono Orchard Road properties; however a recent home addition and garage reorientation at the 500 address has changed the use of the alley. In summary the alley now serves 540 Orono Orchard Road exclusively. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lai AreaAVidth: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. ( 2 acre)200’ Actual 25,432 s.f. (0.584 acre)100’ Setbacks: RR-IB Required Existiag % Proposed Front 50’76.5’76.5’No Change Rear (Alley)50’16.5’16 5’ No Change North Side 30’31.4’21.5’ South Side 30’30.3’30.3’ No Change Slnictural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 25432 s.f ( 0.584 acre)Allowed: 3814.8 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2176.3 s.f (8.5%) Side Yard Setback Variaace The applicants are requesting a variance to encroach 8.5* into the side >-ard setback, resulting in a 21.5’ setback where a 30'setback is normally required. The existing home currently meets the side yard setback requirement. Rear Yard Setback Variance The existing home currently encroaches 33.5’ into the rear yard setback resulting in a 16.5* setback where 50’ is required. Hardship Statcmcal 1 ■II iniii mci C3-393a S«Otffnt«r 10 2003 P«0«3cfS Applicant has prov ided a hardship statement in Exhibit D, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship An >i1v si% . lor vtinct, Ike CammhtkM tktH tt.tiiider the effect of the * heaM, uifety tmi we^are oftke eommmmitf, existing end emtlcipeted jir. demger of fire, risk to the ptibiic tefety. and the effect on vtnn of . tree. The Planning Cammistlon tholl consider recommending approval for variances from ilu- n.’.r.: provisions of the Zoning Code in Inuances where their strict enforcement would cause ur.Jue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions witt be in keying with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code._________________ in considering applicun proposed variance upo tr^fk conditions, ligi peitperty in the surrot. Staff finds that a hardship exists to allow an encroachment into the rear >ard setback due to the location of the existing residence and the alley which splits the property in 2 parts thus making the current rear yard setback for the home non-conforming I lowcvcr. staff docs not find that any hardship exists to allow lV.* 9.5* encroachment into the side yard setback. The house is curTcnily at 31 .4 ’ mcctinc the 30 ’ setback. The proposed addition would encroach 10 ’ into the cunemly ccnformir.o side yard setback. There is ample area on the west side of the home to add 282 s f of aiditional living space ' Staff would make the following recommendaticni in regards to the cnieria for "undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put :o a rea.sonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not me: 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." In the opinion of stuff this criterion ts met. 3. "‘The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The neighhorhooii consists of lots hacre or U'ss y et is located in a 2-acre district In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 4. "Economic considerations alone shall no: constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists uitier the terms of the Zoning Chapter." iVtf/ applicable. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variar.ces shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." Aot applicable. 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a FllEa03-»3a Stfrft 10 2003 Pagt4ofS variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone uhere the affected person's land is located." Sot applicable 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Sot applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Although it only serves one property the alley right of um- runs the length of the block Many of the neighboring properties ha\e similar issues regarding the rear yard setback to the alley However, the unused alley in this instance is primarily viewed as a driveway for the property and is unrealistic to apply a rear yard setback to a driveway in the opinion of staff this criterion is met 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in VNhich said land is located." Although it only series one property the alley right of »un runs the length of the' block Many of the neighboring properties have similar issues regarding the rear yard setback to the alley However, the unused alley in this instance is primarilv viewed as a driveway for the property and is unrealistic to apply a rear y ard setback to a driveway In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." in the opinion of staff this criterion is met 11. "The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any w^iy impair health, safety, comfon, morals, or in any other respect be contrarv to the intent of the Zoning Code." /n the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. "The granting of such variance will n.t merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to allcv iaie demonstrable hardship or difTiculty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met Issues for Consideration 1. Does the nature of the alley's use primarily as a driveway serv ing only the applicants' residence support granting of a variance from the requirement of meeting a rear yard setback? 2. Docs the Planning Commission find that a hardship exists to justify making a currently conforming side setback non-conforming? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation FILES 03-29M S«9Mmb*r 10. 2003 P»9*SofS PUnoing Staff recommends the follovk-ing: 1. Approval of the rear yard setback variance. 2. De^ of the side yard setback variance. exhibit A Application # cm' OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($30.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI30.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S230.00 After-the-Faci Fees (Double application fee) Date Received S'- --O Amount Paldi l^”^00, Oo aV PROPERTY lNFOR.\UTION Site Address Sho Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_0*1- %%t - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Property Acquired \i%» ‘V\ > ___________________ I (do) (So nojj lalso ouo the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property. yL residential other (specify) Zoning District: R g . I A__________________ _(month/year) APPLICANT Name Address:^ P.ea.^gtx SKu Phone (homeT\«s»a.-v<->*; Phone (work) City: Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _________ Address:City. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRimON OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: CXkV Estimated Construction Cost S_ \&yt (attach additiona ^ects if^^^’Vy A. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front jLSide K Rear __ Average Lakesbore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: or; tv>w . v _______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #20 Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowled(croeBt Form [pnnl name(s)J [print address] have reviewed U» pUnt f« die piopo^ improvement or proposed use cf the propeity located at Vtaia ftr^tt^a .^so refefred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (vs) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Ae City Council that I Co*2^rwro°^“" iniprovement plans and that the proposed enghbof. project or use Property Owner Date ' * •• Property Owner Date I (we) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use ofiie propeity located at ■ ---------- referred to as Land Use Application No.___ or use Property Owner ?-</-2aQS Dale Property Owner Date AooUcl«r“ol^JI!!i-!l'*®'™^“ *“ ** *" *' of this land Use m" e «lSulln^T,ir O'"" « >0 prior\ uitrtulik iT^) EXHIBITS SANDRAS. LARSON 540 OR(»40 ORCHARD ROAD The existing house was constnicted prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. We are proposing to enclose the existing wxlk way/ front entry with a 10 b> 28.20 addition. There is no other reasonable way to add this front entry without encroaching on the current street and side yard set back regulations. The entire house is located within the SO ft setback regulation from the alley. With the 282 s.f. addition the entire house is still well below any structural coverage requirements for the entire property. Total lot area 25.668 s.f.~ Current structural coverage 1,895.5 s.f. (73S>—Proposed structural coverage 2177Js.f(8.5%) EXHIBITB SANDRA AND KENT LARSON 540 ORONO ORCHARD RD. APPLICATION « 03-2930 HARDSHIP STATEMENT The purpose of the proposed enclosure is to add both laundry room and bath to the first floor. This would ease several physical concerns of stair climbingCsignificaot medical data if necessary) In evaluating the easement restrictions ue discussed several altemaUves to adding an addition to the West side of the house with two architectural firms. All involved found the following issues of great concern. I. Loss of two and possibly three sixty to eight> year old pine trees that are critical to both the property and Orono Exhibit 1 2. Due to the screen porch a west side addition \^ould give us 60 sq.ft. Less space-a critical loss. Exhibit 2. 3.Enlry path to a front door on West side would be 80ft compared to 1 5ft (directly across from garage)with North enclosure. Upkeep and snow removal is a major issue. 4.Total costs are considerably greater due to: porch removal and then add back plus tree removal. All access to house is from the driveway on the east side Exhibit 3. The proposed enclosure to our current front door on the North side removes no trees and merely extends the roof line 10 ft over an existing walkway. Exhibit 4. We purchased the house seven years ago and as your records and photos indica te we have made significant improvements to this cottage, E.xhibit 5. This is our home and we are not in the business of “ fwing up and selling ” old houses. We feel that with the proposed enclosure we can live out our lives here and Orono will not have another tear down but a restored cottage that great charm and value to the community. ^&A ‘„ lj^V<Sk'.V< '^jiV n ;V:\ N. '^;?-r* XiKVA'i \ "i. - •w *' i -w Kximjrrn ’feiCvs.*v* \ 3> MmrW<^ rx'- \- .-t - ^ v=.i^V.V'.T V^ V.'... \% 'V v' i'29-3S ,Wk* GO H O riS ii? • \ \ ► i) i Jii !•:• r : I • I to A — —1- l^"rjgt== E: ^ — lx li ^rr 1 M 0 r.trm UM '''’K.. - .4 ■ ■HID ; ^ t j* s* • • •/ V' I mrnm X)eom -a Q ■ O LL 4, ir ri.KVi J (SHP 1 1 ) 3i ’§ I I s Is c< Vi t1 in U>u> t» -’T inrr ___i Ul RUNlMli 7/>l/M»i lil.NNtU'IN a>UNT>’ PKOl'i.K IY INIOKMAIIUN SYSTLM PMOITRTYO\VNIKSI.IST rAcir. .w U7ii7;ni(juu5 rKIIPADDN 540 OKONUOIU'IIAKDKDS OWNUNAMli SANIMASLAKSON 1AXPAYER SANDRAS LARSON NAME/AOOR PODOXS4I WAYMTAMN 55J9I i;il7.Mj|iiii(tr. rHOI'AIHHt 5VJ UKONIMmUIAKliKDS UWNLKNAMC PAULLI lUriCKAKUSIUUKMANS TAXPAYIM fAUU-m: nCKARO STUUMMANS NAME/AOOR S50 ORONO ORniAHD RD S WAY2ATAMN 55591 3ll II/II77IIIUIIII7 I’HUrAllliK 5K ADimi S.liNAVSK.NI II OWNER NAME ROGER JIIAWKINSON fAXPAYEK KO< .EK J IIAWtUNSON NAM lyAOIIR 570 ORONO ORCI lARO RO WAYM1AMN 55)91 5t Uin/illOUM PROrAODR )R ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME ROGER J IIAWKJNSON TAXPAYER ROGER J lUWKJNSON NAME/AOOR S70 ORONO ORCHARD RO WAY/AIAMN 555'H )« 021172)510011 PROP AUOR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNERNAME ROaERillAWKINSON TAXPAYER ROGER J HAWKWSON NAMr/ADDR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RDS WAY/AIAMN SM'll )■ 021172)510014 PROPAriDR 521 HANLON AVE OWNERNAME CPCURLERAOGUREER TAXPAYER a lAREES P GURLER NAMIMIIIIK 52IHANIONAVE WAY/AIAMN ■■GO G. I )R 021172)5111022 PROPAOOR 340 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTJAFFRAYRVMIAEFRAY TAXPAYER RTRVHMIIRAY NAMI/AIN1R 540 ItARRI:T I AVE WAY/^TAMN 55)91 )R U2II72))I(M2) PROP ADDR 540 UARRETT AVE OWNERNAME R T JArrRAY A VII JAFPRAY lAXPAYIR H I A VIIJAIIKAY KAMI /AIRm 540IIAKRI. 11 AVE WAV/AIAMN 55)91 51 U2ll72))ii)04b PROP ADDR 540 UARRETT AVE OWNER NAME R T JAEER.tY A V II lAFTRAY lAXPAVIK M I A VIIJAIIKAY NAMI.AIIItK 54U IIAKKI n AVI WAY/AIAMN 55)91 CO CO M 02II72))IOO«9 PROPAOOR 500 ORONOOROIAROROS OWNERNAME S S A J E WEJISTER TAXPAYi R STEVI Ji S A R) UJLN Wl lESTF.R NAME/AINW 500 ORONO ORCHARD HO S WAY/ATAMN 55)91 U 0211725)10031 PROPAIIUR 500 HANEONAVE OWNERNAME PAAMMUINNEH TAXPAYER PAIR. A A Ml.< JAN M III NNEH NAME/AIRIR 500 HANI ON AVI: WAV/AIAMN 55)91 M 021172)520001 rROPAIXTR ORONO ORCI lARDROS OWNERNAME EDWARDIIHAMM TRUSTEE lAXPAYl H IIIWAKD H HAMM NAMt/ADDR 40H M PI ILK ST «4)4 SII'AIU.MN 55IU2 U1 t a I CtKTinr THAT Tin- HACnJ RliPREStiNTtO ARI: AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TIES DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE IChWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMITEl, TOTHE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE i\/ me uui ^ EXHIBIT F MfMIH'pUt .4»SS Hennepin County 'axpayer Services Department m I__3 , LOT 15. BLOCK 12 I MINNETONKA BLUFFS setn DICKENi n :• *.x a ”i4 a' 1 a V Id.a,) a '« (6) !Ul * a. |a'' 19 01)^ 0 .^(8)a! ' i S^ fo a la u 1 o:j 1 ft : (9)a f3 inr 73 ^1! nr 73 a 0 e (17) * S '9(20) 'a •.H9)08) *&Jy5W*5Wr IS 8 fi” - .1 PJMTCf 09) Parcel Information Tcml ID 0211723310005 but# Number 540 Sfrt#t Nam# ORONO ORCHARD RD^ Tliif^nora MgeTy fvoordMmap. H npnspnu a comfiOation of MomMon and0il§»omOt/. Count/, and Staf road authorttios and othor tourct. M3-I«40 S«pttab«r IS. 2MU raft I ar* Date Applkatioa Received; t-l9-OJ Date Applkation CoavMcred as Coapletc: S-I94IJ 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 10-19-03 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Ntoorsc, City Administrator From: Janice Waataja. C iiy Planner Date: September 11.2003 Sobjccl: 03-2940. Scot & Lissa Harvey. 1199 Elmwood Avenue - Hardcover Variance - Public Hearing ZoBiaf Dutriel: LR - IB. One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: 0.387 acres (16.877 s.t.) LotWidlli: 100.5 feet Application Summary: .Applicant requests the following variances to reconstruct a deck on the lakeside of the home: 1. Hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone to allow d-Sb*;® hardcover when 0® b is normally allowed and 4.56®/o cunently e.xists. 2. Hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone to allow 38.6®# hardcover when 25®/b is normally allowed and 38.2% currently exists. 3. Lake setback variance to allow the south west comer of the deck to encroach 3* into the 75’ setback Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone to allow 15 square feet of the deck to encroach into the 0-75’ zone. 2. Approval of the hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone allowing 38.6*!# hardcover when 38.2^0 currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. This includes approval to allow the deck to increase in size in the north west comer bv 33 square feet which consists of enclosing the comer where the stairway currentlv exists and moving the stairwny to the front. 3. Denial of the lake setback variance to allow the south west comer of the deck to continue to encro‘'ch 3’ into the 75’ setback. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.22. Subdivision I: Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. Section 10.22, Subdivi Jon 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L): Hardcover Limitations. Li LblorEshibits A - Application B - Adjacent Property Owners ’ Acknowledgement Form C - Hardship Statement D - Existing & Pruposed Survey E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Aerial Photograph G - Removal Plan H-> Photographs 1 - Property Owners List J-PlatMap s«pitiRb«r i*.:aai Pagt:«r« Backfrmwd applicants have submitted plans to reconstruct a deck that is currently roned However, the configuration of the proposed deck is slighUy different than the deck tha: ^ for the deck extends towards the lake off the end '“J' problems when exitir.f the house onto the deck. T^fore. the applicants are proposing to construct decking in this comer to HU m where the stairs currently exist so there is more space on the deck when exiung the home. Further, the staircase would have to be relocated at the from of the deck facing south so as not to encroach into the 75* setback. This results in a 33 square foot increase in hardcover in the 75-250* zone LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAYidlli; LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 16.877 s.f. (0.387 acres)100.5’ LR-IB Required Exbliag Proposed Front 35’n/a n'a Rear/Street 30’40 ’40 ’ Leftside 10’26 ’26 ’ Right Side 10’13’13’- mynm Stptraibir I5.2NJ Lakeshore 75’72’(deck) 81’ ^ouse) 72’(deck) 81'(house) Average Lakeshore a'a - only one adjacent house to north, ROW to south n'a n'a - deck will not obstruct neighbor to north views StnKivnil Covcnicc: Total Lot Area Total Stmclnral Coverage 16,877 s.f. (0.387 acres)Allowed: 2.532 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2.398.5s.f (14%) Hardcover CalcutotioBs; Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75 7,500 s.f 0s.f (0%) 342 s.f* (4.56%) 342 s.f (4.56%) 75-250 9.300 s.f 2.325 s.f (25%) 3.557.6 s.f* (38.2%) 3.590.6 s.f (38.6*/o) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variances (0-75* zone A 75-250* zone) The applicani's property is currently over on hardcover in both the 0-75’ zone and the 75- 250’ zone at 4.56% and 38.2% respectively. *rhe applicants are requesting to replace an e.xisting deck and make slight alterations which increase it’s square footage by 33 square feet Also, the current deck and the proposed deck include 15 square feet in the 0-75’ zone (south west comer of deck). Lake Setback Variance The applicants arc pro|»sing the keep the 15 square feet of deck thui encroaches in the 0- 75’ zone. This results in a lake setback variance because the deck is setback 72’ from the lake when 75’ is required. Hardship Stalemcnl Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analvsis jfc vmvii# vm lit cMttUertiti appttcmtiomsfar nmrianct, ike Ptaiutiiig Commis$km sAatf consider the effect efthe proposed variance upon the heottk, safety and welfare of the comnmni^, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Conning Coinmistlon shall consider recommending approval for varinneesfrom the Utera! provisions efthe Zoning Code In Instances where their strict ei^farcement would cause undue hardship because ofdnumstances unigue to the IndMduat property under consideration, andshaU recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actlautwlllbeln keepint with the spirit and Intent of dte Orono Zoning Code. r IS. MU p«ft4«r« Staff finds that there is not unique hardship which -Aodd allow the applicants to increase ite deck’s size by 33 square feet, includirg the 5’ encroachment into the lake setback. However, staff feels there is an opportunity to elirinate the portion of the deck that is within the 0-75’zone. Typically, deck replacement are allowed when non-conformiUes exist however they are only alloxxed n be replacei in Lhe exact same manner as the rocicd deck. Because the proposed deck is sligh’Jy large: tha.-; the current deck staff has reviewed the proposal in a different manner than 2 repiacement. In this case, staff sees m opportunity for the existing non-conformhg south wer. comer of the deck in the 0-75’ zone to be eliminated. The 1 5 square feet of deck cou:d be attributed to the 33 square feet Ite ^li^ts have proposed thus only increa5:ng Lhe decks o%erall size by 1 7 square feet Although, hardcover amounts in the 75-250’ zone would remain at 38.6^0. hardcover in the 0-75* zone would be decreased u* 4.36* 0. St^9ho does not find a unique hardship to allow ±c y encroachment into the lake Mtback to remain when a deck will be built larger ian its current state. Staff feels that if Uus portion is removed, and the square foctage be znrihuied to the applicant ’s proposed d«k exi^ion (33 sq. ft.), an additional 1 7 squar; fee: of deck is a suitable trade in eliminating an existing non-confennity. Si^ would moke the following recomme.-.dations :.t regards to the criteria for “undue hardship pertinent to this application: I. -The property in question cannot be put to 2 reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* The applicants could not replace the existir? deck without variances •» property not A hardship exists thereby the existing dec> u />: a nonconforming location and causing excess hardcover amounts Houe.ir r.j hardship exists to allow an expansion of the deck while maintaining a cirfermity that could be eliminated 3. -The variance, if granted, will not alter the siser.ual character of the locality • A deck currently exists so the character of tre Iccality uill not change 4. -Economic considerations alone shall not ccr.st:rj:e an undue hardship if Chapter.' 5. -Undue h^sWp also includes, but is not ILrated to. inadequate access to direct " construction as defined in Mmnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2 when in harmony with this Chapter.* ’ 8. S«pltaibcr IS. 2M3 P«ttS«r« A'of applicable "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for proper.y in the zone uhere the affected person's land is located.” A deck is a permitted use in residential zoning districts “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dv^*elling as a mo-family dwelling * blot applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The special condition is that the deck exists in a nonconforming location "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Several existing decks are non-conforming and •/ has been City policy that they can be replaced if only in the exact same manner as they existed previously. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantia] property right of the applicant." The applicant's have a right to continue to enjoy their deck, however a variance must be granted to rebuild it because it has deteriorated "The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any w ay impair health, safety, comfort, morab. or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Allowing a deck to remain will not be detrimental in any way "The granting of such variance will not merely sen e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diniculty.” The granting of a variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable hardship of the existing deck being non-conforming Issues for Consideratioii 1. Should the non-conforming shed (See Exhibit G. last photograph) along the northern property line be addressed? Is there an alternative location? 2. Should the applicants be allowed to increase the size of their deck by 33 square feet? 3. Should the portion of the deck w ithin the 75 ’ lake setback be required to be eliminated? 4. k it appropriate to allow the deck to increase in size by 17 square feet as a trade for eliminating a non-conformity? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? mum IS. MS r^««r< Stiff IUcmmoiMm 1. OcBial of the hndcovcr vahace for the 0-7S* zone nd of the lake setback variance to allow IS square feet of deck to be repUccd 72 ’from the lake. 2. Approval oflfae hardcover variance for the 7S>2SO* zone to allow the deck to be replaced with an additiooal 33 square feet exhibit A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Reneiaal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original appUcatioa) Variance Ibr non-conibnning atnicturet S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Applkatloo » Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY INFOR^UTION Site Address______//^ Property Identification Number (P.LD.) ^7 ^//7 - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProDcrtv Acquired______^ __________ I (do) ^ n^ also own the ^jacent parcels of land. Pi^ennileof property: v pcsidential _(.*ncr. th/year) Zoning District:, other (specify). APPUCAI^ y yj Phone (home ) 9^ -J/7J2 Name Phone (work) 7^3 - ^7 Address; //99 £/j9^td/M^ Citv: Zip: 0\\-NER (if different than applicant) Name____________________ Address:City:, Phone (home). Phone (w ork)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST-------------------------^------ Estimated Construction Cost S ______ Describe request in detail:. \ y (attach additional sheets if necessar^ ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ ___Eot Area ___Lot Width >C Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: __Front ___Other (specify)______ Side __Rear _ Avenge Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF Ul^SUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or uniuinl property condjtic::s preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ III iirtiiiiifei I (atta^K^ddition ri sheeU tf yr« ^« © 0 required submittals ^— ^ Comoleted Asolicatinn JTd» ■cy (existing and 5. 6. 7. 8. iC Sketches or plans of floor & elevation view« reproduction. _ Us, of teg.1 (incMo ‘>“ (') “p '*>• property. This uould include name(s) of ---- As an addendum to this appUcation/pIease ^ owTier(s). ✓ you uish notified of this application.*^ ^ separate list of any other persons Additional itenrs as may iTrequest^ by The Applicant and Property Owner must siem th:. i- . «»llf«llPn h no, ^ APPUC^VT'S signatuke Administrator. agrees^lowrtdiUoJ^f,^*sJff ‘j’^^^ requested by the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in review of this annf , ''’''"‘**’^‘’''*"”1 ***P».™cnt)and'or suppliml is nue mtd correct to Ute ^ App«cmt.sSig„,nne^^^,,^^^^^^^^___ p,, OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and aBrees ’tTth.e i • entry onto the property byCity^ufl^^ujtaJJlj authorizes reasonable members for pmposev^^^n 1 verincalion " ii? r^« *" Applicant must have a*ir sub^ttafa mr?^ — Meeting. Planning Commission Meetot|?^^^„ W™i"* Commission crs.Tr.s,Kriiitss.-ss'sk^^SiTiTs: sr ^ « . _ ___ IiO EXHIBIT B X y /Sntce. A<|Knt Pnvcrtjr Owaen' AckaMlcdtcnul rorm («) jd^ [pnnt n*me(s)] (pnnt address] ’’'*1/ i-nprovoncm or proposed use of the property located at ZZTT referred to as Land Use Application No._______ I (w) uaderstand tbt in executing this aclmowledgcment. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval w dtsapproval of the property or use but merely to confinn for the City Council that I SSiS’<S2dT^r^«f" iniptovemenl plans and that the proposed ceighbor-s project Property Owaa or use ^L/-/r-/>3 Date Property Owner Date I fwe)^ jdite. '^ecyMOi'- (print nalni(s)J (prt„, ,d<i,essfof-lae^^ikrLkJ^CCc/ SjS£S,SS:rsr £1!^ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (w e) am (are) not asked to declare ^val « t^proval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City CouncU that 1 w™va?“ iPrmptty Owner (J AUX.V-r>?) Date Property Owner Date 44f 9 Q .4TT (L/ EXimiTC To whom it may conceni. August 16.2003 We are requesting the variances needed to replace our existing, twenty-five year old deck. It is starting to rot .become dangerous, and must be replaced. We plan to rebuild the deck "as is” as much as possible so as not to disturb the existing shrubs and landscaping under the deck and add any unnecessary, extra costs. However, we have firand over the years that the placement of the sliding glass door that comes fiom our kitchen, onto the north end of the deck, was both poorly designed and is unsafe, due to the ftet that it is difficult to gate off the stairs from small chil^n. Therefore we want to extend Jiis end of the deck by two feet, having it end just beyond the sliding glass door. Then we would either have the stairs rebuilt on that same end of the deck or ideally, if given the variance from the city, we would run the stairs pwallel off tte front of the deck at that same end Placing the stairs there would make for an easier, shorter walk up the hill from the lake, which has become especially difficult for our senior parents. In conclusion, we are asking the city for the variances we were told we needed to rebuild our existing deck, extending it two feet on the north end. and moving the stairs to make it both safer and more user friendly. Thank-you. Lissa and ^ot Harvey iiinkflrli iirlillti I EXHIBIT D #2940 9M> WCCO STAKE Pl>CS3 aEARmascN assumed DATUM 0 « 'KCNMON. SET 39c ^cscd inkokmahon _________1ST FLCCR EL£V _________BASEMENT El£V • ■ iRCN MCN. iNPlACS OARAGE FLOOR EL£/ rcP BLOCK ELEV •« DRAINAGE 000.0 ■ EXIST. SLEV.(C00^> • PROPOSED ELEV 000.0 ■WMT APRCP £U£V \ KffQjQOSiAj^^ummymfSTrOr RA1318 I iMMir e«fy irai BUS oveflea* of Mfv«f I or UMV my oraci wpaviMn M uwi am ■ duty Ri ofmoSMooll £03^ . BOOK.PAGE SCALE JgU£/ "-30' HAUKOyMthS^CULATtON WOttMSBEET SEnACKtONE: (COtCLBONE) C ^BI2iU2ilAIK2KBXiZLfiKffi A. aamt X m EXHIBIT E soo-ioor B. Gantt C DrivrtD^ D. OdtmlkP^ *00 E PtAofDtek l/idtrUn ByP^tie Or Fabric im- /^2- 5T 5^. EF. SF, SF SF. SF SF SF. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. SF. G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER tH ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B "7 ^OO X100 ■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Htmst ____________ B. Caragt C. Drirtmof ^5. sidewalk E. PnioDeek F. LarEteape UaderlaiM ByPlesde OrFdbrie 2£30 A S.F. 5 S.F. SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. [S.F. S.F. \SF. S.F. S.F. SF. 9 . r^£.*Ns Q 01 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPEHTYAREA IN ZONE A ♦ B T£od XtOO m 14£ * S.F. 7ypg- A _______SF. "3ISSL* HARDCOVER CALCULA StlWACRIONE: (aROJEONE) 9-75’ A. Mewt s mnogovg* nvywF ORKSHEET iso^swr 5O0-/MO* 22^ 2^ •Mft 7. t /gf.% IZSl C DHwntw 3/7-X7^ D. SUfMOft £. Paao/Dtek 73Tt 7- f . *2. - *2f3 Z7^ t F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic OrFebne S.F 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. C Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IS ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA WZOSE A 3^^7. L(i - 3 ^3oo s/OO - S.F A ^oo s.r 38.Z ^ PROPOSED HARDCOVERJSZONE . ^ a fc< c H-. VrV *. I W .*'• -3V* \ / »'•■< ■;t-^ ., A ‘- 1 . V- ^ .. . ]i, ’^ 1 vi:‘ # • •>: ■ ■• I',-:--. . "• <r*:. -“ 7-' Siil.-jc'C! (-'to|X-t!y V/ ■ •dK'^'P m,t^. ♦' 1 * \ i .:, / .. ; , :uw ;■ w,y.«- 4t, K ’. .1 A • « f«S.' *v' •,P'-•.; Wr' •^'■’«,;i 2 .4 mr-:;i:’'W '-' ;* •• . . *V.*. •/V } *•■ »! , 'k ’.V ^ U- - <...^i.' - -• EXHIBIT G 3M- :* WCOO STAKE PlACaJ 3CAAINOS CN ASSUMEO OATL'M O « 'RCN MCN SET PROPOSED INECRMATJCN _________^ST R.OOR 6LEV _________3ASEy«NTELEV. • « iRCN MCN iNPLACS _________^OARAGE R.CCR ELSV _________'CP 9LCCX ELEV >«ORAINAOS 'mo - EXIST. ELEV.<000.0> « PPCPOSEO ELEV EftP 000.0 ■COST AKPCK «XV \ OTfCMBfi uU^simygmG ^ OTrOaPAU I Mwy cMiy M OM evaflan ef smy ««■ prvRww by nw or ufMV my oiraa auoMM «M uw I am ««My RagMWM Land Sunmydr und« moj^ of tho of I t47Q0 £03^' . eCOK-PACE Sr-TL SCALE / '=30' . ''"S '/>\ '■•V it • •* \ *4 ’S •Mt .*-• • ' » y . V* ■5^' asaaiy;4Lni /. •‘tV-I ) I G3 lu* '. 5 • >1 ".SQ^ .M I** [I IT [jK JlUi*>: • II* • • « • 4 % ■t* V '3*'. Ir i !ll ^ >’ rjf ■ I,'-' \ ■;■ • »-iV RK’--------- lltt T -i -i'-i'-Trnrf A r - .• V-‘**‘-* iHte:#.-: .1 • --1 SI' I nm V. ? ■ ’ '. /.; - r \.i,> s ' . • • 'V '-^ • *• • *. ^ •w ,y<;:::p^rr^ - - ^ r • V? '1 I#: ’. .r-rr r'^'^' m ; -:l II 1.1 I ‘ •^' *f '.4 -»c- «t^*»u.-^*•-■ ■ W' L.. »■ r ’i $ifl '^'/d !' ■H r\m mMIlAII WMM M N OTimJIMUIS rMrAOM M AUmUSSUNASSIGNU) o||BiiNAMC lawiaf■<roitfEna)lawd oTYorawNo p«filMyAra« poooxM w aiYSTALIMYMN 55I2J jt 07iniU4Q0jo PMPAOM im GUMU aj OOAVE OWNUNAMI BtiOAIUjOCKARKaAIIUJCK TAXPAYFR nUUn-OARIOOC NAMrMINM nWFIMWX)DAV|l MOUND MN 5VU^ III NNI riNftMlNn'rPtMUHV IKI IIHMA IKIM SVS11 M |>Kia*l Kl > UWNI K'> I IM U OniT2JI4mift PIlOf AINM M AUtMI^UNASSKJNFD OWNCANAMf. HENNePMRMfUTCOLAND TAXPAYER anrOFORONO NAMiyAINW POimXM TRYSIALIIAYMN 55J2J 31 07II72JIRW3J PROPAOOR lin ElMWOODAVE OWNER NAME JENNIFER ANNE WEL5II TAXPAYI R irNNITERANNI: WEIXII NAMiyAINm lllOIIMWnODAVfi MIMINDMN ^M(>4 la 07ll72)l400n PROTADOR lUI liXWOOO^VE OWNERNAME BERRKGARLOCK TAXPAYER DRUCEECARLOa: NAMI7ADDR IIP! IIMWOINIAV MOUND MN S3JM 31 0711721140034 PROPADOR M AUORESS UNASSK9IEO OWNERNAME IIENNEPtNlORFEIlEOlANtl TAXPAYIR riTYOFORONO NAMiyAIHW POIKIXM (KVMAI IIAYMN ''«2.1 M 07II723I400J* PROPAOOR II AOORESSUNASSIGNIIO OWNERNAME nGRRKOARIOCK TAXPAYIR ORUrtCARIOEX NAME/AINW 117* ELMWOOD AV MOUND MN 3S364 31 0711723140039 PROPADOR 1199 ElJbIWOODAVE OWNER NAMI JREIIARVEY TAXPAYIR ISaiTIIARVIY NAMiyADDN II09IUMWUOD MOUND MN S5364 3R 07II723I400M PROPADOR 1149 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME XtMNOKINNARDJR TAXPAYIR RmNUKINNARDJR NAMI/ADDR 1149 NOR1II ARM DR MININDMN 53.1M 30 triiTajioooM PROPADOR IISJ ELMWOOOAVE OWNERNAME RCIIAROJAMESHEH TAXPAYER RIETUROJAMBIIEn NAJtICIAOOR n 33 ELMWOOD AVE MOUNOMN 33344 3i 0711723410013 PROPAOOR 1203 NORTH ARM DR OWN! R NAME PAUI R SRACI RBI RG TAXPAYER PAUL R MCA« RJIERO NAMiyAERiR 1203 NOR III ARM DR MOUNOMN *3364 31 07II7234I00I4 PROP AUUR 1243 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME RINILRTU IK)VLAND TAXPAYER ROOLRTHOVtAND NAME/ADUR PO IRIX 41413 n.YMOUTHMN 33441 31 07II7234I00I6 PROPAOOR 1205 ELMWOOOAVE OWNERNAME TRJRGGNIER TAXPAYER TIRIMAS D A JANE REGNIIR NAME/AOOR 1203 ELMWOOD AVE MOUNOMN 53364 3t 07II7234HOI7 PROPADOR 1263 ELMWOODAVE OWNERNAME JOHN A PI RKINS JR ETAL TAXPAYER JOHN PERKINS NAME/AMW 1263 ELMWOOO AV MOUNOMN >3364 31 O7IIT234I0OI1 PROPADOR 1293 ELMWOOOAVE OWNERNAME J J TIIEBEN A LKTHEKEN TAXPAYER i J IHLISLN A LK THLISLN NAMC/AOOR 1293 ELMWOOO AVE MOUNOMN 33364 J!- O3t <0 940 HENNnrtN cw system ICEXTIFY TIIATTIC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN A0CURA1E AND OFMYKNOWmUiCANUUEUFF. O^jo^O^ ^ DATE'DYX /Cf^ PACE! u im it m.- •v4' •vir. -j,-- •r 1 f2S4 FlLEiCJ-2«<: S«9(tmMf 11 2003 P«0«iel2 Dilt Appikatiea Rccti»rd: Ot-19-03 Dale Applkatioa CoatidcrMl as Conplale: 09-UMI3 M-Day Hasict«PtrkHlE«ptrts: IMO-«3 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City Planner September 11.2003 03-2942. 3243 Casco Circle Jim Smith \^ilh Concept Landsc^ing on behalf of George & Marilyn Mileusnic. -CUP - public hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshorc Residenlial, */i Acre Lot Area: 0.361 acre (15.741 s.f.) Application Summary^ Applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a 4* retaining wall which will situated between 6' to 12* from the OIIWL. v\ithin the 0-75* zone. The applicant is also proposing to repair a landslide where a failed 8' retaining wall existed approximately 16* to 20 ’ from the OHWL and to stabilize a 2:1 slope with an erosion control blanket and plant material. ____ ___ Staff Recommendation: Planning Department StatT recommends approsal of the conditional use permit wnh the following conditions; 1. Retaining wull must not to exceed 4’ in height, and the hilbide must be maintained at a slope no greater than 2:1. 2. Plant material must be installed lakeword of the retaining wall to screen views of the wall from the lake. Pciiineot Zoning Ordinance Sections 10.03.19 Land Alteration; Prohibited; It is unlawful for any person to build, alter or repair any seawall, retaining wall or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshorc property without a conditional use permit issued by the Council. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing & Proposed Survey'Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. City Engineer Recommendation E. Product Specifications for Erosion Control Blanket F. Photos 0. Property Owners List & Plat Map |j||L FILEKn-3942 11.2003 Pag* 2 0(2 BackfroiiBd The applicant has applied for a conditional use permit in order to continue with their plan to repair a lakeshore hillside and failed retaining wall. Upon rcmox ing an existing rotten utx)^ stair system a hillside landslide s^os uncovered beneath overgroun grapevines. The existing 8* retaining uall had partially collapsed and the applicant has proposed to construct a retaining wall 4* in height and import approximately 25 cubic yards of fill to maintain a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope. The applicant proposes to stabilize the slope with an erosion control blanket, mulch and dogwood plantings. The proposed wall will be constructed further lakeward than the failed 8* wall. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has been obtained for the installation of 60' of rip-rap and a 6* x 10* sand blanket. City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the site and has prov ided staff with a recommendation (the letter is attached as Exhibit D). The following is a summary of Kellogg's comments: • The iandscape plans should show a proposed slope not to exceed 2: /. • The proposed wall should not exceed 4 ' in height • Installation and maintenance of a silt fence throughout the duration of the project and vegetation be established Issues for Consideration 1 . Is the Planning Commission satisfied with the 2:1 slope and the 4’ wall as proposed? 2. Docs the Planning Commission agree w ith staff opinion that the proposed plantings and erosion control blanket are sufficient for slope stabilization? 3. Should trees be planted in the lake yard to break up the open view of the hill from the lake? 4. Is the Planning Commission satisfied with the singular plant species on the slope? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RcconBcadatioa Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following recommendations: 1 . Retaining wall must not exceed 4* in height, and the slope must be maintained at a ratio no greater than 2:1 . 2. Plantings must be installed lakeward of the retaining wall to screen view s from the lake. ^ • exhibit a Applktfioa 0 Date Received g»l9>03 AmouatPald 2Sr^.(ro CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND LSE APPLICATION PROPERTY' LOCATION Site Address C Type of Application to be Filed vA\ u\.€Rot»»or> CcrOT*tlci- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)Ill a b oolo APPLICANT Name____ COr;?€PT LAN06CAPINQ 3153 PRIE9T LANE MOU iO. MN 69344 Address Phone (borne). Phone (work)j 4S»- M'ti. -M nil City OWNER (if different than applicant) NamefOiteusiJic Address C#^■s.g.o cR._________ City Phone (home) «»- Phone (work)_____ Zip gc I Date Property Acquired - •'V I (do) (3o noD also own the adjacent parcels of land. (monlh'yiear) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PER.\nTS - ______S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ______S250.(X) Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____ S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______S250.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg ______S32S.OO CommerciaL'Industrial Use ______$250.00 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 $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____ $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation ______$250.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$350.00 Rczoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule c>■£L •...I ✓ REQUIRED SUBAfTTTALS ** —^ Completed Application Fonn. 2 . Describe request in detail. Ccrtifirt Property Owners List of o\vners vkiihin 350* lahi-u i .“.“sxsrcir: SSlS«ion.°^ *”*"*** • refer to handout for ,unsv changes in elevation (grades). P™P°re contours) if land alterations involve property. Thif te Construetton plan, if applicable (see staff — ;^rso“ «« °f .ny oth.e: FOR ‘^p“S5I^o/ofv^x‘'^7“ w”sm2[lE^‘^FOh”‘^‘'‘'“‘''^® applicaUonTL“1,mZeTftS^XvrhkSo“^^^^ wScieric^ stl?' » ‘ontplete. ■-----------------------------------------Date__________________ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ;iS£r. .■^; S.?S',S “rr ,'ri:; r-““ •' *■ r»'» andfor unusual e.xpenses incu.Tcd a revietv of this aoXa^il' "'7^ ''' P*y™«'.!; supplied IS true and correct to the best of hislier fatovdedge "* ""'*‘** infortnatior. Applicant's signature __ ./ j?/ *tTT rf-- try?7*^Z^-----------Date ^ ______ OWNER’S SIGsNATURE enliy onto the property by City *'‘rrt>cr authorized reasonable ■nenthersforputposes^f^estiUofinZS^^^ »« Council Date g-//r/0V of the Pianairg Commisiioo aJd ^ P«»«» » C, schemed iweong. please nuke airsaieireatt to ha\o an authfS^I? ** “ ■Ppbeani U unable to anead a ButtdtQi A Zoainf Oflice of this cha.-j|e p.-Jor to the meetinj ^ ***°* *””** ^ P.^' _ 4* #2S rV.o Cwctpt La»di fpi«g 31SJ Priest Use, Mossd, MN 5S344 9S2 - 472-41 IS ChyofOfftMO siteslios Brsce or Lyle Subject: Georfc A Marilyn MUeusotc 3243 Casco Circle Orono, MN SS391 Project Scope: Resiove ei^isg stair system to lake: Stair system b rotten wood and dangerous. Non eibtent handrail. Stair system U out of compliance, no landings. Install new Diamond stair system wHh landings and handratt. Configure so as to bide the system from view of the lake with vegetation. Repair hillside landslide: Approiimately 10 cu yd slide. The entire hiUsidc U covered with grapevines w hich have smothered all of the plantings necessary to maintain the hilbide from erosion, landslide and washout. We are going to remove all vines and replant the hillside with ^gwoods and mulch. C approsimaieiv zw so ft of concrete retaining walL^ believe more b under tl» lan^lide. Replace the dirt from the landsfide hack on the hllirinstalL) 6ypro^atel^ 120 so ft of Tieldstone retainane with emsiaii coutroi fabrig to feiauT> C tne slide on^ynstaU 10 cubic yards of soil on the r^ht side to get rid of the concrete and still maintain the eibting soils. See attached photo*s: Sincerely Jim Smith #2 O 9«p 11 2003 etaopn BOriESTROO ROSENE nrtOERLlK 6S16361311 u i. r R.2 V •. J/U Bonestroo mM noscne mem AndtrlHcB 1|\|^ ASfpCfaMf 4 ArchlMcts 5ep(a^ 10.2003 •. mm»mm m»9 ammmm iw. >• an mirwmmlm fkamm/tmm ana«wa»nwa»wwa Prmttpmrn 0n» C a^UI-W, at. • Ma^'n 1.1< M^A.»aw/M«.a|..««f«AMWMnM- •sawf cnnM>n«nMiaaMrtvK«aaaa«.M«.*M»*c Aa«tnik.at H’^a. n, • e>a.m a Cana. m. • iMM a rs. • Mai «!»#•'• Z»A nnaoMaarwaiMM. aatn n. oataM. rt • tsian a a*ar%na. t • a^ina w %Ma'. W • Ommo. La»* a at < *•«•*••• T aawwaMf.. at a %a a. aiatc aft • «#«•>♦». a aaa«».a^ aa • Mata a aafa at . B*.MA.tMawfta waa tiMMir a ^a..aal*»a<^ at. LJ • ata>a^ la ftA. • AJta. ana MtaMat at • »^ai ar aa f» ra imt Uawtaai • u»tit;anMx *t • k.m^ti«a a. at. omi i. tawnaa. at a imm M«ra>aa i WMna . a i|>a>a.aft . »a.at<. .t. JaraatM • Pt<a a at. • T^anaa A taw»at. at • aaaatt i Da«a<yi n •ffiiai! • aani. k. Cwft tKtwaur a^ WitJ^§' vn ■ .MuaaaLaaa. wi. cncaaa k MiMtlnkFotb .FliBOV acy of Oreee Pe«OIB8ftBox66 CtyiUlBoy.MNSS323 EXHIBIT D 9243 CucoCirclo niRNo. l9f4)9-000 PIM No. 03*2943 DftftrMolaaift Wo eomplesod o lits iouvcdoo tU lAiiiioetpt ploa rnkw of ibo prepony Iccmiod ti 3243 Ctieo Cirelt. Tbt pwpe^ia^rowmoattlBcludorBmovoiaftccBCWtoHiMCBiytetoitiagwonMiingloceaicitwittiboBMc SShgvo4lLAddlttoii4lia|irov«ffgoti0hqwnoaaBptoat include prtdiagMJr ftweridcRtlnnaiht IBP ^ of dM wtU. Wt htvft tfca IbUowiaf coBUBOBti 4rith ftfuili 10 togiiLKiing mttlKi: Ouxiieattl: yattkil). A 2:1 tlopo will outcA tha aiitiiifl itairway odJocom «e dw pnpoMd wdL • Thopro|K>J4dWiB3todd*ol«»ed44Wttolioig>itXitpp»anO»4iihowbnjamtomoY«*«wtIl towaida the It^ if dM city d««iM.'This would fwiueo thft »tS b^t iDd olalaBiie the ilqpe on the bodaido of tlw Will• TbeltalKopopUMihoulillacludotoBJOtyFOofycieioltdistwoiopftJooiiliftldwridftofihftwtfUo aidniiovUBdiBpaeti. . • 9ilt tec* iboold bft nmUtd imaadiately Hoag iho lateihuco fioatago to prauct mi^woB of • di«iusbcdwil«tollwUho.TlwtUtfboeoihotttdtaoi!«ctive:yntiBUliMduadltb4piq)ectfecosiiplcU tad wfttatioci it ottthliilwd, • ThftturveyihoaldbeiBvtaodiotliowth»c«itclpropoitd!oMtioBOBddimMtioBiofdio»tiIolaf wa1|.• If fiMtb to btbataUtdoftdftrthftBmleh behind the wall tttsjpls and v«cific4tioualKMldbt provided to dw city for rawitw tad appfovtL If you bftva aay queitir*'S pleaie call aia at (691) 604-4163. Yotin very tmly, BONFSTROO. ROSENS. ANDERLK 4 ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Ce; Crag Oappa. Qty of Oconj 2915 Watt Hlgh%vay 16 ■ SI. Raul, MN Slffl > 611 616-4600 • Paa; 651*616*11?? I* • I nJi lift e*'r . >>• . I exhibit e railMAMHT mo TURP RRIHPORO Fmtfprmpylmm9 ROOO Ifw P200 Eroson Controi/Ti«f ngrtorcTnant Mat futurss a 100H UV ttiMzad potypropytine ibarmainxafxasfldinanaxtrahaayy* duly. UV stabMMd lop ret and a heavy. UV stadizad bottom net The blviiaiis sewn together on 1 5 mch centers with biacfc ootypropyiene thread to ensure long>lastlng durabfcry and perlOrma nce The P300 provides permanent erosion control end ve getal feviforcameni on severe aiopeej ^ Oscnarge channels and ihoremes weh wave action vegetatiorwe not withstand desy How conditions The P300 is ideal tor use *1 the 3 Phase Reeilorcsd Turl Oesi^ System. Consuti North American Green software for specftc desigr recommendwioos^ 1.1^-' V. Miicri.". Ce*~: ii’i.c • t TpphAt £••■1^-1 • ..»•*:'-.-rjp vx .en# ‘ r .t /• 2 W »tab*a»c asiy F<e«r ■ ■ 1 • 3 BonomNet y' . > i' f • ; • . '“4 t . ’ y ’. t i' TrvMe v-r v« -; t :?.**•. P»l\fitapy t*hr -i S-.7.-i'.:*! : wain :• Ler.jm we.gni Area •'ll: •* »> «< ■ •■■■-;? " msmm •••‘•a-:,:-.--. - _ . \ '■' r'.'*v- ^ .' ’ ' 'd\ I aw*E*-'-‘ ■■aK* v ’*. - . . • . •. • ' .iv.'-rv ^. * . *••:. i-j ' ■ • .*.••• X. — ’•• • ________ ^ -•.:4 - T' -iV-. V ' • w^m wrAi^=■; .,¥ . i* • . •'•/iv » rr i m cl ••••'*■-:^ L ^ lAimul V S^’ V. ** » t' “ :'\« 1' •"% ■jSjfljjjjMjjjBSjjSSjSft •1 j X If ■•.’•>' "i,- 'iS .■■• ' >':Si >4 •'. •* ‘ ^ |v ■ '*> f.^>. RUN DATE M 20II72J4100JI mOf ADOU 34MIVYPL OWNEHNAME DSAKJOWEN TAXPAYER DAVIDS A KAY JOWtiN NAME/AOOR 34MIVYPI. WAYZAIAMN SS19I IIENNCPINCCMJNTY PROPIIRTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROI»NtTYOWT4l:RSI.IST PAGE: I 31 20II72J4300M PKOPADUR 34«6 IVY PL OWNER NAME J GARY TUCKER TAXPAYER JUARYTTXTKLR NAMPyADOR M66 IVY PL WAYMTAMN S339I 3S 201 I7234JOOU7 PROPADDR 3251 CASCO CIR OWNER NAME PATRICIA M INEGRE ET AL TAXPAYER PAl RICIA M A Ull ORE NAMiyADIlR 5M.5Wn.STIIOXRSr 1UCSONA/ 15713 31 20II72343000R PROPADDR 3249CASCOCIR OWNERNAME RCLUESSEETAL T AXPAYIJI RGIMiK T I.UliSSE NAME/ADDH 32«CAStTUTH WAYMTAMN 33391 3« 2011723430009 PROPADDR 3247 CASCO CIR OWNERNAME KURTCARLSON A WIPE TAXPAYITl KURT A LUCIUJI CAKI.SON NAMiyADIW 3247 CASCO OR WAYMTAMN 35391 31 2011723430010 PROPADDR 3243 CASCO CIR OWNERNAME GEORGEtyMARILYNKMilLUSNIC 1 AXI'AYI R (iU)K(iE L Mil l.(^NiC NAMiyADDR 3243CAStin IRIT I WAYM1AMN 553'N 31 20II7234300I3 PROPADDR 3237 CASCOCIR OWNER NAME JULIAN HOOK A PEGGY R HOOK TAXPAYER JULIAN HOOK A PtGGY K HOOK NAME/AOOR 3237 CASCOCIR WAYMTAMN 35391 31 2011723430016 PROPADDR 3231 CASCOaR OWNERNAME JUDITHECOOPER TAXPAYER JECOOPERAJECOOPER NAME/AOOR 3231 CASCO CIR WAYMTAMN 55391 31 2011723430033 PROPADDR 3271 CASCOCIR OWNERNAME RAND FINANCIAL SERVICES INC TAXPAYER rand FINANCIAL SERVICES INC NAME/AOOR 1433 UTICA AVES *265 ST LOUIS PARK MN 33416 31 2011723430014 PROPADDR 3233 CASCOCIR OWNIKNAME SDSII.USRECSII.US IAXPA5I R SIEPIIEN SII.US A EIAINI: SlUrS NAMI ADDR 3235 CAStTJ CIR WAYMTAMN 55391 31 2011723430031 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME TIIECASCXICO TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO PARKS NAME/AUDR POUOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 31 2011723430054 PROPADDR 3309 IVY PL OWNER N/J4E CRUNDIIOFER CONST CO INC TAXPAYER JERRY CRUNDIIOFER NAMt/AUDR 12005 I6J1II ST N MARINE ON ST CROIX MN 33047 34 2011723430013 PROPADDR 3233 CASCOCIR OWNER NAME U M SPIUSETII API) Sril3>nH TAXPAYER DAVIDMSPll.SI 111 NAML/ADUR 3233 CASCO CUU U. WAYMTAMN 33391 3S 2011723430050 PROPADDR 3241 CASCOOR OWNER NAME K1 A P A KENNEFITK TAXPAYER KEVIN T/PAI RICIA A KLNNLTICK NAMUADDR 3241 CASCO CIR WAYMTAMN 55391 CQ O) G'^ % I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATK3N OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEPtlEPIN CXXJNTY TAXPA1 1 R SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST, OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. PA 1 1 R SERVICES DEPARTME24T. TO THE BESl^^ DATE BY \ j^Hennepin County Taxp^por Services Department ■U-2M3 S«p«r«b«r 15.20t3 Pat*2»rt F - Alternative Plan (SufT Concept) G - Photographs H - Propeny 0>%ner’s List I - Plat Map Backfround The applicant is proposing to build an addition to the existing home over existing driveway hardcover and to add a two-story deck adjoining the proposed addition to the existing home. An existing deck. 9 x 19. will be removed. The majority of the 525 square foot living addition and a portion of the deck are being placed over existing driveway. The applicant is proposing an additional 15 square feet of hardcover for the living addition and an additional 81 square feet for the deck with significant driveway removals. The namre of this lot requires a shared driveway for the lakeshore lot to the north. Currently, the applicant is not using the shared driveway and is accessing the property from the adjacent marina. This lot is currently substandard with respect to hardcover and side vard setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth! LR-IB i Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 9.715 s.f. (0.223 acres)62.37 ’ Setbacks; LR-IB Required 1 Fxbting Proposed Front 35’30.5’305’ Rear 30’13.9’13.9’ (detached I’lrage) Left Side 10 ’2.8’2.8' (new deck) 10 ’ (addition) Right Side 10 ’21.9 ’24* Lakeshore n/a n'a n/a Average Lakeshore n^a n'a n/a Stnicturol Covcraic: September 15. 2003 Patc3or6 ! Total Lot Area\Total Sinictural Coverage ' 9.715 s.f. (0.223 acres) 1 ! Allowed: 1 Proposed: 1.457 s f. (15%) 1.883 5 f. (19.4%) Hardcover Calculations: WTien calculating hardcover percentages for the 75-250* zone the area within the shared driveway easement (490 s.f) was taken out of the lot area so as not to cither help or hinder the hardcover percentages. This is because this portion of the shared drive does not benefit the applicant. \^*hcn calculating hardcr*\cr percentages for the 250-500* zone the area within the shared drivewav easement was kept added into the lot area due to the fact that the applicant benefits from this portion of the shared drivewav Hardcover Zone i Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover I Lusting Hardcover Proposed i Hardcov eb 75 - 250 i 1' 3.200 s.f.1 800 s.f. (25%) ' I.618sf < (50 5%) 1 1.205 s.f (37 6%) 250 - 500 6.025 s.f.1.807.5 s.f ‘ (30%) 3.324 s.f • (55*!'o) 2.570 s f. (42.7%) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance Ihe applicant is proposing to add the addition over existing hardcover with the c.xception of 15 square feet The dramatic decreases in hardcov er amounts for the proposal are the results of the applicant eliminating the drive access through the marina and utilizing the existing shared drive This includes a net decrca>e of appro .imalelv 41' square feel of hardcover or 1in the 75-250* zone In the 250-500’ zone there would be a decrease of approximately 754 square feet or I2**. Although Planning Department stalY is encouraged b> the propsised decreases in hardcover and the existing drive through the marina being eliminated, the overall proposal doesn*: fit within requiremems of the Zoning Ordinance Structural Coverage Variance 1 he applicant is proposing a liv ing space addition of approximatelv 525 square feet and a deck of approximately 81 square feet This results in an increase of structural coverage of 606 square feet bringing the current structural coverage percentage (I4.9**.b) over the allowable amounts to 19.4*! o. Side Setback Variance The applicant is proposing a second story deck, approximately 81 square feet in size connecting the existing house to the proposed addition This deck would be located on r •03-2«M3 |«. 2003 PjC* 4 of 6 the ucstem side of the home facing the marina. The currem side >ard setback in this location is 2.8'. The applicant isn't proposing to get closer to the propertv line. The deck uould extend diagonalls from the 2.8* setback to an 11' setback uhere it’anaches to the proposed addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship staiemer.i in I xhibit .\. and should K* a.sked h>r additional testimon> regarding the application Hardship Anahsis /Ji coHUdtting •ppUcarionsfar vertance, the Ptannbig Cemmiuhm xhaN conuJer the e/fei i of the propoied variance upon the health, \afety and welfare of the commumn . existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safen. and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the inJn idual property under consideration, and shall recommend approsal onh when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping w ith the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. aiaff finds that there are hardships uhich may justif> hardcover amounts K*v»>nd what is allowed by Zoning Ordinance Those hardships c«msist of the man-made laeoon at the marina bringing the propertv closer the lake and the shared drueway ananeement lor the lot to tiic north. Stafl is also very agreeable to eliminating the drive a,.wes's through the marina in an attempt to eliminate hardcover From a /iming pcrspoctr. c. earning access from the marina is inappropriate However, staff does not lirid a hardship which would allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage which meets Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which would become non-confomii g. I4.Q to 19 4 percent Allowing this increase in structural coverage vvould also not fall within what has consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage requirements are strictly followed The applicant also has alternatives for adding living additions to the house without adding to structural coverage. This v\i>uld ci>nsist of hav mg an attached garage iiiste.id ol a detached which vvould allow liv ing space aKne and turning the existing deck (which is 6 or higher above grade and therefore counting towards structural coveracel into living space. 1 herefore. staff cannot support the propc*sal in its entirely SiatT would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for •'undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The propeny in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls " The property couU exist in its current nuinner 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his propertv not created by the landowner." M03-2MJ ScpUiaUr IS. MU II. Patt*»r« •The Krenung of ihe proposed variance uill not in any way impair health, safety, comfoit. morals, or in any other reflect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Should a structural coverage variance he granted it would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely ser\e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alle\iate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Granting a hardcover variance may cdleviate demonstrable hardships however granting of a structural coverage variance may serve as a convenience to the applicant for not requiring a redesign. luues for Consideration 1. Should the applicants be limited to the 15% structural coverage requirement? 2. Are the applicant's headed in the ri^t direction towards reducing hardcover? 3. Are the hardships wiiich would justify granting a structural coverage variance? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecouMcmlation Denial of hardcover variances for the 75-250* and 250-500' zones, denial of the structural coverage variance, and denial of the side setback variance to allow a 525 square foot living space addition and subsequent 80 square foot deck. The applicants should be directed to redesign whereby not increasing structural coverage on the property. The applicants should also be directed that the proposed decreases in hardcover are reasonable. ^ .julStlbki EXHIBIT A Appfcafloo #_ Date Rscthrcd Amount Paid 6 nip3 0^50 . CITY OF ORON'O - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial AppUcaiioa Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original appUcation) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY ESTpRiXUTION Site Address M ^, CNT" . Property Identification Numbw (TJO.) O y \ Attach legal description to application if not included on retired sun'ey.^"^"^^ Date Property Acquired >oV qV g ___________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(mooth/year) Present use of property: V residential Zoning District:. _other (specify). Cit> Zip: ^ Name Address: 7^20?, V n OW7VER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTIO.N OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: Ofv^vCv>fv"i* 0 >Pir . VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area (attach additional sheets if necessary) Hardcover Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side _Lot Coverage __Rear ___ Average Lalcesbore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing- M- r----------------------------------WlAUIUk^iU |nC¥ClliUJJ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: %>\v v -thfV Wt VV^a A rorvi^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) O * 0 %• * cc (attach additional sheets if necessary) O >oe Wr>e.-\Vsv^ v*aoo\|^c^vN»«. o:^ ^K»rr<r^»e^’'\CaV Uvs\r<S^Vfci^. Vsc. ^ ^ EXHIBIT B CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BOB LABATT W GOV'T LOT 1. SEC. 8-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. .MINNESOTA ctiTiaif iM er CCV t lOt I, v: i-iir-ii 1 .O'--*;. iEc*i :£s:ffip~ c~ =^;mis£s : Thot 6:*t of t-« 57 3 f«et of th# Cost 115 05 f«et of Governrrwnt Lot 1, S*ctt0' i, 117 North. Ronao 23 Wejt o» the 5th Prir^cipal Meritfi;-, lyi*; S;*r* cf County Rood No 5l cns lymq southerly of 0 liner.*n<ni}Atst z'. richt orgies from o point m the Cost Imeof soid 5* 3 fee! : sr:-t ic5 feet north of tre So'th ime of so-d rood o Of'otes •»:* r-c'«e' set Ce*ofes »r»:**e' found Beor.rjs shj*' :*e ::sei upon on ossimed dottm This \ • .*> she* the bounrinrie*. of fh.* ohov.* ^^•5r■r ihed properly, the iocQi.on S' «» e«<st<rtq house ond ga.oge. t’>u iucut.on of at* visible “horc:c«er- 0*: the r'oposed locotion of o prc;:sed oddilion thereon. It does rot c-»;;*t t: s~r* ony other inprovements or encrcochments s:; I J \ / CiUKfBDlS IA5SCCUTES. »C . aniw OKt J« WTK n RMi ixuAnn U.47)^*4l I Mr ceSIr IM Ml ifwr vs y^ie N •« ■ #* Vt *n1 i(e* M ee M I w • err ivp'eif Ut L'srw mt Iri e*r eu bn «l bi SWr It brreK’t Mb* t Siiies IbtewH Uve« »qti* TSS 1--20* 0411 S-10-03 09-249A EXHIBIT D i AMDCOVEMCALCULA SET»ACKZO,\E: (aitCUONS) M SOO-IOOO^ A. Hcmu- M. Oaroit C. Mvtway D. SUtwaOt £. Mo/Dtdt F. iMittapt VMein JfyPtauie Or Fabric ULAUQU^ORKSHEET 2S0^> jQUE /4F/X. Oiu^e FascmenJ cui o-f am, __ X__________« calCA/i^i m.t| 5.F. S.F. S.F. nA S.F. i III SF. •^5 5.F. ,S.F. S.F. 5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HAXDCOVEIUNZOSE - TOTAL PROFEFTrAMEALSZOSE . “ A + B xioo - pnoposFO HAnncnvER ts 7.o\f. A. Hout X . UlS _____S.F. A ^70 SF. s6.^ ft B. Garoit C. IMiWHcy D. Slifwalk E. PaHoOMt F. Landscape UitderUdn ByPlestie Or Fabric G. Other S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. - tN ^^^S.F oxc/c _____________S.F. _____________S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER WZOSE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOHE A l20MV«Tb ♦ j -bZOO XlOO m ^ZOO S.F. ^}7.1o ft Z^M B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Bettomedt F. Imduape Uaderteifi By nastic Or Fabric a Other HU* soo-iooo> liO . HkiC..ftr. y^ioic ss. i)S.F. . , priv6 S.F. ,5.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. total HARDCOVER MZO.\E - TOrxi. FRC^^r^iREA INZOSE xiOO at0/»05E/) HARDCOVER iN TOKK ___ S.F. AM^^L_s.f. a 55 * A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Fatio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Fiastic Or Fabric \Mh C. Other B ~ X X X X X X X X S.F. S.F. Tib ----sjr^MrhdV\ Z7A mvr - ~7Iq ^5.F. -----------------^ ------------------XE. f |60(^- cr -^5(p0 fU^ S-r. FItU .5.E. S.F. SF.--------------- S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL FROFERTT AREA DfZOSE A ^t>7Q ♦ f 1S)10 XlOO m ___A Ij0l6 5.F. lITT « Ui t r* eAsf guvATv>r •CM. 1/ ' ..jMdtfyiii uik«idi cjrr tYi'jT. LAF tUit i/«*»i ..i *=■ ••' - VsiiBk itxs, . & ■ ••» .■^*- ^ :f^ liy^; '^JjJt%^- 4 ■\l tUilMIE:irnMJ M MII72J4IOOOI rROrADOR 1200 NmmiSIKMEDR OWNEXNAMe tMKLEYJHBNMOUONfcTAI. TAXPAYER nORLEYJlRMMUaCSON NAMG/AOOR MCK A WmORNlMMa 3200 NORTH SHORE ON WAV2ATAMN SS39I 30 00II72MI00M PROPAOOR 32M NORTH SHORE DR OWNERNAME NORTH SNORE MARMA MC TAXPAVrR NORTH SHORE MARMA INC NAME/AOOR 3222 NORTH SHORE OR WAY/ATAMN 55J9I 3S 0011723120010 PROPAOOR 3ISS NORTH SNORE OR ONNHRNAMB ROORTVlifflURlXCOMPANYtJC X tAXPAYER RUORTVENIORESCOOlPANYUXr t7<AME/AOOR P 0110X07 OB l!Xail2»KIKMN))JJIIW 3S O0II723310SIS PROfAIIOR ISHBOHNSPOMTRO OWNBRNAMB CWRBPaiAPMAN TAXPAYER aiRBTOPHER RIMJLY OIAPMAN NAME/AOOR IRM BOHNS POINT RO WAYZATAMN SS39I II 0111723410002 PROPADOR 1210 NORTH SHORE OR OWNERNAME MARKHNNEY TAXPAYER SIARK FINNEY NAMiyADOR 1210 NORTH SHORE OH WAYZATAMN S51TI M 0111721410003 PROP AOOR 3240 NORTH SIRJRE DR OWNERNAME NORTH SHORE MARINA INC TAXPAYER NCM III SHORE MARINA INC NAME/ADOR 1222 NORTH SIRMI DR WAYZATAMN 53JYI IS 0911721320011 PROPAOOR lira NORTH SHORE OR OWNERNAME JAAULROSA1I TAXPAYER lAMES A A OIJIRA L ROSAH NAMI7AIM)R Htl NORTH SIR)KE DR WAYZATAMN 53JYI 14 04II7214UM0) PROPAOOR 3202 NORTHMRNU IM OWNUINAME ROUUtTGAiANULLAUATI TAXPAYER ROOERT A JANI TIAUATT NAMI!/ADOR 3202 NORHI SIHIRE OR WAY/ATAMN 33 Wl M 0411723440006 PROP AOOR 1220 UOIINS POINT LA OWNERNAME ACTRAPANESI/CA TRAPANESB TAXPAYI R AIJII RTCATII RYI. A IRAPANIM: NAM17A1RJR 1220IKIUNS PIRNIIA WAY/AIAMN 33)‘»I IS 0«II723120'42 PROPAOOR 3190 NORTH SHORE OR IIWNIRNAME t'AAAC'IKArANIMi TAXPAYER aiLRYL A Al Til RT TRAPANIiSE MAMI/ADOR 1103 NURIH SIIORI. DR WAY/ATAMN 3M<i| PAGE; I I CERTIFY THATTIIE FACTS REPRliSEWLD ARE AN ACCURATE AND IT APPEARSTHISDATEONTIERECORDS DATE^-Zy-gS BY / V;i U •• ( ^ ‘‘ CQ % MU-m4 StfMMbcr IS. 2M3 PatelcTS Dalt AppIkatkM Rtcdvtd: t-l9-0J l>«ir Apflkatioa CoMMrrrd •» C*apltU: t*l94U M-Day Review rtrtodCipim: IR-I94J Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Cil> Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waaiaja. City Planner ^jtO September 11,2003 03-2944. Jonathan Menth. 2930 Casco Point Road - Hardcover Variance - Public Hearing Zonlag Dbtrict: Lot Area: Lot WMlh: LR - 1C. One Family Ld^cshorc Residential District ('/i acre min.) 0.348 acre (15.156 s.f.) 90 feet Appikaiioii Summary‘ Applicant requests the following variance to reconstruct a 26 x 10’ deck on a propert) that is currently over the allowable hardcover amounts 1. Hardcover variance to allow 48®/« hardcover in the 75-250* zone when 25*o is normally required and 48.5”/o cunently exists. Sl^lf Htcoamundathn: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval based on the condition that the deck is replaced in the exact location of the previous deck (26* x 10*). with the exception that the staircase be mo\ed within the footprint of the deck and not extend towards the southw-estem propeny boundary and the patio existing beyond the footprint of the deck be removed. Pcrttecul Zonlug OnUunce Scctlous Section 10.22. Subdivision 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L): Hardcover Limitations. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form C - Existing &. Proposed Sur\ey/Site Plan D - Submitted Hardcover Calculations E - Removal Plan F - Proposed Plans and Elevations G - Photograph H - Assessor’s Record I - Property Owners List J - Plat Map •43.9M S«^«btf IS. MU r<f»3«rs The applicant submitted plans to rebuild an existing deck. Prior to submining plans for a variance the existing deck \fc-as removed. There was no building permit for this deck ami therefore staff is unable to confirm the decks size. The sur\ey submitted shows a proposed 26 x 10 foot deck. The applicant has suted that he will be replacing the deck that was tom down and the new deck will be of the exact size and shape as the old deck with the exception of a staircase that will be moved within the footprint of the deck to reduce hardco\*er. Staff has no way of conTirming the size of the deck prior to it being tom down. The latest assessor ’s records show a 26 x 6 foot deck. Because the deck is being replaced over existing patio staff will assume the applicant is merely replacing the 26 x 10 foot deck, not anything larger. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LolAftaAVidth: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21.7S0s.f C/iacie)100’ Actual 15,156 s.f (0.348 acres)90 08* StractMral Coverat; LR-IC Rcqvired Exbting Front 30*n/a ! n/a Rear 30 ’30.6 ’ (street)’ 30.6* Leftside 10’15.6’1 15.6* Right Side 10’14.5’1 14.5' Lakeshore 75’90 ’I 83.5* Average Lakeshore 80'101.5’j 91.5* Total Lot Area Total Stnietnral Covcmge 15,156 s.f (0.348 acres)Allowed. 2,273 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2,218 s.f (14.6%) hiiiiilf- .1 •03-2944 StptoMbtr IS.200J Staff ^x>\M make the ToIIo^^ing recommendations in regards to the criteria for **undue hardship** pertinent to this application: 1 . “The property in question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if used under conditions allov^ed by the official controls.” The property could exist in its current state 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property’ not created by the lando\%ner.” The unique circumstance is that the property had a deck which was non- conforming due to the level of hardcover on the property 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Both adjacent houses have lakeside decks 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Sot applicable 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in .Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Ch.iptcr.“ Sot applicable 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council mav not permit as a variance any use that is not permined under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.“ Decks are permitted es in residential zoning districts. 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Sot applicable 8. "The special conditions apply ing to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." At some point a deck was build and has been a part of the existing home for some time. During this time, circumstances which happened on the property have brought it into non-compliance. This creates a special condition applying to the structure 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Some decks are built and at some point come into non-compliance unbeknownst to the property owner due to other changes which have occurred on the property, however this does not ap/dy generally to the district. ScpMaktr IS. 2M9 ratts«rs The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant ” A substantial property right of the applicant is to continue to have use of a structure which has persisted on the property for some time. Replacing the deck due to unsafe conditions becomes necessary for the preserxaiion and enjoyment of the applicant II.The granting of the proposed variance ^ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The granting of the proposed variance will not be detrimental in any way. The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant but is recessar>’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTlculty.” The granting of the variance will alleviate the hco’dship of having a rotted, unsafe and therefore unusable deck. luact for CoBsidcratioB 1. Because the deck was tom down prior to applying for a variance, and there is no record of a building permit should the applicant be allowed to replace the deck 26* x 10- or 26* X 6*? 2. Should the applicant be required to remove any patio in an attempt to reduce hardcover? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff HecoBmcadatioa Approv-al of a hardcover variance for the 75-250* zone allowing a 26 x 10 foot deck to be replaced subject to removal of a portion of the patio outside the footprint of the deck (see Exhibit E). 1 ._J L EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Applicatloa # Date Received Amoant Paid oo PROPERTY LNFOWVUTION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.ID.) ^^//7Z 33/ Q0 3*y Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date ProfRUy Acquired /________________ I (do)Ado nqi)’also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(raonih/ycar) PreseiitTise^ property, ✓^residential iZoning District: .other (speclly)_ APPLICANT^j:'^ Phone Name /D^a/z^ ___________ Phone (workV 7^ “7 r Address: 2^9^^ Cafe.c ^ Citv: ^ ,/Zio: 0^^■NER (if different than applicant) Phone (fiome)________________ Name__________________________________Phone (work)________________ Address:City. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ S'^ovr xvx.vvK.oi uuinaica construction cost s ✓_____ Describe reauest in detail: W (attach additional sheds if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)_________________ Hardcover .Lot Coverage __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRJPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________ (attach additional sheeu if necessary) r"‘. ;• # /I ■ft**— l required submittals tor wur^npltelMrn'to'ir^^^^ *» Hlf »PtlltllteB Jwlllin d.t. I. *• — Completed Application Form / Govt Center. 348-5910) County Department of Finance. A-603, ^ reproduction. * one (1) copy 8'i" x l|- for ^ ^ Prosed. In additbn"provi&T^^^^ if wy changes in exisUng grade 5. Sketches or plans of floor & elpvaft«« • ^ reproduction. <• _ Ust of (he leg.1 mmi« (i„ciu* su^ten'o^ 'T ‘ property. This would include na.nefs^ nf at- *'* Pf“n* '*nth a.n interest in the 7. _ As an addendum to this apf^fca^n.1^^^^^ you wish notified of this application*^ * separate list of a.ny other persons *. — Additional iicnu as may be requssted by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must si'-i thie • • «prtK.tion I, ntH fomplfir7IU^,ve n"l"in^r ““ APPLICANT'S SIG.NATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all • .. Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (stafftime Zoning consultant expenses incuired in rexnew onhis Mniiea i^r '"^^''®^''^ supplied is tnie a.-.d coireci to the best of hisher loiowIedgT Ihat the infoimation Applicanfs Signature____" ___ OWTfER'S SIGNATURE Owner's Signature Date 7-^f-^ 7 CouDcn. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled “**?^ •*******""*"« Commission and have an authorized agent attend in your place a.-d to advkfl-^ *.Tangcmenls to change prior to the meeting. ^ ^ Building & Zoning Office of this .* ’ exhuitb Adjictm Proptrty Onaen' Acknowledgcmcal Form i(we)5a>7r [print name(s)](print address] I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requj^ Council approval. Viy// Date I (we) (print name(s)] (print address] proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confiim for the City Council that I (we) ^are) asvarc.^the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval> Property Owner Date 'Prop6^/^vner Date >■0“ aoy infonnation that may assist the City in the rcvieiv of this Land Use lo Ihe Buildint * Zoning Office at least 10 dayi prior 8 #2814 I, L mmnNGMAi A. House- HARDCOVER CALCVIA\ LEOSEi IKDiZONL IS WORKSHEET UTWACKEOSB: (CUtLLEOm 250-500^ EXIOBITD soa-tooo* B. Oaruit C. Drhw^ D. Sidewalk E. Ma/Dedt F. Landscapa ViderMa BpHattie OrFabrte J.F. S.F, SF, bH’! 52>ih 75 V«J. •STT Frj.f-5 --------PUL. S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER LSZOSE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ + B xlOO S.F. fWZ i A 5.F. % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Haase L?5S.‘J if. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Carttge C. Driveway S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Deck F. laadseape Underlain ByPUttiie Or Ferric a Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZOHE • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LW ZO.SE A M4fl/g + f „,go . i.F. ttVT.V A S.F. % I/-1.f 6106 L,.J|||i||M I *o -<• i'S-'-f zK-i f^r'trHc-1>, :^-j w, fcM • •- v.«c /K 2->',.'0^!'A!So 4s(j; .•*';o..itt->,:y:: lA.‘r itclfr-’i; <0 Maj6^ i w/ % • I /7 'I , \- i/‘ -n4>3,‘! r ' Kvi-'il; iJo>isr- "3) •ii .; ►* r"i ^ f. I '* ^6-0 . Ao y i* -■■ ^<liiiHiltf'1) .................-.I.'" .1 -------- ••. ..^.. . . . . < — .. >r iPu A ^ ............. ...S - - 1 --------------- ------------- . --------------- 7 )------ • !:z «^ •— diek. ;ir. iBBjPv'‘'%®i(? citv> !■<>/ Pin .^O-U ‘Arv/*/ Ai>f)tti'-.r.«yv.vov. 1<Td^ # < I • '........................... " I' I: i': i!!:' I!'; i';,! ^ i • tii \ If Jt r Ml '/u.-^Too-V(i .7 ___„J4._ -/ii.i.:<- Tri»E._a PORCHES 3lL^ flic OTHER DECKS OARAGES -3l^ BUILDINGS JJtitu /<yc RENTALS • SALES ■ • DATE ) CONSIDERATION RENTS ■ • z-!r K • I ■ ■ COMMENTS OUILOMG PERMITS OAIC riUMUt M TYPE AMOUNT — - • ------------ DATE r tUNiMTi-.vmiai}IICNNEPINCOIINTY PROrrRTY INFORMATION SYSTHM rKUPIJ<IVOWNI»S LIST rAGF: 2 M mimjioon rWAOm 1910 CASCOPOMTRD OS0INAME PHIUJPABenYMOCUM TfiPAVa nMUPINRrUM NAMC/AOOR mOCASCOrrRO WAYAATAMN SS39I it 20ll7iMIOOM PROP ADOR 2916 CASCO rUINr RO OWNER NAME ROOEHTII POWEU.JR ETAL TAXPAYER ROOERTII POWELL JR NAME/ADOR 2916 CASCO POINT ROAD WAY/ATAMN 55391 M 20II72JJI003J PROP AOI7R 2920 CASCO fOlN 7 RO OWNER NAME PRAFOPIDICLMAN TAXPAYER prank D PKniLLMAN NAMF/AOOR 2920 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 53391 n 20II723JI0034 PROPAODR 2911 CASCO POMTRO OWNUNAMR JONATHAN A MENTHSUDiOE TAXPAYER JONATHAN A MENT1I NAMFMOOR 23640 SUNNYVALE LANE FXnLSJORMN 55JJI 36 2011723310035 PROPAOOR 2940 CASCU POINT RO OWNBRNAME SCRLMHANSON TAXPAYER SCOTT C A LYNCTTn M HANSON PlAMr/ADOR 2940 CASCO POINT RD WAY/ATAMN 55391 36 2011723310036 PROPAOOR 29M CASCOPO04TRD OWNER NAME PAUL F JOIINCOX TAXPAYER PAULFJOlINCOX NAMI/ADIMl 29« CASCO POINT RO WAY/AIAMN 55391 16 2011721110047 PMPAOOR 2041 CASCOPOtlTRO OWNBINAME COMR1TIRMRKAMEIT1IUN TAXPAYER CURTIS A RATIILEEN MItll HUN NAME/ADOR 2941 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 36 20117233100a PROP ADOR 29U CASCO POMTRO OWNER NAME AUDREY A GAIJJSTFX TAXPAYIK AUDREYGAIIISm. NAMI/ADOR 2933 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 36 2011723310072 PROPAOOR 2912 CASCO POMTRO OWNER NAME M 0 IIARRETT ROM IIARRETT TAXPAYER MKTIAM.nilARRI TT NAMIMOOR 2912 CASa3 POINT RD WAY/JilAMN 55391 M 20II72J3I0071 PROPAOOR 2911 CASCO POMTRO OWNERNAME TII MATTHEWS A M T MATTIIEWS TAXPAYER TRAOIIA MK1UEL T MAniltWS NAME/ADOR 2911 CASCO POMTRO WAYZATAMN 33191 18 2011723420006 PROP AODR 36 ADI Nil .SSI iNASXKtNm OWNUINAME HENNITINKNULIIIDIANU TAXf AYF.R IIENNI;PIN FORFIilTtD LAND NAMI7ADOR NOT lUR SAU AINDLR WATI R IN LAKE MIKA I CERTIFY TIIATTie FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATT AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATEONTIIE RECORDS OFTIC HENNriMN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICLS DtPARTMENT. TOTTIIi IIEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND tIFUEF. « DATE •nilillEST .yf ja ■ /;] 1 HennepiniCounty [payer Servi^i Department V: xjgwBiTj /i,...... •; •*v- fj 7 ’■•■•* ^ V ,r <D ? ^ ~ PanifcParetl Intdnriatlon ‘.J ii> 201172331CM)34 Number ^30 Stmt Hmw CASCO POINT RO 7tit$ k^jlKBfyncofdKlmap. ItnpfMa eonpiaaon o/Mofmation •nd dtta torn Oty. County, and StatafoadauMbat and elh0f$oun»$. ',2. ApplinliMillsl*: t-2M •0-Day lUvkw Period Eadi: 10-19^)3 Fron: Dale: Sabjcct: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commis'‘ion Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaflron* Planning Director September 12,2003 #2946 Otten Brothers Nursery, 2350 W. Wayzata Boulevard - Amend Commercial Site Plan (PUD-1) • Public Hearing Zoaiag District: B-6 (PUD-1), Highway Commercial District, Planned Unit Development Lot Area: West (prima.'y) parcel - 6.4S acres East (accessory) parcel - 3 iS acres AppIicalioB: Request for an amendment to PUIM commercial site plan approval to allow construction of a greenhouse roof s>stm over a small portion of the property bet\\ccn the existing principal structure and the greenhouse roof s>stem app roved in 1998. Staff RecomraendatloB; Approval. ________ LbtofExhiMu A • Application B - Up^ed Survey C • Proposed Site Plan Revision D - Construction Plans.'Elevatior \‘icvv s E - Resolution No. 2692 (Sept. 1959) - Original Site Plan Concept Approval F - Resolution No. 2794 (April 1990) - East Willow Woods Plat Approval G - Amendment No. I to PUD-1 H - Original PUD Agreement &. .Attachments 1 - Photos J - Plat Map 1C • Property Ow ners List Summary of Request Planned Unit Development No. 1 (PUD No. 1) was approved in 1990 for Otten Brothers Nursery and Landscaping for a commercial devciepment at this site and the property was subsequently so dev'eloped. In 1998 the City adopted Amendment No. 1 to PUD-1 to allow* a greenhouse roof system to be constructed over a 19,000 s.f area just cast of the main building. This construction left a IV X 92’ (1840 s.f.) open corridor between the greenhouse and the main building, w hich applicant now w ishes to cover with greenhouse roofing L*i a similar manner. «294<OttraBroi. StfUm^r 12,2003 Patc2 The iwwcovCTcd area will be used for virtually the samerctail sales function as proMde for a more conlrollcd environment and protect customers from the elements. No site gradmg is anticipated as part of the greenhouse project, and the existing walW avs will remain in puKC. Perttneit Code RcqiiircmcDto ms property was created and the existing site plan approved via a Planned Unit Development * subdivision and rezoning to B*6 (PUD-1) and which was subject to a PUT) Apementdcfimng standards and conditions for how the propertv* may be used. This Agreement (Exhibit H) works in conjunction with the B-6 standards which govern the site. Proposed Grceohoose Roof Design *^e ^nhouse is essentially a steel frame structure of posts and misses supporting a polycarbonate sheeung rwf sy^tern, with side panels and roof vents that can be opened as needed. The ‘fill-in’ portiM wll be Identical to the existing roof system on cither side of the corridor.and the applicant JUr n , which lie the two buildings together irehiieeluraMv. Building «^td »i.2ru"c^s ^ei AllbuildingionthcsilcOTonLot I.Eust Willow-Wood^ Lot I isupproxinu:el>6.5aeresinait^ ind the propose roof addition w ill increase stnictural eos crage of Lot I (including buildings^ “f"* “f s f- 03%) to about 68,000 perie^.orrorcoreSg;r»*S ‘^""''''’'^^*’”'"“'"“''‘‘"‘^ TTie entire site is outside the Shoreland District and is not subject to hardcover limitations. Perhaps halformoreonhegr^oi«esiteisalreadyhardcovered.TheCity Engineer reviewed A site plan in 1998 rad concluded that the amount of additional runoff generated by that addition would be so minimal that there is no need for additional drainage facilities as a result of that addition, the current proposal is completely over existing hardcover that existed in 1998 A stormwater drainage pond does exist at the northw est comer of the site. requirements of the maln^bSng^ significantly lower than the 32'6" peak height of the Li# •29440tm ITM. Stpttmhwl2,2m nr3 Gcatral SHc Pin Review Pennit activity since the original 1990-91development ofthis property has been minimal, including occasional interior remodeling of the commercial tenant spaces, signage, landscape sprinkler systems, a thatched-roofgazebo, and the 1998 greenhouse enclosure and loading dock construction. A thorough site plan review was conducted in 1998. The current use of the site has not changed appreciably in the interim. Due to the access location for the StoneBay project west of Willow Drive, Mr. Onen has been advised to consider a future relocation of his Willow Drive access point to a location further north and directly across from Kelley Parkway. It is anticipated that the iivcrease in southbound traffic stacking north of tt»c 12/Willow intersection as time goes by, may ultimately make Otten Bros, customer exiting more difficult, and a relocation of the Otten drivew ay will help that situatkm. This can be dealt with at some future dale as the need arises. Issues for Conskteratlon 1.Does Planning Commission have any specific concerns with the proposed minor greenhouse roof addition? Are there any specific site plan concerns regarding current use or actiWty at this site? Stair ReconuBcadatioa Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the PUD-1 Agreement to allow construction of the greenhouse roof addition as proposed. Applicalioa #,(yi .WMto Date Received Arootiot Paid %I^Oloh CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Addreat iD. Z^r/9 n/Zi Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.ID.) TLICANT Pjjoae (home)__________________ Nam e^ryvCAi^^oS (work) Addresstf«5^y tj) jAj. VO City Al>A?0’ Zip <Cy 0\\T«i£R (if dilTerent than applicant) Name ^x/x>^y*z? OTr^jJ Address ^ a , J?ox _^VC Phore (home)_ Phocs (work)_ City jLQjj/;. Zip Da|eJ*roperty Acquired ^t^d^ido not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/>var) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______$250.00 Residential Accessory Use ______ 5250.00 Institutional (church, scho")!, etc.) ______$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ^ S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ______$250.00 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/PID - sec Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review’ (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation ______$250.00 Easement Vacation _____ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______ $100.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule #2946 REQUIREI^UBMITTALS i\ -----yponiplrted AppUcition Forai. •• * -----^De«cribe request in detail. _ mu»l obtain tKauS lid ^2’’*')*’“'* “<* P'« niap (you A-603. Covenuneni Center. 348-3271) “ Department of Finan« ■ -----Sr^aH”' -c»»0 . refer to handout for .ur>.y Stages in elevadoo faradei * ^ contours) if Imd aJicrations involve 8. 9. of any other Sim documents OR COPV froT"- i..'run.c^-J: W^.^SiulrL";rntS^Xve"lS^ «™«nber that your APP'-«on i. complete. -------------------------------- Date_ appucmvt -s signature "■-------- Atototmtoi; I^'et^ tfp" (sta™t“me"i||?“‘'*t^' md/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this aSL^ T’’^ ""'S*™' f" P»>^"') supplied IS true and coitect to the best of his/her Icnoi^llld"®"' "" infotiMUon Applicant’s signature ^ 0* / / -------------------------Date _ 0\^7«fER'S SIGNATURE members for purposes oI^cstigatiM and verifica;i«*Jf members, and Council Owner's signature ___Dale Applicaw must have ill subn%al< intA .w- /- A --------------- «held«. ih. p'*«u»i cL...,„ m..iu ,, scheduled meetise d Imi^* Plsaaing Cotnmissioa uid CbuociL if ^PPjicami must be present at all Bundui.Azwuc,oV•Wt:i ‘‘^‘j;a‘°.drt.* r CERTinCATE OF SURVEY FOR OTTEN BROTHERS NURSERY IN PART OF EAST WILLOW WOODS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 12 N trst ’ 13- W 32t.l7 0CKNi»Ti»i or mcwks ; *. e. 0. C*»« •ill*- «• •••♦••I •* fil« U |H« Otfic* •* U*« •! tMl*« <" •«« !•» m!« Ui» 1 •»« I. ti*<k t. W't'o- »M««. Mc*r«.>v| u Iht aiai marMt an nia ar a« fivt im in# OllUt »•»« •tfii'*' •» •"« *•' •••« Caa<*ir. • : «*«alaa Ira* a«rka# ••trixf* t»aa ar« *•*•« aH"•a <atii>« T».a !• t*>a» laa »a«»«a«*t* •* !»• «••• enc'>»«< a'«««Mr. a^ im lacatia* af laa a«iat>aa ca«a»ta<. • aa«**f «a«*«, *»a»«i •••c*la» a»»*««tt t««'taa. M aaa* aat t» »«*a aa^ atiwr iavra.araat« •»a>i<ra«ci«a»Ml«- /vJ13 i}l §SS B B >- o: u eo d: D Z V) ta ba X a. S z b3 Ht- O I ilr iji* ! s N isii r aI (» © (£)©0^0©©©©©0@O(i)(!)0Ci)(b(yO O (i) , , iiivAtic»i coi Cl =*fc CITY i ORON<^ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2692 h RBSOLOTION APPROVING TEE CEMBUO. CONCEPT STAGE OP A PUD REZONING APPLICATION THAT INCLUDES A PRELIHINARY SUBDIVISION, VACATION AND COMHERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PILE NO. 1428 WBERBAS, Clifford Otten of Otten Brothers Nursery and Landscaping (hereinafter "the applicant") on June 23, 1989 a formal Planned Unit Development rezoning application with the City consisting of a two-lot commercial and residential lot line rearrangement subdivision, partial vacation of Pino Ridge Lane and drainage and utility easements within the Ringerswood Pl«t. and a commercial site plan review for proposed Lot 1 commercial subdivision, of the properties legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Bloc)c 3, Ringerswood and Outlot A, Ringerswood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statues 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Platting Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 21, 1989 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this comprehensive application were given the opportunity to spea)c thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on September 11, 1989 the Crono City Council considered the application for a Planned Unit Development rezoninq consisting of a subdivision, vacation and commercial site plan review, noting the following findings of fact: 1. The property is located within an area adjacent to Highway 12 that would bo permitted special land use considerations per the directives of Comprehensive Plan Amend.ment No. 2 and under Sections 10.52 and 10.53 of the Municipal Zoning Code. 2. Per Section 10.52 entitled "Special Requirements for Rozoning in the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area", the application has been found to satisfy the standards set forth as follows: A) The total area of the proposed commercial portion of the Planned Unit Development consists of approximately 13 acres. The rezoning standards would require a minimum of 5 acres for consideration. Page 1 of 7 Cityof OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2692 ORONO The prcooeed plan satisfiea the objectives of the Transportation Plan of Cosprehensive Plan Asiendnent No. 2 as applicant has provided dedication of access for Highway 12 and a road outlot to serve as an east/west frontage road. C) Municipal sanitery sewer and water has been ordered to serve the property. D) Applicant has provided detention areas on the site and will provide more detailed drainage plans upon approval of the general concept stage and as a requirement of the final development stage of the PUD resoning. E) The PUD zoning and format of development is preferred within the Highway 12 Corridor. F) The exterior of commercial building proposed for Lot 1 of the commercial subdivision shall be of a coi^ination of tan and dark brown concrete blocks with *pl*t-face stone finish with trim of dark brown and green to match annodized aluminum with clear glazing used through area where plant materials are maintained. All accessory structures shall br of the same exterior finish and exterior colors. shall enter into a Development Agreement specify timing of all improvements associated with the development and developer's financial commitments related to those improvements. 3. The residential portion of the subdivision application involves a lot line rearrangement of existing residential lots. Each of the newly rearranged lots satisfies the area width standards finding that each lot can continue residential use and future construction without the need of further variances. vacation of Pine Ridge Lan-i is consistent the directives of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 as the applicant has dedicated a road outlot through the road**^*^^*^ property for an east/west frontage Page 2 of 7 Cityof OROIVO ['• ILORONQ I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2794________ A RB80L0TI0N APPROVING TBB PLAT OP EAST WZLLON WOODS PILE HO. 1428 WHEREAS* the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota^ and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council ”) has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic -,nd safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a plat by Clifford L. Otten (hereinafter "the subdivider"); and WHEREAS, per Resolution #2692, the subdivider has submitted an executed Planned Unit Development Agreement for the City Council's consideration and final execution, said agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of the PUD rezoning (hereinafter referred to as "FUD-1"), said agreement shall govern if there is a conflict with other documents created with thb implementation of Application 11428; and WHEREAS, per Resolution #2692, the subdivider has submitted an executed Developer's Agreement providing for the installation of certain improvements as a condition of commercial site plan approval for the co.-.prehensive garden center use; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has submitted an executed Sewer and Water Agreement for the Council's consideration and final execution that sets forth the allotr.ent of current and future sewer and water units to the subdivider and a schedule for their payment and agreement to sell Outlet B to the City of Orono for a future municipal well and pump house site; and WHEREAS, the subdivider has submitted an executed road and utility easement over Outlet C, the future east/west frontage road that limits construction of said road until either one or more of the four following conditions are realized: 1. Until such time as the developer, his heirs, successors or assigns, request same; or Page 1 of 5 Cityof OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2794 :il such tins as an aast/west frontage road is constructed from Willow Drive through East Willow Woods and Sugar Woods to Brown Road with one southerly extension from Sugar Woods to Highway 12, and another southerly extension to Highway 12 to line up with Brimhall Lane; or 3. Upon the reioning of Lot 1 and/or Lot 2, Block 2, East Willow Woods, to a commercial zoning district; or 4. Upon the development of Lot 2, Block 1, East Willow Woods, separate from the ownership or uses of Lot 1, Block 1, East Willow Woods wherein access to Lot 2 shall be via Outlot C unless the City, in its sole discreation, determines that alternate access is adequate for said Lot 2. WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including; platting requirements of Resolutionf 26 9 2• 2. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Willow Drive. 3. Dedication on the plat of Drainace and Utility Easements. ' ’ 4.of four outlets for the following purposes: Outlot A is designated as an open space area to serve as a drainage/detention area and as an area providing a landscape buffer to residential properties to north. The suMivider has granted separate drainage easements over this drainage area. Outlot B is designated for a municipal well site and pump house and to be owned by the City of Orono upon sale by subdivider. Outlot C is created as a future east/west frontage road. Outlot D is set aside for additional right-of-way for future acquisition by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Page 2 of 5 iL.. mk Cityof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2794________ icurrent with th« creation of Outlet C» the futu«'e east/west road# the subdivider has dedicated to the City a road and utility easement granting to the City permanent access, improvement and utility easements over said outlet. Other limitations specified with the granting of this easement have been noted above. €. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (permit #89-182) granted approval of grading, drainage and erosion control plans by McCombs Frank Roos and Associates on 11/14/89. 7. Approval of septic testing for residential Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, East Willow Woods, confirming that the newly configured lots each have adequate area for on-site septic development as follows: Lot 1, Block 2 - tested sites for principal and alternate. Lot 2 - existing principal system is satisfactory. Alternate septic testing confirms adequate area for on site sewage treatment system. 8. The Orono staff and consultants have reviewed the plan^ for this comprehensive application and hereby specify approval of each enclosed plan and indentify them as part of the official record for the East Willow Woods subdivision and PUD No. It A) Approval of commercial site plan with internal signage by Kilstofte Associates Inc. Architects dated 4/5/90. B) Approval of grading, drainage and soil erosion control plan by McCombs Frank Roos Assocates dated 11/15/89, printed 4/6/90. C) Acceptance of elevations of main building/accessory building by Kilstofte Associates Inc. Architects printed 1/4/90. O) Approval of landscape plans by Otten Brothers Nursery dated 6/23/89. E) Approval of signage plans by Kilstofte Associates Xnc. Outlets printed 4/5/90. Page 3 of S Cityof OROINO OP rQRQNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2794 /aent to the City of « Park Dedication Fee in the eaount of $6,500.00. 10. Payaent to the City for the legal review and filing of •^teements, easements and covenants in the amount Of $300.00. 11. Payaent of the final plat fee in the amount of $150.00. THWEFORB, BB IT RE80LVBD that the City Council of ^ "°''„*’®^®*’*'*** 1 «n<3 2, Block 1 and MinnVaota^' ^ Willow Woods, Hennepin County, CleVk V** Council" of OroSo^iha^\ direct^it^*May^^^^ Sewer i Water Agreement. The shall determine which of these docurents pro^ t? *9*^"*^ the chain of title of the appropriate the Dlat Resolution shall expire if event it till h- nr.! ** the date specified above, in that event, it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Page 4 of 5 L Cityof OROIVO cti V i ‘ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 279A tmd this 23rd day of April, 1990. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ne on this 23rd day of April, 1990, by James R. Grabek a Dorothy M. Ballin, Mayor a City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. HlWmiNm COUNTY Notary Public Ky Commission Expires Page 5 of S mm CITYOFORONO " HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. I AGREEMENT FOR F«0 Willnw ClifTorJ I.. OHfn, Devglopr THIS AGREEMENT. Made and entered in this day of ^ C-ft 1998, by and between the City of Orono, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called "Cit)*") and Clifford Oltcn, his heirs, successors and (hereinafter called "Developer"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer entered into an Agreement dated April 23,1990 (hereinafter called "Agreement") to develop East Willow Woods as a Planned Unit Development on all the terms and conditions set forth in that certain Agreement; and WHEREAS, the L'cveloper hi> requested an Amendment to the Agreement (hereinafter "Amendment 1") to allow for construction of a greenhouse addition adjacent to the existing principal structure and has requested to move the existing canopy: and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that such Amendment 1 further allow for construction of a loading dock within Outlot C, East Willow Woods; and %\HEREAS, the Developer has requested that such Amendment 1 further allow the entrance monuments constructed within Lots 1 and 2 East Willow Woods at the site enhance fiom Highw’ay 12 to remain as constructed; and WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for such Amendment I, after a public hearing and consideration and recommendation by the Planning Commission, NOW', THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter conta.ned, it is hereby agreed os follows: 1 • Property description: Property description tor Amendment 1 is the same as that for the Agreement. initials of Developer Initial:, of City Clerk Page 1 of 5 «ac 5. 6. Zon ing- Property continues to be zoned as a Planned Unit Development und^ the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning. PtmiiCgd Uks: Amendment I allows the greenhouse addition, relocated canopy and entrance moments as shown on attached Exhibit A. In order to ininimize lighting impacts outside the property, greenhouse shall not have production lighting. Conditionally Permitted Use: Amendment 1 allows the loading dock in the location shown on attached Exhibit A to remain in place and used until such time as the City determin« that the road easement on which it is situated shall be opened. If the City then requires that the loading dock be removed. Developer shall do so at Developer's expense. SitgACttag: Site access remains u.*Khanged from the Agreement Building Design and Constmetion- Building design and construction of the greenhouse and relocated canopy in Amendment 1 shall be constructed according to the plans on file with the City of Orono Hfiighi: The height of the greer>ouse shall be IS feet. The height of the canopy shall be feel. Signs: The signs and signage shall not be changed from the requirements of the Agreement. Cgnvpligncc: The obligations of compliance in the Agreement are extended to include this Amendment 1. Binding Effwt: The binding effect of the Agreement is extended to include this Amendment 1. The notice provisions of the Agreement arc extended to include this Amendment 1. iDSQrPflralipn bv Rcfcrcntc: The plans, specifications and contracts for the improvements in the Agreement and for this Amendment 1 are made part of this Amendment 1. Disclaimer bv cily; The Disclaimer in the Agreement is extended to this Amendment 1. Initials of Develope r InlUals of City Cleric Page 2 of 5 HoM mnd TK. Hold HarxsJcss tod lodcnuiincatioa of the Apecmcnt is extended to this Amendment 1. Remedy for Defeult; Tlie Remedy for de&ult in the Agreetnent is extended to this Amendment 1. 16. Controlling Agreement : The terms ofUiis Amendment I lAill first control its reading. and it shall be read together with the terms of the Agreement These two documents Aal 1 cootred to the extent tfiat there is any differecce or ambiguity between them and other agreements between the City and the Developer. Inidals of Developer Ini'ials of City Clerk,~cZD Page 3 of 5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF^ the City and Devdoper havre catiacd thi$ to be duly executed and to become effective on the day and year first above written. In Presence of:CITYOFORONO J Re\iewcd for Admmistration: Dated: ____________ STATE OF NfINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HFNNEPIN) Cliff^ C5tt«r The foregoing instrument was acknowledeed before me this davof L titU u . 1998. bv Clifford L. Qn^n “ -----^ WyDMrifcewgjatfn tt >vm • ^ ft fh.i ^ ,/ N^ary Public Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk Page 4 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Tlie foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this dav of _____, 1998 by Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor, and Linda S. Vee, City Clerk, of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Public Irutials of Develope r C?/^O Initials of City Clerk JUcf Page 5 of 5 Civ/ of Orono Dccuaent Fora Rtviscd 10/67 _____ CITY OP ORONO HEHKEPIN COONTY, MINNESOTA 165-:...Wb1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NO. X AGREEMENT FOR East Nillov Wooda (IfAM of DsvelopMiit)NOV 1 9 1990 Clifford L. Otti of Oevelopor) THIS AGREEMENT* Made and entered into this 23rd day of April, 1990, by and between the City of Orono, a =unlcipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter called *City»), and Clifford Otten, his heirs, successors and assigns (hereinafter called •Developer*). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Developer has cade application to the City Council for approval of a Planned Unit Development rezoning application (PUD) and resolution no. 2692 of the City that granted preliminary approval of PUD, subdivision and plat approval for East Willow Woods, and commercial site plan approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council has granted approval for Such development on the condition that the Developer enter into this agreement to provide for conformance with the City's Planned Unit Development ordinance (PUD), all on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutual promises and conditions hereinafter contained, it is hereby agreed as follows: 1.Proaertv Descriptioni Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. and Outlets A, B, C and D, all East Willow Woods, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (sometimes herein referred to as the 'Property*). 2.Zoning: The Property is zoned as a Planned Unit Development under the Orono planned unit development ordinance with underlying B-6 zoning. The Property nay be hereinafter referred to as PUD-1. 3.P.gnaittgd Vsgg: The buildings and the signs shown on the site plan attached for which the Developer has requested Page 1 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Cl 4. building peraits ar« to b« constructed only on Lot 1. rhs first floor of the eain building, including its gresnhouss portion, has approxiaately 24,644 square feet of space with the Developer Initially proposing to use approxiaately 14,244 square feet for his business, leaving approxiaately 9,600 square feet of rental space. The second floor of the aain building has approximately 9,600 square feet of space, of which the developer will use approximately 5,040 for his own business, leaving approximately 4,560 of rental space. The storage building, including covered storage, has approximately 7,200 square feet of space. The production greenhouses (approxiaately 4,920 square feet) are also shown on the site plan attached. The Developer's uses of Lot l specifically include sales, service and rental uses for a landscape and garden business, including yard and garden equipment, and supportive and related uses. The permitted uses of Lot l include the Developer's above described specific uses, the zoning district B-6 permitted uses, and the zoning district B-1 permitted uses except arts and school supplies stores, barber and beauty'shops, books, magazines, record shops, drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosaetics and other usual drug store merchandise, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair, jewelry shops and repair, laundrccats, cusic, newsstands, pipe and tobacco shops, retail foeds, tailor shop, and wearing apparel. Other uses nay be allowed subject to an amendment of this PUD. Lot 2 nay be used for the storage of plant, garden and landscape related supplies and materials in conjunction with the Developer's use of Lot 1. Lot 2 nay also be used for zoning district B-6 permitted uses. In conjunction with Lot 1 use and under same ownership. Lot 2 aay be inproved with structures subject to City issuance of a conditional use permit and cosaercial site plan approval so long as such structures are built of the saae materials and of the saae quality as the developer's structures on Lot 1 and so long as such structures are greenhouses which are auxiliary to the Developer's business on Lot 1. Such conditional use permit shall require appropriate screening of the structures froa Highway 12. Users shall be obligated to conform to all applicable Orono ordinances and to the provisions of this PUD Agreeaent. The foregoing uses are permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreeaent. SitB ACP^gg: The present access to Lot 1 is via Highway 12 and Willow Drive. For the purposes of this PUD Lot 2 nay only be accessed through Lot 1 and the ingress only access via Highway 12 and only so long as Lot 2 is owned Page 2 of 6 Initials of Developer C Initials of city clerk" and used by tha ovnar of Lot 1 as part of tho landscapo and gardan businasa on Lot 1. For spacial assassaant purposas ralating to the construction of a road iaprovasent on Outlet C, tha Davalopar agraas that banafit to Lot 1 froB tha road will not taka into account tha presence of the existing Willow Drive access; tha City agrees that the construction of the road on Outlet C will not require the Willow Drive access be closed. The present access fron Highway 12 to Lots 1 and 2 is approved as part of the PUD for ingress only. In its sole discretion tha Orono city council by a three aeaber vote Bay approve tha right of egress but only upon the request of tha owner of Lot l. If Lot 2 ceases to be owned and used by the owner of Lot 1 in conjunction with the use of Lot 1 or is developed independently« then Lot 2 shall be obligated to develop access via Outlot C unless the City in its sole discretion datanaines that alternative access is adequate. 5. Buildino Design and Construction; The inproveiaents on said Lot 1 shall be constructed according to the plans on file with the City of Oreno. The building plans show a Bain building with a partial second floor and an accessory building, and production greenhouses, all on said Lot 1. The exterior of the building shall be of a combination of tan and dark brown concrete blocks with split-face stone finish with trin of dark brown and green to Batch anodized aluminun with clear glazing used through area where plant naterials are maintained. All accessory structures shall be of the sane exterior finish and exterior colors as shown on elevation plans attached to this agreement. To the extent Developer builds structures on Lot 2 for use in conjunction with his business on Lot 1, such structures on Lot 2 shall be constructed of the sase aaterials and of the sane quality as those on Lot I. 6. Height; The portions of the flat roof are at a height of 30* or less. The two story portion of the building with the gabled roof is 32*6* to the peak, 21*8* to the eave, and 27* to the nid-point. The height of this building to the peak not to exceed 32*6* is permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreenent. 7. signs: The signs and signage in said Lot 1 shall confora to the Sign Plans (4 pages) dated April 5, 1990 on file with the City and are pemitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. In consideration of the fact that the said sign plans permit Developer*s pylon sign to be closer to Page 3 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk^5^ 9. ■aintcnance. CBMlianCf; At any tine and from time to tima tha *’*Sf!*'.^*'*^ Provida tha Davalopar® ^•^^JiJ^cata cartifying that tha tarns and provisions of conpliad with and that this PUD Agraanant in full forca and affact with raspact to tha da^lopnant for tha purposa of facilitating sail, matters. To tha extent that ^ara be any ^na fide defaults in such compliance, tha Mvaloper shall be afforded a reasonable time to bring the confomanca, and thereafter the City^ shall be obligated to provide such certificate. hindiHa provisions hereof shall bebinding upon and inure to the benefit of tha hairs, 5*P*’***^^*tivas, successors and assigns of tha parties References herein to Developer, if there be nore than one, shall nean each and all of then. This agreement at the option of tha city shall be placed of record so as to give notice hereof to subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers of all or any part of the property. in this agreement it shall be required demand be given or served by either party to this agreement to or on the other party. ehall be delivered personally or^ Ji*® (return receiptrequested) to the addresses set forth below, such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered ^b”. " ‘Oo «il in .ccord.nc. 21. 12. Wotlce to City City of Orono Cleric/Administrator P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, KN 55323 Notice to Dsvslepgy Clifford L. Otten P. O. Box 249 Long Lake, HN 55356 •• «ii •« i* understood snd aor.m that tha fi*P',i*** ®ijy Council, and th. aq.nta and nployaas of ijj ?•”<>"•»»» ii'Pi* or raipoXsibl. inany Banner to tha Davalopar or Davalopar's contractors. Page 4 of 6 Initials of Initials of subcontractors, ■stsrlalBsn, laborers, or any other person, firm or corporation, for any debt, claia, demand, damages, actions, or causes of action of any kind or character, arising out of or by reason of the execution of this agreement or the performance and completion of the improvements. 13• Hold Harmless and Indemnification: The Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and employees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of this agreement by the Developer, its employees, agents or subcontractors, whether or not caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. 14. Remedy for Default; Default by the Developer of any of the terms of this agreement shall automatically result in the suspension or withholding of all permits, licenses, occupancy certificates or other authorizations issued by the City in connection with the property included in this development. The remedies afforded to the City under this Section shall be in addition to any other remedies to which the city may be entitled by law or other agreement. Default by the City shall entitle the Developer to seek injunctive/mandatory relief through the courts, together with other relief as the law may provide. 15. Controlling Agreement. To the extent that there is any difference or ambiguity between this Planned Unit Development Agreement and other agreements between the city and the developer, this Planned Unit Development Agreement shall control. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer have caused this agreement to be duly executed on the day and year first above written. In Presence of: . .1 .hn. f » -1 *» ■ ' i , jf le mmmwm aivrai CITY OF OKONO — By: 1 ii i 'v (Halor) " Page 5 of 6 Initials of Developer Initials of City Clerk*2JjS^ OCVE PJu>/r, J/l ftJi nr'mu iw«^lR«vi«w«^for Administration: Pats: 0 /ffd AaZT :rHi (nama and addraisj 4ct4C STATE OF MINNESOTA) )S8 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) Th« foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 23rd <>*y^Jtoji^lv?aP^y.C^ffford L. Otten. SANDRA K. RODENZ MOTANT fUSUC • MIMMISOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY 'MV CawMMtM Ciplrw aa«t A IMI inL^ty\A' ^^ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HQINEPIN) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this R- Grabek, Mayor, and Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk, of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporat'*oration. Notary PublTc J^SSSlSSSs Initials of Developer , Initials of City Clerk Page 6 of € /iWf .£ OKNIO OTTBH fVD AGREOfZlII 1. 2. 3. 4. Flat of last Willow Woods B->6 toning standards PlansI Cosnorcial Bits Flan (with intarnal signago) datod 4/5/90 Grading, Drainago t Soil Erosion Control Plan printad 4/6/90 Slops Analysis printsd 4/6/90 Landscaps Flans 6/23/89 Elsvations of main building/accassory building plans 1/4/90 Road and Utilitiaa Easazant ovar Outlot C r L, 20.4S fBCT20ll 10.4S i-C tlGnXT COlOSICXJd. tlSTWCT D 0 Subd. 1. Purpott. Tbf purpott of tht !•( Bigtvay CoBBtfcSol Plitrict It to pxevidt a cotatrcial diatriet •pacifically tailor ad to aeeoapliab \bt coastrelal dtvtiopsant objactlvas of tba ■Ipbaay 12 Corridor Stody Saetion of tbt Orono Ceaprobantiva flan. fabd. 2. Application. All applicanta for a bonding parait in any ligbaay iuainaaa Dlatrict aball ba raviaaad by tba Council and rafarrad to tba flaaning Coaaiaaioa for caaiov. tobd. 2. farnittad Uaaa. Vitbia any liehvay Buainaaa Dlatrict^ no atructura or land aball ba uttd aicapt for ona of tba following uaaa or uaaa dttaod ainilar by tbo Council. A. Officaa (buaineaa and profcaaional). B. Banka and financial iaatltutiona. C. librarian. B. Motala« and bottla. B. Btatauranta (Claaa 1|. Subd. 4. Aalationabip with Cbapttr 10.53 flanntd Unit Bawtlopnant. Otbar typaa of coaatrclal uaaa and aiiad uaa daaalopaanta nay ba appliad for tbrougb tba plannad unit daaalopaant procaaa. Applicationa that includa eouarcial uaaa witbin tba Bigbway 22 Corridor aball aaauaa tba B-4 Oiatrict aa tba undarlying toning diatrict. Conditional Uaa A. Within any "B-l* Bigbway Buainaaa Uiatrict# no • atructura or land aball ba uaad for ona of tba following uaaa aacapt by conditional uaa parait: 1. Any buaintaa liatad aa a ptraittad uaa in tba iont that includaa a driaa-tbru condition. Subd. S. Accaatory Uata. vitbin any •l-|» Bigbway 10.45 •asintti Olitrict, tb* following u»ti oball bo poralttoa oectssory uaos: A. Any accttsory ust as rtgulattd in tbt "B-l" Bualntaa Dlatrict. Subd. C. Aroa, Bolgbt, tot Width, Setback Roquirooenta and DtaifB Mqoiraaonta. Tba followins ainiaua roquiraaonta ahall bo obaocotd aubjoet to additional roquiraaonta and oaeoptioaa contained in Soction 10.52 of thia Title. A. tot Area B. tot Width C. Setback - frincipal Structure Front Side Interior Side Street Bear D. Setback - Acceaaory Structure Front Side interior Side Street Bear E. Setback - Parking Front Side Interior Street Side Bear two acrea 100 ft. 30 (35) ft. • 10 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. • 10 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 30 (35) ft. 15 (20) ft. 5 (10) ft. 10 (15) ft. 10 (10) ft. Setbacka in parentheaea apply adjacent to all residential districts. •30 (35) feet or 1 1/2 tiaes the building height whichever is greater in deteraining front setbacks for principal and accessory structure only. F. Drainage. Wo land ahall be developed and no use 351-2 10.4S w' •hill bt ptrnltttd th«t rtiulte In ««ttr runoff etuilng flooda, •loilon, et eeposltf on odjtcont preptctiot. fitt ond dralnago plint ihall bt subaitttd by tht applicant In aucb detail rtqulrtd by the Council and thoat plana ahall bt rtvitttd by tha City fnginaar bafoca aubaiaalon to tht planning coaaiaaion and Council for opprotal. fueb runoff My bt required to bt properly channeled Into a natural vatar oeurae» peadiag trot, atora drain or other public faeilitiee. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwiae auat be in coapliance with the furface Water Nanageaent Plan and ahall ba conaiatant with other applicable regulationa or City Code prowiaiena and aubject to the approwal of other agtncita baviag joriadietion ever the area affected by the drainage. 0. Weight. Wo atructure or building ahall exceed 2*1/2 •toriea or thirty feet in height eacept aa provided la Paction 10.7S. W* At loaat twenty five percent (2S%) of the land area •ball be landacapod with graaaf approved ground cover# ahrubbery and treea. At leaat three percent (3t) of the land area within a parking area ahall be landacapod. The following ainiaun aiiea ahall be required at tha tiae of planting* Qvorator^ Oeciduoue Tcaaa Ornanental Treat COniferoue Treea Hajoc Shrub Plantings 2-1/2 inchte in diaaatar 1-1/2 inehti in dianatar f fast tall S gallon! X. All traab and traab handling aquipaent ehall be ateced within the principal atruetura, within an attaehad •truetura aecaaaibla froa within the principal atructuxa# or totally acreened from eya-lavel view froa public etreeta and •djaeant laaidentSal propartlaa. 2f accciaory atructuraa art prepeaod. tbay ahall bt conetrueted of the aaae building meteriai •a the principal atructure end be reedily aexved through twinging deore. J. Caragee. ecceaeory atructuraa. acretn walla and 10.4S tipoivd of totainin9 wtlls tfcoll bo of liollor typo* quality and appetsonct of iho prlAcipol atructurt. I. Tba qround laval alow of all aachanieal utllitlaa aboil bo coaplataly aasaanad froo contlquoua ptepartlaa and adjaeoAt atroata« or daaifnad to bo eoapatibla with tbo arcbSttotural traatmaat oC tba principal otructuro. 1h fitornal Xoadinf and aaraioa araaa nuot ba eeaplatoly acroanod froo tbo qroand loaol aia« from eontlfuoua raaidontlal or cooAorelal propartiaa and adjaeant otraata# aaeapt at aeeaaa polnta. N« Tbo llqbt froa autoaoblXo boadliqhta and othar aoareoo aball ba aeraanad vbanaaar it may ba diraetad onto adjaeant raaidantlal «inde«#a. ILtimrm I 1^ I . I I tm — nWMI «•••»«••* I •mmt I ••I#** .ryU--------:L.-_-::iLj-” _. .«isrf S' \ / »mW:SZ- r L. r r ■. l£ U;/^>!^ iri' : 1 r,jp*i-.« ■>k'/jsHMiari p*>*^ .*v.. -!n •'a If mm ^ '• iiJjLlJ:'’~-''''">S?^^^ zm if y:^ ...... WESi fl rT*r?.#mX"...r.: -1 ..{^ »II -tv c “-»t»i»y>—------ ■ti^Su';>,> ■ * - ^ 4 ->34 ii»:«‘;:,|s ?fi' s *.:■ ^1:SiiySiiii '“ >'sr^ V \ -r i -■ ■;'. -' j - ^ .> ^ I §aa?>><.,'/. ■ %l^.&m ^ ■ l!sSfiL>^*j ,:m ‘9 " ■ . ■ •■’ .** •. , **^ ^ •• >•* X';’ n. -^• ;-• • .• V v;.*‘.-.. .. ' \ ’V*" . ^ 1.' ." i— ■ ■-" •'«3.,^ fili rr-**4jL ' * ^ *^-^ •'•■ 1 - ■ - • ''ifVi'.i* "-cV^.r.••'•; ■■■ m^\: kUNUAIk^W III.NNU'iW ».• i«'rfrV PROI*l PROPLRIYOW. INr.tl* .lAMoi^ sy;»ilm .tSLisr PAUI: 2 72 34III232J0BM PtOPAOM 22«S WAVZATAOLVDW OtWaNAME JOIMSSIlfcUXM TAWAVER JOIMtSHELOON 22ASWAVZATADLVDW LONG LAKE MN SS2S6 72 34III2J3](I0S7 PROP AOOR 22AS WAVZATA RLYD W OWNERNAME JOtlNSSIIELOON TAXPAYER CLIFFORD LOmN NAME/AOOR FO box 247 LONGUKLMN 5S2S6 I CnRTirYTIIATTIC FACHJ RHPKI-SI Mrnn ARE AN ACCURATE AND TOUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS FT APPEARS TIES DATEONTII- RECORDS OFTIE lEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPART WENT. TO THE DEST OFMYKNOWLEOCEANDBEUEP. ^ DATE BY HE DEST . 3 #2 Q^'?i &ytrO j } . .k: IUNIMTC;nMBJ irnNNnriN cm »wtv proterty information svstiai l*KUiM:KIYO\VNlJlSUSr FAGE; I )• 311112)11000} PROTAINIR 31 AOORIiSS UNASSKINED OWNER NAME DAIILSTROM tN-VI-ljOfMENr MC taxpayer daihatrom development Lir NAME/AODR 3743 POLARRIA MAPLE GROVE MN SS3II 72 llliMiiAnn?} PROPAINjR ?«I0 INIHRINIAUII VDW OWNER NAME SYSTEM CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP taxpayer MC OONAI.OS 22 0322 NAME/AOOR PODOX 44207 AMFO-IARE anCA«»IL 40(44 30 3411123320005 PROPAOOR 701 mCKEVLAKEDR OWNERNAME PAKPtXRI TAXPAYER PATRCK4KARD4PUGII NAMB/AOOR 723DR:KEYLAK£DR UMOUKEMN SS334 30 341112)230004 PROPAOOR 725 OK KEY UKE OR OWNERNAME PPPUCIIAKLIlAGliJX taxpayer P PATRICK a KAREN PUJII NAME/ADDR 723 DICKEY UKE DR P LONG UKE MN 55356 30 3411023220014 PROPAOOR 3150 WAY/ATAULVDW OWNERNAME CRLOTTEN taxpayer CLIPfOROALOUBEOTTEN NAMBTADOR BOX 340 LUNQIAKEMN 55334 30 34III232200I3 propaddr )• adokfas unassr ;ni I) OWNERNAME CALOTTEN taxpayer CUFTDRD a LOUISE OTTl N NAME/ADOR box 244 LONGIAKFMN SSIM 10 14llt3)2200l7 PROPADDR 2251 PtNF. RKX3E U OWNERNAME CALOHEN taxpayer a n FORD a louse otten NAME/ADDR PO BOX 249 UONOUKEMN 35334 u 34iu.M22aoia PROPAINW 31 AINIKI VSUNASSHiNI D OWNFRNAMli CAI.01TI N Taxpayer clihord a louse otten NAME/ADOR box 344 lONOUKRMN 33)54 72 341112)2)00111 PROP AODR 2344 WAY/J3TA BLVD W OWNER NAME GEORGAVN C KRAMER taxpayer CeORQAYN KRAMER WARM/AmW 2I70SHBVUNOR WAYZATAMN 35391 72 341112)2VXn2 PROP ADDR 2)65 WAY/ATA III Vl» W OWNTRNAME RE ABM lUUCEN AL TAXPAYER OSCAR SEYEO A HOUR) IIAKIMI NAME/AOOR S90S OERNARO PL EDINA MN 33414 72 341112)230023 PROP AMIR 2223 WAY/ATA IM.VD W OWMRINAMB PEARWVENTURESBC TAlVAm PERRVR VENTURES BC IWWWAVZATABLVD LONG UKE MN 33)34 72 34III2)2)»M4 propaddr 372 TAMARACKAVIi OWNERNAME RHEA COMPANY taxpayer RHEACtlMPANV NAME/AOOR 1)733 MAB4 ST ROOERSMN 35)74 72 111112)140026 t'ROPAIMIR 2400 INDUSTKIALDLVDW OWNERNAME SPMDWAV SUPI RAMERKTA LIT TAXPAYER speedway SUPI-RAMERKTA LLC NAME/AOOR CiO PROPERTY TAX RliCORIS 3)9 MAIN STS IINIMAYOII 4)440 )■ 341112)220007 PROP AUOR 7)5 DICKI V UKT DR OWNTRNAME POSKOOU A 5 I SKOOl) taxpayer paui. a sherry SKOOO NAMF/ADOR 7)5 DICKEY UKE OR IjONGUKEMN 55)54 JS 34IHI2}2200t4 PROP ADDR 710 MCKHY UKE DR OWNER NAME J0 WALVATNE A D F WALVAT m! taxpayer IOEL a dune WALVATNE TIODKTCEYUKEDR ORONOMN 55)54 NAMI/ADOR PROP ADL.t )a 141112)22(1020 )■ ..nORISSUNASSK'iNID OWNIRNAME CAI OrilN TAXPAYER CUFTORD A LOUSE OTTl N BOX 244 LONG UKE MN )))S4 Q NAME/AOOR PROPADDR 72 )4lli2)2MnO) 2)4) WAVZATADIVDW OWNER NAME R E A 0 M lUUGEN ETAL TAXPAYER OSCAR SEYEO AIRIURJ HAUMI NAME/AOOR 3405 BERNARD PL EDINA MN 554)4 72 J4111212)0045 PROP ADDR 2)25 WAY/ATA IH.VD W OWNERNAME RICHARDRRUUDETAL TAXPAYER EUTE AUTO 5UUCNARO RUDD NAME/AI or 2323 W WAY/ATA BLVD LONG UKE MN 55)56 AppIkatioB Date: iO-day DtadliM: lO^lf/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FRO^l: DATE: Mike Gaffron. Planning September 10,2003 SUBJECT: #03*2948 WJM Properties LLC. - Monies Automotive Group 2605 West Way7ata Boulevard - Renev^-al of Industrial Site Plan &. CUP (Resol. No. 4845 Adopted 8*12*02) - Minor Amendment Lbt of Exhibits: A • Application B • Lener of Request C - Site Plan'Sun ey D * Resolution No. 4845 E - Plat Map F - Property Owners List ApplJeatioB Summary: WJM Properties requests a 16*mcnth extension of the approvals granted in Resolution No. 4845. The applicant also requests that a 5* fence no less than 50% opaque, be substituted for the screening berm and plantings required at the north and northeast end of the east parking lot. Starr RccommcadalkMi: Approval of the requested extension and approval of a CUP amendment to allow for interim use of fencing in lieu of berms and vegetation, subject to the berm and planungs being required at such time that the applicants* issues with the MCWD are resolved. Background In August 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4S45 granting Industrial Site Plan Approval and a CUP per Zoning Code Section 10.50 Subd. 3(A) to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair, parts warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot. In Ji^ne 2003 the city Council adopted Resolution No. 4993 granting a CUP per Sextion 10.50 Subd. 3(AX4) to permit the construction of a private motor fuel station to support the body shop, auto prep and wholesaling aspecu of the use, a.nd granted amendments of the prior approval to allow refinishin j of the west facade of the existing building uith EIFS (Exterior Insulation TlmJh Syxtcm) f0>>394| WJM Prapcnics LLC * Mgmo Auiomouvt Croup SM5 Wot W«ynia Beulovd a^iof2 I reined to »etUnd burTer and casemem requirements. WJM Propeities has now applied for an P"" "O'*"* Worries ha. been ee^^^rrResSutir" "“™' “»* «>'"P'‘«> 'o -l.« with dte Request to Anieud Berm A Vefetation Requirement Pl^ carefully review the letter of request submined by the applicant. In addition to the time rSne "0 '«* ihan 50?. opaque, be substituted for the so^ng berm md plantings required at the north and northeast end of the east parking lot ■Htpheants issues with the MOW'D are resolved. It should be notedto all improvements n^ultirig m the creation of additional imperv ious surface have been put on hold. These include the new display lot at the norrt end of the building, the drivew ay along the w est side, and the new parUng ^assouthofthe building. However, useoftheexistingeast parking lotwilleventuallycommence*and Its screening is necessary regardless whether the remaining cleraenis are constru«ed. Staff Rccommeudatlon nirth 'a of berms and vegetation along the '■ *«“« “i* tbe nnuiflg CoounisskNi Options for Action 1; 3. Table (specify reason). 4. Other Action. ions. ■OJ-2941 WiM rrafcran LLC - Stomes Auios.g)ti«c Croup 2605 Wot Wiyisa OoulcvaiO rifiior: A DHtRfcdved AaMMirtPald A feo.cO cm* OF ORONO • GENERAL LAND LSE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION She Address 2605 Vest Wavzata Boulevard.Orono. Mlnnasota Type of Application to be Filed Extension and Aaendscnt of CUP Pretty Identificatioo Number (PXD.) 33-118-23-13-0015 APPLICANT Name VJM Pronertlei.L.L.C. Phone (home). Phone (work).952-797-1140 Address 12520 Uayeata Boulevard City Minnetonka O^^NTR (irdiReresi t!ur. applicant) Name drb <a, L.t .c.________ Phone (hone). Zip55305 Address 1100 International Centre _____ Phone (woiklf.i‘>-i:>7-7nr>o Chy Minneapolis. MIC Zip 5:a40:> Date Property Acquired June, 20C1*(mooth/year) I (do) (do not) also o\^*n the adjacent parcels of land. *0wer is selling the property to the Applicant pursuant to a Contract for Deed. FEES - CONDITIONAL LSE P£R.%nTS • ______S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ______S230.00 Instirjtional (church, school, etc.) ______S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______S250.00 Duplex CreditBldg ______S325.00 Cornnercial/lndustrial Use ______$250.00 Lard Alteration _____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 301 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ______PRD.TID - see Fee Schedule X SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change fiom original application) ______After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (•► consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $250.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision S350.(M) Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment S 100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule REQinRED SUBMITTALS I- — Completed Application Fonn. I D«gT»e «q«ci« in dealL > hWJMd^^ (you *• ------tofoSoo."^ *“*"**' *>^«) - refer to handout (hr tuney 5. ------Attach le^ drecriptioa to appUcatkat if eot included on requiml suivey. ■ ----cSt'elS •'“"'‘O” *«»»'« ■” P««o“ *n inlerest in the ProP^- TltU would uclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not cunent owners) J- ------Cbnstrucnon plan, if applicable (see sttff for requirements). ^ ■ddendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ ?OT 1SSSSSSJ doctoients or com suSvm?^ Li/ ?" for aix documentsSUMOTTO. (Staff will require to acate drawing, of aN docutnenta. plan^ etc. to hr The Applicant and Property Owner must sien this anoUcatkm PU^o. application is not complete if the above information has not been included. ^ Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE MS ssr SSS w ..r-.4r! Applicant's signature V--j;gt3.«wJr —________ OWTIER-S SICNATWE flw ij. yU^"^''4L^ Council mcDiber. for puipo»a of invesrigation and verification of tto gAo/o T DateOwner's signature Applicant must have all tubminals into the City offieei 2S <tnw« iwaA... .■.■■at ... Plaaniag Conanissioo Meetings are held on the third Memday^of Lch CoranwtoB Mectiag. scheduled review meetings of the Planning ComnussioTaS Co^fl i®"* Jf Kbeduled meeting, please make airangemcnts to have an autlMriMet M yplicant is unable to aaeiid a Building ft Zoning Office of this changer to tbJ^meeting ^ ** ^ ^ 1L ta o ir ^ d d /I ■ Q :>0 DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT B WJM PROPERTIES, LLC. 12520 WaytaU Boulavard Minnatonka. Minnasota SS30S Regarding Property; 2605 Wayzata Boulevard West. Ororo EXTENSION WJM Propartiaa. L.LC. (Applicant) requests that the construction completion deadline for site Improvements pursuant to Its Conditional Use Permit be extended to December 31. 2004. The extension is necessary because Applicant has not yet obtained the acceptable permits from the Mmrehaha Creek Watershed District for site improvements (impervious surfaces). While an Application for Permit was properly submitted, the Watershed District imposed uracceptable conditions for approval of Site Plan work. The Site Plan prccose J by Applicant invoives minimal grading and -.‘levation changes. The Watersred District has insisted on wetland protection for more than 76.000 square feet < r74 acres) cf claimed "wetland" and “buffer" areas. Specifically, the Watershed District imposed as a ccedition for permit approval, a Perpetual Wetlands Declaration protecting a 1 claimed wetlands on site with a 16 5 ft. buffer surrounding each wetland. Such a Declaration is unacceptable to the Applicant since 4 of the 5 wetlands on site are not sublet to the Waters^r; d District s jurisdiction. The Wetland Conservation Act expressly exe-npis certain v.etlands from its regulations. Exemptions are provided for public and private drainage systems and for wetlands that occur as a result of actions that were taken for a purpose ether than creating wetlands. (Wetland Consenration Act. Chapter Two, Exemptions 2 and 5) Four of the five wetlands delineated on me project s te are manmade drainage ditches which are exempt from regulation. WJM Properties intends to proceed with formal procedures to determine the exempt status of wetlands on site. It is expected that the procedures will be time consuming to complete. In the interim. Watershed District Regulations do not allow any additional hard cover without a Watershed permit Said Regulations also prohibit changing the rate or volume of surface water flows without a Watershed permit Consequently. Applicant can rot proceed with Site Plan improvements that will add impervious surfaces or change drainage patterns until the exempt status of wetlands have been determined. Applicant intends to continue with site improvements that do not add new impervious surfaces and do not change drainage patterns. These s te improvements will include parking lot lighting on the east parking lot. and planting islands in the east parking lot. 1 -—- ■yriiinT -------- L r. 2 -- 2. im :iTJ- "onh««.t of um •■.Mm lh« nofllMMt com«r of m M lot (mo atlachod olto plan). mt itmtet'M UMfSlOoeuf«f«<My Oooww»2'Ajc»^Ac*>v* Jklom.* OrofWOnenBtoflCOMMfiOJP dee maika #8948 •■■■■OQ /■« Q •' ».tS J D 1 CITYofORONO resolution Of the citv council NO. 48 4 K rsDUSTRIAL SITE tLAS HLE NO. 02-2795 Md DKB #8. 1?^' ()■««»"»"» -ihe .ppScinQ Exhibit -A- .tticbed, He™q,i„ County. yWu (heremx.<ier “the property^; ind Zoning Code Section laSO.^sSSon'TA'^lj^J^J'^'!^^^^ d.stAuHo«f«:illty, repels p«uxverchou,e.N,i flee'.ale. \wrDPAe ..A.- j... ............... ^•cre given the oppo.-:uaity to .peai; thereo; Mumewta: IT RESOUTD by the City Council of Onino. findings 1. ■nui»Pplic.!ion«-..revie*ed..ZoningFile»02.2793. 2. The propctty i. located in the I, Ir.iu.tnal DUtrict. 3. Automobile mpal- and wholcaale cperaflon, are pemtined u.e. in the I di.mU huhe I dhtria »"d outside .torage are conditional u.e. •“* Wication on June 17,2002 and Page 1 Of 10 CITYofOROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 4 8 4 K Tlw Pl>i>ning Commission nude the follossisg fmdings of fct I district lists “sSb^^l ;?*?'•" epersUoos. The ssork«iipbol$tering tiRrecsimins./t^ i tody end fender sense, l.e. general customer ^ parts, is not permitted on the nrocem- ofpurchasr.g a \-ehicIe or body shop, a^processine proposed uses such as the uses in the district. P«»itted L-.voIve32.S00 lot m pmposed «ould meet d:.;.rni:ion7f shopuodd'twinm*"'* f*‘™*"*^ *" •*“disvict. The bodyboiiLg. vrtirredis:- stored in the outside stontge eree'soui of th^tuMi, ’ Sl*«cur^iSid*theM^ of building e:ee. ,.\il euto prep incoming losds of unloaded and will be stored outsid/^n »-fo~-bi!es will be outgoing vehicles meestimalede: l2oVcr month! P*ie2ofl0 G. GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THf 5ITY COUNCIL NO. _ b^for 17.000s.f. Stocate »Iff operalmg uses, owner storage, and storage of facility Sft “ *' operation of the faciU^ ifCT.e or wall not less than live feet in height and not less than 50"/. opaque^ ^ Commission finds a berm, not less that 3* in height, shall be The intent is to provide some visual screening to the outside sales area to not luLha 1* •' " *' onderstanding of the tadivid^irulita*;,'’^^^^^^^ «“ The Orono zoning ordinance docs not define retail sales and wholesale sales. The City has used a general definitions book titled The niusirated Book of Development Defiri^i^ni „..v « merchandise. ^pcfsonal or household consurrpdon a.^d renderina sennees incidental to the sale of such goods.* **'"*"‘^*«" of «tablishments is tha: they are usually Retail esublishmenis sell to customers for their own pcrso.-ia’. or householduse. Page 3 of 10 GlTYofORONO J^^ITVCOUNCILresolution of t NO. _ h.« '? ““ r” “■ndirecompam>IeuiththeBlann^«re ^ ■ppeirance ESSS"SSS depreciate sunounding property Mlu« md properties, nor ttill its use of thecomnunity. ®" *' «f‘>y. and tselfsre CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS IcMins lot subject to Lhe follovung conditions: ^ «l« «nd P^e4ofl0 6. 7. GITYofOROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ft 4 K ‘’T“‘* “ “" ■^ "‘"‘"S •'“» »■> >h* property for rc“;S?iiST» ^ ‘" *' »r« “crm" i miSil'dipuyS«?rr:;o“^^^^ provide .„,u,h iighting ,o provide «curi,tKnTrrpro‘;e'r;"“ Page 5 of 10 CITY of OROXO resolution of the city council NO.____4 8 4 5 12. 13. NO. ^ O S O proposed, ergireering infonniuoa •ni .pproved by Ihe 1 *’* >>y *' •PpHcs.-: Mu».heluCr..kW«eah«lDis«c.priorT«c^p'.^™’^^ WMoent (grees to property ouuers initiate such discussions. ^ «djaccc: "■ »iS"0S. »h.u ™,„ire Noise of «.e operaiion shall be in eonfom.ar.ce »id. ,he Noise Ordinance. the City of Orono. ^ conducted as deemed necessary by Ih^form of a letter of «edit*f^^^^ submitting a final guarantee i.n . developers agreement. Uwn ‘ costs, per e.xecurton of will provide an estimate of ti^e total impT^^L colli' -----VV9iJ» Page 6 of 10 Mm I# of^CITY of OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___4 8 4b 18. The undersigned owMr and applicant haN-c read, understand and hereby agree to the ter^ of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument acknowledged before me on tl-Js/:* day of August. 2002 bv Barbara A. Peterson, Ma>*or of the City of Orono. a Minnesota ir.urJcipal corporauon and said instrtunent was executed on behalf of the City. ft ’ -i Notary Public Page 7 of 10 CITYof ORONO resolution of the city council NO. • » o 4 o STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN foregoing me c„ Uu. Ul±_ day of iii.cipS co]ix>nlionand said instrument ^vas ex"mri oT^haYf of the ^ _____ Notary Public STATE OF NONNESOTA COUNTY'OF HENNEPIN DENISE M.LESKINHN MKE» »*OTAWPCtUC.lOA«OTA Cerxteo) :a.\ 3t. 203 OnthisJi&dayof_£^a^j5(^20«^ j ^G.y/KflA. F«rsonaIIy appeared before me, _it_ "ho is personally known lo me -----whose identity I proved on the basis of “— ^ oarVaffiTOatio^witness a credible he/she/they exerted the Notary^Pnlflic i--------------- [1 PHBtW. JOHNSON NO^PUUC .IMCSCTA l%n»i fellii|j^JM.3i.xcS P*ge8ofI0 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. dft 4 K STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Oathis day of.-.20_ . perso^y appeared before me, who is personally known to me . wtoseidentiQr I proved on the basis of______ . ''•hose identity I proved on the oath^aflBimationwitness a credible Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of.^20. personally appeared before me, . w ho is personally known to roe . whose identity I proved on the basis of______ . whose identit}' I proved on the oatWaffirmation witness a credible Notary Public Page 9 of 10 ■shikit 4 4845 irOAL DESCRIPTION W*.l tadusKM Pirt. lu l-k. 2: i' PkgelOoflO 4800 A 4400 B 4000 C MOO 0 I I I I MOO E 2800 E 24M G JOOO H 1600 I l?00 *J 800 K I I I I I ' ' 4 City of Orono, Minnesota street Numbering Index Map . mss LCCI « fox sx 10 LUCE UHE •* 1. jr- -•• 1. -■g<«.j i|fi*inTfr nr . -:v . . 1. EKiniMt s WIPE ^t^\L Hasco Point Ice Rink ^1 1_hJ ^ Approximent Acreage; 3.1 A Section Number 20 Oistanca in feet too 200 N Sitfl Plan as of 6/96 -ru I » Mfm^ ♦ ' '• H.-' -!■ :^;/i --------:|: r -• >?: 'm (■^ 16 ^1^000 /u^'iM/i.t A r ea V (:Ucil£>ltcUMV.\~\ J MLNTJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn. J. Mark Frilzicr, Liz Haw n, and Stephanie Zugschw ert Representing staff w ere Planning Director Mike Gaffron. Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi Anderson. Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth and Cynthia Bremer, and Council Representative Bob Sanseverc w ere absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #03-2927 JAMES AND LINDA MARTINSON. 1435 PARK DRIVE. VARIANCE Hawi Moved. Fritzicr seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2927. James and Linda Martinsoo. 1435 Park Drive, granting a lot width and area variance In order to constrict a new residence on the propertv* subject to the lot meeting setbark. lot coverage by structures, and hardcover requirements. VOTE: Aves 5, NaysO. (#2) #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU. 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Hawn moved. Fritzler seconded, to recommend tabling of Application #03-2929, Jeff Martineau, 2565 North Shore Drive, request for a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#3) #03-2931 TIMOTHY AND KRISTI OSTERBERG. 1045 LO.MA LINDA AVFNUE, VARIANCE Hawn moved, Fritder seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2931, Timothy and Kristi Osterberg. 1045 Loma Linda Avenue, granting approval of the front yard setback variance to replace an exhting attached garage due to limited alternative locations due to the configuration and topographical constraints of the lot \’OTE: Ayes 5, Naya 0, PAGE 1 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN-NING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#4) #03-2932 .MICHAEL HAYF.S OF .MICHAEL HAYES HOMES ON BEHALF OF ALBERT TRAPENF.SF, 3220 BOHNS POINT ROAD. \ vklANTES HawB moved. Fritilcr sccooded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2932 Mkhael Hayes on iMkair of Albert Trapencse. 3220 Bohns Point Road, iranting approval of the requested variances and conditional use permit contingent upon the requirement that a vegetative screen and privacy fence be maintained along Bohn's Point Road, sufficient vegetation and trees must be maintained to provide screening from County Road 51. and that no access to Bohn's Point Road to the proposed garage be made. \'OTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. Applications were heard out of sequence due to the late arrival of applicants. NEW BUSINESS (#8) #03-2917 WINFIELD AND NANCY STEPHENS. 350 CRESTVIEW AMINLT:, VARJA.NCES. 6:08 - 6:25 P.M. Winfield Stephens, the Applicant, was present. Waataja imported that the applicant requests the follow ing variances to construct a new residence on a lot subject to a 75’ creek setback: 1 . Lot area variance to allow a residence reconstruction on a .455 acre lot w hen 2 acres is normally required. 2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback uf 30' when 50* is normally required 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10’ when 30’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance ti allow a rear yard setback of 28’ when 50’ is normally required 5. Creek setback variance to allow structure to be setback 68’ from the creek when 75* is normally required. 6. Hardcover variance to allow 2.T*. hardcover in the U-75* /one when 0«i is nomiallv allowed and to allow 43 75“o hardcover in the 75-250’ ^onc when 25% is normally allowed Waataja e.xplained that the propeny is .455 acres located in a 2 acre zoning district. Since many of the lots in this neighborhood are substantially smaller than me required 2 acres, it has been stafl polir’ to rev iew these properties against the setback requirements of the '/j acre zoning district, which is a 30’ front a.nd rear yard setback and 10’ interior side vard setback. The applicant is proposing 29.6’ front yaxd setback. 10.6’ side vard setback ar 27.7’ rear yard setback.and a With r-gard to the creek setback v ariance, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 75’ setback PAGE 2 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18. 2003 6:(W o’clock p.m. (#8 803-2917 WINHELD AND NANO’ STEPHENS. CoiUnued) from a designated creek to all structures. The applicants property is adjacent to Stubbs Bay Creek and is therefore located within the 0-75 ’ setback /one. The applicant ’s current home maintains a 68’ crcck setback. With the applicant ’s proposal, a second stor>‘ is propost- •' for the section of the structure that is within the 0-75' setback zone. Waataja noted that even though the crcck setback isn't changing, structure massing is and a crcck setback variance is required for the second story. Due to structure e.xisting w ithin the 0-75 ’ creek setback, a hardcover variance is required as well. Currently 325 s.f. of structure exists in the 0-75 ’ zone. The applicant is proposing to add a second storv which doesn’t increase the hardcover but adds mass to the 0-75 ’ zone and results in a variance. Because the applicant is doing substantial renovations which amount to a rebuild. sMff would recommend that all structure within the 0-75' zone be eliminated. Waataja indicated that it would be stalTs recommendation to. 1. Approve the lot area vanance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zomng district. 2. Approve front, side and rear vard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located in a 2 acre zoning district. 3. Deny the hardcover variance requc*st to allow 2J% hardcov er in the 0-75' zone to be consistent in requiring 10(/!o removal of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone w ith all rebuilds and lack of a valid hardship. 4. Deny the crcck setback to be consistent not allow ing structure in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. 5. Approve the hardcover variance request to allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone due to the limited buildabic area in the zone. Chair Smith questioned if the neighbor had been contacted for his comments on the proposal. Waataja staled that no comments had been received. Chair Smith questioned whether the single story that exists in the 0-75 ’ setback zone could remain without the addition of the second stor>‘. Stephens indicated that he would leave the comer in the 0-75' setback single story if it were allowed to remain, adding that he could accept the 30' setback in the back as well. Rahn concurred w iih Chair Smith, and asked if the single story comer could remain. HawTi disagreed, stating that if the structure were to be viewed as a total rebuild, versus a remodel, the City should enforce the removals in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Chair Smith asked what part of the original structure or foundation was remaining. PAGE 3 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#8 803-2917 WINHELD AND NANCY STEPHENS* CoatUiHcd) Stephens indicated that he would be reinforcing or replacing most of the foundation to support the second story and add the wrap around addition. While he recognized the need to be consistent. Rahn noted that only 1 3 of the total lot was buildable. Hawn stated that she would be hesitant to compel a peculiar design in order to pull the structure out of the 0-75’ setback zone. In order to be consistent, Hav\n felt the Conunission should either decide to grant the variance based on hardship or encourage the m>plicant to redesign closer to conformity. Since a significant amount of the foundation would be new. Chair Smith encouraged the applicant to redesign the structure as new construction in order to gel what he wants versus trying to use the old footprint to work from. Rahn stated that he could support an overage in the 75-250’ zone and removal of the structure from the 0-75’ setback, since the lot has a difficult buildable area. He fell the applicant could add 325 s.f. outside the 0-75’ zone. Hawn agreed that the applicant could be allow ed to use the additional 2.7% in the 75-250’. Stephens indicated that he could redesign to meet their suggestion. Chair Smith questioned w hether the application could be approved as recommended. Waataja stated that the Commission could approve the application as recommended by staff and allow the additional 325 s.f or 2.7“o in the 75-250' setback zone Although this would be acceptable, Gaffron pointed out that the Council would prefer if the Commission reviewed the final drawings before moving it forward. Hawn concurred, staling that she would wish to sec the redesign in September. Chair Smith asked the applicant if the Commission should table the application in order to allow him to redesign the proposal for the nc.xt meeting, at which lime, it would move forw'ard to City Council. Stephens agreed. Frilzler moved* Hawn seconded* to table Application 803-2917* Winfield and Nancy Stephens* 350 CresMew Avenue* for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 4 of 30 L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.NNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS (#6) W3-29I9 KEVIN AlND DEBORAH THOMPSON. 90 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD, ARIANCES, 6:25 - 6:52 P.M. Deborah Thomp'«)n. the Applicart, was present. GafTron explained that this item was tabled at the July meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional detail regarding the application. GafTron noted that the applicant wishes to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage 1 1 ’ southeasterly from their existing 848 s.f. detached garage. The new garage will be located 23.1 feet from the south side lot line, w hich is by definition a side street lot line. It abuts the dedicated right-of-way of old Highway 12 or Wayzata Boulevard. The applicant requests the following; I. Setback variance to construct a 996 s. f detached garage pool house/storage building. 23.1’ from the side street lot line where a 50' side street setback is required. 2. Oversize accessorv' structure (OAS) variance to allow the new building to be attached to the existing 848 s.f. detached garage via an 11 ’ x 15 ’ (165 s.f) greenhouse, for a final accessory structure size of 2009 s.f(no accessory* building larger than 1000 s.f is allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area). 3. Setback variance to construct a 20* x 45’ (900 s.f) swimming pool 1 O' from the side street lot line where a 50' side street setback is normally required. CUP for plumbing in an accessory building. GafTron noted that the applicants request for a side street setback variance of appro.ximately 27' to allow a 23' setback is somewhat supported by the fact that the side street is no longer in use, and has reverted to natural \ egetation. The building to be constructed is one story* w iih gabled roof The applicants note that due to topography, w etlands, the location of existing site improvements, and the existing sew age treatment mound, the proposed location is the only area w here they can accommodate their storage needs. Ga^ron explained that the Council adopted the Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS) ordinances in the late 19S0’s to place limits on the size of individual accessory* buildings as w ell as on ihc total square footage of accessory* buildings that could be located on a properly. For lots smaller than 2 acres, it was concluded that no oversize accessory structures shot j be allowed, and any structure over KKX) s.f would be considered as oversized. With regard to this application, the visual impacts of the combined structure arc potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage via a I5’xl 1* greenhouse structure. The City has a 10 ’ building-to-building separation requirement not PAGE 5 of 30 r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNLNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (M #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON. Coatiaued) only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. GafTron staled that stafT finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and the potential locations for such structure arc limited because this is a wooded comer lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessor>- buildings plus the greenhouse structure attaching them will total 2009 s.f The property is allowed up to 2000 s.f of accessory structures in total, but no individual accessory structure over 1000 s.f. GaHron indicated that connecting the structures with the proposed greenhouse structure would not strictly be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and w ould potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to a\oid. The proposed pool in either of the two configurations provided is about 900 s.f. of surface area, requiring a minimum setback of 15* from a side or rear lot line, but required to meet a 50* setback from a side street lot line and 10* from other buildings. Staff feels a minimum of 15* setback should be required for the pool. GafTron stated that the proposed garage would include a toilcLsink;shower, and therefore requires a conditional use permit. He recommended the Planning Commission should ascertain that the apparent multi-purpose functions of this building do not include use as a guest house. If that is the case, approval for a CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure would be appropriate if these findings can be made: I. That the proposed use of the accessory structure w ith plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. That the plumbing fi.xtures proposed arc in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger (it is not; it less than 2 acres in area). 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, si/e and height (variances arc requested). 5. The property owiier agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. the accessory building w ill not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allow ed by City code; and b. the accessory building w ill not be used as a dw elling unless a guest house CUP IS obtained; and c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or othcrw ise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. GafTron stated that stafT recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f accessory’ building. PAGE 6 of 30 MIMTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monda>. August 18,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, CoaHiiied) b) Denial of the variance to create an o\ ersue accessory structure. c) Denial of the side street setback variance for the pool at 10' from the lot line; a 1 S' side •treel setback might be justified, howe> cr. based on ihc size of the pool at 900 $.f, and the lack of impacts on neighbors by a pool a: this locati m. d) Consider whether screening should be required if any or all of the v.*riances iie granted. e) Approvid of Ihc request for plumbing in an accessory structure, subject to the standard conditions. Chair Smith staled that she supported the staff recommendation and also problems with oversize structures. Ms. Thompson stated that they could stn*. e to design something else; however, she believed they were allowed buildings of I')00 s.f, and a combined total of 2000 s f She maintained that the visual impacts would be minor, since only the edge of the pool building would be viewable from the sircit. She pointed out that numerous trees exist on her property, as w ell as, the MnDOT parcel and neighbors property. Thompson believed that the greenhouse would be best suited betw cen the two structures versus tacked on to an end of one of the buildings. Chair Smith questioned whether there was any other potential location for the pool house on the property. Thompson maintained that there was no cil.cr suitable site for the pool house, without losing the alternate septic site or losing r.;jncrous trees which would open up the structure to the neighbor’s. She acknowledged Iha: they could add additional screening. Zugschwert indicated that she would support the staff recommendation with a 15* sq>aration. ^^'hile she felt they could work with the 15’ separation, Thompson indicated that they were trying to line the pool house and pool together. Gaffron pointed out that the Ordinance states that a 750-1000 s f. accessory structure requires a 15’ side setback. 'Thompson slated that, she believed, the 9.0 s.f. pool included the 5 ’ surround around the pool itself. PAGE 7 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o’clock pjn. («6 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, CoflUancd) Although not required in Orono. Hawn asked if the applicants had considered a fence. Thompson indicated that they had not gotten to that point, and that she would assume they would put in some kind of fencing. Rahn felt the edge of the pool already met the 15’ required setback as proposed. Hawn encouraged the applicant to thicken up the screening on their property. While she fell the greenhouse constructed between the two buildings might be the most aesthetically pleasing alternative. Hawn stated that in order to be consistent the greenhouse could not attach the two. There were no public comments. Rahn agreed that there was no hardship to allow the greenhouse to be placed between the two structures. CalTron pointed out that the appro.ximatc 1 OX 15’greenhouse would need to be attached to the other end of the garage and under the combined 1000 s.f. allowance or moved 10’ away. Chair Smith encouraged the applicant to work out with staff what additional screening might be necessary. ZugKhwert moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2919, Kev in and Deborah Thompson, 90 3lyrtlewood Road, granting approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f accessory bnUdiag, plnrobing in an accessory strnctnre, snbject to the standard conditions, and a IS* side street setback variance for the pool snbject to staff approved screening, la addition, the Commissioa would recommend denial of the v ariance to create an oversiie accessory tlmctnre. \'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #03-2922 IMAGINALm ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, I6SS AND 1689 FOX STREET, VARUNCE. 6:52 - 6:55 P..M. .Myma Omstein. of Imaginality, was present on behalf of the applicant. Waataja explained that the proposal w as ori^ally heard at the July 21 “ Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicants were instructed to work with staff on a redesign and conduct a wetland delineation. The applicant requests the following to allow placement of address monuments: PAGE 8 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN'NING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 M03-2922 I.MAGINAUT\‘ ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASH.MAN. CoBlinurd) I A MVtland setback \ arioncc to allow a wetland setback of 5* on the east side of the private drive when a 26'setback is normally required. 2. A wetland setback variance to allow a wetland setback of 12' on the west side of the private drive when a 26* setback is normally required. Waataja slated that slafThas met with the applicant and concluded that whether idcniif>ing the property is accomplished with an address monument or standard 6" x 6" post hanging sign, the effects that they would have on the wetlands arc minimal. Staff has reviewed the wetland delineation report and sight visibility triangle in relation to the location of the monumerns. Because the monuments will be outside both the wetland boundary and sight visibility triangle, suff is allow ing the applicants to proceed w ith the monument design. A 12' setback is proposed on the west side of the drive and a 5' setback is proposed on the east side of the drive. Two separate wetland setback variances are required, one for each monument. Waataja stated that staff recommends approval of both wetland setback variances with the stipulation that footing designs be submitted to the building official to verify structural integrity due to inherent hardships which consist of existing vegetation and wetlands at the driveway entrance which make it practically difficult to solve the driveway identification problem. Omstcin stated that they have succeeded designing a plan that would be outside the sight triangle and wetland. There were nc public comments. Haws Moved, Chair SMkh seconded, to rccommead approv al of Applkathia «K)3- 2922, Imagiaalilv oa behalf of Mike Cashaua, 16SS/168S Fox Street, approv iag the weitaMi setback variances with the stipniatioa that footing designs be snbmitled to the bnilding official to verify slnclural integrity, dne to inherent hardships which coasbt of existing vegetation and wetlands at the driveway entrance which make it practically difTkah to soKe the driveway Mentiflcatioa problem. \'OTE: Ayes S, Nays (#5) #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, 995 WILDUlRST TRAIL, 350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES 6:55 - 7:01 P.M. Heidi Nagel, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron staled that the applicant has down-scaled her requests for variances to exclude the garage addition and the lakeside deck bumpoui. and to now just enclose a slightly smaller portion of an existing second story deck as screen porch, and construct an enclosed PAGE 9 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (»S M3-290S HEIDI B. NAGEL, CoaliMcd) aury>fcay at the front door. The variances include: 1. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch. 2. Uliilc hardcover is not increasing ith this proposal, it is noted that the 75-250* zone remains out of compliance with the 1995 hardcover approvals for this property. Applicant proposes to remove m o areas of existing concrete - m apron behind the garage, and an unused u alku ay/apron bem een the front porch and the driven ay. GafTron reported that staff s recommendation would be to approve the enclosure of the screen porch per the revised plan over a portion of existing I" story deck, approve the extmon of roof to cover the portion of the front porch per the rev ised plan, and that, in addition to the 225 s.f. of harIcover removals proposed, that an additional 103 s.f. of hardcover be removed to reduce the site to the 4.910 s.f limit of the 1995 approval. Chair Smith questioned how much driveway removals co.ild take place before affecting access and safety. GafTron believed that a 1-2* driveway removal would be inconsequential, noting that the removals should have been done by the previous owner. Nagel asked the Commission to table the application once again to allow her to meet with the architect who has brought up some additional issues with the rooflinc. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to table AppUcalkm 1103-2905, Heidi Nagel, 995 WUdbnnt TralL at tbc request of the appUcaa* for the pnrposc of redesii^ii. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#9) #03-2928 3UCHAEL R. MISCHKE, 1972 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE. 7:01 - 7:24 P.M. Michael Mischke, the Applicant, w as present Gaffron explained that the applicant requests a number of variances to construct an attac)^ garage and second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. ^ond story structure encroaching within 0-75* setback zone, 46* from shoreline. 3. Second story addition encroaching 2.9 feet from left side lot line. 4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line. 5. Two story garage structure encroaching 12 J feet from street lot line. PAGE 10 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#9 #03-2928 I^IICIIAEI. R. MISCHKE. ToaHnncd) 6. Hardcover in 0-75’ reductions proposed from 1630 s.f.(31.6»i) to 1000 sf (19.4«i) where no hardcover is allowed, by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250* zone will be reduced from 1216 sf (69.5%) to 952 sf(54.4?;). Additional factors: • Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s.f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f. allowed). • Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5* aw ay from this residence (separation between fireplace chases is l.T). GafTron explained that the property is the second lot south of Coffee Channel, and is subject to 75* setbacks from two sides. He noted that the applicant proposes to remove the existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely w ithin the side 0-75* zone, and add a new 2-stall attached garage, plus add a second story over the existing house and new garage. GafTron pointed out that the property is very small, and impacted not only by its proximity to the lake, but by the proximity of neighboring structures. The house to the north is only r-2’ from the side lot line, and the existing separation between the applicant’s house and the neighboring house is 4*-5* (their chimneys are only 1 .7* apart) GafTron pointed out that the structural coverage on the property w ill increase from 1333 s.f to exactly 1500 s.f as allowed by code. The result is that 22”^ of the lot will be covered by structure. In addition, hardcover on the property in both 0-75* and 75-250* zones is proposed to be reduced substantially, primarily by eliminating areas of gra\ el driveway. The detached garage moves out of the 0-75* zone, but is replaced w iih a larger garage in the 75-250* zone. This results in less open parking area on the property, but still yields a parking area on the lot with depth from 12* to 21*, allow ing for one larger v chicle and one subcompact car in the drivew ay. GafTron pointed out that the main entry to the residence would be the door on the lake side, w ith a secondary access through the garage. Applicant proposes to add non-hardcover uatkw'ays and non-lined landscape beds around the residence. He added that the garage addition is the smallest functional footprint (20*x20*) and is located so as to be out of the 0- 75* zone, which places it 6.9* from the south lot line. This also forces the garage to be nearer the street than the required 30* setback, but as a trade-off it minimizes hardcover. The street right-of-way at this location is a widening of County Road 19 due to the bridge, and the street area in front of the lot acts as a shared driveway. Given the limitations imposed on this site by the lot size, location very near the lakeshore, relationship to the road right-of-way, and the proximity of adjoining homes, Gaffron stated that staff recommends the following: a) Approval of the right side and street setback variances for the garage addition. PAGE II of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («9 M3-292S MICHAEL It MISCHKE, Conitaaed) b) Conditional approval of the leA side setback and lakcshorc setback for the second story house additions - the second story should be setback 8-9* from the lot line to maintain a 10* separation bet^% een the two homes (i.c. only a 1-2’ encroachment of side yard); however, requiring a full 10* side setback would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primari!. to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... - applicant to confirm the structural ability of the e.xisting foundation to support a second story, and address the degree of removals intended to allow a determination that this will not become a total rebuild. c) Approval of hardcover proposal, with appropriate conditions placed on use of non hardcover materials for w alkw a>*s. Given the difficult parking situation along Shadvwood. Chair Smith inquired whether the parking design of the application might accentuate the problem. Gaffron reiterated that the property falls near the w idened portion of County Road 19 near the Mdge. which acts as a shared driveway and would rot cause to accentuate any parking Chair Smith asked what future ‘maintenance and openness issues' might arise. If the home wye situated just 2‘ from the lot line. GafTron indicated that it would be difficult to maintain the home, or c\en erect a ladder that would not sit on the neighbor's property. It would also be difficult for equipment to access the lakeside ol the home for repairs as well. Rahn stated that, personally, he would like to see a 10* side setback mainuincd and a longer drivew ay. He believed it would be more aceeptable to allow an encroachment into the 0-75' setback a little bit in exchange for a 10* side setback. In addition, he suggested the garage be slid back into the home and that the second story be stepped back on the other side so no further massing of the encroachment occurs. Mischke stated that in order to slide the garage into the home, the interior garage stairway would be impacted by moving to the center of the garage. Ilaw n asked w hether the foundation had been ev aluated to see if it could support a second story. She asked why the applicant would not simply rebuild versus remodel. Mischke stated that he had plans to have the foundation examined; however, felt he could not aflbrd to rebuild the residence and maintain the brick fagade currently in place. PAGE 12 of 30 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («f «03-292t MICHAEL It MISCHKE,CoBtia«cd) Ha«-n pointed out that the applicant would be gaining only half the second story size he desired if it were stepped back and slid into the garage. Mischke indicated that he would need to determine how the 10’ requirement the Planning Commission w-as recommending would impact the design of the home. Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application for redesign purposes. Mischke asked if the Commission could approve a portion of the design in order to allow him to proceed w'ith the garage addition. Gaffron felt this would be difTicult given the proposed second sior>‘ above the garage, since the Planning Commission had not yet determined their comfort level w ith the entire property. MiKhke asked for further direction. Chair Smith stated that she w ould be comfortable with the staff recommendation* In addition, Rohn asked the applicant to include a 10’ setback from the garage and no further encroachment on the other side. Hawn recommended that the applicant have the foundation evaluated to ensure it could support a second story before proceeding. Kara Hutton, 1835 ShadywooJ Road, felt that, aesthetically, the design would be a nice change. Mischke stated that he also had a signed letter of support from the neighbor on the channel. Hawa moved, Raha sccoadcd, to table Applkatloa M3.292S, Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywrood Road, for the parpose of redcsigB. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mischke asked if other Commissioners, as w ell a** Rahn. w ere opposed to leaving the garage where proposed. Hawn and Chair Smith indicated that they were not against it. While he empathized with the applicant, Rahn stated that he was against it from the sta^int that there should be access to the lakeside from at least one side of the home for maintenance, as well as, safety reasons. PAGE 13 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. #03-2928 MICHAEL R. MISCHKE, Coatiavcd) Chair Smith stated that she could support encroaching fiirther into the drivc\\av area to obtain a greater side yard setback. Hawn staled that she was opposed to a rock walkway to the front door, since as Frit/ler has pointed out on many occasions, the walkw ay is often resurfaced after the first >ear. Mischke asked what the Commission would suggest instead of rock. Gaffron suggested the applicant reconsider where the main entr>- should be placed. Hawn indicated that she would be receptive to or prefcT allowing a wooden slat walkway, in lieu of the rocks, as a better way to access the front door. Fritzler indicated that he agrec\l with Rahn's earlier reser\alions. (#10) #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOC l.\TES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND DELORES L11TLE, 2775 SHADYWOOD RO.AD, VARIANCE, 7:24 - 7:38 P.M. JefT Ripley, Applicant's representative, and the Applicant. Mr. Little, were prc*scnt. Foth indicated that the applicant retjucsts a hardcoxer xariance in order to construct a 22'x 25* garage over existing driveway hardcover. The variance includes: I. Hardcover variances for the 0-75’ and 75 -250' zones. Hardcover in the 75’-250' zone is currently at 60.5% (10.753 s.f.) and in the 0-75’ zone is at 4 Q|*i (378 s f). The nature of the hardcover is changing in both zones resulting in a full hardcover review, Foth explained in 1986, under previous ownership, variances were granted for construction of a 2 story deck and stairw ay comprising 0.16% hardcover within the 0-75’ zone where no hardcover is allowed and 37.6*i hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25% is normally allowed. A 3' structural encroachment into the 0-75' zone where no structure is allowed was also approved. The total hardcover amounts approved were 0.16*0 in the 0-75’ zone and 37.6* o in the 75’-250' zone. In 1995 under the pre\ ioas owners, variances were granted to permit construction of a two- storx addition constituting addition.il hardcover in the 75’-250* zone in excess of the 25*/o normally allow ed. As a condition of this hardcover variance approval in the 0-75’ zone was limited to 0.2% and the 75'-250‘ zone was limited to 5.777 s.f. (31.7*o). Although the additijnal shared driveway within the 75’-250 ’ zone wus not figured into the hardcover w ithin that zone, Foth stated that for staff purposes it was now included Therefore per Resolution #3610 (5.777 s.f. + 1.518 s.f. for additional driveway) 7,295 s.f. lolal PAGE 14 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6;00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND DELORES LITTLE, Coatin«cd) ^■rdcover was approved ia the 75*-250* zoae. The owners were required to remove the landscape hardcover detailed in Resolution #3610. Folh e.xplained that the current applicants arc proposing to construct a 22'x 25* 2-stall attached garage on existing driveway. She noted that the Planning Department Staff recommends an approval of the hardcover \ arianccs per the follow ing: 1. The fabric and/or plastic under landscaping beds be removed as well as additional hardcover added since the 1995 variance approval which results in n total of 314 s.f. in the 0-75* zone. Currently there is 378 s.f of hardcover w ithin the 0-75 ’ zone where hardcover is normally not allowed. Hardcover in this zone consists of landscaping and a portion of paved patio, stairs and landing for the 2nd story deck. 2- The 3,774 s.f. within the 75*-250* zone be removed to bring the total hardcover in the 75 ’-250* zone to 6,979 s.f. (39%). Plastic and or fabric has been added to the landscaping beds since the IW5 variance w here the fabric and or plastic w as required to be removed. Additionally, since that time paver walkways, deck and home bump-outs have been added causing the hardcover to increase be>‘ond the 1995 approved levels. This 3.774 s.f to be removed should include 3.331 s.f. of plastic and/dr fabric from landscape beds and 443 s.f of deck, pavers and etc. Chair Smith asked if Ripley could respond to the questions of removals. Having just spoken to the owner. Ripley stated that removals w ere being taken care of GaHron asked what the removals would consist of. pavers, portions of the driveway, etc, Ripley slated that the applicant would accept statTs recommendation. Mr. Little stepped forward and pointed out that the paver walkway was the only access to the rear yard. Gaffron rc-commcndcd the applicant consider removals from the driveway, approximately 3* w ide 100' long, as well as. a reduction of the pav er pathway. Fritzler suggested the applicant reduce the size of the deck and paver pathway. Little stated that he could accept removing I 1/2 ’ from either side of the driv eway. PAGE 15 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTsTNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18. 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («I0 #03-2930 STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHAI F OF RIC HARD AND DELORES LITTLE, Coatinued) WTiilc the driveway was lo be redone at a later date. Ripley pointed out that they could redo the driveway sooner to meet removal guidelines. Since the applicants were receptive to driveway removals. GalTron suggested the Commission try to determine a square footage amount. Fritzler maintained that the concessions would need to get them back to the 19*^5 approvals. GafTron indicated that the applicants could w ork w ith staff lo find the necessary removals. Hawn suggested no permit be issued until the removals occurred. GafTron noted that the removals are required to be done by the time of the fooling inspection. There were no public comments Hawn moved, Rahn seconded lo recommend approval of Application #0.3-2930, Streeter and Associates on behalf of Richard and Delores Little, 2775 Shadywooil Road, contingent upon staff recommendations that hardcover does not exceed the 1995 approvals, the removals are identified prior lo City Council approval, and that fabric, as well as, other remov als are removed prior lo the fooling inspection. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#11) #03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA MACDONALD. 2480 OLD BEACH RO.AD, CONDITIONAL I'SE PER.MIT, 7:38 - 7:56 P.M. Gary Nccc. on behalfol the Applicant, and Dan Dufiy. the architect, were present. Waataja explained that the applicant requests the following to allow the construction a three car accessory building w ith attached entertainment and toilet nx>ms and to remodel the existing guest suite above the existing attached garage: 1. A conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory* building for the new detached garage cnterta>nment room. 2. A conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing attached garage. 3. A variance to allow a separate w ater meter for the new plumbing in the new detached garage'entertainment room and the new plumbing above the existing attached garage. PAGE 16 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18, 2003 6;00 o’clock p.m. <»11 M03-2933 CARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA MACDONALD, Conliaucd) 4. Hardcover variance to allow 35?o hardcover in the 75*250’ zone to continue with the additional hardcover being added in the 250-500' zone. Waataja noted that after review of the application it w as determined that a conditional use permit would also be required for the non-rental guest apartment above the existing attached garage. This is because the improvements include separate bathroom and kitchen facilities. Further review revealed that the property is currently over in hardcover in the 75- 250’ zone. The proposal only adds hardcover to the 250-500* zone within the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Because hardco\cr is being added to the property, the whole property comes into play for hardcover revievv. Since the applicants are proposing to construct a detached three car garage w ith an attached entertainment room including bathroom facilities. Waataja stated that this requires a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory’ building so it can be reviewed against the following conditions listed in the Zoning Ordinance; 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure vv ith plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping w ith the intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 5. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that: a. The accessory building w ill not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City Code, h The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. The accessory building w ill not be rented, leased or otherwise prov ided for use as a dw elling under any circumstances. The proposal meets all of the above requirements; therefore staff is recommending approval of a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the proposed detached garage entertainment room. Waataja continued, noting that the applicant is also proposing to remodel the existing guest suite above the existing attached garage. This includes adding a toilet room, closets, and kitchen facilities w hich also requires a conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment due to its ability to be used as a full time apartment. PAGE 17 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.NNLNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («1 1 M3.293J CARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA ’ NUCDONALD. CoaltoMd) With regard to ihc uaicr mcier variance, the Ordinance requires Jiat utilities for non-rental guest apartments not be metered separately uhich is what the applicant is proposing Howc\er. Waataja stated that city stafTdirected the applicants to design the utilities where they would be contained w ithin the property boundaries. To do this, w iihout tearing the entire house down, a separate meter must be installed. The intent of this condition is to not have a separate address pa>ing for the separate meter. The applicants has e indicated they w ill not be using the apartment as a means for income but rather for convenience for their guests and therefore meet the intent of the condition set forth in Ihc conditional use permit requirements. Waataja indicated that, since the applicants arc proposing a larger accessors’ building than Ihc two car garage that currently exists, hardcover is ultimately being added to the property. The new building will be located in the 250-500* zone and will meet the 30*i hardcover for this zone. However, the 75-250’ zone is currently over on hardcover and because additional hardcover is being added to the property, this extra hardcover is up for discussion. All work is being conducted in the 250-500* zone. Tlie applicants are adding a larger garage and a new patio connecting the pool and entertainment room In addition, they arc proposing a net loss in driveway (combination of nexv pavement in the 250-500* /one and reducing pavement in Ihc 75-250* zone by 239 s.f.). This brings the total added hardco\er in the 250-500* /one to 860 s.f. Potential removals at a I: I ratio of added hardcover would be consistent w ith what has been approved previously. This would amount to a reduction of 860 s.f. hardcover within cither the 75-250 or 250-500’ zones or combination thereof. Waataja explained that staff recommends: 1. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessorv building for a toilet room in the new detached garage entertainment room. 2. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing garage. 3. Approval of a variance to allow a separate water meter because tlie conditions of the existing water serv ices would require the house to be tom down to be able to add the proposed plumbing using the c.visting meter. 4. Approval of a haidcover variance for the 75-250’ zone subsequent to hardcover removals w hich amount to the area of hardcover being added (either in the 250-500’ zone or Ihc ^5-250* zone or a combination thereoO. Chair Smith reiterated that the apartment would not be a rental apartment. PAGE 18 of 30 k™_. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. m I M03-2933 GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA MACDONALD. Cominvcd) Ncce questioned their ability to consider a wood slat deck something other than hardcover, as was suggested in an earlier application this evening for a walkway. Chair Smith maintained that a wood slat deck is dilTerent than a walkway situation. She staled that the Commission considers the uniqueness of each application, and in the City's opinion, a deck is not necessary hardcover. Duffy indicated that the utilities, as well as. sewer were big issues for consideration. He pointed out that the applicant made an effort to contain the new construction to the 25U* 500' zone based on staff s recommendation, and remo\ e some of the hardcover in the 75- 250' zone. He encouraged the Commission to rccogni/c this effon and work with them or consider making concessions as well. Hawn stated that she believed the applicant must still find an additional 860 s.f. of removals in order to be consistent. ^^l1ilc Rahn indicated that the Commission has been holding discussions regarding hardcover and nonhardcover, he maintained that these definitions would not be made this evening; therefore, the deck would be considcrc'd hardcover. Zugschwert stated that the 1:1 removal ratio is consistent with what has been required of other applicants. Hawn pointed out that there was a great deal of driveway hardcover on the property and suggested the applicant consider removals. Duffy indicated that he. too, believed they could accomplish the removals. Given the fact that the removals will take place. Rahn encouraged the applicant to work with staff to identify the specific removals prior to moving to City Council. Nece stated that they could cut the driveway back and garage for 629 s.f of removals and remove part of the block patio as well. There were no public comments. Rahn moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application W)3-2933, Gary Nece on behalf of Robert and Brenda MacDonald, 2480 Old Beach Road, approving the conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory building for a toilet room in the new detached garage/entertainment room, approving the conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing garage, approval of a variance to allow a separate water mrter because the conditions PAGE 19 of 30 ORONO PLAN n S^^^n %Ss?ON MEETING Monday. August 18,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11 WJ-2WJ GARY NECE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA MACDONALD, CoBtin«ed) of lilt ciittiig water «cr> icc« woald require the house to be loro dowu to be able to add the proposed plumbiog usiag lie eiistiog meter, and approval of a hardcover variaocc for the 75-250* zone subsequent to 1:1 hardcover removals whkh amouol to the area of hardcover beiag added (either la the 250-500 ’ zone or the 75-250* zone or a combiaalioa IhereoO. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays I. Fritzler disseatiag. In Friizlcr's opinion. Ihc hardcover removals would likcK return at a later date As in all cases, Gaffron stated that the City could only ensure the removals were complete at the time of the footing inspection. (MI2) #05-2935 SCOTT AND KAR.A HITTON. 1835 SIIAD^AVOOD ROAD. \ ARJANCE, 7:56 - 8:23 P.M. Scott and Kara Hutton, the Applicants, were present. Foth explained that the applicants request aftcr-thc-fact hardcover variances and an after- the-fact lokcshorc setback variance in order allow a 10' .\ 12' shed within the 0-75* zone and after-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25®o within the 7'‘-250' /one Additionally, the applicants arc requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f.. The variance includes; 1. Hardcover in the 75'-250 ’ zone of 31.9 ?o when 25»o is allowed and hardcover in the 0-75' zone at 1.7 “« when 0*o is allowed 2. Accessory structure within the 0-75' setback where none are allowed. Foth indicated that although the property doesn't have actual navigable lakeshore. this property is situated adjacent to wetland w ithin Lake Minnetonka, and is within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Miiutetortka. therefore requiring the 75' setback In 200) the applicants applied for a building permit to construct an attached 2-stall garage and 2 story addition. At that time staff noted that the properly exceeded the 25% hardcover for the 75'-250' zone fn^m the OHWI.. The applicants worked with staff and reduced the hardcov er to that w hich is allow ed by code, as a condition of the building permit issuance. Foth noted that in April 2003, it was found that the driveway hardcover that was required to be removed had returned and a 10'.xl2 shed was added to the propertv approximately 35' from the OHWL (within the 0-75' zone). Currently the property is over on hardcov er in both the 0-75'. and 75'-250* zones. • 0-75' ■ 1.7% (134 s.O- where none is allowed • 75'-250' - 31.9% (5272 s.f) where 25<?o is allowed PAGE 20 of 30 ________________.d MINLTES OF THE ORONO planning COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#12 M3-293S SCOTT AND KARA HLTTON, CoatiaMd) The applicants are proposing to further increase their hardcover by 42 s.f. for a staircase addition to their existing deck, and are requesting for the hardcover to remain over the maximum wth a total of 5314 s.f. \\ithin the 75’-250* (32.2%). Foth stated that it would be staff s recommendation to; ^ Deny the aner-the-fact variance to encroach into the 75* lakohorc setback. ^ Approve the after-the-fact hardcover variance w ith the follow ing stipulations: 1. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting b^s 2. Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75' zone amounting to 1.7 */o. 3. Removal of the shed in the 0-75’ zone. 4. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27?o coverage (total allowed to remain 4.464 s.f. Hardship: Staff does not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to e.uecd 27?-i in the 75'’250'zone Chair Smith questioned whether Engineer Kellogg's recommendation should be included as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Hutton explained that they were faced w ith major runoff problems after rcnioN ing the original blacktop in 2000; therefore, they were forced to replace the blacktop. The applicants shared a picture board of photos show ing the spring w ater runoff damage to the living space and garage caused by the removal of the blacktop. Chair Smith encouraged the applicants to consider the recommendations made by the City Engineer to consult a landscape engineer to build drainage swales in lieu of the blacktop. Mr. Hutton maintained that their home is located very low on the property and street; therefore, is subject to the entire neighborhood's runoff. He maintained that huge amounts of runoff flows through his property each spring and they did not wish to face the water problems again. Chair Smith asked what else on the property could be removed to reduce hardcover. Mr. Hutton indicated that a small concrete deck in back could be removed for a small gain, as well as, a portion of the turnaround in the driveway, and a small portion of retaining wall. He pointed out that they had few removal options and. in fact, stated that they had asked the City to allow them to build an anached garage higher up in 2(X)0 and were told that was not a good planning option. Gaffron staled that the calculations reflect a difference of 808 s.f. as to what was originally approved. PAGE 21 of 30 LiiOU MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANTSTNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#13) #03-2936 BRtCE MEESE AND MALREEN ML RPHV. 3135 C ASCO CIRCLE. VARIANCE. 8:23 - 8:59 P.M. Bnicc .Meesc and .Maureen Murphy, the Applicants, and Camgan Curtis from Stonchouse Designs, were present. Waataja reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home on a .49 acre lot w hen .5 Kres is required. 2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home w here the w idth at the shoreline and 75* setback is 60* when 100’ is normally required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover in the 0-75* /one when 0“o is allowed and to allow 37*i hardcover in the 250-500' zone when 30“i is allowed Originally. Waataja stated that the applicants applied for a variance to rcmiHlcl the existing home and allow an existing, non-conforming 8' setback in the southw estern comer of the home to remain to try and save an existing large maple tree. After reviewing the plans and conversations w ith the architect it become apparent that the majority of the existing home w as to be demolished to accommodate the renovations, and if the true intention was to save the tree the home should be shifted north. Because of this staff directed the applicant that the project would be re% iewed o.^ a rebuild and that the home should be shifted to meet the 10’ setback requirement. The applicant agreed to this and submitted new plans applying for a lot area and lot width variance W’oalaja explained that upon further examination of the plans it w as discovered that the new home would meet the hardcover requirements in the 75-250 ’ zone but the 0-75’anJ 250-500’ zones, as they cuncntly exist, are o\cr on hardcover. Due to the rebuild, the whole lot is review ed for hardcover compliance and has required the applicant to now apply for hardcover variances. Because the house is being rebuilt and not renovated a lot area and lot w idth variance must be reviewed as a formality. The lot is approximately 21.392 s.f. or .49 acres in area, just short of the 22.000 s.f (.50 acre) requirement, llie property measures 60’ in width at the shoreline as well as at the 75’ setback line. 40’ short of the 100’ width requirement This is generally the characteristics of lots in this neighborhood. Waataja explained that the applicants bought the property this past winter. The new plans meet the hardcover requirements for the 75-250 ’ zone. Because the house is being rebuilt the entire lot is reviewed for hardcover compliance. Both the 0-75’ and 250-500’ zones are non complianl as they currently exist. In the 0- *5 ' zone there is approximately 14% of hardcover. This includes a circular concrete patio, fire-pit. suirw ay, boulder retaining walls, and deck. The applicants have agreed to remove the circular concrete patio and fire-pit which results in 355 s.f. or 7.4?* PAGE 23 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (1^13 #03-2936 BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY, CoDtinued) Mecsc stated that the deck helps to alleviate the steepness of the stainvay. Chair Smith noted that the Commission has ailovved steps where the grade has been exceptionally steep; however, she questioned whether they have allowed decks for safety purposes in rebuild situations. Gaffron stated that, in most cases, rebuilds have dictated removal of decks in lieu of a landing on the steps. Fritzlcr maintained that the deck, as is. could not stay. Hawn pointed out that the yard con.sists of a verv' compromised slope. She questioned whether the removal of the deck w hich helps to support the w all w ould upset or do tr.ore damage to the site than would be allowing it to remain. She w as unsure if the verv- removal of the deck w ould jeopardize the very shoreline they are striving to preserv e. Rahn believed the deck portion of the retaining wall w as not neccssarv for the w all s>stem to remain, although he w ould make an allowance for a landing with excess space to house a lockbox. He felt consistency dictated the decks remov al. Zugschwert agreed with Hawn that there is a need to ensure the integrity of the wall system. While she noted the Commission w as divided on the deck. Chair Smith added that the Commission could support the lot width and area variance requests. Hawn stated that she had trouble supporting the need for a three car garage, when a r.vo car garage would sufTice. and hardcover was in question. Murphy stated that, while she felt they w ere m.iking numerous concessions, she also believed the three car garage would be good for resale and storage. She maintained Lhat the three car garage w ould not impact any views and w ould help them to save some of the trees on the site. Curtis pointed out that the top part of the building pad w as extremely small and that no matter what size the garage they w ould be over on hardcover there. Rahn asked if the Commission could accept the applicants borrowing from the 75-250' zone w here little has been used in order to beef up the 250-500* zones. PAGE 25 of 30 Ml MLVUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18. 2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#13 #«3.293« BRUCE MEESE AND MAUREEN MURPHY. CouHRscd) By borrowing the square footage of one zone and moving it to another. Waataja pointed out that the applicants would be at 26.5% hardcover, in excess of merciv 140 s.f.. which could likely be removed elsewhere. Gaffron pointed out that the deck is in the 250-500 ’ zone. Although he was hesitant, he suggested »he garage could be moved closer to the road, thus reducing the Icmith of the driveway, it would be harder to screen. Murphy pointed out that moving the garage back would cause the loss cf numerous tall spruce trees, and since the road is so narrow , and her car had been hit parked along the road once, it would be better for the neighborhood to keep parking contained w ithin their properly. Gaffron stated that the hardship could be considered the small size of the zone at the top of the site. Chair Smith asked w hether they might still consider an oversized tw o car garage. Waataja stated that it steps back from 23.5’ to 21.5’ and has three .separate doors. Haw n stated that she w ould accept the smallness of the zone, since she believed it w ould be better to have the parking away from the road in this situation. GanVon reminded the Commission of the example of the Cable property, w here the applicants chose a too narrow driveway for their three car garage in order to meet the 25% limit. Rahn suggested they consider some reductions in driveway cover, even though he agreed the zone w os loo small. Zugschwen stated that she was unwilling to force the applicants to remove their three car garage in order to achieve a ?•, gain in the zone the Commission deems as a hardship. Chair Smith asked for an opinion on the deck in the 0-75* zone. Friuler maintained they remove the deck and allow 52 s.f for a landing and lockbox spot. Meese questioned what they would do if the deck was removed and they found they had to replace it. i.c. replacing one hardcover for another. PAGE 26 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («14 M3-2937 BOB MORLOCK. Coaliiacd) With regard to Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control. W'aauja pointed out that 10’ drainage and utility easements are proposed around all perimeter property boundaries and 5 on either side of the shared boundary in conformance uith C‘it>‘ requirements. In addition, private driveway easemen',s shall be dedicated for a shared driveway access arrangement should a shared drivew ay be required. Because most of the drainage flows north-northw est on both proposed lots, the City Engineer recommends than some tvpc of •no-grading*’ zone be established along the north property lines of both lots due to sleep grades. This could be done in the form of conservation casements. This would prev ent future owners from total clear-cutting for lawn and therefore, slow storm w ater run-off rates from the site. Waalaja indicated that staff recommends approval based on the follow ing conditions: 1. Submis.sion and approval of a final plat. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of Hennepin County. 3. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Subject to standard fees and casements. 5. The existing house and associated sheds be removed prior to issuance of building permits for either lot. Morlock indicated that he had met with Hennepin County representative Zutterstrom last week and was surprised that his comments had not >et been received bv the City. MorliKk reported that Zutterstrom saw no sight distance issues w ith the additional curb cut and would support their proposal. Chair Smith asked for any further discussion on the application. Waataja stated that the Engineer had recommended a conservation easement in an cfTort to prevent further erosion to the steep slopes, thus identified as the ‘no grading zone*. Wells questioned the need to limit future owner s rights of the propenv. He pointed out that the grades do not appear to be as severe as the Engineer has indicated. Morlock asked where the easement would be. Rahn pointed out that the future developers of either lot would be required to submit a drainage and grading plan to the City prior to construction; therefore, the City could track the ‘no grading zone’ in that way. Gaffron indicated that there would be no way to eliminate all of the water runoff from the southerly lot to the northerly lot; therefore, warranting the need for a minimal 20-30’ easement and drainage plan. PAGE 28 of 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 18.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m (#14 #03<2937 BOB MOKI.OCK. ConliMcd) Waataja agreed, stating that, >^hilc the City Engineer was not specific, they could see the need for a 20' minimum bufl'cr. Wells asked what sort of impact this might have on a potential homeowner who might like to build a walkout residence. Gaffron asked if the applicant had spoken to MCWD about any concerns they might hav e. He mentioned that, in January, the C*ity adopted a new stormw ater management plan which encourages the City to look for vsays to manage water runoff that doesn't impact owners adversely. GafTron believed that the engineer had this in mind when suggesting a vegetative t>pe of buffer to direct water. While the Pluming Commission did not need to be party to this discussion. Hawn inteijccled that they could recommend approval of the application subject to con\ crsalions held between the applicant and the engineer, as w ell as. the requirement for Hennepin County's recommendation regarding the additional curb cut. Chair Smith moved, Haw n seconded, to recommend approv al of Application #03- 2937, Bob l^lorlock, 980 North Shore Drive, granting preliminary plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision subject to staff recommendations, conversations with the City Engineer, and Hennepin County recommendations. \’OTE: .Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING CO.MMISSION CO.MMENTS (#15) REPORT OF PLANNING CO.M.MISSION REPRESENTAl l\ ES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JU LY 28 AND AUGUST 11,2003 Gaffron reported that the Council supported many of the Planning Commission recommendations; however, the Commission may need to rev lew the Zoseke application heard in February*. He explained that the applicants have been directed to make removals via the resolution that were not discussed in the Planning Commission meeting After review ing the Minutes and tapes from that meeting. GalTron indicated that it was difficult to come to a conclusion as to what w as to be removed. Hawn suggested Gaffron inform the applicants that they can file an appeal to the resolution and be heard by the Commission once again. Gaffron pointed out how important it is for the Commission to be as specific as possible about how much and where removals need to occur when considering applications. He indicated that he would encourage the applicants to go through the appeal procc*ss. PAGE 29 of 30 F MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLA.NNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. August 18.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#15 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Continued) With regard to the August 11, 2003 Council meeting. Chair Smith reported that all of the applications except the Ziebarth were on the consent agenda. Gaflron noted that the Zieba^ application was tabled in order for the applicants to meet the requirements of the Planning Commission recommendation. Gaffron suicd that it would be heard for the third time by the CoutKil next week. (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron stated that a Work Session w ill be held on September 3. at 5:30 P.M Zu^hwerl suggested that the Commission spend some time examining the rebuild versus remodel situation in order to establish guidelines to follow for future applications. Based on the Commission’s suggestion. Gaffron indicated that he would look into scheduling a public hearing to rev iew minor amendments to the recodificaiion code during the upcoming work session. (#17) PI.ANMNG COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 21, 2003 llawB moved, Fiilaler sccoided, approviog the Minutes of the July 21,2003, Planaiag CommissloB hleetiag as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#!S) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COU.NCIL MFFTINCS ON AUGUST 25,2003 AND SEPTE.MBER 8,2003. August 25 - Fritzlcr ADJOURNMENT September 8 -Zugschw ert Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meetina at 9*40 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. * There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 30 of 30 .'7 MfNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Wednesday, September 3,2003 5:30 p.m. ROLL ---------------------------------------------------- The Commission mcl in a work session on the above mcniioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners Liz Haum, C>Tilhia Bremer, David Ralin. J. Mark Fritzler, and alternate Jan Berg, and late arrival alternate Jule Hannaford. Representing staff w ere Planning Director Mike Gaffron, and Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waalaja. Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth and Stephanie Zugschwen were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at S;44 p.m. (#1) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CODE REVISIONS PROPO«iED AS PART OF RECODIFICATION PROCESS Smith noted that this was the lime and place for a public hearing regarding minor text rexisions to the Zoning chapter that arc being proposed as part of the recodification of the Orono .Municipal Code. GafTron noted that the revisions are minor in nature and primarily arc ‘housekeeping measures. He briefly awiewed the various proposed language changes per City Clerk Lin Vice's memo of August 7. 2003. Gaffron noted that while the revisions generally do not change the meting or impact of any elements of the Zoning Code, all zoning re\ isions by State Statute arc subject to the public hearing process. Hawn questioned the reasons for and appropriateness of the substitution of the lamiuaec “The parameters w ithin which a variance may be granted arc as follows" for the current language ‘“Undue hardship’ as used in connection w ith the granting of a variance means." Gaffron notcd'that not all of the twelve statements following the current language reference ‘hardships’, hence the current language is somewhat misleading. There were no comments from the public. Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Code text revisions as presented. \'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. («2) BUILDING HEIGHT DEFINITIONS Gaffron introduced the topic of measuring building heights and w hether the use of “half-story” should be continued as a tool for limiting building heights. He also reviewed the variety of dcAnitions currently in use in regulating and measuring building heights. It was noted that in terms of addressing the related issue of building massing, perhaps the City should adopt a maximum ratio of building height to lot width, by limiting the height of structures allowed on narrower lots Page 1 of3 MINtTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION Wcdarsday, September 3,2003 5:30 p.m. It was further noted that the City does not use the dcHnition of basement in dcHning the low point for measuring building height, and has probably been somew hat lenient in strictK definine w hether the lowest le> cl of a structure is actually a basement or a story' based on the current definitions. The discussion then centered on w hether the lower point of height measurement should be based on the average lev el of foundation cov erage, as opposed to the current use of the ‘high side pre-existing grade’ as the lower point. Other suggestions for revising the building height measurement were brought up in terms of •equalizing’ the height measurement for flat lots v ersus w alkout-type lots, since the height perception as viewed from the lake is ofien similar regardless of the topography of the site, yet the fiat lots arc perhaps penalized by the current method of height measurement. Hawn suggested that using 8* abv c the low side for steep lots might help this. The issue of whether or not to continue using the “half-story" limitation was discussed but not resolved. Additionally, tt was suggested that rather than basing the allowable 5’ headroom floor area of floor immediately below. perhaps the foundation footprint should («f3) NONCONFORMING STRl'CTt'RES The revised amendment to the Nonconforming Uses section was briefly reviewed, but tabled for further review at the next work session. (#4) NAVARRE OFFICE CONDOS PROPOSAL - CPt D VS OTHER OFTIONS Waalaja briefly rev iewed the options for changing the Zoning Code to allow for mixed uses and condo-type development methods in the Navarre commercial area. The options include a Commercial Planned Unit Development code, use of an overlay district, allow ance of such uses via conditional use permit, or a combination of these. The pros and cons of each method were reviewed as noted in the staff memo. Terry Schneider of Project Developers. Inc., representing the ow ner of the v acant property SE of the Bayw inds Church site on Shadyxvood Road, described the office condo project his client would like to move forw ard. He offered to assist staff in dev ising code standards which would be applicable to hii site development and perhaps to other sites in Navarre. The discussion turned to whether the City should go forward with code amendments to allow this specific project, and to whether discussions at the Council level had concluded a timeframe for a Navarre ‘visioning process. Planning commission did suggest that staff continue discussions with Schneioer and perhaps bring back some suggestions as to how to move forward. Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION W’cdBctday, September J, 2003 5:30 p.in. (#5) OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES Foth reviewed the issue of how various sections of the current City code deal with parking and slonng overui'eight vehicles. It was noted that we need to re-defme overweight vehicles, and then i^late them by establishingeasily measurable performance standards. Bricfdiscussion ensued, and this Item was suggested as a topic for a future work session. (#6) GUEST HOUSES A PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Gaflron noted th^ the attachments to the agenda included a refresher memo on the standards for issu^e of CUP’S for accessory buildings with plumbing as well as for guest houses. The 2-acre tmnimum for accessory building plumbing has apparently either been overlooked in about half of the past ^vals. or it is a non-issue. Staff is not sure w hich is the case, but commissioners are askd to think about this as we have at least one such request upcoming. (#7) SEPTEMBER IS AGENDA Gaflron briefly review ed the upcoming agenda for the September 15 meeting. ADJOURNMENT ^‘^***\*^JJIII***’ t® «IJo«ni the Planning Commission W ork Session at 7:54p.ra. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 7:54 p.m. Sandra Smith. Chair ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 11,2003 ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned dale wiih the following members present: Ma>or Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansc\crc. Jim Murphy, and Jim \Vhi\e, Representing stafT were Planning Director Mike GafTron, City Attorney Tom Barrett, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, P> Hlic Services Director Greg Gappa. and Recorder Alissa Winlemhcimcr. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 pjn. CONSENT AGENDA I. Approvc/Amend Items 3,9,10,11,13, and 15 w ere added to the Consent Agenda. Marpliy moved, and Saosevere secooded, to approve the cooKat agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. MInntes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 28,2003 Murphy moved, and Sansev ere seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 28,2003. Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMKfISSION COMMENTS—DREW MCDER.MOTT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott stated that the Commission had been planning the annual Park Tour. It w ill occur on September 2"^. with stops at the Old Crystal Bay Road Trail. Cr>^tal Creek Park. Hackberry Park, Seven Nations Park, Fire Sution Park, and Casco Ice Rink. They had also been discussing the parks tw enty-year plan and will have a plan of attack ready to discuss at the work session. PLANNING CO.M.MISSION CO.M.MENTS-SANDY SMITH, REPRESENTATIVE None. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY. AUGUST 11,200J PUBLIC COM.MENTS None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *3. #03*2893 John Roberta Henricb, 4125 llifsliwood Road—Variaace— Rciolatloa No. 5019 Marphy movci, aad Saafevere accoaded. to adopt Rciolatloa No. 5019 KraatiaK a variaace to Maaklpal Zoalag Code Scctioa 10.24, Sabdivliioa 5B to allow coastractioo of a acw reiMeocc to replace a pre-exbllag reildeace oa a lot (oataJaiag 0.66 acres ia area la the LR-IB Zoalag Dbtrlct where a 1.0 acre mialmuai lot area b reqalred; aad a variaace to Sectioai 10.22, Sabdivbioa 2,10.55, Sabdbkioo 8, aad 10J6, Sabdivbioa 16<LKI&2) to allow 683 s.f. (5.7%) hardcover la the 0-75* bkrsborc setback zone where no hardcover b normally allowed, and to allow 4,690 s.t (28.2%) hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshorc setback zone where 25V* hardcover is aBowed; and a variance to Section 10.56, Sabdivbioa lb(CK2R3) to allow the proposed house to encroach 4* into the required 30* bluff sHback, and a deck to encroach 15* into the 30* bluff setback and 5* into the 20* bluff impact zone; aad a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivbion 1(B) and 10.56. Subdivblon 16(C)(6) to allow a 12* encroachment of the average lakeshorc setback for the house; and a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9(A) to allow the accessory structnre (detached garage) to remain without a principal structure during construction. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *4. #03-2895 Gary Germundsca, 4101 llighwood Road—Variance—Denial Resolution No. 5020 Murphy awved, and Saasevere seconded, to adopt Iknial Resolution No. 5020 denying variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivbion 2, Scctioa 10.56, Sabdivbioa I6(L), and Section 10.03, Subdivbion 14(C) for hardcover and structural coverage for Gary Germundsen,4101 llighwood Road. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drivi 5021 -Variance—Resolution No. Murphy moved, aad Saasevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5021 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivbion 2 aad 10.56, Subdivbion 16(LH2) to allow hardcover of 39.7% in the 500-1000* lakeshorc setback zone. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 11,2003 6. #03-2W7 JcIT smI Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive—N'ariaaccs—Rc^ iscd riaa GafTron slated that the application came bcrore Council two weeks ago, and they voted to grant partial approval of the requested variances subject to the applicants providing a revised plan for review. The parameters of approval included; Approval of a second story structure encroachment w iihin the 0-75* setback zone. 65 ’ from the shoreline. Denial of the side setback variance for second sfor>' of structure to encroach w iihin 4.3* of left side lot line and within 2.4’ of right side lot line. Denial of the side setback variances for the anached garage addition to encroach w ithin 6’ of the left side lot line. Approval of the removal of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75’ zone, subject to replacement with a smaller 95 s.f. deck as proposed, still slightly encroaching the average setback line. Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed. Applicant to provide a suitable drainage plan to be developed prior to final Council action. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. GafTron staled that the applicants had presented new plans. He reviewed the plan drawings with Council. The new plan shifted the garage footprint so that it is centered on the property and met the 10’ side setbacks. However other changes were in conflict with Council’s direction. The rooftine had been rotated 90 degrees so that the gable ends faced the lake and street. The second story was now almost entirely contained w iihin a 13 12 pitch gabled roof. The roof over the garage had become a continuation of the new roof over the second story addition, rather than a separate, slightly low er roof s^tem. The front line of the new garage overhangs within 4’ of the northerly side lot line and within 0.9’ of the southerly side lot line. Cutouts in the roof on the south side of the garage w ould lend sonic openness to the area, the encroachment by a 13M2 pilch overhand w ould have some visual massing efTects of concern GafTron stated that stau did not draft a resolution because the new plans did not meet requirements and raised new issues to discuss. Also, the City Engineer had not had time to review the drainage plan. Ma>t>r Peterson asked if the p'an should be returned to the Planning Commission. GafTron staled that the Planning Commission could see it next Monday. Sansevere stated he would prefer for the application to go back to the Commission. Murphy agreed. \\Tiitc asked if one plan was better than the other in terms of drainage. Gaffton stated that cither plan could work w ith the use of gutters or swales to direct water flow. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MELTING MONDAY, AUGUST 11,2003 ^ M3~2907 Jeff mmi Carm Ziebariht 720 Softh Arm Drive—yariamces—Revised Plan—Camtiamed Sandy Smith asked if the drawings could be done to scale before the Planning Commission meeting. Jeff Ziebarth stated that the draw ings w ere done to scale, but the copying wras improperly done. Jeff Ziebanh stated that they were on their fifth set of plans for the house. They had been bringing plans to the City for three months and needed a resolution. Mayor Peterson stated that she hud a problem with the I' setback and would vote again.st the application. They were going to deny the application last time it came up because the setbacks were too small, and now they w ere even smaller. Also, she was not comfortable with moving on an application without having the drainage plan review ed. Mr. Ziebarth stated that they had enough room on the north side for a swale and would control water flow w ith gutters. The shift in the roof orientation would help the neighbors by directing w ater flow away from the side lot lines. He stated the purpose of the overhang was to soften the look of the approach to the front door. He requested being allow ed a coloimadc along the w alkw ay instead of the overhang. Kirk Ottesen of 710 North Amt Drive stated that he was concerned w iih the Ziebarths adding bulk so close to the lot line. Mr. Ziebanh stated that they were adding only the garage piece to the existing house, and the current design had reduced the si/e of the house from the original plans by almost 800 8.f. They considered tearing down the house and building new, but that would only allow them a 720 s.f. footprint for the new home. Murphy suted that the problem was with the new addition coming w ithin 1* of the side lot line, a matter distinct from the square footage of the home. He stated they had completely changed the design of the house, shifting the roof, and had no drainage plan, so it was unfair to expect a resolution from Council without the Planning Commission first seeing the plans. Cara Ziebarth stated that last time she was there, she explained to Council that they had changed the roofline. She said by August 4'*’ she would have the new plans into the City for review, including the drainage plan, and they were there on time. She stated the building had not changed from the last Council meeting, only she did not have extensive drawings at the last meeting. They did not need any variances except for the overhang. Mr. Ziebanh stated that rotating the roof w ould help the neighbors because the only maintenance required on the sides w ould be a gutter. Murphy staled that he would not approve the application because of the side setback encroachment. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MELTING MONDAY, AUGUST II, 2003 0. m-29$7 Jeffmm^ Cmrm Ztehmrtk, 720 Smtk Arm Drive—ymHmmces—Merisel Piam —CtMtHmmed Mayor Peterson stated that they were going to deny last time with setbacks of 2.4’ and 4.3’, and then the applicants came in with 0.9’ and 4’ setbacks. Gaffron staled that the maximum overhang allowed was a 1 .5 ’ encroachment into the setback. So from the garage addition, they could ha\e 1.5 ’ overhang into the setback. Murphy stated that the City has an informal rule of small lot, small house. While mentioned the colonnade idea. Ziebarth sketched it out for the Council to view on the overhead. Gaffron staled it would be viewed as a structure, though it is open and lower iJun the roof. As drawn it would sit about 4* from the lot line, instead of 10’. It would be an aesthetic issue that brings some impacts. White stated that the problem with the colonnade was that it could turn into something else, like a screened in porch down the road. Ma>or Peterson stated she would not vote in favor of the application because of the setbacks. Mr. Ziebach stated that they would be willing to remove the overhangs from both the north and south sides, and put in a colonnade on the south side only. Council agreed that would be acceptable. Gaffron stated that Council had provided clear enough dirfrtion. The co!cr;"'*dc would have to be an open structure, set in from the edge ofthe house. By the next meeting, he would draft a resolution and have new- plans, w iih a review of the drainage plan. y\h\U nMved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to table Item 6, #03-2907, Jeff and Cara Ziebarth. 720 North Arm Drive. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *7. #03-2916 Phillip Smith, 2600 West Lafayette Road—\'ariancc—Resolntlon No. S022 Mnrphy moved, and Sansesere secoaded, to adopt Rcsolatioo No. 5022 grantiag variances to Manicipal Zoaiag Code Section 10.22, Sabdhbioa 2, and 1036, Subdivision 16(LKld{2) to allow hardcover in excess of the amonats normally allowed, and a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1,10.55, Subdivbioa 8 and 10.56, Snbdivbion 16(C) to allow a second story* addition over the exbting residence located less than 75* from the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka where no structure b Bomially allowed. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST II, 2003 *10. Approve CoiiBly Road 6 Feasibility Report Marpby noved, aad Saasevere lecoaded, to accept tbe Willow Drive/CR 6 lalerMctkNi Feasibility Stady aad to aatboriie Cit> staff to preseal tbe stady to tbe Hcaacpia Coaaty TraasportatioB Departiaeal for review aad to befia dlscassioas oa a fbtare laterMctioB rccaastractiaa aad trank sigaal project Vale: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Marpby noved, aad Saasevere sccaaded, to approve tbe rcconneadatioa ia tbe WMow Drive/CR 0 latersectioa Feasibilitv Stadv- for tbe tastadatioa of Foar-Way Stop Sigas at this latersectioa aad to aatborize Cit> staDto work wHb tbe Heaaepia Coaaty Traasportatfoa Departanat oa tbe iastaUatioa of Foar-Way Stop Sigas at tbe WWow Drive/Coaaty Road 6 iatersectioa as sooa as possibk. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *11. Rcqaest for Paymcat—Navarre Fire Statloa Marpby moved, aad Saasevere secoaded, to approve the reqaests for paymeat to CoBstractive Ideas ia the amoaat of S3,240.00, aad to BKV Groap ia the amoaats of S2.378.74 and S1 1 547.89, to be fuaded from the Navarre Fire Statloa Construction Food. Vote: Ayes 4, Na>-s 0. 12. Adopt New Code for tbe CItj- of Orono Barrett slated that the City is making small, but actual, changes to the Zoning Code, which usually requires a public hearing. He stated he w Id be more comfortable if a public hearing were held. Saasevere moved, aad White seconded, to labk Item 12, New Code for the City of Oroao. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. Sapport of Partaersbip to Address Sabstaace Abusc^Rcsalatioa No. 5024 Marpby moved, aad Saasevere seconded, to adopt Rcsolation No. 5024 ia support of a coatiaaiag partnership among tbe area cities and with tbe Orono School Dtotrkt regarding efforu to address cbemkal abase. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST II, 2003 14. Saga Hill Park Laad Eickaage Gaffron stated that the City had acquired land for the Saga Hill Park area, partly through a DNR assisted grant. One property they wanted was privately owned and the City was unable to acquire it. He explained that Garden Lane, the road that would access the property, ends before reaching the property in question, and there is a deep ravine between Garden I.ane*s end and the property. Last week the property owner asked what they would have to do to develop the property. Staff explained the owner w ould have to build a driveway of 500-600’ in len^ and provide a design to bring sew’er to the property. The owner suggested the land previously ofTered by the City might be a good alternative. The property the City wants to trade has direct access to Wildhurst Trail and sewer already exists. SufT walked both properties with the DNR. The parcels are equal in terms of foceslalion. There would be about an 8-step process to complete the land exchange, including appraisals. Gaffron stated that the DNR representatives seemed in favor of the exchange, but there is a formal process to follow to complete the exchange. It will potentially take 2-3 months to complete the process. Murphy suggested including the word “process’* in the motion. Murphy laovcd, and While seconded, to authorize slnlf to commence the land exchauge process through which the City will receive the parcel with PIDM07-117- 2324 0036 in exchange for the parcel with PID407-117-2324 0031. Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *1S. Rekase of Conservation Easement —Fleming Trail Addition Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to approve the extiagnishaieal of the conservation and llowagc easement on the llemiag Trail Addition property in the area needed for the Highway 12 project, and to anthorize the CHy Adminbtralor to sign the necessary* doenmenu to accomplish Ihb. Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *16. LICENSES None. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 11,2003 •27. BILLS Marpliy Mvtd, aad Saatcvcrc MCMdcd, to oiipnivt poymcatortkc All Foods Accooot Vole: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Tkc OMOllBg was adjooracd at 7:S0 p.i ATTEST: LfndaLfnda S. Vee. CityCletk Barbara Peterson, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25.2003 7:00 o'clock pju. ROLL The Council met on the abov« mentraned date «ith the :bllo«ing members present: Acting Mayor Bob Sansevere; Council Members Jim Mmphy and Jin: 'ATii*^; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing sttff wen City Admmistrator Ron Moor«. Planning Director Mike Gaffitm. Planners Melamc Folh and Jamce Wutaja. City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Knsti Anderson. Mayor Barbara Peterson and Public Sersice Director Greg Gappa we e absent. Acting Mayor Sansevere called the meetutg to order at "^'JO PAl. CONSENT AGE.NDA 1. Approvc/Aincnd Council members added items n4.5.12. and 15-23 to ire Consent Agenda. Marphy noved. Wihe tccoadcd. to approve the CoDseoi Ageoda as amcoded. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINTTTES *2. Regular Coaacll Mccliog of August II, 2003 Murphy moved. Whhe seconded, to approve the Miaates of the Regular Council Meeting of Angnst 11,2003 as presented. \’OTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pal Wolfe Wolfe stated that he had no new conunents; however, w ;uld remain for questions. PLANNING COM.M1SSION COM3IE.NTS - J. .Mark Frioler As Fntricr was unable to attend. Murphy indicated tha; *e had attended recent Planning Commission meetings and would be able to comment i:*".ccessary. L.MCD REPORT - Lili .Mc.MUlan \kTiile she believTd the public w»s already aw^e. McMCm reported that no charges would be filed in the July 4 death at Big Island, as the victim wzi Kit by his own boat and it was ruled an unfortunate accident. McMillan stated that the LMCD wtnild be holdmg a pu'r:;c meeting on Wednesday. August 27. 2003. to review and make a recommendation regarding ue buoy lane locations for Big Island. UTiiIc she noted that four perpendicular lanes would be .-.sta::ed. Mc.Millan indicated that the board would be reviewing three options for a shoreline *r.o> buffer zone. Page I of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25. 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (LMCD REPORT - IJli McMillan. Continued) McMillan sh^d the three options with the City Council, the first of which. Option A. was the prcferTcd option by the Water Patrol, which identified a 125* no anchoring lone along the shoreline. The other alternatives were created by Burt Foster, head of the LMCD. with the Water Patrol and included, a no anchoring zone delineated b> buoys 25'+ from shore that allows for swimming on the other side of the through lane, the final alternative roped off a swimming area which could double as a shoreline lane in emergencies. Sansevere voiced his concern regarding Option A. which allows no anchonng except lOO’* awa\ from shore, and w ould eliminate the ability of the public, adults and children alike, to stand or play in the water. McMillan agreed that this would be the downfall of Option A and pointed out that Option 2 moves the lane away from shore, with anchoring allowed on the other side. Sansevere stated that, in his opinion, both Options 1 and 2 created dangerous conditions for swimmers and encouraged boaters with the ability to cruise the whole area. McMillan stated that Option 3 would likely be a maintenance nightmare to maintain the ropes and markers. She indicated that at the July 23^^ meeting, the mayors felt they should pursue the Water Patrol s recommendation. While the July 4* accident proved that access is critical. Mc.Mtllan acknowledged that members of the public might object to these restrictive options at the Wednesday evening meeting Sansevere pointed out that, installing these invasive measures at Big Island, might onlv succeed in movmg boaters to other areas of the lake where families lend to frequmt. thus causing additional problcras. He reiterated the need to allow adults and children who do frequent Big Island dunng the week and weekends the ability to stand. Sansevere believed that, if he wtTe foaed to choose, he would support option 2 since it allowed people to stand and swim near the shore. He believed that the option still involved unnecessary risk and that parents would hesitate allowing their children to swim so far from their boat. Sansevere informally asked the public at the Council meeting whether they felt it important for pwplyo be able to stand along the shoreline w hile visiting Big Island, approximately 15 people While interjected that he believed it w as more important for the LMCD and the City Councils to hold other discussions regarding how to hold people more accountable for their actions at Big Island versus making a decision overnight about additional buoys and lanes. McMillan concurred, staling that more needs to be done to hold people accountable for their actions and pointed out that the water patrol had held recent slings since July 4*^ to arrest troublemakers. She recognized the fact that, unfortunately, many people feel thev cannot bnng their families to Big Island on the weekends. Sansevere reiterated the need for people to be able to stand and urged McMillan to relay this concern to the L.MCD on Wednesday evening. He noted that. oAentimes. when families do visit Page 2 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25.2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (LMCO RErORT - LUi .McMillaii. Conlteucd) Big bland they tend to park further East and West on the bland and questioned if the buo\^ needed to run to the edges as shcmn. Since the LMCD recognizes the public’s concern regarding the additional bne. McMillan noted that the shordine buoy s had not been ordered in order to allow for public cooiment at Wednesday ’s meeting. Sanses'ere repeated his hesitation to osYtreact to the July 4* accident by installing excessise buoy^ without lookin;, into the problems at Big bland further. Pal Wolfe. Park Commissioner, intcryecled that he. loo. agreed with Council members Sanscsere and While that more examination with regard to the bw enforcement aspect of Big Island’s difTicuhies needs to be done. He suted that Big bland is baskatly a park which falls under Oromi’s junsdiction and more consideration should be gis-en to the kinds of recreational opportunities that should exist there. He noted that a plan needs to be created and more lime devoted to considering the options which make the most sense for Big bland. While he believed consideration needed to be given to the law enforcement and recreational aspects of Big bland. Murphy acknow ledged the fact that the people w ho currently visit Big bland are aware of the problems and need to decide to be responsible. McMillan agreed that a message needs to be sent to those who frequent Big bland that you need to be responsible and come to the beach with good intentions. Murphy believed that prudence was the answer. Since the additional buoys would run be added until 2004 he advised that more planning over the wmier continue in an effort to preserve the public’s freedom. McMillan pointed out that w hen the idea ol buoys first emerged for Big bland several years ago. there was concern about being overly restrictive: therefore, the LMCD installed three of four safety bnes at that time. She asked if the Council wished her to relay to the LMCD that they should uke additional time to evaluate their options. While he preferred no ropes for the beach. UTiiie acknowledged the Water Patrol s concerns McMillan agreed that the LMCD should take the time to collect comments from all bkc communities before taking action. Sansev ere encouraged .Mc.Milbn to e xpbin the Council’s concern to the LMCD that, if no one can stand, the problem may be transferTcd to other parts of the lake. thus, makmg patrolling even more difficult. While no additional funding is available for 2004 to pay for extra deputies. .Mc.Millan noted that extra help is necessary for w eekends. L.P«ge 3 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (L.MCO REPORT - LUi MtAlillM, Coatinucd) Murphy maintained that the budget is ax-ailable for additional deputies: however, the shenfThas chosen to spend the money elsewhere. In closing, McMillan reported that the 2002 Water Quality Analysis was completed and showed that high amounts of rainfall caused higher concentrations than usual of phosphorous in bays like Crystal Bay due to the flushing effect. PRESE.NTATION 3. 2002 COMPREHENSIVE ANM AL nNANClAL REPORT - Ken Malloy Ken Malloy, of the City's auditing firm, presented an oserxiew of the 2002 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report While he noted that the City still needs to obtain one broker s certificate, he pointed out that Orono follows state law* and uses acceptable accounting practices. Malloy reported that since Orono has relied less on state aid over the years, it is less impacted by- cutbacks at the state levri. WTnle the city cannot raise taxes to cover losses due to levy limits. Malloy indicated that Orono is in good shape in comparison to other municipalities, lie p«)tnled out that, w hile market values continue to go up in Orono and the state. Orono has a verv small tax rate growih as compared to state averages. Malloy noted that Orono produces an average rate of revenue, uses hole state funding, and has a higher cost for public safety services, in particular, due to providing police service to other cities. These higher costs are offset by the revenues received from the cities. He pointed out that the new reporting model which will take effect n 2 years will refiect the offsening of revenues and expenditures more readily. He stated that the operating results, sewer operating fund, water fund, and other enteipnse funds seem to be self sufficient. While the golf course operating fund has operated at a loss for two years, Malloy acknowledged that this is tvpical of what's occurred in other cities due to wet weather in previous years. Malloy reported that, due to new- fraud standards in the industry-, the auditing profession is try ing to ask more questions of its clients, provide more communication, and leave no 'stone unturned'. In conclusion. Malloy stated that Orono's financial records were in verv uihxJ condition, a credit to the people handling the City 's records accurately . White recognired the City $ accounting staff and administration for doing a great job for Orono. lie noted that the 2004 budget would reflect a reduced budget. Murphy believed that Orono should be acknowledged for its accounting practices. He pointed out that, while no industrial area exists, the tax rate is extraordinanly low. which he believed was worth acknowledging. Page 4 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 2S. 2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. Pl'BUC COMMENTS \^’hile not on the agenda. John Jones. 3490 Nonh Shore Drive, asked to present the process he’d endured in an anempt to build a new home. U’hile he had since received his permit. Jones explained that the biggest problems he faced dunng the planmng process were the height restnciion and lack ofa 2 story definition. Originally. Planner Paul Weinberger assisted Jones in his planning, acknowledging that the City did not possess a '/i story deHnition. During a Planning Commission meeting. Jones explained that Gaffron used a dermition from an architectural guide and an example from Edina’s code, which allowed 6(Wi living space above 5’ in height; whereas. 40H of the story needs to be below 5’ high for the half story . Jones showed overheads depicting what was approved He pointed out that Edina’s code excludes the stairway from the calculation, however, when he attempted to pick up his permit from Orono. Orono indicated that they would not exclude the stairway from the calculation. Jones questioned why. if Orono had no definition of Its own, and used Edina a> its model, why the stairway would not bie e.xcludcd. similar to the code they quoted. White asked what size home they were proposmg. Jones indicated that the home fit a mere 1 300 s.f footprint. While he understood the City *s desire to restrict massing. Jones pointed out that discussions regarding this small home have bem ongoing for over a year w ith the City. Murphy asked Jones to identify the specific issue he had with the process. Jones explained that, since the City has not defined its definition and adopted that of Edina's and the architectural guide, he did not know* how- to go about applying for a variance He slated that he has not requested any height variance, and docs not w ish to do so; however. Jones would like to alter the space on the half story to exchange the unlivablc stairwell space for livable space. In addition, the building inspector told him he must enclose the half story deck and count it a' !ivmg space. Jones asked the Council to acknowledge that the plan he had submitted met code and compiled w ith the 30’ height limit and pseudo half story definition, pulled from Edina’s ordinance and the architectural guide. Charlotte Lipa. 3490 North Shore Drive, pointed out that the half story definition referred to by the Planning Commission and Gaffron was never added to the zoning code. She voiced her frustration, after running in circles and having done additional research of other community’s codes over the past year. Lipa asked the Council to come to some type of resolution for them. Since no code exists, no building inspector seems to be able to sign off on their request, nor do they know how to ask for a variance to get what .hey want. Jones added that, dunng the planning process, they came before the Planning Commission 34 times w ith different plans based on difTcrcnt requirements thrown at them each time they came before the Commission. Lipa reported that, after many weeks and many calls waiung for the building inspector to review their permit applic.i’ion. it wasn’t until the day before her excavator was scheduled when she showed up to pick up the permit that Oman flagged their permit saying they did not meet the defimuon they w ere giv-en for the half story. Page 5 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PiWJC COM.MENTS. CMtiaacd) Sansc%'CTe asked Moone ho» suit could stream’tne the process for this couple to obtain their permits and gel the definition they need from us to proceed Lipa staled that jhe had spoker to Moorse and asked, if they could not get on the agenda, if they should present thetr case to Council. Jones stated that Moorse indicated that the Plannmg Commission had guen them a working half story deftrution to follow; however. Jones maintained that the definition continues to be mcomplete. i e. the stairway and deck issues. Sansevere asked Jones if he w as not satisfied w ith the defuiition provided. GafTron explained that the Planning Commission has been wTcstling with the issues ofheight and massing over the past 1 V.- >ears. pointing out that the'/: story definition is Just a small piece of that issue. He stated that, since 1967. the City has had a definition in place that limits building height to 30' or 2 '/: stories and absent a true definition of the half slot y. staff reviewed other cities'definilions and the architectural guide to find a standard which could be administered until the City could esublish its own definition on the topic. Murphy asked what phase the Jones application wos in. GafTron staled that the Jones* went thru the variance ptxKess; however, he did not K’licvc that the Plarming Commission had heard their specific problems presented this evening. Sansevere asked the height of the proposed home. Junes indicated 30' by the City definition ofheight. Sansevere asked why the City could not simply look at the issue as a maita ofheight; therefore, allowing the applicant to proceed since he docs not exceed the height limitation GafTron stated that, oficntimes, height depends on the topography of a lot. Lipa pointed out that liking or disliking the definition was not the issue. Ltpa mamtamed that they had gone to great lengths, great cosu and deUy. trying to meet the City's 'definUion' of a half story. She reiterated the difficulty they have faced trying to calcuUte their half story where no calculation has been established, can they exclude the stairway or not etc. She indicated that their w hole experience has been awful and th^’ do not warn others to have to go through this same process. W’hite pointed out that there is a hole m the lot now waiting to have a home built upon it. He believed it would benefit the city to sec them get a nice home put up to replace the ugly old shack there currently. Attorney Barrett asked for clarification, notmg the applicant had not requested a varance for height and has met the 30' height requirement including the half story. Page 6 of 14 MINXrrES OF THE ORONO cm' COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (PCBLIC CO.MMCVrS, Coaltaucd) Gaffron staled that the Joneses had nc: requested a height \anance. Barren disagreed with the statement rom GafTron that there is no solid language in the code of a definniofi. when in actualit> it does rate >ou can go to 2 '/i stories or 30' ull. Barren cautioned that if the code stales 30* or 2 stories are allowable the City must administrate this based on an accepted interpretation, and apply it s>stematically to all applicatxins. The City has the ability to define the half story as long as it appl:es it systematK'ally and reasonably. SansesTre asked if GalTron could mce: with the applicants to resolve the issues. Gaffron stated that the City has issued a pemut it is comforuble with. He suted that the only thing that w ould change is telling suff that -.-.cir interpretation is wrong and the applicants could go thru an adimnistrative appeal process. Barren agreed tint, procedurally. the appeal process would be helpful. Since the applicanu had received a permit for work they don’t want, in essence, they have be-.*n denied the permit they do want, and It IS the denial of that perm:: by suff that needs to be focused on and brought before the Council for reconsideration. Barren was hesitant to encourage the appeal process from the standpoint that staff does not seem to have a strong gnp on the facts regarding what constitutes the half story. Murphy asked when the building perr.;t was obtained and applied for and what caused the delay. In addition to the half story definitior.. Jones acknow ledged that they had taken time to redesi^ the mam level living space to accommod£*.e a larger kitchen. Lipa reiterated the fact that they appe£.-ed before the Planning Commission 3-4 times in an effort to meet the ever changmg defmiiion of the half story and they wished to savr others from the same fate. Jones stated that they had hoped they mght be able to move forward on their construction with the CouTKil's blessings. He repeated that Lhey have not asked for a height variance to accomplish this; however, they carmol ask for a vanar.e to their half story w hen there ts no code to apply it to. As they were unable to meet the deadljie to be placed on the agenda. Lipa stated that she had spoken to Moorse and flat out asked Lm if the Counal could make a motion off their public comment piece and he responded iha*. while it was seldom done, it was possible Moorse uidicaced that he advised the applicants to provide a letter for review by the Council prior to the meeting, if pouible. on which to base their recommendation, but also indicated that a Council member could choose to make a monon. While he recognised they d been faced with a frustrating year, part the Cit\ *s fault due to the lack of definition and part their own. Murphy did not know how to help other than refemng the Joneses back to staff to work with them to crer.e a plan that could come bock formally before Council He Page 7 ofU L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25.2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (Pl’BLIC COIMF.NTS. CoatioMd) indicated that, since they have a building pcnnii in hand, they could begin ihcir building process and come back. Jones asked how soon they might be heard. Since no clear definition exists. Moorse asked the Council and stall if they would be comfortable trying to reach a derinilion for the applicants to base their appeal upon. As the Joneses disagree with SUITs current interpretation. Moorse asked bow the Council would proceed. Murphy staled that he would be hesitant wrestling with a definition without GafTron and staffs input Jones mterated that he w ould be willing to ask for a sviance if it could be determined w hat code the variance could be applied to. ZOM.NG ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT •i. M3.2U9 BOYER BULDING CORPORATION - 3320 WATERTOW N ROAD- FINAL PLAT APPRO\'AL - RESOLITION NO. 5025 Murphy luovcd. W bite secouded. lo adopt RESOLl TION NO. 5025. a Rrsolutiou graatiug Final Plat approval lo Boyer Bnildiag C orporation. 3220 Watertown Road. \ OTE: Aves 3, Nayi 0. •5. RI3-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH - 720 NORTH AR.M DRJ\X - VARl A.NCES - RESOLITION NO. 5026 Murphy amved. W hRe seconded, lo adopt RESOLITION NO. 5026. a Resolution graatiag irarlnaccs per the newly revised sRe plan, grading plan, plaa/ekvatlon depictions, acd colonnade desin to aBow a new residence to he ennstmeted on the property located at 720 North Ami Drhe. VOTE: Ayes 3, Noys 0. 6. 003-2919 KE\TN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON - 90 5n’RTLEW OOD ROAD - VARIANCES Mnrphy UMved. Saasevere seconded, to table AppllcaHon 003-2919. Kevin and Deborah Thompson. 90 Myrtlewood Road, in the applicants* absence. VOTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. •7.003-2922 IMAGINALITY ON BEHALF OF .MIKE CASILMAN - 1615 FOX STREET VARIANCES - RESOLITION NO. 5027 Mnrphy moved, WhRe seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5027. a Resolution granting wHiaad setback variances for 1655/1605 Fox Street lo allow placement of address monuments. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Plgeloru MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25.2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. *1. M3-2927 JAMES AND LINDA >lARTINSON - I4J5 PARK DRI\ C - VARIANCE - RESOLITION NO. M2S Marpliy arntd, Mldic mcmM to adopt RESOLITION NO. 502S, a Rnotoltoa graariag lot am aad lot wldm variaoccs to coostnKt a JAM sJ. stogie faarih koMc ao the .75 acre orllh ddtoedto(iHdtoor9S*aitlMlakcaitolM'alllM75'tc4boclL VOTE: A%n J. Nass t. *f. MJ-2fJ« STREETER AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF RICHARD AND DELORES LITTLE, 2775 SHAD\’M OOD ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLITION NO. 5B29 Marphy mvcd. MliBc seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5029. a Resohittoa graaliag hardcover vartoacct ia order to replace driscoav kardcoser oiih a 22* X 25* garage addiltoa tor Use propert) located at 2775 Shadyoood Road. \’OTE: A\es 3, .Nays 0. • 10. #03-2931 T1.MOTHY AND KRISTI OSTERBERO. 1045 LOMA LIND V AVENT'E - \'ARIANCTS - RESOLl TION NO. 5030 .Marphy moved, M'Ute seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5030, a Resolution graatlag a froat yard setback vartoace 0128* a here 35* is required to replace an existing attached garage for 1045 Loam Linda Avenae. VOTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. *11. #03-2932 .MICHAEL HAYES OF MICHAEL HAYES HOMES ON BEHALF OF ALBERT TRAPENESE, 3220 liOHN*S POLNT LAND - VARIANCES - RESOLl TION NO. 5031 Marphy amved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5031. a Resolution granting a Conditional I'se Permit to place a detached accessory structure on a throagh lot. and also a variance to order to place that detached accesaory structnre 20* from a street side lot line where a 35* aethach b repaired. VOTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. •12. #03-2933 CARY NTCE ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BRENDA MAC DON.\LD. 2400 OLD BEACH ROAD - CONDITIONAL I SE PERMITS - VARIANCES - RESOLITION NO. 5032 NInrphy nwved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5032, a Resolatba granting a Coadittooal I'se Perndt to aBow ptombiiig ia aa accessory buUdiag for a toilet rooai to the near detached garagc/eatertatoaMat room aad a noa-rcntal guest apartment above the exbttag garage. Approval of a variance to aBow a separate w ater UMter aad approval of a hardcover variance tor the 75*-250* roae sa bseqaent to hardcover removab which aoMant to the area of hardcover being added for the property located at 2480 Old Beach Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, .Naya 0. 13. #03-2936 BRl CE .MEESE AND MAI REEN Ml RPHY. 3135 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCES - RESOLI TION NO. 5033 Waauja explained that the applicants request the following vanances to construct a new home: 1. Lot area vonance to allow reconstruction of a home on a .49 acre lot when .5 acres is required. Page 9 of 14 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25.2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (13. M3-293* MITE MEESE AM) MAIHEEN MlUPm'. 3135 CASCO CIRC1.E, ContiMMd) 2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home uhere the m^dth at the shoreline and 75* setback is 60* when 100* b normally required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 6% hardcover m the 0-75* aone when 05* b allowed and to allow 37*/» hardcover m the 25O-SO0’ zone when 30% is allowed. The Planmng Comimssion recommended on a 4-1 vote approval consistent with sufTs recommendation for. 1. Approvel of the lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home. 2. Approval of the lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home. 3. Dmial of the hardcover variance to allow 6"« hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone when ()•/• is required to be consistent with what has been approved on rebuild lob. 4. Approval of the hardcover variance to allow 37«/i hardcover in the 250-500’ ri)nc when 30*i is requir^ due to the minimal area allotted in this zone and sight visibility triangles w hich result in a largCT dnveway. Hawn cast the dissenting vote allowing the deck to remain m the 0-75* zone. Bruce Meese stated that they were hesitant to remove the deck, as it was attached to the existing concrete rebining wall, and they would be concerned it might adversely impact the support provided by the wall. Ms. Murphy sbted that Often Brothers had indicated that if the deck is removed they would need to add additional stone np rap to stabilize the steep slope. While she explained that it is their desire to comply, she did not feel removing hardcover to be replaced w ith new hardcover w as a good solution. White asked why the deck and wall system wasn’t seen as a hardship, since it holds up the steep slope. Gaflron staled that, in sufTs perspective, we do not know whether remov ing the deck from the wall system w ill negatively impact the stability of the slope. He recognized that the neighbor also has the same concrete wall system retaining theu slope. Ms. Murphy stated that they performed recent repairs to the deck and covered the ugly concrete w all with cedar in order to disguise it naturally. Waauja stated that the applicanb wuuld be allowed steps up the hill and a landing. Sansevere questioned if having the applicant remove the decking along the concrete wall was a better solution, thus leaving the ugly exposed concrete instead. \k’hitc noted that the applicant had no flat ^lace at the shoreline to put anyihuig. Gaflfron acknowledged that the positive iirqiact b that the deck could be helptng hold up the slope, negatively, the hardcover u not allowed by code. He also questioned if it would be a wxirae visual Page 10 of 14 L, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 25.2003 7.*00 o'clock pjn. (13. MI3-293* BRl’CC MCCSE AND 3UIHEEN MlUPm’. 3135 CASCO CIRCI E, CoMteucd) tmpnct to remow the decking and expose the concrete wall than it would be to allow the natural ce^toremam. White felt this was a \isual hardship if nothing else and asked what constituted the hardcover. Gaffron stated that the deck floor and superstructures would constitute the hardcosrr and it is unclear whether they are holding anythuig up. Murphy agreed that, aesthetically, the applicants would be better off co\enng up the concrete uall. Ms. Murphy agreed. sUting that they tned to lose it in a natural slate by covering it with the cedar Sansevere asked Barrett if there were any hardship they could apply to this variance request. Barrett suited that the City cannot grant a vanance based solely on aesthetics; however, if they determine the decking to be part of the superstructure it would be a necessarv part of the retaining w'all. Sansevere moved. Wlille seconded, to table the hardcover variance request of Application N03-2936, Bmce .Mcese and .Maureen Murphy, 3135 CaKo Circle la order to obtain an engineer's opinion regarding the retaining wall and decking system. VOTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. Moorse pointed out that the applicants should obtain an independent engineer's a*pon. S4i that the City is not liable if something happens. Sanseven moved. White seconded, to adopt RESOLITION NO. 5033. a Resolution approving the lot area, lot width variances, and hardcover variances to allow ilV* hardcover In the 25(1-500* tone when 30% b required due to the minimni nren allotted in thb tone and sight vblbUlty triangles whteh resuh in a larger driveway to allow reconstruction of a home at 3135 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. •14. M02-2709/D2-2S40 DAHLSTROM DEVELOP.MENT. LLC, -2530" W AYZATA BOCLEVARO - FOR.MAL APOEROVAL OF PRIVATE ROAD NAMES FOR -STONEBAY** .Murphy umved, W’hhe seconded, to approve the names for private roads within the plat of Stonebay as presented la the staff memo dated August 21,2003. VOTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. .MAYOR/CITY COl NCIL REPORT 23a. RECOG.MZ1.NG ORGA.MZERS OF CASCO POINT NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OIT E\X.NT - RESOLITION NO. 5034 \k*hite read a Resolution thanking Mary Tucker and Laura Dotzenroth for organizing the Casco Pomt Neighborhood Night Out event held Tuesday. August 5.2003. The resolution congratulated Page liofU MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. (23a. RECOGNIZING ORGANIZERS OF CASCO POINT NEIGHBORHOOD NIGHT OIT EVE.NT. ContiBBcd) 10 volunteers who coordinated the event for 1 30 families, including food, cash donations, and volunteer services. He recognized the Westonka Lions for contributing the brats and hot dogs and Tropical Breeze for suppl>ing the music. White noved, Murphy secmidcd, to adopt RESOl.lTION NO. 5034, a Resolution recogulalag the orfauliers of the Casco Point Neighborhood Night Out Event. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Sansevere distributed a flyer to the media representatives regarding an upcoming police fundraiser to be held on September 18,2003. Murphy reported that the Highway 12 reconstruction work had begun in earnest, acknowlcdgim; the fact that, many of the trees in its path have begun to be clear cut to make room for the highway project. Sansevere asked Moorsc whether past Council member Nygard had refunded the Citv a portion of his paycheck after his recent rcsignauon. Moorse indicated that Nygard had provided the requested refund. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT *15. WAYZ.ATA SEWER AGREE.MENT - OLD LONG LAKE ROAD Murphy moved. White secouded, to approve the Sewer Agreement with the City of WayznU tor snnilarv sewer service for the Old l.oBg Lake Road area. \’OTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. •16. REQUEST FOR FINAL PAV.MENT-THI2AV1LLOW TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVE.MENTS .Mnrphy moved, hUe seconded, to approve Request tor Final Payment, THI2Al illow TnlBc Signal Improvements to Egan McKay Electrical Contractors Inc. In the amount of SI 2350.00 VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. •17. REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYME.NT - HERITAGE DRIVE SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT Mnrphy moved, kite seconded, to approve Request for Final Payment. Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension Project to E J. .Mayers Inc. In the amount of $4,233.25 VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Page 12 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25.2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. *11. CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 - NORTH LONG LAKE EAST SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Morphy aovcd. While secoadcd. to approve Chaage Order Namber 1. North Loag Lake East Suitory Sewer Prt^ for E J. Mayers lac. la the antoaat of S2,000.00 VOTE: Ayes 3, NaysO. •19. REQUEST FOR RNAL PAYMENT - NORTH LONG LAKE EAST SANITARY SEWER PROJECT Marphy BMved, W'hNe sccaadcd, to approve Regaest for Final Payneat. North Long Lake East Sanitary Sewer Project to E J. Mayers Inc. la the amoaat of S4.S63.08 VOTE: Ayes 3, NaysO. *20. REQLTEST FOR FINAL PA\'MENT - NAVARRE RRE STATION SITE LMPROVEMENTS Marphy aMved. While secoaded, to approve Regaest for Final Payaieal. Navarre Fire Staliaa She lagiroveaMnis Project to F.F. JcdUcU lac. la the aiMianl of S68.50t.76 VOTE: Ayes 3, NaysO. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *21. APPUCATION AND CERTIHCATE FOR PAk'ME.NT NO. 12 - LONG LAKE HRE STATION Marphy atovcd, White secoaded, to approve Applkatioa aad Certifkate for Payment No. 12 froai Rochoa Corporatiea la the anoaal of S60 J78.S3. to be faaded from the Joint Fire Accoaat. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. *22. LONG LAKE FIRE STATION DRAINGE PLAN Marphy noved. Wliltc seconded, to approve the pUa to resolve the dra>aage Issacs at the Long Lake Fire Station, whh the conditiaa that the warranty period for the approved work wHI not begin antU the acceptance of the completed work by the Cities. \ OTE: Ayes 3. Nays 0. *23. DISPOSAL OF E.XCESS PUBLIC WORKS \ EHICLE - HENNEPIN COUNT> AUCTION .Marphy nwved, Whtte secoaded. to declare pabUc works vehicle 8712. a 1994 Chevrolet one- ton track, as eiccss dty property and to aatborize Us sale by participatloa in the Henaepia Coaaly aacHoa to be held at 10:30 a.in., oa Satnrday, September 20,2003, at Heaaepia Coaaly Department of PabUc Works, 1600 Prairie Drive, Nlediaa. VOTE: Aves 3. Navs 0. Pagel3ofl4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday. August 25.2003 7:00 o'clock pjn. 23a. RECOGNIZING ORGANIZERS OF CASCO POINT NXIGHRORHOOD NIGHT OIT EVENT - RESOLUTION NO. St34 Set MAYORAXHJNCIL REPORT. CITY ATTCNINEY’S REPORT Attomey Banett had nothing to report •24. LICENSES CLUB FIREARM USE PERMIT 1. Annual permit for Trap Shooting Park Gun Club 3660 Sixth Avenue North Murphy amved. White Mcoaded. to approve the permit for Trap Sheoltog requested by Park GnaCh*. VOTE: Ayct 3. Nays •. *2S. BILLS Mvrphy Moved* WhUe Mcooded* lo opprove poyncot oftke All Foods Accoool. VOTEt A%'ts 3, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy UMved. W'hite secouded. to adjourn the Orono City CoaaeV Meeting of August 2S, 2003 at l:4t PJH. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays •. // Linda S.Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor PV 14 of 14 C» i . ■w. -f ^ i \.^d ^0 ‘.^•rvki V-' -v.,fe I I l» fei',r Xa