Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-19-2023 Planning Packet
fc iv/ /( * ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday May 19,2003 6:00P3I 2750 Krnty Parkway - Coaacil Chambers AGENDA Coaacil Rcprcscalativc: Jim Murphy AUDIENCE MEMBERS; Please siga la for the pablic record al Ihe rroal podlam ifyoa wish to address the Plaaainx Commissioa. Applicaals will be asked to awse to the froat table to aaswer qaestlons wheo Ihe Chair anaooaces the applicatioa. The Planaiag Commissioa is aa advisors body to the Cit} Couacil. If actioa b takea oa aay items oa this ageada, tbes* will be schedaled for the 9,2003 Cit)- Coaacil meeting aaless otherwise aoted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. h03>289l Eric and Karen Paulson. 2605 Maple Ridge Lane, Variance (SiafT: Jennifer Chaput) 2. #03-2892 Daniel Uartus. 1001 Wildburst Trail, Variance (Slaff: Mike Gaffron) OLD BUSINESS y #03-2869 I>r. Robert Gumnil. 1100 Old Cry stal Bay Road. Condilional Use Pcmui and Variance (StafT: Jennifer Chaput) 4. #03-2885 Gcrda and I'd Toth. 1280 aad 1290 Sprace Place, Variances (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) 5. #03-2889 Ruvia Real l-slatc, I.LC, 2060 Wayiata Blvd. West. PUD Concept Plan (StafT; Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 6 #0.3-2890 Meadowood. Inc. on behalf of Mark Crec, 3120 North Shore Drive, Variance (Staff. Mike Gaflron) 7. #0.3-2893 John and Roberta llenrich. 4125 llighwood Road, Variances (Staff; Mike Gaffron) 8. #03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith. 4195 llighwood Road. Conditional Use Pcnnil and Variance (Slaff: Jennifer Chaput) 9. #03-2896 Bruce Boeder on behalf of Franciscus Bastiaens, 665 Femdale Road North. Conditional Use Pennit and Variance (SlaiT; Mike Gaffron) to. i03-2l9t Mike and Julie Whittington, I9tl Fageracu Ptthit Road, Variances (SUfT: Jennirer Chapul) 11. #05*2901 Denali Custom Homes, Inc. on behalf of Melinda Lee and Thomas DcVeau. 6M Tookawa Rood, Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 12. #03-2902 WJM Propeities LLC, 2M5 Wa>‘aota Boolcvard West, Conditional Use Fetmit (Staff: Mike Gaffron) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:00PM 13. #03*2900 Wm. Yale Smiley III and Timothy J. Mahoney, 2730 aod 2760 Pheasaot Rood, Reairangement of Common Property Line (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 1:00PM 14. #03-2903 City of Orono Proposed Zoolog Code Ancodneot Telecommunications Towers (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 15. Report of Planning Commission representatives alterKling Council meetings Apnl 28, 2003 and May 12,2003. 16. Other issues for discussion. 17. Planning Commission ^rproval of minutes for April 21,2003. 18. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on May 27,2003 and June 9. 2003. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance MitTiMiDai □ C ouncil □Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please fillcm tthe iMt>ii.MATio> reqiesieo BELOW FOROUH C ITY RECORDS. NAME (pleiie print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1. Pl P> 0 r .h 3y.'t: 2. . ^ t\^'<^)^lr C.. II ^/.^S ^ ici\iU'C r'.r^ f\ci a - 9'« n 3. /liiLi) /ICwW'vl'T' J _ /il liv ;t..M.^ .' //’’'C : •/zL 4.H ut ', ( •U(.|\i'it'i , [\(t-> i ( S. i V / ' ^ V .* I i A 1 ' — 1 .' 1 A>i 11 1 1 ''( ■- . .A 6. L’Y'VIk K/vJu ’i-/ M'li't'»-r 1* L V. /i * • 1 • . P V M i^jeK. f(>^C>S JL^•<^0 ir'^ f<4 I. A T"//7 % / * ^ •) ri V / c C.J -----m^1 V-i » ) .S' 9. ^^/l/CU.4’ C?4 A A c;c; ----------- 10. 11. 12. c L^f //•».. V /if.'..., Xr.:/V /^' r /‘//z f hti i ' A1 (_ V.. /^/N C. -f. , -N . 1. 1 IS.Xjt\ ! Li.^^r,. . - r : • - ^7f 1 L Public Attendance Melting Date □ Council □ Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please riLLOiTTiiE ikformation requlsteo lELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please priat)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from ageada) NAME OR NUMBER Ihc property in question, so neighboring view-s should not change with the pool addition Setbacks The proposed pool is located more than 75* from the OIIWL and meets the required setbacks from the side lot lines. OIIWL and structure. Hardcover: 75'-250' pie proposed pool is located in the 75*-250* hardcover zone \hcrc 10.757 s.f (25*!i) hardcover is permitted. In addition to the pool, the proposal shows decking and retaining w alls, nil of which w imiuded in the hardcover calculations. As proposed, there is 10,749 s f (24 98V.) hardcoser in this setback zone, just under the maximum permitted. No hardcom variance is necessary. Structural Coverage The pool is not considered part of the structural coverage on the lot since there are no portions of it greater than 6 ’ in height. Iltetory: In 1988. a conditional use permit for a permanent dock was granted (zoning file «1285; resolution #2446). 1 here have been no other land use applications on this property? TTic deck on the lakeside of the home was constructed in 2002. The house has been in existence since before the current zoning ordinance was adopted. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Uxhibtt A. Ihc applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The existing house was constructed before the zoning ordinance was adopted and docs nut encroach into the average lakeshore setback: 2. Although hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone increases with this proposal, it docs not c.xceed the maximum permitted in the zone; 3. Structural coverage docs not increase with this proposal; 4. The proposed pool meets all of the required setback criteria; 5. The existing vegetation on the property screens the pool from the neighboring homes; 6. Ihe neighboring homes will not be negatively affected by the construction of the pool due to their orientation on the properties; and 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of a variance to permit construction of an in-ground pool that encroaches 32’ into the average lakeshore setback. rOJ-2891 Eric and Karen Paulson 5'I3'2003 Page 2 of 2 r A Vt> Application # ^3- a 89/ Date Received *4-1*403 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APFLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance fcN* non-conforming structures S2S0.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORhJ^TlON , ^ | Site Address Vn! Q^. nlfcr ff.i a) fProperty Identification Numljer (P.I-D.)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prog^jy Acquired^____________________ I also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresenrBl^f property: residential ___pother (specify)_ _(month'>'ear) Zoning District: LtL- APPLICAI^ . 1 if _ . VN Name \\ ICr 6VT<> feol Address: H4D *TAddress: H4D *T UA^^\ Phone (home )^^^~^^'^~~^d» Phone (work ) City : Zip: <rC^3/ O^VNER (if dirfcrenl than applicant) Name H»oVio^______ Address: ,^4Dr~ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City: ^ro«AO Zip:^33/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimatpd Construction Cost S '1^000- Describe request in detail: S*to ‘i 1r (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area _Lot Width .Lot Coverage Setback:Front ___Hardcover __Side ___Rw Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difHculiy or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ T^-^O (attach additional sheets if necessary) V.. A^'z> REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Mgf Ibc fft|l9!v|qg iDfomutlon muif h# mbmlM^d tiy ii»> nffnliftiftn dMillln.. rf.t. i IPiLyour ■DpIlcitioB to be roniid^ WPIlMtiffP llMtfligf tfjite fn ftrdfi __ Completed Application Form1. 2. Jiovt Center, 348-5910). — Crtilicale of Survey (,ip,ed by i licensed «irveyor) ainl include „ required, b. eddiUon. provide one („ copy - UefoTj'."'? "T ^ (O w n,-, - O'™-* — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this apDlication • Pt^e. r. u .. atiMW iwlHblldb h Q»l wmrtrtt IMIif ,hw lnfL..ion h.f APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^ ippUcam hereby agrees to provide HI informuion required or reouesled hv ih, ? • w ttylmd corig^^^^^ his/her Imowledge. information Applicant's ^ ^ 5. 6. 7. 8. OWNER’S SIGNATURE U.isnU«r • ----=* Date Mwling Pl’aliSfng Co^?^oa Mnh.'gs'^ Be° held to‘ac A w'm' Applicants must be present at all scbedulfd r«1ew le”n« .nhnin"^^*' «ch ntontlv Connell. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled nteetlt „|™ ' i Commission and•X"j “‘ssr* -’■iCi'S.Tscs »• i7 “il • •! ' jti flFR-15-2Be3 li:24 NPUPRRE CORP 7635041107 P.ei • S!t£?toSf»in4>> npwr SmtviaFmcIo: 952-249-46I6 TO: Weac^ DATE: April 15.2003 FROM; Eric H. Paulson Our borne at 2605 Maple Ridge Lane as built in 1952 by Mr. Lyle Halvonon for bis family and sold to the Bower family in 1974. My wife and I ptuchased and have resided at this property since 1978. While we have continued to upgrade the property, its value and tax base, we have never before asked for a variance. This **average lakesbore** set back variance that we are requesting docs not obstnict the view of any neighbor. In fact, the natural topography sets the pool and deck below the neighbors sight line while the over brush provid^ total isolation of the property from the view of either neighbor. The property is approximately two acres that we have maintained in a pristine manner. With the visiting of grandchildren, this pool provides a family gathering area with true family value. The pool and surrounding deck, while small in size, has been designed to contribute to the natural beauty of our newly remodeled home and our surrounding property. EHPicf cc: Scott Harris Oiarles Stinson 1 c> •(>.*' Mt***!: !• C«•• ».»(»*«<* »»; '^•* • *« • a-' »tin»i3 i»^3 M »*«* V »-€ r»n V WWW* »te «« •«:! w i<»a ! » »c 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR ERIC & KAREN PAULSON UMtfi o fWTHOCWWUWO a fOMwwtf » 1-0*<T»WU o MOOUXITWI » COMMMuatMi MiMTCIOOM tMfTMTWMM earns ” CM CUMnjMOUB flOMaMiOMS H*o( twowniv U MMU wrubom •crteototM* ■OMMnOMwwuHnMua iWjCQ I “6 V » 5 5? wi<63, v*V ’ JMUbTUaer-flegex; tniiikiD ^ITE> D KJUMJL^ UuiO^¥*MO 9ihLPt^ hMOO- Kt^UL^tO FCS’lDB-UCg;, AtMH\ntcr- 6tiMtL&5 P. <T/U«>U 4iicfl^ ■ 4'- ^ C/ rTV 1 i i iiTMMiiD ^iTE> ^?ecrt oO«^>{r.i-.o~^ M Mu6>^M^PM3 *MM»t vnccrMu m40(/- PKv)l&<?M Pe^7ii>&.ucg^ (MuHintcr- OifciK.ie> R. ^TIWWU 4(uo'' ■* - r..,/ Jl Hennepin County Taxpayer Services D^iit^ht Parcel Information Parcel ID 2111723210005 StfMt NaiiM MAPLIIUDOE LA This is not»l$g§9y ncofdtd map. n r^irstsats a comfOstion at Moanstkin and data horn Qty. County, and Stala road authohtias and othar aourcn. RUNUAlli:4r M 2III7232IOOM rMTAOCM MS MAfLEMOGCLA OWMKNAME C H SMOOT H * C A SMOOT TAXPAVn CeOUACIIAIUJSP SMOOT ni mas MAPLEAlOOe LA EXCCLSKNIMM SS3)I HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPF INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPeKTYOR. 3UST PACE:I 3t aiiiTmims POOPAOOR MAS MAPUOUOOELA OIVNER NAME EMC H PAULSON TAXPAYER ERICH PAULSON NAME/AOOR a«S MAPLE RRX3E LA EXCELSIOR MN SSSSI 31 3III7U2I0007 PROPAOOR 2MS WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNERNAME BLRDMBtAMCENSMP TAXPAYER BRADFORD R DEBRA DLANKENSIOP NAME/ADDR MAS WEST lAFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR MN S533I 31 211172331000* PBOPADDR 2010 MAPIEMDGELA OWNERNAM PAKMRiHTRCRRMGHT TAXPAYn PMVUJB A R CHARLES ROOGHT NAMVAOOR MIOMAPLEMDOELA EXCELSIOR MN 13331 31 2III7233IOOIO PBOPADDR 2007 WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNERNAME MPRIOeRSCOON TAXPAYER MPRIOERSCOON NAME/AOOR 2*07 WEST LAFAYETTE RO EXCEUIORMN 31331 30 2111733220006 PROPAOOR 34*6 OLDBEAOIRD OWNQINAME GKCARLSONROMCARLSON TAXPAYER GERALD KR DIANE CARLSON NAME/ADOR 24H OLD BEACH RD WAYZA1AMN SS3«I 31 21 1 1723220007 PROPAOOR 2S10 OLD BEACH RO OWNERNAME TBOOTHYPOLSON TAXPAYER TMOTMY FOLSOM NAME/ADOR aSIOOLOBCAOIRO WAYZATAMN SS30I 3S 2III7232400S0 PKIPADOR 26S0 MAPIERIOOCLA OWNERNAME WILLIAM C ARONS A TAXPAYER WaXIAMCARONSA NAME/ADOR 603 NORTH YAOrrSMAN OR SAMBELFL 339S7 31 2III7232400SI PROPAOOR 2660 MAPLERIDGELA OWNERNAME KJYEAGERRJTYEAGER TAXPAYER KARL IR JULIET YEAGER NAME/AOOR 36M MAPLERJOGE LA E3CCELSIOR MN SS33I 30 2III7232400S3 M3-2OT2 INI WlilMrsI Tran Mayl4,2NJ P«|f2 The property was for sale over the winter and staff received many calls regarding the possibility of this property acquiring access to the lake via the lagoon that juts in from Forest Lake. Howc\ cr. the Ugoon docs not abut the property and the adjacent lot does not have sufficient shoreline to aivc uo any frontage. • ^ applicant has provided a site plan/survey indicating the proposed house location and the 25(T Ukea^aetba^lineforhaidcovcrcakulationpurposes. The proposed house is located about 140* from the shoreline, and moat of the site is within the 73-23(y zone, with the driveway and southerly 50-10(y of the lot in the 2S0-S0(r zone. Hardcover in the 75-25(y zone is proposed at 17%. and in the2S0-S00'zoneis 16.8%, hence hardcover is not an issue. Hardcover may actually decrease from Uttt proposed if the dclached gnge nd essocialed drivewsy arc not constructed; sidewalks and other amemUea will have to be added to the final plans to allow hardcover ■-nnn......;nn before a building permit will be issued. All proposed setbacks are conforming, aiul average lakesbore setback is not an issue became ihj$ is not a lakesbore loL IssnM for Consideration 1. 2. 3. 4. The lot appean to be similar in size to other developed lots in the neighborhood. A single family residence previously existed on the property. The properly is seu cred. Lot coverage by structures is approximately 3100 s.f or 8.3%, well within the 15% limiL The site plan submitted docs not reflect that the existing detached garage has been removed. ^ **l''''^*y****** suff believes do not reflect the final proposal. For the record it IS noted that the rernoved detached garage would have to be located in a conforming location If actually proposed; md that the driveway encroachment into the neighboring property to ^ eliminated u part of the construction process (must be at least 5* from lot The applicant has not provided a grading and drainage plan; such a plan will be required for review and approval rmor to building permit issuance. There are no apparent ^ing and drainage concenu with this property. -ri' ® Staff Rccommcndatkw CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Inititl Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no chance from oiiginal i^lication) Variance for non-confonning structures S2SO.OO After-tbe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application 0 Date Received Amonnt Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address //YO / (jQt fli h u TVgt. f i Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OH •'I f *7 ^ I -Dn I 3 Attach legal description to aulic^on if not included on required survey. Date Pnwicitu. Acquired ___________ I (do) also own th/^a^jic^ parcels of land. _(monlh'year) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: f A .other (specify). APPLICANT Name A l/JtpTliC Address: . U/ Phone (home)%; 2. - ^^2 - _____ Phone (work)//3.. QxtrJ^Ji^ZArA Zip: OWTiXR (if different than applicant) Name ____________________ Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ , AEilimated Conslniclion Cost S 'ISO Describe request in detail:£md (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area X Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front — Side __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify’) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Kf<Ltynrj Lr^ i' t^Airr^ATT inC nr.<3 (attach additional sheets if necessary) W r‘rhO required SUB^^TTALS to ttt WBlIflthU dMdll.. J... („ I- — Compleled AppUcalion Fomi ' " Sii“— *• — SkeldiM or plans of floor ft elevation *..*** rqttoduclion. property. This would include name(s) ofmBcintfst^f^ * " " ** «■ ---- Additional items as may be requested by City s-ilt APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Admi^trator.a^V^^ti^rfw^a’ini^ *’1' Zoning consultant expenatt^fiBuned in review^^j, .n-iic! supplied IS tnie anjf coir^to lhd^bo^^^||jjj|„o^]jj^ ^ ceitifies that the infomuUon Date ^//^x/fOl Applicant's Sign OWNER'S signature ' / «!£r "sst^s; Sait’S i‘s: Applicants must be preseut at all scheduled review meetin» «r puncll. If an applicant is unable to attend a schedUlcd ***t”*”“ “* Commission andX“S ^ ^ «.ZS.S,;;3rKnave an autnonzed agent atte change prior to the meeting. .■^OQ oO ’,v r “* / CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR NANCY FERRELL IN BLOCK 4. MOUNT HOME PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I II H N I LEC/M. OCSCffiPTlON OF PREMISCS : The Cost 1/2 of Lot I to 8 inclusive. Olock 4. Mount Home Pork, ond Thol poft of the Southerly 220 feet of the of the West 1/2 of Lots 3. 4, 5. 6. 7. ond I lying Northeasterly of the following described Kne : Commencing ol o point in the center of the Sooth line of Lol 8; thence to o point on the West line of Lot 3. sold point meosured 220 feel North from the South line of Olock 4, in Mound Home Pork. ond that port ol Vocoted Crondview Ploce which lies eoslerly of the eoslerly line of Block 4, Mount Home Pork. South of the eosterly estension of the northerly line of Lol 1, soid Block 4. Mount Home Pork, end northerly of the eoslerly e«tension of the South line of Lol 8. soid Block 4. Mount Home Pork. 0 : denotes iron morker Beorings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dotum. Tliis survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, ond the locotion of on esisting house ond goroge Ihereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochmenls. ?o-o" CrKTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR NANCY FERRELL W 3LOCK 4. MOUNT HOME PARK HENNCPIN county . MINNESOTA ’’e I II H — N — LECAl DCSCRiPTtON OT PREMISES Tht Coil 1/2 of Lot I to 6 iodutSvc. BH>ck 4. Mount Homo Porh. ond Thot poet of tho Southerly 220 feet of the of U m Wo*I 1/2 of Loti 3. 4. 5. «, 7. and 8 fylnfl Northeotlerly of the foflooinQ described line : Commencing ot o point In the center of the South line of Lot 0; thence to o point on the West line of Lot 3. soid point meoskied 220 feel North from the South line of Olock 4, in Mound Home Pork. ond thot port of Vocoted Crondview Ploce •hich Kes tosteriy of the eosterty line of Ofoeh 4. Mount Home Pork. South of the eosterty estension of the northerly line of Lot 1. soid Block 4. Mount Home Pork, ond northerly of the eosterly eitension of the South line of Lot 8. soid Block 4. Mount Home Pork. o : denotes Iron morher Beorings shown ore bosed upon on ossumed dolum. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove descnl>ed property, ond the locQlion of on eaistinq house ond goroge thereon. It does not purport to show ony other improvements or encroochmenls. ««««•WWMH out HKvim ECO More use • \ t>-2- D'3 L I r -/? .nj HARDCOVER CAl.CUI.A LUl^VORKSUEET SETBACK ZONEi (CIRCLE ONE) IXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________ 0.75’ AULO^V P 250*S00*500.1000* B. Oarage C DritTvrty D. Sidewalk E. Patio0edc F. Landscape Underlain By Plutie OrFabnc 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZON!I TOTAL PROPERT Y AREA IN ZONE - B PROPL*JED HARDCOVER TS ZONE A House_____________ I'- B. Oirage<*'<>/f C Driveway ____ D. Sidewalk E. Pauo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic OrFabnc 0 Other SF SF. SF SF. SF SF SF .SF SF SF SF. SF .SF. SF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZOIC TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - .3 •"SF. B ___ \ 100 m 2160-SF.-M«^ U u BH m >07 SF-SW m SF. m ZO<h s F. - Porch m 428 SF m \AOd>SF m SF. ■SF m SF m SF. m SF m SF m SF m SF. m SF 4“io3 SF. A•SF. B . \ltX)*/7. OO H ltUNIMTE:4 1 M OTilTWIOOM ntOTADOR MT WUMURSTTK OWNeRNAME CEBOGIMAM ACDOEHM TAXTAVI’JI aiARLESAMARYANNUOfUM NAM&AOOR RfTWKiNIURST TRAIL MOUNOMN SUM lICNNCPIN COUNTY PROEl INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTT’ OWi .4JIS LIST PAGE.I M O7II73UIO0OS PHOPAOOR m WILOIIURSTTR OWNER NAME M W A N C NIMERFROII TAXPAYER MARTIN W A NAN CNIMERntCHI NAME/AOOR «*f WRiNIURST TR MOUND MN 5SJM 31 O7II7232IO0M PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONED OWNER NAME HARRIET J MOROART taxpayer 1 lARRitrr j moroart NAMUADOR I003WILDHURSTTR MOUNOMN SS3M M 0711723210007 PROPAODR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIQNEO OWNER NAME HARRBTJMOACART TAXPAYER HARRCTJ MOROART NAMfi/AOOR lOOJWRJXRJRSTTR MOUNOMN SS3M 30 0711723240015 PROPAOOR NOO WRJXRIR5T TR OWNER NAME POJORQENSENA RM ASHER TAXPAYER POX3RGENSGN ARM ASHER NAME/AOOR 1000 WROHURSTTR MOUNOMN 30 O7II7232I00I3 PROPAOOR 1001 WILDHURSTTR OWNER NAME DAN-BAR HOMES LTD TAXPAYER DAN-BAR HOMES LTD NAME/AOOR IMLAKESTWEST WAYZATAMN SS39I 30 0711723240046 PROPAOOR 1074 WILOIIURSTTR OWNERNAME ILONA J PETERSON TAXPAYER KENNETH C PETERSON NAMLAOOR 14120 I3TH PL N PLYMOUTH MN S5447 31 07II7232I00I6 PROPAOOR 1003 WILOIIURSTTR OWNERNAME HARRIET J MOROART TAXPAYER lURRIET J MOROART NAME/AOOR 1003 WILOIR3RST TR MOUNOMN SS3M 1 CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTNIS DATEONTHE RECX}ROS OFTME HEWEP1N OOUPnY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. DATE BY I' > V i- '• AV); V. • -/ - , f- . i y. n Y- ■ ■ if v,V\{:.x".::.!h'- >j mm T'l ' ■^\ ■ .' -.V>v'v . \ ■• • - \ j ^ J !■ r^l (J V' ' A. . ^■.r: :-<4- .. • • :r •■ •. - • ^ I . ''■" ^ ‘ ";"-‘V •*•• • ' .•' ■' ’ •' • rcTv -.N*' "v\ .'v 1 * '•• V.^ ^ /-/v ••■ ■ •’••*^ ;^.'vy^r^r'-* ».• vv;.... ^ -V . ' ^ • > . 1 ft •- iSs- A*-. '%V \T;Me #/ ^7 " 4 -•T1 ' *« f ^ t v*a1' '.'t.O* ‘ * ' *•'*» ^ ^» • r, \A7v H n Mi■ ‘ r>.' •' V'.'^5 . ^ - ^V **^ MS - V|7 , f' |i| ' s w'<. :-Si' - . ■ i’ 'S tm m P' wm-i T" T' -m ' m cV ' •i ■ .. ^vl7 .-. ■**—^,._A. i Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (G) (2 c): Lakeshorc lot fencct; Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore >-ard of a lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located wthin 1 50 feet for Natural Environment Lakes. (Request: to allow a fence within 1 SO' of the OH \VL of French Lake where no fences are permitted). Dbcussion: The applicMion is two pronged: to permit the reconstruction of a 1 1* x 122’ gravel pathway for the property owners to access an island of land on their properly; and to allow horses on an intermittent basis on the island. These activities arc not permitted without City approval for variances and a conditional use permit. Pathway Reconstruction Hardcover (0 to 75 ’ setback zone) No hardcoser is permitted within 75’ of the OllWL of any lake. 1 he applicants propose to reconstruct an existing gravel pathway, constituting 1,342 s.f. hardcover, within 75' of the OHWL of French Lake. Grading. Filling and F.xca\oling within 75 ’ of the OHIVL No grading, filling or excavating is permitted w ithin 75* of the OIIWL of French I.ake. The applicants request grading, filling and excavating within 75’ of the OHWL to reconstruct the pathway and to mitigate wetland that is filled as a result of the reconstruction. This will require approximately 2,007 s.f of filling in w etland and 4.037 s.f of wetland mitigation. Movement of >500 cubic yards of Material To reconstruct the pathway, it is anticipated that approximately 147 cubic yards of fill will be required if soil conditions arc acceptable. However, since soils have not been tested, the amount of fill required for the project is uncertain, lliercfore, a conditional use pennit request has been added to the application in case more than 500 cubic yards of material is necessary. *rhe following criteria are used to evaluate a conditional use permit: /. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in uhich the site is located and Comprehensive Mimicipai Plan: The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the Zoning Chapter and the Comprehensive Municipal Plan to allow for the property owner to safely access a portion on his property. 2 That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public healdi safety or w elfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity: and Tlie proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or injurious to properties or improvements in the area. S. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of SOI 2869 Dr Robert Cumntt 5/U2003 Pate3t^6 the Zoning Chapter. The proposed use will not conflict with other provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Additional evaluation criteria for conditional use applications in a shoreland district are as follow ’s: /. The prevention ofsoil erosion or the possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction: Recommendations made by the City Engineer will be conditions of approval of this application, ensuring that the proper measures arc taken during construction. ^ of structures and other facilities as vienedfrom public waters is The pathway is proposed to be reconstructed for safe use. As it exists today, there will be no significant change to the landscape as a result of its reconstruction. 3. The site is adequate for water supply and on-site seuage treatment and The site is hooked up to City sewer so on-site treatment is not an issue. 4. The types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate are compatible in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. The proposal does not generate wateroraft for the property. Horses Animals Horses are a permitted accessoo use in the RR-IB zoning district The number of horses permitted on the property is broken down as followa; Total lot area: Less wetlands: Less I acre for house (.Section 10.20, Subd. 3m) 25.4 acres •16.04 acres -1.0 acres 8.36 acres Two acre, of pasture are required for the finst horse and I acre for each additional horse. Therefore, up to 7 horses would be permitted on the property, assuming all 8.36 acres arc available for pasture. The applicant docs not intend to have horses permanently on the propertv. From time to time there may be up to 4 horses on the property, all of which arc stabled elsewhere. The applicant has suggested that a temporary structure may be necessary for the horses, depending on weather conditions Structures, both temporary and permanent, arc required to be located 150 ’ from the OHWL of French liike. If the horses arc permitted to be located on the island, there is an area within the center of the property which is outside the 150 ’ setback, permitting a temporary structure without variance approval. Agricultural Use within 150 ‘ of the OHiVL Agricultural uses, including grazing, arc permitted in the Shoreland Overlay District However this use IS not permitted within the shore setback zone. The shore setback zone for French Lake m-2869 Dr. Robert Gumna S/IP2003 Rate 4 pf 6 pfir* b defined as 1 SO* from the OHWL. Therefore* horses are not permitted to graze \sithin I SO’ of the OH WL of French Lake, as proposed. The applicant has stated that he has a grazing plan from the Hennepin Conser\'ation Distiiwt uliich they intend to follow. At a minimum, the Hennepin Conservation District has suggested that a 15* buffer should be maintained between the horses and the edge of the wetland. The island is surrounded by wetland which, further out, becomes open water and the delineated edge of French Lake. It is possible to consider that the island is surrounded by wetland, not lakeshore, requiring a 26 ’ setback instead of 150 ’. Fences within 150'of the OHiVL The applicant is requesting a fence to keep horses on the island. The fence would be a low visibility fence that would not negatively impact existing wildlife. Fences are not permitted within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot. For this property, the lakeshore lot b defined as ISO’ from the OHWL of French Lake. Therefore, fencing is not permitted around the bland, as proposed. However, if the lake b considered to be wetland surrounding the island as suggested above, the setback would be 26 ’. Other CoBUMcats: City Engineer The City Engineer reviewed the application when it was first heard in February. He stated that a typical section of the proposed roadway should be Included for review and erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved prior to construction activity. Since this time, a wetland delineation report has been received and a typical section of the proposed roadwtiy has been submitted. Due to the lateness of the submission, the City Engineer has not reviewed this information. City Engineer review and approval will be required prior to issuance of permits. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Wri:ten comments have been received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding this application. Formal review of the application for granting of pcmiits w ill be required. Department of Natural Resources The DNR surveyed the applicant’s property and determined that the pathway is above the OHWL of French Lake and, therefore, docs not require DNR review nor approval. Public Comments Prior to the February Planning Commission meeting, five letters of opposition to this proposal were received (attached for your information). However, no one from the public was present at the meeting to discuss their concerns. Hardship Statement: *03-2369 Dr. Robert Cumnit 5/13/2003 Fege5<f6 Frances H. Graham Robert J.Gumnit 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayiata, Minnesota Tdcplioiic 9S2-47S-4909 Facsimile 152-47»-M42 May 13.2003 Orono City Council and Planning Commission Members City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 5S328 RE: #03-2869 Robert J. Gumnit and Frances H. Graham 1100 Old Crystal Itay Road CUP Variance Application Dear Council & Commission Members: This is to ask that you approve our request for a CUP and Variance to allow us to continue the historic use of our property as a horse pasture. Our request is for permission to improve, maintain, and repair in Riture years as necessary the existing path that gives us access across a wetland to a high ground, approximately 2-acre grassy knoll located in the middle of our approximately 25-acre property. When we moved here in drier years we had no trouble getting to the knoll. However, with the passage of time and wetter springs, we have had increasing difficulty going onto the knoll. Currently, a deteriorating mud path is our only access to this portion of the property. This muddy trail has slowly deteriorated such that it has become iiKrcasingly difficult to gel maintenance vehicles onto the knoll to serx ice the land, and dangerous to ride horses through this mud. If w e cannot access this high ground on our property, the value of the land will be substantially diminished for its historic use. V^lien we moved to Orono 15 years ago, there were w ide open spaces up and down Old Crystal Bay Road and bams and fields occupied by horses. As houses have been built, new landowners have taken over areas previously occupied by wildlife and horses. We particularly noticed this phenomenon next to an'’ .ross from Noeremberg Park because we oflen saw deer herds on the Carpenter estate. T >. • arc now gone and there is a putting green instead The proposed CUP and variance would i; - . s to preser\*e and protect the valuable historic use of our property, rather than abat.:ionii. that use in favor of more suburban development. Cily ofOnmo Plmmg Comnission May 13,2003 Pagc2 Orooo has a nch history as horse country, and it was this tradition and history upon njich we based our decision to purchase this property. While our three horses rc stabled in Del^ another one in Buflalo, it has been our intention to pasture our horses on the grassy knoll on our Orono property, intermittently but especially prior to weekend horse activities to save us hours of transit time.' ____permitted to improve the muddy path to permit pasture of our horses, our purpose^ purchasing the property will be frustrated. More significantly, however, an m^propnately strict application of standards to preclude this permitted hi.storic use will reprint a continuation of the degradation of this rich Orono tradition and a departure from the city plan calling for maintaining Orono's rural character. Since this matter was tabled by the Commission, we have had the opportunity to find answers to various questions raised by the Commission. Specifically: (1) DNR The DNR staff has resurveyed the access path and determined that the path is above the high water mark of French Lake and a DNR permit is not required. 1 hey have determined that the path is 12 feet wide and lies entirely above the high water mark. The DNR representative reported that the DNR therefore has no jurisdiction or objection. (2) Wntrrsbed Dbtrict The Watershed District represCTlativc has inspected the site. Based on that inspection, the Watershed District proposes adding a topping to rehabilitate the present access and mitigation. The attached drawings set out the necessary rehabilitation plan and mitigation, which we understand meet the expressed requircroenu of the Watershed District. (Please note that the greatest amount of “construction" is the digging to create new wetland, which would be double the si/c of the path to be topped olT. In effect, wc arc creating more wetland than we arc nffecling.) We also wish to address some of the clear misunderstandings expressed in written inatcnals submitted by others who neither appeared at the initial hearing nor contacted us to i^iain accurate information. From what we can tell, one letter writer has little or no view of the kmll due to tearing ireea. and is an extensive distanee from the hill. Another letter writer from Ramy Road has no view of our property whatsoever. A third letter seemed unaware of how little wc arc trying to do in repairing our access. One concern centered on setting a ^ec^t but failed to account for the fact that the reasons for the variance are specific to this knoll and our ability to use it safely for a permitted use. The letter writer does not seem to understand that horses, being “prey" animals, coexist peacefully with wildlife. City ofOrooo Rbooi0g CoaMnitskm May 13.2003 Page3 It is important to sort out urban legends from factual information. Wildlife know how to deal with fences, including electrified ones. Foxes and small animals crawl under fences and deer are well-known to jump them. (Generally, electrification is not placed upon on the lower wire.) In short, the various conceras expressed by the letter-writers are unfounded, and our proposed modifications pose no threat to wildlife or the environment and no interference to our neighbors* enjoyment of their properties. Moreover, our proposal seeks to do far less, in terms of impact on the environment and surrounding properties, than we are allowed to do under existing permitted uses. For example, we have an ongoing right of access to the knoll and to bring a variety of materials, iryliiHii^ tempor ary structures and temporary feiKcs, onto the bill without permiuion from the city. Technically, we also have the right to build a large accessory building within certain height restrictions on a location 7S feet from the wetland demarcation line. Similarly, technically we have the right to use very visible seven foot high temporary fencing anywhere at 75 feet from the wet land demarcation line and along the top of the knoll. Although we could lawfully exercise all of these rights, causing a greater impact on our neigbbms and the City, we have attempted to elect a use with minimal impact that reflects sound land management As members of stale and national environmental organizations, w e care deeply about the environment and our design application is sensitive to such considerations. We are seeking to create a safe, environmentally responsible use that is less visible nod permits belter overall use of the grasses, and grass recovery. (That is, by increasing the space accessible for the horses to eat grass, we can do a better job maintaining the height of the grass to a self-sustaining level). We are proposing fencing that would be electrified high-tensile strength wire that is unobtrusive. (We would note that fencing in this area is a common phenomenon and can lend itself to a traditional rural character.) By placing it lower on the hill it will be less visible than if it is concentrated on the crest of the hill. Absent our permitted agricultural/animal use, our alternative is to subdivide the property for housing development and to use the proceeds to purchase a hobby farm elsewhere. We have paid engineers to develop a plat that includes 5 houses. This is obviously not what we wish, nor do we believe it to be in the best interest of Orono or our neighbors. This development of houses would obviously significantly increase traffic, demands on public services, and probably add a private sewer system. While views and aesthetics are obviously subjective, we, at least, far prefer the visage of open, undeveloped fields with a few horses, to the alternative views of yet another development with homes and driveways, and the continued inroad upon the rich horse country tradition which brought us to Orono. As noted by the City Planner, this is a unique property with its dry, approximately 2- acre highland surrounded by a marsh. There is no other such property in Orono. We are not proposing a new use, but rather asking for the right to restore the only access to the grassy knoll so that we may maintain and improve it. Otherwise, it is rendered inaccessible and worthless. We will readily agree to perform amelioration of the wetlands, as required by the Watershed District which will create greater than two times the amount of wetland removed. CilyorORMio niBBiQg C^ommissioa May 13.2003 Page4 T^Dtmhaa mmveyed our path and determined that H is 12 feet wide and is above the hjl^w^maik. We wiU follow the recommeodolioiis of the Hennepin County Conservation FuMlIy. foe electnc fence which wo > win be dtlBcttll to see even 100 feet away, let alone from any neigbbor*s property. *" **“* ** * hardship, historic and not self-created. The approximately 2 acre k«^ which , to sp^^^ii—triy 20% of our dry land. In the absence of the trail, foal dry land is marrcisiik, and we m deprived of hs use. 11 we are required to move and subdivide foe------:------ —; ■» wc we requireo lo move and subdivide the property, a yrnd bafotioo and way of life which has historically blessed Orono will continue ^apafoofeUmmation . This is to respectfully request that you permit foe cootinuatioo of tfos nae and ftanins foe dispcnsalioo necessary to oyqy our property and our hones. Respectfully submitted. y^)AiUjy) Frances H. Graham Utt DMpllMn,MN55aS1 Ptowt (962)471-0590 Fac (962) 471-0682 Efivi: •OBBiatininMhahacfMlLffg W9b&:t: «wwnbvNM«aMhj»g - -akaow ..-MCkMna LancaFWwr Monica &ON ScoOTtanas RobartSdnoadv 0SSi IliiMtaia fraak WatargM iisWct Improving QnMUtj ofWater, Quati^ of Life Et$Mhhedml967 February 13.2003 lennifer Chaput City of Orono P.O.Box66 Long Lake. MN 35356 Dr. Robert Gunmit P.O Box 85 Crystal Bay. NIN 55323 RE: Wetland Alteration at 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road. City of Orono Dear Applicant: This letter is to inform the property owner and City of Orono that afler reviewing a brief project description for the location cited abo>-e. it appears that the project will require pertniu from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Once Uk project design is rinalized, MCWD encourages you to submit an application as soon as possible. Projects of this nature w ill require approval of the MCWD Board of Managen which typically ranges between 30-45 days. Delays in submittals will ultimately result in project delays. Please consult MCWD Rules for guidance on the required exhibits to be submitted with an application. In addition to the items included in the District Rules, the following bulleted items must be submitted as a part of this specific project application: t> Vz- • Rule A: Procedural Requirements 1. Submit address labels obtained from Hennepin County which cite the names and addresses of all of the property ownen w ho reside within 600 feet of the project area 2 Notification of approval or preliminary approval from the City Council or Planning Commission 3. Submit a copy of the Combined Joint Notification Form application (enclosed) • Rule B: Erosion Control 1. Plan must sute with detail vegetation and stabilization will occur within 48 hours of completed grading 2. An erosion control plan must be submitted w ith this application. This includes indication of silt fence and all other necessary erosion control measures, which must be placed on all downhill slopes in areas where grading will occur. • Rule C Roodplain Alteration 1. The proposed project appears lo impact floodplain areas of Lake Minnetonka as well as riparian wetlands. In accordance with MCWD Rule C, there can be no net decrease of flood stora|c capacity for the lake. Imi^ should be quantified by volume and mitigated between the Ordinary High Water level and the 100-year floodplain. • Rule D; Wetland Protection 2. A delineation of each basin and delineation report must be submitted 3. Filling md excavation activities are guided by the Welland Conservation Act. Any impacts roust be assessed in accordance with the Wetland Conservation Act 8420.0510-0320 4. Buffers must be included in accordance with MCWD Rule D guidelines Welland buffers range between 16.3 ’ to 35* and are proportional to the size of the wetland basin. Assess the size of the wetland and designate buffers adjacent to all wetland boundaries on the property. As MCWp reviews upodir.t suoju .ils. su^f may find the need to request additional information, and wiU so intorm you. If you have any questions please call me at (932) 471-0390. Sincerely. Mkhael D. Wyatt District Technician n 4- LEGEND i * 1 OCNOTCS f*<ST‘.C WttlANO OCIiOUS riuto WltLANO ocNous pMOPOsco wniANo feas=^” =£=s~ra1. C»’MC»0* CON’tC* IVIiMt** VtCl*U»t MC« »0 e<5*»w«< CC*rtt»tCTf. 0# Mit<AlC*i *«US *r tu-Mi-'Mi Mnai^ •(tuMO r%uo • iMf sr •-.lUM wtctfo* atouflu • tr ■ I • «-P*« a«o*OMO ■C'uMO • *017 sr NCVSiOMS Atmmw w Ml «i^ mA M|M|f 9* Ml M 1^ Mt« «iMl • *WI1M M«Ai MM •> M l*fti M SCHOCLL li UAOSON. INC. f>KMin • •uaM'O^ • »» n»’«* • u»«»tlOM •a&fwfc y*n » •» UXt (••Jl »*4-»«0' **4-K*» 0«wiM/0tvU0P£R DR ROGERT OUMNn* 0»WN lW?M» SOS . fl-f ^ 7003^ J FROttCt SA wC/S h C£T TiTit 1KX) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CnONO.IM WETLAND MmOATION PLAN •iMI PRC jCCT so eMO-002 SH£Et 3 Of 3 S^^EEIS RR-1B district. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additionaJ acre must be available for each additional horse. V^Ticn permitted in the underlying zoning district, general cultivation, farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, and wild crop hancsling shall be allowed in the Shoreland Overlay District except that no such activity shall occur within the shore setback zone. 4.Section 10.56, Subd. 7 (A) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) (1): Shore setback: French Lai c is classified as a Natural Fnvironment Lake, requiring a setback of 150 ’. Section 10.22, Subd. 2, Section 10.56, Subd. 16 aXD and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JK3): Hardcover and drivew^s within 75*: No hardcover or impers ious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinars High Water Level of any lake or tributary. Driveways shall not be constructed within 75 ’ of the Ordinar> High Water Level of public waters. Section 10.03, Subd. 15 (C) (2 c); Lakeshore lot fences; Fences shall not be constructed w ithin the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e. shall not be located within 150 feet for Natural Environment Lakes. Application Snniniary: The applicant requests the following in order to reconstruct a 1,440 s.f. (120* x 12’) gravel driveway to access and use a 1.8 acre island on his property: 1) a sariaiKC for filling in 2,091 s.f. of a wetland, where no fill or hardcover is normally permitted, 2) conditional use permits for movement of more than 500 cubic yards of fill and mitigating wetland within the shoreland overlay district; 3) a variance to allow an agricultural use (grazing of horses) within the 150 ’ of the OHWL of French I.akc; 4) a \ariance to allow a 4* fence to be located as close as 14’ from the OHWL of French Lake where 150 ’ is required; and 5) a variance for mitigating 4,234 s.f. of land within 75 ’ of the OHWL of French Lake where no grading or excavation is permitted. There is an exisUng trail accessing the island of land at this time. TIk trail has been worn down over time so the applicant wishes to improve it for machiner> to be able to drive on it. In the 1950s, the original land owner used this land for grazing cattle. The construction of the driveway requires 2.091 s.f. of wetland to be filled with approximately 132 cubic yards of material if rebuilt on the existing drive. However, the amount of fill is difficult to anticipate at this time so, since the soils ha\e not been checked, there ma> be more than 132 cubic >*ards of fill required. In the case that more than 500 cubic yards of fill is required, an application for a conditional use permit has been made. §03-2869 Dr. Robtrt Cummi S/13/2003 Pagt2 afS In order to comply wilh the Wetland Conservation Act, uTtland mitigation of 4,234 s.f. is proposed next to the south property line near the middle of the proposed site. Mitigation requires movement of land within 75’ of the OH^^'L of French lake, which is not permitted and requires a variance. Changes in the existing grade arc not permined within 5’ of the lot line. The proposed mitigation will also require mov’ement of more than 500 cubic yards of material, requiring a CUP. When the access is improved, the applicant intends on plowing or burning the land and planting native grasses. The applicant has four horses that arc stabled in Delano. From time to time (typically weekends), the applicant may want to bring a few horses to his property (on the island) the day ^fore going riding with them. No more than 3 at a time would be on the property and they would not be stabled there or remain for a long period of time. For this purpose, the applicant wishes to fence the island with no more than a 4* clectnc fence. On lakeshore lots on Natural Environment lakes (such as French Lake), fences can not be located within 150* of the OHWL Ihe applicant proposes a fence location as close as 14’ from the OHWL. In the RR-1 B zoning district, horses are permitted as an accessory use. The applicant proposes no more than 3 horses on tlte property at one time. The number of horses permitted on the property is broken down as follow's: Total lot area: Less wetlands: I I acre for house (Section 10.20, Subd. 3m) 25.4 acres • 16.04 acres •1.0 acres 8.36 acres Since 2 acres of pasture ore required for the first horse and 1 acre for each additional horse. 7 horses would be permitted, assuming all 8.36 acres are available for pasture. Other Comments: City Engineer The City Engineer has reviewed the application. Me stated that a typical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion control measures should be installed, inspect^ and approved by the City prior to construction activity. ^linnehaha Creek Watershed District The application has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review but no comments have been received at this time. MCWD approval will be required before wetland fill and mitigation are permitted. As a requirement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnet, mitigation of the wotland at a ratio of 2:l(filling 2,091 s.f. of wetland and creating 4.234 s.f.) is proposed adjacent to the southwest comer of the wetland along the southern property line. M0S-2869Dr. Robert Cumnit Xll'2003 Rage 3 of S A Application # HS-3iX(/? Date Received f~^t-o3 Amount Paid CITV OF ORONO - GE^XRAC LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address t//)n /^/.r> TZoto _________: Type of Application to be Filed XOca Property Identification Number (P.LD.) applicant Name T[7/?^ Address 7^ g.S~_______ Phone (home)_ City Phone (work i ^S2 >.ra<^-vc/>/ /f^dfr^Crr^tL. ghIK* Zip OWNER Of different than applicant) •Name._____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address.City Dale Pro^perty Acquired_____________________ I (do) #ap poll also own the adjacent parcels of land. (raonth/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMnS - V S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration . y Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, rctairung walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftcr-thc-Facl Fee - Double Cunent Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS 5275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 51 00.00 Appeals Other • tee Fee Schedule 5300.00 5250.00 SICO.OO 5350.00 L .. -A.. ^ j n>&0 ,r^r\ appucation (S50.00 per each additional vaxiance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (nn change from original q)plicatioo) Variance for non-confbcmiztg atnictures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcaiioa § Date Received""f Amount Paid PROPERTY information —//g^ Q n Property Uc^cation Number (Pm) ------ ^pX'0- .cuucd- I (do)^^B^also own the adjacent parceU of land. survey. , , -1,111 ------ww pan Present use of property: X residennal Zoning District_________ .(monthtyear) j)thcr (spccify)_ APPLICANT Name T)^ Address: a> #<- Phone (home).____ (»■«*) 9S^Z- owner (if different than applicant) Name .____ Clty._^T/g>/^rx» Zipr^mAS: Address; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: City:. P'.une (home)_ Phone (work)_ Estimated Construction Cost S VARIANCES REQUIRED ___ Lot Area (atUch additional sheets if necessary) Lot Width Setback: Hardcover Lot Cov( Other (specify) front _ Side _ r ,„ _ h>^ship/dkcwptio .n - of wusual property conditions D.scnbe undue ^(hhip or practical difficulty or unusual property co cc nphance with Zomng Code requirements: Property coproperty conditions preventing (««Ach additional sheets if necessary) '! 1 :T^\ P'jB o REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of thg following Information must be lubmltted bv the appHcatlon deadline date fn order for vour application to be considered complete; • • 1. J Completed Application Fonn 2. x/ Certified Property OvMiers List of owners within 150*. labels and plat map (>*00 must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of > Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). 3. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surve>x>r) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZV* x IT for reproduction. 4. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j'* x IT for reproduction. 5. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/a** x 11"). 6. y List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other / persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application.* Please remember that your variance application 1s not complete If the above Information has not been Included. APPLICANT'S SlGNATinu: Th' applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pa>Tnent) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true arid correct to the best of his'hor knowledge. DateApplicant's Signature 0^^'NER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. aJ>Owner’s Signature'Date Applica.nt must have all su^-n^-ttals into the City offices 25 days before the Plarjiing Commission Meeting. Planning Corrunission Meetings arc held on the third Mo.-.day cf each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agint attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ■•••V)•iC A A 4/4? P'at map (j-qu lent of Finance, RE qui ^d suhmotals ? Applicalion Form. 3 —y Describe request in delsil. must“o?u.^iTs'Tisui?s !id' mLTrH'"""’" 4. -P-County Dep^u., ^ ch«ges in elevatioJ: K ' '“O involve /rXH « •h* persons you ,uishnmir.:SVrs''^;SjSr ‘*«parale UsI of my other--------- u,,s cppu-oiion. --------- ™r Otnei roR REPRODUCTro/°if.V*‘x‘'^,3® or”s\um ‘'^°^ documents or copier- - -- p-He «SlTlorco,^pTtn^,Jl^^^ remember tbs. your S?:f.T;aen^.?Suff' Application is complete ■---------------------------------- Date _________' APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE —s,as; sa-,2 ;srf ^ sl^LT. ^S apoTcar„"T‘’ PMsupplied IS true and correct to the best of hisdier^knoiW^ge '''' '"fo-^lion ILlaL.^—--------- ---------- Date OWER'S SIG.NATURE ----------- entry onto Ihelwreny blTci^ •PP''';«!'>" «"<! further authorired reasonsbl- members P“T>os« of i„ves,ie,,ion md ven.lca.L^^ ' OwTier’s 5'Viaturc ( [y / / A Council scheduled ineelirB pleaie rnaVe >rr Comnuijion a.-j Council If >n he present at a ’l ^ .y ■i'r^ /> A5/C Schoell Gi Madson, Inc. Engineering • Surveying • Planning Soil Testing • Environmental Services WMv.schoeSmadson.com January 20.2003 City of Orono Planning Department Attn: Wendy Bottenberg 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Cr>stal Bay. MN 55323 Dear Wendy, On behalf of Dr. Robert Gumnit, Schoell & Madson. Inc. is submitting this application f-»r variance and conditional use permit to the City of Orono. The proposed project site is located at 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road and is a residential lot with one existing house on the site. The property extends from Old Crystal Bay Road to the shore of French lake. North and south of the proposed site are residential lots with single family homes. More than half of tiic 25.4-acre site consists of a wetland leading up to the shoreline of French Lake. A 1 .8-r.crc, grassy knoll is located in the middle of the site and is suiTOur.Je J by wetland. Currently, there is a muddy trail through the wetland for approxi.mately 120-linear feet that connects the knoll to the mainland. This trail has been slowlv deteriorating over time and it is difTicult to get maintenance vehicles onto the knoll to serv ice the land. It is proposed that a 120' x 12' gravel trail be constructed to connect the knoll to the mainland. This will allow the owner access to maintain and use his land. Approximately 2091-square feet of wetland w ill be filled in the construction process. To comply with the Wetland Conservation Act, it is proposed that wetland mitigation will be performwd on the site. This mitigation consists of creating greater than two times the amount of wetland removed; the 4234-square feet of proposed wetland will be placed next to the south propertv line near the middle of the proposed site. Please contact me at 952-847-9636 if you have any questions or comments regarding this submittal. Sincerely. Paul M. Hudalla s.-.(Qi Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer 105B0 Wl>yza*.a Boulevard. Suite 1 • Minneapolis. MN 55305-1525 Office (S52) 546-7601 • Fax (952) 546-9065 L List Namw of Those With Interest In HOP CMd i»^.^ Dr. Robert;. Gumnit Francis H. Graham ****** '****'*N # HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S' EX15TINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House __________ X 75-250'C^50-50Q>^500-1000* ‘B. Oti«g« C Diivcwtjr th Sidm& E. PMk/DMk F. Laadsc^ UDdcrUia ByPlutfe O. Other Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ■ /^£>t ♦ B JD99A T in 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN znxir A. House B. Osnft C Drivewiy D. SidewiDc E PstioDeck F. Liodscape Underlib By Pbstic O. Ocher Width TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE /^g/--------- ♦ B X too J^O( JACi S.F. ST. SF. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. -----__ST. AV7 ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. SF. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. /wc'X V **•/*;• _________ST. _________ST. At/7 K .A" i B setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) BBSTTO HARDCnvi rp y^r Hardcover calculation worksheet 75-250* WiM ‘ B. Ganfe C Driveway D. SkSewalk E. Pado/Declc E- Landteape Uwferlala By Flastie O. Other hardcover in zone total PROPERTY AREA SzONE ^ ^ -4!5g:^L_iiooMOPOSED HARp^ovirp |y A. House " * ‘ Umdi B. Ganfe C Driveway D. Sidew^tk E. Pado/Dcck P. LandKape Uoderlaia By Piasde G. Other Width ___ X TOTAL Hardcover in zone total PROPERTY AREA W ZONE ♦ B X 100 - r n “4“‘ JLC^ ■ yr •• • . • t • R£Vi»OMS T»-y.SCHOEU It MAOSON. IHC. uo^m • nfUTKtn • tvaaac •0% ltr»< • totaooCirtM. ««<0 •OM WUIA lauKiKa. «M • l^««lI^O^^ M tuo i«i|) raa W-tMt ONNDt/OCVCLOPCK DR ROBOT OUMNrr P.OBOXIS CRTITAL BAT. IM SS3» o*Tf jawMirr 7. looi Mojccr MAwc/vtcci nnc tKX) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD OnONOlIM STE AND inUTY PLAN SJU.I. PROJCCT NO. 9MO<n SHEET 1 Qf 3 Sh£CIS i'oFWzAmY me e 1/6. FrtnehCrMhOwnsn’AmeeaOoru 2250 FrMidvCrMfc^Cirvl* OrOMiHN 55391 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway POBOX66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attention: Planning Commission Re: pr. Robert Cumnifs Request for Conditional Use Permit # 03-2869 Planning Commission: The French Creek Owners’ Association would like more Information on the Cumnit’s request for a Conditional Use Permit for the wetlands area adjacent to French Lake. We have a substantial ownership in the “French Creek“ wetlands and the initial reaction of several of our members is negative. We are very concerned with the Impact to both the overall environmental health and the aesthetics. We do not want to do anything that would disturb the wildlife habiut, change the natural look of the area or alter the water quality. The lake is home is a large variety of birds and other wildlife, including annual visits by Trumpeter Swans. It is a delicate balance that we do not want to see changed. We ark anxious to know that the potential ramifications have been seriously considered before any permits to change the area are granted. We would like to be kept aware of developments and have a chance to speak before permits are actually granted. Sincerely, Marcia K. Hanson President. French Creek Owners* Association cc Residents and Board of Directors AOImtCipiul Mmagwnani Co<pen»on •01 Saeond Av*nu« Souti. Suit SOOO MnnaapoN. MN 5540g-43» m (61?)6738»3 r«r (012) 30 2149 Emai: lOralan_Buaon9aaiil<om Wman lyrtoii McaPraaUani 'Z Z^(n>rUfotf^r^ p- 4 virCvir ^ C3 7 ItJ ^ CU k ^ CCU' a t' JhU't X^U'( *7^ 7^*^ I it iel y ^J^ y(J (iyjCr^ •/b '■jyj (C/S^Y^ ZiYCCi^^ ,yf\LiC^ a'XccCc^ dt,'^' ix^ ,0d<. C'Ci^ ^ • • _ « >*> ' / / /tiX^ "7^? /Ja^cZ i'iU'^iT-^ Cl4^ t^r^CL. r . S’^lCt^ JyiyU<i t/'^' ii'T-J pyU^^JA^^^cbr^ <t/ -^U'> C2M/^ '~U'^ C'.T-u-<^<! ^'i^U /^^L_ 'f^'te /7<t> (■Cfui^ fiUtti) 4,^£'^vr ^niier /i/rj A Y>^ J^t<. fiiMs ^ y <Jk>a:s^^<£^ A-i^'>- ::^A4A' :■/ a^Y) Z /J- yAv ^<:^A'---'-‘'-^ *</ -•'‘V'TT,,^-^ - A 3 -/5V ? (a SS~=>9/ <?v^- C’9> fc^S>j^ Sharon L Winilow 1205 French Creek Drive Orono,MN 55391 (952) 404.2889 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway POBox66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Attention : Planning Commission Re: Dr. Robert Gumnit’s Request for Conditional Use Permit U 03-2849 Planning Commission: I am wndng on behalf of my husband and myself to oppose the abo%*e referenced permit request of Dr Gumnit. We have a direct view of the property in question, and strenuously object to the proposed use of the property. We arc very concerned with the effect on the natural l-rench Lake preserve, including water quality, noise and disturbance of wildlife, as weU as the aesthetics of the preserve. The hlw is home is a large variety of birds and other wildlife, both resident and migratory. \Vc moved to this location away from Lake Minnetonka three years in order to enjoy the much more peaceful and natural lake ensirorunent provided on French Lake. We would like to be kept aware of developments and have a chance to speak before permits arc actually granted. Sincerely, Sharon L. Winslow ■Biiiiiiii I »i I Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth RifT 900 Old Ci^'stal Bay Road Wa>*zata, Minnesota S539I MEMO To: The Planning Commission. City of Orono From: Ms. Julie Riff Re: No. 03-2869 Dr. Robert Gumnit Date: February 19,2003 The purpose of this memo is to voice my strong opposition to the application by Dr.Gumnit to fill the u*ctland, remove more than 500 cubic yards of fill w ithin a shoreland district, install a fence within the setback area, and permit the use of a very small parcel of land for the grazing of up to four horses, even though it w ill be on an interim basis. We live adjacent to the same wetland and environmental lakeshore. We are e.xtremely concerned about the possible precedent that could be set by granting these variances where no hardship exists. The filling of the wetland without adequate hardship is a huge mistake. The allowing of structures to be built so close to environmental lake is an additional mistake because it opens up the whole subject of variances and down a slippeiy slope we might surely go. Lastly, that hill of high ground, being the only high ground in that entire wetland adjacent to French Lake, is the home for large numbers of w ildlife. Deer, fox, and many other smaller animals make their homes on that high ground. The introduction of horses in that area and the use of an electric fence w ill absolutely interfere with the natural habitat provided for these animals. For these reasons, we respectfully but strongly request that the Planning Commission deny the above mentioned request. Thank you for your close consideration of this matter. Sent By: J PETERSON;2395914654;Feb-18-03 12:2gPU;Page 2/2 James S. Peterson 2280 French Creek Circle Orono, MN 55391 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Boxes Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: Planning Commission Per. Gumnit request for Conditional Use Permit # 03-2869 Planning Commission: We Join our neighbors in the French Creek development in expressing our concern regarding the Gumnit request for a Conditional Use Permit for the wetland area adjacent to French Lake. We share a vested Interest in a significant portion of the wetland on the south side of French Lake and are very concerned atraut the potential negative impact of issues such as grading and filling, runoff from stables/horses. roadways and vehicular traffic adjacent to the lake. etc. We fear the wildlife and habitat of French Lake will be disturbed significantly as a result of the above actions. Further, we believe a disturbance of the lake of this nature Is unnecessary and not in the best interests of the community and its residents. This issue should be fully evaluated and communicated before any action granting permits is undertaken. We would like to be kept informed of any developments and request a chance to express our views before any permits are granted. Thank you for consideration of this input. Sipcwiply. fmes S. and Julia C. Peterson ^c.-Scr MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (^'03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, ConUoued) Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed MUSA amendment for several properties on Old Long Lake. Ruann, and Wakefield Roads. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess svas taken from 9:00 - 9:05 P.M.) (#6) #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, CUP AND VARIANCE 9:05-10:04 P.M. Dr. Gumnit, the Applicant, and his representative were present. Chapul explained that the applicant was requesting five items in order to reconstruct a 1,440 s.f. (120 XI2 ) gravel driveway to access and use a 1.8 acre island on his property; 1. a variance for filling in 2,091 s.f. of a wetland, where no fill or hardcover is normally permitted, 2. conditional use permits for movement of more than 500 cubic yards of fill and mitigating wetland within shorcland overlay district; 3. a variance to allow an agricultural use (grazing of horses) within the 150’ of the OHWL of French Lake 4. a variance to allow a 4’ fence to be located as close as 14’ from the OHWL of French Lake where 150* is required; and 5. a variance for mitigating 4,234 s.f. of land within 75 ’ of the OHWL of French Lake w here no grading or excavation is permitted. Chaput pointed out that there is an existing trail accessing the island of land at this time, however, over time, the trail has been worn down and the applicant wishes to improve it for machinery to be able to drive on it. Construction of the driveway requires 2,091 s.f. of wetland to be filled with approximately 132 cubic yards of material if rebuilt on the existing drive. With regard to other comments. Chaput stated that, after reviewing the application, the City Engineer stated that a ivpical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion control measures should be installed. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) stated that permits would be required, as well as, wetland mitigation. Chaput indicated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would also require a pemiit, however, they will not renew the application until the snow clears and they can perform their own independent survey. Chap It stated that, if the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be able to reconstruct a gravel driveway by filling in and mitigating wetl.md to access the land, enclose the land with an electric fence to use it for pasturing from time to time, then the variances and CUPs necessary should be approved including 5 PAGE 17 of 26 minutes of the ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (K03-2M9 DR. ROBERT CUMMT, --------------------------------------------- to other hand. If the Planning Commission feels that there is no hardship lonXtt™ I "•rough a wetland, and that d^SISJ Dr. Gumnit slated that he wished to f,l! as a maintenance measure to maintain the trail. S‘.Ssco":;S,^mt;:J '''‘'''’" »•-" ■<>--- - •»' r^P-y whem the Chaput submitted into record five letters the City had received Irom neighbors in opposition to the application, as follows: Kirsten Burton 2601 Rainev Road Dr and Kenned, Riff of 900 Old Ctystal Bay Road, Sharon Wmlow n "o?fS DrilT Fre'l^hCreTcirr”'""* P™*" Sis.tg7ter:^[;S^ ^cn m. pedtiri^fortSti:''' P“'P”“ "P for horses. PAGE 18 of 26 r /«tA- \ / ■ □ tSo i-• m M 0^“C^,/• » \ ^ \ \ \ - C:,-*' i j I 0, ^A > . -:\ 2>. Cofweff moOUCvfdtlSaifJ^oad //^. /' nfgyaaia, ^twrWn 55391 ! To: J0 iJjCL) X'U». ri.u ^ ^ .'/ My ../^- •^/•A /:.y. , JLJ /i .f J ii^ >{..«.-.7/^. ; ‘ ^ Armr tuy^ ,. f i q>.. /lOt t(/'i^ y'57^ 3 % L.. Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: Extension: 3/19/03 4/1/03 5/30/03 7/29/03 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner May 14,2003 SUBJECT: ^03-2885 Gcrda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-lBOne Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 0.43 acres (18,553 s.f.) Application Sunmary: The applicant requests the follouing variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required: 2. a lot width of 99’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OIIWL where 140’ is required; 111 s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore tback zone where none is permitted, 3,303 s.f. (30*/o) hardcover within the 75’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; and 6. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of l.akc Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted. 3. 4. The Planning Commission heard this application at their Monday. April 21.2003 meeting. 3\'ith a vote of 7 to 0, the Planning Commission tabled the application to allow the applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75’ to 250 ’ setback zone to “between 25®/i and 30*/*” and to no more than 2,783 s.f. (15*/o) of structural coverage on the combined lots by redesigning the proposed home. The requested variances for lot area, lot w idth, hardcover within the 0 to75* setback zone and grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL appeared to be acceptable to the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The proposed house has been redesigned to reduce the hardcover in the 75’ to 250 ’ hardcover zone from the previously proposed 4,483 s.f (38.36%) to 3.303 s.f. (30%). The structural coverage has also been reduced from 3,132 s.f (16.88*/o) to 2,505 s.f (13.5%), meeting the maximum permitted on the lot M0J-2US Ctrdaand Ed Toth S/14/2003 fof^lofS L ExUbitK A Analysis Worksheet Revised Surv ey, Floor Plans and Elevations Revised Hardcover Calculations City Engineer Memo Staff Report and exhibits of 4/21/03 Planning Coniniission meeting Discussion: existing structure on the 1280 Spruce property is 1.574 s.f. of the 9,253 sT. Lot 3. exceeding the maximum 1,500 s.f. permitted for a lot of this size, llic proposed house (on the combined I.OU 3 and 4) i J 2,505 i f. (13.5%). less than the 2,7*3 s.f. (15%) permitted. A variance is no longer necessary' for lot coverage by structures. Hardcover 75 '-250' Setback Zone There is 11.013 s.f. of area in the 75’-250* setback zone. There is cuirently 2.538 s.f. (23 05%) of hardcover within this zone where 2.753.25 s.f. (255o) is permitted. At the Apnl meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicants revise the proposal to show ^tween 25% and 30% hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ .setback zone. The applicants have revised their application to 3,303 s.f. (305'o) hardcover within this zone, still exceeding the 2,753.25 s.f. (25%) maximum permitted but meeting the Planning Commission ’s suggestion. It is important to note that 15% of the total lot area (2,783 s.f.) is permitted for structural coverage yet 25% hardcover in the 75’ to 250' setback zone is less square fooMge (2,753 25 s.f). Therefore, by allowing a home on the lot that meets the structural coverage requirement the hardcover would exceed the permitted amount within the setback zone. Similar Applications Similar proposal, for new conslmction c.xcceding the allownble hardcover on approximoiely « acre lakeshore lots in ihe ■/, acre and I acre zones have been consistently denied over the past 4 years. Applicant Property Lot Width Lot Area HardcoverSoojian4496 North Shore Drive 100’0.55 acres No hardcover variance grantedTwidwcll1865 Concordia Street i02’0.56 acres Granted 32.4% hardcover due to tree hardship limiting home placementLindberg3440 North Shore Drive 100’0.47 acres Met hardcover requitedGoldberg1160 Lorna Linda Ave 113’0.68 acres No hardcover variance grantedCable3532 Ivy Place 100’0.522 acres Denied variances for hardcover exceeding 25% m-7985 C<rda and Ed Toth 5/14/2003 fate 2 of 5 Other Conments: City Engineer Comments received from the City Engineer in regards to this application are as follows: 1. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; 2. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is direct^ towards the street or the lake; 3. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10®/o; 4. There are currently water and sewer services provided to each property, onl> one of which will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City's public works department; and 5. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any work on site. Issues for Consldcralion: 1. The properties must be legally combined prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposal does not require a variance for lot coverage by structures; 3. The proposed new construction exceeds the maximum permitted hardcover w ithin the 75’-250’ setback zone. It is possible to meet this requirement on the combined lot; 4. Applications for hardcover beyond the maximum permitted on lots with new construction have consistently been denied over the past four >*ears; 5. If 15% of the lot area is permitted to be structural coverage, the hardcover within tl.e 75* to 250’ setback zone will be in excess of 25%; and 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff would like to reiterate that hardcover variances have consistently been denied for new- construction on similar sized (approximately '/j acre) lots in the '/j acre and 1 acre zones over the past 4 years. Staff can Qot support a variance for hardcover in 75* to 250* setback zone for new construction on this lot since, in staffs opinion, no suitable hardship can be identified. Staff recommends approval of the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone, and grading and filling within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, with the following conditions: 1. Application for combination of lots 3 and 4 must be made prior to issuance of a building permit; 2. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take storm water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place; 3. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake; 4. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%; 5. There arc currently water and sewer services provided to each property, only one of w hich B03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth S/14/2003 P<^3<^5 will be needed for the new home. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water se^ce should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City’s public works department; and 6. Erosion control should be installed. Inspected and approved prior to any work on site. 903-2885 Cerda and Ed Toth 5214/2003 Eat,4qf5 ILJJ __i r I ! 1. » I I i I I 1 / / —^ N r I I iOioaOTNa.OOTNaXTlH^ K*^—^ VARIANCE APPLICATION f=OR ED 4 GERDA TOTW5 NOME mpc® mft2dOB«1d *nu b0l» M BtOOC W • MM MU. « MD MMWrr 0«*«».I1.|>-M-MM4»A1■MO — r...........................— Ml— VMMTf —••'ir ttiii 4^ WMM 1^ » -testtV c^MlSi Vb*' =. I'-o'' S.^-Or, fZooF-ttuiuu ifesfff m y^iuacoi ^(■er. tel..ReV: s.‘*».03 nw hoh £ hAC. -tz>TH Moi^ •*RQH : Gi?CNBe» t AVIATES FfiX NO. : 9S2 473 4435 Nos/. 29 2992 92:99Pri P3 ^ 3.*^/ (^UCKlO SITlACKlONtt (CaiCUONK) IXttTING HAKftgQVtK fw mw* A. Hum * hardcover CALCULATlTONYyvORKSHZZT 25MOO* R Otraft •• • C Dn^tsny D. SS4twa]k E F«do/D«ek Q. Oihir S00.1000* 42."; total ^orn^^NSiw:^&^ RlOO >RQ»OHP WAmcoVMl in 9. KHarn • • • lm0)k ANC* R (hn|« C Drfviiny 0. Sidcwtik E Pulo0«ek F. Laadiup« Uod«iUia ByfUttit OfF«Mt aote .SE .S-F. .EF. m .IF.- SSnSGif Sj,.8UKm/(«C» .S.F.-4HO tygf0 f***-*0*/€S^ .SF. .S.F. ,SJ. ,S.P. IF. COVC. A/C 9A0 VuOiO^ A«o s»»| S.F.-^U) tO^siA 2 $19 .SF. ,S.F. H SF .SF. SE. EF. - T(f6lC UMP92* tU6t • ____S F. »M MOsiSe 7L4» sj. ________SP .SF 4U^^SJF ’WAUC(?<3T ■T— \ikJL SJ ^ KtOO • ,SE. A .sjr. B u fipr es eooa iisssrh ■onestroo rosene rnderlik ssiesBiaii . cM^a CM*.a( .aM«.tG . SxJt'??'. iT *** m* M M AXlra 0»ta C. af . Mv*«» i. |«r*«M at *—•1 A aauraan. at . Ma>« A Naman. a*. *a-i.»c.«M-.a«,ra.aa«wf«n. acto-aae a,.*.,*., at . .k.«« , at . ^ar.. , oTTirr^ Offitat: It a«A ti Om^ aa<f<ati*> ana Mr.awa» w»« . »^-rairiai. «ai . Cfacaya. a J/1J Bonestroo Rosene vS Ancfeni(& Associates Engineers 4 Arcfiltecti Aphl 7.2003 JenniferChaput . . Planner CityofOrono ' s ‘ 1 •• Post Office Box 66 CiystalBay»MN 35323 ’ . * Re: 1280/1290 Spruce Place * * File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2885 Dear Jennifer: We have reviewed the certifSeate of survey and proposed grading plan for the property located at 1280/1290 Spruce Place. The plan proposes to combine the lots and build one new home on the new parcel. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed grading plan should be revised to show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to convey stonn water towards the lake and away from 1270 Spnicc Place. • Retaining walls that exceed four feet in height require an engineered design and details. • Driveway grades should be noted on the plans and shall not exceed 10%. • 1280 and 1290 Spruce PImc have individual sewer and water services. The new home will require one water and one sewer service. The unused sewer service should be removed to the City right-of-way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary sewer system. The old water service should be abandoned and the curb stop shut off. Sewer and water removals shall be inspected and approved by the City public works department • There Is an application to improve the adjacent property to the southeast (1300 Spruce Place), grading along the common lot line should be coordinated so drainage fiom both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake. • Erosion control should be instsUed. inspected snd approved by the City prior to any work on the site If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLQC A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, CityofOrono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN S5IIJ • 6SI-636-4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-I3II •.jf.; V vv> v-iy y .ys.* ..,. « . • .. . Application Received: 3/19/03 Application Complete: 4/1/03 60 Day Deadline: 5/30/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: May 13.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2885 Gerda and Ed Toth 1280/1290 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 0.43 acres (1 8,553 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18,553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99 ’ at the OHWL and the 75’ setback from the OHWL where 140’ is required: 3. Ill s.f. (1.47%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 4. 4.483 s.f. (38.36%) hardcover witliin the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 5. 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f. (15%) is pennitied; and 6. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted. Exhibits: A Analy’sis Worksheet D Application C Sur\ey D Site Analysis H Hardcover Calculations F Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations G Topography Map H Plat Map I Property Owner’s List J Resolution #2088 K Permit Record (including 1975 grading memo) m‘2885 Cerda and Ed Toth i/li/2003 Page I 6 D&£ks A dock is proposed on the properly. Seasonally installed docks are permitlcd as an acccssorj use on residential lakeshorc properties which contain a residence. Since a seasonal dock has existed on this property in the past, the dock will not require a City permit. The placement of docks on Lake Minnetonka is governed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. History: 1280 ^ruct Place In 1975, the property owner was issued a building permit for construction of a basement under the existing house. Without knowledge of the Cit>’, the property owner excavated w ithin the 0* 75’ setback zone as part of this construction, creating a walk-out area for the new ly constructed basement door. The property owners were not required to restore the grade (see 1975 memo from Zoning Administrator Hank Muhich). 1 290 Spruce Place In 1984, the lot became property of the State due to tax forfeiture. In 1986, the City demolished the residence (as a result of hazardous building action initiated in 1983) and the lot was relea.sed for sale to adjacent owners. The lot became property of the State again in 1992, released to the City in 1996 for sale to adjacent owners. Prior to sale, the City Council approved Resolution #2088, stating that the p^el did not meet the applicable zoning standards and was, therefore, an unbuildable lot. The lot has remained vacant since that time. Xeighboring Pro/fcrtics In 2000, variances for new construction for grading within 5’ of a lot line and 2,647 s.f. (43.93®/p) of hurdwvcr in the 75’-250* setback zone were granted to the property owner at 1270 Spruce Place. The new structure met all of the setback requirements and had a structural coverage of 9 8^ s f (0 23"wn^^^^^ Permitted for a lot less than 10,000 s.f. I he area of 1270 Spruce Place is Hardship: The appluanu have included Iheir suiemem of hardship in Exhihit n The applicanls should also be asked fur their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: I. The properties must be legally combined prior to issuance of a building permit; «'ceeds the maximum permitted hardcover w iihin the 75 -.50 setback zone and lot coverage by structures. It is possible to meet these requirements on the combined lot; 3. The variances granted for 1270 Spruce Place were due to the substandard lot size The combined lot in question is twice the size of 1270 Spruce Place; 4. Removal of the existing house w ill require grading and filling w ithin 75* of the OllWL- 5. Replacement of the retaining wall is not propo.sed in the 0 75* setback zone at this time’ and would require a new application in the future; »03 :8SS Cerda and Ed Toth StS200J Page 4qf6 6. Allhough there are two doors shown on ihc lakeside of ihe walk oul level of the proposed home, there will be no hardcover landings outside the doors; 7. It is the applicants’ responsibility to contact LMCD regarding dock placement on l ake Minnetonka; 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff can support the variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone and grading within 75’ of the OIIWL. However, staff can not support the variances for hardcover c.xceeding 25 “o in the 75' to 250' setback zone nor staiclural coverage exceeding the 1 5 “/b maximum permitted. It is the City's policy that all new construction meet the hardco\er and structural coverage requirements when possible. Given the size of the combined property, it is possible to meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that the property could be looked at as two potential 50' lots that could each be granted the same variances as were granted the single 9,000 s.f lot next door, i.e. 46% hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structure. In fact, in 1986 the City declared that 1290 Sprtice w as unbuildablc (Resolution No. 2088) and released it for sale to adjacent owners to mike the ;r r.'«'rert>' more conforming, despite the fact that each of the two lots had been assessed for sewer. It is .viai:'? opinion that comparing the applicant’s double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at 1270, is not a reasonable com,wi.son. Stafl' would remind the Planning Commission that hardcover and lot c<'verage variances have consistently been denied for reconstruction on similar .d/ed (approximately '/i acre) lots in the ’: acre and I acre zones over the past 4 years. The comparison with the '/i acre zone is a fair one since the hardcover, setback and lot coverage standards arc virtually identical with those of the 1-acre Ziuie. Recent lakeshore rebuilds (2002-2003) that compare with the cunent proposal include. - Soojian at 4496 North Shor« Drive (1 00' widtii, 0.55 acres, no 1 1C or lot coverage variances granted) - Tvvidwell at 1865 Concordia Street (102’ width. 0.56 acres, granted 32.4% HC due to tree hardship limiting home placement, no lot cov erage variance) - Lindbcrg at 3440 North Shore Drive (100’ width. 0.47 acres, met all HC and lot coverage limits, no variances) - Goldberg at 1160 Loma Linda Avenue (1 13 ’ width. 0 68 acres, no HC or lot coverage variances granted) - Cable at 3532 \\y Place (100’ width. 0.522 acres, denied vari,ince.s for HC exceeding 25*") Staff recommends tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardcov er in the 75' to 250’ setback zone to no more than 25®/o by redesigning the propo.sed home. A home located 30’ from the street with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f of sidewalk could have a 2.050 s.f footprint. M0S-2m Cerda and Ed Toth 5JH/2003 Page 5 of 6 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR*1B Lot Requirements: Dimensions Required Eiisting Proposed Lot Area 43.560 s.f.18.553 s.f 1280 Spruce PI (1 acre)9.253 s.f.(0.43 acres) 1290 Soruce PI 9,300 s.f Combined Lot Width 140*99 ’ 1280 Spruce PI 49 ’ 1290 Spruce PI 50’ Setback from the 75 ’54 ’102’ OHWL Rear Setback 30 ’94 ’35 ’ (Street)(29.5’ at e.xisting garage) Side Setbacks North 10’9.9 ’10’ South 10’II’10’ Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’7.540 s.f None 895 s.f (11.87%) 111 s.f (1.47?o) 75 ’-250’11,013 s.f 2.753.25 s f. (25%) 2.538 s f (23.05%) 4.225 s.f (38.36®.o) Permitted Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 2.783 s.f (15%)1.574 s.f (1280 Spruce PI) 3.132 s.f (16.88%) WJ-.’Mi Gtrda and Ed Toth 5/13,7003 Fogt6cf6 CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Inllial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Ailer-the- Fact Fees (Double application fee) Appfcation# Date Received 3 hg Amount Paid j?, 50 t'o PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address: 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place - Orono, MN Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 08-117-23-32-0014 and 0015 A‘*4ich legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired: November 2002 I (Dennis Killian) do (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. - 1300 Spruce Place Present use of property: __ksidential I ether^speeify) Zoning District:______________ ________— APPLICANT Mr. & Mrs. Ganiiand Ed Tnih 952-476-6*#91 (h\ 2211 Fall-v iew Lane Long Lake. MX 55356 OWNER (if dificrent than applicant 952-449-0226 (home) Killian's Gate LLC (Dr. Dennis Killian) 651.645.6111 (work) Address:400 Highcroft Road Ci^:W^'zala Lstimaled ConstrucUon Cost: $875,000DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST See Attacbed VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area _Lot Width y^llardcover _Lot Coverage ----Setback: _ Front _Side _ Rear _A\vrage Lakeshote __Other (specify) ___________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF l''’USUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desci-ibe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property* conditions prevent compliance with Zoning Code requirements: See Attached 1. Elf ft Gerdt Toth's variance AppNcttion &>hf REQUIRED SUBMITTALS "■.r* ■“■^Wl.ted by ^h, .fttiitr fpr vour «DD»catinn to be coai}ii^r>Hi;;;:;S;:;:r gpJication dcadlinf riR^> p 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant Completed Application Form Soll»SI* bya licaiKd survejw) and include hardcover Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevation > if any chanacs in evistino siSiriiESfSS!::. Additional items os may be requested by Cit>’ staff. varianeg yssr APPLlCANrS SIGNATURE r/mSS:. a^ee", lXnatr«s^^rf " and/or consuitan®[ expenLT ?nc “ inforaiation supplied is true and correct to the best of higher kno«ldgi Applicant’sSignature^^tsWett^^T^ • Date aJ/S/o^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE men,bersforpuios^„L,ig^^“““r^^^^^ ntentbers. and Council /OWs Signature _ Date , -S Applicant must have all submittals into the rhv o« j “Arphc.Ttl"mu«^^^^^ & Zoning Office of this change prior to the Leting ^ S. Ed A Oarda Toih'a Varianca Application rr:tr •-<* •. /' • ■. ■ ■• ■ . ■• :'; e>;V4 Ed & Grcda Toth Variance Application DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 3/l8A)2 Estimated Construction Cost: S875.000 \Vc arc an “empty nest ” retired couple. We would like to build a lakeside home to live in vshich is sufficient size for our children and grandchildren to visit us in comfort. We has*c lived in Orono for 13 >ears and love it here. Our request is that w e can build a house, as it is described in this Variance applicative Additional Background Information We have a purchase agreement to buy the properties at 1280 and 1290 Spruce, contingent upon this Variance application approval, from the Killians who will be our new neighK>rs. We arc extremely sensitive to the delicate lakcfront ecolog>* and have worked closely with the Killians and our designers to come up with a plan that will significantly improve the beauty and lakcfront environment of these adjacent parcels. In a nutshell, the net impact of our two proposals (Toths* and Killians ’) is to remove about 3,000 square feet of hardcover from the 0’-75’ lake front zone. 3,000 square fc^el is the equivalent of one good sized or two extremely modest homes. The only man made items left in that zone arc essential existing Uuiining w^ls needed for erosion control, and existing stairs so that we can walk to the edge of the water. Additionally, the net effect of our two proposals will be to reduce the overall site hardcover from 42% to 39®/o while removing a significant portion of hardcover which is presently in ific 0’-75 zone and placing a reduced amount well w ithin present day set backs. We have met several times with Orono planning officials and have continued to reduce tlic size of our proposed home until it has reached w hat w e coi ;ider a functional minimum. Hardship/Pcscriptlon of Unusual Property Conditions Response First, we w ould love to continue to live in Orono. It lus been our home for 13 >eare and we wish to remain among our friends and neighbors. Wc also love our garden. My wife’s gardening has been featured multiple >cars in the annual garden tour. Now, regarding our new home. It is our understanding that these lots were subdivided at a time when the city's lot r^uirements were much smaller. Subsequently, tiie area has been re-zoned w ith much higher minimum lot size requirements. This rc-zoning has created a hardship b> making historically buildablc lots unbuildable. Wc therefore request that the city grants u.s a variance regarding minimum lot size and maximum allowable hardcover for these lots. Because ^vo separate sewer hook ups have approved and maintained for many >ears, the lots could be dc\ eloped separately and tw o homes could be built, one on each lot. (See Diagram of Proposal P1, Sheet P3 of attached supporting documents.) e ;r ;; a-vit/ ‘ >^cxani^e of this approach exists on our neighbors* property, 1270 Spruce Lane. In 2000 the proj^**^ * variance request for hardcover equal to 46% within the 75’ to 250’ area for this Gerda and I wish to build an adequate retirement home by joining the two lots. We have f^^ ^'■•moving 800 squarefeet ofh^dcover (or an area of 20’.x40’) from the lakefronl 0’-75’ zone. Dvpulling ouJhome cbse to the front setback, we have sued the home nearly 120’ from the lakefronl. Ibis will sh^linc.^"*^*^^"*'^ add'lional surface aroa for run off to be absorbed prior to its reaching the In order to compensate for square footage/hanl cover demands of Uie first floor, we have located 01 garage tucked under the first floor of the home. To reduce hardcover, we have sited the home tight to the fro^nt yard setback, thus minimizing the amount of driveway. With these •'^vc before you a plan in w hich the hardcover equals not 46®/o as would be possible w 111! If Proposal ^ 1 w ere pursued, nor is it the 42% hardcover that now exists as an avera^* of the four lots, but rather we are proposing a hardcover reduction from the existing to 38®/i. buf“mpo:^ns '■•'“P"'™' «« building >w„ docks. We know thal requesting to build two individual hon>cs, with 46% hardcover each similar to the van^ce recently granted our neighbors, as well as building two docks, would max'tee our resale value and profit on our lots. However it would not meet our needs foi a retirement hLe w here our children md grandchildren can visit. Neither would it be a.s environmentally friendly as building a single home with sigmficantly reduced hardcover on a single larger combined lot Fuially. we respectfully request Ae planning commission's tlioughtful consideration of this C-.t- ,• *•*.. *^*r-C” mUBSi fLOT3 - 15'-25O'Z0NE ]"LOT 3 - 0 ’-15' ZONE T5*-2&0 ’ ZONE AREA . 5S06 SO FT 15'-250' ZONE MARD COVER AREA » 2S3S 5F % EXIST. WARDCOVER \ AREA * A6.l% \ 0'-lb ‘ ZONE AREA s 3rc^ SO FT C'-IS' ZONE hardcover AREA s 8SS SO FT % Or EXIST. MARDCOVER AREA s 23.1%\ \ 6htbac<, f EXISTINC j lot 3 1 04T1RELOT \ EXISTING \ HOUSE \ \ 3 V TOTAL WARDCOVER AREA . 3.433 SO. FT. TOTAL AREA « 9;i5 SO. FT. \ TOTAL WARDC0VER*3T%'a. LOT 4 eUMMART TOTAL AREA so ft rii3 acres ; USCEVELCPEr LAKE MINNETCNKA cl v'-, iti XcvT&TrKi/:. 9?« 4 aKTOM LVC ^EXTSTtNO MOUSE t \VN \ \ \ N\ r.<Are. ANALYSIS f .'’j ..••••. EXI5TINQ ___________ T3S^rr^o^^^"'*^^^555!TlS!*^SS^ Varfanca for Ed 4 Cimrda Toth'# Mow ^ 1200/1230 SPRUCE PLACE - ORCNO. MM A 7 f LOTS 3/4 BLOC< lO - 6AOA WILL REVISED PROPERTY ID'S • 00-in-23-32-00l4/l5 r LOT 3 ^LOT 3 ^ 15'-250' ZONE AREA . 5.552 SO. FT 0*-15 ‘ ZONE area « 3.163 SO. FT _____ LOT 3 ] TOTAL AREA LOT 3 = S;S0 SO. FT. NEIGHBOR r 15 FT. LfNE LAKE MINNETONKA ^ DOCK I L DOCK 2 LOT 4 \ V 15'-250 ZONE .AREA r 5,404 SO PTJ \--------------------^ \\ ' * •LOT4 1 TOTAL "area LO* 4 1. 3Z3150.FT. '• r,; ■fLOT4 I 0'-'5' ZONE I AREA t 3B;3 53. FT. I Ev: 15^146- U7T5 SITE 4WALYSI5 I f/20~ • I -O’ MAR04 16. 2003 Varlsncm fcr Ed 4 Omrds Toth*d Moma I2&0/I2e0 SPRUCE Pl3ce "^'^ONO. r!N LOTS 3/4 BLOCK lO • SAGA MILL REVISED P ’ERTY ID'S • 00-111-23-32-0014/15 o o T5 PT, L!NH LOT 3 P«50r05Pr *?.r':3 60 J-T L0X4_^CP05E0 4^% i^ARDCOVER C323 SO TT NOyrwi © LA<E MIN\!E*C\<A ^RO'^^CSEO 00C< 1 AREArS.IA^ 50 -T r------Ex S* S’ONE “ANN;^ 'OS so =' Ex S’ -ARO 00 /ER ( LO ’S 3 I 4 *^RC®OSA. AAROOO/ER \ "S -:S0 ZONE »s.046 SO. !=’ 'OS so FT UAR0C0V€R N 0'-"S' ZONE PROPOSAL i iot^ yarfanca for Ed 4 6arda Tgth*e Mowa ^ SPRUCE »=L*iOS • CRCNO. ^T\ " N LO ’5 3/4 BLCC< to - 6AOA t„LL REVSEO ( ^ property ID'S •oa-in-:3.3:-ooi4/’5 v ^ y ^ r 15 FT. LINE la<e MI\\=TCN1<A fLOT 3/4 \ V f5'-:&C’ ZONE Y-------------------y ARE4 .11/513 EO. FT.\ ■' T V . i Owv6»InE0 Lots SITE ANALYSIS 2 * : f I '.■ic . ■-o* f'IS. :c“^3 variance for Ed 4 Qarda Toth*» Mowa \2eD/'7*iO SP«?UCE PLACE - CRC\0. LOTS 3/4 BLOCX to - 5ACA MILL REVISED F ^RTT ID’S • OS-in.:3-32-DOI4/t5 0 o L^<E ZCZ< lorju C ’"t ZC\Z * " =>r^ £2 II I I :ic :j‘.e ^R=.:. • bee: c2 =• '5 ^ - ==?s=r5--: \ ■*■' -ir r zc^ --•i^ZZ =* A,*2.2^^^ -~RTN ^ -“E --^=_>;2!l '^PasCO \rtornB PROPC5i4L 2 ) cu cfi^^T^ec '~w *:.• •• .rr3 sr^’w ■0' Varlanea Tor Ed 4 6arda Toth'e Mows :ec :^o i'=«5-cE ‘=^l-ss - c«^csc LC^5 2/^ S-CC< r - - .. KEv ZEZ '='^C=E«V*'^ 'z e • CB-'’"-:2-22-CC-^'l TD SEE SHEET (5) FOR enlassed plan PROPOdAL 1 SEE SHEET (D FOR enlarged plan PROPOSAL 2 PRC>PC5AL 1 AsID PROPOSAL 2 COMPARISON ------------------------------^ LOT SIZE NO. OP DOCKS 0'-1S' WARD COVER T5*-250 ’ WARD COVER PROPOSAL 1 PROPOSAL 2LOT 3 lot 4 3^15 SO FT Sil8 SO FT 2 DOCKS TOTAL III SOFT 5.046 SOFT LOT 3/4 18553 SO FT IDOCK 111 SOFT 4j^i so FT TOTAL TOTAL HARD COVER 5,151 SO FT TOTAL 5S^50 ft total -------------------------------------* nqbtm I/SO’ • r-o’ u MARCW IS, Varlanc# for Ed 4 Cifda Tath'» How SPRUCE PLACE - ORONO. MN / ^\ y .O(X 10 - WILL REVISED ( ^ j*w - i-fPUL. pstvi; PT •=>ERTY ID’S •08-111-23-32-0014/15 from : CROr^BaW t ftSSOClflTES FAX ND. : 952 473 4435 tXIST^C tN rn{y^ V-L^ 75-250 250-S00' eva Nfrv. 20 2002 0i:S9P« P2 L ots ^ f iO 5am« >^'bw f?rv«{£2> A. House SOO-1000' UnrJi B. Ganje C. Drivtwiy D. Stdewtik E Petio/Deck 0. Oiher total hardcover in Z one TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ^ B PROPOSED HARPCOVKP In ^am» » A. House B. Csage C. Drivewsy D SldewiQc £ Psio/Deck C/Ft^ric 0. OL^ex TOTAL P^RO^TY^S^ W 2^ A _______ . 4. 0 IB 55!T S P >wiAh •• S F a W i • S F a ea f^4 S F SF s S F«• SJ' «l"74- ■» « *»•* • *29 —$r£Pf l"7 • Hi^ *1* SF^AsTts Qio^i£ m __SF. • • ■__S.F. __5 F $r»Nf f CA Til m f.r j ___SF - R£>4fN<N(# HP a 7 • ~ (}oro€(1 S.F. Am7S9o__SF. B_ xioo -y. — S F.^Mk «,— SP-a ~*S.F. ■__S.F B _S.F. s SF. a '_ S P: • #»SF. ___ m ISF. a _SF. I S.F. SF." a "SF . a 111 "S-F." a Sf. .n\SF. A• .**■aggpj—SF. B ------/.‘fV :• GRQNBERG 1 ASSOCIATES FAX NO. : 952 473 4435 D&inis e2 No^. 20 2002 02:eePP1 i-»Ti 3.» Wi4ik .SF.-' B. Ctragc C. Drivxway D. Sklciw.Jc E. Pttlo/Dcck C. Other T^T., JOTALHAJIDCOVERINZONE total property area in zone ^------------------— ♦ B £BQP05EPEABPcovkb im A. Koum OcT KlOO fi c«rt|e C. Drivrwty 0. SiZcwtlk E Piti{/-.e.'< P. l»?'dici;e By Piucic Or Fabric 0. Odicr --------------------»/f • •' •••» J JiJ___ .4 i'-^TOO A .SF. .SR. .SF. .SF-8 .SF.-Ai 5F •« SF SF .SF. .SF SF .S.F,-«* 2Slg -SF , _______S.F. -23.05 H fLO<9 .SF. Pt .s? SF. SF S F.^ -.idGLiiHi'S F ----------------SF .SF- .SF. SF SF S.F .SF .SF. SF .SF. f r Ilf vARUNce Am.rcATioN Pom mo 4 WRDA TOTM*e Hom macdooald and coaxpaay. 1T1-3.C_ /TNPdtrwavmmjm 3??e|to •rm «jw VARIANCE APPLICATION WR mac ED 4 CsERPA TOTH'O Ht^nc 1U4U «iM^ AJL« • iwAlb M ya* Wl** nucdooald ibi I compiay^ Al 7CP<X>9f^'( eja9nK/6- 4 pieoft>*6x> RUNDATC:2/K. ^ n 07II7234I005I raofAOM I30S sfRucE n. OWNOtNAMB CUVTONRRjaa TAXTAVER CLAYTON R FUCHS NAME/AOOR IMSSFRUCCFL MOUNDMN SS364 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEK. . INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PACE:I 31 0711733410076 PROf ADOR 1254 LOMA UNDA AVE OWNIRNAMC KLHOFFMANNALSHOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNEni L A UNOA S HOFFMANN NAMbAUDR 1254 LOMA UNDA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 31 0711723410077 PROPADDR 1354 LOMA UNDA AVE OWNER name KL HOFFMANN a LS HOFFMANN TAXPAYER KENNETH LA UNOA S HOFFMANN NAMDADDR 1254 LOMA UNOA AVE MOUNDMN 55364 3t 0711733410071 PROPADDR 1295 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME HENNEPIN PORFEITEO LAND TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 3> Oil 1723330001 PROPADDR 1250 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME WALTER W WOLFE ETAL TAXPAYER PHYLLIS J WOLF NAMU/ADOR 1 250 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55364 31 Oil 1733320012 PROPADDR 1260 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME E A ANDERSON ET AL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER EVAN A ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 1260 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55364 31 Oil 1723330013 PROPADDR 1370 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME ELAINE E ERICKSON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER ELAINE E ERICKSON NAME/ADDR 1 370 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55364 31 Oil 1723320014 PROPADDR 1310 SPRUCE PL OWNEP n KILLIANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUANSGATELLC NAME/AOOR 400 HIOHCROFT RD WAZYATAMN 55391 31 0811723320015 PROP ADDR 1390 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME KILUAFTS CATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUANSOATELLC NAME/ADOR 1 300 SPRLCE PL ORONO MN 55364 31 0011723320016 PROPADDR 1300 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME KILUANS GATE LLC TAXPAYER KILUANS GATE LLC NAME/AOOR 1 300 SPRUCE PL MOUNDMN 55364 31 Ml 1723320017 PROPADDR 1310 SPRUCE PL OWNER NAME lOHNWWALKER TAXPAYER JOHN W WALKER NAME/ADDR 1 310 SPRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 55364 31 0III73332O0II PROPADDR 1311 SPRUCEPL OWNFRNAME PATKICU A OROETXEN TAXPAYER PATRXriA A WALKER KAME/ADDR 1310 SPRUCE PLACE MOUNDMN 55364 31 01117:3330026 PROP ADOR 1330 OIERRY PL OWNER NAME JAMES G DULL JR taxpayer NAME/ADDR JAMES O BULL JR 1330 CHERRY PL MOUNDMN 55364 r c «• 1. < I CERTIFY THATTJC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE RE PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TtiS DATE ON THE RfiOOROS OFTTC HEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARnifflT. TO THE BEST ^ OrMYKNOWUDCEANDBEUEF.^^^^gy,^ ^ ^ // •- - ^... - ^‘jr=r--=;7. -"nLv?r--.t CWRCW^^ _______ _________ .“ —“—'-•’.'.I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ~ • -7- ~ --- « NO. 2088_________ DXKECTINC THE PRIVR TO ABOTTI, LOT 4, BLOCK _. - : OP PROPERTY ;TY OWNERS HILL REVISED WBEREASr the pcooerty at Lot 4, Block If Saga Hill Revised commonly known as 11.30 Spruce Place is a 50 foot parcel of lakeshore land, and WHEREAS# this parcel of land does not meet the City's area requirement for the LR-IB Zoning District which is 1 acre, and WHEREAS, this property at one time had a house that had been ordered removed since 1982, and WHEREAS, this house was finally removed and the site graded by the City in 1985 and 1986, and WHEREAS, the property as lakeshore property requires the release from the Department of Natural Resources, and WHEREAS, such release was given in a letter dated October 27, 1986, and WHEREAS, this parcel does not meet applicable toning standards and therefore is an unbuildable lot, and WHEREAS, abutting property owners have indicated an interest in acquisition of this property, and WHEREAS, outstanding special assessments on this property are $2,955.66, and WHEREAS, the City has incurred expenses amounting to $1,800.00 subsequent to the property going tax forfeit. ...• . •••r.ccr —.T-.*.'.-;*.• * • 1. . . » % • .v *• ' Pace I of 2 .*•.j-*® y.iWA .n -o TT V-* *%■> r^::: -: v, Of ORONC^ •.v ..,v.«. •. - City of RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ^^2<* I\f0. - 208B _________ MOW* THSRBPORE BE XT RESOLVED* that the City of Orono requosts a private sale of the property listed above to abutting owners* and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED* that the selling price take into account its outstanding special assessments together with recouping of City costs incurred in preparing the site for sale has been determined to be $1*890.00. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held November 24, 1986. fATTEST: Mar/^C. ^tler. Mayor //JQi- 7/Dorbthy M^'^'^llin* City Clerk • - r - Mb..> , *- *• •. t 4 . -rii-j;. • •• —• V- .... . »• VWW-7—< — » Page 2 of 2 PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo.Date •Type of Permit ■■ .^?y.sr- afe-y? . —32^^-7-C.3 6^5"'J7 — Rer^A. IriiiiiiiffinMij fnfiiliiritrf-^-^-*..- p - 1 Hani '^tSlch ^cheWcr *WTT: Auni«t 25, IP7S Wt!«chullrr • rn-finp r‘nnl Schuller on ^nruce !*l.ice was issur.* t n***^!^ i •. .Io««l up t^e n;.rra,rc5St/rcc'^-,t1„’^« '* ......... would ho hichrr th.in the i;nUout door.* * -aUntit .iron ns rrv'e ‘•^s —V. :’ w i;- ' A-1 V J r '•W l:^ l^'h' •P.k-.; r Date AppttcatloB Received: 3/24/03 Date AppHcatioB ConplHc: 3/24/03 60^ay Deadlfaie: 5/24/03 TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Havni and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director May 16.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate. LLC 2060 \Va>7ata Boulevard PUD - General Concept Plan Review / Preliminan Plat Review REVISED PLAN’S Zoning District: Lot Area: B-6, Hijhway Commercial District 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Application Sumnur)*: Applicant has submitted revisions to the application for B-6 PUD General ('oncept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wa>'zata Boulevard. The property was rc/oned to B-6/PUU in 2001. The proposed use of the 2.6 acre property is now two 3-imit office buildings for unit ov\ nership, and a 5-un:t cquivv-’ent building for condo office, i.e. leased rooms w iiii common reception areas, etc. us opposed to owned units. List of Exhibits: A - Revised Site Plan & Landscape Plan B • Revise Site Plan on Photo Background C - Letter from Applicant S-IS-03 D - Letter from Manager of Orono Shopping Center 5-14-03 E - Letter from Ulteig Engineers 5-14-03 F - Sample Unit La>\>uts G - Parking Data . H - Depictions of Applicant ’s Similar Projects AtTas. J I • Memo and Exhibits of 4-18-03 M3-2M9 May 16,2003 Fa(e2 Summary of Revisions 1. ReducUon in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11. ^ ^ ‘‘ 3. Five-unit West building will be designed and marketed as individual office spaces with common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc These will be leased spaces rather than individually owned units. 4. Additional screening is added along north and northeast boundaries of site to buffer from adjacent residential uses. suggesting the new plan has 42,000 s.f. gross square footage but contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purrroscs. Using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs arc 2.79 stalls per 1000 s.fofgross floor space; 2.79x42 000/I 000 yields a 114 stall requirement. City code for ofrice use would require 5 stalls per 1000 s.f. of net floor space. City requirement (if 21,000 s.f net usable floor area is accepted) is 105 stalls. Parking is proposed at 114 stalls, all to be constructed with no ‘proof of parking ’ available. Staff Im not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the gross vs. net floor space diagrams in detail, but a cursory review suggests the proposal is reasonable. The City Engineer will be asked to review this information. 5. Apphemt has h^ discussions with the City Engineer and Public Ser\ ices Director regarding the pdcs for the service road and parking areas. The grades recommended by the City Engineer provide dimculiics for designing the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant has indicated (Exhibit E) that they will accept the ‘approval of the Cit>- Engineer* as a condition of approval, we do not have a revised plan that meets the Cit>* Engineer’s recommendations. Applicants apparently wish to leave this as an open issue in order to gain approval of the Concept Plan and move fonvard with their application. K Appliewts have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping Center and have gamed his general agreement to a 20 ’ driveway connection to the north end of the property, subject to no runoff additions to the OSC property. M3-2N9 May H, 2003 Page 4 1 0. Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the omce complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12. * * * f <*cP»ct existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critical to nil m any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the ugarwoods neighborhood. WTiat is the potential for relocating existing trees on the site? Is there a need for screening and buffering between the ofTice complex and the commercial propwies to the mimcdiate west? WTiat landscaping methods are proposed to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, especially the view of retaining walls? 14. 15. Trash enclosure should be finished in materials'colors matching the facade of the buildings 16. Any other issues Planning Commission w ishes to discuss. SUfr RecommeodatioB: fn^v “ •" *PP«>Pri>te and relatively low- luM ve -i' “ 'i®';’'’*™* “ ® ‘ ■"'« <•«'*" of rt'c buildings is^ ive and of a resit^tial character. Staff is less conceroed about the parking needs givenihe ^«t,on tn untu and the data supp ied We still need to consider potential trafne now impacts to 1h„w r tiPPlicanfs hope that -he road grades can be worked out to r^o™ra!toio “ “ * “***“i"* •*» Chy Engineer's Lower Level I.* i mri 0Ff= (tm*) '^1if MW.1l CfF L 193 «y- 6-mii)I,In ,0Pf- (*ST4t>) m ■«—*- MK44.Mtwr/ <JFF. r L MMI «FP. Main Level rb*tHt scMj!>< r1 MCC. ■f. ^i>j ^ I Mezzanine Level rr^-I . I H mri MKH) /■*^i(^$)snmwi iaf3®! •• • , i -M /v 7f f Hft44.HWUT/ Main Level 5--5^ Mezzanine Level • - I’nnizf^upTp '.IMt.'. ( Vl |T»|| r ^xW=P,1 ^_U 4<&V<=> ^f= //, 77 - “5/= c LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK ARIMALLC LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK H 02274.0 MRM WAYZATA BLVD (HWY. 12) ORONO, MN 55323 ■ 19 MARCH 03 CITY SUBMITTAL flUMaiNC REVIEW W m » .»r;. sr:i wwB . • [i»i« |w»» I«/» </■ It y 111 I o» rw • PiUMBlNC KEVIEW V "Uti'F"'-m ««a ar^~UW a I • j I#** ar* •l»Vu UL^ • 3lrj=l?3 ill I </• “T. *»»------------ _!i' * I CODC WVitW *A* •»» • . I ,».n ^ jmi ^ I in _ i.-«—•» ^. ra»>^ “>-] M I • J — ______1 ^ I l-_._ '■It GSt»yr»n»«»» ^-K--liji. : 1 m m ..••m »• |i<«F AXEAMAP SJU lOCATKDN ® CODE REVIEW V CK« V w V\ .'i'*'* I «m [11.**M m «11. I. I- rSP* 1 ! • 1 « 1 ••**4 ysu m I •• 9^ f •Ml m j 1 «•*•U m F •_N- 1- i-• «• 1 •■ ! - '?_. r.v 1 i- 1 aNERAl SHEET SCHEDULE ■-Trr.rs—.rg.-rt nt*ji wn iM*» *.i SHP', o« »ini iKtt •••• w* k kus ^ w i*< »euew*.r. »AeMc r«fiic* ii« ci» v«t un\ «*v» •e. «»n ••at'.t c. v»n CM »'. mm; K. M»ii*1. ««r •.»! r.u*»< r-*t;**. M»* •Mf'C-rj ».<:«< t»mi «. u»c r.ov: t»M (Mua. rc) *•. MM h V1U«4M»». MoauMM ico^ m*>. H»n in«c« «M Mrx*om. «»tt in»c« a cthv ih ^iko »c *«». «Mi snaxicaM. •rt oa lU C» m« MM5 0» V«n «»» ■ maw *> M C«”^xr^ KiQ.MK*i U( lAWC SKP <«« fUl »<r»•CUtCD m w Mohagen ^ Hansen . Architectural | ^ | n g nUL \'.:l ■ ■:•H'*' tl.^% 7T. M, -T., i A 0> r. ■ ‘v>.J2 UTS E Wtr:t't ■ M •V!#Built 204 Wtrtaia MM suit TM IS2 4m«l|- '• i.;.. Bai BSEanuo ‘ ' 4 • ■tatftnejMOT cwt M ' •4- ml ^■■L-ajri::»Mii;!.HaMx^ mmoLt t—»>i CMM MK> K* «10l sy*'”"r*rw ■ «» M oa CM BCTC^ m e^l.sr» S.y5iS, n«i m l«^ <«4M M OeONO. MtflNCEOTA 09 • ri«u)-SSaa*-! fcTa*r- lakeview aa.'asrat^ TOWN OFFICE PARK Oevdooer: k." ■„ » !? »' • « O’ '» <mTS«m BEDDING DETAIL FOR 4- TO 15" PIPE Project AddressDOWNSPOUT DRAIN *rs h(*.p'//»ii« ed9~pip« com Orono, MN fof hOPC pipo * l■tti«•99 Projccl Code BLOCKING FOR WATERMAJN yrs^- 12" INLINE DRAIN *0S rtttp//»M.oe9-pip« com “W4- GRAOING e BLDG. SIDES >o w »t»a «i <7i mf. WATER SERVICE RISER 7 Cu • S«^T* PARKING LOT HANDICAP ACCESS cum n^n^tc yZSUT' e»ow«M.M>«^»-«fcWr ' -«•" V.7 ULWo tmmmn, me. $Mi u$: tm* tot0 mm tet tmrnttfotm mmtoft tt*ti {'£y mwm»nmctm #|U MU P«M* T*»« HT*| STTTIORK INF0RMAT10* A DETAILS PAVING SECTION CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROL PROTECTION RETAINING WAa snpsow oaon we Moa a - VC tL*«p o omms 2J I 222 CITY SUBMITTAL M - WIMVanOMMoa OMraoi acMOuu MO pwwem McnMms mr coi—wee uMn. cmosdm OQMinoci tm ■OKTro mo mowok d or i»c ott. COHTMCfOM MIST OOHIICT T»« OTY OT BUWWtMil oenwraoir nr ttsz) m-4«M ton a «ic mmcctow ohcc (INoLs mcCROWM com MtUUID PfX APMOMO NUN. 1 -r LAKEVIEW TOWN orncE PARK Dovolopor Project Address Orono. MN Project Code cuoa urmimmuL me. $m $s$r rnmimt*$mt m—mmtmtt mttn/v.rmctm removals 4c EROSION CONTROL CITY SUBMITTAL SON! M ■9M ///.••••"-• / / /// j •■ •■■ '••■ A’•■■'•■ vi \ ••■ \ • ■ ■ .S>7 \ \ ^ a v NV O v 'V ^/////^^////^////// S^v^vS LKJ—f tMC M fin LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Developer Project Address Orono. MN Project Code aenT A^Miowic z:~£=^-;- OMwi.il—i uwo imtmen, me, in»» iM*r anf* «•— •im M» IM4MMMMMM Htfl Mr otTSmS gHfS:S£»;5rf psrsrSfiK^ GRADING PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL LAKEVIEW TOWN OFFICE PARK Develops: X J UQiMo rcR mvom vmmn ggtfsy • Si Project Address Orono. MN Project Code OSMT • wm mmm m X.-™. r^. uirtn tmmEiai me. tMitsST mm»mm IM«* tm ■Mii'ne MWMM ««f SQMI M mr UUllly CITY SUBMITTAL ft rs /TNsmru iN lAKEVSWTOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA BtVa (USHWy.12) OHONO.MN AKIMS UC VIL -••cs 2333 man» mmfmmmMom m • Mi* » Met mMr«• * Mt \nm MMP t0mmymwnwmmt WMH fmmm m m wm li OBMP M MMPMMV MO W1 MMS OMM V MMOOMM----- X.V. • ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL All L n^Nmc ruN socDULE 5¥ m o If o 9 W‘W am. at MKEVIEWTOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA KVa (USHWY.12) ORONO.MN ARIM\ UC VU Em iir?3 A?:i;r4vrsr .^SSSStT.vasw i- LANDSCAPE PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL A12 LANOSOVINC on AH. • TYP. TtIPlf TYPE^lANDS i/rTT m ^1^ LXJI *a—i -l» i<7\t>WDSCAnNC PCfAM. • 5 WtT TYFt lAKEVIEWTOWN omaPAiuc WAYZATA KVDL (USHWy.12) OtONO^MN ARtMMLC 17 U "iirsiS saa ’5 ■ m mm m ■«r> ^*« I • • KP«a mmo mm M W« ___ «• mum\i Ml • mtm W «— tw« • •«« »mr*«« mma m mit CTMc» ^ IW.M — •4 a^M* MM1 . _UBJP«L LANDSCAPE. SICNACE&TRASH ENCLOSURE DETAILS CITY SUBMITTAL A13 LAKEVIEW TOWN omap>«K WAYZATA BlVDl (USHWY.12) OKONOMN ARIM^UC 17U SSS5 MI • • «i« imn m•tuavaiMvi yAijfw*jPSwpnnMMjFaM Ml m — My M EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING PLAN cmr SUBMITTAL ¥A1.4 SHffTNOm WY NOTES K--r r-r W’-r r r z-** WW ttf^ «r-r »-r f «■■<* ••••r »•# f «r-r €■* imSS* UWKHVaWOOKPUW KOOfPlAN lAKIVtEW TOWN omapAKK WAYZATA BIVIX (USHWY.12) OtONOlMN ARIM\UC FU —sBsa tt0T« "TTSir.*j?aar"TSS.VM^•^jrASfwrf'' MBV«i M 1 ORMtn* .MB mamm m •>« tmm LE15IL- —J -------- TRIPLE 48*-0* WALK OUT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL AZ1 ) 'I* SHfETNOm KEYNOTES LAKEVKWTOWN OfFia PMK WAYZATA KVa (USHMOr.lE) OtONO,MN AIUM\llCru wfuivawootfuw^UWIKII \mU */** ■ ^tOOfPlAN \/nJ*/rm77 ssaa -4s;r«SSr t iiiwiip 1 m\ WM t aaiKt mi m man m mm rSFJS^ m «w M immmk .mm c> «M» |» M MOO ► a» TRIPLE 48*-0* WALKOUT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL A2.1 1 r-r m-r •t-r r-r »r-r r^n »-r r-r tr-r r-r r r-r r-r eir ir-r F^i Uj r----------------------------- r-r tr-r r-r [—■ — r-r. 1.^ •1—t- ■ n1 ^------------- t-r r-r r-r in SHgTNOTP SSSSSSSSSS^S KEYNOnS 0 «x «m avw Mt wa •« iM I LAKVKWTOWN OmaPARK WAYZATA KVa (USHWY.12) OtONOlMN ARIMMiC 17 U ■Km 9* m »'3i* T35 tiSSS^m i MflaaTiSm*S!^JS« JKL mmv 9^ m tarn •<«• P M« pvir^ MM P IMI wrmtl OPC* MM r<» (5) 48*-0" WALK OUT TYPE PLANS CITY SUBMITTAL AZ9 r-r ^ 1 WJf *■* 1 1 1 1 ^ t-t W-*t-r 5 0 i illlllili 1 1 1 r-^U.1 .^1 1 9-^ I UPrai UVEL FIOOR PUN '^ranMkan* ©tOOfPUN vr • i -«- SHCn NOTES KEYNOTES 0 »T «cta ••! MOW MU M> HM m «■ i UKEVIEW TOWN oma PARK WAYZATA BlVa (US tWY. 12) ORONO.MN ARIMA.UC Vll 1^901» » •• 9m m ^mo » Mr* •«w • • « ••• *i«o irs#tr MV m ' *» M** («■«• kM raA.*-** { «34M5 MiJ«4 n avM-m _________P^i mm —— m (5) 48*-0" WALK OUT TYPE Pb^NS ROOF PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL AZ10 4' »/»• * «ONT EUVATJON REAR LIEVATION V^> •/•• • • ^SIDE V^y^TTT SIDE ELEVATION lAKEVIEW TOWN OfTO PARK WAY7AIA BlVD. (US HWY. 12) ORONO. MN ARIM\UC 17 It M .*» m«• *• < tai* • 9LW w • -ar^ w ^ «jK V «« V « • ^ mr* «• • • • M* >41^0 MO«< wo p M r«i • Mir« ««ro<o«o» ____ O p si»r «« •• P M* •TV* MVA«rt t* w*«i wo ft. u«w« •• rMB IftWMJ «f «0 3tP P||P\ P ^ ••Wft9 Tl Jft«\ '“tV •Virisaa* wa^<m>t ___ PtPOP lo _ (*^) 48 ’ 0- WALK OUT TYPE ELEVATIONS CITY SUBMITTAL A2.11 Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik& |\j| Associates Engineers & Architects «»« mt It an AM..ata«..« A<l<«n |«iMi *Yr-------"f t««pl«r»» ana I »a»ay«a Onnaa htm pMl C,-*n c ri •V»«'nl W»a a Bitaacia H • Va> A »«ja>tan at • * <<Ka at • •<>oa<i b a( ^I>-/ C*m«Alan*i aadatt * aaian* ai • An«r>M ai • •««va>ai liana' »f • luvaiV t%a Aitac ataaiMicvatt ia-rnA Gn>don at ateftao ai •t<NaJ«' •aua< at .Oa.^O a* . V^*aa< T •A.f'nann at • »p4 • tnW a| . taara>a a An«r-t9n at . Wa.< I »vfl « • Oa. i A •iwtt'OO VBA V<»-a, a « »ar>ion at 11 . A^rai M V» A . A. a^ t «• VanwiI' at . Incawi » ^iw’ton at . a Waaf'J at . V ■ jaa'*#*' a| . I aaiava b-a-t* » « . par-a. < t*]'<tan at . i-.-iaa' Wartaat a| . »*<e—.•» A t|t»o at • Vwidon t Jtavton • 0<aa A C'vta at • tnc<aat A tiuVa* a* • ■oba'i J a| April 7, 2003 otticat tl aaia il CKKid iMnaita# a"<l M*<aV''aavaaa iK«(*<-<a^ n «*bt<la AAAbenatt'oeton Ms. Wendy Dottenberg Planner City ofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Re: Lake. lew Town Office Park File No. 139 03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 Dear Wendy, We ha\e renewed the pieliminary plans fo: the proposed Lakesieu Town Office Park. The site is located just writ of Oiotiu Senior Housing site in the nonhwest quadrant of Wayaata Boulev-ard (T.H. 12) and North Riwwn Poad Wc have the following conunents with regards to engmeenr g nutters: 1.Traffic: The proposed access road grades on the cast and west sides of the site exceed 12 “/i. This is exceptionally steep and wc recommend street grades be revised not to exceed S% Stop signs should be installed for \ehiclcs easiboimd from the subject site at the intersection of the access road from T.ll. 12. Streets and parking areas should be constructed to the City's commercial'industrial street section as per City Standard Detail STR-7. All streets and parking areas shall have B618 concrete curb and gutter. Grading: Wc recommend that parking lot grades not exceed 4'to. The pr removal of the existing timber retaining wall along the west side of the site is on Uic adjacent property. Eascn.cnts will be required fur the retaining wall removal and the construction of the new retaining wall All retaining w^lls over 4-fcet in height require an engineered design ani details. All silt fence must be in place pnor to any grading activity. The applicant should proxide an overall site plan showing building clcvatioiu so the City • .*.••. • •- 9 ^ ^ m ^ mm ’ m I • . •w • «*•%*•*«w MV*^**« « a**a«A »• aiiv s*«*s OaaU dwuiis. Diainagc: A drainage area map and storm sewer calculations should be providei- or our review. Plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for ihcir review. 1 he applicant should provide evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use. I'liliiivs: The proposed sanitary sewer design appears acceptable. 1 he City should be notified v.h n the scwci and water connections will be made to the City facilities. Water mam connections shall be by cult ng in a tec, no wet taps are permitted. Final plans should include samiarv sc.vcr. stonn sewer and water mam plan and profile views Hydrants should be located at all dead end lines and at all high points. Fusrmeiils: New utility casements w ill need to be provided fo: all constructed water main, sanitary and stOim sewer. Drainage easements should be piovided across any existing or proposed diainagc ways. Drainage and utility easements should be provided 1 0-fcct wide along all lot lines. A final plat should be submitted for review. 23JS West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 • 65I-636-4600 • Fax: 651-636*1311 ■ • -,'r completed \wr will prepare in esiimated cost for site improvements to determine the amount of financial guarantee required. Please contact me at (6SI) 604-4863 if you have any questions regarding this natter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSCXTIATES, INC. Tom Kellogg \Jy cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono r Bonestroo MM Rosene vv Andert jk6i ^\|| Associates Engineers & Architects •onttir**. aoMn*. and Atio<taitt, hM *i an Afflrmati** AcHon/Iqitat Opd«M«nttr Ca^ and l<nd«aira« 0»m«d drUKidalt Otto G lorvti’oo *V^ir>nt a( tft, A Soiaden. rf « Mat* A Hjnion Pt I Gtar<n a Coo* ff ttntot Contwianli. doortt W doiano ff • iotatm C Andotta af . lictutd I httnct af •ol>t*t G VntawM at •v-za-o.Vu*an M IOrtla< C aa AprillS. 2003 Aiiottata atinctpali Kr<tr> A Gntdon at • tobati a atrttatir at • atnatd W totiat at tOatidO lot*ot« at . Ii*<naat I dauttnann. at • ladd tia'd at • aannatna Ande«ton at • Vat* t doa* at • Oa.td A ■on*n>oa VIA SMa^r/ a «',«.am»on_ at. I » • Agnat M da«g Mi A • Antn d.tt Vttitr. jr at . Tnomat « a*tr'ton at • iatnai t Matand at • dVat • Janian at • I atwa^ G<a>«t at at • Oa'-.at J f dgr<lor< a| • n.>>aai Wa*ia«r a| . Tnomai A Sgrtto at • Via*don J ionnton • Da** A Cto.a at • Tnomal A doutaa* at . doe*'t J 0«<*tt d| OttM**: li aaul tt Cloud docaatldi and W^iinw MN •> Va*au>«* til • CtKago R tdoncM'oocem Ms. Wendy Bottenberg Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Ciystal Bay. Minnesota SS323 Re: Lakeview Town Office Park File No. 139.03-000 Plat No. 03-2888 Dear Wendy, We have reviewed the storm sewer calculation submittal for the proposed Lakeview* Town OfTicc Park. We need clarification and the following additional information to complete our review: • The calculations show structures 4B. 6A. 9A, 12A, and 12B that are not identified on the plans. The applicant should provide a plan sheet that clearly show's these structures. • The applicant should provide a drawing showing the drainage boundaries to all structures so wc can verify the calculations and finish our review. • The applicant should provide evidence that the downstream sturm sewer has the capacity to serve the new proposed use. Please contact me at (651) 604-4863 if >*ou have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg cc: Greg Gappa. Ciiy of Orono 2US \l%st mghwsy 36 • St. P«il, MN SS1I3 • 6SI-636-4600 • Fax: 651*636*1311 AlHlA- IJlflrtiMj II V 1 i- .-.w -r-i—^_______________________ § 10.4S SEC 10^ HIGHWAY CO&DIERCIAL DISTRICT Subd. 1. Pujpose. The purpose of the B-6 Highway Commercial District is to provide ■ commercial district qMcifically tailored to accomplish the commercial devTlopment objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensiv c Plan. Subd. 2. Application. AH applicants for a building permit in any "B-d" Highway Business District shall be rev'iew’cd by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any *’B-6" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Oflices (business and professional). B. Ban’ s and financial institutions. C. Libraries. D. Motels, and hotels. L. Restaurants (Class I).Deleted via Ordinance No. 1.^2, 2nd Series Effective Date: 10-28-96 Subd. 4. Rclaliunship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development. Other types of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned unit development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Conidor shall assume the B-6 District as the underl>ing zoning district. Subd. 4.1. Conditional Use*- A. Within any "B-b" Highway Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Restaurants (Class I). 2. The follow ing uses w hen such use includes a drive-thru condition: a. Offices (business and professional). b. Banks and financial institutions. <• Libraries. d. Motels and hotels. Source: Ordinance No. lS2,2ndSoies Effective date: 10-28-96 ORONO CC 351-1 (Sec. 10.45: S-8-89) § 10.45 A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Business District. A. Lot Area: B. Lot Width: C. Setback - Principal Structure; Front Side Interior Side Street Rear D. Setback - Accessory Structure Front Side Interior Side Street Rear E. Setback - Parking Front Side Interior Street Side Rear tiK'o acres 100 n. 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. I0(I5)ft. 10(10) ft. Setbacks in parentheses apply adjacent to all residential districts. •30 (35) feet or I 1/2 times the building height whichever is greater in determining front setbacks for principal and accessory structure only. plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those pla^s ORONOCC 351*2 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) r" § 10.45 shall be reviei^ed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly charmeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the draiiugc. G. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. -------------------------H.At lea st twent} fit e percent (25 %)ofthe la nd a rea shall be landsca ped with gfass^~approtncd~potmd ^oyerj—shnibbeiy^ wnthin a partcmg'area'shall be~lstidscapedr hJ ticcs. At least thrcc^pereent {3*5^) of the land area The followii shall be required at the tiiu^ of planting!, IllllllllliJIll 9I/.V9 0\er5toiy Deciduous Tices"'1^2 inches"'m'"dTameter 14UI1VII ta l Trees 1”1''2 inches in dtameter Coniferous Ti^^s bfeettal l Major Shrub Plantings ■gallons I; All trash and trash h struciuic, within an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure, or totally serened"^rom*eye*level^^rTCwr“finom"ptibbe streets^and adjacent resrdeirtial propcitics. If accesso^f structures arc proposed, tl.ey shall be constructed of the same building stitrctttreund be readily served thiougli doorsr J. Garages, acccssoi^ stroctures, serecrrsvalls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of similar t^pe, quality and ap|icarance as the principal structure. N. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely itiguous I'lopcitics and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with theJVI w V11. V mJITT vv iclriic^ it.ral licatuiciii of the urincipal structuri I. n\teiibal loading and service are«ks luust be'complete I ttHh.SWIIWU WWill giound level vieu fioiii contiguous residential or corruitercial propcities and adjacent streets, CAcept at access points. --------------------------M.Thc light from aut omobile headlights an d other sources shal l be screened wrhenevej it maybe directed onto adjacotTresidci^ial v\indows. (Subd. 6H through 6M deleted and new Subds. 6H and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201,2nd Scries adopted Februar>’ 12. 2001) ORONOCC 351-3 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) H. Landscaping. §10.45 I. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be required for any proposed commercial site and shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than I inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: a) boundary lines cf the property with accurate dimensions; b) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots,roads and other improvements; c) proposed grading plan w ith 2-foot contour intervals; d) location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; c) a planting schedule containing 5>’mbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; 0 planting details illustr.nting proposed locations of all new plant material; benns, fences and planter boxes; be sodded and seeded; g) locations and details of other landscape features including h) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to i) location and details of irrigation s>'stcms; and j) details and cross sections of all required screening. 2, Minimum Landscaping Requirements. . a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and comferous species including overstory trees, underslory trees, shrubs, Ho\\ ers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbciy, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: preparation, and site impro\ emenu) Minimum l.andtcane Vnlur Below SI.000.000 2.0 % of Project Value Sl.000,000-$2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 52,000,001 - 53.000,000 $30,000 + 0.75^0 of Project v'alue In excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 Orer $4,000,000 I.O % of Project Value ORONOCC 35M (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) §10.45 In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development^ the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlappcd or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/i inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 1/2 inches. d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be pro\ ided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserx ed in a natural state. 0 Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the “150 stall" standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up cxp.inscs of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, onumcntal or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping :>hall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. ORONOCC 351-5 (Sec. 10.45:5-8-89) II . --THr-r § 10.45 ... Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with pnn^ rtnKtures. Accessory struc^ for trash and trash handling equipment shall be constzuctM of the same building material as the principal structure and be readily ser\ ed through All roonoporground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior or «,».ed « ,0 no. be visible wi.h 5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially J^irw^ti^v^ fCTOvated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the (Subds. 6H and 61 added via Ordinance No. 201, 2nd Series, adopted February 12,2001) (Ordinance No. 67,2nd Series, Adopted: 5-8-89) (Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.) ORONOCC 351-8 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89) Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ifcn t . ' <^7- 7-" ,». 1; 1 —g___1 Bff \ (?i) ;• *i ■*1*J. \ ^ •mm *1^*—lO »9* \« . I: \* (■‘I)',»!?« (Ofi. //-^ JP3-CS?^ y.Parcel mfonmtion P«rc«l ID 0811723320014 Houm Number 1280 StrMt Nwn* 8PRUCE PL This is not • tpgsPif rtconfsd map It rapnsants • compilation otmhnnallon and data from Oty. County, and Stata tx>ad authormas and oOm aoutcao OOnDITW OOUot 0 • Q I mW SUGAR .. --------------mu StMiAiiOK '^i7iiiiiMiffii~y~3 urwsrr jatm fr xt TASUlAflC <s 10 M :a « lit. J^•l 9 r* <JO i PROVSC ^ > 103 STMLS no m Jt STUIS ■4 STAaS FffoK^EO BUILDING “ -I 4' . S3 »»p»^vDir JL V 11 il II I11I II ft /• f>^,-y mu-/I 5SS ; i^A^TWEMn TASULAOCM I ijor MCA - i;j.i7t.is V ; PAMIS MO«CO - 10 STAaSl UMSCMMCVNO PAMN3 « 70 STa UJ ^iVACC PARjChS • SO STAOS ' 1 Wayzota BImx!. (U.S. Hwy. PRCPQSCO lECCND »«r<«»»-#rtr »M»n« onpcui9u k f\TLJscAU c< rm Puti. /0C..-2.— ^flPoV«>C» ORONO V/OODS APARTMENTS C l T T oT O R O K 0 II I K K E S 0 T A MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC ttti ►i.'-rtxt Avr^T A.tn w a im F3A‘M AND SONS INC CCNERAL CCNTHACTOfiS IeLc SOC k IAssociatis I *m PW.1 C2- HU«UAIi.i' ‘U )l 34llt232l0002 ntor ADDR 2 IM WAYZA1A III.VD W OWNEANAME WIUJAM W WFAR A WtrE TAXfAVfJI WILUAM W WEAR HAMDAOOR 2160 WAYZATA OLVD *306 LONG LAKE MN SS3S6 coi ts: IV rror PKO'LKIYU ]l 3411(23210016 PROP ADOK 2107 SUGAR WOOD DR OWNFHNAMI: TiAVASMITII TAXPAYER nWMASJSMIlll NAML/AOOR 2I07SUGARWUODDR LONG LAKE MN 55356 Ci L12»r 31 3411(21210017 PROP ADDR 2105 SUOARWOODDR OWNER NAME 71IOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMOII TAXPAYER THOMAS J A VIRGINIA A SMITH NAML/ADDR 2105 SUGAR WOOD DR LONG LAKE MN S53S6 31 34IIR232IOOII PROP ADDR 2103 SUGARWOODDR OWNER NAME RJASG HOGAN TAXPAYER RANDAIXJ A SARA G HOGAN NAME/ADOR 2103 SUGAR WOOD DR IjONGLAKI MN 5S3S6 3( 3411(2321001') PROP ADDR 2101 SUGARWOODDR OWNIUINAME RjaiAROJACX3NNIELAPPL£ TAXPAYER RIDIARDJ A CONNIE APPLE NAME/ADOR 2101 SUGARWOODDR LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 3411(23210021 PROP ADDR 2102 SUGARWOODDR OW’NER NAME T M KIMMES A A E KIMMLS TAXPAYER TODD M A ANITA E KIMMES NAME/ADDR 2102 SUGARWOOO DR LONGLAKi MN 55356 3( 3411(23210022 PROP ADDR 2104 SlXiARWOODOR OWNER NAME GZCtLLAFSGtlX TAXPAYER GRETaiEN Z A FRANCIS S GILL NAME/ADOR 2104 SUOARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 3( 3411(23210023 PROP ADDR 2106 SUOARWOOD DR OWNER NAME R M SOIOMMER A E M SOIOMMFR TA3CPAYER R M SaiOMMER A E M SOIOMMER NAMJ7ADOR 2 106 SUOARWOOD OR LONOtAKEMN 55356 3( 3411(23210024 PROPADOR 210( SUGARWOODDR OWNER NAME M L RKICS A i M RICKS TAXPAYER MICHAEL L/3ACOUELINE M RJCKS NAME/AODR 2101 SUOARWOOD dr LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 3411(23210025 PROP ADDR 2110 SUOARWOOD DR OWNER NAME G E MILEUSNIC A M MILEUSNIC TAXPAYER GEORGE E A MARILYN MILEUSNIC NAME/ADDR 2110 SUOARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN S3356 3( 3411(23210026 PROPADOR 2112 SUGARWOODDR OWNER NAME K G DERG A K M D DERG TAXPAYiiR KGDEROAKMODERG NAMIMDDR 2 112 SUOARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 3411(23210027 PROPADOR 2114 SUGARWOODDR OWNER NAME 03 SYMINOTONV> T SYMINGTON TAXPAYER GINGER A CARY SYMINGTON JR NAME/AODR 2114 SUGARWOODDR LONG LAKE MN 55356 3t 34IIS232I002R PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NAME/ADOR C/0 REDERS CONS I RUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVe MPLSMN 55416 3( 34III232I003S PROPADOR 31 ADDRESS PENDING OWNER NAME SIDNEY 0 A DAROARA REOERS TAXPAYER ORONO AMIUR LLC NAME/ADOR CR> DUNRAR DVLPT CORP 5000 GUiOVOnO AVE GOLDEN valley MN 55422 3( 3411123210030 PROP ADDR 3t ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC TAXPAYER SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC NAME/ADOR C/0 REOERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE MPLSMN 55416 31 3411123210036 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS PENDING OWNER NAME ORONOHSGARDVLPTATHY TAXPAYER ORONO HSC R RDVLPT A71IY NAME/ADOR 2750 KELLEY PKWY ORONO MN 55356 3t 3411(23210033 PROPADOR 2190 WAYZATADLVDW OWNER NAME GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC TAXPAYER GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC NAME/ADDR PO BOX (00 2190 WAT ZATA DLVDW LONG LAKE MN 35356 3t 3411(23220015 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME CALOTTEN TAXPAYFJt CLIFFORO A LOUISE OTIEN NAME/AOOR BOX 249 LONG LAKE MN 55356 § RlMUAIt.>2l/2aU M 34IIUJ2Xn20 PROPAOM 3t ADDRESS UNASSICNIJ) OWNER name CALOTTEN TAXPAYER CUFPORO A LOlflSO OTTEN NAMfc/ADOR 00X249 LONOUKEMN 5S1S6 n )4lli;i24002« PROP ADDA MS VIRGINIA A VE OWNER NAME DCREAR A M U CREAR TAXPAYER DAN CREAR NAME/AOOR I9R0 spates AVE WAYZATAMN 55J9I 72 34111232400)9 PROP AOOR 3043 WAYZATA DLVO W OWNER NAME 3 A M INVESTMENTS taxpayer IA M INVESTMENTS NAME/AOOR 5341 KINOSVIEW LA N MAPLE GROVE MN 55311 n MIIR23340067 PROP AOOR I PREMIER DR OWNER NAME RiR HOLDINGS CO INC taxpayer RJK IIOLOtNQS CO INC NAME/ADDR I PREMieX DR LONGLAKEMN 55355 PACE: 2 31 3411123240001 PROP ADDR 2120 WA YZATA OLVD W OWNER NAME WILLIAM WEAR ETAL taxpayer WILLIAM W WEAR NAMI7ADDR 35IIAC1C0ERRY HILL U3NGLAKEMN 35336 72 3411123240025 PROP AOOR 2045 WA YZATA BLVO W OWNER NAME OCREARAMDCREAR taxpayer DAN CREAR NAMiyADOR 1910 SPATES AVE WAYZATAMN 35391 72 3411133240027 PROP AOOR 335 VIRGINIA AVE OWNER NAME KEmiD MILLER Taxpayer keihiomiller NAME/ADOR 53SVIRC1NIAAVE LONCUKEMN 55355 72 34lin32400)6 PROP AOOR 2069 WA YZATA OLVD W OWNER NAME HIRAM ENTERPRISES IJjC TAXPAYER IIIRAM ENTERPRISES UT NAME/ADDR I«65 WATERTOWN RO LONGLAKEMN 55355 72 3411123240040 PROP AOOR 2055 WA YZATA OLVD W OWNER NAME JOHN B DRISCOLL taxpayer JOHN B DRISCOLL NAME/AOOR C/OPCI 332 MINNESOTA ST *2100 ST PAUL MN 5)101 72 34III233400S2 PROP ADDR 20t) DANIELS ST OV^TIERNAME QPN LIT ETAL taxpayer OPN LLC NAME/AOOR CX) JILL A HUNZ 7272 32NDSTSE buffalo MN 55)13 72 3411123240065 PROP ADDR 2073 WA YZATA BLVD W OWNER NAME GREGORY M SHAUGNESSY TAXPAYER long LAKE FORD tractor INC NAME/AOOR 2073 W WA YZATA BLVO PO BOX 597 LONGLAKEMN 353)5 72 3411123340069 PROP AOOR 509 SHAUGHNESSY AVE OWNER NAME GREGORY M SHAUGHNESSY TAXPAYER LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC NAME/AOOR 2073 W WAYZATA BLVO POBOX597 LONGLAKEMN 55355 DATe3->/»OJ n\ To: Mr.MIktGyftvi Orooo City PUnnins Director 2750KdlcyPerkway Cryttal Boy. MN 55323 952-249-4600 Fax: 952-249-4616 From: Paul Karlson, Planner Ravia Keal Estate L.L.C. 2436 East 117^ Street BuiusviUe.MN 55337 952-707-1870 Fox: 952-707-1877 May IS. 2003 RE: Lakcvicw Town Office Puk Planning Coomaasion Meeting Submittal Faxed Transmittal: Utter of Undcrstanduigftom Orooo Shop|«ng Center 141 pages Thank yon very ranch for your time and assistance on our Ukeview Town Office Psrk By now our architect’s revised site plan, and our engineer’s letter ot comphance should be deUvered to you. In addiUoo. attached please find a letter of understanding from our neighbor to the west It says he intends to allow us access to his shuppbig uu|U property. Unfortunately, there is no existing pavement on his side at the access connection, but we hope to resolve Ibet issue with him that in die near future. Wo tried to page the Fixe Marshal for his approval, hut haven't yet beard back from him. But if any coneenu remaia by you. the citiznni, or the Planning Commission. I hope that our plan can be pessed subject to their conditions we most meet. If then is any other information suggested for a positive outcome for the Planning Commission, please let me know. Sincerely, Paul Karlaoo, Ravia Real Eatato Planner CONSULTMO iMOMOfl* SMCl 1M4 ■ munite ir ] ULTEIO ENGINEERS, INC. or»CRomasFARCaNO MMAROK.NO t«uxFAus.ao not CAST RIVtRNON)JUITtSM NHONC TSySTI-SSOO IWMCAN0US.MNHM1 FAX. FtMTMtH INClSiTE KUy 14.2003 Mr. Michael Qaffron, Planning Director CityofOrono POB0X66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Engineering Comments dated April 7 and April 15.2003 Lakeview T otati Offtce Park File No. 139-03-000 put No. 03-2838 UElProj. No. 02-7226 Dear Mr. Gaflron: I am writing on behalf of Ravia Real EsUte, LLC as the projrct civil engineer to sute that we are agreeable to approv’al of the City Engineer as a condition of approval of the subdivision application. We have discussed the grading issues with the City Engineer and base \*erbal agreement to redesign the grading with the maximum slopes recommended as our goal but mainUining the workability of the walkout concept. We will also comply with all other comments receised. We request appro\-al of the application by the City subject to approMil of the final sitework plans by the City Engineer. We will be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting on May 19* to address any other concerns the Commissioners or staff may identify. Very truly yours. Rich Revering, PH C: Paul Karlson. RavU Real Estate, LLC MUM. oppomtwmr npLOvm 1 IhTb]niiTiiilL MAIN LEIV 785 sa. 6-2- u r-T I I OKN TOBamr MEZZANIN 530 so. L ji 12*27 ULTEIC m.S GENERAL OFFICE BUILDINU Peak Parking Spaces Occupied vs: 1,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET building area On a: WEEKDAY PACKING oeNEIUTION RATES Avaras# Aere fisng»of Aafes St§na$ra Ctvflb'OA Number of Studios Mrsgo 1.000 GSF Building Ares 2.79 07S<32 93 2.25 207 16B DATA PLOT AND EQUATION X ■ 1C30 GROSS SQUARE FEET BUILDING AREA □ ACTUAL D ata POINTS -------- FHTED CURVE Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(P) - 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.253 R» - 0.870 ecMnaiM. AvgMt iMMnttituii »i Trtniporuiion tAfiMan tea J g*ri»Br»iar> r Date Applkalloa Rectivcd: 3/24)03 Date AppUcaltaa Coaipltle: 3/24/03 OOHlay DradUae: 5/24/03 TO; FROM: DATE: Chair Ha>fcn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Botlenberg, City Planner Mike GafTron, Planning Director ^ a lA April 18,2003 SUBJECT: //03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC 2060 Wayzata Boulevard PUD - General Concept Plan Revie>%' / Preliminary* Plat Re>*iew Zoning Dbirici: Lot Area: B-6, Highway Commercial District 114,792 s.f. (2.64 acres) Applicalion Summary: Applicant has submitted an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. The property was rezoned to B-6 TUD in 2001, The intended use of the property is a 13 unit office development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately 1500 s.f. The 3 office buildings would include one 3-unit and two 5-unit buildings. Total gross square footage of office space is 41,000 s.f. The intent is to sell each individual unit into independent ownerships and plat a common area to be owned by the building ownership group. The common area would contain the shared parking facilities, landscaped areas, and sidewalks. An ancillary need will be to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals. Pertinent Ordinances: Section 10.40- B-1 Accessory Use, Fence Standards Section 10.43 - B 6, Highw ay Commercial District standards. Section 10.52 - Special Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 corridor Study Area. Section 10.53 - Standards and Review process for Highway 12 PUD Section 10.61 - Signage and Parking Standards ; L W3-28S9 April IS. 200) Page 2 List ofEihibils: A B C D E F G Plat Map Application & Supplemental Narrative Applicant ’s Submitted Plan Sheets: - Cover Sheet • Cl: Sitework Information & Details - C2: Existing Conditions • C3: Removals and Erosion Control • C4: Grading Plan -C5: Utilities - Al.l: Architectural Site Plan - A 1.2: Landscape Plan • A 1.3: Landscape, Signage & Trash Enclosure Details - A 1.4: Exterior Site Lighting Plan - A2.1 :1 riple 48 ’ Walkout T>pe Plans - A2.9: Triple 48 ’ Walkout T>pe Elevations - A2.I0: (5 unit) Walkout T>pc Plans / Roof Plan • A2.11 : (5 unit) W'alkout T>pc Elevations Engineer’s Letters (Dated April 7.2003 and April 15.2003) Section 10.45 B-6 Highway Commercial District PUD No. 2 Approved Site Plan (October 2001) Property Owner’s Notification List General Concent Plan/Prcliminar» Pbt Wrviiir Pmrm€% The ciuTcm proposal is being processed as a new Planned Unil Developmcni pr.rposal for the site t nd rf ripproved ssill result in new General Concept Plan and General Development Plan approvals preliminary and final plat approvals, as well as a new PUD Agreement. The propeny has previously K-en platted, but w ill be replatted as part of the process of creatine separate ownership capability for the \ arious units. This application is at the PUD general concep't plan preliminary plat stage, which requires review and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential was from the poteritial impacts of a proposed commercial/ofTlcc development, as well os anhance the quality of such development. ^1 lull I *■ «03-2M9 April IS. 2003 r«tc3 Site BackEround The property was part of a 7-acre trad that was platted into two lots for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2, 4.5 acres) was rc7oncd to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot 1. Orono Ambar, and was re/oned to B-6 Ilighua> Commercial District. Lot 1 is the subject of the current application. Development of a 25,000 s.f office building on Lot I was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22,2001, subject to the provisions of Planned Unit Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established tlut the only permitted principal structure on Lot 1 is a 25,000 gross s f 2-story office building with underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Pcmiittcd uses of that building are general office uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use, but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20“,i of the gross floor area of the building Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the office building, and filed Application No. 02-2771 with the City m March 2002, proposing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot I. That application resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood expressed significant opposition to the project based on the size, o: ientation and intensity of the proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Wara Real Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City- approval for the proposed office project. Surrounding I nnd I'sc Directly to the north of the subject property is a residential neighborhood called “Sugarsvoods**. The only butter between the applicants’ office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40’ wide platted outlet that is owned by the Sugarwoods Homeow ners Association. Restrictions w ere placed on each lot w ithin the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2” in diameter w iihin the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development Ihe 40’ buffer oullot is generally wooded. The subject properly is located on Highw ay 12 and the Orono Ambar Senior Housing development is located to the east. Two parcels that are located w cst of the subject property are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the w esl and surrounded on two sides by applicant’s property contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a welding shop. That property is zoned B-l Retail Sales Business District. Future redevelopment of the adjacent welding shop parcel is anticipated; both the residence and the welding shop are nonconforming uses in B-l. «03-ZtS9 April It, 2003 P«(c4 U.S. Hi^way 12 is in tlic process of being relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will be turned o\w to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the listing 12 ai^ Brown Road intersection. Currently, Brown Road North ends in a T interaection with 12. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create a cross intersection with fnSiln ^ ® ^ ‘f’"* CoBsisteBcv with Orono 2000.2020 r.MP Us« w include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensive Land CePtral Concept Man Sc Site Plap Review Review of this application will focus primarily on the follow ing areas: - Impact on adjoining properties - Building location, height, architectural materials and building design ■ Landscaping and screening - Traffic flow, road svstem impacts and needs - Parking arrangement The 3 propo^ office buildings are one or one.anJ.a-hairstot>- plus a walkout lower Icsel with approximately 3,000 s..f. of poss lloor space in each unit (1500 s.f per level) Ihe units are rlV ''*.'"rT,u“‘ ‘’““‘’'"SS '«'■ conlaming fuc uniu. The^ipnni of'hc Utrec unit building is 4.608 s.f The footprint ofthe five uni, building is 7.680 s.f T ’’“‘''*'"8 one five unit building are oriented in a row along the i.isi property line w ilh Pelt'S 10 'he w cst The other five unit building is on Ihe northwest part ofthe property, along the southerly property hne with parking to Ihe north. The north end of ihe^icrly five uL bu.ldinj neiihtarh3'^' ^ ^ Sugarwoods neighborhood, exposing 48 ‘ width to the •03-28S9 April IS, 2003 Paces Site Chiiractcristics. B-6 conformity’: Reauircd^Allowed Proposed Site Area:2 acres 2.64 Acres Defined lot width:100*190* abutting Hwy 12 Parking Setbacks (used stds. adj. to *'R" District): (Note: ‘Proposed* also accounts for proof of parking arca.s) Required front yard:20*19-20*(tcviic to a\ oid vai) Required rear >-301:10'24’+ Required yard adj. to **R" district:10'17’+ Required yard adj. to “B” district:5*12*+ Building Setbacks: Front lot line:35 ’75* Rear lot line:35'35* Side adj. to “R** district 35 ’35* Side adj. to *'B" district 10*35 ’ Building Height:30* (2 Vj stories)25’and 27’ Signage Allow’ance:190 s.f.*60 s r. • 1 s.f. per each front foot occupied by building plus I s.f. for each front foot not occupied by building per 10.61 Subd. 3 A Additional standards required for the current B>6 zoning district appear in Section I0.4S. These standards are attached as Exhibit F. Parking RcQuIremeats A. Locallon. Parking areas are r^uired to be set back at least 20* from the front properly line. The B-6 district alloud parking to within 3' of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an ‘ R” district require a setback of I O'. The property is surrounded on Uvo sides by residential property and therefore the required I O' setbacks are critical. No parking areas are proposed closer than 10' to any lot line. Along the north boundary, the proof-of-parking setback is proposed at 20-25*, with initial parking to be more than 40' from the lot line. Parking along the west boundary (abutting the B-1 District) is proposed at approximately 13*. The additional yard area provided by these ample setbacks will allow for substantial planting of trees or other vegetative screening along the property lines where needed. M3-2M9 April 18,2M3 rafti B. Number of Parking StnlU - Required = 1 per 200 s.f. of “net usable floor area for office use” (Net — 39^000 8.f. + / 200 = 196 stalls required) Total stalls required = 196 Total stalls proposed = 71 Proof of parking *» 42 Total parking » 113 (short 83 stalls) P^ng spaces by Orono C^e for office use is one space per 200 s f. of net usable floor area. The pro^sed p an requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total number of parking stalls ^ mberof ‘hi'***" ^ Agreement 2A did not require a had wb^Ual parking underground to reduce the intensity of parking aboveground, and provided for w cekend overflow parking for the Senior Housing building. ^ ^ Apnl 17 MPG visited two similar developments noted by the developer - Fembrook Town Office Applicants are proposing an initial parking ratto of 71 stalls per 13 units or 5,5 stalls per unil, with a masttnunt potcnttal for II3 stalls or 8 7 stalls per unil. By contrast, Orono code would require 15 Mrel fo[ZV ^7"‘ '?f Proof.of.parking areas unbuilt and in greln '■ ril’l' W'"'»' of parking at any level less than 10 Mils j«r unit, ms may overkill, but it decreases the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior SwngSu ““““'0“'O'O Surface Water Maii«gem»iit Plan existing NURP pond located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. i03-2t89 April IS, 2003 Pi|e7 Capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehalia Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use ujidcr the PUD No. 2 af^rovals. Revised drainage calculations arc required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calculations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Potential runoff impacts to the adjoining property to the immediate west should be addressed. Additional comments regarding engineering issues arc listed in the City Engineer's comments attached as E.xhibit D. ToDoeraDhy ImDacts Lot 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28* from the southeast comer of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The exi.sting home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot I is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot I. Proposed walkout floor elevation for the Northeast Building is 1012' or about 12' below the high point ol'thc hill. First story floor elevation will be about 2' below the crest of the hill, but due to the northe.iaiCrly slope, the 4S’ wide norllt facade of NH Building w ill c.xposc 2 levels of windows and a roof system to residential properties to the north and cast. Both NT and SE buildings will expose 2 levels and a partial half story to the Senior Housing building to the east. The result is visually a 270 ’ long facade located 35 ’ from the east lot line and about 90' from the senior housing end units. The grade at the walkout level of NE and SF. will be about 8' above the grade level adjacent to the Senior Housing building. At the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6' high will be needed along the north side of the serv ice drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highw ay 12. trre south end of the property will include a grassy slope, the scnicc road, the retaining wall, and the 4S' wide 2-lcvcI facade with windows. Note that the City Engineer has indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8®*. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades arc 0®/i - 5%). The parking area west of the NE and SE buildings will be two rows of 9'.x20' stalls, on either side of a 24 ’ center aisle, at an elevation approximately 8 ’ higher than the welding shop parking lot to the west. Applicants should be asked to describe what their intent is forexisting retaining w alls on the adjacent site, since a handicap ramp is proposed to parallel the west side of the paridng lot up to the West building. M3-28S9 April It. 2M3 rage I The building walkout elevation is intended to be at the same elevation as the base of the welding shop parking lot. This will require removal of the existing retaining walls, and obviouslv the cooperation of the adjacent prop^y owTier. North of the West building, ad.litional parking is proposed, one row adjacent to the building, then a center aisle and proof-of parking in a second row about 25’ fiom the north lot Imc. This proof-of parking, if constructed, would be at elevation 1020 ’ or ranging from 0-4 ’ below existing grade to the rear. This 0-4 ’ elevation difference will help to scr^n headlights from the residential lots to the north, but may require some additional screening method, such as berming, a screening fence, or opaque vegetation. The west building would walkout to the rear of the welding shop site, and views toward that site from West building would be less than pleasing under the current uses of the welding shop site Applicants are advised that certain uses of that site may be difficult to eliminate unless the owner agrees to eliminate them... Certain areas w ithin the site will require retaining walls. The most visible of these will be along the west side of the parking lot, wd along the north side of the access driveway at the entrance to the site. Applicants should describe how these w alls w ill be designed or screened to soflen their visual impacts as viewed from off-site. Sewer and Water Service The property has municipal sewer and water available, which was installed approximately 15 %-ears ago. No sew er or water assessments will be due for the proposed office uses, as the property has previously been fully assessed. Sec the Cit> Engineer’s additional comments regarding utilities. The portions of utility/drainage easements that likely need to be vacated were granted as part of the site plan approval for the office building under prior approvals, and w ill conflict w iih the current site plan in certain areas. Those casements contain no utilities at this point, and staff recommends approval for their vacation subject to appropriate replacement casements being granted. Road Sl Pedeitrian Access §xifrior Si^e /ffffAccess to Lot I was established during the approval process for PUD No. 2, Md consists of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12, and a shared dnveway access eastw ard through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road. Future access potential to the w est exisu at the northwest comer of Lot 1 where it abuts Sugar Woods Outlet D Outlet D w as platted as a potential service road corridor behind the Orono Shopping Center and Service 800 buildings, with possible connections southward to I2mrimhall, or west through the Otten Brothers proi^ to Willow Drive. At this time the City has no plans to make use of Oullot D, but it remains avail^le for future use. Development of a connection to Outlet D with this proposal will have sigmficant impacts on screening, buffering and topography north of the building. W3-2M9 April It.2H3 rifc9 Applicants arc proposing a drivew ay connection diicctly to the rear of the Orono Shopping Center site, rather than a connection to Outlot D. The City has no indication at this point that such a plan is acceptable to the ot^ner of the Orono Shopping Center site. The City had not contemplated such an Immediate connection in earlier revio^ s of proposed development for Lot 1. The ramiHcations of such a connection require further review by staff and City consultants to determine whether this should be approved. From a public safety and internal trafTic flow standpoint, the connection may be a positive feature; its impacts to traffle flow on the Orono Shopping Center site need analysis. Existing Highway 12 will be turned over to Hennepin County when Highway 12 is relocated. Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12 directly across from Brown Road North and a semaphore is intended be installed at that intersection. The schedule for installation of that stoplight is still being discussed w ith MnDOT, but it may be dela>-cd until the realignment of South Brown is completed. The City’s trafTic consultant reviewed the prior office proposal for a 23,000 office building and 70- unil Orono Woods Senior Housing building in November 2000. Based on standardized trip generation rates, a 70-unit building w as expected to generate 120 trips in and 120 trips out per day on weekdays, less on weekends, where the medical office use as approved would be expected to generate 130-in/l 30-out weekdays and significantly less on weekends. Total trip generation would then have been 250-in'250-out on w eekdays. The current proposal docs not specifically contemplate medical office use, and it docs not contemplate any retail use. Absent a further review by the City’s traffic engineer, staff believes the proposed office use will not significantly differ in traffic generation from the earlier review cd uses. Fede$triait Access. Sidewalks are proposed to connect between the individual units and the parking lot, as w ell as a continuous serv ice walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. It would be appropriate to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the office complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12. It was determined during the review ’ of Orono Woods that walking trail connections to the northw cst comer of the properly had little value at this lime because they would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. Laiidscapi»£ Plan Development of this site will be subject to the B-6 standards for landscaping, attached as Exhibit F. The applicants have provided a landscaping plan. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code in referencing the B-1 Accessory Use standards, requires a Kreen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6’ high) not less than 50% opaque be located along lot lines between commercial uses and residential uses. Such screen might also take the form of a berm or retaining w alls where parking lot is recessed. •03-2M9 April 11,2003 Pag*10 In sUfTs opinion it is most critical to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening betuven the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood . It w ould seem less necessary to provide such seeing along the east aide of the ME and SE buildings: a 6’ privacy fence along that nonh-south ^ B-d ordinanc^as a table listing the landscaping value to be required based on a perccntaec of the project value. T^c value of the development would need to be determined and then the minimum landscape value is detennined Wally Case of DSU. Inc., the City’s landscaping consultant, would complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the ordinance. Mwt of the existing tiw on the site will be removed for construction. The plans submitted appear to have hem designed to potentially protect several mature trees that arc located along the north boundary, leaving some buffering to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The landscape plan should depict the existing vegetation that is to remain. ^ wncOTs'''*"** **““'"* ***' proposed plan takes into account at least the following nei^*l^Ao^°”^ buffering between the office complex and the adjacent Sugar Woods inmie^*w^ buffering between the office complex and the commercial properties to the - potential for relocating existing trees on the site... - landscaping methods to reduce the visual impact of the building as viewed from offsite, especially the view of retaining walls... The irajh enclosure isproposed al the north end of the site, 3-sided brick construction w.ih a south, facing acc<^ door. Tlus location would appear to be practical and appropriate in the context of the proposed site la>out. It should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. Vt^hilethc B-6 standards do not currently establish a minimum green space vs building vs imperMous surface ratio, the site is proposed with the following coverages; Lot Area Building Coverage Area Parking, roads, sidewalks, etc. Greenspace w/Proof-of-Parking 114.792 s.f. 20,362 s.f. (I8*/«) 38.378 s.f. (33%) 56.052 s.f. (49%) w/AII Parking Built 114,752 s.f. 20,362 s.f. (Ib%) 45,878 s.f. (40«/i) 48,552 s.f. (42%) »03-2U9 A|»ri11l, 2003 raft 11 SiciUfiS Proposed plans for signage are attached as Exhibit C (Sheet A1.3). The subject property is allow ed 190 s.f. of signage, based on the Code standards; "Aggregate square footage of sign space per I t shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building" The front footage of the site is KO* along Highway 12, so the interpretation is that the site is allowed 190 s.f. of signage. No individual sign may exceed fifty square feel. The ^piicanls have provided signage plans for a monument style sign of 10 ’ X 6 ’ to be located along Highway 12. The proposed sign location is not apparent from the site plans, but it must be set back at least 10 ’ from the right-of-way line. The proposed sign deducted from the total allotment of 190 s.f. leaves 130 s.f. for individual businesses to identify them on the buildings. A total of 130 s.f divided by 15 units ® 8.7 s.f. per unit, leaving approximately a 2’ x 4’ identification sign for each individual unit. In visiting the Fembrook and Forests icw sites it was noted that each unit was provided a standard identification sign of approximately 2’ x 2’, and a few units had additional individual small signs, but in general signage was minimal and not obtrusive. Lightiii2 Proposed plans for ligliting arc attached as Exhibit C(Shccl A1.4). The applicants have provided lighting for the parking area. The applicants should address how or w hether the individual buildings, entryways or w alkways will be illuminated. The w alkw ays behind tlic building on the cast portion of the property arc of particular concern. Building Quality and Materials Sheets A2.1 thru A2.11 dqiict the floor plans and elevations for the proposed buildings. The facades most visible from off-site contain substantial architectural features to enhance their appearance and break up the visual length of the buildings. The applicants have provided a design that is sensitive to the surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, while being the functional rear of those offices, have stonework, columns, bays, and styled w indow s. The 6/12 pitched roofs will have asphalt "shangles" for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plonk or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured "river rock" and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. The B-6 standards do not specify a percentage of the facade that must be brick; the proposed 2' high cultured stone base along the entire perimeter of each building is also a critical enhancement. The middle units (2/5,1/3) of each building have a 6 ’ deep proposed deck on the first story level on the walkout side. These decks add to the residential character of the buildings. The arched ey ebrow and curved window feature of the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhees the quality of these units. Staff is satisfied that the building design is of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the east 0O3-2tt9 April 11.2003 fagt12 Siwniarv of iiiiiei for 1. 8. How do the vUual impacts of this office building complex compare uiih those of the building (see Exhibit G to compare footprints of buildings and IsAe intensity of use of this site significantly greater than would have been expected with Ihe previously approved medical oflicc use? ‘ Under the PUD 2A Agreement the building may not be used for general retail use, but •cceswiy^l uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross lloor area of the building Is Plaiuung Commiaion comfortable with that same standard, or does the parking varimee K ™ Is the i^ue«ed significant parking stall variance (42% variance) supported by dau that «>"'''•>« site i. whichTi Staff recommends no less than 10 stalls be constructed per unit. avow (iLIingt^gcS '<> I^?ircmlnt°"'*^ ^ ^ “proofor-parking” to meet the 20 ’ setback Appliewt should address the variety of concerns noted by the City Engineer Provide dramage calculations, drainage area map and storm sewer calculations pro^t^* do«.-nstream storm sewer has the capacity to sene the adjoining property to the immediate west The of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site bc'rttid m “t A^Iicantsshouldbeasked tode«^^^ should describe how these walls and the wall IJ^cwed^^^^^ designed or screened to soften their visual impacts as D^^ing Conimiuion rviri. my fimhw information reguding bifnc gmeniioa for M3-2tt9 Aprfllt.2M3 rate 14 b) C) d) e) 0 8) h) i) Building design, facade materials, etc. Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public Landscaping, screening needs Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Parking capacity, whether variance is supported Pedestrian access, walkways Future n»d comecUon to the notthuest end Outlet D; or to Orono Shopping Center site j) L) Any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage Any other topics of importance ****" approval should also Include vacation of utility casements as OPTIONS FOR ACTION 3. Recommend denial, state reasons, send on to Council. Other. L »lCit0-20Q2 Q2:Slm Frea-CITY OF CF»3 «1!224:tS!|MS! P timil F-SIS CITY or ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AppUcation i Q3-;3PgQ Dale Receircd Amount Paid oo PROPERTY LOCATION Site address . A AA.'cs ^ ^ Property Identificatioa Number (PID)**^•**1" ^ <r»e»35 Please check one - Property____abstract or torreos? Attach legal description to appUcation. i, •, R | o'o.t. a AL . APPUCANT Name , Ul-c cf« Paa.4^1, #A«U a ^.|W Addte»5_L*lg_ e»» ^ Cttv . »V4____________ - '. Zipm^ Phone (w-ork) *>^1-471-170S OWNER C>Idifferent than applicant) Name lcc Address t4‘K> fc. mtb City iyA»>\s vrfV# *A»^. Phone (home) (attach list if more than one) 2ip y^V> Phone(woric) is2_ EXISTING LAND USE Nvimber of Tax Parcels Development Size •L.*Z. Present use (check) Present Zoning Disuict •z.T- Acrcs Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units (tfoo Other (specify) , / 4H 'hot PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rcanangement Only (no new building sites) Subdunsion for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites O Existing Units New Units __ 13 Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per Z.x Acres ■ Sq. Fl Dry Buildable Land Residential ^ Other (specify) oCAca X •V ~. 'vV- y'"'' '^‘v, 'a Di:-i:-2::z C2:5Im frea-ClTf OF OFSiO *iiU4Uitt 2. Conpte:ed applicatioa form. 3. “ • • ....................... 4. MCI P C23/C25 f-!l5 ^vrnpiCftca mppuKSUoa lontl. Preloiicary pUt information on Certificate of Sjuvcy ieaiofFLni-:eA.603 4. Easitnenis. covenanu. etc. 5. Developers Apeemeat and Letter of Credit. Zeoini Official's Siinanire --------------------------------------------—--------------- Pate ■ Sketch Plan Review* (Class I. II d: DI) S273.00 ----------Sobdivi.ion of a Lot Lu*c Fvei-ranjeeiem $350.00 ______ Subdivision Application (Class IA II) $350 00 ?LSrpu»;;« - Le^al Review and Ftlinf: Subdivision only SI00.00 Subdivision w/easemecu and covmaats min. S300.00 ei (to be determined $»ettnn 11 <•»» lauL* ‘T7^ ---------dukuivuisa w/casemecu and covmaats r Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11,62) Lesa! and Enabeerlng Review Fees (as Ircurred) R s**C*A it of CIjiSS I And ff Suhdivfcii^n A»mI uesa. and Engineering Review Fees (as Incurred) . - --------- Pro; aied Priva*.e Roads S650.00 S.300ineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x JO - f --------- Prcpaied Public Roads 1950.00 ♦ S.50/lmeal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 » S ............ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 ” --------- Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275.00 ♦ $25/stub ______ Piepaied Witermain Extension S275.C0 ♦ $25/$rjb . jcw« Mjin t-xtens’.on $275.00 ♦ Propated Witermain Extension S275.C0 ♦ 525/$rjb Propaied Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 iVit# Ar.rtltr^tinn ___ 5i0.00/?er lot x______rew C. Flexible Application Fees/Mlic. Fees Variarte $250.00 ^S50 00 per each addiiio.iit variance) Easement Varatior. Associated with Subdivision $100.00 FRD Appheatien with Subdivision SSJ.OaDwellins Unit 7-Z <2i\73fM^ *ssssssgp^^ Owxief's S y.srure ff \ ,T* ^ Aoolicar.tmusthavea!liubmins!tLitAtK.rf.,.orn..^« T. . . *■ J •7.2 parking stalls per unit There have n<^ been any reported parking issues at the constructed sites including the Fembrook Town Office Park (7.4 stalls/unit) which is fully occupied. For this site, we propose to initially install 71 of the 113 stalls with the balance being -proof of parking' so as to preserve as rr.tich as possible of the natural screening/buffer v/ith the neighbors to the north of the project. We believe from our experiences with similar projects, 71 stalls will provide adequate parking for this project. In the unlikely event additional spaces are required, we would propose to add spaces starting with the southernmost areas, ^ain maintaining the natural screening/buffer for the neighbors to the North. c. Query- Provide information as to how the two and three level office ^ut IS intended to function (will some portion of each unit end up being leased?). Response- Buyers of these units to date have pufcha^ space for their use only, noting that any extra space Initially is used for records or other storage and since each unit is small this dimurages leasing wHhin a purchased unit. ^ information about the project that will help tne Planning Commission understaiKl your proposal. Response- The basic concept for these town office parks is to provide reasonably priced office space, with approximately 3,000 square feet of useable space, in outer ring suburbs with convenient locations for employees and customers. * similar projects you have completed that uty Stan and Planning Commissioners can visit. Response- The most rer^ntly completed project which is very similar to the Oronc proposal is the niw unit Burnsville Town Office Park at 11990 Portland Avenue in Burnsville ( From M94 south on 35W to Cliff Portland Avenue, right on Portland about two blocks, units are on the right). f. Query- Statement as to the ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or?). Response- The purchase agreement for the property is enclosed; an extension to the closing date is in process to account for the date of final city approval Charles A. Alcon, Project Manger. Ravia Real Estate. LLC Cc. Mohegan- Hansen (Steve Paetzel) w/o Enclosure 1) Ultieg Surveyors & Engineers (Rich Revering) w/q Enclosure 1) A?;i.C«*23:3 11:29 952 432 37§3 isvjRicr^ iK£is3:t sr.‘5«sa:r uth ».::3 PURCHASE AGREEMENT RECWVED Of Ww» llf*l Emi* (iht ffct *wi *f Tiw«y n®i i«d Dolhn tt»,000.00) • hWil m«My mA in p«t ptysnM far tie pwckm efpropnTy loaMRl« 20M W«i Wnyaln 0«iki««i ta ihn C«g*«y ef Hmaipiii. StM of Mimmen. and ktally dncHM at fMtawc U( 1. Mock 1, Oroao Aiwbar, all of »hich propwy ttiwa(kwigw<at«»lMi»b<^fagaaitDa<Uioit>tlayarfcrtfwwine^MW— phHlliWto pax far Pram Ead Pn^ Com iadwSnf StUtr'a cM«ca«(«McfiiliaBbtpaid««MCIaiia|tt«w dMoaefSaOir.McMbipaldioSallvarai^erSclkr's affitem Madk% Fm* Duabv. Jmtf WiBhals. Oaakar Pa ilopawr Carperaiioa. or Amcea Ccmaraclkn Caapay)phaBHyvMIpa9CeUlanTo«ktalEMiacaiiiariirianar2Hofttw»ciicaaiM<fBiiaa luyarairces 10 pay tfw P^uchaM Ptka Md From End Praject Carta in a*, bss Pi tokl aamcA mOTcy. on Tatnty 20.000 «c date afclokai. DCKiVMAIUurrABLE mu. Sakjtct le pwfaraiaacf iy C># Buytr. tfie Salkr htw io vxrcmr nrtd delim a LimM WmmMy Dotd ceavaying mMM» Ma to Mid pmaiim aiAiioct only to the fattowiag oncaptioai: (i)Baildtoi«idKn»i«tI«wKordin«ca,«totoaBdPadi*ilrcfohUorit.(b)R«»ktion*rrlrt«« to am or kaptotonent of dm prtmlSM witboai tflleoiM totIMam provWon. («) RrMrvrtion of ony mincmb or mlMnlrii^ to ibt Smm orMinaesota. IWIliy tod dtafaw|t aaMmmto which do not intcrfto* whh prraoiH haproMB Mo ta. additional EAKNESTMO!«CY. TWDoytrtpmtopoymiaddrtioiMl flO.OQPafcaniortOJoacyen Siptototor IS. 2002 if a wIiliM to otoad too Cloatac 0"k to Novambm I, M02 and a fhiAar 110.000 00 OctohirlS.2002irawitonMrtdeRdtotC1ootaKOrtotoDRoinborl.2002. toaddilioci.ir*oClaalnKOBto bontondodhayaodOBtohor 19.2002 too Buyor will pay SI 10.000 naddaiomlcifncrtmoMy on October 7.2002 wbkh wiU bo twd by toe Seller oololy fee too porpoM af poytoK too prtacipAI payM of III0J300 dacontooCtotoaafbrOoodonOctobirlS.2002. AOodltooaoIoanrtrtRrtooypoldtoSdkrwiilboeiototod oi iho clotinK ofnisrt too toirdrtM Frieo. REAL tsrATE TAXES. Reol Eattfc twM duo rtid paytolo In *0 ytrt of clOrtRK tooll bo Montod botwoon Seller and Buyer on a cakndor year btais to tot octua) dote of clooioK wokaa otoerwise provided h tois AKfe.mooL RaalertaaraoiMpoyiblotoiboyoinpriortoeloaloitotinwptidbySeDer. RtalcsutoUMf payable to tot yoon aubacqooni to clotoig aboil bo paid by Buyer. SPCOAL ASSESSMENTS. SELLER SHALL PAY on toe drta of ciosinK oil iaatolhacms of ipoeini atotottoem* eortifled tor ponaenf wito too rnl ottoto NBM tort and piyibto in too year of doolnf. SELLER SMALL PAY ON DATE Or CLOSING ill ototo ipcdal aacaifnenia lovied oa of too drtt of toll BUYER SMALL ASSUME toNial aaanaiaoart pontoRg 01 of tot drto of tola Agrenoem tor improvfortna tort havo been ordered by tm City Council or otocr tcrtiaiortMl moomIok oito nraiw SoUor tboll pay on data ef cloair« ony defenod tod r » ana or apKiil I closing of toil m!o. t paytatoi which b itBtbad aa 0 fosub of toe PRORATIONS. AnacRncuatoRMrilypronMindMQurtedlncemeciionwitotoccloalncorihctaloertoe property. fttoolIbeaBumod toattoeBiTcrwDlowaAopfopcMyfortlReBtbtdntoartoecloainf. DAMAGES TO REAL PROPERTY. If toerr iirtty tow or donafe to toe property bertmeo the drta hereof end to# drtr of cloaing. for ony moon, die rWi of lotuholl bo on toe Sellar. IS. ThitpurchanafrMmrRtiacontinKentupaoChyappnvol. m «wa*w!. APR.Q4*2:33 li,j: 952 <32 J7|3 SIVER5CN iHlLZ-U rrVJHIRTr t. f. to. II. •<7JC P.C54 ^ ^ •*! •'•"’**« *•« M}tt i»!lh ».ri«t.o^b}ection.T « BwyCfy^h«VClOblttiBmdiySlittfWCeiptoftfltcqmwitlllCrtfatittebtl«ICglli.«mvLI,C^t __:.v- op«^ « •'•aJw of 1«V«. Ifany obJ«:l^)fl ’“' *• 1*^ eonwtioo •Tlltlt. to m» eowiaoo ia dr^b for a period of 10 S=SSrr^““™-~™^ to «l«co neb ipnifiepatfonaanra tluH be co«Mncnc<d «Htfifai »ta mowh* aftw neb r«bt oHietiofl roSStSSION. Seller iliall delUcr posmsion of ibe foopctiy on Ote date of closing. RePRUCRrrATrowSAI«DWAIUUKrTtE& Seiattcbedaddeediim. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE FOR ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CO.VTRACT. "“'™' *•" ‘”“5"'' w ■UVERANDSELLERfNITIALt Inywf.)SeRetf.)J5^_. MBCILULNEOUS PROVISIONS. «rituig carcuKd by the pvties. on niccesion and assigns amj? w THU JJ|! «iPM*K.Ti,Nc THi aamv IS. ^ purchase agtvemcnc is contiogcnlHponCiNippioval. AM.04*200) llt)l 952 432 3710 SeVEASON SMELOON DOVCMEAIY •4734 P.805 ,9nmih TnVALKALLYBNBINCCONnUCT. VIOOT mx CIMPITBfr ADVK3 ihLa Bli*: oio^ ap— vr—■ ,'‘9^— tUUNOAOlPCTi, KUJNGAeiMTk. H09*t2 IS. mp rop-ov r-Aril.0l ’2003 lli36 «J2 j7|0 ftVIMOK IHELDC!* OOUCHERTY •€73« f.037 WUR: ORmAmbv.LLC liEfrti r ■! II iumi /■ovnii >:.y^- f r Wm RmI Eitatc lompanied /■ ti' ■w 70l}*’f"'i‘'-.f \ / mJtjl^LjlllJ- ^ 'i -'V, GITYoTCHIONO MMydHOOktt ttrwt Miran: 2750 Mllcy PaikwQ Oran. MN 55356 Mtaf IMrau: P . 0 Boi 66 CnrJtal Bay. MN S532K06f April 2.2003 Ravia Real Estate. LLC do Steve Paetzel Mohagen-Hansen Architectural Group 1415 E. Wayzau Blvd.. Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: #03-2889 Proposed Commercial Buildings, 2060 Wayzata Blvd. W., Orono Dear Mr. Paetzel: The City of Orono is in receipt of your application for General Concept Plan approval of a commercial Plaimed Unit Development (PUD) site plan and subdivision at the abo%e referenced property. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday. April 21 at 8:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. You uill be receiving a staff report in the mail prior to that meeting. While your application submittal appears at this time to be complete, it may be determined during the staff review that addition^ information is necessary. At this time, we are requesting the following additional information to supplement your application: 1. Narrative description of your project describing the office condo concept, your intended market, the basis for what appears to be a significant departure from the minimum parking requirements, how the ^vo and three level office layout is intended to function (will some portion of each unit end up being leased?) and any other information about the project that will help the Planning Commission understand your proposal. 2. A listing with addresses of similar projects you have completed that City staff and Planning Commissioners can visit. 3. Statement as to ownership status of the property (copy of purchase agreement or ?). The above information should be submitted no later than Friday, April 11 to ensure adequate staff review time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or City Planner Wendy Bottenberg at 952-249-4600. Michael P. Gaffron Planning Director TWfpbwi(t52)14MiBt • Fai<952)8«4ili AppHoti— lUtdyiBi! 414/n Applicatlon CMBplilt: 4/4/t3 M Day DcMiliM: iM/M FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commiuion Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaf&on, Planning May 16,2003 ' SUBJECT: #03-2890 Meadom-ood, Inc. (Robert H. Swanson)/ Mark and Nancy Cree 3120 North Shore DriN-e Variance - Public Hearing ZMUnINstrIct: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 83.437 sf. (1.92 acres) AppUcatioa Samnuur}’: Requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 9,970 s.f or 36.75% where only 6,783 s.f. or 25% is allowed. Applicant's agent proposes the use of a paver system (“Uni Eco-Stone") as a method to mitigate the excess hardcover, which if the pavers are considered as 0% hardcover would still yield a 75-25(y result of 27.5%. Lbt of Exhibits A Application Letter of Request and Brief Hardcover Summary Survey- Existing Conditions (Submitted by Applicant) Survey- Proposed Conditions (Submitted by Applicant) Site Plan & Hardcover Calculations for Drivew ay Revision from 2001 Addition Permit Hardcover Calculations (Enlarged (iom Exhibit D) with StafTNotations Current Photos of Site Paver System Information Plat Map Property Owners List Permit History Summary Stafrictler to Applicant 4-29-03 Summary of Other Cities Hardcover Status of Pavers Letter from Neighbor Urging Denial of Variance B C D E F G H I J K L M N PcilIncDt Code Sections 1. Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L): Approved in Allowed Petmit #04063 25 % 24.85 % 6,783 S.L 6,745 s.f. * assumes 2500 s.f. of pavers are 100% hardcover Hardcover limitations: 75-250* zone: 2-21-03 EsiliiOS Proposed 32.25 % 36.75 %• 8,750 s.f. 9,970 S.P MJ-MM SINNafIkSkmOri** Mnl«.2M3 PBt» Hkrdcovtr VarikHf# PfacytllftI te ancmptuig to piece together the hardcover history of this property it seems that this site has been in a constant sute of change for the past two decades. The original small home was constructed many years ago and has undergone at least 4 or 5 remodeling or addition project since 1985. The i^t IS a residence that is 125* wide on a 15 T lot, and a garage wing that stretches 60' south of the bouse. A varimee to inciw 75-250* hardcover from 25.6V. to 35.2 % was requested by the previous owner, David Pomije, m 1998 and was denied at the Planning Commission level and never went forward. The most recent building permit issued for the 75-250' zone was for a room addition at the east end of the house in July 2001, for which the current owners, the Cree’s, agreed to reduce the size of the uuu^ly propo^ driveway in order to meet hardcover limits. The infonnaUon on file with the ipprovcd hardcover with the highly reduced driveway was 6.745 s.f. or 24.85%. This IS shown m the architecu sketch and hardcover calculations of Exhibit E. The house IS still u^er WMtruction. and the driveway currently in place does not reOect what was approved via the last binlding permit. The reductions to meet the 24.85% approval have not yet been completed, and the house has not undergone final inspections. Apphcaiit not« that the existing housc/patios/aprons/walks/decks in the 75-250* zone, less the ^epropos^ driveway including all paven as 100% hardcover is about3500s.f. foratoul 75-250*hardcover of 36.7S%. ^ mWro^ fiinct.onal drivewiy would be ipproximatcly 940 ».f. Ifconslnicled per (he approved ^ bg the current numbers would result in final hardcover of (6,487 + 940) * 7,427 s.for 27*4%. * By comparison, if pavers were not considered as hardcover, the applicant's Dronmrd drivewav tvould yield a final hardcover of7.470 s.f. or about 27.5 %. ^ Paver Ss^teiDiifi.t«ing The block ^ver iystem proposed to be used for the circular driveway is described in the attached collection and ble drain lateral transport for surfiKe discharge downslope. 3l20N«ttkS^Drt»« May l«.2«U PagtS In a newly constructed condition, I would have every reason to believe the paver s>^tem docs accept runoff in the volumes it claims. The Hennepin County soil survey indicate Burnsville sandy loam (medium to high permeability) orFillsoilsfunquantifiable permeability, but usualtypoor)inthearca of this home, so the potential magnitude of direct infiltration into the ground below the paver sv-stem is unknown. Further, if such a system does discharge to the surface via underdrains, it might not be much more efllcient than overland flow in terms of reducing pollutants by mechanical filtration or biochemical adsorption; it might simply be a way to move the runoff from point A to point B while maintaining a stable, dry driving surface. On the other hand, there may be relatively simple wa>’S to have the pavers discharge to drainficld-type underground infiltration areas that would accomplish the runoff treatment w e arc ultimately aAcr. Other Ramifications . Staff is concerned that giving this or similar paver systems the status of “non hardcover" will lead to even greater levels of "overbuilding" on small lots in the lakcshorc area. If a property' is limited by the 25% hardcover standard but has not reached its structural coverage limit, the pa\*er system as “iion-hardcover" would potentially allow* for construction of a larger home. The City is currently struggling with trying to limit overbuilding on small lakeshore lots. Our tool kit currently includes minimum lot sizes and widths, minimum setbacks, structural coverage limits, building height limits, and hardcover limits. Reducing the effectiveness of hardcover limits as a tool by allowing pavers as non-hardcover would be a step possibly in a negative direction. What happens if the infiltration mechanisms of the paving sy-stem become clogged with debris, mud, etc.? Who wrill monitor whether the sy-sicm is working as designed? How well will the pavers stand up to winter plow ing, freeze and thaw, heaving, etc.” If they dislodge, will the ow*ner be fed up w-ith the system and pave over it? The status of paver systems as non-hardcover would potentially lead to large areas of pavement that would otherw'ise be lawn, creating a negative visual impact. We should also be concerned with other factors regarding the natural runoff through the lawn vs. runoff that is collected and discharged elsewhere. For instance, does the runoff stored under the paver system increase in temperature before it is discharged, and what are the implications of tliat to the receiving water body? Most other lake-area cities are cunently considering pavers as hardcover - sec £.xhibit M. From staffs perspective, and based on Orono*s long-standingpoliciesoftreating^ .iwai'/everynon- iaw*n surface as hardcover, granting pavers a *non-hardcover* or 'reduce hardcov ^ ' us has many potential side effects that should be fully investigated and understood before su«.h status is granted. r •05.2190 3120 N«m Short IM»t May 10,2003 Hft4 IlMW for CoaildgraHfta 1.Docs ihc history of this site suggest that some degree of hardcover variance should be granted to allow a minimum driveway, such as the a|>proxiinateIy 940 s.f. design accepted by the City in 2001 for issuance of the addition permit? The 2001 ‘minimal driveway ’ design coupled with the applicant’s current calculations results in 27.4 % hardcover in the 75-250' zone... 2. Is there any hardship demonstrated that supports granting of hardcover in excess of the 900 s.f. minimal design? The current request results in 36.75 % if the pavers are considered as total hardcover, or 27.5 % if they are treated as completely non-hardcover. 3. The City should be completely open to allowing (or requiring) various alternative methods ofriinoffmanagcmcnt and treatment that will not have negative impacts on visual or ph>sical density, or woilc against the City ’s goals for creating/maintaining an unengested and environmentally appropriate sboreland district 4. Does the fact that hardcover in the 250-500* rone is less than the allowed amount, suggest that If runoff from excess hardcover in the 75-250* zone can be diverted to the 250-500* zone the 75-250* overage might be adequately mitigated...? Stair RecommeadaHoM approval of variances that would accommodate the minimal driveway as depicted in Exhibit E. Additionally, staff would like applicant to to define the exact discrepancies beteween the current hardcover submittal and the plan that was approved in 2001. Staff canrot ^ommend approval for the proposed driveway regardless whether pavers are considered as hardcover. There is no hardship other than that created by the applicants'owmer in desigmng too much house and not enough driveway. Sl^ is coMemed dial allowing certain paver s>«ems as non-hardcover is prceedenl selling, and needs sigmfl^i discussion outside the scope of this applicau'on review in order for a conclusion ** ” *“"' '•'« proposed paver system not be graninl status Ootloni for AcHon: 1. 2. 3. 4 5. 6. Reromincnd conditional approval for a variance to allow the driveway to be constructed per Exhibit E. resulting in 27.2% hardcover in the 75-250* zone. Table to allow a^licwt A staff to determine what areas of existing hardcover exceed those approved per Exhibit E, provide appUcants with suitable direction regarding their proposal Recoi^^ allowing the paver system as’non-hardcover* and allow theproposed driveway ^ulting in 27.5% hardcover. Define the hardships that support such a conclusion RecomniCTdrilowiiy ihepaver system as‘total hardcover’andaUowtheproposed driveway Other aclioo. r ANALYSIS worksheet LR-IB Lot Area Lot WMlb Required 43,560 s.f.(l acre)140* Actual 83,437 s.f. (1.92 acre)i5r Stnictwril Covgr«£f : Total Lot Area Total Stnictoral Coverage 83,437 s.f.Allowed: 12,515 s f. (15%) Proposed: 7,500 s.f. ± (9.0%) Hardcover ralfulariiw* Distaacc ftom sborcllae Total area ia setback Allowed hardcover Exisliag btirdcuver Proposed 2001 Permit Approval 0-75*11,816 s.f.0s.f. (0%) Os.f (0.0"/*) 0s.f (0.0%) Os.f (0.0%) 75-250*27,132 s.f.6,783 s.f (25%) 8,750 s.f (32.25 %) 9,970 s.f (36 75 %) 6,745 s.f (24.85 %) 250-500*38,701 s.f.11,610 s.f (30%) 3,905 s.f (10.1 %) 7,074 s.f (18.3%) N/A Based on applicant’s current 75-250* calculation of 6,hH s.f currently existing non-driveway hardcover, adding the 940 s.f. driveuav approved with the 2001 building pemtit yields 7,427 s.f or 27.4%. DattRMrivtd A/A/7 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION InhUl Applicatioo Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional varianec) Renewal Vviaoce Fee SISO.OO (do dianga from oriftnal appUeatloo) Variance for noo-oonfbnniag ttniemree CSOfrO After-tfaa-Fact Fees (Double ap|dic«ion fra) fropesty information Site Addrew "^\Zo Klceru awoZe Ooivg _____ Proper^ IdealiBcadon Number fPlD.^ 0*i - m-23 DattRccdvdl A/Al2O0^. Paid -pj •i7 OOC~7 Attach legal deicripUon to applicalion if not included on lOQuiicd survey. Date Pro potv Acqdied o*a/looo ________________________ I (do) (^n^ alw own the adjacent parcela of laad. Present uw of property; y residential ofrer (ipeoifrr)------------- Zoning Dliokt _(month/year) APPUCANT Name Address: IT341»6 »*Wf OWNER Of difTerenl than applicanO Name fY^ae< Cjre:t X Phooc Chorne)_ PhoMfimia Ik* A-m-UMJ City: Phone fhomel _______ Phonafwo A) 70^-feyi-<Tc7s _ City ; pw»«m.>c.T u , rn»j Zip: ^^s*< C DESCRIPTION or REQUEST Estimsttd Construction Cost S_____________ Describe request in detaU; of »aa«r *#, tUi Cniyiifu^MMAtL (attach additional sheets if necessary) m/.^^ >iox4fm»>i • VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width _ Setback; ^ Front Hardcover Lot Coverage Side __ R mt __Average Lakesbore Other (spedfr) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL FROPERTY COND!TIONS Describe undue Iwnhhip or practical diffienliy or unusual property conditions preventing compliant with Zonii« Code laqubnaaott:___________________________________ (attach additional aheatj if necesaaiy) #20 V.. REQUIRED SliUMrrTALS AH if ftt frilOTriM iafoiMittti m«t he wfciaimtf \n tha ■nriitatioa dtidiiac dan in order for vour applkation to b« tOMiOTtd cciayitelt! U 2.zr 3. z 5. 6. «. __ Complcttd AppIictdoD Form Cenified Rtop^ Owners List of owncts svidiin 1S(F» libds and nuip (you must obtain this list, Ubcb and map fiom Heaai^ County Dcpotaiein of Fmaoce. A-603, Govt Center, 348-S910). Certificatn of Survey (signed 1^ a licensed surveyor) aod include hardcover cilculalionB as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy IVS* x IT for leprodiiciion. Topographic survey (existuig and proposed elevations) if any changes in cxistiai grade are proposed. In addhioii. provide one (1) copy IV4" * 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor R elevation views (pro<^dc ono (1) copy IVi* x ir). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all penotts with an liitetta in the property. This would Indnde naaic(s) of applkaDt(s) if not current ownsKs) As an addendun to Ihii application, please attach a separata list of any other persons you wish notified of titis applimtion. Additional items as may be request^ by City staff The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this sppHcalioo. Please remember that yens vnrian— nmiMcaHnn U nnl eompltf If the abave Infarmation has not b—a APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE ths applicant hereby agrees to provide all Information required or requested by the Zoning * Aw«niatiator, agrees to pay addirioaal fees (staCT time not covaead by original fee psymern) a»vJ/or consultant expcntai Incurred in review of thb qiplkatioo, and certifies that the infoimatioa supplied it l^snd correct to the best of his/btf knowledge. Applicant ■ Sinnsnire ______ Date _______ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hsrehy acknowtedges and agrees to tlus ^plication and further authorizes rassonable entry onto ibe property by City stafT, consultants, igents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes o^vestigaiion aod^Ve^ication of ti^^^^eqj^t / / /// Dste^ ^/HL/2 oo3 // / Applicant must have* all eubmitialj into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Comminion Meetings are held on the*third Mond^ of each raonth. Applicants mast he present at all sehtduled eevlaw madiats of lha Flanntng CoBunissioa nnd CouncU. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please Owner's Signature make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the BuOding R Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. -f //»** • A -■*i‘ST-irieiiiM . .* B-l •. •s^yco3 Mwa.3003 Ocyef Orono Atta Mchwi P Gaffron, fUnnhi Owtctor • Re: Z0MN6. AffUCAtlON #03-2090 NORtH SHORE OnvC • VARIANCE OeerMicheeL the pr»»leiM<y tffrortd home remodetng end ttgtr^cn pijno have neaHy exceed the 25% alowihie hardcover N Che rs* • 25(7 2one AiowaMe hardcover cNcUatlone; 27.132 • f R 25% - 6.703 » f Ex»Ue hardcover bi the 75-25(7 lone ■ 0.750 » f. • exieUni hmaninous d^ of 2.263 s f ■ 6.407 e f. Th0.leavtn«296»f of hard cover avalaMe to acceee the eji)»tvi9atuched«ara«e Realotiealy. I could Inetal a O' ivtde wahway 60 bn# from the 250 sethact to the front ^try door The lack of b»^ht on * someone'e part hee left the tarafe un-acce«»hle with any motor vehtcies I understand the bitent of ordnance, to ensure the rabifal runoff wd be cleansed by fiiteiinp it through press or ether vepetsted areas before enternp the If approved. I beleve that we have an nnovatve. ttre tested erwVonmentaby beneficiai system dest#«d to nvtipate storm water rwiof f. as wel as provide a system for ground water recharpe Looknp for solutions Sbicereiy. Robert A Swanson i IM3S Hsgkvajr 55 oPlfdideib;. Missesota 55446 opkeac 763/47S-6987 a Fai 763/478-2925 ‘ssmi'ill -mi ill lOPMoiaMc&rM fiU-C^ CsrUncato of Survey (Existing CondMona) TONY SEQUIRA s?*rnr.; k- MaMW *«»r*v*'»**»)M>trnr.»^w SSSCi’s: ■>? fcf-gaS^TATWCsrasiV »»MBB ••■SSSJr-- «»n »*?S; ^1 a 1-li!i |] S I Sii O'^l *11 'SSsSjHa:^S^ •o ) ■ •M o % Jiy # C' yTHis d^- I mm /' •: H Y u A :. >^aiSwE» lit u I- “ a 1/ / —atST^:a«—- ftM • MM* nWM«M«ka ""TBiS- SSmhmvm r A H K >2V •BlinMNMMMiiMaM » MMBMcwacr ^lr:B:l36ft :W9n IPMUMHIMMVIMHK':mm /«*OS Cortmcato of Survey (Proposod Sfto PiBn) TONY SEQUIRA srscawr UMRISB—-jcsiira^surarR « momm i>*»^.'».*ctO'X»f*jw5e«t w-asBt-.ssa--------- juiggri’jarascw•ssr.* <i>iiiill .!• h < —HBi III.. •- S^i •- ' zSS AREAS House/Cor » 3,690 Sq. FI. Drive = 6.470 Sq. Ft. Aprons/Wolks/Potios « 394 Sq. Ft. Dtfcks/Petoininq WoUs/Siepe « 1328.Sq. Ft. = 11,882 Sq. Ft. Lot obove 75 foot Lokeshore Setback » 71,427 Sq. FI. more or less Hard cover Percentage « 16.63% Total Lot « 83,029 Sq. Ft. more or less AREA or EACH 20WF shore line (929.4) - 75' = 11,660 Sq. Ft. 75' - 250' = 27.132 Sq. Ft. 250' - 500' « V8.701 Sq Ft. /C1 * •Viu 4. /HARD COVER AREA OF EACH 20NE fO 75.3. shore line (929 4) - 75' 75' - 250' 250' - 500' 500' - property line 0 Sq; Ft. 6.950 So. Ft Sq. Ft. 10 loot buW*»'Q •*' N46^4455*W \ • «) ZOO I r.'i ^S vV tv ; ZONE AREAS ? short lino (P29.4) - 75* = 75* - 250* - 250* - 500* - 500* - proporiy lino - Total * Aroo « 11.816 Sq. Ft 27.132 Sq. Ft 38.701 Sq. Ft 5.788 Sq. Ft 83,437 Sq. Ft EXISTING HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS S'/4-c>3 f . \//ev-jj^\ur Houso/Coroge •* Cslstlng Bituminous Orivo » Apron s/Wolks/Potios - Oecks/Wing Wolls/Stops « 6.475 Sq. Ft 5.855 Sq. Ft 589 Sq. Ft 136 Sq. Ft Totol - Lot obovo 75 foot Lokeshoro Setbock *> Herd cover Percontoge « Total Lot ■ 13.055 Sq. Ft 71,427 Sq. Ft more or less 18.28X 83,437 Sq. Ft more or less PROPOSED HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS:*. House/Goroge - 6.475 Sq. Ft Proposed Orivo = 8.229 Sq. Ft. Apron s/Wolks/Potios *» 589 Sq. Ft Oecks/Wing Wolls/Steps - 136 Sq. Ft Totol « obovo 75 foot Lokeshore Setback « Hord cover Percentage « Totol Lot * 15.429 Sq. Ft 71.427 Sq. Ft more or loss 21.60X 83.437 Sq. Ft. more or less L EXISTING HARDCOVER AREAS OF EACH ZONEfef^M shore lino (929.4) - 75’ ■» 75* - 250* = 250’ - 500* » 500’ - property lino •• Totol - 0 Sq. Ft. 8.750 Sq. Ft 3.905 Sq. Ft 400 Sq. Ft 13.055 Sq. Ft txxi’ fticLUh0 flwtrjjujrttcft PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREAS OF EACH ZONE S; shore line (929.4) - 75* ---------------^75‘ - 250’ 250’ - 500* 500’ - property line Totol 0 Sq. Ft. 7.470 Sq. Ft 7.074 Sq. Ft 885 Sq. Ft 15.429 Sq. Ft i I>11 riWSi nestHWlOi r »i II »i'»<«»1iMI {• >-S^* «■ i^V^: • .*ww^ --^T ■ *"■«■■; %n#M aii- Am^r •. i y --|^j ^ I ^ ^LLL-UIM If ‘i.*-i* .n , >SA ii?-' T, ^lf)Cr^ n,> • . H -01 I am confident you wi fnd the encbeed mjtertjli beneficu ’ In order to feel co»r; ete»y ccmfcrtjWe with the ifutertalo presented. Pr VVajm Jjmeo ke to Mhnejpolo to present h« re^ejrch end ohjre the reWt» of No «tude» Ht» presentation w» he held at the Earl Brown Center in Brooklyn Center on Ytednesday. June 4 I wfl proirtde the Qty with knritationo M ooon as they kecome availaMe I attended a wortohop prevnted by the Mmneoou Eroeion Control Asooctaum m which Pr. James was featured and fowtd it to ke extremely ci*|htcnki t PCSIGN OF PE»€Afll£ MOPUIAR IMIWlOCWNG CONCRETI BLOCK PAVEKIENT FOR nVUOHG STO5S0R5 ANP CONTAMINANTS IN A COIP WEATHK EfMRONhCMT Bi James PSc. PCnp S«^ kepinninp Ns career bi 19t>0. Pr MUm James has served aro-xo vhe |loke as a provincial water etifbieer. consultbippia««er. city engineer, and ^h tene out fc.r graduate studes. as a professor teachng wtan water systems design and related <ka c|plnea From 19C3 to 1993. he was the P»c .tor of the School of Engtneertng at IMversity of Guelph ar^ pretKntly advbes an Urban Water Systems research group that ktcNdes doctoral and masters level graduate students, and part t«ne undergraduate student assistants . Most of Ns wort relates to computational hydrology and hydrautcs. btvolving bnplementation. adaptation, and Improvement of large computer packages, deabig with urban hydrau*>cs and hydrology. tN/tderstorm dynamos and water quakty modeltig on receiving waters and lakes As part H thus researc^ Pr James has speclakxed In tl« environmental desi#n of permeable pavement systems In cold weather environments Pr Janes can be reached at wiarrestfooauephca or ly uiephone p 19) 024 4120 eat 2433/ or contact; Karald Vonlangsdorf ♦ at hara’dg'ansdorff com or by telephone (405) 030 1900 Harald Is a Ova Engineer. President and Licensee holder of Un< Eco-Stone In North America Die fotowtig Is a 1st of appr^-ved projects to ke MtaCed loca’y tNs stanmer The kst kektdes Government Agences. Mwac^abtes. a^ Privatebuiustry The reasons may vary but the Environmental benefits are the same Mmeapoks Anbnal Shelter 11.000 s f / Paring Contact Paul M4cr / Oty of M/weapo s Pi^kc Wc^ts O (6 12} 673-3603 Emp^e Waste Water TreauricAt Plant / Koservxxri Contact MetCounca 5000 St ScNnelz Votswagon / Oakdale Terrace Spmgs / Sttwater Housng Project O the Old Pnson 42.000sf 60000St /\reNcle&27.000sf /Pedestrian Poor Lake St Augusta Bank / St Coud MN Landsc/pe Aikoretum ■ 20.000 a f 26.000 sf • 18435 Hifhway 55 aPJyaioatk. Mil 55446 aPhoae 763/478-6987 a Faa 763/478-2925 Technical R esearch and Information To provide biiie dcvign infutmiiion on ihe UNI F.co-Slone* Paving Sy«cm. UNI-GROUP U S A iponrored preparation of the report "Oeii/n Co>titJfrtU0m fer 7Ae ONI Hc0 Snitt* Oiiurru p0ifr “by rtoted U S. pavemcni design authoriiies Raymoitd S Rollings. Ph D., P E . and Marian P. Rollinp. Ph-D . P.E The report toniaint basK design contidetaiiont. tpeeifiialiens, applications, and references and concludes that the UNI Eco-Slone* Paving System is a highly functional pvement vKhith offers major environmental benerus and. when properly designed, will accommo<iaie virtually any irafTic load or design storm. 1? i M fi buulenUlf. FUruU t.00dtn%Au0 The research tonfirmi that UNI I to Stone* is a vetutile product, pros tiling design piufessioiials, dnelopert. land planners, legulaiors agencio. and ensuonmental commissiont with new npiinns for stormwater management and water consersaiion I Nl Eco Ntoiie* p'csents new possibilities in pasrinent siitijie water coiriul to tneei regulatory mandates, potriitiallv teduse ilie sire or need lor special sioiinwater runoff facilities, and reduce nr r'lnniuic downstream flimding In addition. I Nl t en Stoiu* IS an rnsironnientallv l<eneficial pvtng sssirni that utili’es inrilit itHin as t natural was to handle stotm lunolt. t.on<erse tainwater. recharge groundwater storage, smptose water t)ualirv. and mitigaic pollution im{Uct on surrounding surla.i- water- Furiherniote I'NI Eco Stone* will lie cost elTectise. allowing more ellicirnt use of asailable lan.f ihjt otherwise would not be doelupcd due to tecjtiiicments t -r storr-watet retent.o- of bs Imitations on how much impersioui area s al!< wed on a site Cost of complian.e with nuns rectulatorc mar dates for stotitiwaier management could s . nificantls decrease with the use of UNI I CO Stone* T his rtisduct goes the designer a tool that can |se used in a sanetv of wass to address stormwater matugrmeni problems and decrease the ensironmental impet of Land desriopment UNI Ewo Slone* is manufactured lo the same AS 1 M G *>36 specifKations as ci nventional solid concrete unit pasers and possesses the ume stiet-gth. aesthetics, and duiabiliry. yet also has the added fratuie of petmeability. The permeability of UNI Eco-Stone* is achieved by the area of the voids treated by its notched design .Measuiemenis of a typical UNI Eco Storse* pver and basic physical charactenstKS are shown in Eigute I. hfutt / Appros App«0« 31^’ 9* 80mm 11*mm 230mm 3 55 12 18% Pnyalcal Cnaracletlstics Heghtlnchoess \h’ otn Lengtti Numbor o» Uorsw per iq t| l*erc«nU3« o< vod s'ea pe< tq H CompetMon arsd ManulMlsiro U»<i tuj Sstme’is mad# irom a *no slump* ctjncrttc m.f Made unde* titreme pressure a*vJ nqn frequency viprat^ys UNi Eco Siona* has a re.in.mum corrpressive ilrengin ol 8000 pS". a nasmum water acsorpUyi o' 5*^«. and w.ii n eet c oiceed ASTM C-936 and freeee lhaw testing pe* secton 8 ol ASTM C 6<* The void area of the UNI Eco-Sione* pacemeni is created when the pasers ire installed (Figure 2) To procwlr a stable pavement surface and facilitate rainwater infiltration, the void area of the UNI l io Stone* must be filled with a graded aggregate suiuble fur the project parameters (Eigute 3|. Ftfr,} DRAINAGE DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE GUIDELINES FOR UNI ECO-STONE* PERMIJUILE PAVEMEN F i:' mm' l»> Su l.iiif, Cao Daryl Poilnska Citadtiatc Assistanls ro; rr-rt ■ i SS___i r '' Dan G /ollinprr Assoviaic I’rofcisor The Dcpariiiicnt of Civil En{;inccring The Texas A&M University System Sponsurcti by 4 cinai UNI-GROUP U.S.A. * vC ^-'-J. • T' 5 i S-: ;S# i; ■;■ •>"• •• w« ^ . -‘** • V ? > TABLE OF CONTENTS ListofRguict ......................................................... Lise of Tables.............................................................................. ............................................................ ^^*P**e L Introduction........................................................ Advantages of Using UNI Eco-Stone* Pavement.....................!.!!.!!.!............................................\ The Considerations for Water...................................................... *..................................................^ The Purpose of This Report ................................................................................................................a ^®**P**^ 2. General Hydrology Concepts .......................................... * ^ Rainfall. Intensity-Frequency-Duration Curve..................................................................................................1 The Depth of Rainfall.................................................*..*!!.*.*.*................................................................. Storm Water Runoff Volume.............................................. Unit Hydrograph....................................................................... ........................................ Chapter 3. Surface Drainage System ...................................................... Computation of Runoff............................................................... Chapter 4. Subsurface Draiiuge Design ........................................... g Introduction ............................................................ General Consideratioru ............................................................. .......................................................... Pro^riies of Material.............................................................. ^ Design Alternatives..................................................... .................................* Design Criteria.................................................................................. I! Inflow Consideratioru............................................................ ...................................... Outflow Considerations ................................. .......................... Removal by Subgrade Percolation ..............................................................................14 Removal by Subsurface Drainage................................................ ............................w The Seleaion of Base Material........................ .......................,, Filter Oiterb ........................................ .................................................................... ? Collection S)*stem ....................................................................... _ Maintenance .............................................................. jg Chapter 5. Performance of IVrmeable Block Plavemeni Systems ...................... I9 Permanent Deformation Characterization................................................. Permanent Deformation Prediction....................... __ References Appendix A Design Procedure for Drainage and Base Thickness for UNI Eco-Stone* Paver Block Pavement Systems ......................................................... ^ Appendix B UNI Eco-Stone* Pavement Design and Drainage Worksheet ........................................ g I Appendix C Storm Frequency Data..................................................................... P . Appendix D a Permeability and Gradation Data................................. • ivMumoaoufUia. 2) Under heavy wheel loads, free water contained within the la)Tr$ of the pavement structure will build up water pressure. This water pressure will lead to erosion, ejection of the base material, disintegration of the base layer, ar J will cause pumping in concrete pavements and serious damage to asphalt pavemenu. Because water in the pavement is of particular concern, it is of i.iterest to control water in the pavement and reduce maintenance Current practices to accomplish this are: 1) Keeping surface water out of the pavement sptem, or 2) Minimir ing the presence of water in the pavement structure for extended periods of time. During the past decade, a belief has developed with respect to the rninimiution of the impact of w ater on pavement performance by waterproofing the surface layer to reduce infiltration of water into the pavement structure. Maintenance efforts for asphalt and concrete pavement types have focused a great deal of effort on sealing the pave ment surface layer. A seal coat has often been used on top of asphalt pavement surf aces to prevent rainfall from infiltrating into the pavement. Several joint scaling technologies and methods have been developed to minimize water infiltration into both asphalt and concrete pavement joinis/ctacks. Rut in practice, it is ver)- difficult to keep water completely out of the pavement system because of development of random cracking or other failures only a few years after construction (6). Pavement engineers have come to realize that proper drainage design is important for good pavement performance with respect to infiltrated water. Stone^ pavement s>'stem to properly drain water from the pavement stiucture to minimise potential damage. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT This report is written in conjurtetion with current information and technology* regarding drainable pavement systems, llovsevrr, its ultimate purpose is to provide guidance for an engineer to design both a pavement structure and a drainage system incorporating UNI Eco-Stone* and to defir^e the limits and conditions associated with the retention of water within the pavement system and long-term pavement performance, 'fhe Fxo-Stone* pavement system. w*hich allows w-ater to infiltrate into the pavement structure, provides the design engineer with possibilities for pavement surface water control. However, the engineer must projierly design each component of the paveme.nt system to reduce the impact of water retention on performance. It is well recognized that the base and uibgrade strength will decrease as water content increases and that the infiltrated water will influence the pavxment performance. In order to control tunoff water so that it will have as little impact as possible on pavement performance, the L^NI Fco- Stone* pavement system will need to be designed to accommodate the anticipated traffic for the expected infiltrated moisture conditions llie process todesign the base layer thickness and drainage components and to select the base material gradation relative to the performance of the pavement is essential to the designer. Consideration should also be given to aggregate mineralogy, as some aggregate types have less abrasion icsistance than others. Investigations by Cedergren (6) indicate that if a properly designed drainag? system is provided, even though infiltration is allowed, the prr --nee of water in the structure for a short peric d of time (i.e. 24 hours) should have little impact on pavement performance. Therefore, the ingress of water into the pavement structure by way of the openi^ gs in the UNI EcO'Stone* pavement surface should be acceptable in terms of pavement performance as long as special drainage design considerations are takm into account. It is important for a UNI Eco* c.UNI caour us A r DRAiNA(;i: misiciN AND PERFORMANCE GDIDEUNIuS FOR UNI ECO-SIONE* PERMEABLE PAVEMENI 1 It.'Kv'. H ■4 by Su l ing Cao I )jiyl PuJu^ka (•laJiiatr A^wstatits - -'S W' Dan Cl. Ztillingrr Assokiair I'rofcsior Thf I>cp.trinicnl of Civil Fitgiiu'criiig Th« TcxjLi A&M Univcrvity Syvtcm Sponsored l>y SAMPLE DESIGN DRAWINGS app.!l” ""f fo'd™g„ co„c„.c p„„ ,pp,.■>„ »i»uid b. c.«ui.«i eiH4UM<Vai«USA 1 L S-lu-oi ClTYofORONO MaaidpalOrnm Slmtliimt; 2750 Rttley Par1iw»ir OraM. MN 55356 HaMtaf Mirtts: P 0 Boi 66 Cnn»\ %»t. m 553236066 April 29,2003 Meadowood, Inc. Robert H. Swanson 18435 Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55436 Re: Zoning Application «03-2890: 3120 North Shore Drive - Variance Dear Mr. Swanson: The City of Orono has received your application for a hardcover variance on the property located at 3120 North Shore Drive. While your application is technically considered as complete, the following critical items of information should be supplied as soon as possible to allow Planning Commission to give >our application fair consideration: 1. 2. A more detailed hardship statement as to why the additional hardcover is necessary. Product/sy-stem literature, testing reports, installation instructions, etc.; i.e. any and all available information regarding the UNI Hco-Stone product you arc proposing to use as a paving system. As we discussed when we met with you on March 26. the Planning Commission mavchoose to table this application to allow additional lime for consideration. The treatment of permeable paving ^tems as ‘non-hardcover ’ or ‘partial hardcover’ has the potential to result in unintended collateral impacts w hich need to be understood before departing from policies that have bcCT in place for nearly three decades. In discussing your proposal with the Planning Commission Chair, it was concluded that the agenda for the May 6 work session is too full to allow you time for a presentation. You may make a presentation when this item is discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing on May 19. However, you could also be allowed a 15-20 minute presentation at the next work session if vou wish, which is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 4, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. Please submit the above requested items of information no later than May 12. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Plaruiing Commission on Monday, May 19,2003. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative are available to attend the meeting. You will receive a staff report regarding yuur application prior to the meeting date. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Michael P. Canton Planning Director 1Utphoac(9S2)24MfM • Pba (9S2) 24M616 Dcbora A. and Robcit J. Malvorson 3135 Nofth Shore Dmc \V3>7aia. Mifuiesou 55391 Td. (952)471-1195 A City ofOrono Planning Comnussion 2750 Kelley Parkway. P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 May 12.2003 We received a notice of a variance request for the property at 3120 North Shore Drive which is located across the road from our home 1 would like to strongly urge you to decline (he variance for the following reasons; 1) The zoning ordinance for hardcover only allows 25®/o. and this request is for 29"/a which is considerable for a lot which is almost 2 acres in size 2) We owned this property about 8 years ago (we owned it for 9 years) and the construction which has taken place on it ever ance we sold it has created an over-built lot The additions have brought the width more than double the original size and it now almost costts the entire width of the lot (was a variance granted on side setback previously?) There is a new very large and unattractive garage which was built on open lawn close to the road which interrupts the flow of the lawns along North Shore Drive as well as creating runoff Along the lakeshore, many very old and sery large trees were all taken out and now the lot is completel>' open with no filtering available for runoff into Maxwell Bay. 3) The additional runoff which will be created by expanding the driveway will ha\ e a detrimental effect on Lake Minnetonka We have a pond with a channel into the lake on our property which is across the road from (his driveway and tlie runoff from (l.e current drivew ay drains into this pond from the road and the drainage ditches Additionally, in the winter the snow is plowed across the road and deposited on the other side of the road from this property and the salt which melts with the snow also drains into our pond This makes it nearly impossible to keep the pond clear and not over-grown with algae Expanding the driveway area will only make the situation much worse I think it is time to hold the line on hardcover requests which in any way impact La ke Minnetonka I recently served on a task force for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District which studied (he water quality of Lake Minnetonka The quality of the water is starting to worsen in several of the bays, one of which is Maxwell Bay. The water flows from Maxwell into Crystal Bay, which is currently one of the cleanest bays in the lake One of the reasons for worsening water quality is runoff, which is partly attributable to overbuilding (large homes on small lots). Please deny this request. Thank you for y^ consideration. Dcbora A. Halvorion fOS-2Ml 4l2SRI|»»MdllMd MajrlS.2Ml rages Staff RfiimiiigBdallon Stiff makes the following recommendatioiu: • Approval ofthe variances for lot area based on the fact the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it w ould not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Approval of the average setback and accessory structure variances as described above. Determine whether the deck will remain in place or whether a variance to topK)f-blufrsetback would C- allowed for its replacement • It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3-4 years to deny the variance for exceeding 25% hardcover in the 75*250' zone for new construction. In order to approve the request. Planning Commission must make findings about the unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property. OpdoBS for Action: 1 . Recommend approval or partial approval, with conditions 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. 1 Table for revision of further discussion, providing applicant with specific direction if possible. Other action. The fourth vari^ ii for a lot area vvianoe. There three lou ccmibined 1990 and there is no land available in the area for purdiase. We have a couple of issues with our lot. which may need to be addressed. First when my parcou oBoved into the bouw there was a boat house about 2S feet from the lake. This itfudure is sdll there. I am tncludtng photos to verify this. The second issue is that there are two exisditg retaioieg walls within the 0-75 foot setback area. Our house is approximately 65 feet above the lake. The angle of the hiU U about 45 degrees. If these walls were not in place there would be long-term consequences for the structure if they were not in place. When we moved into the house we buik a useable garage and by working with the Chy of Orono and the building inspectors we were able to build a structure, which we are proud of todqr. We are expecting to be able to have the same relation^p through out this project Respectfully Submitted Bobbi and Jack Henrich # O O n Q; '-J r L S-lu-t>h GIlTorORONO Mmiidpal Offices Strict Mimt: 2750 Mki Psrtmiy Orono, MN 55356 HiHliit Minn: P.O Boi 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 April 29,2003 Meadowood, Inc. Robert H. Swanson I843S Highway 55 Plymouth, MN 55436 Rc: Zoning Application #03-2890: 3120 North Shore Drive - Variance Dear Mr. Swanson: received your application for a hardcover variance on the property located at 3120 North Shore Dnve. \VTnlc your application is technically considered as complete, the following critical items of information should be supplied as soon as possible to allow Plannine Commission to give your application fair consideration: 1. A more detailed hardship statement as to why the additional hardcover is necessary-. 2. Produc^sy-stem literature, testing reports, installation instructions, etc.; i.c. any and all paving sytenr"*^'°" regarding the UNI Eco-Stone product you are proposing to use as a As we discussed when we met with y-ou on March 26. the Planning Commission may choose to table this application to allow additional time for consideration. The treatment of penneablc paving systems as non-hardcover ’ or ’partial hardcover’ has the potential to result in unintended collateral impacts which need to be understood before departing from policies that have been in place for In discussing your proposal with the Planning Commission Chair, it was concluded that the agenda for the May 6 work session is too full to allow yx)u time for a presentation. You may make a presentation when this item is discussed at the Planning Commission public hearing on May 19. However, you could also be allowed a 15-20 minute presentation at the next work session if you wish, which IS tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, June 4.2003 at 5:30 p.m. Please submit the above requested items of information no later than May 12. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday. May 19.2003. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Please make sure that you or your representative are available to attend the meetineat 6 00 pm pi ^ un i*iunutiy, 4>iay ly, zuuj. i ne meeting begins qucstTons^”lc«Vco^^^ t*952^^9 46^***^*^'°"metingdaTe.^Hyouhat?any Michael P. GafTron Planning Director 1UtplMNM(9S2)24M600 • Fas (952) 24M616 www.cienMJBn.iii Are pavers considered hardcover in other cities with lakeshore? Sarah Smith, Moaad: When folks want to use pavers to reduce hardcover we require them to submit the technical information including materials-^soils, etc. with a certifleation from the company as to its permeability. 1 believe the City of Wayzata used the same policy. Be advised that depending on the installation / materials / subgrade the permeability can have quite a range. Jim Robinson, White Bear Lake: The city of White Bear Lake would consider interlocking pavers as hard surface. Gns Karpas, Deephave/GreenwoodAVoodland: The cities of Deepaven, Greenwood and Woodland all consider pavers as imperv ious surface. Only the City of Greenwood has permitted a project to use one of the fancy pavers, that permitted grass to grow throu^ them as immune to the regulation. This has only happened once. Brad Nielsen, Sborewood: Shorewood docs rot allow a reduction for pavers or even gravel driveways. They can easily achieve 80% compaction and gravel driveways eventually seem to get paved. We have met with vendors re: permeable materials, but most of them must be highly engineered, and to date the MnDNR has not signed ofTof them. Someone from the DNR that I talked to made a good point - hardcover is only one aspect of the regultation. Some attention needs to be paid to maintaining green space. Good luck with >t)ur study! We would be interested in hearing the results. Chris Slania, Way'zata: Although Way'zata docs not have any language specifically allowing partial hardcover it has been staffs interpretation to allow deductions for types of pavers that do allow water infiltration. In a situation like this we would ask for a density / solid surface calculation from the manufacturer to help determine how much deduction could be allowed per square foot of product. Hope this helps...let me know if you have any questions. Minnetrista?? Apparently they do not consider pavers hardcover ...not checked into Y AppllcatloB Received: 4/1B/D3 AppIkitioM Complcle: S/7/03 00 Day Deadline: 7/7/03 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron. Planning Director May 15.2003 #03-2893 John & Roberta Hetirich 4125 Highwood Road Variances ~ Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 28.648 s.f. (0.66 acre) Application Snmmary: The applicants propose to remove the existing house and construct a new house on the property. The lot is located in the LR-IB zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acn. and a lot width of 140' measured at the lakeshore and at the 75* setback. They arc requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (0.66 acre) having a conforming lot width of 150'-157’. An average lakeshore setback variance is requested for an encroachment of approximately 8' by the proposed house. The existing detached garage will remain, requiring a variance to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure during the constmetion period. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 37.71% where only 25% is normally allowed. List of Exhibits A Application B Letter of Request. Neighbor Comments C Survey/Proposed Site Plan D Hardcover Calculation Worksheets E Hardcover Map F Elevation Vicws/Floor Plans G Plat Map H Property Owners List I Site Photos J Resolution No. 2858(1990 hardcover variance) Pcrtinenl Code Sectioas 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Required lot area: 1.0 acre Lot area: 0.S4 acre •0J.290I 4I2S Hichwood R«ad May IS,2(MJ Pa«c2 Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L); Hardcover limitations: Allowed Existing Proposed 0*75 ’ 0% 6.5 %• 6.5% 75-250 ’ 25% 37.1%* 37.71% • AAcr exclusion of fabric or plastic-lmcd landscape beds Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(C)(6), variance to permit an 8’ encroachment of the average lakeshore setback Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A), variance to allow an accessory structure (existing detached garage) without a principal structure during the construction period. Existing Conditions The lot currently contains an existing residence structure which the owner wishes to replace, and a detached garage which is proposed to remain. BlpfT lmp.ac{.7opc - The site has sleep slopes, and although a formal bluff anal>’sis has not been completed, the easterly 2/3 of the 0-75' zone appears to meet the criteria for a bluff, having an average slope of 32-34% from the shoreline to the 956 ’-958 ’ contour, above w hich the slope reduces to no more than 18%. Both the existing house and proposed house arc outside of the bluff impact zone as defined by the 956-958* contours moving cast to west, and just meet the top-of-blufT 30' setback requirement. However, the existing deck which is proposed to either remain in place or be reconstructed, is within 1-2' of the top of bluff at its southeast comer EltjslinR 9-75' Zppp Amenities . Existing retaining walls, concrete or flagstone walkways and stainvays in the 0-75 ’ zone arc in good condition and no changes arc proposed. The 0-75* zone also contains an 8'x 1 2’ shed and an area of landscape timbers surrounding planting beds near the shore. The existing 0-75' landscaping has been developed for many >'cars and is a unique feature of this property that applicant would prefer to not disturb. There also is a stone lined pond area east of the house in the 0-75' zone which is underlaid with landscape fabric. This area is not proposed to be changed but the fabric liner must be removed according to City requirements (Resolution No. 4006). Dnvgwavs and SUg Acgess. Another unique characteristic of the property is the driveway access which IS a circuitous route from Highwood Road to the detached garage, and includes a large paved ai^ for parking and mancuvenng. plus retaining walls that accomplish the necessary grade change \Vhilc this area could likely be totally reworked to result in a more cmcicnt access and reduced hardcover, applicant again notes that this would change the entire character of the property Minor revisions to the paved areas are proposed in an anempt to reduce hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone M3-29fl 4l2SlllKh»MdRoad May I5.2M3 ratcJ Ctaeral Conformity to Zoning Code and Comprehensive PUn The site plan centers the new house within the 7S-2S0’ zone, meeting all required lot line setbacks but encroaching slightly past the average setback. The new house will encroach only 2-3' further past the average setback line than the existing house, and will have insignificant impact on neighboring views of the lake. The house location approximately 107' from the lakeshorc meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures. The existing detached garage is less than 20 years old and is in good condition. It contains a storage area below which (its well with the topography of the site. The primary concern is the hardcover variance request. The Plarming Conunission and Council have been fairly consistent in denying hardcover variances for new construction unless a distinct hardship can be demonstrated. Structural coverage (excluding decks which arc currently not above 6') is proposed at approximately 2370 s.f. or 8.3 %, well within the 15 % limitation. Lot Area This record lot consists of 3 combined platted lots. The lots w ere originally platted prior to current zoning standards, and developed lots in the neighborhood typically consist of 1 lot, in a few cases 2 or 3 lots combined. This is one of the larger properties in the neighborhood. The site has contained a single family home for many years. The substandard lot area is inherent to the property. No adjoining land is available to make the lot larger. While the substandard lot area somewhat limits the re-use of the property for construction of a replacement home, a replacement home could be constructed that meets all other zoning code standards, hence the area variance should be granted. Averayc Sclbick The proposed replacement home is in approximately the same location as the existing house, with a very minor additional average setback encroachment of 3-4' past the existing house. This will have virtually no impact on neighboring views of the lake due to the orientation of the adjoining house to the west and the topography. The average setback variance should be granted. Aceeasorv Structure Wilhout Priacipal Structure During the period between demolition of the existing home and completion of the new home, the detached garage will technically have the status of an acensory structure without a principal structure, not in compliance with Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A). This variance should be granted, subject to removal of the detached garage if a principal structure is not commenced in a timely manner ^er demolition of the existing bouse. •03-290I 4t2SniKk«Mdll«td May 15.2003 fagc4 Bluff ImpiKH If the existing deck remains in place, it has a legal nonconfonning status in regard to the bluff wtbKk. u II constraclcd in 1990, prior lo Die 1992 adoption ofblufrordinanc« as pan of the Shoreland o^inance. If it is replaced, it will require a variance lo the required 30 lop of-bluff setback requirement for stmclures. Hardcover Variance Propos^ hardcover in the 75-250’ zone is 6.280 s.f. or 37.7 1 The applicant has included in his letter of i^uest a number of factors which he believes arc hardships that support the variance request These factors include the ability to park numerous vehicles offof Highuood Road which IS vc^ narrow and has only minimal ability for on-street parking. A hardcover variance was granted for the site in 1990 rcsulung in a reduction from 43.6% to 43.0% in the 75-250’ zone (Sec Exhibit The house footprint is increasing in sire from about I240s.f. to 1600 s.f. WTiile the new house is not excessive for the lot, the ancillar>' hardcover is the primary issue for discussion. It is stairs opinion that a site plan could be developed that would accommodate the proposed new home on this property without the need for a hardcover variance. However, that would require lisufs for Coaildcrallon 1.Applicant has indicated that most areas of hardcover on the property arc necessary cither for vehicularmovcmcnt. pwking.orlodeal with topographic fcaluressuchastheretainingwalls OTd walkxvays. It might be argued that the access to the site is inefTlcient in terms of hardcover usage and should be totally revamped as part of the home replacement project. k ^ c hardcover to result ina rebuild that more closely meets the 25% limit... hardcover request sufficient to If the hardcover variance is approved, will Planning Commission be able to distinguish the unique aspects of this application from similar requests for rebuilds on similar sized lots? ........... ri- —4-r IV-* — V,1 t(U-2Ml 4125H%^WMdltMd MqrlS,2M3 ragtS Stair Rcc«iMm#nii»Hon Stair makes the following recommendations: • Approval ofthe variances for lot area based on the fact the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Approval of the average setback and accessory structure variances as described above. Oetermine whether the deck will remain in place or whether a variance to top-of*bluff setback would illowed for its replacement. • It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3-4 years to deny the variance for exceeding 25% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone for new construction. In order to approve the request, Planning Commission must make findings about the unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property. Options for ActloB ! 1 . Recommend approval or partial approval, with conditions. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3.Table for revision of further discussion, providing applicant with specific direction if possible. Other action. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAVMthr LR-IB Lot Area Lot W idth Required 43,560 sT. (1 acre)UO* Actual 28,648 s.r. (0.66 acre)150*-15r Stnictiiral Coverage : Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 28,648 s.f.Allowed: 4,342 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,370 s.f ± (8.3%) Hardcover ColculotioBi! Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Exbting hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75 ’11,993 s.f Os.f (0%) 779 s.f (6.5 %) 779 s.f (6.5 %) 75-250'16,655 s.f 4,164 s.f (25%) 6,180* s.f (37.1 %)• 6,280 s.f (37.7 %) cm* OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORIVUTION, j Site Address jf fAyaa €/ (r a Property Identification Number^.I.p!) ^7 II 7^ AppllcatioD H 0‘d> Date Rccelved~<y//1(//^ j Amount Paid ...................^7JI7X________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date 0*9 - / / 7 - a 3 - ^ Uj^O I (do) also o^^m the adjacent parcels of land. ' PresentoScof propeity: X residential other (soecifV) _(month/year) Zoning District: / O-f APPLICANT flobe/4a. Name LtX n P^/*tc4 Address: V/2 S fidf OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_________________________ Address: Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) TtiaT - ^ f City ^^QJUO Zip:^.S3^V~“ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ ^Oj OOP, Describe request in detari: ^ ^ Kueu^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^AR^’CES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: . Lot Width Front Side Hardcover .Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore )( Other (specify) A^C/><^oa ^ <-^d urfoia HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_____________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) # required SUB^^TTALS ». -— ...„ *• ---- Completed Application Fonn 5. _ «7'- of floor I oIcv,,ro„'v?ir& (OcoTy ■ • - p-X •" *" -»o — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT S SIGNATURE Administrator, agrees’to ^y *‘ld>lioMrfees°(L'ff t^ll“ *’^ Zoning consultant expenses incurred in review of ihi. .nnf .■ . onginal fee payment) and/or .applied i, true mtd comect to L bTof wilder Applicant's Signature . y D.,, ? OWNER’S SIGNATURE entiy onto the property by^c1i>* stafn^^suhams* acente' c" authorizes reasonable members tor purposes of investigation'and vcrificat’ion of this Owner's Signature__ ^----------------------------------- Date^____________ cas” "zs s“ t„“*‘S ST r™'? AppHc.nl. must be presenl at all sebeduM rertew *“'> Council. If «, applicant is unable to attend a Commliilen and have «. authorized agent «tend in your pl«e Jt^r^d^LTe •» change prior to the mectmg. Building Sc. Zomng Office of this #r ’ !• * ^ V-____• 7 B April IB. 2003 City of Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Orooo,MN 55323 RE: Variance Request 4125 Highwood Rd To Whom It May Concern: I moved into Orono when I u-as 18 months old My parents bought a house at 4125 Highwood Rd I grew up in that house. In 1989 my wife Bobbi and I bought the house from my parents This property has been in our family for almost 50 years. The house on the property is at least 82 years old When built there w-ere no building codes and I am not sure the person/persons who built it knew what a level or tape measure was. The house is slowly falling down and we wish to build a new house on the lot. We have considered remodeling the house, but that is not a viable option. However to build a suitable house on this lot will require four variances The first variance request is for hard cover The way our garage sits (close to the road and cut into a hill) we are not able to drive directly onto Highwood. We must first drive to the west make a sharp turn then drive out northeast. When 1 park in the garage it is easiest for me to back in and I must serpentine back up to get into the garage This is why we need such a large driving area. Highwood is a very narrow road and there is no room for on road parking, our driveway can accommodate ten cars This keeps vehicles off the road and allows traffic to be able to move through safely. Many times in the past we have allowed our neighbors to park there when they are having people visit. Removal of any of the drive area would create a considerable hardship. When we built the garage in 1990 we were granted a hard cover variance Our next variance request is for average setback. Our two neighbors houses to the west are farther south than ours is, however the house to the east is quite a bit further back. I feel the main reason for this is because we are on the tip of a point into the lake and they are on the receding side Our house faces due south and the house to the east faces more southeast. I have discussed our building plans with the neighbors and they agree that our new house will not affect their view of the lake. I am including a letter from they stating that they have no objection to our building plans We have a very good relationship whh all of our neighbors and their opinion on our building plans is very important to us. The third variance request is that we will be tearing down the primary residence but wish to leave the garage. The garage is a little over 10 years old and in excellent shape # The fourth varUnce is for a lot trea varitnce. There were three lou combined into one in 1990 and there is no land available in the area for purchase. We have a couple of issues with our lot, which may need to be addressed. First when my parents moved into the house there was a boat bouse about 2S feet from the lake. This structure is still there. I am including photos to verify this. The second issue is that there are two existir^ retaining walls within the 0-75 foot setback area. Our house is approximately 65 feet drove the lake. The aitgle of the hill is about 45 degrees. If these walls were not in place there would be long-term consequences for the structure if they were not in place. When we moved imo the house we built a useable garage and by working with the City of Orono and the building insj^ori we were able to build a structure, which we are proud of todqr. We are expecting to be able to have the same relationship through out this project Respectfully Submitted Bobbi and Jack Henrich # O o o Q Joanne & George Applebaum 4109 Highwood Road Orono, Minnesota 55364 (952) 472-1270 Gapple ^ aolcom %-\ Much 17,2003 Bobbi&JackHeorich 4I2S Highwood Road Orooo,MNSS364 DearBobMAJack, At your request, and at the reconunendatiofi of the dly, we are writing this letter to express our thoughts to your fcouest for a variance to the ciQr's avraige lakeshoie setback ordinance. Brst, we want you to know that we are excited about your upcoming project and thrilled at the prospect of having you as neighbors indefinitely! Now back to tiw inue at hand We strongly support the issuance of the variance, as we cannot imagine a situation in which the positioning^your new home on your lot would in any wty have a negative impact with our enjoyment of our fabulous lake views. From what you have described. I don't believe that we would even see your new house from ouis. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Warmest regards. Joanne A George Applebaum n (Q Adjaccat Property Ovniers' Acknowledsemeol Form I (we) WAi>/CV Koch.________of /«-«=' [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __________________also refened to to Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. -c>3 Property Owner Date Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No._______. I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please subnut your comments to the Building A Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. # *■9.. J f iV^; '-m imm^/r f I , ife r&a!, iKffe. '^i■Ti <J.i. aVW . r r. .-V * -i_________ i VX•*» ^ ‘ - *• • .• • •*•-,. ^ t lUSa "*• ^n*n*» Ou^it;^rju 1118 » —... - ...i #2893 ftojM ^ ’jsns.^ I •*)r OM ffCTAMMt} t'^ tomt» nc^ :■ C4Tk •*%/ •»liV rL "^ ”'T . Cifv- noo* j . ., .... ^»*»»* ; fiM I’liABW - KMu tmAf^ von yS*»i :r-*: o . "• * 3 coNC»nr -' r«nfMC: etcf : C\. f'‘ f iiu.rr - -CCW. •orrcNO JICXUNN^ if - - i _______ r?^vS^- •• i :9 ■ ,Ot<"‘ 22 pnonsa hctmonc mhu owwic sovr M nrr V, .—\ <HMf fr*..r • • % \ ■'V m --Wv'« •*»i mvBCD aPVMous sunct ahu oncutAma. y // lots 19. 20. AND 21 Hlghwood Lake Uinnetonka HENNEPIN COUNTY. kUNNESOTA OMW UNT /DCr occeuow n«r eoNtmeus mtr 5MI(« a-:-; 0*^'^ V-' \ lor ium SFTIUCK - OniMO OtAtfC OMnnir ■ XJii aif.SSms tmMMmo was - JM >.r. • a y«I »> St7«f / ICSM • HSM ■ t ■ •*! » < SOCMMiCS MtO iVTMNMO WUS - <78 »r. ■a.ii«cjgiBwoLH ?n ix 77t / I1.SM - Ul J ---------MOOT eowiDor — tmmtamJC oowrour SPOT armitoM cutorr un/TY POU eurmoc emumus suraer oat suonetJ 09 h9rw«r carfsy IA«f Mt * • (fM «n8 tmffmet n$ Bur.*y et M 0! Om >094 000tm*4 00mm 004 0/»m >000000 0mm 000> 00 000409% >00/000, 004 04 «*Mi »icnw8wwH O 040, t 00 004 1004. 9. ^ m00 mm. m imrn 30 as - MBYCR.-ROHl.n4. INC CNCINCCRS-IAND SURVCYOmS WM MM MAL. ■»,»».>■> MM MJIJ 00. {00%) 000~t%0> «W {00%) 00M-0000 (MMfN or AAM SHOT 1. - SHOTS I_ or I ru MU£2229. ^^^KVV'CCO ROA ,-GUY mR€T "fSrr-^Piortc Rt. lAiNtH>, l*fAU HOL'-iC k' *.**.', ^ l</ cxisriNC ; OtCK . f MAwn.oo»? ;.J q a£V -96M9 ' & ^ fioa t'arwnow - *«&5''<S ^ • / toiKtr/iBWorv. .jo / vT / pMUMX/fJ -»A5 bas CUCNT J ( '/ 7c J' ;«2n.»,f \ WALLS/'-OC ON REJAlNtNO \ ^.-PROPERTY COWER \1Q\ \ \ EXTEND RETAININC HWX CYi'^iirj’': m tK I „ X 9?S *f ? ?/-PROPOSED '/ STEPS ( CONCRCTF’' _■"“ Oa- E/ISUNC / eP ,..iANrT^t^c 956 ‘ J'MOCMj »-WAf 20 :picot -JSPSPIki jL BOT 956.5 22 PROPOSED RETAINING WA --MfOc'K RCTAtniNC WAU 95; 050----- ■'a^a-l'd^^ |v —«&- 0 \l\ -X 6 \ol»' a,. /5^ <iYL 11 wrAiN^wo wAU ;2 '/ rH /////./.CM TvTTrjTTTrTTr cxir.riNC CAPMV lO^ft noof? V LLCV.»95A«i HCKnz UAIN nOOR y rL£V -96M-9 ^ MAW fioo jfnrwwjw • •Wh S'^o . lomkrnKumfv. :Jo / OMUWn BASCMCNr ^ 2^"" ^///t3.p.v/^; / / ,0^ / I M> S X 953 s f T/-PROPOSI STEPS 79 CXfSIlNC I DECK J f/isnuc DECK ...-wArcR cpjcor- EXTENO RELFA/N/N^WALL cxi$m.-. mcK ■f- IT' 22 PROPOSED RETAJNING WA v_ . *- •tf , ^ • - ?rr^ r*^\ c»4AiN uwK Truer-^ "* •V^ \ .^ICAMNC) --fKOCK ffCTAIUlUC WALL /= a.. G.- \ JT APtA nuTsuyp or ts* iakf sftback » tc.css a.L ^HMous sifWfAfT AREA nunme or 7S* lake setback :r-'2o KtSTlNG HOUSE - 1^34 s./. XIS7INC GARAGE - 764 a.f. RIVEmr m J.J6T 9.f. IDEKtlALKS AND RETAINING WALLS - 362 s.f. Wb 6«f»d/ cart/f/ the survay of tho bounce HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHELi SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0>75'75-250*250-500*500-1000' A. Home X ._S.F. UngUi X Widik ■t SJ. X m SE. X •m*_S.F. B. Gmge a 5-X m V ^>0 _ S.F. C. Drive»-ay X m S.F. X m _ S.F. D. Stdeu-alk X a67 S.F. X ■I SP. E PatioDeck 3/X m S.F JL \ L X ■1 U SF. |.A7>y F. Laodscap«uc.X 1 ■’■S F ^—' Underlain X m " S F ^ j By Plastic X m S F G. Other X 1 :: c S.F. -art' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE (23/8 S.F A TOTAL PROPER-n* AREA IN ZON*E .SF. B A • B tU.fsf:: X 100 •i 1371?= A - B ]X 100 m _s PROPOSED H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House a V X 3^T m /6 5>'_ S F. Untth X V^idth m S.F. X m SF. X m _ S.F. B Garage X 3>^P m ->^o _ S.F. C. Dnveivay X m •? (?9.<S.F. X m _ S.F. D. Sidewalk X ■'lO^S.F. X m I S F. E. PatiaDeck /X / <•m w sc S.F. ( 6 X 7/2-r m _ S.F. F. Landscape X m S.F. Underlain X ■" S F. By Plastic X m I S F. G. Other X _ S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PBOEERTV' AREA IN ZONE B X 100 6X8p sj. ~S.F. ■-i7>7/ H L<tEaB«4Nlfi HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZQME A B C O E F O H ULD X Ifl X 1 m m 8.F. 9M X Ifl X (L5 m aa 8.F. 2i X at X ILS m saa 8.F. »X X 1 m izaa 8F, X 2fi X m m 8.F,n X US X 1 m fizz 8.F. IflJZ X ISJfi X 1 m iss 8.F. IfldZ X 2LB X QA m in 3346 8.F. 8^. HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE c D E F G H i X la X 1 ■aa 8.F. 6.66 X la X a^■aa 8F.a X aa X SA m aaa 8.F. 37.6 X X 1 m im 8.F.iSLaa X aa X ILi m laa 8.F.aa X 13.5 X 1 m m 8.F. IflJZ X 1S.2S X 1 m laa 8.F. IflJZ X 21.75 X iLa m in 3065 8.F. 8.F. IMRDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET Sictowalks EXISTINQ HARDCOVER IN ZONE A B C 0 E F 2fi 21 Ifi 1 IS 2J 3J t 2AZ fl 33 flfi IS fiQ S 32 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8^. HARDCOVER CACULAT10N WORKSHEET SidMvalks PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A B C D E F Q H fi 21 13 3 8 1 2 3 123 ZA 3LS 8 2AZ 8 fi 1 8 88 13 13 21 32 18 12 204 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F, 8.F. c p 2>‘t< HU,S 5 1&.}>$KS0X f- ^7X /7 I O Cak '^ K If' r Y ; ^•5 C ’ ■ iMi»«n --------—r- -r —-^- c ■'•*' *• \x j| ^;j 'Q ; ! i I U -. • ]• k W ^t r- IXD OD Q i \Ti siiiiifjjmririo i (0 fv) HttH^MtNSl^^ \- ? s -A* *. r. •^v ;>^• _ '• #v* A- “'I* '^^OTte?. • ■■•• ■ ■'■ ■ ■.'-4r ^ ILv i. ■ >^ “% M ■ '■rjr»“•>«4^ mm.i Rgmi-.-mm -m mmB tJ'r*“ ^1 - " . j--^- ' i,-j -^.t» 'HS»^ ■ --- • ^ ■f: mm fc-/ - .4^d&awr, mm V . V ;.*• f‘V -v. '■rY ■ ^ ‘ ..' • . -i /•.'f <•># :,>,-,j;,-; =3;X ,'i r-;^; ''- ■•'i-_o,j^ * ; • -*^r '^JE'S - -' VW » -«i» '. - M--^£m :^f* A C VI - »•■•»*• -«■ '■ .vf;-is.g^§^*^2iigs??-?4S; r CityofORONO T u I I ' 1 II ORONO I RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2858 h RBSOLUnCM GMUITIIIG VMOARCBS TO mmiCZPAL SOHIMG CODE SBCnOM 10.22, 8UBOIVISIOVS 1 ft 2 PILE 11559 NBBltSAS, John and Roberta Henrich (hereinafter "the applicants' are owners of the property located at 4125 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 19, 20 and 21, Highwood Lake Minnetonka; Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City of Orono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 t 2 to permit the construction of a room addition, detached garage, and decks, such decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such Improvements overall constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, TBERKPORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, PINDIIIGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1559. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and on a vote of 5 to 0 recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: a. Due to the location and orientation of neighboring residences, the average lakeshore setback encroachment has no significant impact on views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners. b. Hardcover on the property is 43.6% in the 75-250* zone. There is excess driveway hardcover on the property that can be re'oved in conjunction with the proposed add tIons, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property above the pre-existing 43.6% level in the 75-250* zone. Page 1 of 4 City of OROINQ , s t ? ( ORONO j Ik m RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2868 C*' The applicants revised their proposal by limiting the size and height of the detached garage to avoid the need for a setback or height variances. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commissiont reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 4 2 to permit the construction of a 25* x 30* detached garage, 6* x 14J bedroom addition, in addition to decks on the lakeside of the existing residence, such decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such additions in total comprising hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 43.6%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additional hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 r City of 0R.01N0 > RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL HO. _2858--------------- , ^ S; •• ■ • Because all setbacks and hardcover calculations were reviewed on the basis that the three lots are a single property, applicants shall legally combine for tax purposes Lot 19 with Lots 20 and 21, prior to issuance of a building permit for the improvements . 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 27, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the soning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of JaiM R. Grabek, Myor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek ft Dorothy M. Hallin» Mayor ft City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 4 Cityof OROIVO 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2858 v.-vfi STATE OF MINNESOTA } ) SS. CODNTY OP HENNEPIN ) A-' On this /■ 199^w.. ‘7-^_ _ _ day of _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ before ne a Notary Public within and for'said county, personally appeared uTi. t-:r Uc^r,'cJ^ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COf ^IRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appearea known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 r RESOLUTION N28S8 STATE OF NIIICSOTA COUNTY OF icmcriH ) ) CITY OF OIONO ) ».>cv z Dorothy N. Hallln, City Clork of tho City of Orono, Honnopln County, Hlnnooota, do haraby eartlfy that I hava eoaparad the forofolni eopy of a raaolution of tha City Couaeil of the City of Orono with tha original raeord of auoh raaolution in tha Hinutas of tha proeaadinga of aald'City Couneil at a naating of said City Council held on_ _ _ _August 27_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1S90 and that tha Sana ia a true and eorraet copy of said raaolution was duly adoptad by said City Counoll at said naating. In Vitnass Vbaraof, I hava hereunto aat ay hand and seal this 28th_ _ _ _, day of _ _ _ _ _August_ _ _ _ _ _' 1990 othy llin. City Clark (SEAL) > •S>0i£/T A :# —2858^ WBQW ciUBuinai mnaef BTuet Ml Ceuoi mm) »-7S’ Eumw i TMwm w SZSS ^ >t *%•. ®hss' satkigiB* .*■ •• • •nnt ■ ■ • J 'rr r."* -4?- -<i - . ^ r* r«rtaM* mi* • ‘ . Ja*« mm4 totort* ■—rl«* ___jr . ._ f. ■•l 4m* bsr4MMr *f«v*M4i _ (II I 1*1 • (T I T| • (I I •) tT* • 4* • II • Mf *.r. #3:g5 Bm% •441UM4I *M4«M*r la a44itlM • *.r. ■•« aamiMal *aM«« kar4c**«ri III 1 Ml . 114 I III • III a.r. I. SlOBMUl .•7^' ys» . ✓ p 5s' _ t.r. ✓ Cm *»t a44m«aal 4rlM—r larIcMM: II X Ml • (III 1 41/ti • m a.r. ratal aat aMUiaaal • Ilf • III • tl« • l.lff a.f. /r ** Sia^ 'iar" B~.“.njLsne Mina* Ml l»M*al af aarraat *a«4ca«art t.f. ✓ 7*Ota a«cK Mrttaa I X 10 ■ 10 a.f. Malkaar fraa lack I X II a S« a.f. Ortvaaar IT X 10 a ]T0 a.f. OriaaMf (14 X III a |||| | tl|/|| a TIT a.f. f.fatal karkcaaar raMaai a l.m a.f. . I.f. A*-' larOcaaar Ikaaarr far tka ri» - IM* ai I. Ona _ M’ - no* arm Catatlao: fraaaaa* aat aaattiaaali fatal oraaaaaai 1 a I4.H0 a.f. i.iio a.r.a 41.n I.OTT a.r.a T.«« T.4IT a.r.a li.n Tma. IMMM tm 2mm - J .®w. ^Mnr 1.1.0 • - •• EJ «w. • * •p«e^0O5rf/«<^ -. (aaa barOMaar raMaaiai • i.iTi a.r.a - i.n fatal 1 I.IM a.r.a 41.M a/C ! Jl ^ipUcation Received; 4/22/03 Application Complete: 4/22/03 60 Day Deadline: 6/20/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planmng Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: May 14,2003 SUBJECT: #03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 4195 Highwood Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Distrki: LR-IB Oi e Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 0.9 acres (39,150 s.f.) Application Snnmary: The applicant is requesting the following variances to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stain within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. 524 s.f. (4.6H) hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone where none is permitted; 2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75* of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and 3. placins fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.__________________________ Exhibits: A Application B Survey C Hardcover Calculations D Proposed Plan E City Engineer Comments F Topography Map G Resolution #295 1 H Plat Map 1 Property 0\^’ner*s List J Permit Record K Photos Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JX2): Grading, filling St excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75* of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. (Request: Gr^ing, filling and 903-2894 Dallas and Roban Smbh 5/14/2003 Past I 4 excavating within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading, filling nor excavating is permitted). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LXI) & (2): Hardcover within 75’: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcov er, temporary or permanent structures. (Request: to permit 524 s.f (4.6%) hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted). 3. Section 10.56, Subd. 3 (2 &3) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)( 3): Bluff Impact Zone: The bluff impact zone is defined as the bluff and land located within 20* of the top of a bluff Structures and accessory facilities, except stairwa>3, landings, and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zx)nes. 4. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (JX5)(h): Filling in bluff impact zones: Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluffimpact zones. (Request: placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted). Ilbtory: In 1983, a variance was granted to allow construction of a 24’ x 32’ detached garage 9.6’ from the street property line (zoning file #762; resolution #1509). In 1991, a variance was granted for an encroachment into the average lakcshore setback as a result of a major remodeling of the home (zoning file #1628; resolution #2951). Within this resolution, the existing deck within the 75’ setback from the OHWL was addressed. The resolution states as follows: “Applicants arc hereby placed on notice that deck and access stair structure within the 75’ lakeshore protected area is nonconforming and subject to all pertinent standards of the Code. Any plans to make structural repairs to this structure will require approval of the City of Orono”. In 2002, variances to allow an addition onto the principal structure encroaching into the average lakeshore setback and for an addition onto the detached garage 9’ from the street property line were granted (zoning file #02-2742; resolution #4751). No mention was made of the nonconforming deck within 75’ of the OHWL in this application. Discussion: Grading. Filling & Excavating within 75’ of the OHWf^ The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stairs and approach to the stairway due to safct>- concerns. The existing stairs are rotting and in need of replacement. Due to the topography of the land, it is necessarv* to have stairs on the property to access the lakeshore. The removal of* the existing stairs and retaining walls will require filling and grading around the new stairs and walls. Since the work will be done within 75’ of the OHWL and more than 10 cubic yards of material will need to be moved, a variance is required. “^e applicant has stated that no more than 50 cubic yards of fill will be required to accomplish the proposed stairs and retaining w^ls. The public hearing notice for this application stated that a conditional use permit was required for Tiovemcni of more than 500 cubic yards. However, since the notice was published, it has been clarified that no more than 50 cubic yards of fill will be *03^2894 Douglas and Rohan Smith 3/14,2003 Page 2 of 4 necessary, eliminating the need for a conditional use permit Hardcover 0-75' setback zone There exists 11,250 s.f. within the 0-75’ setback zone. Within this area, the existing retaining walls, stairs and deck are 832 s.f. (7.4%). The applicant is proposing to reduce the hardcover to 524 s.f (4.6%) within this setback zone. The zoning ordinance alloxs-s for stairways of no more than 4’ in width a.nd 32 s.f landings within the shore setback zone on properties with major topographic changes towards the lake. The applicants are proposing to rebuild the stairs with the necessary retaining walls down to the lake so that they conform to the maximum 4’ width permitted with 32 s.f landings, reducing hardcover within the setback zone. The proposal meets the design criteria of the zoning ordinance. There is an existing 312 s.f deck that is not proposed to change with this application. The deck is nonconforming and in need of repair. ma Staff did not conduct a bluff analysis to determine if there is a bluff on the property. From a review of the changes in topography on the lot, staff determined that there is a bluff and that the proposed work is within the bluff impact zone. Removal and replacement of the existing steps and retaining wall requires filling in a bluff impact zone where no filling is permitted. The zoning ordinance docs allow stairs and landings in the bluff impact zone. Other Comments: The Building Official has recently inspected the existing deck within 75’ of the OHWL and determined that it would require structural repairs. However, the deck is non-conforming and such repairs would not be permitted without a variance. City Engineer The City Engineer has stated that the proposed plans lack information. The City Engineer requests review of the following before proceeding with this proposal: 1. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside; 2. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and 3. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for CoDsidcraiion: WJ-2894 Douglas and Roban SmUh S/14/2003 Page 3 iff 4 1. Propeities with major topographic changes, prohibiting a property owner to access the lake, are pennitted to have one set of 4* wide stairs with 32 s.f landings to access the lake shore; 2. The proposal reduces hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zone; 3. Removal of the existing stairs and retaining walls requiring filling in the bluff impact zone where filling is not pennitted. Stairs and landings are permitted within the bluff impact zone; 4. The proposal does not address how the hardcover is screened from views on the lake or how the lake will be protected (erosion control plan) during construction; 5. No more than 50 cubic yards of fill should be necessary to complete the proposed project; 6. There ban existing deck within the 0-75* setback zone which is nonconforming and in need of structural repairs. The property ownen were notified in a previous resolution that structural repairs to the deck would require City approval; and 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff RccoBBeadatiooi: Staff recommends approval of variances to replace existing retaining walls and steps within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka as proposed with the following conditions: 1. The existing deck within the 0-75 ’ setback zone requires structural repairs and will not be permitted to be repbeed once it has been removed; and 2. Prior to issuance of the necessary City permits, the following must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of stairway and profile showing how planUngs will screen the hardcover from ihu lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot lines, proposed and existing contours, etc.; b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. *03-2894 Douglas and Roban Smith 5/14/2003 fats 4 of 4 w CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2SO.OO ^ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (do change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application ff 05 •“ Date Received^ Amount Paid ^350. PROPERTY INFORMATION . . Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ~" // 7 ~ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Prape^Acquired______»___________ r Mo^^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(raonth/year) Ptfesent^UfTof property: V residential Zoning District: llG - / A _other (specify). . Phone (home) . 1. Cn Phone (work)>3^ APPLICANT . _____________ _ Name m. ^ 6MtTy^ Phone (work) >,5 Address: QtOr Ui^th^ccQ ^ • City: O/U^/oLf Zip: ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name________________________ Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Estimated ConstnicUon Cost $ 6S&0DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ______________ Describe request in detail: Aany LAts^fT fyOi^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: _ Front ___Side Other (specify)___________________ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /l/£:giD /l AV ro 6tCT t^CWA' yt> (attach additional sheets if necessary) •P’ O O—^ .<s- r. •ir :) .-V • : X REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AH Qf the following fpformation must be submitted bv the «Dplication dpudUne difg In nrrf«.r for votir application to be considered compigtei 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. JL JL 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of o\^-ners within ISO*, bhels and plat map (yon must obtain this list, labels and map from Heimepin County Droartraent of Finance A-603 Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j- x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. • Please remember that V9Mr variance applic at ion is not complete If the above Information has not been tncliid^d. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Ad .iinistrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or cousuliani expenses incurred in review of this appUcation, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^ investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature V Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Appllcaots must be press at all scheduled review meetings of the Pianniog Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of Ibis change prior to the meeting. 4^ O. tr - ««?"iriS“urinve Eden Prairie, 552 ^tettUicate Surwy For Orono* MN Roban Smith Book.. P«0®.Flle 5412 Scilc: T-«0‘ • Dtnotct Iron Hon»Found ^ Total Land Area:39,150 sf. 7S'Lake Setback Area:11,250 sf Usable Land:27t900 sf Existing Lot Cover? 5638 sf 2U N.C. Prop.Gar. & House: noa sf 25S II.c. House: 2015 sf Garage: 780 SF Sidewalk: 312 sf Porch,Deck & Steps 9 House: 1031 sf Deck & Steps to Lake:832 sf ,T Or^v.. 1700 .f . Prop.Gar.Add: 288 sf * House Add::762 if « Deck Add.: 80 if « ^ Add..H.C.:l,130 sf. *mill' Lots 26 t7^ % 27. & :/vnc fUnnetOP, t-T— 77 lOd l£:2l W. IZ Mfl 0S0£-IP6-Z96 : xej Frank B. Cardarel State Beg. No.JSf 3T13WRK) J HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-2S0* 2S0-500' SOO-IOOO* gMCTTNG HARDCQVya tW MST. A. House •WidA X X X • B. Oarage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E Pado/Dcck F. IjndKape Underlaiii By Plastic Q. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________ ♦ B ____ _____________ + B ____ X 100 X too PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. SidewaOc I E Patio/Deck F. LandKape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B _ _ _X 100 S»* Si. ST. S.F. ST. 5*^ST. ST. 3;z ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. 03Z //rjo ST. ST. % _______% ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ^/Z SF. SF. 3/Z SF. ST. SF. ST. ST. TJp ST. ST. 12 J.L o :■;?) rt o.-/ .a- |\m- 1® f^^lXJt<l^ vJ(T^ CftAt^oo W«A» f5w4-' 0^02. ^.OC«t^ ^PP£j2_ iS5M)^xwv < _ V^S»o>J l^r^uuzf,- T l^'£4LofeioTft ETy (soTf ^ -^UV^-Ttc^ ^u»n4- \\c>st A^ A^ T^fA^ \jJ(L£^ liMSL^Cp. SVu£«x fAjV^^V OJ/cfU So.«^ (^o^vofavvAu»><\^'^wy 0/hUu, U»1 U-Ar^^ J I ^( ^cMfiCO A'-^ ^ (^W£o i/i/ Pl-»tf) T>t 6<v»inl ^g^irojcj^ 1/^^ jkii'/JotJO lU i)i/lrJO, 5S34 4«4i,?7K^ i\ LtM6^::,TDNye "5t€P DEV-p ^u: ,-ir 1------------T- ^ 4 -:^5 ct CaMa, Z.-^“TII- “ra >/- •.04/21/2003 10:40 7635610194 M\®|S“ UijUivuoii \?,V. qr^^. Mia. n'loi ^(10 C£) ^^'1- (2^ b ® ^4^ C,ti»v v#»»\ t) oI?4b Cn^^V ^v'.P«Stc ^ ^ SV*:«i V« v«>V o Cvv^t«>t4. \\wi\4t -^»A»V;Hj,i^ D€CK5LM.IMITED PAGE 01 ■U#,4 .*■: Vi.- L /^V'c. I SA*—4 <-tK^{ 1 P.A£^; '• M«t‘| |l^»\C^.H«^ ts' 10' H» 1 » M/21/2t09 ie:4t 7635610194 D6CKSIW.IMITED PAGE 62 HimmmmmM,wmmummir 111 [I Li u naa. 13 eooa 8:S4nM B0NE8TII00 ROSENE RNDERLIK 6516361311 P* I •‘.V * o»w<**-‘-^r**'** “** Inc. Ii an Ainraiacioa OnpaKnirtty twnlaya« Rosene rrMM«#ata: CHta O tarmuM. ft • IMram L tar«M M . Olann I Coaa. ft . takart O. knuaacnt. ft. iarnr a. tovipon. ft • Mart a. Maman. ft Anderlik& ^Associates t A -; . ^NUy 13.2003 ’ ‘ Samar Canantiant*; aaotfl W totaiv. ft . JaitanC Andarm. ft • iKnamt TUntr. ft • SwiatM CMran.C Aisaaiata frifcafM*: latfi A Gordan. ft . t fiariafia. ft . ticAart W fanaf. ft . Oa.it O UMata^ knoiaai T. taufmann. f f • M c naid. ft . aaanatn f AndariaA, ft • Mafa A aaWa ft • Dana A fanaiuaai p t-dnajr f WMumtsA. ft. It • Agnat M t<nf.MtA • Afaa tprt S<tvnitc ft • Thamat W ftianw\ f| . - • "«aw**armt, atTnaaia* A l^fkA ft • tnaMan J Jannian • Oal« A Cra.a. ft • rnamat A fauiriat. ft • fooan i Oam<y ft Officau St faut U OawA Bacncita> ana wmpW aaa • Miwauaaa. wi • CNcaga. A MMitta- anawfanaifaa cam K- :::S' I City of Oruiui^ •.. a-’.'..' •> PottOflicoBox- -V • • .a. : it ii ‘ Her -4195 HifhwobdRoocf^v ^ FaoNoVl39^3:^-^ • PUiNo. ,03-2894-V' *. . ■ . •' >. ■ ’ . • Dear Jenniier '............. . . • ■ •■ ; •••;: :■*•■ S i . . Wt have reviei^ the tketeh plan ibr the prbpoted landscaping and step replacemait for the property at 4193 Highwood Roaid. The plan pro(»|es to rq>lacej^ existing stairs to t^ lake, install a boulder retaining wall tystem and associated, lata,dscsiping. We have the following oomineiits with regards to engineering matters; : • The skefch 'ptan submitted lacks*d^/VV dehU^ pbli a ^(ile'design should be submitted for review. The plans should include sections on either side of tM stairway and a profile showing how the plantings will screen the walls from the lakeside. Plans should also include all existing structures, lot lines, contours (proposed and existing), trees, etc. | } • Plans should include an earthworks tabulation quantifying lU totd ahwuht of excavation and fill. • A detailed erosion and seditnent oontrol plan should be sub^ttad for review' if you have any questions please call roe at (651) 604-4863.iV. -,v*^Vouxs very tnily, ‘ . * BONESTROO, ROSENE. ANDERLDC & ASSOCIATES, INC. TomKellogg ^ . Cc: Greg Oappa, City ofOrono 2195 west Highway 16 • St. Paul. INN SSIU* 6S^6|6•46O0• Fax: 451-636*t3fl ■'•A . I. 1 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2951 A RB80L0TI0R GKARTXMG A VARIAMCB TO NUNICIPAL ZOHIliG CODE EBCTIOM 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) PILE OlSZt NHBBEA8, Sara J. S. Finney and Nark A. Finney (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 4195 Bighwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally descril>ed as follows} Lot 26, 27, and 28, Bighwood Lake Minnetonka, Bennepln County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")} and WHBRBA8, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) to permit construction of a major addition, replacement of complete foundation beneath the existing residential structure and possible replacemnt of deck and 3-season porch, portions of which are located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Minnesota t ■ON, TBBRBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File fl628. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District requiring 43,560 s.f. or 1 acre in area. The property consists of 38,550 s.f. or .88 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on March 18, 1991 and March 20, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings and hardships! a) b) The shape of shoreline as property is located on a point. Steep topography along west side limits any view impact upon lakeview windows of residence on adjacent property. Page 1 of 4 _ X CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.2951 stana.ras are net by the proposed improvements. iro4«y“.rS Si«“t"o'’!t"'ird ‘do'n^t""^^'’"* **^*““« ^ property in this zoning district, thatwould not adversely aff^»r*^ granting the variance Srt-m-er“fy- 5^ X HSJ S««sV/y‘?o “Vre«*^%‘‘ applicant, and would in keeDino wi?h right of the the ionln. Code and Co*S.«henV/v'e%ra"n lhe*A'n(f„%Vrdnico*.S.era\?^^^^^^ including reports by City staff. cQranl»n^o kT, Planning Commission, •'«!«>, s?le^^"a"nd^"elfa'’/e V/?£l CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS the OronoC?tVcTn"ciThereSrcr«tr:v*'’°r' hardships and findings, code section 1C.22. Subdlvisiori (s1 ?o 0!,*?^ ZoningX 60' addition, rinlace^nfr 5° construction of a 20- residence structure and possible reol^'ep.m*^!®*' under the existing 3-season porch, portionrof whloJ lakeside deck and netback line. Approval is subject to rhriSrJoi?ng “cVnd"il!ois*.’'"'’°” beneath%lante/ boxes wlthin*'iakeshoife'*a Pl«*tie underliner underliner shall be remoted prior toPlastic inspection of the footings for new construction^ ^ Inspector-. • tair **6tructure*”lthin*'th^^*75? lakeVhor access nonconforming and subject to all pertinAn? 4- area is Any plans to make structural \rpaiis tl ^**® require approval of the City of OrSnl ^ structure will Page 2 of < CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2951 3. Applicant is further advised that a conditional use permit is required If a non-rental apartment Is to be Installed within the basement level of residence. This apartment may never be for rental use. 4. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (April 6, 1992). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the sonlng code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of their property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of April, ATTEST; iforothy M. ^fillin. City Clerk Property /• Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) / ss. The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of April, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 8 Dorothy M. Ballln, Mayor 8 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said Instrument was executed on behalf of the City. UMDAJ. VSB mtmr mmue •••»« MOeSIN COUNTY ¥ '?il? A CITYof ORONO STATE 3SOTA COUNTY OF BENNEPIN RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ 2951 V > On this /7j5i day of before ne a Notary Public within an3idfoj /199^ m ^'SSSSf^^NOTARY public' STATE OP MINNESOTA ) isa. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of leo t. a Notary Public within and foF li.id County, per6onariy^S««l known to me to be theperson!s) described in and who executT«d 7° NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )S8. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this day of a Notary-Tubiic within IWloi .aW County. peraoVa'’rfy'lpSISrel ' ~ ~ known to me to be theperson!s) described in and who execut«d ♦•h® the NOTARY PUBLIC Page 4 of 4 .jcihftiaiuv- 1 :L O ,0r‘r»*> 4-;'*•'*'.■ .•. •: ‘'"^ Parcel Information' ».>,' ;/H oum Numb«r4198'~'^jcr. .'rV -----TT^T •;• 4 p^^ St^t Hmtnm HIOHWOG >gy"gf 77‘~^^ ■ ' KS-« W' ■- ’ Et^ ■ • ' EEkiSi-e-.L^^ ■UN MU 12/19/n MTCN SM IIClMCfXN COUNTY fftOfCm ZNrORtUTlON SVSTU1 PROfUTY OWfffRS LIST raop AOM OMNU r jc TAMPAVfR NAK/ABM 5A tp-ur-zi AS iORSA ABOKSS MWASSIBWCT UNZUO CM NOSP ASSN FAZRVZCH ROSP ASSN ATTN CWIP NCAL ESTAU 2S12 ATN ST S NPLS m 5SA5A ss tr-UT-zs AS aaiR RAiaa Non Til shore M UNITEB CM NOSP ASSN PAIRVIEV NOSP ASSN ATTN COtP REAL UTATE 2S12 ATM ST S NPLS NN 5SASA sa a7-ii7-2S AS sail tA199 NORTH SHORE M UNIUO CH NOSP ASSN FAIRVXCM COmUNXTV HOSPITAL ATTN CORP REAL ESTAU 2S12 ATH ST S NPLS HN SSASA REPORT NO. PXASSARl PACE It PROP AMR OMNER NANI TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR sa a7*ii7*2s AA aaia tAlAA HXCHHOOO ID LARRY M RARREU LARRY N RARREU A1A9 NI6NMOOO RO mum HN SS3AA ss a7*ii7-2S AA aai9 AAISA NXCHWOOO RO PRANCES W WZISON PRANCES TESAR A15A HICHWOOO RO hound HN 55S6A sa a7>iX7*2S AA aaza tAXA7 HXOHWOOO RO HERLXN L lULVERSON HCRLIN L HALVERSON A175 HXOHWOOO RO nOUKO HN SSSAA i •! PROP A80R OWNER NANC TAXPAUR NAIC/AOOR sa a7*ii7-2s AA aazi SA17S ICONHOOO RO NERLXH I. IJU.VERSON HERLXN L HALVERSON A17S HXaNUOOO RO HOUND HN S5SAA sa 07*117*2S AA 0#22 SAm HXOHWOOO RO n A PXNHEY I S J FINNEY HARR I SARA FINNEY A195 HXCNHOOD RO hound HN S5SAA ( sa 07-117-2S AA 0823 00038 ADDRESS UNASSXCNEO FAXRVXEH HOSPITAL ASSN FAIXVXEW HOSPITAL ASSN ATTH CORP REAL ESTATE 2312 ATH ST S HPLS HH SSASA tv PROP AMR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR sa 07-117«2S AA 002A OA190 HICHWOOO RO a P OOWEN ASH DOWNS a P BOWEN ASH Also HXCIRIOM RO nOUMO HN SSSAA sa 07'117o2S AA a02S 0A182 NXCNNOM RO S A I J W RICHARDS XZ SARAH A a JO«fl< W RZCHAROS IZ AI82 HICHWOOO RO HOUNO HN SSSAA sa 07*117-23 AA 002A OA17A HICNWOM RO N a DEVAAN a L E OEVAAN KERaZRT I LORETTA OEVAAN 17A0S SUSAN OR HirMETOMtA HN S5SAS C. "i % 1 •» PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE . TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR sa a7-117-2S AA 0027 RAIAA HZCHWMO RO R 0 a A L RURSCH ROBERT a ANY RURSCH AlAA HICHWOOO RO Htrmo HN SSSAA sa 07-117-2S AA a028 •Also HXCNWMO RD J L RAKKE a S n CLYMI JON L BAKKE Also lUGHWOOO RO HOUNO HN SSSAA sa 07-117-23 AA 0029 •A1A8 lUCHWOOO RO JANET L EZOE JANET L EZOE AIAB HICHWOOO RO HOUHO HN SSSAA t E ‘i ( PROP AOM OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOM sa ,«7*U7-23 AA aOSI •AlAO NZOHMMD RO J 0 CUSACK a C H GRACE C GRACE 8 J CUSACK AlAO HXGMMOM RO HOUNO IM SSSAA sa a7-I17-2S AA 007S oaosa AMREss unassxcneo HENNEPIN FORFEXTEO LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 iOX AA CRYSTAL MY HN 5532S TOTAL OATCH SQA •0017' rnwiT RecoRD Peralt No. oiS-T- Date __/o -/«»-7/ Tvoe of Permit SUlAMJt *4in 5 /. A«# 1 ^061 il-l-->a -SHI la^K/'T^^ J!s^mmm /»* ^ . er?¥9-^h4T-^ S'37/ 9r-R<'4 t P\ A 4/nhi /^rUA^ V /o - -^l /^iA- 63 l4 ju L ff’ <^nh 1 ^n-f^ 9-1 dd^tiobu^ foH/^t 2^aS-o:i.Q ju^ uJe-/^ POS-S143 <S~'3^‘ «?:>—'Y^jU jlbcnJ^j f-/£>~ o:>- Ruaii gxistinq Lake Approach Looking towards the lake P 'J » l. u i: J ^ ■MLooking towards the house r=is=—c • , •‘Vs^ ! \'i i I / .rTV\' Mi3 Existing Stairs Down Cliff to Lake First 15 steps and landing Second 10 steps and lake ::W r T nyr'.. Th"^*v» - -• si? V ‘ * ;•" * ,.iil' "*• *•1 ?**«■••• • • •%'<%.* ^ *1. *—-SN*-^ -.Ri *.r>«i V-/' t. ■r» -V \ V*' • . ^ ■ V. • K. ^V Xv \.' V*:?;: ' V,' ^ •'- '■"^. S* 'S' ■ .,££b..5^ ^ V\ I' ^ 'i " a|f:>xW*^ mm i) ■'j ;.^im sp f^ nis^ . -. ; k t.K - t . ^ , i . ■- ‘— if-',.. fey*'*' ’ ^- ’’^ '; '■v''* ~^~V ~- Hill jrCji 1 I • " tl^' “» *-!.*’>' -^» ”t —*-.' •»V.. i ■- , i, T , ^ ;; f. , m, a! -i v^ l K tkh\^ A 7.^/3SCf;««dr ti/I’? WifmAmM>i/-: .-':v«>'Klilk y/lfl^ -LL/ «o^2m 665 N«rth Fcrodak Road fa|t 2 «r4 Background During 2002 suff met with the applicant on a number of occasions to discuss the potential for a lot line reairangement between this property and his current homestead at 625 North Fcmdalc A vanety of factors including the size of both properties, the existence of a private road w ithin the property not covered by exisung easements, etc. resulted in applicant choosing to go ahead with construction of a new residence to replace the old house at 665 North Femdalc without rearranging lot lines. However, his intent was/ls to conUnue to have his son live in the old house at 665 for the next 24 months while he is in college. C^no ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling unit to remain in place on the property after co^ction of a new principle structure, except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit is approved by the City Council. Mr. Bastiaens acknowledges that the property does not contain the full 4 acres required to meet the City ordinance standards for a Guest House Conditional Use Perm-, and he is aware that approval of such a CUP requiring a lot area variance is not guarani^; however, it is his hope that the temporary use proposed can be approved with the appropnate legal loob established to assure the City that the use will cease at the end of such temporary period. Site Plan Considerations The prop^y is by definition a comer lot. and by definition the north lot line of the property is considered as the front lot line, and the east lot line abutting the right-of-way of Fcmdalc Road North IS considered the side street lot line. The location of the existing old house on the property is southeast of the new house, and meets all required accessory structure setbacks should it be converted to a mere accessory building. Applicant wishes to continue to use the existing driveway access to North Fcmdalc Road during the duration of the temporary CUP. although the new- home accesses the private road informally known as LydiardRoad to the north of the property. For the 24-month period staffwould not oppose this pivi* Septic System The existing septic s>-slem sennng the old house is funclioiuil but non-compliant with die 3' sepmiion Born seasonal saniration rule, and under City codes would normally have lo be replaced by the end of Decmber 2010. However, the draindeld for the old s>«em is minimal at best and is close to foi^tion of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic Systems In^tor htoi Bolterman. it is stars recommendation that the old house sewer line be coiuiecied lo the new house sepuc system during the lemporary continued use of the old house #03-2l9f MS North Fcmtf ok Rood Pate 3 of 4 Lot Area Variaocc The City has consistently ruled that the language **AII regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house" means that the lot area must be 200% of the zoning district standard area; i.e. for the 2 -acre zone the lot area must be 4 acres. StafT believes this requirement is in place to mitigate the impacts of a second dwelling unit on a property, such as the additional human activity, more vehicles coming/going/parked on the site, the potential decrease of open space in the neighborhood, and other related neighborhood impacts. In reviewing the long-term impacts of guest houses, in the post the City has required that the guest house be located w ith the ability to subdivide it off from the main house in a conforming manner. The applicant's old house is about 35* from the new house, hence the property could not be subdivided to allow both houses a 30* side setback; furthermore, the lot is only 2.3 acres, so no subdivision it feasible. Issues for Consideration 1. Does Planning Commission have any issues with the concept of a temporary guest house CUP? The City has not to staff s knowledge approved a temporary guest house in the past, possibly because there has not previously been a request like this... 2. Is there sufficient hardship or justification for the lot area variance associated with the guest house CUP? Should insufficient lot area be a reason to deny the temporary CUP, or is it a non-issue for the relatively short period of time requested? 3. While the City has a long-term ‘tickler file’ system to advise staff when certain actions arc required, it would be important that any approval be conditioned on an agreement with the applicant that imposes disincentives to continuing the use past the temporary approval period. Staff has not determined what such conditions might be, but it would seem appropriate to make this approval as ‘self-policing* as possible... 4. If at the end of the 24 month period the ow ner w ishes to a) continue the Guest Hou. c use for an e.xtcnded period, or b) keep the old house in its current location as a non-dwelling accessory structure w ith or w ithout plumbing, arc these possibilities that should be addressed now? 5. The old house appears on a list obtained from the State Historic Preserv ation Office (SHPO) of older, potentially historically significant (but not protected) buildings within the City of Orono. City records indicate the old house was constructed in 1914 or earlier. Oronohas no historic preservation ordinance that w'ould prohibit the removal of this building; however, its relocation to some other site in the future might be contemplated by the property owner as an option to its ultimate demolition... M3-2m MS N*rtli Fcrndik RomI Pag*4or4 Staff RecommgadaiioB 1. The guest houM shall be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. 2. The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation except to the extent that such use may be allowed by City code. ^ 3. The wlicam ehalh upon completion of the leptic system serving the neu- house on the pretty, connect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable to the City, and disconiinue use of the existing septic system sening the guest house structure. m of" "on'hs b«Ki"ning with the date .«»I.~7£.‘SSS' i.>. the *?*‘*^***® 24 »nonlh period, the dnveway connection to North Fcmdalc Road shall be OOC. #) :asem £nt per OOC. NO. 4629271 wr VOWVMDIT tor 3 11094 K .J1L40 ««LTDiiARD MOiD / 4.. Kllltl FND IRON MON. RLSieOSS a4N/0l1C 0 >» / fiJaPOiA ^*4.ffSr /WifT I B z-n-oi Application H 03 - ^ Date Received Amount Paid CO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 665 Fcrndalc Road Worth. Orono (Waveata catling). 55391 T>pe of Application to be Filed Conditional Use Pcrolt Property Identification Number (P.LD.) 36-118-23-11-0003 APPLICANT >l,iTne Bruce A. Boeder, Esq. Address IQOQ Superior Boulevard City OVV'NER (if different than applicant) Name Franclscus G» Bastlaen»^and *_____ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Vayzata (952) r.75-7040 _ Zip 55391 Addrf^f Ferndale Road North ^Llllane M. Bastlaens Date Property Acquired May. 1988 Phone (home) (952) 475-0560 Phone (work) (952) 742-6698 Wayzata_________ Zip 55391 I (do) (domot) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______S 75.00 For each variance requKl with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) X $250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg ______$325.00 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 lakeshorc ______PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule ______SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ____After-lhe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month,'year) OTHER APPLICATIONS ______ S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______S300.00 Vacation ______$250.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With SubdMsion ______$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1- ____Completed Application Fonn. 2. ____Describe request in detail. 3. ------Ceitified Property 0»-nerj Ust of owners within 350’, labels and nlat ro.„ r ■ “a;,*»»-•» ci, ------SoS::' «<> ■“-lout for snrvey CLtiSS “ WU-tion if not included on required survey St'elSa* ““ “volve ^trucdon plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) ^ ' riJST" °«umt^^ pZ^rji «ha« >^ur 5. 6. 8. 9. Date APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE ?ri%n±3- “*«- ■ft. iXS Applicants signature Date OWTSTiR’S SIGNATURE members for pu^oiZfJ^a,ion'an^vefe^^^^^ “<> Council Owner's signature^^=4^jfer ^ 'Sxjf jf/w rr.,. 4/7*i^rV ;^c’C^ ieb«Idrf mrenug ,le«. nul. ,nro,e=«ua „ h.„‘“ rooJ^'L.- “ * Btuldiog A Zooiaf OflSce of this chasge prior to the iaeeaa| >f^eod la yo« pUce aod adme the APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Attachment No. 1 Application is hereby made by Franciscus G. Bastiacns and his wife, Lilianc M. Basliacns, for the issuance ofa Conditional Use Permit to allow the continuing use ofa pre-existing structure C'House A”) located at 665 North Femdale Road as a guest house for a period of twenty-four months &ora the date of issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. House A is currently occupied by Applicants’ son, Bart Bastiacns, who is a student in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Minnesota. Applicants’ son will continue to reside in the house after issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. A nexv house ("House B”) is currently being constructed on the property by Lundren Bros. Construction, which will be the new residence of the Applicants. The Applicants currently reside at 625 North Femdale Road, which adjoins 665 North Feriulale Road. Although Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subd. 7, docs not allow more than one principal building per building site, a “guest house ’’ maybe allowed, via a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Orono Municipal Code Section 10.20, Subd. 3(G). The Applicants acknowledge that the “guest house ’’ Ordinance requires that the property contain at least four acres. Since the property at 665 North Femdale Road docs not currently contain at least four acres, the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of an additional structure as a “guest house ” would require the granting of a Variance. Applicants request that a Variance be granted to allow their son to continue residing in the property while he is in college. Applicants agree that as a condition of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, they would demolish House A within 24 months from the date of issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, thus restoring the property in all respects to a conforming use. Until House A is demolished, it would be Applicants' proposal that the existing septic system which currently serves House A wou» 1 continue in use serving that structure. The use of that septic system would ^ discontinued at the time of the demolition of House A. The new residence being constructed for Applicants will be served by a separate septic system, which is being installed as part of the construction. Applicants also propose that until House A is demolished, the driveway serving it directly from Femdale Road will continue in use. If a Conditional Use Permit allowing the use of House A as a “guest house ” is granted, the Applicants would further agree to abandon the existing driveway accessing the properly from Femdale Road, when House A is demolished. Under the building plans approved by the City of Orono, access to the new residence is from Lydiard Road. #f' THIS AGREEMENT is made by Gutllaroe Bastiaens, the owner of certain property in the City of Orono, and the City of Orooo, located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Wlicreai, Guillaume Bastiaens (Hereinafter “the Owner”) owns tlic property at 665 North Femdale Road legally described as: (Exhibit A attached); and Whereas, the Owner has applied to the City of Orono for a building permit in order to construct a new residence on the properQr; and Wliercas, the property contains an existing residence and detached garage which the Owner wishes to continue to use for dwelling purposes during construction of the new residence, and further wishes to continue to use as a temporary guest house and detached garage for a finite period of time after completion of the new principal structure; and NVhcrcas, Orono Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 7 allows for the use of an existing dwelling during construction of a new principal structure subject to a permit issued by City staff; and Whereas, the Owner agrees that Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling unit to remain in place on the property except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been approved by the city Council; and ^Vhereas, the Owner acknowledges that the Property does not contain the full 4 acres required to meet the City ordinance standards for a Guest House Conditional Use Pcmiit. hence approval of such a Permit is not guaranteed and requires a variance; and Whereas, the City of Orono is willing to allow the existing residence and garage to remain in use as a dwelling unit on the property until the new residence has been completed, if the owner agrees to promptly remove the existing residence and garage when the Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the new residence; and %Vbcrcas, the Owner has agreed to remo\*c the existing residence and garage promptly upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new residence, unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been approved for further continued use of the exisring residence and garage, in which instance the Owner has agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of such approval. Now Therefore, in consideration of these premises, and other good and valuable consideration, the owner and the City of Orono do hereby agree as follow s: 1. The City of Orono will issue a building permit to the Owner or his agents for the construction of a new principal residence, subject to the normal and customary' submituils and 2oning and building code reviev\'s. 2. Owner agrees that he will remove the existing residence and garage no later than thirty' (30) days after issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new* residence, unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit has been proved for further continued use of the existing residence and garage, in which instance the Owner agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of r such approval. !!^l-i ** "* wwleoce «nd gui«e witfii,i ||« lima flp«fied ib^ "’*5''^ 2^“*“ *“ ■’"•*»<y. ranove the existiog residence and Uie 5?^ ^ Wlieuion for the apprapriate CondiUonatUsePem^s) ^or v»unce(s) within a ^fiame that would allow fur final City action to the anUcipated d«e of isn-ii of a Certific.; n^delSe”" W WrtNESS W1SREOF, Guillaume Bastiaens and the City of Orono do herehy execute this Agreement This Agrement is effective as of the date set out below. Date Ja»t/ao P ^,^trT-a liiiiiiL r 66^ ferinduft^ l^d> AJ.I S''ii-o3 N n QO ■^ \ +U/I A R'c 0 liTn 2S0 3V0 TirA SSO v/s /\^/l ——^'0 3/'^ «» SEPTIC SYSTEM Wt^f/vr/ipy »„ 36-118-23 110003Building Type: residence BRs Install'd for 2 In Musa: Pennit #:none Date of Pennit: System Type: trench Experimental: no No Installer: unknown Appliances: Indry.dshw SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 3 Tank Condition: 9 DF condition: 14 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: Setback to Bldg: DRAINriELD Length of Lines: Treatment Area: Tile Size: Setback DF-Bldg: Soil Type: flELLDATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Pump Type: INSPECTION RECORD date 8/16/82 4'4/86 Capacity: unknown Cesspool: yes Trench Width:# Lines: Type of Filler Under Tile: PercRate: DF Ht above Wt: 0 Limitations: water table Soil Boring: }es Wcll-DF: Depth:Diameter: Report in File Method: DESCRIPTION system not located-no surfacing 2 no surfacing, but is backing up in baseme 3-4 PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 4.78/'95 1500 IUNIMTE:4r 40 3IIII2222000) ntOfAOM 1110 reKNOALERO OWNERNAME tSKROWACEEWSXlETAL TAXPAYER KRYSTYNA SKROWACZEWSIU NAME/AOOR POBOX100 WAYZATAMN SS39I IIENKLPtN COUm-Y f*ROPr fTf R;.!A l JON J, I'i i IIM ptoreRTYO\i Jiusr FACE;I 40 3IIII2223000S rnOfADOR 1300 FERNOALERO OWNERNAME BRETTGALBERA jORRAGALDER TAXPAYER DRETT G ALDER NAME/AUOR I300FERNOALERO PLYMOUTH MN S5a7 40 3111132330006 PROTAOOR I400S I2TTIAVEN OWNERNAME SSPICZXA A RLSPICZKA TAXPAYER SCOTT A RODYN L SPICZKA NAME/AOOR 19005 I2T1IAVE N PLYMOUTH MN 35447 tr 40 3111032220011 PROP AOOR 960 BROCKTON LAN OWNERNAME TAEKNIGHT TA3CPAVER TERRY K KNIGHT NAME/AOOR 960 BROCKTON LA PLYMOUTH MN 33447 40 3IIIS322200I2 PROPAODR 950 BROCKTON LAN OWNERNAME NANNETTENROTH TAXPAYER NANNETTE N ROTH NAME/AOOR 950 BROCKTON UN PLYMOUTH MN 33U7 40 3llin22300l7 PROPAOOR 19005 IITHAVEN OWNERNAME PAMGILLES TAXPAYER PETER LA MARY E CRIES NAME/AOOR 19005 IITHAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 33447 40 3im222300ll PROPAOOR 19013 IITHAVEN OWNER NAME MARIE E ASHTON TRUSTEE TAXPAYER mark E ASHTON NAME/AOOR 19013 IITHAVEN PLVMOUniMN 33447 40 3IIIB222200I9 PROPAOOR 1100 FERNOALERO OWNERNAME RALMILLER TAXPAYER ROGER MILLER NAME/AOOR 1100 FERNOALERO PLYMOUTH MN 33447 40 3IIII32330030 PROP AODR 11 10 FERNOALE RO OWNERNAME PETERTCOOKJRACARIECOOK TAXPAYER PETER T COOK JRrtCARIE COOK NAME/AOOR I MO FERNOALE RO PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3111022220031 PROPAOOR 19010 IITHAVEN OWNERNAME Nl CARROLL A M ECARROLL TAXPAYER NJAMENGUSIICARROU NAME/AOOR 19010 IITH AVE N PLYMOUTH MN 33447 }■ 3611133110003 PROPAOOR 30 AODRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED UNO TAXPAYER CTTYOFORONO NAME/AOOR PODOX64 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 361 II23110003 PROP AOOR 665 FERNOALE RO N OWNERNAME FGBAST1AENSA.M BASTTAENS TAXPAYER FRANCISCUS O OASTIAENS NAME/AOOR 423 FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 33391 n-b 30 361 II23I10004 PROPAOOR 605 FERNOALE RON OWNERNAME HAZELP BOWEN TRUSTEE TAXPAYER HAZELPDOWEN NAME/AOOR 60S FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 35391 30 361 II23I10016 PROPAOOR 773 FERNOALERON OWNERNAME BARKJERICKSON TAXPAYER BRAOLEY A R KAREN J ERICKSON NAME/AOOR 773 FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 33391 34 36llt23MOOI9 PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME D A A K 3 ERICKSON TAXPAYER BRAOLEY AR KAREN! ERICKSON NAME/AOOR 773 FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 33391 3« 36llt23ll0020 PROPAOOR 3t ADDRESSUNASSX3NEO OWNERNAME KARENBELDENFREY TAXPAYER KAREN BEIOEN FREY NAME/AOOR ltt359TNAVEN PLYMOUTH MN 33447 31 361 imi 10031 PROPAOOR 623 FERNOALERON OWNERNAME FRANCOCUSOBASTIAENS TAXPAYER FRANCaCUiOBASTIAENS NAMEIAOOR 623 NORTH FBWOALE RO WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 361 II23I10026 PROPAOOR 763 FERNOALERON OWNERNAME SDW1ELE RDLWCLE TAXPAYER SCOTT DRDCBORRALWIELE NAME6U30R 763 FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 35391 31 3*11123110011 ntOTADOR 733 fWOMLIRON OWWnmMC JIANNEMMfTWJH TA3CrAV» JBAMMilirTHW MAME/AOM TSSraXNDALetON WAYZATAMN 33301 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS U5T 3t 3*11133110020 PROPAOOR *27 FERNDALERON OWNERNAME RONMBOJOIRaON TAXPAYER DONNIE D JOHNSON NAME/AOOR *» FERNOALE RO N WAYZATAMN 33301 3* 3*11*33110031 PROPAOOR *29 FERNDALERON OWNERNAME RKAMCMOSTROM TAXPAYER RKIRT A MARGARET CMOSTROM NAME/ADOR *29 FERNDALC RO N WAYZATAMN 55391 PAGE:! 30 3*11123140001 PROPAOOR 373 FERNOALERDN OWNUNAME JGAMMOAYTON TAXPAYER JAMES G A MGQANM DAYTON NAMWAOOR 973PERNOAIARON WAYZATAMN 53391 3* 3*11*23140002 PROPAOOR 375 FERNDAURON OWNERNAME JGAMMDAYTON TAXPAYER JAMES G A MI'aGAN M DAYTON NAMWADDR 373 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATAMN 33391 3* 3*11*23140004 PROPAOOR SftS FERNDALERON OWNERNAME JERRY EMARTM A WEE TAXPAYER JERRY A JANET MARTIN NAME/ADOR 3*3 FERNDALE RD N WAYZATAMN 33391 ICEJmFYTHATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP IPTORMATION AS IT APPEARSTMS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE ICFMEPtN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST , . OrMYKNOWU«*AW,KUEP. ------------------ DATE <5 by f'P' m M ■ ■■ rfrr —— Application Received: Application Complete: 60 Day Deadline: 4/23/03 4/29/03 6/28A13 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Membcn Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner May 14.2003 SUBJECT: 403-2898 Julie A. Mike ^luttington 1981 Fagemess Point Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Disirict: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (O.S acre) 0.68 acres (29,682 s.f.) Application Samniary: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a deck and stairs S’ in height onto the existing home, requiring 5,596 s.f. (41.56%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ setback zone where 3,366 s.f. (25%) is permitted.______________________________________________ Exhibits: A Arudysis Worksheet Application Survey Hardcover Calculations Deck Plans Resolution #1713 Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Property Photos Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LK2): Hardcover within 75 ’ to 250*: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardco\ er. (Request: To permit 5,596 s.f. (41.56%) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 3,366 s.f. (25%) is permilt^). m-2a9SJmhe d A/iir It’hittinglom Page / DiiciiuiMi: Non-structural to Structural Hardcover The applicant proposes to construct a deck over an existing concrete patio. It is the City’s policy not to allow shuctural hardcover over non-structural hardcover uithout \’ariance approval. It is possible that the concrete patio under which the deck is proposed was placed uiihoul building permit approval, increasing the amount of hardcover on the lot to exceed the maximum permined Hardcover: 0- 75 ‘ setback zone This lot has lakeshore on either side of the property, resulting in two 0-75 ’ setback zones. There is no work proposed within these areas. Ihereforc, there is no change to the amount of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback zones. The western 0-75 ’ setback zone has 334 s.f. (4.33%) hardcover where none is permitted. 1 o the east, the 0-75 ’ setback zone has 842 s.f (9.9%) hardcover where none is permitted. The area of Fagemess Point Road, a 40’ right of way, is excluded from the total lot area and hardcover calculations. Hardcover: 75'to 250 ’setback zone Tl^ is 13,465 s,f of lot area within the 75 ’ to 250’ setback zone. Of this. 5,510 s.f (40.9%) is existing hardcover. The proposed deck, although mostly over an existing concrete patio, increases hardcover within this setback zone to 5,596 $.f (41.56%) where only 3,366 s.f (25%) b permitted. Structural Coverage The proposed deck with railing will exceed six feet in height from the grade so it is, thercfo.e, considered to be structure. There is 3.459 s.f (1 1 .65%) of existing structure on the lot. The proposed deck and stairs add 429 s.f to the existing house, increasing the lot coverage bv struclu'cs to 3,888 s.f (13%) where 4,452 s.f (15%) is permitted. Although a portion of the house is located within the street right of way. it is still included in the total structural coverage calculation. How ever, the total right of way is not included in the lot area. Hbloiy: In 1984, applications for an after the fact conditional use permit and variances (zoning file tt&54: resolution #1713) to construct stairs, retaining walls and planters within 75 ’ of the lake; and for excessive hardcover in the 0-75 ’ and 75 ’-250’ setback zones. The resolution permitted 250 s.f of hardcover in the westerly 0-75 ’; 5,500 s.f in the 75-250 ’; and 1,500 s.f in the easterly 0-75 ’ (not including roadway). The resolution also stated that, “...any future improvements to this property involving an increase in hardcover must be matched with the removal of existing hardcover”. The applicants have staled that they have removed a significant amount of hardcom over the last few years. The following table b a comparison of the 1984 hardcover numbers, w hat exists today m^2m Jutted Mike mUttington 5/14/2003 fatt2td* and what is proposed: Hardcover Zones Hardcover Approved (1984 apDlicatioa) Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75* (west)250 s.f.334 s.f.334 s.f. 0-75 ’ (cast)1,500 s.f.842 s.f.842 s.f. 75*-250*5,500 s.f.5,100 s.f 5,596 s.f. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Caasidenitioa: 1. The lot area and lot width of the lot meet the zoning district requirements; 2. The proposed deck increases the amount of structure on the property but does not exceed the maximum permitted; 3. The lot has two 0-75* hanlcover zones; 4. The proposed deck minimally increases hardcover in the 75 ’-250* hardcover zone. However, the existing hardcover in this zone already exceeds the amount permitted; 5. Hardcover in the 75*-250* hardcover zone and easterly 0-75* setback zone has decreased since the 1984 zoning application; ho>\ever, hardcover in the western 0-75* zone has minimally increased; 6. No additiorud hardcover is proposed in the 0-75* hardcover zones; 7. The 40 ’ street right of way on the properly is not included in lot area or hardcover calculations. There is a small portion of the house and related hardcover existing w ithin the right of way; and 8. Other issues raised b)'the Planning Commission. Staff Rccowneudatious: Staff can not support increasing hardcover in the 75*-250 ’ hardcover zone by 86 s.f. when the existing hardcover already exceeds the 25% permined. Staff can support construction of the deck abo\e the existing concrete patio, not exceeding the existing 5,510 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone. WS 2898 Julit A Mikt IHtUtlngton 8/14/2003 Fatt3«f4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IC R»q»ir>ftf DincasioBs Reqaired Eibtiag Lot Area 21.780 s.f. fO.S acres) 29.682 s.f. fO.68 acres) Lot Width 100*100’ Hardcover CakolatkNu: Distaacc froai •horeline Total area ia setback Alowed hardcover Exbtiag Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’ ___(waO 7,717 s.f.none 334 s.f. (4.33%) 334 s.f (4.33%) No Change 0-75’8.500 s.f.none 842 s.f (9.9%) 842 s.f (9.9%) No Change 75’-250’13,465 s.f.3,366 s.f. (25%)5,510 s.f (40.9%) 5,596 s.f (41.56%) 903-289SMit A MUm Wktab^ S/IS/2003 Patt4€/4 e> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S 150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-comorming structures S250.00 Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORfrlATIQN O * . /7 • Site Address (iSf Property Idcutlfication Number (P.l.D.) /^// Application n Q Dale Received ^ Amount Paid Attach iegal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Aeguired S’/z.^cg_____________ I (do) also o\^n the adjacent parcels of land. _(montL'year) Present use of proper!;^ ^^residential Zoning District:. perty:.other (specify). APPLICAIVT , . >:ame AKltJC Address: 0\>'NER (if different than applicant) Name____________________________ Phone (home) _____ Phone (work)_ City:Zip: 53^?/ Addr^: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City.Zip:_________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S “lO^OCQ^ Describe request in detail: Qi/er- gj- S' (attach additional sheets if ncccssarv)/ ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: (attach additional sheets if necessary) y Hardcover Rear ___Lot Width Front Side .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing comp!iance with Zoning Code reouirements: panAh. CAJlnKf-a£<feSf .taM Ii)a i| ^4- dA/J X:// . ^ ^ tacaji^ditionar ‘ ' ‘ #2 ditionaf sheets if necessary) •iv, required SUBSUTTALS ^ mr *»• pppHc.n.in iiT..i||rf d.i, in I- ComplelKl Application Foot S2S..'S^^“ **■---------------- ‘ • 5. 6. reproduction. ‘ F‘uvi «c one (i) copy 8'/i" x 11" for J ^ "*ppwl, property. This would include rianic(s) of Mm addendum to this wlicaZ not current owmer(s). >■00 wish notified of this aJpIicaUon^ ^ separate list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 7. 8. ^ APPI.irAVX*cAPPLICANT'S signature consultant expenses incurred in review of this nnni.Vai- pa>Tncnt) and/or supplied is true and correct to the best of his-ber luiowledge ^ **^at the informationsuppiieo IS true and correct to the best of hiiber I Applicant ’s Signature OLIVER’S SIGaNATURE entry onto lhc'pfo^!^°by'c1" «afr!^OTsu'lums ‘ Senu"?^,^;;?- reasonable members for purposes of investigation «td veriHcaiion of Council O'vnefs ^ Meeting. Planlli'ng Co!lT»!on on ‘‘the Ih'd'M' cXrprr;^eS„r • . -\ y/ MLNlNLriN I I, rsim ■OCSCRIPTION or PWCMISCS I. roqcrntta. ond occr«t »nt thtrtto lying bcinten th« e«t«nalon •eotitrly Id tht •‘tort ol Lokt Minntlonka ol the Nor Iheasler I v todlhnesierly line* ol said Lot 4. Itrtolet ironmorker •ngs ahovn oro bosed upon on oostmd dotien. ourvey intends to show the beundorieo of the obove described prooerlv locotion ol on eaisling hotiso ond boilding, onj the locotion ol oil »lo hordcover' thereon, it does not purport to shoe any other »v«nsnts or eneroochmenls. 1 CFP. Q H JuM£ Wwnr<N6^T<>|3 -S-oi (CaSSSSS*'''^' worksheet75-JW ISO^O* WiAh P 1/5 S00.1000* _______SF. ix Sidewalk vR PiUoOefik : . Unteta. ByFUatie OrFabrie 0. Otfwr -r ;.■>■ ■ i ’./• .;»•' *• - TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A __ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B xtOO N VPRQPOCTD HARDCOVER IN ZQNt* CHAMfiC W? ’u' ^ ^vj^c V:,.Wl«h yy>(is>. T‘*4 ■ E Ca.i|e . C Drivewayi'l.y* :___ ‘d . Sidewalk 'E Patio^eck •Atil..,-:. ■ ^fip: ^F. LandKipe -i.'iJ.V' Uoderiaia . ByPIaetic - OrFabrie Vc-; EOditr _ . .* -iV** TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________ ♦ B xlOO #2 * V, .SFrEHLDlK .SF. sj.-: SF. SF. CCHCMfTl TIAIRSR5 SF .SF. .SF. .8J. SF. R ock A«f .SE. RIM6. ,51. A ,51. B H S.F. SJf. 51. SF. SP.- SF. SF. .SF. SF. SF. .SF. SF. .SF. B WMi7riH<;-rwN m ggyM-auffl ^ Unfdi \J(;Ul£ vvr«r II if^TV/S ^^5-02^ h^uujcover ^lculation worksheet ICLIONE) #T>.yS9 75-2S0* UlLAnn*ClINZONT 250^S00.1000* .SF. .SF. .SJ. . ‘k'pMeMt Uadtrltio ByPlartie OrFabffe 0. Oihtr ’.‘C • ' *Y —------------------- •^^^:gM^m«*»'wnvr« ■>. Ttmr ■ m ■-. . —r=-------- * -; *. .......' • B. Otragt Wid* -C. Orivtwajr ‘WV;-?.’ ■ »■ v-jH: ■ EUadMp. Uedvliln •iriii?:.. BirFlMcio OrFibrie ' aOdw m:-total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ —___________» B XlOO .-■>. SF. SF. .SF .SF K\-' -------------------- * _______________________________________ ■"!; J-l'i total HARDCOVER CNZONE ^ . total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE r/ua> .IV-— 4sr .SF. .ST. SF. -V»«F5TlATi S.F.-RRc<S ST. A FT D .SF. .ST. .ST. .SF. -S.P. .ST. .ST .SF. .SF. .ST .SF __ST .SF. A .ST B JuUE Wui TTIH^T^h J -S-Ol._________ »"*S00* ——-------- lS:ray.^‘' Widdi p?“~“ ?4«S<'-- ft Oto IS-^.«f*.♦■.•• '—“ ■'?!‘VV&V' total HARDCOVER IN ZONE . ‘ total PROPI RTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ---------------- raoPORRP HARDCOVER TN rn|s[]g- ^#r-- __ Drivtwiy 4> Cm, P9/e> S00.1000* -az? sSj?. tOAf ifu > -13 S F. -OilMwCJ S F.-9i;i U>«M - XI______s F n STT i»3o iZ s M. S F-vmo St9 _SF. _ S F.-l SPiUvv/ .SF Boi>toca» SF - WALLS SF.-R'P rap .Sf. BBO noo Ait. F. l4odietpt__________________X . i-^>i . Uodcrliin x ByPlwtic ___________________X ;^7V Or Fftbric .p. 0(hcr _____________ . X ... . total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTALPROPERTYAREAINZONB ■■■>rSb-'•■; •V.‘v.‘* S.MA fc F /' mr fx ■<v' S.F. SF.sr SF. -SF. -SF. .SF. SF .SF. SF. SF. 'SF. SF. SF. ■ H tcv lU i ^ im:^. -"' -■ wm i4Mki 1^- l> 1?^ I.y ? h. r 'i City of ORONO OF ORONO k M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ Th« Plannln9 Coeaittion further recosaer.dcd th« rcroval of •11 hardcover in excess of that allowed by code* which has been installed by the current owner since ISIl. 4. City staff has investiqated the renewal of diameter or larger trees within 75* of the lakeshorw on this property* and based on inforration providvJ by the current owner* previous owner, and applicant's tree service, finds that no solid evidence exists to indicate any live trees in dianetcr or larger wore rc.t>ovcd. 5. A docA and a concrete stairway did exist previously in the approxlx.ate locations of the newly constructed stairs, planters, walls, and dock. The applicant has a substantial right to create a safe lake access o.n the west side of the property. 6. City Staff has observed the lakcshorc stairs, planters, and walls, and has reviewed the information on tha stability of the structure provided by the applicant's engineer, and concludes *rom the evidence presented a.nd apparent, that the structure appears sufficiently stable. 7. Design of the planter structure is such that the i.et run>off is not significantly changed fron that of the original stairs and slope. I. To reaovc this structure and restore the giado to its original slope would ^ikely cause erosion dvtiimcntal to tho lake. 9. The rock bods with polyethyle.-.e sheet under 1 ayre.-.t •re corsidered to be hardcover. If the polyethylene shuet underlsyaent it perforated with 10 to 15 l/i' diaceter holes per square foot* it will not be considered as hardcover. 10. The hardcover originally existing o.n this property prior to recent construction of the walli* steps, and rock oeds. was as follows: 0-7S' West Lakcshorc. . . . . . . .2t 75-250' Central Area. . . . . . . .151 0-75* Cast Lakcshorc. ......................27i I Page 2 I V V City of 0R0I\0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1713 Pla'^tcr#. an»l retJl-ir.g wall* loea*c-» adjacent to the south side of the house extV^H arproxioately 10 feet into the City ricjht-c5-wcy . >*«cnd 12. Tne City Council finds that the cerditiens ex s*irn ore peculiar to it ar.d do ret apply Oer'cralW J ffopefty in this tcnir.g district: the q Jntine of licht traffic cer.ditilns!pose a fire hazard or ether dancer ‘o neiqhborinq property; would net rerely serve a.'® convenience to the cwncr. ;.ut is necessary to alleviate a dc..onstrable hards.ntp or difficulty; is neccssarv to rl of the 2onl?cLo-c and Corsprcher.st vo Plan ef the City, ’ 13. The City Council finds that qrantir.; a Corditioial Use Permit to the applicant for the ccntinuatYo.n of tw! nonconforninq structure and hardcover would not be detrimental to the health, safety or qer.cral welfare of the public, nor will it depreciate surro-r.dir.q property values and the level of use of t.hc property lirite«/by the pzrtinont sccticns fs.- nor.ccnfrrr.irn structiircs w'*h*n tVe Torino Code ar.d Ccnprchcnsivc Plan cf the City ” CONCUJSIOMS. ORDEH, AM) COKDITIOMS Based upon the above findinqs. the Crono City Cou--‘ 1 hereby qrants a Condition.-^ 1 Use Porrit ncr Tcrir.n c* ’c SorVl«- 10 03 .Cubdlvisien 19 a.nd qra.-tinq variarcct to\^ tier. 10 JoJnion* r * Subdivision 2 to C RobertJohnson to perm.t the ecnstructior. of plartors. stairs a-d Is^hiV/'^ '•i'r.ctonka ar.d to approve3% hardcover C250 square fectJ in the C-75* Lakcshorc sc-bac^t Zone (-cst side) where Cl is allowed, to approve 37% h.ircc'oJcJ i!-J®,; ’S-2i0* L.'.Koshorc SotbaeV Zone where i'' h.'rdrovur IlsCO cquare fecti SetbaeV. Zone 'cast sidcl w.-?cic Cl is allcwod. subject to the followir.q co.rd'ticns: 1. All plastie-covc.-ed roct beds or. the preperty aust bo perforated at a density of lC-15 1/4* hoKs per nquaro fcot. to .-c verified by City st.)ff ape.*, corf let io.t . 2. Applicant must c.otain an a f t er * the-fact cenut *urt ien rci.--il for all existing rutin Ir.q w.i 1 •/pj antcr/stairway Kttuzturcs which wore recently ;:i.ntal!c!. ^ e-4/^ faIa City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^713 3. The undorti^ncfl shall inrfc-r.r.ify ard .hold har.-lcst the City, the City Council, arc the a9C:.ts a.-.d c-plcycct oi i.he City fro3» and aqaintt all clains, d.-^-a^cn, losses cr expenses, including attoir.uy fees, vhich the Clry, City Council and agents and er.pltyces of the City yay suffer cr for which it nay be held liable, ariiir.T c-t of cr resul ting fron the assertion agjir.st then cf ary rlatr'.. -.'ebts or obligations in co.-.scquc.-.tc of h;s of Lr.c following inproveaents: Construction of stairway and tuber rotainr.g wall structures encroac.iing on or located within the rig.ht- of>wjy of Fagerness Point Foart. 4. The retaining wal 1/planter/stairway structures shall be brought into coirpl iar.cf with pertinent sections of the building code. 5. Applica.-.t is placed or. .notice th;.t this r'op<^^ty contains excessive atour ts of hardeevvr ever th.-it allowed as noted above, and that any future lrnrc.vvrcr.ts te this property involving an increase in hardeevvr nust tc ratehed with the reroval of existing hardcover. 6. Authorities granted by these vaiiarros run with the property not with the owner, but arc pcmicsivc only and must be exercised by applicaticr. for an after*thc-faei construction perrit within one year of the date of Ccur.cil approval, oi this v.iriancc will c.vp.rc cr. that date (Ccccrbcr 10, DBS). 7. Violation of or ncr.cr-pl lantfv i.ith any cf the tv r.*'s and conditions of this rcsolut.on shall eo'stiiuto a viol.ttio.'. o: the toning code. thaU auio.-ati ea 11 y ter.-irato any authority grante.l l.urviti, and unal I ;e j.-n;ihatlc ar. a irisdc.r.vonot . I. The undotsigncd ownei has re.^d' ur..tv:utaau and hcroty agrees to the terns of this rcsol ticr an.: on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors a.id asuinns, h.;rcLy agrees to the recording of this rcjolution in t.^e whain »f title of the property. P.igc -l v: mm mMtemt I ^5: City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1713 OF ORdNO Adopt.d by tb. Orono City CourcU o» tM. Sdth d.y of Deconbert 1964. ATTEST: C, /!'A, rU„ tl) Ptojictty owner Page 9 .TV--.w fe' 111 m I I.OR9NOJ CitybfOROlNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Na nn STATE or MINMESOTA ) ) IK. COUNTY OF HEKNEPIH ) On thii iSch 19S4 before r.o"« Notary PuHTIc witiun anl^i^or“^«aic cocnty, personally appeared C. Kebcrt Jelwne the person(i) oeserib known to no to be ed in and who executed the fore9oinqJahaias- pcrsonliinitromont, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the -iTe as his (their) free act and deed. A NOTAaVxiJi.jilWPx/«t2•:-r ?. wvr* _Lc_iVMI re ■ • • V. .i-.l . > . • . '...IV. * ;•.? cc:-;ni':sio:: hmipes STATE OF MlKSnSCTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF MCNKEPi:i ) On this _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ day cf 1984, before re a Notary Public w:thin and for said County, pcr-onally appeared ____________known to ae to be the persoir(’aT”3cscriucS”"ln an2 wnc executed th»' foregeing instrunont, and acVncwledged that he (they) execute.’ the sare as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY POBUC ;u cuxhissiON rxj ’iRKS rage c f& mi0^ m-:'mmm m ii ltUN0ATE:4 ] n 1111723140100 rtOrAOM IW7 FAGCRMSSrOMTItO OWNER NAME M R MILLER A J LMItLER TAXPAYER MC1IAU.R MILLER A NAME/AOOA JUDITIIL MILLER 1907 PACFRNESS POtNT RO WAVZATAMN S339I 30 1011733140006 PROPAOOA ins FAOERNESSPOMTRO OWNER NAME XWN K PtIROY ETAL TAXPAYER JOlINXPORDY NAME/AOOA mSFAOERNBSPTRO WAYZATAMN SSJII HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP. INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OV^..4JlS LIST PACE: I 30 IOII723I40004 PROPADOR ms FAGERNESS POINT RO OWNER NAME AlOPIIEIM AM VOPIIEM TAXPAYER ALANIOPHEH NAMH/ADOR ISIS FAGERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN SS39I 30 1011733140007 PROPAOOR ini FAGERNESSPOOfTRO OWNERNAME WLOELAYALAOCLAY TAXPAYER WILLIAM LA LORI A OELAY NAME/AOOR mi FAGERNESS FOtNT RO WAYZATAMN SS30I 30 ISII733I400QS PROPAOOR mi FAGERNESS POINT RO OWNERNAME M T WIUTTINOTONA J ACROENKF. TAXPAYER MtCIIAELTWHmWCTON HAMt/AUOR JUUE A GROENKE mi FAGERNESS POINT RO WAYZATAMN 55391 I CEimFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TMS DATE ONTHE RE0Q»s OF THE HEPNEPIN COUNTY TA3CPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. DATE by m m r 0 ^ ' 1:tU ^ :-'i ,^,“i 'P "'»-:v. . / •» T^r*. i-* -N . •/•jIC-'^" '—— i ....i.'-'C'-s^'sssteSS^ V • rt^r ^ - .sA ^ V ^ •’•1 . ..... ■ •/r'r'-:‘r':V.;:;.V r j»/2 * s' ^'.»T •Jv., **<* •••;;> =.;• ..-i .v.v,. ■. 4?^K. ,. ■ ■■■:.■.■.,Vt- ^L:.. . Cl <;:1^1 «I mL~... ApplicatlMi RtctlvH: 4/2^13 Applkalioa CMiiplcte: S^J/U 60 Day DtadHsc: 7/13/03 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafThm, Planning Director May 15.2003 SUBJECT: #03*2901 Denali Custom Homes/ Melinda Lee & Thomas DeVeau 680 Tonkawa Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakesbore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 23.380 s.f. (.34 acre) AppUcntlon Snmnur>: The applicants propose to remove an existing house and construct a new house on property located at 680 Tonkawa Road. The lot is located in the LR- 1B zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot w idth of 140* measured at the lakeshore and at the 75* setback. They are requesting variances to permit new construction on an undersized lot (0.54 acre) having a lot width of 64*. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone to allow 29.15% where only 25% is normally allowed. List of Exhibits A Application B L^ter of Request C Survey/Proposed Site Plan D Grading Plan E City Engineer Comments F Hardcover Calculation Worksheets G Elevation Views/Floor Plans H Plat Map I Property Oismers List Pcrtincat Code Scctioas 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Required lot w idth: 140* Lot width: 64* Required lot area: 1.0 acre Lot area: 0.S4 acre 2. Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(L): Hardcover limitations:Allowed Bulling ErasQK^ 0-75*OV.9.13%9.13% 75-25(y 25%35.89%*29.15% 250-50(y 30%12.57%15.54% After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds L_ •W-mt M^TMlumaltoad May 1S.2MS Pag«2 ExitttegCMidMMs norenlly conttira an existing residence sinicliire which the owner wishes to replace. The •J"’""*?' • fo™»l WuITanalysis has not been done, the 0-75' rone appears ‘"riilL'l.': T' ^ »»«"» “«1 Ptopited ho,^ « oSof the bluff impact aone, and no work within the blulf impact rone is currently proposed ai^re^ng t^U and staiiwa), in the 0-7y rone are in good condition and no changes are proposed. The existing house is further from the lake than the neighboring residence to the south wia"^i!d*a Kl* '”T 'v ^ Tonkawa. Bob Bcutler)was gntiM a 12 average setback vanance in 2000-2001 when it was rebuilt That home was ta rme“' f” •^«'cr «" *n 85' wide lot. with a 2900 s f. footprint TsSffii^e M »'<l>li and is proposing a 2600 s.f. footprint in the ftIZJ** 1^^.* oflhis neighborhood, due to a combination of ta «<><’ “"“ck '0 side setback I!l*."" has created a rock.lin'ed swale along its north lot line to divert txinolf that formerly impacted the next home to the south (6<W).* ggacrwl Cowformltv to ZoBiag Code and Compryft^n,fv> proposed to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line, so no variantiS„,i^,'e The primary concOT aside fromdrainageisthe hardcover request. Although the housewiih attached gmagera within tte buk half of the 75-25(f rone, hardcover in that rone is still proposed to exceed 25 /w The Planning Commission and Council have been fairly consistent in Lmn* h^co«r xanances for new construction unle- s a distinct hardship can be demonstrated. * Structural coverage is proposed at approximately 11.1%, well within the 1554 limitation. Lot Width * Are. While these factors limit the re-use of the property for construction of a replacement*lmme ^a Sw.^a.^^.sTuW^e"*^’^*”^ ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.S60s.f.(l acre)140* Actual 23,380 8.f. (0.54 acre)64* Stfctral Coveraf t Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23,380 s.r.Allowed: 3,507 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2.600 s.f. ±(l 1.1%) HirdcwerCalcuhitioBi! Distaace from shoreliac Total area la setback Allowed hardcover Eibtiag hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*4,860 s.f.Os.f (0%) 444 sf (9.13%) 444 s.f (9.13%) 75-250*11,360 s.f.2,840 s.f (25%) 4.077* s.f (35.9 %)• 3,311 s.f (29.15%) 250-500’ * * /V _ _ -____1____ ___ _ ^ J 7,160 s.f 2,148 s.f (30%) 900 s.f (12.57%) 1.113 s.f (15.54%) CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (do change from origioal q>pUcation) Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ()ii - / Date Received Q Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address CtO fi-L Property Identification Number (P.IO.)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired OCneftACL ____________________ I (do)(Ldo not|also own the adjacent parcels of land. _(moniVytar) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: LC.-lfe________ .other (specify). APPLICANT Phone (home) ^ JCH Name - Phone (work) Address: Il»13 fttuD City: Zip: C/ulH.') OWNER (if different than i^plicant) Name V^C.\fgA*c Address: Rl,______ City;_ Phone (home) Phone (work) ________ fift-o*oo Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ^50,00 0 Describe request in detail: R>c.^oe. C.KisTiiu< mwI /%»u«rrw trr ____pcoa^TM______________ (attacK additional'sheets if necessary) 0HTi^ciUiJ. PUvu< dr VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback; ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF nsUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) O 6 //901 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^ wppIkMiQn tffn^Hne d»t> in npH.. I. ^ .. _Completed ^iplication Fonn obtain this lisu labdT^i^p P'®* 0^“ must Govt Center, 348-5910). *** Department of Finance, A-603, Certificate of Survi^v i... _ .• 4. ✓ 5. 6. Maa« liai, ISOCI5 UUJ Govt Center, 348-5910). ------ -»v„reproduclion. «wiuon. provide one (I) copy 8/,- x 11- fr.r property. This would include nsme(s) of applicants ^f As an addendum to thu applicaUon please ^ ^ ‘®*™r{$). you wish notified of this applicaUon S'patate list of any other persons *• _ Additional items as may be requested by City sUff. APPLICANT’S SmK’A*rfrDE> 7. correctjjuhe bc^of his/ OWIXCR.S entry onto the'propel^°by'a^ twT ^rnsuhanu agemc" “'*■ reasonable members for purpo^f invftig^^j verification of thif^ls!'™ Owner’s Signature 'yA^/os Date ^^------ ^aie y ✓ ■#2'“fl;■ -.i [ •—J jL L City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Mn 55356 DENALI Custom Homes, Inc, April 23.2003 Dear Planning Cbmmissioners; The Applicant, Denali Custom Homes, Inc., and the Land 0\vncr, Melinda Lee &. Thomas DeVeau, are requesting a variance for the Minimum lot area of one acre required by the zoning district LR-IB for the removal and new construction of a home located at 680 Tonkawa Rd ihe attached set of preliminary plans and a survc>’ describing the property are attached. The Applicant and Land 0%N'ner are also requesting Variance for Hardcover, based on hardships located in the 75'- 250* zone from the lakeshore. The lot in question is a very narrow lot which also contains steep terrain in the 75'- 250' zone. The terrain requires a rock retaining s>‘stem to prevent erosion of the lakeshoie and also a stair case to traverse the hillside. These items fall into the zone in question and require additional hardcover not associated with the construction of the dwelling and these items cannot be removed. The uncommon narrow w idth of the lot creates an additional hardsiiip and burden on the hardcover calculation in the 75*- 250* zone. The land owner directly adjacent and to the south of the properly has an 80* wide lot making this an uncommon and ut.shared hardih-* After a preliminary meeting with City Planner, Wendy Bottenberg, the Applicant and the Land Owner have worked with the design firm to reduce the square footage of the house footprint & garage area, eliminated a desired deck off the master suite, and reduced to a minimum the only remaining deck off of the kitchen. The applicant has also moved the house back from the lakeshore an additional 20* to save on required driveway hardcover in the zone. Ihe turn around needed for cars to exit the driveway onto Tonkawa Rd (without backing out) was relocated to the 250*-500' zone to additionally reduce needed hardcover in the 75'-2S0* zone. Moving the house location further back into the 250'-500* zone is not possible do to the site line variance granted to the Homeowner to the s6uth(Beutler 684 Tonkaw a) and the location of their home on the property. Locating the DeVeau house any further than the proposed location would significantly devalue the property due to the site lines that would exist creating a loss of view of the lake. Denali Custom Homes, Melinda Lee. and Thomas DeVeau have worked diligently with the home designer and land surveyor to minimize the hardcover required and significantly improved the percent hardcover from the current existing condition of 40.55 %. We ask that >x>u grant a variance on hardcover percent due to the hardships imposed by the land in question and existing structures to the south. Our proposed hardcover calculation sheet is attached. If >ou have additional questions of the applicant please contact me a 1 612-718-1671. David Denali Custom Homes, Inc. “flh ' 182^ Minnetonka Blvd.*Suite B'Dccphaven, MN 55391 •952-476-2679 -fax 952-476-2682 nieha»l Vradlvy 7S8S7S84S9 e4/2s/ea osiGsa p.coi A4|ac«at rrtptny Owatn* AdcMwlcdsuKai Form I (wo) S'. /^/Hies/ Pf [pniKwMMtt] hm Mvicwod the pUn fbr die prapotod tap ioveo wnl or prapotcd use of ihe ptppctty located at _________aho If ftnod to as Land Uaa Applioatiofl No.________. I (wo) widcniaoidiat in waralii^ Ibis tefcoowladf WOMt. 1 (wo) am (ve) net nked to declare approval or disappraval of Ihe property or uaa but merely to eonfina for the Gty Council that 1 (wo) Ml (■») wars of the unpeovooeat plSM and Ibat the propeted neiihboi's project or use I(wo)___ _______________of------------------------------------ [print oanie(s)][print addroaa] IMVC levicwed tbe plana for the proposed iaprovaneai or proposed itae of the property located at ____________also rereired to as Laod U k Applicitioa No._________ t (wa) Mderstaod that in etecutint Ibis ackadwledsesvcnl. 1 (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or diaappioval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council du! 1 («ro) am («c) aware of the improvcracat plans and that tbe proposed neighboi'e project or use yaqttires ODuneil approvaL Fiaptrty Owner Date Troperty Owner If >wu have any mformation that may assist the City in the review of this Laod Uu AppUcaiian, please submit your comments to tbe Building ^ 2ooiag Oflice at least tO days prior to the Khadulcd meeting date ftl •tn oPMMtU ^ ^ i. d|3<SO CD Z9 •‘•hi J/jL Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (wc) Panels\i^(0r/U Lr?fffjUot frrinl nimefs)] / ^ ^ (print address] ~ have reviewed the plans for tht proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _____________________ abo referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (wc) 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 (wc) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Couixil approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner ^ v ^-^3- 03 Date (print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____________________abo icfcned to as Land Use Application No._________. 1 (wc) understand that in executing thb acknowledgement, I (wc) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (wc) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. T)dA/ ^/aZ/TI/^l C. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Apphearion, please submit ytjur comments to ti.^ Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. rr • o^.:ka I(wc)Gsesq. Adjicent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form e^f ♦ lofiJCiIop/JqI lO'nlcuLdfKJ (print name\5>j (print address] ;or the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property* located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (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 ^•e) am (are) aware of the imp^o^ ement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. i*roperty Gnvner Ovmcr Date / Date / I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of iic property located at _________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ch --------- ' Property Owner C/v\f/CS«/v' 3. A\/’(_s. MAJ .^-J-ve-cr Property Owner Date Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the resiew of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 #290 iL CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THOMAS DEVEAU IN LOT 5. PARTENS POINT 1ST DIVISION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA u V li!,• It H It ivc\ V i p«a;urt C‘%^** LrO*L DLSCWIPTIW Of PREMISES Thot port of Lot 5. lying nor t h«es t er I y o' 0 Ime ru-nm; paroilel to c^d 15 feel »outh«o*ter I y of o line ecui(Ji*tant between tb.- nor tfwester l y ond toutt'eoetnr i y lines of sold Lot 5. Porten's Point First Division. Htnnepm County. Minneso 0. denotes iron rcrker denotes e«istmg spot elevation, mean tto it-ei dsti/n denotes t'opoied spot eie»otion. mean seo le»ei dott/n denotes evistmg contour line, meon tea level doli^ denotes proposed contour ime. meon seo level dsti/n PROPOSED EUVATlC»lS t) Csroge ■ S 2) Top of foundotion Beorings sbo-*’ o'e tosed uran on cssxred dot^ yt/.f oeocs use •r<mm •an •r/ - t't •ncaeioi 1 MUL «• MMI MWWi mo f 0 •*11S .urvev intends to shew the bounderies of the obove described properly •k1 iii^«t!in nf on e.ist.nd house, ond the prcposed locotion of o proposed house l!::ri;n" U dcis noViuIpc?! ?^sAo. cny other irrcroytments or encrpoctments I teHat a»rr» tH»r i<«s »v»ii letcrKsroi c* rirowt * ■ *S •» l« 0» U«t tn DWtCT tLervnscw VO nur I ut • OUT LCINWS msasicw*. t<CM(« VO 1^>C u«« ne ion or M v*it cr iM<irCuGRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC LNCeCtRS. lATC SUR.CYORS. SITE PLANNERS «4S MOfITM txiow OIBVE. LONG LAKE. IM. SMJS WJ-473-4141 e»*i 03-14- M «.civa uaoev -^jLZJLT 0t>-C€2 S'f-r-03 C m7 03-062 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THOMAS DEVEAU IN LOT 5. PARTENS POINT 1ST DIVISION HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA C Put -A IT CP lOuCKtwT Mtact PWQPOSEO elevations ») Goroge ■ Ji/.S 2) Top of foundotiofi ■ 7!/.§ 3) Bosemtni ■ ^7j.c HBM4 uu •4WM 8i« ECO S' P~»S MSO lec *l description or prcmises Thot port of Lot 5. lying northwesterly of o Ime running porellel to and 15 feet southeosterly of o line eguMfislont between the northwesterly ond southeosteriy lines of soid Lot 5. Portcn's Point First Division. Hennepin County. Minnesota denotes iron marker denotes eiistmg spot elevation, mean sea level doton denotes proposed spot eievotion. mean seo Ic/ei dotien denotes eaisting contour lir*. mean sea level doti/n denotes proposed contour line, meon sea level dottm Beorings shown ore bosed upon on ossv#T«d dotim This survey ntends to show the boundories of property, the locotion of on ensting house, ond ®' ® f'®5>®« *'Ousethereon. It does not purport to show gny other irTprovements or encroochmenis ^7 GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSULTerC CNOeCEW. LAM> suhveyors . site PLAreCM 445 NOftTM WlLOe OWVt. lONO LAKE, kti 55J56 *52-473>414t • icaier ciarrT th*i ties SAfcncatcw cw atrcwi W4S PIPtMS er *4 oe \M* UT CWtCt SlW|V,<SC« wo tMi I 4M • OUST ic«(3 mcrtssc>«4. c.cMtv «« i*«o tMA'CP uo* v« i*vi er K t'*ri or mk** 04t| ■ 7*- irtj.— M ict*4( K<U 1--20- 05>I4-OJ PJk w 03-082 03-082 IS 2003 7s0iAM B0NE8TR00 ROSENE ANDERLIK 6516361311 P- 1 s ‘-/r‘-o3 Bonestroo Rosene Andertik& Associates Engineers 4 Architects an« AlMCMM*. Me. H an AtntaMM A<tl«M/ta>M« OaA*'1un*ty PrMct»M«. CMlo O ■enpU'ea ft • Ma«m i %•*««•«. ft * Oi>r»» • fi • foba*! G icr<un.('<« ft ifrry A BfiPBaw, ft • A Kwiion ft iMtto* Ca»wWawtr ■■■in t» ■awn*, ft . Jaiaan c An«wtt.ft • ft (.Mt M l»*rw c f A Oa«*« O lei*a<«. ft « A ■•'^nraa.Mt/ AtiMlM* frtncifau amn A OeraaM, ft • Boatft ■ fftfrar'a ft • B ic K ab *f tana', ft •Acnaal T fammaa^. ft • M a f.a'a f| . aa«'af< f Aaaa>ton. ft . Mara a fo ti ft • I l-A-ay f MrAaa>iaA.ff tl • Aynai M fr^ VBA . A >an Bxa ft . Tna^sat A faiftan.fl jamat a VAana ft . tavi B A ama. ft • u fnjfp C'»ra>». ff • OaMa< i tB«anaA fl . n/«-aa< Uan.Aa< f| a inomat A t/tko ft . tAABaa i ia<v<tan « Ova A ft . Tt<«A>ai A BauVar ft . BaBCM J OVrt'f ft ortKBt tt faU. tl CiouB. BotfAtfar ant WAma' MN • M.*AAaa. Wi > CMcago A May 14,2003 A»btlta wnaBaaait'oetaat Mike Oafifron Planning Director CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MNS5323 Re: DetMikc, We con en 680 Tonkawa Road Plat No. 03-2901 File No. 139-03-000 uive reviewed the proposed grading plans and >nsited the site at 680 Tonkawa Road. The plans include ftniction of a new home and assoc ia ted site grading. We have the follo^^ing comments in regards to eering maners. \fter our site visit it is clear that the plans lack deuil regarding the proposed gradmg and storm drainage The plans should be revised to include all contours and topography SO-feet north and south of the property. Items such as wells, sewers, culverts, walls, trees, etc. should shov^n on the drawing. Construction of the swales shown north and south of the proposed home vi ill require retaining and tree removals. It is likely that the storm swale designs will need to be revised. Our site visit indicated that a setter approach to dealing with storm water might be to include some type of water retention basm located akeside from the proposed home. It may be possible to utilize the existing rip rapped channel located on the neighboring property for a storm water discharge location. If this concept is pursued an casement ivould be requir^ from the neighboring property owner. The final grading plan should include provisions for storm water rate control. Existing and proposed frainage area mapt and drainage calculations should be provided for review. Final design should also Incorporate erosion control measures to protect swales and the existing slopes lakeside from the proposed home. fThe fma) submittal should inclube an erosion and icdiment conUoI plan. Please contact me at (651) 604-4663 if you have any questions regarding this maner. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLDC Sc ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Oappa, City of Orono 233S West Highway 36 • SC. Paul. MN 5SII3 • 65E636-4600- Fa*: 6SI-636-I3II * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) RXllTINC HARPCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ 4-Z2-03 HARDCOVER calculation WORKSUEET _F-I E Oertge . C. Driv-ewey D. Sidewalk _____________ -rfMd^A. ^ tAil/€l UMtM E Pallo/Deck i4*/4*KfCS ^ Si . tAjamS jrtdS X 4^4 tcK F. Landscape Underiaio ByPlutic Or Fabric Un|tfi *0. Other UfpdO Atr. U/AlC x TOTAL HARDCOX'FR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA ZONE A _____________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE’ A Howe _____________ X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasric Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total prc |Pkty,area in zone 71; r‘ 75-250*250-500*SOO-1000* xlOO XlOO SF SF. SF. SF. ;sF SF. !sf. SF. !sf. SF SF. SF. SF SF V. SF. SF. SF. SF. .SF. SF. ;sF. SF .SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. r \ r-2 Dei/eAH ^•2Z'03 HARDCOVER CALCULAT SETBACK ZOSVTE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _____________ 0-73* B. Oarage C. DrisTway D. Sidewalk E PtUo/Deck F. LandKap* Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric £t/00§ CAn*. A40 O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ ♦ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House L«n(di E Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Dcck II.S' F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other IN ZONE iONE ATjON \V ^3-25d^ WORKSHEET 250-500 ‘ WiJA xlOO Wuiih XlOO - SOO-1000* 1348 SF. 1530 r/ i73^ 590 SF. SF. SF p SF. SF. SF SF SF SF -6>2^»'EL P* SF SF SF i€0 € SF. lL3fcO SF ^1M_sf-HOUSG s.r. SF SF. SF - SF p^iVte.U'' .SF.- SF - SF SF - occic SF. SF. SF. 80___sf-K __SF. A ______SF. B 2 f. /5 H TT' SftTBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* EXISTING HARDCQNTR IN ZONE A. Houje ____________ ^ HARDCOVER Cfso-sj^ .........-75-250*500-1000* Lcat*Wi<* B. Garafe * C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other C/Uutt ^AU/f S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. *fOO 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 _ 900 S.F. X 100 - '7 /go S.F. >2.5*7 Si PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lmi'Ji ; B. ’ Caraie irp^^C. Driveway D. Sidewalk ^ .)■ X.*-E. Pa:io/Deck r' •; V.F. Landscape Underlain «~* G. Other mi SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S F. S.F. S F. S F. S.F. SF. S F. S F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _* ® - /OL 7/co X 100 - S.F. S.F. S.F. % r\ R^T ELEVATION©tCMX» IM* • r>«* XX. ^ U) fi '^1 j. s I ^■2. r-/r-c/? #29 0 jk± r-/r-e>3 I *■ IM* d> u •■ ffj tt i^.». I ? A M'-«/ { iV\ '1.- • r t-.; ••> ' ■ ^'f* 1^® ^:afe5ir: ••^-yVS>^J^:: V-';::.^m?'.' ->7i; .: ;P^- ■:\1- . r \nm ' [i' ■ A.'* ■ V'-'i j-' - r^y-Aiaii k/ • V ( . c L. HEQUIREO SUBMITTALS .1. X _ Completed Application Foim. 2. X Deactibf requeat in detaiLv/' 3* -JL^ Certified Property Ownen List of owners ulflun 3Sa. UbeU and plat mao fvou ^ ^ * 1‘cenaed surveyor) - refer to handout for larvey 5. __Attach legal description to application if not included on required iur>ey 6. -------Tt^graphic survey (existing and proposed contours) if UxiA alterations involve changes m elevation (grades). KJ»r 7.. _J^ List of the legal names fmclude marital status) of aU persona with an Interest in the DTOPertV. Thii would hielude HAmeM of aBollesntfc^ tf _____^ jfvu wua nooDca oi mu ^ipucanon. ^4ee iccxfMWwtd YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY^COPIES OF LARGE DOCinvaNTS OR COPY FOR REPROPUenON 01“ X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff wiH require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc to be submitted) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this appUcation., Please remember that >n. ^plication ia sot complete if the above inibanation has not been included. Certificatioo by CHerical Department that Land Use Application is complete, hiiliala of Clerical Staff:^__________________________Date__________ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applici.nt hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staflf time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses inemred in review of this epplicatioo. and certifies that the information supplied is true sod com Applicant's sifsaiurc best of hi U knowledge. Johnson,.! s Attorney and Agent WJM Properties LLC 4-24-7nm OAVNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and aptes to this app!>ation and forther authorized reasonable entry onto the property by Oty siaH consulraats, agenu, commiarion members, and Council members for purposes of invesrieation and veri^atlon of this request Owner’s signanirc of invesrieation and veri^ et^KJi/ Johnson, as/Atcdri - Date 4-24-2003 rney and Agent for " A Zeatag OfBce of ifeii ehaagt prier id Ae mceCag, WJM PROPERTIES LL.C. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST. ORONO Applicant proposes to install two (2) Vaulted Fuel Storage Tanks on the south side of the existing building near the southwest comer. The Tanks wiN be located at least five feet from the building. Tank specifications have been submitted by the applicant. The Tanks consist of a steel primary tank within a non-metallic secondary containment which is monolithically entombed in six inches of reinforced concrete at 5.000 PSI The Tank capacities are 2.000 gallons and 1.000 gallons. The applicant intends to store and dispense gasoline and diesel fuel in conjunction with its new car preparation operations onsite. Applicant also proposes to improve the painted block exterior of the existing facility from the northeast comer, along the east wall, south to the loading dock. The block wall will be resurfaced with EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish System). Finally. Applicant is engaged in negotiations with the City of Orono and Long Lake regarding utility easements along the eastern property line. The City of Long Lake may grant an access/egress easement allowing vehicular access from the subject site to Industrial Boulevard in Long Lake. In case said easement is granted, applicant requests an amendment of its Site Plan allowing for construction of a 40 foot bituminous driveway from the eastern parking lot to the east property line. CVJeaimafltt and SattnQtVAl UMn\Oocum«n(s\My OocurMnti2VUpMiActht««loiTfa*i OrandMamo 3 doc ^ '2 s-ir-c L VAULTED FUEL STORAGE TANKS The ConVault AST is a patented and totally portable tank s/stem consisting of a steel primary tank (fabricated in accordance with U.L. standard U2) within a iu>n-xnetallic secondary containment which is monoUthically entombed in 6 inches of reinforced concrete at SOOO PSI. The ConVault tank is constructed free from “heat sinks*' without any steel penetrations on the walls, bottom .or top of the tanl. and is seamless there by completely thermally isolating the inner steel tank and thus totally eliminating the risk of potential conductivity from any source. All CooVauIt tanks are constructed using a patented monolithic (no scams) process and has aamed FOUR UX.208S sub set listings. 1. Insulated (lire rated ) 2. Protected type. (This listing includes collision protection and ballistic protection criteria ) 3. Non>Metallic secondary containment protected tanka for flammable and combustible liquids with secondary containment 4. emergency Venting by *Torm of ioostruedon*'. ConVault tank* meet all narional/regional/state/local codes and standards to include UFC Appendix A-II-F-1 , NFPA 30 and 30A, BOCA .SBCCI, anti IFC fire safety standards. ConVault tanka provide top fittings only, in accordance with all codes and standards which prevents potential leeks from valves, fittmgs, and fill pipes, spill prevention during tank filling is provided by a 7 galloB U.L. listed container that surrounds the filling system. In the event of an overfill, the product will be completely conta med in the spill container and then drained back into the main tank. Additionally, direct le^'el reading gauges, audible alarms, and automatic shut off devices can be installed to mtet specific jurisdictional requiremcnis. Through the years, thousands of ConVault Systems have bem installed and remain In service dirough out the world. Since we introduced vaulted tank technology our proven nitiooal sal'ety record and continual U.L. performance and bating, has resulted in the safest “AST* tank system available. NO CONVAULT .^ST FAS EVER EXPERKNCI.D A SYSTEM FAILURE AAer you have had a chance to review this material, contact us or visit our web site at W\\'\^".CON\*AULT.COM. We would be happy to answer any questions and supply you with additional information. I trust the ConVault Tank System meets your requirements. Sincerely. Michael J. Anger POLLUTION SOLUTIONS 6640 INDUSTRY AVE. NW • RAMSEY. MN 55303 • (612) 323^3546 • l-WKMSO-3546 • FAX (6^) 923-962^ ■ ' ■ •• ^5 J•1=/r r'r.*-.«* ^0 € VAULTBO PUiL VTORAOK SYlTmt • Pratoctad Tank Utltd (UL 20IS and ULC 14?.16) • Caaacfliat Iraai 280 to 12.000 Oaltaas in Sinfa or Dual Comparimentt. • Pomp Paakaoaa A'«allabla. •MYaarWarramr. •ManufactarlBoFaeflitits Nalionwidt. o o 91 » ^4! . ■ COMCRETE ENCASEMENT Six Ifich f£:nfoicsd concr6t* INNFR fiTFFi tauv a ■ enMseroent for firt resisisnct .m Kructjral ptotKt.on u,t,on «»l elTiirO NO-RUST EXTERIOR Available in a variety of interior coatings are also available, architectural finishes to corrpifTent ad.arer teciiities O UAK BARRIER HOPE Containment membrane also ^E-fNQINEEREO TOOE COMPLWRCE serves to Isolate inner steel tank from concrete for ® Detector superior corrosion protection Q irisrna' Spill Co Ualner O INSULATION LAYER Pchystyrene insulai on protecis ^ Emergency Vent tank contents from temperature extremes ano aib.*.s O ^®*e‘ Indicator for efficient heating Q Comnumcalionr Port rV. litntMiNi «iiniir" flfncoR^!s»v- MINNESOTA DIVISION -CONVAULT 1.000 RAlinM o _>*«. 'm- ■ TOP TO WAI I <; m ta .v«'p9.rsrmom.- «^JS5SSSSS>,“8i~“- ----------•' concmth -^— lotntkt-— ^ X j • •• ; •• ««a S3 W« »» M TMr ROTTOM Tn WAI I nriAii A @MaseQite'’PtecaB^ Inc i .. FOR OTTAAS $CC RC^CRSC 90C ca^»T. im • ^ Additions U.L. W.l«hta HMturn. W»M^i r»«l Wo«.,^f 5,*W Mifli Uw Ovtrtm, ImIi IMmIcii. antf MwiNal UwincHng. 0«Mll«^ J«» Fw«l, BItMl. «Ml* on. «n4 0«iitr«lor Patkmmn. W«l*r TrMtmtnl / ChsifilMi / Hanr^Mis Wc«t« Tanka. ef:’ vV* 7 ^ >V ; if- ■>*•. - / •. .i’•O ___1 flfUCOR HINNCSOTA DtVISION CONVAULT 2.QQQ GAI| QKi ?-•4*« K •* LONG NIPPLE AND CAP .H»oc 5’-4-OUTSIDE DIMS.n’-3* U.L USTEO SPOl CONTAINMENT W/ INTQtNAL DRAIN AND POSITIVE SEAL RnTTHM Tn WAI I «s 0 'Rf8caBt,lna DFTAIL FOR details sec PEVCASC SIOC CflF«P(T. twt OCTAH. DNAWIN9 FOR CONVAULT 2,000 GALLON W06NT B St.000 Ite. AddUiong AvoliQbl# UO. •«« itomufM. nnnHilHf TimI Vtnn>im Mt|lt toml. Uv toMl. Uak an^ totoninal Waiilta«lii9. CaaalliM. A»fn, JM faal. ttmf, VmH m, mt trnmt^ F*iclw|a«. Malar Traatwia a t / CWaw laa l / MaaariaM Maala Tartha. # o A oir ^ —. : -c T - - A. ' *■ m ' / C */y( V *■ tjtf' ‘cvr- iiiV’*: j' ’"^^‘.^rx4 mm GlTYoTOROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- - 4 8 4 R Hie Planning Commisjlon made the folloning findings of fact: A. The Orono zoning ordinance does not permit “retail sales” in the I InduRtn-«i ^Uts. IS not peiroitted on the property. However, pressed use* such as the SS'iJ *e rsJScr”""®'““ "* lot as proposed nould men ihe definiiion of a wholesale ooeration Srxirc«ss.;;,:,'‘S,r "asras—s?; Page 2 of 10 I ha-lhiitfi GITYof ORONO COUNCILRESOLUTION OFT NO. _ The Storage ^oflhe building comprises approximately I7,000s.f. Storage will be for internal operating uses, owner storage, and storage of facility related equipment The office is incidental to the operation of the facility. Both storage and office would be allowed as 'incidentar uses of the building to the operation of the entire facili^. The Conditional Use Permits for the outside sales lot and outside storage would require all items to be stored within a building; or shall be screened by a fence or wall not less than five feet in height and not less than 50% opaque. The Planning Commission finds a berm, not less that 3' in height, shall be consoled north of the ouUide sales lots with plantings with a height of 3*. The intent is to provide some visual screening to the outside sales area to not give the appearance of a retail sales lot. It is the understanding of the Planning Commission the outside dispUy area U for the fleet customer test drive and viewing, but not to attract the general public to the site for individual purchase of vehicles. The Orono zoning ordinance does not define retail sales and wholesale sales. The City hu used a general definitions book titled The Illustrated Book of Development Definltinn^ 1) Rgttil Trade "Esublishmentsengagcdinscllinggoodsormerchandise to the general public for personal or household consun^ition and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods.” An important characteristic of retail establishments is that they are usually a place of business engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy. Retail establishments sell to customers for their own persona] or household use. 2) ^^*holmlC Trad^ Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users, or to other wholesalers; or acting as agents or brokers and buying merchandise for, or selling merchandise to, such individuals or companies.” Page 3 of 10 lii. GITYofORONO COUNCILRESOLUTION OF T NO. _ v" » convenion to uses such «s liehl industnti and Ugh lech medical that have a clean, professional apDearJuc *1?** “•’''"'""S •'*>“*« to attract customers wUle ^-;TS;i^T=.TS;'35'SSS,»&“£r,^siass?sssh:sddca.lcrship. but rather only idenliiyins the individual user of the facility. cZi^SiiMsive PhlSSS "** CO.NCLUSIO.NS, ORDER, AND CO.NDITIONS use ofihe property for a wholesale distribution facility repair carts warit,leasing lot subject to the following conditions; ' ’ ^ a«housc. and fleet sales and * Pa(ge4ofl0 r CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A ft 4 .*> 1. 6. 7. The outsidestorage area locMed on the south side of the building shall be comnleiely saeenedwithad fence around the perimeter of the storage area. This is the area w^^all vehicles intended for body svork «iTl be stored when not within the The individ^ storage area devoted to the parking of new vehicles and finished vehicles n^y for delivery to dealerships shall be limited to 250 parking spaces. The area should be limned to the east end of the parking lot since adequate screening will shall ^ limned to the « at the north ends of the parking lots. Such parking shall be propose* ***' building and 15 spaces northeast of the building, as The parking lot shall have 6 planting islands located within the east parking lot per the recommendations. The intent of such plantings is to separate areas for displ^ customer parking and employee parking from the parking for vehicles that aic intended for processing. The display wcas are proposed to use the existing trees that are on the property for screening. The new parking area on the north side of the building uill require removal of at least one substantial tree on the north side of the building. The site plan indicates some of the trees %sill be relocated beuv^en the parking lot and the highway Additional screening xniII be provided in the form of a berm (a minimum op in height) \«th planting of jumpers. The required screening shall screen the display parking areas from view to Highway 12. The existing light poles in the east parking lot shall be removed and 4-tvvin bead light fixtures on poles not to exceed 25* in height are permitted to be constructed to provide enough lighting to provide security and lighting to the property* 5-hun head light poles, not to e.xceed a height of 20* are permitted to be installed at the north end of the display parking area. All lijhlins fi.\lures shall be a “shoe box" style light fixture with a recessed light source, not allowing the light sources to be visible from any property line. Page 5 of 10 oi IV'V'’III o GITYof ORONO 11. 12. 13. 16. 17. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 8 4 5 property owners initiate such discussions. adjacent Such use would include feet sales of automobiles to a comm ‘ cuuomer and wholesale trade of parts &om the site Ko I- displays are pemtitted when the ient is to attl^rt^^X c«tS “ L'ditSt?”™"*’ “ «!S">S= shall require Noise of the operation shall be in confomiance w ith the Noise Ordinance. 14. Periodic review of this conditional Slfatitfo'cTedlltTso.' • final guarantee in adeveC;::«;;„?Cfin’« will provide an estintale of the total im^vemen; co«! ^ Anthonies granted by the conditional use pc^it w ith the property not with the ~i^ytc^^ Page 6 of 10 lfinkr4nuMbi^c*-w GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 84 s 18. The undersigned owner and applicant ha\*c read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the propert)'. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a recular mcetinv held on the 12th day of August. 2002. ^ ATTEST: J. 1/di: :inda S. Vec, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this>2th day of August, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson. Mayor of the City' of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. , r*"*^ciaDOOGE'' ^Notary Public Page7ofl0 § lO.SO SEC Subd. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. 1. 1. Application. All applications for a building penmit in any T Industrial ^0^' District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be refeired to the Planning Commission for ^ ' review. Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within any ”1" District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Processing. Etc. Conducting a process, fi^mcation, storage, manufacturing or wholesaling operation or providing of a service as lifted hereafter. 1. Apparel 2. Artificial lin^ 3. Automobile and truck punting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering, tire recapping and sales when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or tru^ in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. Open sales lots shall be subfect to a conditional use permiL 4. Bakery, commercial. 5. Bicycles and toys. 6. Boats and marirte products. 7. Bus, truck and contractor's terminals and maintenance yards. 8. Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumber yards and millwt>rks, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning shop. 9. Camera and photography. 10. Canvas and cloth products. 11. Ceramic and cloth products. 12. Ceramic products. 13. Cork products. 14. Drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceutical and toilcuies. 15. Electric motors, generators, electric products. 16. Engraving and printing. 17. Ice and cold storage plants, bottling works. 18. Laundries, commercial. 19. Machine shops. 20. Metal polishing and plating. 21. Musical instruments. 22. Novelties. 23. Paper products. 24. Pbarmiu:eutical products. 25. Products made of glass, cellophane.leaiher. plastic, wood. 26. Shoes and footwear. X ORONOCC (4-I-S4) $ lO.SO 27. Sporting equifNnent. 28. Television, radio and appliances. 29. Tools, hardware and small metal products. 30. WaiehQiisina ^ubd. 3. Conditional of followtag u*, 0“ or n.orc 1. Accessory structures. 2. Farm equipment sales, repair and storage. ^ ^3. Heliports as an accessory use for that property. ^ 4. Motor fuel stations. 5. Open sales lots. 6. Outside storage. 7. Public service structures. 8. Railroad switch yards, team tracks or fteighl houses 9. Research laboratories. p«n»n«iu«orcondl.io«.l J.“- "'■«0" «o • .he p«o™.l ooployrf » J ore loc««. in and ,„vlcing 12. Planned Industrial District as regulated by Section 10.51. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 0^' eembinatiow ofi on the same lot t the height of th B. Antenna 6mieiun. One in dc| mmi mM----------- --------------- rfent Mitcium stnietuit. with antenna or d xnrK.ug the piiiieipnl use or struetuft —,-------------- uaui iiui uiun,iivu lu aim a -------nicture Joes not exceed 65 fiLK and ilw niw I ‘-i tim Inrthnrlifi... «y lot iHie a distance at least equal to the ratal heigl.i of ihr antemm ^ (Seufeci Oidinanci. Ne. 177,- Effeeti^e Date; 6 5 75) Deleted via Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series Adopted: 5-27-97 ORONOCC (4-1-84) r § 10.50 Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within any "I" Industrial District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses; A. Any accessory use as regulated in the ”B-1District. Subd. 5. Area, Height. Setback and Design Requirements. A. Lot Area. The minimum lot size shall be tw o acres. B. BuildingArea. Each individual building shall have a gross floor area (not including basements) of not less than 5,000 square feet when designed for a single tenant nor less than 15,000 square feet when designed for multi-tenants. C. Lot Coverage. Not more than 30% of the total area of any lot. tract or parcel of land three acres or less in size may be covered by buildings or other structures. Not more than 45% of the total area of any lot. tract or parcel of land more than three acres in size may be covered by buildings or other structures, except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60% will be pennitled. D. Height. No structure or building shall exceed three stories or 40 feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. E. Building Setback and Yards. 1. Street Setbacks. All buildings and structures must be set back a*, least 75 feet from the right-of-way of any highway or street which has been designated as limited access, freeway or expressway; and 50 feet from those designated as thoroughfares, collectors, minor or secondary streets. Where the district abuts or adjoins an "R" District there shall be a building setback from that street of not less than 75 feet 2. Side Yards or Rear Yards. Any building or structure required by any building code adopted by the City to have openings in the rear wall, shall be erected no closer th^ 30 feet to a rear property line. Where rear wall openings are not required by any such code, and the rear wall has no openings, buildings or struemres may be constructed to within 10 feet of a rear property line. No building or structure shall be erected any closer to a side property line than a distance equal to one and one-half times the average building height. Ulrere the district abuts or adjoins an ”R" District, the side or rear yard abuning such residential district shall be not less than 100 feet. ORONOCC (4-1-14) A- § IO.SO \ « I. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick; or. (b) Natural stone; or, . ... .. , precast concrete units if the surfaceshave been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture; or, , . . . . fabricated and finished metal framed panel constmction, if the panel matenals be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above class prclinished mn,! (olho than unpiiiiited gilvanized iron) or plastic; provided that if any wail ofihe bu.Mu««.ttuctu,t&«,^or.butsan-R-District, tiKn that wall 4 r. u. r I. . . . materials as may be approved b>* the CouncU.Combinations of such matenals shall be permitted. erection of an original buildin^ofblndtTs'Xdlt^cT^,^ iSSt«lK TOcc"' ^ * A) 5v . . u . t.„a. or Structure ofatcmporar>'character, trailer, basement °r.i ; '“‘'"6 '"0 or more street Iranlages. JO-/, of the required setback from^ shal not be located within the required setback area in ftonl of the building. No parking li located closer thai. ten feet to a side or rear lot line, nor closer Ihm. ten feet to any^Zf^h partog space shall have a minimum width of nine feel and a minimum depth of tw^ty fAi exclusive of aisles and maneutering space. All parking areas containing more th«rix spaces w«ch ORONO CC (4.1-84) L.._. § lO.SO ftce either a public street or residenUally zoned property shall have a solid wall or fence of not less than four feet nor more than six feet in heigltt along such facing. Such fences or walls shall be so designed that they are architecturally harmonious with the principal structures on the lot A screen planting approved by the Council may be subsUtuled for the required wtiII or fence. R Loading Facilities. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity or railroad cars, shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Tho.se faciliues. hereby designated as "loading facilities", shall be subject to the following regulations: 1. Amount Requited. Loading fecililies of sufficient number to proride for the requirements of each use shall be provided on the premises of each principal and accessory’ use The exact number required will depend on the nature of the principal and accessory use and the type of transport service used, but in no event shall there be less than one truck transport loading facility for each 50.000 square feet of building floor area or major fraction thereof. 2. Design. A loading facility includes the dock to or from which the transport vehicle is being unloaded or loaded and the berth for the vehicle while it is being loaded \ or unloaded, and the maneuvering areas needed to maneuver the vehicle into or out of its berth. All \ docks shall be located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use and they shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a \-ehiclc during the ^ time it is standing in the berth. All berths shall be screened from view from the property's sired • frontages by a solid wall of not less than ten feet in height Such walls shall be so designed that they q. are ^tecturally harmonious with the principal structure on the lot At least one and not lew tliM ) 50% of the required number of truck transport loading berths shall be not less than 50 feel in length, A 14 feet in width and 15 feet in height. All truck transport berths and maneuvering areas shall be surfaced vviih a hard, all-weather, durable, dust-free surfacing material properly drained and maintained in a sightly and wxll-kept condition. 3. Location. Loading berths shall not be located on a street frontage I unless located within the perimeter of the building housing the principal or accessory use. Where located on a street frontage, they shaU be completely enclosed. No berth shall be located within the required side or rear yards. All berths shall be physically separated from areas used fc* ^-‘reet p^ng except for connecting drivewuys or aisles. No maneuvering area shall be locatei* • ten feel of a side or rear property line. 1. Storage. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, all raw materials, supplies finished or semi-finished products and equipment shall bt stored within a completely enclosed building; or shall be screened by a fence or wull not less than five feel in height and not less than 50% opaque; provided, however, that motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use and of not more than three-fourths ton capacity may be stored within the permitted parking areas. ORONOCC 356 (4-1-84) § 10.50 coodiuon. All vacant lots, tracts or parcels shaU also be properly maintained. ^ ponding area, aloiin drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade afTecling water runoff wbether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Waier Managoijcnl Plm and shaU be insistent with other applicable regulations or City Code proWsions and^^ect to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ^ SEC. 10.51. PID PLANNED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. .• f *■ Section is to establish provisions for the granting of a conditional use permit to erect a multi-building industrial facility in relation to an M prorid^toMfler'**^^ Phys'cid plan and in accordance with the provisions and procedures ^ rv...:.. flo"- Tlie owner or owners of any tract of land within an "I" Eh^fl may »)>!<<>"o the CoiwU for approval a plan foe the development and use of such a tract A of laiid for a Planned Industnal District for commercial or other uses peimined in the district within 0^ which the l«nd IS loomed by making an application for a conditional use permit authoriring A' completion of the t^lopment in accordance with the plan. The plan for the development shall ^ conform to the requirements of the district within which it is located except as herein Lended. apermitreque^^fshilnmlllref^^^^ 4. the City water and sew-er 'i' ORONOCC (4-1-84) T ■ § 10.61 Subd. 14. Access to Loading Berths. Each loading berth shall be located %\ith vM^ appropriate means of access to public street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with ' trailic. / Subd. IS. Surfacing of Loading Berths. All loading berths and accessways shall be improved with a durable material. *' Subd. 16. Storage Prohibited. Any area allocated as a required loading berth or access ' dri\-e so as to comply with the terms hereof, shall not be used for the storage of goods, inoperable vehicles nor be included as a part of the area necessary to meet the off-street parking area. • Subd. 17. Required Loading Berths. WTterc the principal use of the structure served is as listed, the minimum number of loading berths shall be as shown. A. Auditoriums, Conv’ention Hall, Public Building. Hospital, School, Hotel. Sports Arena. At least one loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 1,000 to 10,000 square feet of floor area. For buildings having 10,000 to 100,000 square feet of floor area, one additional loading berth SO feet in length. B. Retail Sales and Service Stores. Offices. At least one loading berth 25 feet / in length for each building having 6,000 square feet of floor area or more plus one additional loading ' berth 50 feet in length for buildings over 25,000 square feet up to 100,000 square fect. C. Manufacturing. Fabrication, Processing and Warehousing. At lea.st one I loading berth 25 feet in length for each building having 3.000 sq. arc feet or fraction thereof plus one ! loading berth 50 feet in length for each 25,000 square feet of floor area up to 100,000 square feet plus one loading berth for each 50,000 square feet of floor area over the first 100,000 square feet of j floor area. The operator of the business shall have the option to declare the length of the berths | required for buildings above 100,000 square feet of floor area, except that one-half or more of the t total number of berths required shall be 50 feet in length. D. Other. There shall be provided adequate off-street loading space in connection w ith all strucnires w hich require receipt or distribution of materials by vehicles. Subd. 18. Gas Stations. Mo^fuel stations in all districts shall be subject to the following performapf** <tat^dar|| j A. Fencing. A fence, w all or landscaping of acceptable design not over six feel in height or less than five feet shall be constructed along the property line when said use abuts property residentially used or in an **R" District, and said fence shall be adequately maintained. (A* Application of this provision shall not require a fence within the required front yard or within fifteen ' feet of any street right-of-way line. ORONOCC 388 (4-1 84) § 10.61 C. Dniiiage. A dniiuge system subject to spproval of the City Engineer shallbe installed. F. Pumps. Pump islands sha'I be installed and confoim to yard tetjuirements. from Ore intersection onsso^X^of^^^r ” cAo d- ^ stalion may have one pedestal type sicn not in excess of 48 square feet nor more than 22 feet in height, creeled >vithin any yard excem that no o^I of the sign shall be Icm than six feet from a properly line. No part of the sign surface shall he fess than 16 feel vertical distance from the grade of the nearest driveway or parking: areas. an integral par, of. ««P>« r* <? »> following perfo™“ el!™Zdl“- *" be subject to UtT to. which is «least w;.owue*dlu^^^^ or a plan mg stnp not less than fifteen feel in width resers-ed and planted along U« ptoLmCshil ^ plan approved by die CotiiH!""'' ^ '«'b • ,X Source; Municipal Code Effective Date: 9* 14-67 (Sections 10.62 tluough 10.69. inclusive. reser\ed for future expansion.) ORONO CC 5oq (4-1.84) .A O T S 9.34 SBC. 9.34. PIU PROTBCTXOH AMD PRBVBMTIOH.r7r-c;? Minnesota as though be marked office of public. Minnesota Minnesota Subd. 1. Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Adopted. The Uniform Fire Code* 1982 Edition (MUPC)« is hereby adopted set forth verbatim herein. One copy of said Code shall CITY OF ORONO ~ OFFICIAL COPY and kept on file in the the City Clerk and open to inspection and use by the Subd. 2. Fire Code Amendments. As authorized by the Uniform Fire Code, the following amendments to the Uniform Fire Code are hereby adopted for the City:1 i A. Restrictions on Flammable or Combustible Liquid Storage . 1. Prohibited Districts Established. Pursuant to MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001, the Council hereby declares all land located within the following specified zoning districts to be the districts within which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibitedi R*>1A, R-IB, RR-lB-1, RS, LR-IC, LR-lC-1, B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, M-6 and ..................... 2. Aboveground Tank Locations. In those district; not included in Item 1 above, the storage of flammable or combustibl*4 liquids in aboveground tanks is permitted provided such tanks are located in conformance with MUFC Sections 79.501 and 79.1001^ with the following: (a) Mo such tank shall be located in an^ required f>^<kit yard space as defined in the Zoning Chapter. (b) No such tank shall be located within 50 feet of any side or rear property line..^fAe\ibC^ #'72./^2.5. (c) No such tank shall be located within 75 feet of any lake, wetland, stream or drainageway unless such tank is diked in accordance with MUFC Section 79.508. The minimum setback for a diked tank shall be 30 feet from the lake, wetland, stream or drainageway.r M )6 X LR-lfi pit> RR' ;a .flAl. ORONO CC V l' v\ '\0 (4-1-Si) r S 9.34 (laBBable or coBbu^tlbTa^ ot paralttad in any dlatrlct In inford.- “"<**f9tound tanka ahall be and with the following' ‘ accordance with MUFC Section 79.S01 any required front yard a^*.U le!LTl^ ‘tSt\^Sr„g'°c'h.Vttr “'’"" 10 feet of any side or reir’prSper^^llwI' *’* 30 feet of any lake, wetlind. «rl«^r‘*d"?aI*n"aVeway* Pursuant to Murc s"«foi'V2‘’ws‘’\Ve’“cou^cif'h'°’'t“" land within the Citv j hereby declares all district within which no UaJuiJf I-Industrial, to be the tion shall exceed 2 000 oallon u^o storage installa- and the Council fu^'ther^declares^ tha^t^'^no property; storage installation over^SOO aillln petroleum gaslocated in any reouirikd water capacity shall be defined ij; th7 Zoning Chapter but ah.'i®," “'i I'l^'shore yard as requlreaents for principal buildings. ^ “ conform to all setback ^S-e-s a-A'-S^h - -u»h''.re"hj storage of eU^rve:^^^‘Al'■^tiSg ‘^Vn%‘■!a VVohVb‘i't'eJ?' used in th®l8“sec^■ion‘’*‘thi'F!?^ ‘'*® alterations anra'„‘°n"d;e^tl %^'e%<^?a^l°'hav'^hV'Air^^^^^^^^ Oy the Council *ti ad ’Siil^i:? sJSt.'’BA'nd^n*gT^^^^ which has contr®actu".?‘AVis7l«'lo^'’!„‘"’‘®5 ®' "*‘® “apattment District, or his authocUed rAresa>>tat'i*»e. '"“a S«tv‘ce Citye "Corporation Counsel" means the Attorney for the a whole, and a'lso"thU®1>*arV°Sf%he“separate Fire Service District. ^ corresponding to each authorized repce•sen7a^*lv”‘""“®'® ®'®'® ««tsh«l, or his,^. ORONO CC 220 (4-1-84J ^ - Tt: «arw>i» S 9.34 B. The Chief of each Fire Department, or his authorised representative, within the Fire Service District of said Fire Department. The Fire Chief shall retain primary responsibility and authority for determining response to fire calls and for fire scene command. V AC. The Chief of the Police Department or his officers. The Police Chief shall be responsible for coordinating enforcement policy and activities between the respective Fire Service Districts and between the Fire Chiefs and the Building Official. D. The Building Official or his authorized representative. The Building Official shall be responsible for coordinating enforcement of the Fire Code with enforcement of the State Building Code and the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Subd. 5. Permits and Fees. A. Wherever the Fire Code or this Section requires a permit, applications for said permit shall be made to the Build ing Official with all information required, and payment of a permit application fee as fixed and determined in accordance with City Code Section 1.05. Application fees shall be non-refundable. B. The Building Official shall refer all Fire Code permit applications to the Fire Chief of the applicable Fire Ser vice District who shall perform required pre-permit inspections. The Fire Chief shall upon request by the Building Official supply a written report to the Building Official prior to permit issuance. C. All fire Code permits shall be issued by the Building Official upon the advice of the Fire Chief and subject to such conditions of approval as may be required by the Fire Chief, except that fireworks permits pursuant to Article 78 shall be issued by the Police Chief. One such copy of all permits so issued shall be delivered to the Fire Chief for his record. D. No Fire Code permit shall be issued if said permit would authorized an activity or use of property or structures contrary to any provision of the Fire Code, the State Building Code or the Zoning Chapter of the City Code. Subd. 6. New Materials. The City Administrator, Police Chief, Building Official and the Chief of every Fire Department protecting a Fire Service District of the City shall together act as a committee to determine and specify, after giving affected persons an opportunity to be heard, any new materials, processes or occupancies which shall require permits, in addition to those now enumerated in the Fire Code. As they occur, such determinations shall be listed; such list shall be posted in the offices of the Police Chief, the Building Official and each Fire Chief, and dis tributed to all interested parties. u ORONO CC (4-1-84) S 9.34 provide, 1o“\he’ '<“•‘>1 . nol..iJSc\Vd"'i4:./‘/o'r ^/.".V,ej;i; vWer.:5 lane, are hereby '^^Hab^alTe'd ‘ a "'’tll*'DSbl1*‘’ “"“•tked, fire SlS^%%‘%'be-b-d''raVr-anV"£\^Cr&pavement edge nearest the front of the hydrant! ® B.Building Exits. Whether marked or iinniji.-ir„e« hereby e.power'Vd ?5‘“rde? Vh?V.V.Vll,h"ii‘.'nt‘''“S' ““M" ‘* properties, may be served upon the tenant occupying the p°rSpe/tV.*^ 53shin hive a? !e..t h ‘" “"ohstrueted widtl J «rsh"a'l?’b*"'' • t«^!’/r*ad^*u“‘SI'af'!«*.r50 le*e“ c.rryi„Viv%%i^?e‘““ir?o^ar„/oS^7Vo‘n^,",l,?o'o'o^ °'J_ rb;-io;t/S -,rWFv -rii’?? / ^"M‘S:ierVr%*ineJ\Vrr.^VlH r^- or within a publle*’*r"ioh't-of-wav*''*tht 5" public property o«r ‘tl?e'’proV«ty!‘’' •9*"'" h7vinVl"*rUdlctiSn ORONO CC (4-1-84) The City Council of Orooo docs ordain: sss^^" R-IA.R-IB,RR-lB-1.RS.LR-IC.LR.l&l.B?1 B “RS, LR-lC, LR-lC-1. B-1, B-3, A^by^CityCoa«aortheaft.ofOn»».Mnoe»u«iu«guI«n«^26th day of April, 1999. ATTEST: Lind* S.Vee, City Clerk Gabn^abbour, Mayor \ PuMl.h.d In th. Uk.r uul Hon«r nw.p.p„. the w«k ,t (Up a, 1999. Page] of] IDilt AppttcallM Rccchrtd: 4123m Pit AppMwHta C—m Ciwpltlg; 4/23/13 ««-D«7 Review PtrM Eiyirts: 403/W Chair Smith and Planning Conunissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator F^n: Dale: Sabjcct: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director May 12.2003 «03-2900 Zoalag District: Lot Area: Wm. Yale Smiley. 2730 Pheasant Road Timothy J. Mahoney. 2760 Pheasant Road • Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement - Vacation/Rededicalion of Drainage & Utility Easement • Public Hearing LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1-acre miiL (43,560 s.f.) 2730 Pheasant Road: 2760 Ph isantRoad: Exisiiog 0.58 ac. 0.75 ac. Proposed 0.58 ac. 0.75 ac. AppUetOhm Summmry: ^jplicants request af^val for a lot line rearrangement bemecn th<^ two developed residential lots. Smiley is acquiring a portion of the Mahoney property near the road for construction of an attached garage addition. In exchange, Mahoney will gain an additional 5' of uidth from the house to the lakeshore, resulting in an equal acreage trade. Perthical Code Scclioos: 1. 10J4, Subd. 5B: Minimum lot area required - 1.0 acres dry buildable Minimum lot width required « 140* List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat map C - Survey - Existing &. Proposed Lot Lines D • Hardcover Calculation Worksheets E - Property Ow-ners List F - Suff letter to applicants 5-1-03 Background Applicants propose to move the boundary between their two developed residential lots to acconunodate a proposed garage addition at 2730 Pheasant A similar rearrangement was approved for 2720-2730 Pheasant in 1984 to accommodate pre-existing encroachments onto the 2730property by the bouse at 2720. The home at 2730 was thm constructed in 1985. M3-29M r.r2 Lot SUidards Lot Area A Width E ch developed lot is sUghdy subslandaid as compared to the 1-acre LR-IB zoning district requirement For substaodaid lots, the City in many past applications has approached lot line reairangemenu from the perspective that the lot areas should remain the same, neither gaining nor loring area but doing an equal trade. That is exactly what is proposed with the current request. Because these are lakcshore lots, the width is measured at the shoreline and at the 75* setback line. The defined width of 2730 decreases from approximately lOO* to 105’ at the 75 ’ setback, with no change at the shoreline due to the commons lot (see survey). The defined width of2760 increases from 125' to 129* at the 75 ’ setback line, with no change at the shoreline. At the 35* street setback line, 2730 increases from 90* to 100*, and 2760 decreases from 17? to 167’. Setbacks Both existing homes meet required setbacks, and the proposed attached garage and deck additions will meet the required 10* side setback and average lakeshore setback when the lot line rearrangement is completed. Hardcover Both lou have land within the 0-75’ and 75-250* zones. “Before” and “after ” hardcover numbers in^e both loU will remain just under the 25% limit for the 75-250’ zone after the lot line rearrangement and proposed additions. Each lot has minimal or no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Lot Cov erage bv Structure Each lot in both the ’before’ and ’after* condition contains substantially less than the 15% limit on structural coverage, hence no variance situation will be created. The ‘before’ and ‘after ’ lot standards are summarized in the table on the next p«gr UtUMcs; Easemeats Both lots are served by municipal sewer and water. The existing sewer and water connecUons will not be affect^ by the rearrangement. TheexUting 10* drainage and uUlity easement akmg the west line of2730 is proposed to be vacated and a new casement granted in its place. The applicants have provid^ a legal description for the casement to be vacated and the new easement to be granted. 5 ’ either side of the new lot line. A letter has been sent to the utility companies to confirm whether they hive uiy objeclioiu lo die vKadon^dedicilion; no won! hick t$ of Ihii iviiiing. however, no objections are anticipated. M3-2fM Mayl2,lM3 Lot Staodards Table: 2730 Pbeasaal Road 11Slaadard Repaired or AMowtd Eibtiag Propostd Eibtiag Propoitd Lot Area 43460 s.f min.25380 S.f. (0.58 ac.) 25380 s.f. (0.58 ac.) 32,796 s,f. (0.75 ac.) 32.796 s.f. (0.75 ac.) Lot Width I4<fmin.loy 105*125 ’129' 0%0%0%0%0% 75-250 25%21.3%24.6%24.8%24.95% Lot Coveraic by Stmetorcs 15% max.8.5%%8.5% (9.7% after proposed additions) 9.3%9.3% Ittaes for CoasMcratloa 1. Does the proposed rearrangement leave each lot with area and width dimensions in keeping with the nei^borhood? 2. Any other concerns about the proposed lot line rearrangement? Staff Rccommcodatioa Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the following: 1. Applicants to grant a 10* drainage & utility easement (S* either side of new lot line). 2. Applicants lo provide title opinirn to confirm ownership of each property. # CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ADDlicalloa# Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY LOCATION cr gt*) G o Siteaddress 9 \xG.es s "T Eycp\_c^r»c. r^^'* ProoertvldentificationNumbertPID) \ xz Please check one - Property abstract or ty- Attach legal description to application. torrens? APPLICANT Name V; rv\. vfA\,t= m Address o P tl Ro Phone (home) Citv Zio5 5^3 iPhone (work) t'O Sot-rt 17.#. ^ P f cic R OWNER (if diffpenl than apphemti Name h/r)OTAf ^ C<LcCCt<-> Address Phone (home) Citv Zio^^jr/phone (work) (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size A7f * a - A JJi/r. Acres Diy Land —* Acres Wet Land Present use (check) Present Zoning District A3Jt4(‘ Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ^ Other (specify)________ PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) ________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ^ Existing Units O New Units ■Z. Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) ^ Units per /.ijAcres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ________Other (specify)_________ •#2 o IV 2. Cbc^leied applicatioo fonn.ronzL 3. l*Ri>niiBafy^tinibnnMioaoaCef1ificateorSt»^ 4. Euemcnis, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreemcni and Lettcf of CrediL Zoning OflkiaTs Signature,______ • ■ S*'*"** P|“ Re\ «ew (CUu I. n & DI) S275.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Reamogemrni S350.00 --------- Subdimion Application (Gau I & D) $400 00 ______ Legel Review and Filu^: ______Subdivision only S 100.00 -■ . - Subdivision w/easemrats and co\-enants min. 5200 00 --------- Park Fees (to be determined per Sttioo 11.62) --------- Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as inclined) --------- Ptopoml Priv.tt Roii S6S0.00 + S.J(WiKil ft,; lin ft , jo - « Propo«d Public Roua, $950.00 ♦ S SOlu*,! ft; --------ft , ^1 -1 Request for City to Aceem E*iitinB Pri«i-7^"^^ * - louls roo-resl.'en'ii'^ rlupoira ruDiic Koaos }9>0.Q0 ♦ $.501:aeal ft; lin. i Request for City to Accept Existing Prisate Road $950.00* Proposed Saniury Sewer Main Extension $275.00 ♦ $25/stub Proposed Waternuin Extension $275.00 ♦ $25/stub Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 ibie ADDlIrstlAn r.... $60.00/per lot x_____new lou C. Flexible Application Fccs/Misc. Fees -------- Variance $250 00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) --------- Ea»ment Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 PRD Application with Subdivision $35.00/Dwelling Unit- ' -----.puvuiviiionaja.uu'uwelling Unit - D» f/:v/o3/-------------------------Dwe ___________________ 10 4X Ct 1*1 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department a 'J-'r O , II f r AcJ 'c.. -- 2 I- in- 23 — \ iParcel Information P«rc«l ID 2111723230053 Houm Number 2730 StrMt Hmmm PHEASANT RD This is not a l0g9fy nco/dtd msp it nprtsonts • co0npiabon ot nhrmauon and data from Oty. County, and Stata road authonoas and othar aounas RUNUAlli 4/1 3t 2111723210011 niOf AOOR 26IS niEASANTRD OWNCRNAMB OII HGDimTAJAlICnERT TAXPAYER GHIieOERTAJAIIEOERT NAME/AOOR 2iM PIIBASAMT RO eXCCLSIORMN SSUI HENNEPIN COUTITYPROPIi INFORM AT ION SYSTEM PROrORTY OWNu4S LIST PACE:I 3t 21I1723330012 PROP AOOR 2*95 PHEASANT RO OWNER NAME BARBARA J REOOOC TAXPAYER BARBARA J REUOICK NAME/ADO* 2*« PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3t 3III7232300I3 PROPAOOR 2705 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME CRKXNINSTON TAXPAYER OPR X A JOHNSTON NAME/AOOR 2705 PHEASANT ROS EXCELSK3RMN 35331 30 2111723230014 PROPAOOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSJGNED OWNER NAME PHEASANT LAWN HOMEOWNERS TAXPAYER pheasant LAWN HOMEOWNERS 2700 PLEASANT RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 30 3111723230015 PROPAOOR 2740 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME TJ MAHONEY R X A MAHONEY TAXPAYER TIMOTHY 3 MAHONEY NAME/ADOR 2740 PHEASANT RO EXCELSKWMN 35331 30 3111733230017 PROPAOOR 2700 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME MIHIAEL J CULLEN ETAL TAXPAYER MICHAEL J CULLEN NAME/AOOR 2700 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR MN 33131 30 2111723230019 PROPAOOR 3*90 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME MJRORPUDIL TAXPAYER MICHAEL J R GAIL R fUO*L NAME/AOOR 2*90 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR MN 33311 30 2111723230020 PROPAOOR 2400 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME MARKMDOLLIFF TAXPAYER MATHIEW R KATHLEEN DOLUFF NAME/AOOR 2*00 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 30 2111723230034 PROPAOOR 2725 PHEASANTRD OWNER NAME TO AN VAUGHAN TAXPAYER TIMOTIIY G A NATAUE VAUQl IAN NAME/ADOR 2725 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 35331 30 3111723230025 PROPAOOR 27*3 PHEASANTRO OWNER NAME STEPHEN L BAKKE ETAL TAXPAYER STEPHEN L BAKKE N/U4E/AOOR 27*3 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR MN 33331 30 3III733230039 PROPAOOR 2701 PENCE LA OWNER NAME PAUL JOSEPH RANDALL TAXPAYER PAUL JOSEPH RANDALL NAME/ADOR 2701 PENCE LR EXCELSIOR MN 33331 31 3111723230050 PROPAOOR 2*05 SlIADYWOnORO OWNERNAME R W BROWN A M H DROWN TAXi*AVER RICHARD W A MARX3N H BROWN NAME/ADOR 2603 SHADYWOOO RO S EXCELSIOR MN 3S33I 30 2111723230051 PROP AOOR 2710 PENCE LA OWNER NAME 0 EIIADERMAN AIIR HADEIMAN TAXPAYER DP.IIAUEJIMAN A HR IIADERMAN NAME/AOOR 2710 PENCE LA EXCELSIOR MN 33331 30 2111723230032 PROPADUR 2720 PHEASANTRO OWNERNAME WILLIAM YALE SMILEY TAXPAYER WILLIAM YALE SMILEY NAME/AOOR 2730 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 30 211172323003) PROPAOOR 27)0 PHEASANTRO OWNERNAME WILLIAM YALE SMILEY Rl ETAL TAXPAYER WiaiAM VALE SMILEY III NAME/AOOR 2730 PHEASANTRO EXCELSK3RMN 33331 30 3III733240Q3* PROPAOOR 2*93 SHADYWOOO RO OWNERNAME SOB BA PAULSON TAXPAYER STEPHEN BBOTHAINA PAULSON NAOfC/AOOR 2*tS$HAOVWOOORD EXmSKMtMN 33331 30 2III72333000I PROPAOOR 2791 PHEAS/J4TRO OWNERNAME LNBLCSUNOCT TAXPAYER LELANDNSUNOBT NAME/AOOR 2791 PHEASANT RO EXCELSX3RMN 33331rm 30 2III723320002 PROPAOOR 2793 PHEASANTRO OWNERNAME RICHAROAMAR2AN TAXPAYER RiaiARD A MAR/AN NAME/ADOR 2793 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIORMN S333I Fran: Date: Sabjeci: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mike Gafiron, Planning Director May 14.2003 ' #03-2903 - Proposed Amendment to Sections 10.25, 10.27 and 1028 regarding Personal Wireless Serv ice Towers and Antennas LUt of Exhibits A - Proposed Ordinance B - Existing Emergency Warning Siren Tower Locations C - Existing Pertinent Code Sections The City' Council has identified a need to provide additional potential locations for personal w'ireless service nntennas in the City aside from the nvo municipal water towers, fhe attached ordinance amendment would allow such antennas on existing or funirc City eutergency warning siren towers as a conditional use within the LR-IC, RR-1A and RR-IB zoning districts (these arc the three districts in which the current 4 existing siren towers are located; a potential future siren lower at the Orono golf course w ould also be in the RR-IB district). The ordinance amendment as drafted does the following: Section I revises existing LR-IC language to allow personal wireless service antennas only upon the municipal water tower and not upon other municipal structures. Section 2 adds ‘Personal Wireless Service Antennas ’ to the list of conditional uses in the LR-IC d'strict, and establishes conditions and performance standards under w hich such a CUP would be granted. [Note tliat the LR-lC-1 District also would be allowed such use by reference to the LR-IC conditional use standards. There are no existing siren towers in the LR-lC-1 District ] Section 3 revises existing RR-IB language to allow personal wireless service antennas only upon the municipal watei tower and not upon other municipal structures. Section 4 adds ‘Personal Wireless Seaice Antennas ’ to the list of conditional uses in the RR-IB district, and establishes conditions and performance standards under which such a CUP w ould be granted. (Note that the RR-lB-1 District (which no property is currently zoned) also would be allowed such use by reference to the RR-IB conditional use standards.] Section 5 adds ‘Personal Wireless Set vice Antennas ’ to the list of conditional uses in the RR-IA district, and establishes conditions and performance standards under whic-. such a CL^’* would be granted. Trirraamaliaiiiai Towcn aa4 Aattaut »fay 14.1M3 r«cc2 SccIloB 6 merely estabUshes the effective date of the ordinance amendment. Staff RccommcBdalloa SUff rKommends ■doplioR of the •tttched ordinmee, .object to uiy revision, the Plumin. &^.on Itod. Note thu the City Im been under. ntonuoriom on isutotce of OptloDS for A c H ob Accept any public comments at the public hearing, then: 1. Recommend adoption of ordinance as presented; or 2. Recommend adoption with changes; or 3. Table; or 4. Other. L ORDINANCE NO.2ND SERIES AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORONO ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.25,10.27 AND 10.28 PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS lOR CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE ANTENNAS AND TOWERS The City Council of Uic City of Orono, Minnesota docs hereby ordain: ScctioB I. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 (I.R-IC District), Subdivision 3 is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 3(B)(2) as follows. "B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. 2. Personal Wireless Serv ice Antennas. Personal w ireless service antennas erected on a municipal stntctu re water tower may be allowed as a secondary' use by administrative permit, provided they comply w ith the City policy regarding the use of City- owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the follow ing conditions: (Conditions a) through i) remain unchanged]’ Section 2. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25 (LR-IC District), Subdivision 4 is hereby amended by adding Subdivision 4(B) to read as follows: “B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure other than a water tower may be allowed as a conditional use if they meet the following criteria: 1.Such antennas must be in compliance w ith the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for w irelcss teleconmiunication antennas; Such antennas must meet the conditions listed for personal w ireless service antennas as a permitted use in the LR-IC Zoning District. Such antennas may be located in the follow ing locations: a) Co-located on an existing City emergency warning siren tower. Co-locatedonareplaccmentCityemergency warning siren tower, with a height not to exceed 75 feet. Page I of7 c) Collocated on a nc\^- Cit>' emergency warning siren tower, at a location wce^'w emergency warning needs, with a height not to Such antennas shall meet the following performance standards: a) The antennas rnust be located on the existing emergency warning sirens poles, unless the heichi of ih<* rv,ci:«« _____, g) me antennas rnust be located on the existing emergency warning sirens poles, unless the height of the existing pole, or the capacity of the existing pole to support both the siren and the antcnna(s) is inadcquaictominimallymeclthcncedsofthccarTicr. Inthiscasc the earner may be allowed to install a replacement to\scr that uill accommodate both the emergency warning siren and the lclecommunicat.onsanicnna(s).Theexistingemergencysiren towers can be replaced with towers with a maximum height oH5 feet, u ith the condition that the tower accommodates both the emcrcency warning siren and the telecommunications antcnna(s). The City may also require the tower to have the capability of accommodating one additional earner’s antcnna(s). A new emergency warning siren tower location, selected by the City to meet its emergency warning needs, could also be used as a telecommunications antenna site through colocation of the warning siren and antenna. The standards set out in a) above also apply to a siren lower in a new location. ^ musl. at minimum, be equal to the height of the tower, except w here an existing emergency be^Wd^ 'P'* to i^rgTpTc“!c“''''"“*'’” At the City's discretion, a tower must be designed to structurally XwXir 'p'" •» Tltc carrier must provide computer-generated photos showing the views(as selected by the City) with and wiihout^c lower. * lease of the towers shall be paid by the carrier. Page 2 of? The earner is required to provide eoverage maps to demonstrate the speeiHe gap in eoverage and need for an additional tower and antennafs), and to demonstrate there arc no existing tower options within a radius of two miles that eould accommodate the carrier's antenna needs. i) k) 0 The si/e of the cabinets on the ground needed to house the support equipment for the antennas is limited to the minimum necessary size “Stealth- -t>pe antennas (cylindrical) vs. an array of panels, is required if the technology is available. Only monopole tow ers are allowed.* Section 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28 (RR-1B District), Subdivision 2(BX2) is hereby amended by amending Subdivision 2(BK2) as follow s: "B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. 2. Personal Wireless Serx'ice Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal smicture w atcr tow cr may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative pcrni’t, pi >vidcd they comply w ith the City policy regarding the use of City- owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the follow ing conditions: (Conditions a) through i) remain unchanged]’ SrefioB 4. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28 (RR-1 B Zoning District), Subdivision 3 is hereby amended by adding Subdivision 3(E) to read as follows: “E Personal Wireless Serv ice Antennas. Personal w ireless serv ice antennas erected on a municipal structure other than a water tower may be allow ed as a condition.il use ifthey meet the following criteria: I.Such antennas must be in compliance with the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for w ireless telecommunication antennas; Such antennas must meet the same conditions listed for personal wireless service antennas as permitted uses. Such antennas may be located in the following locations: a) Co-located on an existing City emergency warning siren tower. Page 3 of? b) C^lo^on.replacCTientCityenicrgnK^wanUnKsircn lower, with a height not to exceed 75 feet. c) Co-Iocaledonancu-Cit>'cmergcncy wamingsirenfowcr.at a kkalion that mecu the City’s emergency warning needs, with a height not to exceed 75 feel. Such antennas shall meet the following performance standards: a) The antennas must be located on the existing emergency warning suens poles, unless the height of the existing pole, or the capacity of the existing pole lu support both the siren and the anlenna(s) is inadequate to minimally meet the needs of the carrier. In this case the earner may be allowed to install a replacement tower that will accommodate both the emergency warning siren and the telecommunications antenna(s). The existingemergencysirentowers can be replaced with towers with a maximum height of 75 feet, with the condition that the tower accommodates both the emergency warmng siren and the telecommunications antenna(s). The City may •Iso require the tower to hove the capahility of accommodating one additional carrier’s antenna(s). b) A new emergency warning siren tower location, selected by the City to meet its emergency warning needs, could also be used as a telecommunications antenna site through co-location ofthc warning siren and antenna. The standards set out in a) above also apply to a siren tower in a new location. The hei^t of a tower can be no higher than the minimum height required to address a gap in coverage The setb^k of a tower from a property line must, at minimum, be equal to the height of the tower, except where an existing emergency w anung siren is located on a site that does not enable this setback to be provided. is a^^^c^! through an engineering anal>'sis that there c) d) e) 0 At the City* s discretion, a tower must be designed to structurally all^ cylinder ********* g) The carrier must provide computer-generaled photos showing the views(as selected by the City) with and without the tower. Page 4 of 7 h) All consultant analysis and legal analysis related to the towers and the lease of the towers shall be paid by the carrier. i) The carrier is required to provide coverage maps to demonstrate the specific gap in coverage and need for an additional tower and antcnna(s), and to demonstrate there arc no existing tower options within a radius of two miles that could accommodate the carrier's antenna needs. j) The size of the cabinets on the ground needed to house the support equipment for the antennas is limited to the minimum necessary size. k) “Stealth" -type antennas (cylindrical) vs. an array of panels, is required if the technology is available. l) Only monopole towers are allowed.” Section 5. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27 (RR-1A Zoning District). Subdivision 3 is hereby amended by adding SubdiWsion 3(C) to read as follows: **C. Personal Wireless Serv’ice Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure other than a water tower may be allowed as a conditional use if they meet the following criteria: 1. Such antennas must be in compliance w ith the City policy regarding the use of City-owned properly for wireless telecommunication antennas; 2. Such antennas must meet the same conditions listed for personal wireless service anteimas as permitted uses. 3. Such antennas may be located in the following locations: a) Co-located on an existing City emergency warning siren tower. b) Co-located on a replacement Cit)’ emergency w aming siren tower, with a height not to exceed 75 feet. c) Co-located on a new City emergency warning siren tower, at a location that meets the Cit>’’s emergency w arning needs, w ith a height not to exceed 75 feet. 4. Such antennas shall meet the follow ing performance standards: a) The antennas must be located on the existing emergency warning Page 5 of 7 C) d) g) sirens poles, unless the height of the existing pole, or the capacity of the existing pole to support both the siren and the antennafs) is inadequaletominimallymecttheneedsofthecanier.Inthiscrc.^^ earner may be allowed to install a rqjlaccincnl lower that will accommodate both the emergency warning siren and the The existing emergency siren tow ers wanung siren and the telecommunications anlcnna(s) The City mav ato require the to»er to have the capability of accommodaiin. one additional earner’s antenna(s). A new emergency warning siren tower location, selected by the City 0 meet its emergency warning needs, could also be used a;* a telecommunications antenna site through co-location of the wamina "r':: tt “■ • t '™'" ‘ ">ust, at ntinimunt. be equal to die height of the tower, except where an existing emergency wanting siren is located on a site that docs not enable Ihis setback to DC provided. At the City-s diserelton, a tower must be designed to stnieturally aTw ““ "•“« •*'«'» All consultant anaijsij and legal analysis related to the lowers and the lease of the tow eis shall be paid by the carrier. ^cmer ia required to provide coverage maps to demonstrate the ^fic w >n covemge and need for an additional tower and sntenna needs. Page 6 of7 j) The size of the comets on (be pound needed to house the support eqiupment for the antennas is limited to the minimum necessary size. k) ‘Stealth*-type antennas (cylindrical) vs. an array ofpancis, is required if the technology is available. l) Only monopole towers are albwed. ScctiM 6. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newqMpers and become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the CiQ^Council of Orono, Minnesota on this ____day of 2003 by a vote of___ayes and___nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 7 of 7 r Emergency Sirens Locations and Coveraoes _____City of Orono B- If iiiiinMiii—''..........—- Cjo^ ^(fe?<sT7oAj^c § 10.25 §EC.10JS. LR-IC FAMILY LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAI. DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The ”LR-IC" One Family Lakcshorc Residential District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of storm water runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations arc necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highwa)^ and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Set Back, Hard Cover and Tree Removal Regulations. (Sec Section 10.22). Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the "LR-lC" One Family Lakeshore Residential District, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District. B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to establish predictable, balanced regulations for the siting and screening of wireless communications equipment in order to accommodate the growih of wireless communication systems within the City of Orono while protecting the public against any adverse impacts on the City's aesthetic resources and the public welfare. 2. Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative permit, provided they comply with the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions: a. The antenna shall be in compliance with the Mirmesota Slate Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulations and permits. b. Structural design, mounting and installation of the antenna shall be in compliance with manufacturer ’s specifications and shall be verified and approved by a registered professional engineer. c. No advertising message shall be affixed to the antenna. d. Antennas shall not be artificially illuminated unless required by law or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to protect the public's health and safety. ORONO CC 286 (4-1-84) § 10.25 v.r Administrator or designate. The removal sliall be the responsibility of ihe comniunieationVoviden :btr«:tsrmrerrr«^^^ C.I«.^W.|J» p,^ by b «IPi'^praf™S capacity to the area. Source; Ordinance 183, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 Di,rric. nn Uscs. Within any "LR-IC” One Family Lakeshore Residential Djslnel, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: Di j D M . conditional use as regulated in the "R-IA" District except that a Planned Residential Development shall not be limited to detached single family dwellin^only. Pb- . ♦ . .u r any "LR-IC** One F.imily Ukeshore ResidentialDistncl, the following uses shall be permitted' accessor>’ uses: w .. .u ^ in the "R. I A" District any'private docks’subject to the City Code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density regulations. Subd. 6. Area. Height. Lot Width and Yard Requirements. heigh. «ccp. as pr.vidldin'st.ionrr'"'’"'''"**’'’"""^ ORONOCC 286-1 (4-1-84) § 10.27 •NE FAMILY RURAl. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The TIR-I A" One Family Rural Rcsidenlial District is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Subd. 2. Penniltcd Uses. Within any "RR-l A" One Family Rural Residential District, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Any permitted use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "RR-IA" One Family Rural Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Uses. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except for "Duplex Credit" and "Animals". B. Farms (Stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Withinany "RR-1 A" One Family Rural Residential Dislricl. the following uses shall be a permitted accessory use: A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District and "Animals" as regulated in Section 10.20. Subdivision 3. Subparagraphs M and N. Source: Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 Subd. 5. Area, Height. Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obserx ed: Lot A cea Lot yym Front VMd Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard S acres 300 feet 100 feet SO feet 100 feet 100 feet ORONOCC 288 (4-1.84) SEC. I0.2S. RR-IB^E FASHLV RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. § 10.28 ■^cultural actw —-».uiiiHiiuiuon oi low acnsiiy residential development and limited A- Any pennitted use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District. B. Personal Wireless Service Antennas and Towers. - . . *• and Intent. The purpose of this section t. io establish predictable, balancedregulationsforihe siting and scrceningofmrclcsscommunications equipment in order to accommodate the growth of artless communication systems within the City of Orono Tublfc **“**''' **“'*“' '*"*'^‘'** resources and the . .2- Personal Wireless Service Antennas. Personal wireless scr% ice antennas erected on a mumcipal structure may be allowed as a secondary use by administrative pemjit, provided they comply with the City policy regarding the use of City-owned property for wireless telecommunication antennas and provided they meet the following conditions: Building Code and all other applicable federal and state regulaSll^^mhS!'' Minnesota Stale design, mounting and installation of the antenna fSXr^rona^"^^^ speciHcations and shall be verified and approved by a c. No advertising mesage shall be aRixed to Uie antenna. by Uw or by the Federal AviaUon Administration (FAA) t^rot«?fhl^pIIS hMhh'^^^ aeeompanied by any required fedeml. ««^“S:reie/K‘ “ imuaed Within the existing .truetu,e.Vrr“^^^^^^^ ORONO CC 289 (4-1-84) § 10.28 g. All obsolete and unused antennas shall be removed within twelve (12) months of cessation of operation at the site, unless an exemption is granted by the City Administrator or designate. The removal shall be the responsibility of the communication provider. h. Antennas shall utilize ca.u./unaging techniques or shall be tide mounted to an antenna support strucnire in order that such facilities are compatible with the character and environment of the area in which they are located. i. The applicant shall demonstrate by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity anal>-sis prepared by a registered professional engineer that the location of the antenna as proposed is necessary to meet the frequency spacing needs of the personal wireless semce s>*stem and to provide adequate portable personal wireless servir<> coverage and capacity to the area. Source: Ordinance 161.2nd Scries Effective Date: 5-27-97 Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within any "RR-IB" One Family Rural Residential District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit; A Uses. Any conditional use as regulated in the "R-1 A" District except for "Duplex Credit" and "Animals". B. Farms (Stock). Provided that the area is ten or more acres. C. Hospitals. Etc. Hospitals for human care, sanitariums, rest homes, nursing homes, provided that ail buildings are located 100 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. The site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated. Source; Ordinance No, 185 Effective Date: 6-14-76 D. Libraries. Non-profit libraries provided that all buildings arc located 50 feet or more from the lot line of any abutting lot in an "R" District. Screening, and signage requirements shall be determined with each individual conditional use permit. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 ORONOCC 289-1 (4-1-84) § 10.28 Source; Ordinance 26,2nd Series Adopted; 7* 14-86 Subd. 5. Area, Height. Lot Width and Yard RequirrmenU. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obscr\ ed; Lot Area Lolsrmi,Front JCad Side lad Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear lad 50 feet 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet ORONOCC (4-1-84) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2005 6:00 o ’clock p.n. ROLL The Commission met on Ihc above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn, Liz Hawn. Jeanne Mabusth. C>-nthia Bremer, Stephanie Zugschwert and J. Mark Fritzlcr. Representing staff >%eTe Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Planners Wendy Bottenberg and Jennifer Chaput. Recorder Kristi Anderson, aiul late arrival Council Representative Jim WTiitc. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (M)il05-2882 THOMAS PALMQLTST FOR OBA, 1030 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, CUP RENEWAL llawD moved, Bremer seconded, lo recommend approval of AppHcalion if03-2ll82, for renewal of Orono Baseball Association ’s 2001 Conditional Use Permit granting approval of construction of a third baseball field at the Lee Carlson Fields comples. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. («) #03-2888 JIM CUSACK, 4140 HIGIIWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE RENEWAL Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, lo recommend approval of Application #03-2888, Jim Cusack, 4140 Highwood Road, granting renewal variances for lot width, lot area, and an accessoiy- building without a principal structure lo construct a new residence on the lot VOl I.: Ayes 7, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#3) #03-2876 SFATE LANMNG, 3329 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, V.UU.VNCES 6:05- 6:19 P.M. Sevie tanning, the Applicant, and Patrick McBndc. nrprcbcniing the bujTr. were present. Chaput explained that the applicant w as requesting the follow ing varianees for construction of a new 1,200 s.f. r?:sidcncc on the property; 1. lot area of 3,741 s.f (0.09 acres) where 21,78Li s.f (0.5 acres) is required; 2. a lot width of 50* where 100* is required; 3. setback of 48* from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required; 4. rear yard setback of 10* where 30* is required; 5. an encroachment of 16* into the average lakeshore setback. 6. 1,121 s.f (40.82%) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; and PAGE 1 of40 L, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING €X>MMlSSION MEETING Moaday, April 21.2003 6:00 o*clock p.n. (#3 (H03-2876 SEVIE LANNING, Coatinued) 7. 285 s.f. (28.64%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshorc setback zone where 248.75 s.f. (25%) is permitted. Chaput reported that this application was tabled at the 3/17/2003 Planning Commission meeting for the applicant to provide elevations of the proposed home. At the meeting, concerns were voiced regarding the proposed encroachment into the average lakeshorc setback and how the height of the home might affect the neighbor’s lake views. The Planning Commission also found it difficult to determine if additional hardcover may be necessary (for sidew alks, door landings, etc.) without elevation view s of the proposed home. New plans have now been provided for review. Output presented three alternatives for consideration by the Planning Commission. Alternative 1: Proposed footprint (40’ x 30’), which leaves a drivew'ay only 10-12’ deep Alternative 2: Reduce the footprint of the house to 33’ x 30’ to meet the existing average lakeshorc setback, leaves a 16’ depth driveway Alternative 3: Move the proposed footprint 5’ toward the rear lot line (south), leaving 16’-17’ depth off the traveled roadw ay DIroeBBions Permitted Existiag Altcmatlve 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Setback from 75’49’48’oO’53* OHWL Rear Setback 30’O’10 ’10 ’5’ Side Setbacks East 10 ’O’10’10 ’10 ’ West 10 ’17 ’10 ’10 ’10 ’ Average Lakeshore n'a 9’16 ’9*8’-ll’ Setback Encroachment Hardcover in None 1,059 s.f 1.121 s.f 1.024 s.f 1,029 s.f 0-75’ Setback Zone (38.6V.)(40.825i)(37.29*/i)(37.47*.i) Hardcover in 75’-248.75 s.f 779 s.f 285 s.f 285 s.f 420 s.f 250’ Setback Zone (25V.)(78.29*/.)(28.64*/i)(28.64*/.)(42.215.) With regard to the rear setback and culvert relocation. Chaput stated that the property to the south of the lot is owned by the Hennepin County Rail Authority for potential use as a regional trail in the future. Since this property does not have the potential to be developed by structures, a substandard setback from the rear lot line would not negatively impact the property owners to the south. Chaput noted that an existing storm sewer culvert that runs directly beneath the existing home, extending from the pond on the south side of the PAGE 2 of 40 MINtTES OF Till: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MFKTING Monday, AprU 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (IM IN)3.2880 FRKII JOHNSON, Continued) • To allow an additional 36 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75* setback /one where 2.079 s.r. was previously approved for a total of2.l IS s.f. The subject property w as purchased by the applicant in 2000. The plan was to demolish the existing residence am! construct a new residence on the property. Due to the si/c of the lot and all of it being located within 75* of the OHWl, of I.ake Minnetonka variances were* required to redevelop the subject property. City Council liaison Jim White arrived at 6:20 P.M. Bottenberg explained that the applicant submitted a variance application September. 2000. After discussions w ith staff and some redesigning the application was heard at the November 20,2000 Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed project w ith hardcover in the 0-75* setback /one to be 2,079 s.f. (26%) and lot coverage by structure not to exceed 1500 s.f. both of w hich all lie within 75 ’ of OIIWI, of Lake Minnetonka. The recommend.ntion was based on the properly was currently developed as a single family residence w ith 2.328 s.f of existing hardcover and over 1,500 s.f of structure. The hardcover and structure on the lot would decrease with redevelopment of the property. ITie application moved forward to the City Council and was approv ed at their December 11, 20tJ0 meeting. Bottenberg noted that the council approved the application and resolution which stated 3 original copies of a revised surv ey show ing the building plans and all proposed hardcover be submitted .*\lso, the site plan sun ey shall be in substantial conformance w ith the plan attached to the resolution. The sunc>s and building plans w ere submitted for rev levv by the building department. The suney had been revised and w as in substantial conformance vv ith the hardcover and structure approvals granted by the City Council However, the building plans submitted showed a different ground level deck, a screen porch, and a second level deck. The building official made notations on the plans regarding the decks The ground lev el deck was permitted but not the screen porch, not the second story deck, and not the extra portion of the ground level deck. A building permit was issued on May 18. 2(X)I. The building official made notations on the plans regarding the screen porch and second story deck. Bottenberg pointed out that many inspections took place during consiniciion of the residence. The building inspector at the time. Marc Davis, never noted that the decks which were constructed and the decks on the approved plan were not the same The final inspection by the building inspector was March 8,2002. A certificate of occupancy was issued on March 8,2002. Bottenberg continued that, shortly after the certificate of occupancy was issued, Lyle Oman. Building Official, noticed the decks. The approved PAGE 5 of 40 MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I^IEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.ni. (04 #03-2890 FRED JOHNSON, Coaliaacd) plans were reviewed and the builder was contacted by the building ofTicial. The contact was initially by phone and then later by letters on Fcbruar>' 24.2003 and March 5,2003. On March 17,2003, the applicant made application for aner-the-fact variances for the decks. With the application, the applicant submitted a copy of the plans that he used that he feels indicated he was able to construct the decks. Bottenberg indicated that, in the opinion of staff, the approved, stamped plan set contains substantial notations and markings to indicate the upper level deck was not approved. The approved plan set is supposed to be used for construction. Furthermore, the plans used by the applicant to gain variance approv al clearly did NOT show a second story deck Based on the above, staff recommends removal of the second story deck and requiring the applicant to take steps to make the upper level door safe by adding a railing or permanently blocking it. Bottenberg noted that because there arc two lower level doors c.xiting the house, staff recommends retaining the lower level deck with railings as-is, and grant a variance for the additional 36 s.f hardcover. >ielding 2.118 s.f or 26.4'5'o where 2.328 s.f or 29.0^^ had existed and 2,082 s.f or 26.0% had been approved. Mr. Knutson indicated that, aAcr submitting his drawings and plans, he was unaware of ^y additional changes made afler the initial approvals. He knew only that decks were involved as part of the proposal from beginning to end. Mrs. Chwialkowski pointed out that she and her husband had only recently purchased the property and were confused how the certificate of occupancy could hav c been granted if these outstanding issues existed. She maintained that numerous inspections had occurred during the course of construction and questioned how this wasn't caught until after the certificate of occupancy had been granted and they had purchased the home. She stated that they were shocked by the City's letter, since the decks were in existence when they purchased the home. Mrs Chwialkowski argued that the City should take issue with the builder and past owner. Mr. Johnson. She indicated that Mr Johnson had said nothing to them about these discussions w iih the City w hen they purchased the home in December and closed on it in March 2003. She questioned how the upper and lower decks impacted hardcover since they arc located over and under one another. Chair Smith indicated that the current owners have found themselves in an unfortunate set of circumstances. Mr. Chw ialkow ski maintained that removal of the deck w ould be an undue hardship put upon them, since the deck was one of the reasons they bought the home in the first place. PAGE 6 of 40 lltBTHTiiriiii MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday* April 2 L 2003 6:00 o ’clock p.ai. ((M #03-2880 FRED JOHNSON, Conlfaincd) There were no public comments. Rahn staled that not having the original applicant. Mr. Johnson, on hand posed a tough scenario. He pointed out that, in his opinion, the more important issue was the structural coverage problem versus the hardcover matter. Chair Smith pointed out that the current owners could remove the deck and still add an attractive railing to the upper floor balcony. Rahn stated that, clearly, the minutes from past meetings w ith Mr. Johnson refer to a ground floor deck only. Mrs. Chwialkowski stated that the deck w as critical to them when purchasing the home. Since the home itself was quite small, the deck added to the homes uscahtc living space. She referred again to the missed opportunities of the City to correct this error during numerous inspections and prior to issuing the certificate of occupancy. As Building Inspector Lyle Oman was present, he was asked to comment. Oman indicated that, when the deck came to the City’s attention, the home was still for sale and he made numerous efTons to contact the applicant. He indicated that he had been caught off guard and that a past, inefTectivc, inspector hod not raised this issue earlier. Mrs. Chwialkowski indicated that she was angry* that they were suffering the consequences of this incompetent City official. She questioned whether it was their fault that the City had an incompetent inspector that did not catch this problem prior to occupancy or sale. Hawn encouraged the new owner* to pursue Mr. Johnson. She felt they had more than adequate recourse to go afler Mr. Johnson based on an inaccurate disclosure. She agreed that there was some error put upon them by the City, and that perhaps, the City Council might rethink this and allow them some leniency. However, as a Planning Commission, she indicated that they had approved one thing and were presented w ith something else. She urged the current ow ners to plead their ease to the City Council, but stated that she must insist the application be returned to what was originally approved. Chair Smith indicated that the original applicant, clearly, knew what he had done and that he was in error. She believed the new owners would be justified in pursuing some recourse. Mabusth stated that any prospective buyer can go to the City to look at a homes address file and learn about a given property prior to purchasing it. PAGE 7 of 40 MINITTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^IISSION MEETING MomUy, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.ai. M03-2U0 FRED JOHNSON, ConlisMed) Bremer voiced her concern regarding the application as it afTccted the new owners. She indicated that she was tom by the timing of the process and agreed with the new owners that you’d like to be able to rely on the certificate of occupancy as proof. She hoped that the City Council might offer them some relief. Mabusth indicated that the letters clearly indicated the dates of contact, the last of which being March 5.2003. Mrs. Chwialkowski stated that they had closed on March 8,2003 and had taken possession of the home by March S. 2003. Although the plans were clear, Bremer asked what actions the Commission and Council had taken in the past in similar scenarios. Gaffron agreed that, while the plan sheets were clear, the City Council had ruled both wa\-s on these types of issues in the past. Ralin indicated that the legal recourse for the new owner is clearly a civil action. He felt this to be a proximity and height issue as well. It was well known what was approved and the builder went ahead any way and built the upper deck and larger than allowed lower deck. llawB moved, Raho seconded, lo deny Applicalioo M13-2880, Randy and IVlielielle Chwialkowski, enrrent owners of 1926 Eagerness Point Road, denying with tome sy mpathy the After-lke-Fact variaaccs, requiring removal of the second story deck, and the addition of a railing to make the upper level door safe. Furthermore, recommending the lower level deck with railings be allowed as-is, and granting a variance for the addltlooal 36 t.f. hardcover, yieMing 2,18S s.f. or 26.4% where 2328 s.r. or 29% had existed and 2,M2 s.f. or 26% had been approved originally . >’OTE Ayes 7, Naya 0. Hawn suggested that staff continue to monitor Mr. Johnson ’s building activity in the area. Mrs. Chw iatkow ski indicated that .Mr. Johnson continues to build in the area. (#5) h03-2881 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, 2941 CASCO POINT ROAD. VARIANCES 6:46 - 7:25 P.M. Curtis and Kathleen Midthun, Applicants, and Tom Bricko, the General Contractor, were present. PAGE 8 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION I^IEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 0:0t«*cloclip.w. (»S «03-2ttl CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, CoatiaaMl) the two adjacent properties. It was Tclt that the proposed additions would have little impact on the views etyoyed by 2965 Casco Point Road. With the existing foundation removed and a new one to be constructed to accommodate the one story addition above it, Bottenberg stated that it is staffs opinion that this would provide the City an opportunity to have the residence conform to the required side yard setback of 10’. After reviewing the application and hardship. Bottenberg noted that staff does not see a substantial hardship which would justify the side yard setback variance. Mr. Midthun stated that, since purchasing the home in 2000, they have worked to preserve the character of the cottage home, while striving to make it more livable. Currently, he pointed out that the kitchen is minimal and they would like to add to it and improve it. While they would be replacing the foundation and giving the lot line a bit of relief. Mr. Midthun indicated that they need the ^ace for the new kitchen. Chair Smith inquired about drainage issues. Mr. Midthun stated that they had no drainage issues in the past, even when a mere 1.3’ to the lot line. Mr. Bricko indicated that the drainage should improve with the new’ plans, as the survesor had recommended they direct water using a swale and perhaps drain tile as well. He stated that they would work with staff to create an acceptable drainage plan. Chair Smith indicated that she had no problem granting the average lakeshore setback variance due to the subdivision. Mrs. Gallistel, 2933 Casco Point Road, the northwest neighbor supported the neighbors application and did iK>t even see the need to move the old garage. Eric Berg, 2965 Casco Point Road, stated that he would not have a problem supporting a 5 ’ side yard setback along their property line. He liked the proposal. Although she could support the application. Chair Smith was hesitant to grant the side yard setback. Since the foundation would be replaced, Fritzler indicated that he would support the 10’ side yard setback as recommend^ by staff. Mabusth asked if the additions or home could be slid back further to the north to allow more room. PAGE 10 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 0:M o'clock pjo. (ffS W3-2S81 CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, Coallnucd) Mr. Bricko staled that the entire home would need to be rebuilt to accommodate the narrow lot if it were slid back, and the home would lose its I930’s charm. Mrs. Midthun pointed out that a chimney sits in the center of the home, which needs to be balanced on either side, hence their design. If they removed a portion from the kitchen half, the design would appear ofr-kiltcr and they would lose any views of the lake from that room. Rahn agreed with Fritzler that the setbacks should be maintained. He believed that the lot offered a great deal more space and was hardpressed to allow this w hen there was more room to use. He fell this was a design issue ^ not a hardship. Mrs. Midthun indicated that the alternatives, including removing the existing chimney, were much more costly. She wished to preserv e the collage look of the properly and fell that the design would be ruined of they were to pursue these other options. Bricko asked if footings could somehow be put under w hat was currently there. Rahn stated that he would still be opposed to the project, adding that, l>pically, the Planning Commission requires people to pull in new additions to meet setbacks. WTtilc Chair Smith liked the cottage charm, as a Commission, they could not grant the variance. Mabusth suggested consideration be given to a lot line rearrangement w ith the neighbor to gain the extra 5 ’. Mr. Berg indicated that he w ould not be w illing to grant a k>l line rearrangement for this purpose, since his lot was already narrow to the lake. Chair Smith asked the applicants if they w ished to table the ^plication for redesign, since it was apparent that the Commissioners wtruld only support a 10* side yard setback. Mr. Midthun asked if the Commission could move on the application subject to their working w ith stafT to meet the requirements. Rahn felt comfortable allow ing the applicant to move forw ard in coordination with stafTif they’ were able to meet the 10' side yard setback. Mrs. Midthun asked if they could move closer to the lake. Hawn indicated that if they w ere to move closer to the lake, then suff w ould recommend that the Planning Commission take a second look at the application. PAGE 11 of 40 ftl'HrirMni ir I ■ I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^IISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (»S 003-2SSI CURTIS AND KATHLEEN MIDTHUN, ConHnned) Mr. Midthun asked to move forMard and work with sufT to accommodate the recommendations set forth. Rnlin moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application (W3- 28S1, Cnrtb and Kathleen MMthnn, 2941 Casco Point Road, per staff recommendations aHowing a redesign of what was proposed to meet a 10* side yard setback to the sooth, conforming to all other setbacks, and that the redesign not project any closer to the lake; in addition, granting an average lakeshore setback and hardcover in 7S*-250* setback variances to construct a three stall garage and additiooal living space to the residence which slays at current levels and docs not exceed 4 J94 s.f., and is subject to drainage plan approval. \’OTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING - 7:00 P.M. (#10) #03-2883 DENNIS MEYER, 4655 AND 4685 TONKAVIEW LANE, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCES 7:25 - 7:35 P.M. Dennis Meyer, the Applicant, was present. Gaffron indicated that the applicant was requesting approval for a lot line rearrangement between these two developed residential lots. The applicant owtis both properties, and each contains an existing single family residence. Both lots are substandard in the LR-1H I-acre zone; the lot line rearrangement would make the larger lot slightly larger (nearer conformity) and the smaller lot slightly smaller (reduced degree of conformity). Gaffron explained that the applicant proposes to move the boundaiy bctxscen his two developed residential lots to reflect the visual lines of occupation as delineated by an existing tree line. The easterly lot (4655) has contained a residence since the early 19(K)'s. which encroaches into the street right-of-way. The westerly lot (4685) has a relatively new home constructed in 1998 pursuant to a lot area variance granted in 1997. No other variances were granted for this lot. which met the 80*/« standard for lot width. Although each existing lot is substandard as compared to the 1-acre LR-IB zoning district requirement, these lots have remained uncombined and each contains a single family residence. Therefore Gaffron noted, the tw o lots are each considered as Mots of record* and stand alone in terms of their zoning status. Gaffron continued, pointing out that for many substandard lots in the past, the City has approached lot line rcarTangemenis from the perspecti\e that the lot areas should remain the same, neither gaining nor losing area but doing an equal trade. However, that scenario would not accomplish this applicant’s goal of having the lot line match the perceived visual yard boundary. PAGE 12 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2**^' 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#10 #03-2883 DENNIS MEYER, Continued) GafTron pointed out that approval of the rearrangement involves the granting of lot area variances for each lot, as well as a width variance for 4655. Therefore, future redevelopment of 4655 meeting all standards except lot area and width, would not be required to go through the lot arca'widlh variance process again. StalT recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, subject to the following: 1. 2. 3. Applicant to grant a 10* drainage & utility easement (5* cither side of new lot line). Applicant to provide title opinion to confirm ownership of both lots. Lot area and width variance granted for each resulting lot (4655 can be redeveloped subject to all zoning standards without having to go through area%idth variance process again). Mr. Meyer stated that he currently had tenants living in the existing home, but would likely sell the home afler the renters moved out in the next several years. He indicated that the home would probably not be remodeled but tom down when new owners took over. He believed that the drainage and access made sense with the rearrangement. GafTron noted that the rearrangement docs not create lots that arc any more substandard than any of the others in the neighborhood, adding that the lot area and w idth x ariances would accompany the newly created lot airangenicnt. There were no public comments. Mabuslh moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2883, the lot Hne rearrangement involving the properties at 4665/4685 Tonkaview Lane subject to the conditions 1-3 set forth by staff in the memorandum dated April 14, 2003. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) (#6) #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, 2730 Sll ADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES 7:35 - 7:56 P.M. John and Cheiyl Ficbclkom. the Applicants, and Todd Obcle, Production Manager, w ere present. Chaput explained that the applicant requested the following variances to replace an existing 399 s.f lakeside deck w ith a 550 s.f. lakeside deck: 1. lakcshorc setback of 68.3’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required; PAGE 13 of 40 minuiesofthe: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING Moaday,AprU2L 2003 6:00 o’clock p.n. (#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CTIERVI. A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakcshorc setback /one: 593 s.f. (6.K%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75’ to 250 ’ lakeshore setback /one: 6,449 s.f. (52.3%) where 3,085 s.f. (25®o) is permitted; 4. an eneruachineni of 22 ’ into the average lakcshorc setback; and 5. lot coverage by structure of 3,225 s.f (15.3®o) where 3,157 s.f. (I5*/i) is permitted. The existing deck is beyond repair and requires complete replacement. The dexk is currently **u-shapcd*’ nnd the applicants propose to fill in the “u** area oikI replace the rest exactly as it exists. Chaput gave a brief historical s.vnopsis indicating that in the summer of 1988. the property owners constructed a pool, spa and pool equipment building in the U-75’ setback /one without City approval. In April 1989, the property owners applied for aftc*r>thc-fact variances for hardcover on the 0-75’ setback /one; average lakeshore setback; structural setback from the OllWI. of Lake Minnetonka; and a side setback variance for the pool equipment building. The requested variances were denied because a hardship could not be determined for additional hardcover w iihm the setback /one. The ow ners w ere required to remove the pool and spa and fully restore the property. The pool equipment building w as permitted to remain for the time being, pending an application for a lot line rearrangement. In June 1989, property owners were grantc'd a lot line rearrangement (adding up to 20 ’ in lot w idth from the property to the southeast) and an aficr-the-fact structure to structure variance to keep the pool equipment building where it was constructed on the southeast side of the house. Chaput pointed out that the survey with this application shows a portion of the driveway to be removed. However, the resolution does not reference any required hardcover removals and the driveway has not changed to date Chaput continued, stating that in October. 2002, the property owners applied for a building permit to repair their existing lakeside deck. .At the fooling inspection, the Uuilding Inspector determined that the deck could not be repaired due to excessive rotting. The property owners were infonned that a new deck would require variance approval The existing deck is located 68 3’ from the OllWL of Lake Minnetonka and it is proposed to be replaced in the same location. As it exists, the deck is "u-shaped" and the most lakeword protrusions arc 68.3’ from the OllWL. Chaput explained that although the applicants arc reque uing to remodel the existing deck to fill in the “u" area with deck, they do not propose to go any closer to the lake than what exists. Therefore, there is no change proposed for the .setback from the OllWL of Lake Minnetonka. The deck, located above a portion of the concrete patio, is attached to the house and supported by posts, placed 4” outside the concrete patio, on the ground. Therefore, the PAGE I4of40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO P1.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoaiUy, April 21,2003 0:00 o'clock p.n. (116 H03-2IS4 JOHN I. AND CHERVX A. HEBELKORN, CooHaiicd) additional deck proposed to fill in the existing 'm-shape** of the deck uill add 4** of hardcover along 19.7’ of width or 6.57 s.f.. Gi\*en this, the hardcover within this setback zone will increase to 593 s.f. (6.8%). With regard to lot coverage by stmcluic, Chaput slated that the existing structures on the properly include the house with lakeside deck and pool maintenance shed, totaling 3.074 s.f. (14.6%). Since the deck is proposed to increase in area from 399 s.f. to 550 s.f.. the structural coverage increases to 3,225 s.f. (15.3“,'o) where no more than 3,157 s.f. (15%) is permitted. Since the proposed deck expansion increases the amount of structural coverage on the property bey^ the 15% limit and increases hardco\er in the 0-75’ setback zone, increasing the nonconformity. Chaput stated could not support the proposed addition (filling in the area). Staff could support the deck replacement as it exists today, without the expansion, if the following hardcover removals were completed prior to footing inspection: 1. 87.5 s.f. of driveway encroaching onto the neighboring property; and 2. 488 s.f. of driveway, reducing hardcover to 404 s.f. (4.6%) in the 0-75’ setback zone and to 6,150 s.f. (49.8^o) in the 75 ’-250’ setback zone. Chair Smith questioned whether there was an>w here they could remove the necessary 3% structural coverage. Mabusth had difficulty suggesting additional removals. She acknowledged that the driveway reduction would reduce hardcover in the 0-75’ setback to 4 6^i. which she could find acceptable. Mr. Obelc indicated that the applicant was already cutting into existing concrete to place the footings, in order to avoid any additions to hardcover, and he could not come up w iih further removals to meet the requirement. Mabusth reiterated that she felt the applicant must not exceed the 15% structural coverage allowance. Chaput inquired about the shed on the property. Hawn suggested the applicants redesign the deck and fill in the’U* shape to meet the 15V« allowance. She fell the issue w as a structural cox crag? matter versus hvdeover problem and suggested they w ork w ith the design by cutting off comers etc. PAGE 15 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#6 M03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Conliaucd) Rahn agreed that they could redesign an attractive cur\ ing deck which would not exceed the 15% and fill in a portion of the ‘U’ shape. Chair Smith concurred, encouraging the applicants to tweak their design in order stay within the 15% allowance for structural coverage. Mr. Obele agreed that this would be doable. Mr. Ficbelkom pointed out that the driveway removals were never required as part of his past application and argued that the removals were suggested at the time as one way to keep his pool and spa. Since he had been required to remove his pool and spa, the driveway removals were moot, therefore he should not be required to remove driveway hardcover now . Chair Smith thanked the applicant for the history with regard to the drivew ay removal and asked GafTron for further detail. Gaffron indicated that it would be stall s recommendation to require additional drivewav removals as a condition of this ^plication. Mrs. Ficbelkom stated that they w ished to merely repair the existing deck and make it useable. Chair Smith indicated that, w ithout additional removals, the Commission would likely not look favorably upon any further additions. Hawn agreed w ith the applicant that they should be allow ed to replace an existing deck, as long as they stay w iihin the 15% structural coverage figures do so. Mrs. Ficbelkom pointed out that requiring the removals of additional drivewav space w ould cause them difTiculty in maneuvering in and out of their driveway onto County Road 19. She maintained that traversing the driveway safely w ith less blacktop would place an undue hardship on them. She indicated that the adjoining neighbor's driveway also encroaches on their property and indicated to her that the 86 s.f. cncroaclimcnl did not trouble him. Bremer indicated that she would not support drivew ay removals if they w ere to pose a safety hazard. There w ere no public comments. PAGE 16 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, AprU 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.n. (AM #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) Although the current neighbor did not take issue with the encroachment. Chair Smith believed that at some time a future neighbor might take issue with the encroachment. She questioned w hether the applicant should be required to remove the 488 s.f. of driveway. Bremer reiterated that the drivew ay was necessary for safety in maneuvering and maintained that the past resolution and minutes never required the driveway removals. She agreed that the structural coverage should not e.xceed 15*/i and that the lakeside deck should be no closer to the lake than the patio. All but Fritzler agreed that the driveway removals should not be a condition of the approval. Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03-2884, John and Chery l Ficbelkorn, 2730 Shadywood Road, granting variances to replace an existing lakeside deck that docs not exceed the 15% lot coverage by structure allowance and does not protrude beyoud the paved patio beneath it. \’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays I. Frtizler felt the encroaching driveway should be removed. Recess taken from 7:57-8:08 P.NI. PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P..M. (#11) #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, 2060 W.AYZATA BLVD. WESl, PUD CONCEPT PLAN 8:08 - 9:35 P.M. Representing the Applicant were Chuck Alcon- Project Manager. Paul Carlson - Steve Paetzel - Architect, and Rich Revering - Engineer Surv ey or. GafTron e.xplaincd that the Applicant had submitted an application for B-6 PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property I 'cated at 2060 Way/ata Boulevard. The property was reroned to B-6/Pl'D in 2001. The intended use of the property is a 13 unit ofiice development on a 2.6 acre parcel. The proposed office buildings would be one story plus lower walkout level, each unit of which would have a footprint of approximately 1500 s.f. The 3 ©nice buildings would include one 3-unit and two 5-unit buildings. Total gross square footage of olTice space is 41,000 s.f. Gaffron stated that the intent would be to sell each individual unit into independent ow nerships and plat a common area to be owned by the building ow nership group. The common area w ould contain the shared parking facilities, landscaped areas, and sidew alks. An ancillary need would be to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities easements that w ere granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals. Since *’ ;s application is at the PUD general concept plan'preliminary plat stage, Gaffron indicated that it requires review’ and approval of the proposed site plan. The PUD process allows appropriate requirements to be imposed by the City to protect adjacent residential PAGE 17 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO rLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 0:00 o*dKkp.M. («l I 003-2009 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coalteacd) areas from the potential impacts of a proposed commcrcial/ofTice dcsclopmcnt. as well as enhaiKC the quality of such de\'elopment. Originally. GafTron reported, the property was part of a 7-acrc tract that was platted into two loU for development in 2001. The easterly lot (Lot 2.4.5 acres) was rezoned to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6 acres became Lot 1. Orono Ambar. and was rezoned to B-6 Highway Commercial District. Lot I is the subject of the current application. GafTron continued with a brief history of the parcel, noting that development of a 25.fK)0 s.r office building on Lot I was granted General Development Plan Approval via Resolution No. 4704 on October 22. 2001. subject to the provisions of Planned I nit Development Agreement No. 2A. PUD Agreement No. 2A established that the only permitted principal structure on Lot I is a 25.000 gross s.f. 2-story office building wiiii underground and surface parking per the approved site plan. Permitted uses of that building are general ofTice uses which may include business and professional offices of a general nature, and may include a clinic for human care on an outpatient basis only. The building may not be used for general retail use. but accessory retail uses could occur in up to 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Developer Frank Dunbar subsequently concluded that there was insufficient demand for the office building, and filed Application No. 02-2771 with the City in March 2(K)2. proposing a 50-unit Phase II of Orono Woods Senior Housing for Lot 1. That application resulted in a public hearing during which the adjoining neighborhood e.xpresscd significant opposition to the project based on the size, orientation and intensity of the proposal. Dunbar did not proceed with that application, and has now sold the property to Want Real Estate (one of the principal current applicants) contingent upon City approval for the proposed office project. With regard to the surrounding land use. GafTron pointed out that directly to the north of the subject property is a residential neighborhood called “Sugarwoods *. Ihe only buffer between the applicants ’ office site and the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40 ’ wide platted outlot that is owTied by the Sugarwoods Homeowners Association. Restrictions were placed on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2 ” in diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The 40’ buffer outlot is generally wtioded. The subject property is located on Highw ay 12 and the Ormo Ambar Senior Housing des elopment is located to the east. Tw o parcels that arc located w est of the subject property arc de\ eloped a^ the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station; the lot directly adjacent to the west and surrounded on two sides by applicant ’s property contains nonconforming residential and industrial uses, including a w elding shop. PAGE 18 of 40 MIMTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMiav, April 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.111. («11 M)3-2t89 RAVIA REAL ESTATE. LLC. CoatkiMd) As General C mcept Plan Approval is required as part of the Highway 12 PUD rc/oning and development process, Gaffron noted that review of this application should focus primarily on the following areas: - Impact on adjoining properties • Building location, height, architectural materials and building design - Landscaping and screening • Traffic flow, road system impacts and needs • Parking arrangement The 3 proposed office buildings arc one or onc-and-a-half story plus a walkout lower level, with approximately 3,000 s..f. of gross floor space in each unit (1500 s.f. per level). Gaffron indicated that parking areas are required to be set back at least 20' from the front property line. The B-6 district allows parking to within 3' of side property lines, except property lines adjacent to an “R” district require a setback of I O', fhe property is surrounded on two sides by residential property and therefore the required 1 O' setbacks are critical. Number of Parking Stalls: Required “ 1 per 200 s.f. of "net usable floor area for office use” (Net = 39,000 s.f + / 200 = 196 stalls required) Total stalls required « 196 Total stalls proposed = 71 Proof of parking = 42 Total parking ==113 (short 83 stalls) Parking spaces required by Orono Code for ofnee use is one space per 200 s.f of net usable floor area. The proposed plan requires 196 parking stalls by code. The total number of parking stalls shown on the plan, including proof of parking, is 113. Based on these numbers of parking stalls, Gaffron pointed out that a 42*/o variance would be required for the number of parking stalls proposed. Gaffron indicated that he visited two other similar developments identified by the developer • Fembrook Towo Office Park in Plymouth (west side of Fembrook Lane 14 mile north of Hwy 55) and Forestview Town Ofllce Park in Maple Grove (south end of Forestview Lane, 1 block cast of Hemlock Lane on south service road of 694TIemlock exit). Both sites had 2-level office units similar in size to those proposed. Fembrook had rear walkouts, Forestview had rear looko..ts with no lower level exits. Parking at Fembrook (7.4 stalls per unit) was less than half full at 5:15 p.m. There was no on-street parking av'ailable nearby, but it didn't seem to be a problem. Parking at PAGE 19 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION NIEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.oi. (011 003-2SS9 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coolioocd) Forcstvicw (8.2 stalls per unit) was nearly full at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. In Gaffron opinion, this site had a parking issue. Gaffron reported that the applicants were proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per 13 units or S.S stalls per unit, w ith a maximum potential for 113 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit. By contrast, Orono code uould require IS stalls per unit. Me maintained that, despite the attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now. staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per unit in order to eliminate the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots. Gaffron acknowledged that the office use would most likely consist of low traffic appraisal or insurance offices, however, one could not be sure this would be the ease. With regard to their water management plan. Gaffron explained that all roof and parking lot runoff would be collected via catch basins and transported via underground storm sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Senior Mousing site, discharging to the existing NURP pond located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. Gaffron pointed out that capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnlX)l, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and slomi sew er calculations be proxided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream stomi sewer has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Gaffron noted that revised drainage calculations would be required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward as well. Gaffron pointed out that the topography of Lot 1 is significantly higher than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the southeast comer of Lot I to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot I is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot I. Furthermore, at the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6' high would be needed along the north side of the serv ice drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, the south end of the property would consist of a grassy slope, the serv ice road, the retaining wall, and the 48* wide 2*level facade with windows. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12“/a and should be revised to not exceed 8%. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades are0^o-5 “o). PAGE 20 of 40 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.nu (011 003-2M9 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LI.C, Cootiancd) Gaffron indicated that sideuallcs were proposed to connect between the indixidual units and the parking lot, as well as a continuous ser\ ice walk along the walkout side of the buildings, and a handicap ramp along the west side of the main lot. Attention would need to be paid to retaining walls near the parking area as well. It was determined that a walking trail connecting to the northwest comer of the property had little value, since it would not connect to any existing or planned trail system. With regard to the overall landscaping plan, Gaffron indicated that development of this site would be subject to Uie B-6 standards for landscaping. He noted that the applicants submitted landscaping plans have placed an emphasis on heavier planting at the comers of the property. The B-6 Code requires a screen (fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6’ high) not less than 50*/o opaque be located along lot lines l<twecn commercial uses and residential uses. While such screens might also take the form of a berm or retaining w alls wliere the parking lot is recessed, Gaffron explained that, in addition, a landscaped buffer can soften the views of retaining w alls. Gaffron maintained that stall's opinion would be to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the Sugarwoods neighborhood . It would seem less necessary to provide such screening along the cast side of the NE and SE buildings; a 6’ privacy fence along that north-south lot line would probably detract from the view of the building. Gaffron indicated that the proposed plans for signage were included in the application and reminded the applicant that the suoject property would be allowed 190 s.f of signage, based on the Code standards. WTiile the applicants would be required to provide further detail. Gaffron acknowledged that proposed plans for lighting were included as well. Gaffron presented the door plans and elevations for the buildings, as well as. the drawings of the facades. He explained that the facades most visible from off-site contain substantial architectural features to enhance their appearance and break up the visual length of the buildings. He believed that the applicants had provided a design that was sensitive to the surrounding properties; for instance, the long facades facing the senior housing building, w hile being the functional rear of those offices, offer stonew ork, columns, bays, and styled windows. The 6.'12 pitched roofs will have asphalt “shingles ” for a textured look. Siding is Hardie Plank or equivalent for low maintenance and good appearance. Stonework is a cultured “river rock" and its use on the walkout level columns greatly enhances the appearance of those higher facades. He continued, noting that the middle units (2/5, 13) of each building have a 6* deep pr -posed deck on the first stor>- level on the walkout side. These decks add to the PAGE 21 of 40 r L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*dock p.ni. («l I II03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coaliaacd) residential character of the buildings. The arched eyebrow and cur\cd window feature of the second story portions of the buildings also is a critical design element that enhances the quality of these units. Gaffron indicated that staff was satisfied that the building design was of a quality appropriate for the proposed use, and should be a good fit with the senior housing to the In conclusion, Gaffron presented the Commission with 16 issues for discussion and site planning inues a k for consideration. He stated that it was staff's opinion that, in general, the office condo concept proposed was an appropriate and relatively low-intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. Staff furtha believed the design of the buildings were attractive and of a residential character. However, staff was concerned about the parking needs, about potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use, and how this site would visually impact or be impacted by existing surrounding uses. Gaffron indicated that staff also has concerns about the proposed road and parking lot gi^cs, and would suggest that the applicant submit a revised grading plan addressing the City Engineer’s recommendations. Mr. Alcon stated that the 13 units were designed similar to townhomes which would be sold for oflice use. He mentioned that Ravia had two other developments in Burnsville and at Saunders Lake North and South in Minnetrista for people to view a sample of their work. Alcon noted that Ravia had recently held two neighborhood meetings w iih the Sugarw oods residents and the public in order to address any concerns in the community. He commented that Bill Wear, owmer of the neighboring strip mall, indicated that he would prefer a loop access through Outlot D versus the straight driveway access from their development to his center. While generally in agreement, Alcon stated that the loop would require construction easemenu etc. He added that Mr. Wear also requested sidewalk access to his mall. During the neighborhood meeting with 4 Sugarwood residents. Alcon indicated that there were coiKems with regard to buffers and access. WTiile she was quite interested in viewing the landscape plan. Chair Smith asked if the developer could salvage and reuse any of the existing trees on the site. Alcon indicated that they would like to move several pines in the center of the property if size permits. Gaffron noted that most of the others w ould likely be removed. PAGE 22 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday,AprU2L2003 6:00 o'clock p.ni. (011 »03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC. ContiBBcd) Dr. Karl Berg, 2112 Sugaruood Drive, commented that he fell the lownhome ofTicc development was an appropriate design, however, he did not wish to see the site overbuilt. In excess of 39,000 s.fof rental space, he was concerned that this small parcel could not support this size of development. As proposed, this development is nearly 50% larger than the 26,(KX> s.f. design presented by (^no Ambar. Berg asked the City to be sensitive to the fact that this proposal is 50% bigger than that which was previously presented on Uiis mere 2.6 acre parcel. Once again, while he could support the concept, the architectural elements, and low use. Dr. Berg requested that the City require the developer to provide adequate protection fix>m this site to Sugarw oods and reduce the size of the development to better suit the parcel. Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that her parcel backs up to the proposed development where there is a gap in the trees betw ecn her property and the site. In essence, she noted there is a virtual driveway to her property and she was concerned that the development would seem pretty obtrusi\c in back of her. She stated that she, and many others, have concern regarding the safety of the numerous children that live in Sugarwoods. She fell the development had too large a density for the 2.6 acre site. Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, agreed with the other neighbors who had spoken and w ished to add her concern for the children, due to the proximity of Sugarwood and the project's parking lot. Chair Smith asked if fencing the back side of the development fit into the landscape plan. Gaffron indicated that the City could require a 6' high privacy fence along the lot line at the rear of the property, however, the proposed loop on Oullot D w ould impact that option. He noted that the fence could nm along the Outlol if it w ere determined to be City owned. Mabusth asked staff to determine who owned Outlot D. Ms. Ricks asked why Outlol D was necessary for a service road in the first place, if Highway 12 was moving. From staff s perspective. Gaffron slated that Highway 12 congestion will be awful for the short term, in the long run, traffic will be cut in half, before slow ly building up again. From a planner's perspective, Gaffron maintained that the City does not want to give awny its rights to the service road just in case something changes. For instance, he added that, if Mr. Wear wants a loop through Oullot D to provide access to his mall, the lights then become an issue. PAGE 23 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April . 2003 €'M o’clock p.M. (#11 003-2ta9 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coaliaacd) Richard Apple, 2101 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that although a 1 Vi 8lor>- to\sTihome style ofTice complex sounds attractive and minimal in height, he asked how tall the actual elevations would place this project. GafTron explained that, by definition, the buildings meet the definition of a I '/i stor>' building with a walkout basement level. This also would include the main level with parking and the added '/> stor>- for a total height of 25'-3S’ with peaks. In his opinion, the proposal wxjuld meet the 30* height limit, although elevi ■ ; might give the appearance of exceeding those. As with any growing business. Mr. Apple inquired what might happen to parking if the tenants expanded and grew requiring more employees and space. Having recently been in negotiations w ith the City himself. Dr. Berg asked if any thought had been given to a more conservative complex whose parking better meets the codes. He suggested eliminating 2 units from either end in an efTort to downsi/c the project and allow more room for landscaping and parking. He felt the parking seemed more than inadequate for the size of the development. At 113 proposed parking spaces. GafTron agreed that the development falls far short of the 196 requir^ spaces. With an apparent 60"/o hardcover ratio uphill, Ms. Ricks asked where the water runoff would go. GaBron explained that the stormw ater management plan indicates that water runoff w ould be collected in catch basins which would extend to existing ponds on the Senior Housing site. He noted that the City Engineer has asked for confirmation regarding this pond basin plan. Alcon indicated that the end units consist of one unit apiece, w ith both and upper and lower floor. By eliminating the end units they are losing two and not four units. He reiterated that the parking w ill depend on who the tenants are and pointed out that the code gives a general recommendation for parking, reality could require more or less. Dick Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, asked how’ many parking spaces were t>pically required per unit based on 13 office units, w ith an upper and lower level, and 3,000 s.f of office space. He pointed out that not only will the number of employees w ill impact parking, but so will the expected number of customers. By Code, GafTron stated that the City requires 15 stalls per unit. He pointed out that the proposal offers 71 stalls to be built now and an additional 42 in proof of parking. PAGE 24 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMSHSSION MEETING Moaday« April 2L2M3 6:tt •*cl0ck p.a. («ll #03-209 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coatiavcd) Mr. Schommer felt that the development had a greater density than could be supported by the small parcel. Based on stafT recommendations. Chair Smith asked the Commissioners to consider the scale and character of the buildings, in terms of: . appropriate intensity of use and resuluint impacts to surrounding properties, trahic, etc. • building setbacks • building height, number of stories - bascmcntAvalkout exposure and elex ation viev^ s • parking location and orientation - drivex^ay layout, site aceess. interior circulation - Building design, facade materials, etc. - Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public - Landscaping, screening needs - Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter Hawn staled that she fell the use was too intense and did not provide enough parking. She found the design and height acceptable. While she believed it to be an improvement from the Ambar proposal, Ha^sm took issue with the parking supply and would rather see loo much than too little parking provided. Chair Smith indicated that she would be hesitant to support an access loop that ran outside the development through Outlot D to access the strip m?M. Mabusth agreed that the need to use the Outlot for an access route did not present itself here and she would be interested in seeing a trafTic light to help with access to the dev’elopment. While she w ould prefer to see an access driveway. Chair Smith inquired how dead ending the parking lot would impact the development. GafTron indicated that the fire marshal mi^t have an issue w ith dead ending the parking. Revering slated that the original intent of this rear access to the parking lot w as merely to provide an untraveled access for emergency use. Only through conversations with the neighboring business had access to the mall been considered. Bremer staled that she fell the use was far too intense and the only way to gain more parking would be to reduce the number of units. Chair Smith agreed and called for the applicant to deinlensify the use. PAGE 25 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moatfay, April 21,2003 6:OOo*clockpjB. (Oil «03-2tl9 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coaliaacd) While he was fond of the looks, Rahn concurred that the scale should be reduced. Mabusth asked for comment with regard to the City Engineer's request to reduce the grades. Gaffron noted that the grades at the south end would change the impact of the development. Having heard from many iKighbors, Chair Smith supported the need to control the tngrcs&'egress from the site. Keeping in mind the elevations, Mabusth asked how these would impact the views for Sugarwood residents. In terms of safety, she inquired w hether a berm or fence would be most effective near the rear properly line. Gaffron believed cither a fence or berm would suffice to screen the development from Sugarwoods, and felt there was adequate room to add these things. Revering questioned the grade requirements as noted by the City Engineer, for example the 12% versus 8% driveway grade, and the 4% versus S% parking lot grades, and requested an opportunity to speak to the Engineer regarding his recommendations. After speaking to various communities about special use roads. Revering indicated that it was their opinion that these grades should not be a large issue, whereas, they could pose significant cost issues. Chair Smith indicated that if Ravia could satisfy Gaffron and Kellogg, the Planning Commission would be pleased as well. With regard to the parking capacity and whether a variance is supported. Chair Smith asked for Commission comment. Bremer asked what the parking requirement was for Dr. Berg's proposed medical building down the road. Given the size of each 3,000 s.f unit, she maintained that it would not be unheard of that a medical office could move into this dex elopment. Gaffron indicated that the medical ofTice complex had been required to supply 1 sull per 200 (had it been a retail site, the requirement would be I per 150). He agreed that more parking could be necessary, as he’d obserx ed at the Maple Grove site. Rahn reiterated that the units and parking would be tenant driven, therefore, the Commission .should be prepared for the worst case scenario. PAGE 26 of 40 MINUTES t THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMday, April 21.2003 0:00 o'clock p.a. (Ml I M03-2M9 RAVI A REAL ESTATE. LLC. CoolkiMd) Mabusth maintained that the City should not be granting variances for new construction. Chair Smith asked for opinion’s regarding underground parking. Alcon indicated that it was not their preference to provide underground parking. He stated that tenants would be hesitant to purchase the units if they felt parking to be an issue. Paetzel, the architecu indicated that the lower les’cls of each unit would be t>pically used for storage, infrastructure. ofTices. etc. He indicated that the units would not support, for instance, a phone baitk tenant there, but instead would be designed to accommodate 5-6 employees and a few’ customers at a time. Fritzler asked if the handicap parking requirement had been addressed. Gaffron pointed out that 6 stalls had been proposed with ramps to the lower door. Mabusth asked whether a variance should be required in a planned unit de\ clopment in the first place. Gaffron indicated that the Commission needs to be comfortable w ith a standard requirement which it could relate to other developments, for example the Navarre ofTice site. He asked whether owners would be allowed to sublease their units. Alcon indicated that, t>pically. that has not been allowed. He noted that people purchase the units to use for their personal office space, generally, lawyers, accountants, insurance providers who w iih to be located near their client base. He added that the sublease could be a condition of the plat. Chair Smith stated that she was uncomfortable with the proposed proof of parking look away the planned landscaping. She felt the need to assure the residents of Suganvood that more landscaping would be required to preserve or protect their development. With regard to access, Alcon pointed out that the neighboring strip mall had requested a sidewalk be constructed which connects to his property. Alcon indicated that the developer had no problem w ith that. Chair Smith asked if staff were comfortable with the signage and lighting proposed thus far. Gaffron indicated that, in general, the proposed lighting seems to be just enough to accommodate the development and individual enir>wa>-s. He noted that further details would need to be provid^ PAGE 27 of 40 MINUTES OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday. April 21,2003 0:00 o*dock p.». («11 #03-2M9 RA\'IA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Coalinaed) Paetzel stated that each individual cntr>'way would be illuminated and signified with their prospective signage. Frilzkr questioned w hether adequate separation c.xistcd between buildings for emergency access. While the buildings w-ould be set up for sprinklers, GafTron indicated that he would wait for comment from the fire marshal on other matters. Chair Smith asked if the Commission felt there w ere any other topics of importance for discussion. She summarized the Commission's position that their biggest cutKem continues to be density and suggested that the applicant detensify the use to allow for additional parking. Furlherroorc. she encouraged the applicant to add to the landscaping plan to protect the Sugarwood development. Mabusth asked if they could provide the applicant w ith further direction with regard to the parking balance. From earlier discussion. Chair Smith felt that staff w ould be comfortable w ith IU stalls per unit. She believed other options for access would need to be e.xamincd. GafTron learned and shared that Outlot D was City owned and would not be contemplating use in the near future. Chair Smith stated that they w ould prefer the applicant stay out of the Outlots and that they would be comfortable with the applicant working with staff with regard to access. Since the development would be surrounded on two sides by residcntia use. Mabusth recommended the applicant take parking, the intensity, and landscaping under serious consideration. GafTron asked if the Commission and applicant believed they had been provided w ith enough direction to revise the PUD proposal. Ilahn indicated that the applicants have been advised that the greenspacc and parking needs to increase, and the density decreased. He pointed out that the Commission w ould not look favorably upon underground parking as an option at this site. Alcon understood that intensity, parking, and landscaping need to be addressed. He stated that they w ould concentrate on these issues and return with options. He appreciated the valuable feedback the Commission and public had provided them in their process. PAGE 28 of 40 MINUTES OFTIIK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 6:00* o’clock p.ai. (iil I (I03-2M9 RAVIA REAL ESTATE^ I.LC, Coatiaucd) Chair Smith complimented the developer on their sensitivity and initiative having hosted public meetings to address neighbors concerns in advance. Chair SaiUh moved, BreoMr sccoadcd, lo table Applicalioa IK)3>2M9 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boolevard, PUD - General Concept Plan Rcvlew/PrcUmiaary Plat Rev lew for the purpose of redesign. \'OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0; Hawn requested that the applicant provide the Commission with additional data regarding current tenants residing in their other developments. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) («7) IM)3-28«5 GERDA AND ED TOTH, 1280 AND 1290 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES 9:35 - 10:45 P.M. Representing the Applicant was Peter MacDonald, the architect. JoEllen Hurr. Chaput reported that the applicants were requesting the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 18.553 s.f. (0.43 acres) where 43,560 s.f. (I acre) is required; 2. a lot width of 99* at the OHWl, and the 75* setback from the OIIWI. where 140* is required; 3. Ill s.f. (1.47^0) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshorc setback /one v\here none is permitted; 4. 4,483 s.f. (38.36®/o) hardcover within the 75* to 250* lakeshorc* setback /one where 2.753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 5. 3,132 s.f. (16.88%) lot coverage by structure where 2,783 s.f. (l5“o) is pcmiitted; and 6. grading and filling within 75* of the OIIWI. of Lake Minnetonka where neither grading nor filling is permitted. Chaput explained that two lots, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place. 9.253 s.f. and 9.300 s.f. were proposed to be combined with this application to create a lot si/c of 18.553 s.f w here 43,560 s.f (1 acre) is required. 1 Ik* lots arc 49* and 50* in width, to create a combined lot width of 99* where 140* is required. Since this is new construction, variances are required for lot area and width. Chaput indicated that the proposed home would be located outside of the 0-75* setback zone, however, a stone retaining w all w ithin this setback zone due to the grade changes, totaling 111 s.f (1.47%) of hardcover w here none is permitted was requested to remain There is currently 2,538 s.f (23.05%) of hardcover w ithin the 75*-250* zone w here 2,753.25 s.f (25*"») is permitted. She explained that the applicants propose to iiKrease hardcover w ithin this zone to 4,225 s.f (38.36*.«). exceeding tlic 2,753.25 s.f (25%) PAGE 29 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoadJiy, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.n. («7 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, CMtioued) maximum permitted. The proposed hardcover is comprised of mainly the house, which exceeds the allowable structural coverage on the property. Since the existing house is located w ithin 75* of the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka, demolition of the existing house will leave a hole in the grade that will require some filling and grading before the new home can be constructed fanher back on the property. Because grading and filling of more than 10 cubic yards w ithin 75’ of the OHWL is prohibited, a variance is required. The applicants do not propose to do any additional work w ithin the 75’ setback from the OHWI.. Chaput noted that no comments to date have been received from the City Engineer. After presenting 8 issues for consideration, Chaput stated that staff could support the 7y TlS hardcover in the 0-75’ setback /one and grading within However, staff could not support the variances for hardcover exceeding 25®.i in the 75’ to 250’ ^iback zone nor structural coverage exceeding the 15% maximum permitted. It is the City s p<»licy that ail new construction meet the hardcover and structural coverage requirements when possible. Given the size of the combined property, Chaput maintained th>*-; it is possible to meet the hardcover and structure' ^overage requirements and still build a new home. It has been suggested by the applicants that tlv property could be looked at as two potential 50' lots that could each be granted the %ati4nces as were granted the single 9.000 s.f lot next door, i.e. 46®o hardcover an* t' r.-f structure. In fact, in 1986 the City declared that 1290 Spruce w as unbuildable anc - used it for sale to adjacent owners to make their property more conforming, despite the .^ct that each of the two lots had been assessed for sewer. Chaput poir.ted out that it is stafi's opinion that comparing the applicant’s double lot with the extremely substandard lot next door at 1270, is not a reasonable comparison. Chaput stated that staff would recommend tabling the application to allow the applicants to decrease hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone to no more than 25'Jo by redesigning the proposed home. A home liKaled 30’ from the street with a 600 s.f. driveway and 100 s.f. of sidewalk could have a 2.050 s.f footprint. Architect Peter MacDonald, designer for both the Toths and Application #03-2866 for the Killians, gave a detailed presentation on his firm and philosophies. He reviewed the 0-75’ setback ordinance and 75’-250* setback ordinance for the Commission in an effort to determine the spirit in which it was created. He indicated that after meeting three tines PAGE 30 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoBday, April 21,2003 0:00 o’clock p.a. (1^7 M03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Contioucd) with Cily stafT and the homeowners ofhoth applications, they have proposed to pull both homes out of the 0-7S' setback zone and reduce hardcover from 46% to 38%. Ms. Hutt. a past Council and Commission member, reminded the Commission that the two parcels being combined could be sold as 2 substandard lots. Instead, the applicants have proposed to do the ‘right thing*, w hich is to combine the two lots into one useable parcel. MacDonald maintained that the applications present a better lower impact alternative to the City, taking into consideration the unique situations posed by the topography of the sites. He belies cd that the end results get to the heart of, or the intent of the ordinance, w hich is to consider the plight of the landowner and the hardship that 50’ lots, zoned as if larger, places on residents. Killian commented that his lot. 1300 Spruce Place, is a unique fan shaped parcel which places a disproportionate amount of land in the 0-75* setback zone. He argued that granting him a variance would not alter the essential characteristics of the property, and in fact, would enhance the parcel by eliminating the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. Although economic consideration alone is not an allowed hardship, Killian pointed out that they have gone to the added c.xpcnse of returning the parcel to its former state. MacDonald noted that special consideration should be giN cn to features unique to the land, but variances can also be granted to presen e the enjo>mcnt of substantial rights of the property owners. He maintained that strict enforcement of the ordinance w ould prevent enjoyment for his applicants based on the Vi acre usable lot only being allowed 1100 s.f. when zoned as a larger parcel. Hurr mentioned that she and the architect had met with several neighbors over the weekend. Nancy Anderson, 1260 and 1270 Spruce Place, supported construction of the Toth home. She found it to be a lovely design and felt that special consideration should be given to the 1 oth's who she hopes could restore the original grade, w hich was changed illegally by previous owners. She stated that she was led to belies e that lot 1290 was an unbuildable lot and questioned whether this was the case or if it could be sold as a substandard lot. Mrs. Anderson fell the new home would be a positive addition to the neighborhood in light of the past drainage issues caused by the illegal grading John Walker. 1310 and 1318 Spruce Place, stated that the street is comprised of a number of new homes and remodels w hich has been a long lime coming. He indicated that the small neighborhood was a cohesive group and believed the hardcover removals in the 0* 75* would be a benefit to the neighborhood. PAGE 31 of 40 MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMiiay, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clMkp.M. («7 #03-2US GERDA AND ED TOTH, Coattayed) Jim Bull, 1330 Cherry Place, indicaled that the proposal fails to be consistent with the amount of hardcover required by the City as compared to other lOO’-f lots. He believed the architect could design an aesthetic home that took up less space. Hurr urged the Commission to be corisistcnt in all facets of dcvcIopriKnt, not just old versus new. Chair Smith found all other variances acceptable, except the structural coverage and hardcover variance requests. Rahn wished to see an alternate plan which did not exceed the 1 S% structural co\ crage amount and hardcover requirements. He felt the overages ucrc design issues and not hardship driven, in fact, he felt the applicant was not far from meeting the 15*/^ allowanee with a little work. Fritzler and Mabusth agreed with Rahn. If the applicant met the 15% structural allowance. Chair Smith asked whether the Commission could support their exceeding the 25?o hardcover requirement since they are removing so much ha^cover from the 0-75* setback /one. Hawn questioned whether that was reasonable since the Commission generally holds firm on new construction. Mrs. Anderson pointed out that the existing residence is very close to falling into the lake and slips away more daily as erosion continues at 1300 Spruce Place. She felt the applicant had really no choice than to pull it back and it is fair to give him incentive to do so. Due to the inconvenience of construction, she also preferred to sec both homes under construction at the same time Mr. Walker pointed out that the citi/ens along Spruce Place have chosen to underground all of their own utilities and had been in contact w ith public works regarding this transition. For ease of discussion. Bremer asked that the two applications be considered separately. She pointed out that the Toth home does not meet the I S*'e, whereas, the Killian home docs meet this figure. MacDonald stated that they could tweak the Toth design to meet the I S% structural limitation. PAGE 32 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Api il 21,2003 6:00 o*do€k p.n. (#7 #03-2MS GERDA AND ED TOTH, Coaliaacd) Chair Smith asked once again if the Commission would be willing to make any allowances for the 75-250 ’ zone. Zugschweit asked if there should be incentive provide to people who are doing repairian work to their property. Huit reminded the Commission that instead of one application, the two lots could become two substandard applications. Gaffron disagreed, stating that the City would still deem the second lot as unbuildable and not permit an>1hing. Bremer inquired about the change in grade proposed. MacDonald pointed out that the applicants would be removing the existing structure and correcting the grade which was illegally dug out. He reiterated that it is the intent of the applicanu to work with the City and neighbors to restore and improve the lakeshore. Hurr added that the City could make restoration a condition of their application. Chair Smith summarized her thoughts in support of the fill, lot area, lot w idih. small amount of hardcover in the 0-75 ’, structural coverage at 15%. and her willingness to make the allowance in the 75 ’-250' in excess of 25%. Mabusth reminded the Commission that lot coverage by structure does not take into consideration driveways, sidewalks, and impressed upon the applicant the need to not exceed 30% hardcover in the 75*-250 ’ zone. Rahn felt it was appropriate to leave those determinations up to stafT. From the drawings and slides, Hawn felt the drivew ays were not excessive due to safety concerns. Hurr suggested they table the application and take this recommendation back to the Toth’s. She reminded the Commission how important it was to consider the improvements they are getting pulling everything out of the 0-75 ’ setback. Although she recognized stafTs recommendation regarding the new construction element. Chair Smith felt she could support 25-30% due to the e.xcessive trade-offs being gained in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. PAGE 33 of 40 MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,24W3 «:M«*dMlip.a. («7 «a3-2ttS GEROA AND ED TOTH, Coatfased) Chair Snith mavcd, Fritiler Mcoadcd, to table AppllcaHoa #03-2885, Gcrda aad Ed Talb, 1280 aad 1290 Spmce Place, la arder ta give tbeia the opportaalty la redesiga the appUcatlaa la aicet Ibe 19% slmclaral caverage liialtatloB aad aot exceed 30% bardcaver la Ibe 79*-258* tcfbacb xaae. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #03-2888 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, 1300 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES 18:45-11:04 P.M. Dennis Killian, the Applicant, Peter MacDonald, the architect, and JoEllen Hurr were preaent. Chaput explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances lo permit construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 20300 s.f. (0.47 acres) where 43360 s.f. (I acre) is required; 2. hardcover within the 0 to 73' lakeshore setback rone; 274 s.f. (2.47%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75* to 250' lakeshore setback zone: 3367 s.f. (36.6*!o) where 2.298 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 4. grading and Ailing within 75* of the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka where no grading nor filling is permitted; and 5. placing All in a blufT impact zone w here no Ail is permitted. As details of the replication w ere previously discussed w ith the preceding application. Chapul reported that staff could support the variances for lot area, hardcover in the 0-75* setback rone, grading within 75* of the OHWL, and Ailing in a bluff impact zone. However, staff could not support the variance for hardcover exceeding 25"/o in the 75'-250* setback zone. In her opinion, Mabusth indicated that this lot docs posses certain hardships, the odd shape and its proximity to the bluff. Hurt suggested viewing the lot as if it were a rectangle when giving consideration to buildable space. As mentioned earlier, MacDonald pointed out that the existing home is in the bluffs, which is not a good place to be, it was their intent to pull the home back out of the bluA'SS’. Mr. Walker, the adjacent neighbor, was in full support of the proposal. Hawn staled that she was inclined to consider the shape of the lot when ev aluating the hardcover limitation and w as comfortable with allowing 36.6% as presented. PAGE 34 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 6:Mo*dockp.M. (US #03-28S6 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN, Coalinued) Mabusth concurred that it was interesting to look at the existing hardcover being pulled back entirely out of the 0-75* setback into the 75*-250*. She questioned uhat additional elements were left to be included in the calculations. MacDonald maintained that it would be more dilTicuU to maneuver in and out of this driveway and safety dictated why they allowed for more driveway in this scenario. Hawn indicated that she was inclined to recommend this proposal since she saw little way to further limit the driveway or hardcover removals. MacDonald mentioned the odd shaped fan lot which diminishes buildable space in the 75- 250' setback. Chair Smith questioned whether it was reasonable to allow 36T« hardcover. Rahn agreed that it was atypical to sec so much space in the 0-75* .setback in comparison to the 75*-250* setback zone. Hawn noted that the house meets setbacks and structural coverage allowances. While she did not w ish to be inconsistent, Bremer stated that difTcrcnt and supportable hardships exist for this property. If viewed as a rectangle. Zugschw ert indicated that she. loo. could support this application. Fritzler was hesitant to support a hardcover allow aiKc of 36f o He fell that went too far. Without zones, Rahn suggested evaluating the total lot coverage due to the rcslricti\c si/c and dimensions of the property He fell this was probably similar to the last application. GalTron suggested that the Commission give thought to adding an incentive section to the code to allow for these types of trade off scenarios. Killian indicated that he would prefer to move the home back further on the property and rebuild versus remodeling the residence that sits on the blun" urrently. Hawn moved. Zagsekwert seconded, to recommend approx al of Application #03- 28S6, Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place, granting lot area, hardcover within the 0-75* setback of 2.47% - with the exception that no hardcover be added outside the lakeside doors, hardcover in the 75*-250* setback zone of 36.6% variances, grading and filling w ithin 75* of the OH WL of Lake Minnetonka w here no grading nor filling is permitted, and placing fill in a bluff impact zone w here no fill is PAGE 35 of 40 MINITTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 0;00o*clMkp.B. (»• «03-2n0 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. Caatiaacd) pcralMcd !■ order to coutmct a acw rcsMeacc oa the property. VOTE Aye* 4, Navi 3, Brewer, Chair Snitli, aad Fritilrr dissealiac. (#9) #03.2007 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., 4753 NORTH SHORE DRTVE, VARIANCES 11:01 > 11:50 P.M. Bob Piqicr and Sieve Sexton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, were present. Chaput reported that the applicants were requesting the following variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property; 1. lot area of 8,172 s.f. (0.19 acres) where 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) is required; 2. lot width of 50* where 140’ is required; 3. rear yard (street) setback of 19.2* where 30* is required; 4. side yard setback of 7.6* where 10* is required: 5.480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; 6. 2,051 s.f. (46.8%) hardcover within the 75* to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1.095 s.f (25%) is permitted; 7. 1,504 s.f of lot coverage by structure w here 1,500 s.f is permitted; 8. 15’ setback from the lop of the bluff where 30* is required; 9. 6 ’ +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone w here none is pemiilted; and 10. placing fill in a bluff impact /one where no fill is permitted. Oiapul c.xplained that the proposed house is located 19.2’ from the rear lot line where 30* Is required. Currently, the existing detached garage and driveway area arc primarily in the County Road right of way. With the proposed plan, the detached garage is removed and the drivew ay is relocated onto the property. The 22’ setback will leave room to park two or three vehicles off the right of way. With regard to lot coverage by structure. Chaput indicated that the only structure proposed on the property is a 1,504 s.f house, exceeding the 1,500 s f permitted. Due to the size and dimensions of the proposed house, a number of other zoning ordinance requirements are unable to be met, but could be met (or magnitude of variances reduced) by making the house smaller. There is 3,791 s.f of area in the 0-75* setback zone. There is currently 480 s.f (12.6%) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted, however. Chaput pointed out that the hardcover in the 0-75* is not proposed to change with this application. On the other hand, in the 75*-250* setback zone, the hardcover is proposed to increase to 2.051 s.f (46.8f •). Other than reducing the size of the home, there do not appear to be any other potential hardcover removals. PAGE 36 of 40 MINtTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, April 21,2003 6:M o*cl»ck p.m. («9 M03-2IS7 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC^ CoaHaacd) Chaput continued by noting that the top of the bluff is located 84’ from the Oil WL at 976.1 ’ in elesalion. The Muff impact zone is defined as the land \%ithin 20' from the top of the bluff. Within this zone, no structures or accessory facilities (except stairways, landings and lock boxes) are permitted. The lakeside of the proposed house encroaches aiH>ut 6* into the bluff impact zone where no structures are permitted. As a follow-up to contact made with the DNR, Chaput stated that they would prefer a 20’ setback to the bluff and that efforts be made to preserve the vegetation in order to avoid slumping. Hermepin County has indicated that they prefer that a turn-around drive on site instead of requiring a driver to back out onto the County road. Since the proposed home is new construction. Chaput reported that staff can qsI support the side yard setback variaiKe. Although the applicants arc proposing a home of the allowable size for a lot of this area, the lot coverage by structure and side yard setback variances could be eliminated and hardcover in the 75* to 250’ setback zone could be further reduced by reducing the size of the proposed home. Staff recommends approval of the following variances, amended from the original application to reflect 10’ side .setbacks, to pcnnii construction of a new residence on tlic property: 1. lot area ofO.I9 acres (8.172 s.f) where 43.560 s.f.(l acre) is required; 2. lot width of 50’ where 140’ is required; 3. rear yard (street) setback of 19.2’ where 30’ is required; 4. 480 s.f. (12.6%) hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakcshorc setback zone where none is permitted (staff would also support a reduction in deck sizes—sec below); 5. 1.957 s.f (44.7*/*) hardcover within the 75 ’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1,095 s.f (25%) is permitted; 6. 15’ setback from the top of the bluff where 30’ is required; 7. 6’ +/- encroachment into the bluff impact zone w here none Is permitted; and 8. placing fill in a bluff impact zone w here no fill is permitted. Chaput continued that approval of the above-listed variances should be conditioned on the following: 1. a permit must be obtained from Hennepin County to change the access to the properly'; 2. comments from the City Engineer should be incorporated into the proposed plan when received; and 3. comments from the DNR should be incorporated into the proposed plan when received. PAGE 37 of 40 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI^NNING COMMISSION MEETING MmMlay, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#9 003-2007 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC^ CoaUm^ In addition, Chapul acknowledged that the Planning Commission may choose to further reduce hardcover in the 0 to 75’ hardcover zone by requesting that the two existing decks be reduced to the permitted 32 s.f. landings. Mr. Sexton staled that it was not their intention to go over the 1,500 s.f. structural allowance and that they would b- able to stay within that number if they could move the bouse off center slightly. He admitted that they could decrease the size of the decks, but maintained that the landings were necessary for safety. He fell their hardship hinged on the size of the lot and the proximity of the bluff. He pointed out that they had gone to great lengths to minimize the driveway and sidewalks given the size, and even had incorporated a tuckunder garage. Mary and Gary Everson. 4755 North Shore Drive, slated that the existing house is an eyesore and they would support the new construction. They noted that the current garage is too close to the roadway and is a safely concern. Marilyn Crawford, 4745 North Shore Dri\ c, questioned whether the new construction would obstruct their views of the lake or sunset. Sexton indicated that the home would not impact the average lakeshore setback. Fritzler maintained that the applicants need to maintain the 10* side yard setback. Bob asked if they could lengthen the home in order to achieve the 10* side yard setback. Chair Smith agreed that they would ha\ e to hold them the 10* side yard setback and 1,500 s.f structural coverage limitation. Gaffron staled that it is the City*s goal to allow for a full length car to park safelv in the driveway. He felt the applicant could be allowed to move forward I ’ further into the bluff encroachment and 3* tow ards the roadway to accommodate 10* side setbacks and not lose building area. Fritzler moved, hlabHsth secoaded, to recommend approval of Application (I03-2887, Minnetonka Custom Homes, 4753 North Shore Drive, granting lot area, lot width, and a rear yard setback variance of 19% reducing the decks in the 0-75' sHback to meet the permitted 32 s.f. landings, a hardcover of 46.8% in the 75'-250' setback variance, a 10’ side yard setback be maintained, furthermore allowing a I4'setback from the lop of the bluff where 30' is required, and placing fill in a bluff where no fill b permitted, subject to the Citv- Engineer's report, Hennepin County recommendations, and the staff conditions contained in the memorandum dated April 17,2003. VOTE: Aves 7, Navi 0. PAGE 38 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMlay, April 21,2003 0:00 o*clock p.ni. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MARCH 24 AND APRIL 14, 2003 Fritzler reported that all of the Planning Commission items were on the Council consent agenda for the evening of March 24,2003. Hawn reported that the April 14, 2003 meeting eonsisted of the Bichanich application which was deemed a conforming lot. Gaflron indicated that BoUenberg was directed by the City Council to compile a survey of loU which exist in the I acre and 2 acre zoning district. He questioned how wide a home should be allowied to get when it’s being built on a 100' lot in certain zoning districts. With regard to Bichanich, the City Attorney cautioned the Council that they not create a neu code allowing side yard setback variances where no hardship exisu on a conforming loL Bottenberg reminded the Commission that when an applicant maximizes the size of their house to meet the 1,500 structural coverage allowance, they oflentimes realize they have not Icn any room for a driveway in their calculations. She maintained that the house needs to Ik reduced to allow for the driveway, not the other way around, maximizing and then asking for a drivew ay variance. Fritzler felt that, while 50’ lots offer built in hardships due to size, consideration should be given to the variance process for 100’+ lots in a Vi acre or 2 acre zoning district. Gaflron agreed that, from a suff perspective, it is much more difficult to hold people to a standard when there is no Kt standard or a division between rebuild versus remodel. Rahn suggested the Commission consider eliminating the 1,500 s.f. structural coverage figure in lieu of a straight percentage. (#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaflron reminded the Commission that a work session was scheduled for May 7, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider making a motion for debate in order to focus the Commission efforts in a timely manner. Chair Smith indicated that she would be attending the Growing Smart in Minnesota seminar on June 10 and asked others to consider joining her. PAGE 39 of 40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING M«i<ay, April 21,2M3 S:M«*dMkpA (#14) FLAMMING COMMISSION AFFROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 17, 2M3 HMn wmrtd, FMtr iccMdcd, to appreve toe Miaatct of toe Marck 17, 2003 MecCtof M pmealed. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstaia 3 - Breaer, Mabwto, aai Zagschweit. (#15) SELECTION OF REFRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AFRIL 2t, 2003 AND MAY 12,2003. April 28 - Chair Smith ADJOURNMENT MayI2-Rahn Hawa Bwved, Frilaler lecoaded, to adjoara toe PlaaBlaf Coaualtsioa aicriiat al 12KI2 A.M. VOTE: Ayea 7,Nayi 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:02 A.M. Saadra Siaito, Chair PAGE 40 of 40