Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-18-2002 Planning Packet
Public A ttendance Mkktim; D ai K V' « • • t * □ C ouncil B^Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please ulloui the information reqi ested BELO\V FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1.C /L ^// i //■' / t L /i U ^ t)f'sJ CA - 7^,/ J. - Pc g...'} ' Vy/' t > . ; --1 — i ! b L 4. ' it / / /. // ■ jJ /Vv . ^ ' <L 5. ^ r- 6. I \ C y "TU I li H *A i li-t-iA \ ^ A* S*<^*r 3 ^ /ii't-'-) ('/vi,-v,.^A ^ T ji 7. /-U'C * t-CAVii>< \*>• I'l 'a ^ r I > ^ - ^6: 1 8. 7*1>A /<<^S 7^ 15. X:VData\AdmtaMr«ii«ff S^pparl (ronm OldPiCIRMS Pi BLIC 41T A 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday March 18,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parkwav - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Jim White AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the April 8, 2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted bv the Chair. CONSENT I. #02-2756 David and Jody Daivcy, 1520 Bohns Point Road, CUP (Staff; Wendy Boltcnbcrg) 2. #02-2760 James Cusack, 4140 llighwood Road, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenherg) 3. #02-2765 Wilson Management Ltd., 740 Willow Drive South, Renewal Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenherg) OLD BUSINESS 4. #23.33 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20 Su!id. 4C, Home Occupation Standards (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 5. #02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 6. #02-2740 Jeffry and Nancy Twidwell, 1865 Concordia Street, Variances (Staff; Wendy Bottenherg) NEW BUSINESS 7. #02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray, 880 Partenwood Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) S. #02-2757 Terrance C. Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane, Renewal V'ariance (Staff; Paul Weinberger) I 9. #02-2758 Robert D. Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drive, After-the-fact CUP (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 10. #02-2759 John Collette, 2160 West Wayzata Blvd., CUP (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 11. #02-2761 Addison and Cindy Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road, CUP and Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) SKETCH PLAN 12. #02-2763 Clayt and Julie Ann Tabor, 960 N. Brown Road, Sketch Plan Review (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 PM 13. #02-2764 Review of Proposed Commercial PUD Ordinance (Staff; Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings February 25, 2002 and March 11, 2002. 15. Other issues for discussion. 16. Planning Commission approval of minutes for February 19 2002. 17. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 25,2002 and April 8,2002. ADJOURNMENT MEO.NA NJ H. 1600, I • • • r — j s L 3NG LAKE f I ^v<.0 ,p ■'■ “■ ,1,'' —' 0^' PUMO^ft? il W WAY2 qJA > jC,5^ »• 4400 4000 *3§M—3200 vtri::!.-:: 2300 p 2400 Q 2000 PI 1600 |t200 eoo -400 '1200 1600 '2400 400 y of Orono, Minnesota !t Numbering Index Map UTTsSiSr north Jl A lUOC, »«•*. ^ ato ten c^ats ft^r. ?, if to pci t.9W A>4 jo.ati AM. s. iff* It. a«i A^i t. rt9S If,aft JM H. If91 Please sign in for (he public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the April 8, 2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSFNT 1. /r02-2756 David and Jody Dalvcy. 1520 Bohns Point Road, CUP (SlafT: Wendy Bolicnbcrg) 2. /^02-2760 James Cusack. 4140 Highwood Road, Variances (Staff: Wendy Botlenberg) 3. ^02-2765 Wilson Management Ltd., 740 Willow' Drive South, Renewal Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) OLD BUSINESS 4. ^2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20 Subd. 4C, Home Occupation Standards (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 5. #02-2745 ilona and Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 6. #02-2740 Jeffry and Nancy Twidwcll, 1865 Concordia Street, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) NEW BUSINESS #02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray, StSO Partenwood Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 8. #02-2757 Terrance C. Johnson. 1 045 Linden Lane, Rencw^al Variaricc (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 9. #02-2758 Robert D. Pieper, 3995 North Shore Drive, After-the-fact CUP (Staff; Wendy Bottcnbc.''g) 10. #02-2759 Jolin Cullctic, 2160 West Wayzata Blvd., CUP (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 11. #02-2761 Addison and Cindy Piper, 1125 Spring Hill Road, CUP and Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) SKETCH PL.VN 12. #02-2763 Clayi and Julie Ann Tabor. 960 N. Brown Road, Sketch Plan Review (Staff; Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 PM 13. #02-2764 Review of Proposed Commercial PUD Ordinance (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMME.NTS 14. Report of Planning Commission representatives ailcnding Council mceiines Febriury 25. 2U02 aiul Maich 1 1, 20U2. / TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Botlenberg, Assistant Zoning Administrator/Planncr March 14, 2002 #02-2756 David & Jodi Dalvey 1520 Bohns Point Road Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits LR-IB One Family Lakeshure Residential District (I acre) 36,753 s.f. (.84 acre) A B C D E Application Elevations/Floor Plan Photo of Property Property Owner's List Sample Restrictive Covenant Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (F); Accessory Buildings-Plumbing; Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, si/c and height. Application Summary: The applicants have applied for a conditional use pennit to allow plumbing in an accessoiy building. 'I he accessory building w ill be used as an “art studio and gym". It will be located on the upper level of the detached garage. The art studio and gym w ill be used for personal use and will include a bath room with sink, toilet and shower. The detached garage is on the rear of the property. The property is located in the LR-1B zoning district. 1 he City of Orono allows for the provision of plumbing in accessory buildings that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub. The accessory building is required to be conforming in location, size, and height. The accessory building (detached garage) does conform to location, size and height requirements set by code. In October 2001. the applicants applied for and were approved for lot width and accessory building without principal structure variances to construct a new residence on the property. The existing house was demolished and a new residence and detached garage are currenll> under construction. Before a permit was issued setback, hardcover, height and let co\ erage by structures was re\ iewed for conformity. The detached garage was designed to have a gym. art studio and bathroom above it. \\ hen the variances were approved the owner stated the bathroom would be roughed in at construction time and at .i later date if/when they wished to put it in. a conditional use permit would be applied for. The subject property is on Lake Minnetonka and is sewered. #02-2756 David & Jodi Dalvc) 1520 Bohns Point Road Conditional Use Permit 3 14 2002 Page I Items for Discussion: 1. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 2. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the intended use as an art studio? 3. Does the property owner confirm acceptance of the restrictive covenant being placed on the chain of title placing conditions on the accessory building? (See Exhibit E, which contains the standard limitations for such use on page 2). Staff Recommendation; Staff recommends approval for a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for property located at 1520 Bohns Point Road based on the structure meets the requirements established by the Municipal Code for an “accessory structure with plumbing" CUP subject to the following condition: The property owner files the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property for an accessoiy building with plumbing. H02-27S6 David & Jodi Dalvey 1 520 Bohns Point Road Conditional Use Permit 3/14 2002 Page 2 A Application# ^2>*27S*(^ Date Received l^'^o Amount Paid •^i'K.OO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ Phone (home) *^71 77 2^ Phone (work) ^fZ. APPLICANT . ^ s. 1. ... . Address nr>fh->T' City <p0bMC> LjiHl, OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home) Name ________________________________ Phone (work)_ lYEE . Zip_^ iiss ss5^i Address City Zip Date ^pertvAcquired‘'''^^K:^^ _______________________ I (dol^o not}^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiVDTS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application S 175.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/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 lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-lhe-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) __ _ $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule ' & iTb • • *-% c mrm r » 5/i‘? :-^ ^ ' I ? , > -i V ' . ‘ - , I .'f f / » B.‘Jrmiimm 41 RUN DATE 02/15/02 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNPORHATION SVSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST BATCH 503 REPORT NO. PX435A01 PAGE 0 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 3B 08-1X7-23 AA 0010 03225 BOHNS POINT LA N i V SHEATT HENRY L SWEATT C/0 LOWRY HILL 90 7TH ST S B5300 NPLS HN 55A02 30 00-117-23 AA OOIA 01535 BOHNS POINT RD RICHARD A BORN RICHARD A BORN 1535 BOHNS POINT RD ORONO HN 55391 38 08-117-23 AA 0015 01595 BOHNS POINT RD RICK BORN RICK BORN 1595 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER WANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 30 09-117-23 33 0003 01A20 BOHNS POINT RD H 8 V WA6ENER NAURXCE J WAGENER 1A20 BOIBiS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 OOOA 01A80 BOHNS POINT RD CHLOE HELD HORAN CHLOE HELD HORAN 1A80 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0005 01500 BOHNS POINT RD BARBARA B JOHNSON TRUSTEE EUGENE I BARBARA JOHNSON 1500 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 09-117-23 S3 0000 01520 BOHNS POINT RD J A DALVEY t D F DALVEY DAVID A • JODI F DALVEY 1520 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0007 01500 BOHNS POINT RD HARY JANE HAUSER HARY JANE HAUSER 1500 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 09-117-23 33 0008 01580 BOHNS POINT RD R L ROVICK t C J ROVICK ROGER L ROVICK 1580 BOHNS POINT RD WAYZATA HN 55391 RROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 503 00009 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INPORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION> TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DAT E^ **^^^BY »* CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this day of ____________________, 19__, by David Dalvey and Jodi Dalvey (husband and wife), (heieinaftcr referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building on property in Hennepin County. State of Minnesota, legally described as: That part of Government Lot 1. Section 9-117-23 described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line of said Section 9, 400 feet north from the Southwest comer of said Section; thence north along said West line of said Section 100 feet; thence East parallel w ith the South line of said Section to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence southerly along said shoreline 105.62 feet; thence west on a line parallel with the South line of said Section 9 to the point of beginning, Hennepin County. Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, 'limited wastewater plumbing' for purposes of this Covenant shall include all interior wastewater piping and fixtures; and WHEREAS, City staft'have reviewed Applicants' application and have found that the building proposed for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing has met the standards established within Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (F) of the Orono Municipal Code to allow installation of limited wastewater plumbing; and WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (T)(3)(B). specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B) allows issuance of a permit for installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building conditioned upon the execution of this C ovenanl and its filing in Applicant ’s chain of title; and WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an interest in the subject property. the Applicants arc required to provide title information to City stalT as requested. All parties with an interest in this property shall sign this covenant. Page 1 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. 2. 3. 4. Applicants' request for installation of limited wastewater plumbing within the accessory building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property is approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. The following conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater plumbing: A) The accessory building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City code. B) The accessoiy' building will not be used as a dwelling unless a Guest House conditional use permit is obtained from the City. C) The accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by their signatures upon this document. Page 2 of 4 •“r^ • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CITY OF ORONO: By; By:. Its Mayor Its City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______________________, 20___, by __________________________ , the day of __and and of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public APPLICANT(S); Bv: Bv: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing in.strument was acknowledged before me this ,19 . bv day of and as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. (husband and wife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) Notary Public Page 3 of 4 FEE OWNER(S): By: By: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________________________. 20 ___, by ________________________ day of and (husband and wife) as their free act and deed Notarv' Public Page 4 of 4 r TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Mawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 13. 2002 #02-2760 James Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acres) List of Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Survey D House Elevation/Floor Plans E Hardcover Worksheets F Plat Map G Property Owner ’s List Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 51 feet wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-1B zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 11.888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43,560 s.f is the minimum lot area for the LR-1 B zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 9:(Accessory Buildings): No accessory buildings or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the titne of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. 0 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(L)(2): Hardcover in 500-1000’ setback zone: Within 500-1000' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. To permit 295.23 s.f (94.9%) hardcover where 108.88 s.f (35%) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting lot width, lot area and an accessory building without a principal structure variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1920 will be remo\ed. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 5 1 feet wide where 140 ’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. ^?02-2760 Jim Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Variances 3/13/2002 Page 1 A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 11,888.75 s.f. (.27 acre) where 43, 560 s.f. is required in the LR-IB zoning district. An accessory' building variance is required because Orono zoning code does not permit an accessory building on a property without a principal structure. Currently there is an existing accessory building (detached garage - 20’ x 22’) located on the property. A garage is not proposed in the new residence plans, so this building will be the only garage/storage facility on the property. The applicants have submitted building plans for a new residence and the detached accessory building will remain. Hardcover: A hardcover variance in the 500-1000’ setback zone is required because access to the detached garage is in the 500-1000’ setback zone. This area is a very small portion of the property. It is also the only access to the garage and is provided via a driveway easement at the rear of the property. (Exhibit C). There is no feasible way to reduce the area of the driveway yet have it remain functional. The parking area adjacent to Highwood Road will also be retained. It is necessary given the narrowness of that road. Note that the 250-500’ setback zone will be at 29.3% where 30% is allowed. Crediting the 500- 1000’ setback zone with the unused 250-500’ hardcover (77 s.f.) reduces the 500-1000' overage to just 109 s.f Statement of Hardship: This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. 1 here is no additional land to combine with the property. The detached garage is in good condition and will be used as a garage. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot w as platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the property. 3. The detached accessory building is in good structural condition. «02-2760 Jim Cusack 4140 Highwood Road Variances 3/l3.'2002 Page 2 4. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 5. The proposed new residence eliminates the side setback encroachment of the existing residence. 6. Othci issues raised by the Planning Commission, Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. #02-2760 Jim Cusack 4)40 Highwood Road Variances 3/13/2002 Page 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Requirements LR-IB Lot Area l,ot Width Required 1 Acre 140' Actual .27 acres 51’ Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 11,888.75 s.f.Existing: 1,432.13 s.f. Proposed: 1,769.33 s.f 12% 14.8% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shoreline Total area in Setback Allowed Hardcover H.xisting Hardcover Proposed 1 lardcover 250-500' 11,577.8 s.f 3,473.34 s.f (30%) 3.346.86 s.f (28.91%) 3,396.17 s.f (29.33%) 500-1000'311.1 s.f 108.88 s.f (35%) 295.23 s.f (94.9%) 295.23 s.f (94.9%) I*.. ** CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.09 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application tf QJ? LO Date Received Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address H! K/i itification Numbcf (P.I.D.Property Iden (P.I.D.) on- inHQ -003 O Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired, I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V* residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: __________________ Xmonth/year) OWTs'ER (if different than applicant) Name ____________ Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (vvork)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConstrucUon Cost $ 000 Describe request in detail: iWl C^AJ ^ a/l JL Hu/lP Nofy>t-_________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED X Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) AlC, b(d^ Uj/o /kxXAtvg HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zonmg Code requirements: Lc4 rih4^J r -fo "Z-Cy^ 11 dth Zonmg Code requirements: Lc4 p>h 4lpA r -fn rArcls> ~7?y )k g *TlPtri r-i-O/d \gjrf i s I'n rniviltton (J (Attach additi^iUl sheets if necessary) ~ U #27 1 \ Building Permit Survey »MAm rraniTs x/: mnm tf V-tmm $/. » T a wv tmitu mnm air*'*' •/ y* iii> i^Mij • itm mf.m «#>ww JM ii • «MM MT-Mrw I A/. ' « * AM «•» •» <NM« ir «M • «W * M* I imrnmmmm < tf tftrnm mm f rntamm at «Ui # itwl— frwi O *114 « srr*-5i.0) L iMl Halt •< ftrtitr •* ut M, t99mom um mmtromcK Cmmfft Jim Cusack 1/31/02 »«aMl %mrnm U.LH »•- 20' Tsss^zsSf^ssns^s^ STmJvTLS SSSm* V^S? S5^m m. 1-02028 ( • • V: /i'V. 0 w (L 0^ 09 N 0^ W a y j K 3 O > A 0) y E O X > d h-z 3o u Ea €9o N 0 09 (M 1 H) «>4 I A y y I? 0|flW70BW rRONT ELEVATION )/5‘« r-o* r w (D Oi ♦ (D (^ (M r4 ^0 au j 3 A > A A Ul £ O X > Qt H Z 3 Ou c « m p4 •• A • N A A (M I AnI A y y o a ' t L r^i 29^z-cr <r FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4'- I •■O’ *d A**» zi9 tiaiins AC S3M0H AttxNnoa uw fri:ee cees-si-caj & 0^ m N t a y j H Dm >m in ycoz C^ ’ ri 'I I > tt h Z D O U ? ) c € «-i •• y y fr \ )! N y y C4 I N) •v^ J) FIRST FLCXDR PLAN uu.I0G2S.F.I/O'- I‘-O' t.l.rrv*-t IIMi nn *r hardcover calculation works SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* f XTgriNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Howe ______■ * Leaf± X X X B. •Garage . . V • .• • C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Lwidscape UwKrlaln By Pl^ic Or Fabi .'-to 7'JGUJA1?^ X X X G. Ocher © TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - - B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ * Ltc|th X X X B. Garajc C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patlo/Dcck Utic X X X X 75-250* IKSjaDEEX <^^250-SOo3 500-1000’ Widdi -• •• • xiro W.dth TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PRO^TY AREA IN ZONE ,, ^ A '7 + B //CV/ ^-L xlOO S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. • i-/7^./fip S.F. S.F. • •S.F. •S.F. S.F. S.F. '^C9. SO S.F. 77 S.F. 7(0 S.F. S.F. > S.F. II 7 t'iL.S.F. TjY.it % S.F. S.F. S.F. “S.F. S.F. S.F. n ; 7 'z _S.F. ■ ■ S.F. • -Ki'. St .S.F. • 1^0 S.F. S.F. 7 S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. \ ^ S>^* S.F. “ % / I m M • •*? 0mm , % hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 75-250' 250-500'/"sooSo^ 't G HAJRDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F. Lto(6 VOii X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. -Otraje •*.S.F. . • .!•• • • • C. Driveway . .•X X P'3 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Uaderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • , A -f. B xlOO ^ 3 S.F. ^// / S.F. Vo PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ * S.F. Ltziii Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. D. Sidewalk X X _S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ' A + B ?//./Q xIOO S.F. ■Jfl. / O S.T. 7 f A 1 ! f •V- OT- u~f- ;2 3 '»• ■ j?r */ -t -Y ^^ ^ X-?-\jAk • !•*' « • *.*^'»**'^y0?^Par^l 2? • V* ' i'6lk'l9g»Kjf'monhdnmp'H npt pom Otjf, County, ondStatom m- h ; ‘ ' &fi2'.'iM'- <impCC vr '/ IL 1*1 ■ . # ' •' • I W** •%» ,.„j ■vi)mJN DATE 02/19/02 iATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 07-117-23 A9 0015 09ll9 HI6HW00D RD 6 W t J L APPLEBAUN 0E0R6E W/JOANNE L APPLEBAUN 6109 H16HW00D RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0018 06169 HI6NW00D RD LARRY W KARKELA LARRY W KARKELA 6169 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 66 0020 06167 HIGHWOOD RD MERLIN L HALVERSON MERLIN L HALVERSON 6175 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 .0021 06175 HIGHWOOD RD MERLIN L HALVERSON MERLIN L HALVERSON 6175 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 66 0027 06166 HIGHWOOD RD R D I A L RUMSCH ROBERT i AHY RUHSCH 6166 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0028 06150 HIGHWOOD RD J L BAKKE I S H GLYNN JON L BAKKE 6150 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 66 0030 06160 HIGHWOOD RD J D CUSACK t C H GRACE C GRACE 8 J CUSACK 6160 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0031 06132 HIGHWOOD RD SCOTT G I CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT G I CATHERINE ANDERSON 6132 HIGHWOOD ROAD HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 66 0038 06109 NORTH SHORE OR JAMES H CLEARY JAMES CLEARY 6109 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0039 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES H CLEARY JAMES CLEARY 6109 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55366 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-25 66 0086 06125 HIGHWOOD RD JOHN W i ROBERTA J HENRICH JOHN W I ROBERTA J HENRICH 6125 NIGNWOOO RD ORONO HN 55366 58 07-117-23 66 0088 06116 HIGHWOOD RD PHILLIP H OTTO PHILLIP H OTTO 6116 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 M 7.10 0 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 7 38 07-117-23 66 0019 06156 HIGHWOOD RD FRANCES W WILSON FRANCES TESAR 6156 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0022 06195 HIGHWOOD RD D H SMITH I R G SMITH DOUGLAS H 1 ROBAN G SMITH 6195 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0029 06168 HIGHWOOD RD JANET L EIDE JANET L EIDE 6168 HIGHWOOD RD HOUND HN 55366 38 07-117-23 66 0037 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES N CLEARY JAMES CLEARY 6109 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55366 \ : 38 07-117-23 66 0083 01535 HIGHWOOD LA ERICK G I LAURIE S CELHS ERICK G I LAURIE S CELHS 1535 HIGHWOOD LA HOUND HN 55566 TOTAL BATCH 505 00017 3 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr March 15,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2765 David Carlson/Wilson Management Ltd. 740 Willow Drive South Variance Renewal — Public Hearing RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 45,216 s.f. (1.038 acres) Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits A Application B Site Plan C Elevation Views/Floor Plans D Location Map E Staff Report and Exhibits of 2/26/01 Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: I he lot is 1.038 acres where 2 acres is the minimum lot area for the RR-1B zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 162 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the RR-1 B zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicant has a purchase agreement on the subject property and is requesting to renew lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was constructed in the early 1970's was removed per a demolition permit in December. 2000. The previous owners of the property applied for and were granted lot area and lot width variances in l ebruar) 2001. 1 hey did not build the proposed residence on the property. The lot is approximately 1.038 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is 2 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new' residence. The lot is approximately 162’ wide where 200* is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new' residence. This property is now included in the MUSA. The Webber Hills area was connected to city sewer in the summer of 2000. «02*2765 David Carlsoiv'W'ilson Management Ltd. 740 Willow Drive South Variance Renewal 3/15/2002 Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards: RR-IB District Standards RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 Acres 200' Actual 1.038 Acres 162' Statement of Hardship: This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the property. 3. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 4. The proposed site plan meets all setback and lot coverage requirements, and the lot is not subject to hardcover limits. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all height requirements, setbacks, and grading requirements. «02-2765 David CarlsonAV'ilson Management Ltd. 740 Willow Drive South Variance Renewal 3/15 2002 Page 2 •* 111 ■hit ■■iiai II ■ HlfMlIllilll Alt* K. andards. liremcnts, and ihc lot is not It requirements, setbacks, and mw •TiW ms •niHii •IflHliri lilkT? REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1, 2, All gf thg following information muift be suhmitted bv the aPDlication deadline date in order for vour aPDllcation to he contidereH ^^mplete? __ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Propeity Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11" for reproduction. ---- To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproducUon. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8!4" x H"). ---- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the proper^'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5, 6, 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ypur mnante application is not complete if thi. nhovc information ha« nnr hppn APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expen^ if^ed in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tAe ^dytorrect to the best of hislier knowledge. Applicant's Signature//[I^AJ^________________2./:jc/oz, 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 of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission NIeeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month.^ Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and 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 this change prior to the meeting. if ~ • • f ; VI i; - ■ >* Ji ;•" ^iv. • - . \'.mA''' j A<i f .M&vi-r '.O IL. ; U.\IU. , +t-_,ifE:."JCE- ,r^c2- c;:’ M -2 • ' <?'Z o ^ I j'-I F f--v# .......- - V*| 'f\a •feiJO (. CiM^^OCl cr:r-p^^^M \--J 1U--c'vN t1V-6 f?--’^'T lOIUU<?’UJ L->C2is/&- c^PP-dPSJ dP '2- '^^-c>2. 0 ci ^ I • # / f J -I - ** ■■ •>V •':*? ' "- w . /* «.4J c^:*vwrz.^O i | I UiLUJ'W Vi2Nt^ f?e^ioe-Nc:^ □£ (=UcP^fZ. PL AM '/^" - I'•'<?'* (. • i '• I / cu>C. ? '/^ij ' . '*.*» / \ .'7(^<5 ’^=(= 0^P^zaf l^l’/1 Jfc Am j \\M /, MAMAiiifeMfesiT' _UJlLLd>k) [Pe-'/fe- tS^e.^^Ois.r\j C^C wiMp«nJ5«iir [_ k. •£«JO <=LCO^ FLAM iV ^-4N UXPi o n K \y / I ^2mc/ykjc>iA~ Ullu-^^^M rXAMACXlE^fexJT* UjIu<5W [Pt^iK/e^ t^B^iOs^Kice- PUASi Ve?'-i-o" r^, # ( •» •Jl s SlcoMIR-.s j wear CM 5p***2g Si 0 g IS MARLtU ^ VfATEIITOWN ••!msm '51 Wot SOMIRSIT ► • • <J AIRD *»?'* 6 imiUo 4C0 sr c S ui_____Jj -------------- oa 1 i ■s" ''C. Orono. V " Golf \ Course rox S -^‘i‘ V® raEWCH lAXt RO 15... .,,. - • . il'-r-Tanager \y -j ifi *r ------------ * • ✓5 _• # *'.... . -.• • • • • •». . .. • V ■ • • . • • ■* V . • • . ‘ •■•:'•■ '.. Bohns Point • Crystal Bay m » • • • * ^ # .Lafayet ':,:':i'-.^ounlfy CJub I \ ' w6RIEMTlR£fj/y "V ■ orrMtu liSiH ivllNNETONKA BEACH • • ^ ^i-'.i •-.". V.'-/ \9- Smith Bty -'* ORONO/®^//' '•■'* • -■ • • • •-V"/- arflc*el« Foinf 1600 ' - ” •* ■ ^ * A I Application Date: 1/19/01 Completion Date: 1/19/01 60 Day Deadline: 3/19/01 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name Wendy Bottenberg Title Zoning Adminstrator/Planncr DATE: 2/22/01 . , ITEM NO.: / / Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1/01-2660 Keith Waters & Assoc, for Jeffrey & Leontyne Maxwell 740 Willow Drive South Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB 45,216 s.f. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) (1.038 acres) List of Exhibits: A Resolution B Staff Report and Exhibits of 2/21/2001 Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and a^; 'r<iucvri; ;g lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The cxisiing f^'itJvnce that was constructed in the early 1970's was removed per a demolition permit in Decen , 2000. The lot is approximately 1.038 acres where 2 acres is the minimum required area and approximately 162’ wide where 200’ is the minimum required width to construct a new residence in RR-1B district. 1. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Width: The lot is 162 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the RR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is 1.038 acres where 2 acres is the niinimum lot area for the RR-IB zoning district for new construction. PLANNING COMMISSION; The Planning Commission recommended by a 4 to 0 vote to: Approv e the application as presented. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To approve the enclosed resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed resolution. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B), FILE NO. 2660 WHEREAS, Jeffrey G. Maxwell and Leontyne A. Maxwell, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 740 Willow Drive South within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 11, Block 1, Webber Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter “the property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit new residential construction on a 1.038 acre lot where 2 acres is required and having a lot width of 162 feet wide where 200 feet is required. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21,2001, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2660. 2. The property is located in the RR-1B Zoning District, where 2 acres is the minimum required lot area. The property consists of approximately 1 .038 acres. 3. The Orono Plamiing Commission reviewed this application on February 21,2001 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1970. Page 1 of 5 4. 5. B. The site plan indicated the proposed setback 30' to the side property lines, 50' to the rear property line and 120' to the front property line, which meets the minimum requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. C. The lot can be developed without the need for further variances. D. There is no additional land to combine witb the property. The City Council finds that the coiiditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow new residential construction on a 1.038 acre lot where 2 acre.s is required and having a lot width of 162 feet where 200 feet is required. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.It is the intent of the City Council that variances to develop the lot would not be looked upon favorably. Page 2 of 5 3. 4. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (February 26,2002). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of February, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknow ledged before me on this 26th day of February, 2001 by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 5 ii . r T STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. ) On this day of. for said County, personally appeared 2001, before me a Notary Public within and ______________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 hi^ (their) free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of,., 2001, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 jU CERTinCATC OF SURVEY FOR KEITH WATERS Sc ASSOCIATES OF I OT n. I3LOCK 1, WLUOLR HILLS HENNCP.N COUNTY. MINNESOTA r TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE: February 15,2001 SUBJECT: #2660 Keith Waters & Associates/ Jeffrey & Leontyne Maxwell 740 Willow Drive South Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 45,216 s.f. (1.038 acres) List of Exhibits A Application B Site Plan/Survey C Permit Issued for Demolition D Residence Plnn<; E Location Map F Plat Map G Permit Record H Property 0\vTicr’s List Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B); Lot Area: The lot is 1.038 acres where 2 acres is the minimum lot area for the RR-1B zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 162 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the RR-1 B zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesting lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was constructed in the early 1970's was removed per a demolition permit in December, 2000. The lot is approximatei) 1.038 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is 2 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new residence. The lot is approximately 162' wide where 200' is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new residence. This property is now included in the MUSA. The Webber Hills area was connected to city sewer in the summer of 2000. #2660 Keith fyaters tS Assoc./Jejfrey A Leontyne Maxwell 740 Willow Drive South Variance 1/I5/200I Page I ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards RR-IB District Standards RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 Acres 200’ Actual 1.038 Acres 162* Statement of Hardship ; This is an existing lot which w-as platted prior to current zoning standards, Issues for Consideration : 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence previously existed on the property. 3. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Kecommendation : Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all height requirements, setbacks, and grading requirements. U2660 Keith Waters & Assoc./Jeffrey A Leorttyne Maxwell 740 Willow Drive South Variance l/li/2001 Page 2 JHI I- 1 ifkJtJ 1 AOJ\ UiC • V 952S'J12558 P.Ql ^83 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance]) Renewal Variance Fee SlSO.OO (no change &om original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00 Aftcr-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # O Date Received Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION . ^___ g>tij SdlA{\ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1stA A A* -1 t_______i _______• •• \ ------------- -------m----- ~ ~ ■ j_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^?0 ___________________ 1 (do not) also own the a4jacent parcels of land. (montli/year) Present use of property: y residentid Zoning District: P h -1: other (specify) APPLIC Name IS 3 I I ^ Address: (pLWn FV Phone (home). Zip:S&g^(o’j). OWNER (if ^crent than applicant) ^ Phone fhome) Name ^iOkhneu LCCrx*urV^AYY]A}fny>l/l phone (wo*). Citv: /ix^l/Le/yi WUmAddressi^O I V t Zip: f=>5~i^ ifi w (*. DESCRIPTION OF REQUE^ . Estimated ^nstmedon Cost $ Describe i;equcst jn detail: ^Vt^/yysr I r.v Estimated request m detail: ^y/ff' gjUL Tht 'torv^_________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) k \ •5 *i.» AIUANjCTl CES REQUIRED Lot Area ■Vi.t Lot Width Haidcovec Lot Coverage Setback;Front .Side Rear Average 'Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSOT/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing IT €»A A / tr A A 17h ^neev cynTVu TtTTW sflnn' >/.« *ia TVil vc:n loor/ot/io M -»-»• • I I i P. rj2 IV I 1 REQU1RF.I) submittals inforinatiori TQiij.t be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for V9»r appjjcn.ti«>n to he -------^ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you mubt o tain this list, labels and map fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center. 348-5910). — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suncyor) and include hardcover ca cu a tons as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/i" x 11" for reproduction. — Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing gra e are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘A" x 11" for reproduction ---- Sketetes or plans of floor & elevation views (pro\ide one (1) copy S'/j" x II'*) r! S' apPlicant(s) if not current owner(s). ,— n to tins 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 mtm sign mis application. Please remember that vsur yariaiiw appi,rattan H BOI eotnt.let. if th, .hev. i,r„,-,..j,,n been inel..ded APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The appliewt hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning AdoumstratoE agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered bv original fee paymem) an^or consultant expenses meureed in review of this application,' and certifies th^ the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hisfiier knowledge. Applicant’s Signature____________ 5, 6. 7. 8. Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE actoowlrfges and agrees to this appUcation and further auth’orixes reasonable ^ y ity staff, consults, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes<^nvestig^n an^erification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date l-‘ 1 6 -t Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting please ^fonTp'^oT I ^ the flmlding& Zonmg Office of this change prior to the meeting. COO/COOP)nos.cjv <* RM^rvM Himv Klftft l/R 710 VVJ CP;*T Tnrt7/OT/TO CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEITH WATERS Sc ASSOCIATES OF LOT 11. BLOCK 1. WEBBER HILLS HENNE*^IN COUNTY, MINNESOTA / / CITY OF ORONO PERMIT 2750 Kelley Parkway - PO Box 66 Crystal Bay^innesota 55323 (612) 249=4600 Permit Number: Permit Type; Date Issued: P03417 Demolition 12/19/20 SITE ADDRESS:740 Willow Dr S WAYZATA.MN 55391 PID: 03-117-23-33-0006 DESCRIPTION: Proposed Use; Permit Class: Permit Type: Building Demolition Census Code 645 Permit Sub-type(s): Demo - Principal Structure DETAILS: Approved per resolution #: Separate permits required: NOTICES/REMARKS: Tsundationi'all demo debris to be removed from ground & disposed of offsite per PCA reguiotions. Weiis most be abondoned. Inspection before backfilling. FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee:$ 50.00 Valuation: $ 0.00 State Surcharge Fee: $ 0.50 TOTAL FEE:S 50.50 APPLICANT:Keith Waters & Assoc >414 .ooo*^ 6216 Baker Rd Suite 110 Cden Prairie, MN 55456 OWNER:JEFFREY MAXWELL 740 WILLOW DR S WAYZATA MN 55391 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TO MAKE THF. REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPECIFED AND AGREES TO DO ALL WORK IN STRICT CO.MPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY OF ORONO ORDINANCES A.ND STATE OF NnSTsTSOTA BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. P>v/.'J Aft*UCANT FER>UTEE IS^DBYSIG.SATURE Copies: City, Applicant, Assessor, Finance Page I u;il au thrive itUu4(r--> HA7t.odl M *?•:j ii f/ *. f 5 ; -i;iv •■' i •'Ov w/‘y" ,v; i t7 r I4 am iouCr^K-i'-o“ tin nyAyj^^cV ^ MavUc-LL KE0)ort4cE- u> N0< ‘Zceio MfT« • .nM S21“ J // ** •■• rV /'< ..V • ■•**.• V / / ^ f *. ' f' C7- Upppt- Lfc-VtJ- jIaM MAy-wW-L \ K» t>D -7^3Cg rnurm—nm fes:- Ij Tr • -•' f; it a '--u^^ ■^■ / #; C7 WlAR cm wicorpw MAP V. 1^: f; »» mATIATOWA «*ir a *P 0 THOAOU*** ? .n«. s ___'iM SQMCRSn 2 f4»<fc 1 Une ^ ^ COUN *• ✓ l^J oivwu 10N8V1EW cm ti\ 11 ........................ _w •'f.acjno. f Go!f ' f Course ;. • • ■. .. i WHITf 400 _________fi s 1 5 1 l*B 1 • mK 1 1 n 3 FOI I St iT 3 s it PM ASmSOON WAT ORONC^ . 'TNb«cnbcf*g •-wwr;%'*a^4“.v -/^sPefk-V- ”bco Tt 1000 MUL AVI lXW€ll.;-‘\- o.rV<~sV. ,-«'v:7\ •- • C ‘ ■ \ic rWEACH LAKE AO ^gy > ^ V- V_JLake c»rtrr*i A • • ••'•*. • .• . • ' . • i , 5 •> >••• •., •••. • • ' _L • • • .. Lake • •VI SAIWT Wj/); . . \i ^' •'l\1 ®V/‘ - Ik ' - t’-' •• \h * •5 ... . •rr .* • i ® III Smith ' ***i/<>„. I - •" • ‘ • •' '^ • 1600 ‘ ‘ 1 Bracketts Point // - • • W *• . • I.' V- I . * • • v>Vr^:v’:>;V i I - t;* ’ *• / -* •: • ' •:. ;• :;••• I : • . • •■.. • * , .*• • • • ;• • *• ••* I ♦• • • -. • • • • '‘** *.. I - ‘ * ~>!> ••• •• • I... BoA/u Poinr • I . * ' : .. f • CrystalBait - ,1 7 ,, rtuh • /Pi : r -.-.;. .. .. ! I .. .T .v Ufayct -n •V'^.^ountry Club •; . ,n ■••••:- • rr.-' • . •, • •000^,,...-. »• .* •r; . f^MINNETOWKAH S ■ . BEACH - ■ ■ ■ ^3- ///- S3 c. r r li 'er Service^@epartment •' f' i ■-ft' %* ’r'?T-- Pa^i Information ^ r - ■y\mr \ \ ^,* ' ^ \x/ A \NA vebber m .m^\(7) .^M'-\ \ •vicv.t“>? \ • X - ■*- \ .*3 III w I 5^r«. ‘-»i / / -2^ (18) ParcelM31 1723331 Hous ^Hiimber 740 Street flaSe WILLOW DR S . Cond<gWDtn TMWMalegsayni^^^insp.Hnprestntsaoompttt$^f9Sitonnalion c«<y.Stata mad authofttias compUmvj Was <ng^^,aoumas. T^ PERMIT RECORD ~7'VO 60t^i^ozo £)i. S. G Permit No» 7W3 Date Type of Permit 62-^-70 A-//-7/^ -3 ■7 97.70- c=^-/^-~7<D ••/ -*9 A /7^ -<^_/ f-r- g±-<j.^O ,LiJo^jd. PL. &JL^i\^Q. HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP RDDR OMNER HRNE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 03 117 23 33 0001 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENtiEPXN FORFEITED LAND CIT*’ OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CONDMN • 38 03 117 23 33 0006 740 NILLON DR S J G MAXWELL 4 L A MAXWELL JEFFREY 4 LEONTYNE MAXWELL 201 PARKVIEW TER GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55416 CONDMN • 38 03 117 23 33 0007 680 WILLOW DR S NORMAN H THEISTE ETAL NORMAN H THEISTE 680 S WILLOW DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03 117 23 34 0002 2185 WEBBER HILLS RD MARGARET A GERMUNDSEN MARGARET A GERMUNDSEN 2185 WEBBER HILLS P3 WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN i 38 03 117 23 34 0004 2135 SHEVLIN DR E MARTINUZZI J MARTINUZZI ERIC 4 JENNIFER MARTINUZZI 2135 SHEVLIN DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN I 38 03 117 23 34 0005 2145 SHEVLIN DR WILLIAM M TOLES JAMES K DANIELS C/0 JILL T D DANIELS 2145 SHEVLIN OR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN • PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 03 117 23 34 00)6 2.55 SHEVLIN DP J 4 J PAULSON JEROME T 4 JUDY K IXULSON 2155 SHEVLIN DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN f 38 03 117 23 34 0007 2175 SHEVLIN DR K P RAKOS 4 M M GUSTAFSON K P RAKOS i M M GUSTAFSON 2175 SHEVLIN DR WAYZATA MN 55391 CONDMN I • .. ) PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR . •••. V- ‘ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF .1 »/ ,• *» DATE /• /<^-7^ To: From: Date: Subject: PC WORK SESSION - Friday, March 15, 2002 8:00 a.m. - Council Chambers Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director March 4, 2002 t^2333 - Amend Home Occupation Standards - Section 10.20, Subd. 4 - Draft Ordinance For Review and Recommendation - Additional Discussion re; Options of CUP or License List of Exhibits A - Table - Sampling of other cities’ regulator)' structures B - State Statutes 462.357, Subd. Ic, le - Amortization of Use; Nonconfonnitics C - State Statutes 462.3597 - Interim Uses D - Draft Ordinance 2-15-02 E - Staff memo of 2-15-02 F - Staff memo of 1 1-2-01 G - Staff memo of 7-3-01 H - Staff memo of 6-20-01 I - List of Home Occupations in Orono including Licensing History Planning Commission reviewed this it"m on February 1 9 and tabled it pending additional discussion regarding a second tier of regulation. This vvould involve cither licensing or a CUP for those home occupations that have potential impacts on a neighborhood. Planning Commission requested that staff provide additional material regarding the merits and constraints of both the CUP and licensing options, as well as the ramifications of‘grandfathering ’ existing uses. I,cvcls of Regulation In reviewing how other cities regulate home occupations, it is clear that there is a wide range of methods currently m use. Of 12 cities sampled in the metro area, a majority have two levels of regulation. The first or lowest level is t>pically the establishment of home occupations as an allowed accessory use, with no pennit or license required. The second level is most commonly reserx ed for those uses which involve greater potential neighborhood impacts, such as commercial \elude storage. The second level is administered in a variety of w ays among the sampled cities, including licensing, CUP or ‘Special Use Pennit’, and in some cases an interim Use Permit. The use of ‘Conditional Use Permit’ and ‘Special Use Pennit’ is interchangeable and they are considered as identical under the law-; some cities don’t list conditional uses, they list special uses. The Interim Use Permit is authorized by Minnesota Statutes as a method to allow what would otherwise be a iion-confonning use for a limited period, commonly used by cities with staged development plans to allow temporary uses of land before it is developed. Three of the tw clve cifies sampled (Plvniouth, Lakeville and Woodbury) use an Interim Use license or permit for their second level of regulation, suggesting that such use is intendt 1 to be of a short term. U2323 Home Occupations March 4,2002 Page 2 License vs CUP Planning Commission has requested a comparison of the licensing and conditional use pcmiit methods for a second level of regulation. The following table provides such a comparison: Home Occupations, Level 2: 1 Jeensing VS Conditional Use Permit licensing CUP Public Notification Optional; Orono has not previously required it; i.c. public input is minimal or non-existent Required, 350’; public input is cncouiaged Reviewing Body Staff & Council only Staff. Planning Commission & Council Term of Approval Usually one year, license can be reviewed if there are complainis No term, continues in effect until use ceases or changes. Usually only reviewed upon complaint; could specify a review period in conditions Approval isvuvd to/for:Property owner (person)CUP issued for the use and goes with the property; not to a panicular person Ability to attach • conditions specific to the approval Special conditions can be ''.ttached, but usually limited to standard code requirements Conditions intended to limit or mitigate the potential negative impacts of the use are commonly attached Ability to revoke Council can revoke, licensee usually will be allowed a hearing before C ouncil action to revoke Unless periodic review or review upon cornpiaint is a condition of original CUP approval, CUP can't be reviewed except by petition of 75% of landowners within 1000*; Council can revoke if a violation of the original conditions is found, or more conditions can be attached... Application Fee (2002 Fee Schedule) S50 initial; $30 unnuallv thereafter $175 applica»:iin fee for “Residential Accessory Use CUP” Degree of administrative effort required Initial review may require a moderate amount of staff time; subsequent annual renew als require minimal staff effort Initial review usually requires substantial staff time, but there arc no annual reviews I /#2333 - Home Occupations March 4,2002 Page 3 Perhaps the most i'nportanl difl'erence between a L'cense and a CUP is that a the CUP tends to grant a long-term right to a property, rather than a short term right to the current property owner. Both can be revoked, but the standards for rev ocation of a CUP are higher, and this means that the original approval conditions for a Home Occupation CUP should clearly specify the City’s right to review, add more conditions, or even revoke the CUP if violations are found or if the neighborhood impacts arc greater than anticipated. ‘Grandfathering' Certain Existing Home Occupations Under current code, home occupation licenses are renewed annually. At each annual licensing review, the license could be denied if Council finds that the proposed home occupation does not meet the minimum standards established in the code. Council could issue a renewal license subject to conditions intended to make the home occupation ‘neighborhood-friendly ’ In general, however, no home occupation licenses are ’grandfatliercd’, they are all at risk on an annual basis. Planning Commission e.xpressed concern about the ability of certain existing home occupations to continue in operation even though they may not meet the new criteria to be established for home occupations; specifically, whether certain existing home occupations would now become ‘prohibited’ by definition. One concern was the number of employees, another was regarding vehicle storage, a third had to do with whether an operation was considered a ‘dispatch center ’. The draft ordinance includes language requiring existing home occupations to become confonning within one year. From a legal perspective, this might be construed as an ’amortization of use’, which the statutes prohibit (sec Section 462.357, Subd. Ic. attached as Exhibit B). although there may be few if any existing confonning home occupations which become non-confonning due solely to the code change. I here are a nutnber of different categories of home occupations and or non- conforming uses that need to be considered; I lome occupations which don ’t conibnn to the existing code but have been annually licensed for a number of years (examples: All-Star Electric, Norum Law Office). If any of these have been in existence since prior to 1967, they might be considered as “leg.illy nonconforming ” and amortization could be a problem. Even if they started after 1967, the fact that the City has licensed them despite their non-conformities is also a potential barrier to amortization. 2)Home occupations which don ’t confonn to the existing code and have not been licensed but should have at least been required to apply for licenses (example: Heliotrope Gardens). This one known example is worthy of separate discussion due to its history. Heliotrope was granted a CUP in 1990 for constructing i^ardens and a greenhouse, as well as a variance to allow employee paiking on the .-•ite (must be inside building) but not allow ing employees to work on the site. Heliotrope was last licensed in 1994. The 1995 license was apparently not processed because there were #2333 - Home Occupations March 4, 2002 Page 4 violations of the CUP and variance, but this was never followed up and they have operated without a license since the end of 1994. The neighborhood apparently has no problem with this use, and it has generated no complaints... 3) Home occupations which conform to the e.xisting code but will not conform to, or will be prohibited by, the proposed code (example: Dirt-hauling contractor w ho recently began operating from his home on Co. Rd. 6, to the conste.'nation of his immediate neighbor who shared his driveway...). Frankly, there are very few existing home occupations we would want to ‘grandfather’. Perhaps the answer is to require a CUP or license for any existing home occupation that doesn't meet the new standards, subject to appropriate conditions that would eliminate impacts on the neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Revise the most recent draft amendment to reflect tw o levels of regulation: Level I: Home occupations that meet specified standards as a residential accessory use and will have no potential neighborhood impacts. These may be operated without a license or pennit. Code could have a list of examples of home occupations which do not require a permit or license. Home occupations with defined characteristics which could have potential neighborhood impacts but will meet specified standards, as well as those which will not meet specified standards. These should be regulated via a CUP or license, and examples of such home occupations could be included in the code. Level II: Revise the draft so that the follow ing categories of Home Occupations require a CUP or license: a) Those w ith employed persons other than occupants of the dw elling. b) Those carried out partially or wholly in an accessory' structure where allowed, including storage of materials, equipmcM or commercial vehicles in an accessory building. c) Those involving the use or parking of a commercial or non-passenger vehicle, whether such use or parking is in a building or outside. d) Those which do not meet one or more of the specified performance standards. Revise the draft to include language as to how existing non-conforming home occupations will be treated. Revise the drufi to require that all Home Occupation CUP’s or licenses granted shall contain language giving City the express ability to review the CUP or license and to revise or revoke the it if conditions are violated or if Council determines that the use has proven incompatible in the neighborhood. Sampling of Other Cities' Home Occupation Regulator>' Structure Apple Valley Arden Mills Bloomington Chanliassen Hdina Golden Valley Lakeville Maple Grove Minnetonka Plymouth White Bear I,ake Woodbury Level I Permitted Accessory Use “Permitted Home Occupation' (No license) Accessory Use. no permit Accessory Use, no permit "C'ustomary IJome Occupation” (No license or permit required) Home Occupation is allowed use (No permit required) “Permitted Home Occupation” (Staff administered permit) Home Occupations allowed by code (no iK'rmit or license) Accessory Use (No permit or license) “Permitted Home Occupation” (No permit oi license) “Registered Home Occupation' (Applicant lettei of intent - permit waived) Allowed use, but not listed as accessory use... Level 2 None “Special Home Occupation” (“Special Use Pcmiit") Certain specilied uses arc a conuilional use (CUP) None "Permitted Home Occupation' (Permit apparently required) Conditional Use Penmt “Special I lomc Occupation” (CUP or Interim Use Permit) None Conditional Use Permit 'interim Home Occupation” (“Interim Home Occupation License”) Level y None None None None None None None None None None “Permitted Home Occupation” “Special Home Occupation ’ (Staff administered permit) (CUP) “Home Occupation, parking and storage of commercial equipment and vehicles” (Interim Special Use Permit) None I’d 2 Level 3 lie None KTcial Home Occupation” |K‘cial Use Pemiil”) None lain specified uses are a dilioTial use (CUP) None le None rmitted Hume Occupation” rmit apparently required) None iditional Use Permit None ccial Home Occupation” IP or Interim Use IVrmit) None le None iditional Use Permit None erim Home Occupation” terim Home Occupation :nsc ) None Minnesota Statutes 2001,462.3597 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Statutes 2001, Table ofChapters Table of contents jbr Chapter,462 462.3597 Interim uses. Subdivisior 1. Definition. An "interim use" is a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Subd. 2. Authority. Zoning regulations may permit the governing body to allow interim uses. The regulations may set conditions on interim uses. The governing body may grant permission for .n interim use of property if: (1) the use conforms to the zoning regulations; (2) the date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; (3) permission of tlie use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future; and (4) the user agrees to any conditions that the governing body a*-ems appropriate for permission of the use. Any interim use may be terminated by a change in zoning regulations. Subd. 3. Public hearings. Public hearings on the granting of interim use permits shall be held in the manner provided in section 462.357r subdivision 3. HIST: 1909 r 200 s 2 Copyright 2001 by Che Office cf Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http://\vww.revisof.lcg*.t*i!e.mfi.us/stats/462/3597.html 3/5/2002 Subd. 2. Home Occupation Regulations. The regulations recognize that manyl>pes of home occupations can be conducted with minimal or no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. A. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, and shall result in no incompatibility with or disturbance to the surrounding area. B. Employed Persons. No one other than the occupant(s) of the dwelling; one (1) employee; customers or clients; and delivery or service personnel shall be on the property at any given time in relation to the home occupation. Under no circumstances shall there be more than one (1 ) employee working on the premises at one time. No employee or combination of employees shall work on the premises for more than forty (40) hours in one week. The home occupation may employ additional non-resident employees only :odr work activities are performed off the premises. Personal vehicles of employees working off the premises shall be parked within a building or shall be fully screened from the street and from adjoining properties. Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. C. E.xterior alterations or modifications that change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling unit or accessory structure to that of a commercial nature shall be prohibited. D. Interior alterations or modifications that eliminate the kitchen, habitable areas for sleeping, and bathrooms, shall be prohibited. E. E.xcept as noted below, the home occupation shall be conducted w ithin the enclosed areaofthe dwelling unit, with the exception of lessons or instruction for outdoor activities such as equestrian training and riding, tennis and other court sports and swimming. I'. Accessory Structures. In the RR-1 A and RR-1B. One f amily Rural Residential Districts, home occupations or storage associated with the home O'. *oat!on may be conducted w ithin accessory structures subject to the following V'M(di( ■•is; 1. No home occupation conducted wholly or in part in an accessor}' structure shall produce noise, light and glare, odor, vibration or traffic that w ill in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. zoning requirements. The home occupation shall conform with all other applicable Page 2 of 5 G. Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, supplies or equipment related to the conduct of the home occupation shall be prohibited, except that licensed passenger vehicles used in the home occupation may be parked outside provided they arc in compliance with all other requirements of this section. H. Parking. All vehicle parking required for conduct of the home occupation shall be off-street. The off-street parking area required for the principal residential use shall not be reduced or made unusable by the home occupation. Off- street parking areas providing more than two spaces for the home occupation shall be visually screened from adjacent residential lots. 1. Commercial or Non-passenger Vehicles. Parking/storage of any commercial or non-passenger vehicles used in the home occupation shall be within a fully-enclosed building. Noise, odors or vibration from the operation of such vehicles shall not be discernible at the property line. J. No equipment, machinery, or materials other than of a t\pe normally found in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed {ed.: H ill this in effect prohibit- operation of a landscape sen'ice or contractor with a backhoe or dump truck?). K. No retail sales and delivery of products or merchandise to the public shall occur on the premises except when accessoiy to the seiA’ices provided. L. No home occupation activity shall be discemable from any private or public street. There shall be no exterior signage or display, or. ?tcrior signs oi display which arc visible from outside the dwelling. M. The hours of operation that a home occupation may be accessible to the public shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. N. The home occupation shall not generate excessive traffic that is detrimental to the residential character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. For the purposes of this provision, more than five (5) customers or clients per day, or more than two (2) customers at any gi\ cn time, may be determined to be an excessive and detrimental level of traffic. The number shall apply to each ilwelling unit, regardless of the number of home occupations conducted in the dwelling unit. 1 he criteria used by the Zoning Administrator to dctcmiine impact shall include, but not be limited to: 1. I he characteristics of the neigliborhood, including current land use, lot sizes, lot widths, parking availability, and screening. Page 3 of 5 2. Type of street, width, and traffic volumes. 3. The availability and location of off-street parking. O. Shipment and delivery of products, merchandise, or supplies shall bo limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and shall regularly occur only in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller %’ehicles typically used to serv e residential areas. P. No sound or noise created by the operation of the home occupation shall be audible at the property lines except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Home occupations shall othcnvisc comply with all noise provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Q. Hazardous materials in excess of consumer quantities which arc packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use, shall be prohibited. R. Any activityor event organized for thepurposcofdisplayingorsclling merchandise shall not be held more than four (4) time per month (Ed.: assuming this is like a tupperwareparty involving more than 2 customers at once, should this be limited to fewer such events???) Subd. 3. Prohibited Occupations in Residential Dwellings. Ihe following uses, by their nature of operation, have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations. These uses have objectionable operational characteristics that adversely impact residential neighborhoods and shall be prohibited as home occupations: A. Service, repair, or painting of any motorized vehicle, including but not limited to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, personal watercraft, recreational vehicles, and snowmobiles. time. B. Hair styling establishments that serve more than one (I) person at a C. Adult uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. D. Dispatch centers where persons come to a site and arc dispatched to other locations (how docs Heliotrope Gardens fit into this???). H.Medical or dental clinic. F.Rental businesses. G. Contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops. Page 4 of 5 H. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. I. Churches and religious institutions. J.Tow truck services. K. Ceramic studios with kilns of volume six (6) cubic feet or more. L. The sale, lease, trade or other transfer of firearms or ammunition by a firearms dealer. (Any state/federal rules on this that cause us a problem??) Subd. 4. Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons . Persons with ph>'sical disabilities may request reasonable accommodation by requesting a waiver of one or more of the foregoing requirements. The Zoning Administrator may only grant w aivers on the basis of the applicant's physical limitations to function within said requirements. Subd. 5. Conformance Required. All existing home occupations shall be brought into conformity with this ordinance within one year of its adoption.” Section 5. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this__day of ____, 2002 by a vote of ___ayes and___nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 5 of 5 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director February 15,2002 #2333 - Amend Home Occupation Standards - Section 10.20, Subd. 4 - Draft Ordinance For Review and Recommendation List of Exhibits A - Draft Ordinance B - Existing Code Sections 5.40 10.02 Def. 30 10.20, Subd. 4C Summary of Conclusions - December 20 Joint Work Session The consensus was to proceed with the 15-item amendment that Planning Commission recommended in 1998 and incoqiorate the 4-item staff recommendation regarding non-resident employees, with the following revisions or exceptions; a) b) c) d) e) 0 g) h) i) Add a line item that addresses noise impacts and limit those impacts to 8:00 a.m - 7;00 p.m. Need further discussion regarding home occupation in accessory' structures (as written, only allowed in rural zones or with rural lot size...) Need to define which “certain vehicles ’ arc allowed to be stored outside... Establish a threshold number above which parking of vehicles associated with the home occupation must be screened. Consider adding a weight limit for vehicles used in the business... Clarify that there can be no signage in relation to the home occupation. Limit hours of operation to 8.00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8:00 p.m. Add a limit on the number of customers or clients that can be on the site at one time. The normal delivery vehicles such as UPS and FedEx should be allowed. It was suggested that the code amendment include an introductory paragraph of intent in temis of maintaining neighborhood characteristics. It was also suggested that language be added givimt the City ability to further regulate or even force the closure of any home occupation that is found To be having negative impacts on the neighborhood. Staff has rc-drafied the amendment presented in 1998, incorporating most of the changes or provisions noted above. #2333 Home Occupations February 15,2002 Page 2 Draft Ordinance Summary Section I. Section 1 eliminates the Section 5.40 provisions for home occupation licensing. Under the amendment as drafted, home occupations will no longer be licensed. Section 2. Section 2 revises the current definition ofHomc Occupation in 10.02. The new definition eliminates most of the performance standards that were in the old definition. Section 3 . Section 3 revises the “Home Occupation” accessory use entry as it appears in the list of R-IA allowed accessory uses. The new language no longer lists the performance standards but references Section 10.63, indicating that all nome occupations must meet the special provisions of Section 10.63. Section 4 . Section 4 adds Section 10.63 to the Zoning Code, entitled “Home Occupations". This is a separate section being added much in the same manner we added regulations for Adult Uses a few years ago. Section 10.63 includes: Subd. 1, the Purpose statement; Subd. 2, a detailed set of Regulations which all home occupations must follow; Subd. 3, a list of Prohibited Occupations Subd. 4, a policy statement regard Accommodation of Disabled Persons; and Subd. 5, a requirement that existing home occupations become conforming within one year. What the Draft Ordinance Does Do It docs not establish multiple regulatory categories of home occupations. It merely creates a set of standards which all home occupations must meet. As drafted, if a home occupation can’t meet the standards, it is not allowed. If an existing home occupation doesn ’t meet the standards, it is in violation of the zoning code and is treated as a zoning violation, subject to the legal processes already established in the code for remedying such violations. Options Planning Commission should consider whether multiple regulatory' categories would be useful. It is common for cities to have a licensing requirement just for those home occupations that have certain characteristics, for example: • employment of a non-occupant of the dwelling - having customers or clients or their vehicles coming to the property - manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials - parking more than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is 3/4 ton or less capacity and has attachments such as a plow, a glass carrier, etc. - parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds 3/4 ton capacity - the business produces any waste that should be t cated or regulated #2333 Home Occupations February 15, 2002 Page 3 Categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that can’t or don’t meet one or more standards but which can mitigate or eliminate the adverse neighborhood impacts if operated subject to certain conditions. The options would include: a. Require a CUP. The CUP entry in the Zoning Code would have to be written such that the Council would have to find that the adverse impacts of the use can be remedied by adherence to specified conditions, and clearly spell out Council’s authority to review or revoke if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to mitigate the adverse neighborhood impacts; OR b. Instead of a CUP, require an annual license for such uses, if it’s important to review the use on a regular ongoing basis; or a one-time license subject to review or revocation only if the home occupation becomes a problem. Procedural Status of Amendment Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter on November 19. There were no public comments. You tabled this item to a work session, which was held on December 20. The result of the work session was direction to staff to make a number of revisions to the draft approved by Planning Commission in 1998. Staff Recommendation Rc-open the public hearing to sec if there arc any public comments. Review the draft ordinance and discuss whether it accomplishes the Planning Commission’s intent, whether it leaves any loose ends that should be tied up, whether it needs to be more or less restrictive in specific areas, and how it impacts existing known home occupations. Discuss whether there should be different levels of regulato.7 control. Direct staff to make any appropriate revisions, and either table for further re\ icw or send it on to Council w ith a recommendation. Planning Commission Work Session - November 7,2001 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaffron, Planning Director November 2, 2001 HOME OCCUPATIONS Attachments; A • November 19 Public Hearing Notice B - July 12,2001 Council Work Session Packet, incl. 1998 Van Zomeren memo & draft orditiance Background During 1998 Planning Commission held several work sessions and hearings regarding the Home Occupation ordinance. The result was a recommendation for a comprehensive updating ofthc home occupation regulations, with the following keys aspects: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. i:. 13. 14. 15. Discontinue licensing home occupations. Continue status of home occupations as an allowed Accessory Use. Allow up to one non-occupant employee. Prohibit building modifications that look commercial or make residential re-use difficult. Allow home occupation only in principal structure in urban zones or with urban lot size, but allow home occupation also in accessory structure in rural /ones or w ith rural lot size. Prohibit outside storage of materials, goods and equipment, except certain vehicles. Parking associated with the home occupation must be off-street and screened. Prohibit noisy vehicles or equipment not normally associated with a dwelling. Prohibit retail sales except as accessoiy' to the sen ices being provided. Home occupation must not be discemablc from street except for allowed R signage. Limit hours of operation when open to public (8 a m. to 8 p.m). Traffic limited to 5 customers.'clients per day or less, based on the characteristics of neighborhood, streets, etc. Limit deliveries to daytime and to small vehicles compatible in neighborhood. Prohibit certain home occupations (sec list in 1998 ordinance draft). Provide reasonable accommodation to handicapped persons. Please see Liz Van Zomeren ’s memo of June 24, 1998 for additional detail. Discussions on that 1998 proposed ordinance bogged down during Council deliberation on whether home occupations should be allowed in accessory buildings. No Council action was ever taken on the ordinance. Page I of2 Recent Council interest in revisiting the home occupation issue was generated because stafThas been recommending license approval for a small number of long-standing home occupations that have one or more employees, in violation of the current code but not causing any problems. Council would like to change the code simply to allow home occupations to have one non-resident employee under certain conditions. Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation regarding under what specific circumstances and conditions a non-resident employee should be allowed. Comprehensive Amendment Needed A comprehensive approach to home occupations was addressed by Planning Commission in 1998, but no code change resulted. The current code requires a]] home businesses to be licensed, regardless of impact. There are probably dozens of home businesses in Orono that are technically out of compliance, but they are so ‘non-impact ’ that they arc virtually invisible to their neighborhoods, and it wouldn ’t even occur to the owners that they might need a City license. These home occupations should be allowed to occur without any licensing or City interference as long as they remain ‘non impact’. On the other hand, home businesses that have potential impacts on a neighborhood should be regulated to minimize those impacts. The work done by Planning Commission in 1998 resulted in a recommended ordinance that would establish strict performance standards for home occupations, regulating via zoning enforcement rather than by licensing. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should first address the issue of non-resident employees. Staff would recommend the following as a stalling point tor discussion, in terms of a minimal revision to the current “Accessory Use” and “Licensing" ordinances; 1. No one other than the occupant(s) of the dwelling, one (1) employee, customers or clients, and deliver)' or scr\ icc personnel shall be on the property at any given time in relation to the home occupation. 2. Under no circumstances shall there be more than one (1) employee working on the premises at one time. No employee or combination of employees shall work on the premises for more than forty (40) hours in one week. 3. The home occupation may employ additional non-resident employees only if their work- activities arc perfomied off the premises. Personal vehicles of employees working off the premises shall be parked within a building or shall be fully screened from the street and from adjoining properties. 4. E.xisting home occupations, whether legally licensed or not, .shall be brought into conformity with this ordinance within one year of its adoption. Planning Commission may choose to aiso recommend that Council consider a more comprehensive amendment such as that drafted in 1998. Planning Commission may wish to spend time revisiting that draft now, or could choose to await Council direction. However, a public hearing has been scheduled and published for your November 19 meeting regarding amending the Home Occupation ordinances. Page 2 of 2 WORK SESSION - THURSDAY, JULY 12,2001 8:00 A.M. To:Mayor Peterson & Councilmcmbers Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Date:July 3,2001 Subject:Home Occupations - Ordinance Review Attachments A - Staff memo & draft ordinance of June 24, 1998 B - Staff memo & exhibits of June 20, 2001 C - Home Occupation Ordinances for 9 metro area cities Orono’s “Home Occupation" ordinances currently require that any and all activities that fit the definition ol a "home occupation ” arc subject to an annual license. liach such activity is required to meet a set of operating criteria established in the ordinance. Council has indicated that the current ordinance provisions may need to be updated and revised. Orono's Current Ordinances Home occupations are an allowed accessory use by current code; that is, they do not need a Conditional Use Permit, and can occur as long as: I) they arc acccssor>- to a permitted principal dwelling use; and 2) they receive an annual license. The standards they must comply with arc brielly summari/ed as follows: a) b) c) d) c) 0 g) h) i) j) Must be engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling; No employed assistant is allowed; Home occupation must be conducted within the principal structure only; Evidence of home occupation cannot be visible from street; No signage allowed other than that allowed in R district; No excessive stock in trade may be stored on premises; No over-the-counter retail sales allowed; Entrance to home occupation must be gained from within principal structure. The use may not adversely affect the character of the uses pennitted in the district in which the home occupation is located; Professionals may use their residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites, but not for the general practice of his profession if such practice will require more than three off-street parking spaces for occupant and visitors. Mi r I L Home Occupations July 3,2001 Page 2 Codes Compared In reviewing other cities’ home occupation ordinances (ordinances from 9 metro area suburbs were reviewed), there are a number of common threads but also a variety of approaches. Most cities: require that the home occupation occur w'ithin the principal dwelling - require entrance from within the principal dwelling - disallow over-the-counter retail activity - allow no or very limited e.xtcrior signage - • allow no outside storage - allow no more than one non-resident employee - require adequate parking - don ’t allow building alterations that would not be custoniaiy' in dwellings A number of cities add specific pcrfomiancc standards relating to one or more of these topics: hours of operation screening of parking - prohibition or limitation on daily occurrences of deliveries, loading/'unloading limitation on weekly number of trips to/from site by non-resident employee limitation on number of clients or patrons per day limitation on percentage of dwelling that is devoted to home occupation limit on type/number of large vehicles stored on site in relation to the occupation shall not produce lightyglarc'noise/odor/vibration objectionable to neighbors - shall meet fire and building codes - shall create no electrical interference to surrounding properties Some cities’ ordinances include a list of allowed home occupations and'or a list of prohihited home occupations. About half of the cities create two categories of home occupations, difl’ercntiated by the level of activity and'or potential impact on the neighborhood, and requiring vaiying levels of City approval; those home occupations with no employees and no outwardly visible indications nor activity levels that would suggest a home occupation exists. These are typically cither exempt from needing a pemiit or license, or subject to a staff administered pcrmit/license. - those home occupations with employees or which have activity levels or other outwardly visible indications that a home occupation is occurring. These typically require a more formal approval process such as a Council-approved license. Conditional Use Pennit or “Special Use Pcmiit’’. Home Occupations July 3,2001 Page 3 1998 Ordinance Review In 1998, then City Planner/Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomeren worked with the Planning Commission to draft an amended Home Occupation ordinance. That draft ordinance would have completely eliminated licensing and would have permitted home occupations as an accessory use subject to enforcement of performance standards. That draft also included a list of “Prohibited ” home occupations, which were deemed to be likely to have negative neighborhood impacts. The draft reflected good work by the Planning Commission, but got bogged down in discussions as to home occupations in accessory buildings. No action was taken. The 1998 draft and the staff memo describing it are attached as Exhibit A. Staff Recommendation The current home occupation ordinance should be revised and updated. The following topics should be considered: 1) Elimination of licensing or other formal approval process for some or all t>pcs of home occupations; 2) If licensing is eliminated, establishment of adequate performance standards for those home occupations that are allowed; 3) Create a list of prohibited home occupations Council Action Requested No formal action required; direct staff how to proceed. Any proposed ordinance changes will require a public hearing at the Planning Commission. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 20,2001 Item No.: Department Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Review of Home Occupation Definitions & Standards rc: “Employed Assistants ” and Persons Not Residing in Residence Existing Cedes “Home Occupations” has been a permitted Accessory Use in “R” Districts since 1967. The definition in the current zoning code is identical to that in the 1967 code, and reads as follows: “Home Occupation ” - Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street. So signs other than those permitted in "R“ Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, and entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for general practice of his profession when such general practice wilt involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. ” The 1967 Code entry for the “Home Occupation” accessory use in the R-1A zone merely referred to the definition for standards and conditions. The 1975 Zoning Code continued the 1967 definition, but added ro the Accessory Use code entry specific conditions not found in the definition (highlighted below). That code section has not been changed since 1975 and reads as follows: "C Home Occupations. Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only hy persons residing in their dwelling, when there is no employed assistant, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, w hen evidence of the occupation is not visible from the street, no signs other than those permitted in "R" Districts are present, no c.xcessive stock in trade is stored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, the entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure, and the use does not adversely affect the character of the uses permitted in the district in which it is located. A professional person may use lus residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance rf religious rites hut not for general practice of his profession when such general practice will involve the need for more than three off-street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. " __________(Current code cite is Section 10 20, Subd 4C: Accessory Uses in Kesidcntia! Zones) Home Occupations June 20,2001 Page 2 Stall i/.^liev ’cs that licensing of home occupations was introduced in 1984, since we have found no apparcti* rf fcrcncc to such license in the code prior to the 1984 rccodification. The licensing rcquireme’.i is in Section 5.40 and originally included only Subd’s. 1 & 2 w hich read as follows; *‘Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to to engage in, or carry on, a home occupation, as that term is defined in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code, without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. Subd. 2. Regulation. Licenses w ill only be issued if the specific use is permitted or otherw ISC allow ed by the Zoning Chapter, and if all conditions set forth in said Chapter are fully complied with." Subd. 3 w'as added via Ord. #140, 2nd Series, on 8-28-95: “Subd. 3. License Period. All licenses for home occupations shall expire on September 30 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing home occupation license shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the c.xpiration date." What Constitutes a Home Occupation? A “Home Occupation" is an occupation that is customarily associated w ith the use of a dw elling. Orono residents arc involved in a wide range of home based jccupations. some of w hich have potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Attachment A is a compilation of licensed and unlicensed home occupations that we believe are currently occurring in Orono; many of the unlicensed ones were found via the internet, and the list is probably not exhaustive. Under the current ordinance language, home occupation licensing apparently is intended to apply not only to those home-based businesses w hich arc highly visible, but also to such activities that merely involve home computing, mail order, consulting, etc., i.c. activities which don't involve on-site employees, customers visiting the site, excessive delivery trucks or any other visible signs of business activity. There are probably many such low-key home occupations in Orono that go unlicensed. Such businesses probably should not have to be licensed. In staffs opinion, tlic businesses that should be required to be licensed are those w hich have the potential to be anno>ing or inconveniencing to their neighbors. Issue: Definition of“F.mployed Assistant** \\ hile the Council has occasionally review ed the Home Occupation standards through the years, no changes or revisions have occurred since the 1975 language was adopted. The most recent topic of discussion, the employment of persons not residing in the dwelling, has resulted in Council indicating to a small number of long-time Home Occupation licensees that licenses would not be renewed this fall due to this ‘non-compliance ’. The code docs not define “employed assistant”. Absent further clarification, the City has taken Lhc language literally, that any person w ho docs not reside in the dw elling but is engaged in the licensed home occupation, is an “employed assistant". Home Occupations June 20,2001 Page 3 Former City Planner/Zoning Administrator Liz Van Zomcren reviewed the Home Occupation standards in 1998 and recommended the following language be adopted regarding employees: “All residents of the dwelling, but not more than one (1) nonresident shall be pennitted to work on the premises in connection with the home occupation. 1) Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. 2) A nonresident employee may include an employee, business partner, independent contractor, or any other person associated with the home occupation who docs not reside in the dwelling unit and who is regularly at the home occupation. This language provides more direction than the current code, but “regularly at the home occupation ” is a term that bears scrutiny. Some of our home occupations use the home as a base of operation for a contracting or service business, wherein employees arrive at the home occupation site in the morning, pick up w ork orders and a work vehicle, and spend the majority of the day away from the site. The only evidences of the home occupation may be a flurry of activity at the beginning and end of the day, and the employee’s personal vehicle parked on the site all day. Do such employees fit the criteria of being “regularly at the home occupation ”? Or, should they be in a separate classification which would allow 1 or more such employees as part of a home occupation? 1 low docs the impact of such employees differ from the impact of an employed office assistant whose only visibility in the neighborhood may be an e.xtra vehicle parked in the driveway all day and a few trips in and out of the neighborhood? Licensee Ben Meinhardt (All-Star Electric at 3585 Sixth Avenue North) has requested an opportunity to address this issue in regards to his business. He is expected to be present to address Council on June 25. Staff Recommendation Consider whether the Zoning Code standards should be rc\ ised by defining various categories of “employed assistanls”hased on their potential impact on thcncigliborhood. Consider whether certain home occupations should be allowed to have one (or more) employees if their impact on the neighborhood is minimal. COUNCIL ACl ION REQUESTED If Council concludes that the code language should be amended, provide staff with direction and refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Any proposed revisions w ill require the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing. T Home Occupatio ns - List: Past and 1 Current licenses, and iuentified Uses Business Name llusiness Address /aoning District Owner Business Type Total U of Kinpl. Persons ffof Non- res KmpI Var. for Non-res. KmpI. Must Kercnl License Year C’unimcnls All-Star MIcctric .^585 Sixth Avc N RR-in Ben Meinhardt Idectncal Contractor 4 3 2001 Small Parts ManufaLturing, Inc. 1295 Iamiu Linda Avc I.R-IB Charles Anderson Machine Shop 2 0 2001 1 n R Contracting 130 Cygnet Place RR-IB Rol)crl Rossing Building & remodeling 1 0 1994 Marmet Serv ices 130 Cygnet Place RR-IB Marge Rossing Secretarial Services 1 0 1991 Danby As«;ociatcs 1680 North I-arm K(l 1 R-IA .Mary Anne libcrl ('onsulting & Lingerie Distribution 1 0 1997 UPS Dcliveiies Fit/patrick Hnlerpriscs — 2845 Watertown Kd RR-IB Patricia I it/patrick Word Processing 1 0 1994 (No NanK)120 (iolden V'icw Dr RR-IB John Malison (luns, ammo & related items 1 0 1998 (iun shows, occasional I pickup of guns at residence Heliotrope Gulden Design 4625 West Brandi Rd RR-IB Steve Ruce Garden design, planting, nuint. - plants grown on site t Reso /^2S25 Application from *94-95 pending unresolved issues - see Lyle (?) (No Name)‘)9S Wildhurst Tr LR-IU Julie LaVerc Mail-order Bags 1 0 1995 Take phone orders and null out Hags D.J. Mac Sales 4041 North Shore Drive I.R-IB Dale J. McCurdy Mail sales 1 0 1997 UPS Delivery, customer picks up order, no stock Taylor Moor 735 l emdalc Rd N RR-IB Taylor Moor Gift Baskets 1 0 1996 1 Nails by Ginger 2620 Kelly Ave I.R-IB Ginger Scott Nail service 1 0 2001 North Sltorc Roofing .1980 North Shore Dr I.R-IC Richard Anderson RiKifing 1 0 1995 Nonim & Pearson, PA 3264 Noilh Shore Drive LR-IC- I Russ Norum L^w Office 2 I 2001 1 IxRoy A. Pilgram, DC 1795 Shadywood Road IR-IC Ix'Roy A. Pilgram Chiropractic Office 2 0 2001 Priority Management Franchise 1680 North Farm Road LR-IA MaryAtmc l-bcrt Management Training 1 0 1995 Ross Repke FFC 3380 Watertown Road RR-in F^oss Repke Fireamis 1 0 1997 Federal Fireamis Fjcense; Renewal-10 years Small Fngine Machine Shop 1830 (.akeview rcnace I.R-IA Dale 1‘feilslickcr Small engine shop - mail order & for dealers 2 0 1992 1 Ten Tee Corp 2760 While *»ak Circle RR-in John Shannon Jr.Marketing 1 0 1994 Kczar, Inc.3050 Sixth Avenue North RIM It Milch Kczar Photography 1 0 2000 Waldron I^w OfTices Ltd. 1951 Concordia St. IR-IC John B. Waldion l.aw Office 2 0 2001 tvents Mxtraordinairc 993 Wildhurst Trail LR-IU Jan Uillguist Lvent IManning 1 0 1998 Morning Staar Surgical, Inc. 475 North Fcnulalc Rd. RR-in ITionus W. Clapp — (No Name)550 Orono Orchard Rd RR-IU Paulette Pickard .*^’tuumuns Massage llierapy 1 0 2001 I Guardsman Wood- II Pro 5 Brown Road S.RR-IB Bruce C'. Mathison F urniture Repair 1 0 2001 William Lewis Web Development, LI.C 1125 Willow Dr. N. KR-in William L. i.eskinen Web Site Development 1 0 2001 Design A Layout Services 1685 ('oncordia St I.R-IC l orn Palm Moor Plan Designs 1 0 2001 Innovative Data 1 Engineering 1 Associates Inc 990 Lonui Linda i.R-in Mary Winkler Technology ( onsulting'' Computer Ser\ iccs 1 0 2(HK) MiCasa Salon 2684 Lydiard Avc LR-IB Jeiinirer L’Allier 1 lair Salon 1 0 2001 Businesses Identi fled via Internet -No License Applied For Name Address Zone Owner Business Type Web Address / Comments Active Mind 26.10 Countryside Drive West RR-IB Wliirl-A-Bun 2320 Devin I^ne RR-IB Lois Sonsiegard Hair Fashion Products WWW whirl-a bun.com I.ava Design, Inc 4105 lligliwood Kd LR-IB Jim I-asley Product develojiment & Design WWW lavadesign.net Winning Web Strategies/ (iraphic Arts Management Corp 4496 North Shore Drive I.R-IB Ronald M. Timm Web Site (‘rcation WWW winningwebstratcgicsxom Anderson Adaptive Technologies 1513 Bay Ridge Road LR-IA Kim Anderson Sales/Design? Control Systems www.aat-inc com New Town Painlc*^ lie 4784 North Shore Drive LR-IH Frank Koubsky/Su^ian Schauci Painting? Custom Image Inc - Window r*ex Division 895 l orest Arms Lane LR-IB John O’Brien r I Workplace Training 520 North Ann Drive I.R- 'Fclcphonc Amcncan Corp 4685 North Shore Drive LR-IB Mill Brook Products, Inc/ Gracious Living 40 TrufTala Frail RR-IB Wet Ink Advertising *)I5 Brown Road N RR-IB niomas I^ine Advertising Materials Julia Knighi & Associates 425 Tonkawa Rd I.R-IB Julia Knight Points of View Incorporated 17.60 North Ann Drive LIMB Jim (lanibonc draining, consulting, motivational speaking re Idderly Lyes WWW pomtsorviewiiic.com llarstad Marketing Inc. 4550 Wolverton Place RR-IA James Sl Julie llarstad Future Sports Inc.4680 Mayside Road RR-IA •Mick SIctten Brooinball equipment distributor /nunufacturer 7 w vvw.broomball com Quality Concrete Service 280 Orono Orchard Rd S. RR-IB MohLand Development Inc. 825 Brown Rd. S.RR-IB ---------------------------------------------------— w w'W'.fiohland corn Shakuntala Gallery*80 Triiffula Trail RR-IB Shakiin Mahesluvari Paintings, Framing, Photography, etc. 5 Completion Date: 2/14/02 60 Dav Deadline: 4/16/02 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, Cit> Administrator Paul Weinberger, 7 ning Administrator/Planner March 14. 2002 #02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson 1074 Wildhurst Trail Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) A B C D Draft Planning Commission Minutes (Februarj' 19. 2002) Revised Site Plan Wetland Buffer Impact Zone Map Planning Report (Februarv’ I. 2002) Initial Application: Property owners have requested v ariances to permit construction of a new house and detached garage on the properly. The variance is to permit land alteration and construction of the garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and w ithin the 26' bufl'er area around the wetland. The City's Flood Plain and Wetlands Management ordinance (Section 10.55) does not permit tilling, grading, e.xcavation. hardcover, and structures within a protected wetland and within 26' of the edge of the wetland. The property owners were aware of the wetland regulations and required setbacks, however the actual regulatory boundary of the wetland was revised when a new wetland delineation report was completed on the property in December. 2001 . The property owners had done their original design based on wetland infonnation that was determined in 1991 before the Wetland Conservation Act rules for delineation w ere established w hen the plat of Wildhurst Estates was tiled. In 2002. determination of a wetland boundary must be completed by methods required by the Zetland Conservation Act. Attached is a cop\ of the Plat of the Wildhurst Estates show ing the edge of the wetland as defined in 1991. The edge of the wetland is shown on the plat as a Drainage and Utility Easement. When properties are platted it is standard procedure for the City to obtain a public drainage and utility easement over all protected wetlands, as was done in 1991. Planning Commission Review (February 19,2U02) Planning Commission reviewed the proposed variance application and determined the garage should be shifted out of the wetland area. 1 he Planning Commission commented it w ould be the preferred option to have the garage within the front yard setback rather than encroach into the wetland. A copy of the draft minutes are attached as Exhibit A. 1 Revised Plans (March 13,2002>Plan Set) The revised plan set has reduced the wetland impact by doing the following: 1.The garage has been shifted closer to the street and is now located completely outside the wetland. All grade changes for the garage are outside the wetland. The negative impact for the garage is it does require a variance to encroach into the front setback. The garage is proposed to be located 17.76 ’ feet from the property line. If the garage were a complete detached building from the house it would be permitted to be located 10' from the property line. Because an enclosed walkway would be built between the garage and house it is considered part of the principal residence and therefore the entire building is required to meet the principal building setback. The garage is a two level building with driveway access to each level. The two level garage requires less building mass on the property as a traditional one story-four stall garage is difficult to fit on the site due to the wetland location. 2.The suggested setback to the sewer line on the south side of the property has been reduced from 15' to 10'. The house and garage was then able to be shifted 5' further away from the wetland. 3.The original site plan showed an encroachment into the 26' wetland buffer area for the house grading. The decks and steps also did slightly encroach into the buffer. The revised plans have moved the house and decks, including grading in front of the house outside the 26' buffer. An additional change to the e.xisting site plan is the new plan shows a single access rather than the dual property access. Any changes to the access would require approval of the Public Works Director. t Required Variances The revised site plan still requires variances. 1. Front yard setback to permit the garage to be constructed 17.76' to the property line. To permit land alteration and the garage to be within the 26 ’ wetland buffer [no variance Ls required to encroach into the actual wetland area]. Please refer to Exhibit C which illustrates the actual buffer impact. Review of Hardships 1.The property met all code requirements in 1991 and was considered a buildable lot at that time. The new wetland boundar>' as determined by Aquatic EcoSolutions. Inc.. Golden Valley, Minnesota, shows a larger wetland basin than what was thought to be located on the property. 1 mm •The larger wetland basin causes two development issues for the property owners. First, the wetland basin’s size has limited the building envelope to a small corner of the property. The area available to develop is then substantially reduced by the required 30* setback to the back property line and side yard setback. 3.Because the area of the wetland is larger than first believed, the actual area of the lot is reduced in size to less than one acre. The City of Orono did find in 1991 that the area of the property was 1 acre. The change to the wetland determination method has changed the defined lot area of the property, as has the ability to credit wetland as buildable area. 4.The location of the sewer service 1 O' from the south property line shifts the building location an additional 10' to the north, which causes the wetland buffer impact. 5.The property owners have identified areas on the property to mitigate a total of 2.180 s.f. of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures. 6. The 17.76' setback to the street property line is justified by the fact the wetland area restricts any development further north on the property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted. A recommendation of approval is conditioned on the following: 1 The property owners will mitigate a total of 2.180 s.f. of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures, as also required by the MCWD. 2.Site will be graded to direct stormwater away from the wetlands and into the ditch along Wildhurst Trail. 3.All silt fence should be installed prior to any clearing, filling or grading activity. Silt fence shall remain in place until all vegetation has been established. 4.The City shall review the proposed drivew ay design and determine the appropriate access to the property. 5.A public drainage, utility and access easement shall be granted over the south 20' of the property. 6. No grading or heavy equipment should be allowed within the easement area. 7. Final site grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the City Engineer and MCWD prior to review of the plan by the City Cotincil. Planning Commission Options for Action A. Approve B. Deny C. Table D. Other Action MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.ni. (#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) The Applicants have indicated they have decided not to construct the addition on the east side of the residence and are instead propoivig slightly larger decks and changing one of the decks into a screen porch. Both decks are located or the lakeside of the residence. Bottenberg stated the City Council did review this item last week and voted 3 to 0 to bring the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. The City Council stated they did not have any concerns with the changes but would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed changes and make the appropriate recommendation. Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback zone was approved at 15.3 percent, but the new proposal will reduce the hardcover to 15 percent. The new proposal also reduced the structural coverage by 148 square feet from what had previously been approved. Richard Stark stated he can add to Staffs report if the Plaiming Commission desires. Hawn stated the Plaiming Commission is familiar with this application. There were no comments from the public regarding this application. Kluth moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2706, Richard and Jane Stark, 815 Partenwood Road, granting of variances to hardcover. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn inquired whether there was any existing landscaping fabric on the property. Stark indicated if there is any still remaining on the property, it will be removed. NEW BUSINESS (#7) #02-2745 H.ONA AND KENNETH PETERSON, 1074 WILDHURST TRAIL, V.XRIANCES, 7:22 p.m. - 8:06 p.m. Kenneth Peterson, Applicant, and Jack Carter, Builder, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting variances to permit construction of a new house and detached garage on the property. The variance is to permit land alteration and construction of the garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area around the wetland. Weinberger stated the property is vacant and was originally part of the Wildhurst Estates subdivision in 1991. In 1973, a sewer line was installed across the property, with the sewer line crossing through the present building site. Weinberger stated the sewer line was relocated a couple of years ago across the south property line. PAGE 8 MB*rtJTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (II02>2745 Ilooa and Kenneth Peterson, Continued) Weinberger stated a large portion of this lot consists of wetland or shoreline area for Lake Minnetonka, wth the actual building pad consisting of a small area. The entire lot consists of approximately one acre in size. In 1991, the assumed wetland boundary went around the 930 contour and the entire area was protected with a drainage and utility easement. Since 1991, the methods of determining wetlands have changed, with the Wetland Conservation Act being enacted. It was determined at the time the owners applied for a building permit that the wetland boundary was much further back on the property than originally believed. Weinberger stated the entire building area is located in one comer of the site, and is further restricted by the 30 foot setback to the back property line and side yard setback. Weinberger stated at the time the house was designed on the property, it was determined that the garage area would be located within the wetland area as well as within a floodplain, which has since been revised. *^e property met all code requirements in 1991, and was considered a buildable lot at that time. Weinberger stated some additional grading is being proposed to help raise the building pad in order to accommodate construction of the home and to raise the building pad above the floodplain. The Applicants are requesting a variance to lot area since the dry buildable area has now been determined to be less than one acre. In 1991 , when it was originally platted, it was a one-acre lot and met the requirements, but the code no longer allows wetland credit for sewered lots. In addition, a variance to the wetland ordinance is being requested to permit land alteration and construction of a garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area. Weinberger stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed this application back in January, and approved a variance which allows the garage to be constructed within the actual protected wetland boundary and associated grading with the garage. Weinberger stated two areas are proposed on the property for mitigated wetland, which will create a total of 2,180 square feet of wetland on the property. Weinberger stated the property owners would execute a covenant, which would be recorded on the Chain of Title, which would insure the protection of the wetland buffers. The MCWD also recommended that the site be graded to direct storm water away from the wetlands towards Wildhurst Trail. Staff has discussed drainage towards Wildhurst with the MCWD. The City of Orono is not in favor of having water draining directly towards the street. The property is located at a low point where water can reach an elevation where it will cross the street. Wildhurst Trail also does not have storm water drains or curb and gutter. Weinberger stated a mutual agreement was reached with the MCWD that allows for only a minimum amount of runoff to get to the street, with the remainder of the runoff being directed to a ditch area along Wildhurst Trail and then off into the mitigated area of the wetlands. This will allow the water to cross over as much land as possible before impacting the existing wetlands and The City Engineer is recommending that the foundation of the building be located 15 feet from the actual sewer line, which creates a situation requiring the house to be located frirthcr to the north and caused a portion of the garage to be located into the wetland area. Staff reconunends approval of the application based on the five hardships outlined in Staffs report PAGE 9 MEWTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’dock p.in. Peterson stated he has nothing additional to add to Staffs report. There were no public comments relating to this application. Hawn inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding access from Wildhurst. Kluth inquired why two curb cuts rather than one. Peterson stated two curb cuts make access to the property work the best. Peterson noted under Item #4 the City is going to review that item. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be okay with this application proceeding forward subject to that condition. Peterson stated that would be okay. Kluth stated it was his understanding a property owner was only allowed one curb cut. Weinberger stated traditionally only one access is granted to a property, with each request being reviewed by the Public Works Director. Weinberger stated it has been the policy of the City in the past to only allow one curb cut, noting it might not be defuied specifically in the code. Smith inquired whether the garage could be located closer to the house to eliminate the need to be within the wetland. Carter indicated they did discuss that with the MCWD, who had also suggested the garage be located closer to the house. Carter stated they originally located the garage 20 feet from the house and have since relocated it six feet closer. Carter stated the problem with coming any closer to the house with the garage is access into the garage. Smith inquired whether the garage doors could be relocated. Carter stated it is a tuck-under garage, which limits which direction the garage can be accessed from. Kluth commented the hardships are very compelling in this case, but noted that there is nothing in the lay of the land that requires a two level garage. Kluth stated he is unsure what the hardship is for a two level garage. Peterson stated he did not want to construct a single level four car garage, which would add to the hardcover. Peterson stated the garage was stacked in an effort to limit the footprint. Rahn inquired whether this design completed prior to the new zoning requirements being put into place. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. Peterson stated at the time they purchased the property, they understood there was a very definite spot for the house, and they designed the house to meet that specific building pad. Peterson stated in December the wetland issue with the building pad came up, which reduced the size of the building pad by approximately one-third. Peterson stated they attempted to relocate the house, but the situation with the sanitary sewer did not allow them to relocate the house very far. Rahn stated in his view the garage could possibly be relocated out of the wetland area if the garage were redesigned and attached to the home. Peterson stated the garage was stacked to lessen the footprint. Peterson stated due to the elevations of the land, the garage was located slightly away from the house. Rahn stated in his view a four-car garage is not a necessity. Hawn stated the Applicants in her view have done a fairly good job at designing the house and garage given the fact that they were unaware of the wetland constraints. Kluth commented they were also faced with the laws being changed. Kluth noted they are doing wetland mitigation. Kluth stated he has a problem with constructing the diiveway in its present location. Carter stated they will avoid constructing the driveway over the lift station. Mabusth noted the Planning Commission does not have a copy of the wetland delineation, and inquired what type of a wetland is on this property. Weinberger stated it is a Type 3. Mabusth commented it would be nice if the City could give a little leeway on the 15 feet from the sewer line to the residence. Weinberger stated Staff can review that prior to this application going to Council. Ptitzler stated in his view the garage should be located a little closer to the house, with only one curb cut being allowed. Kluth agreed with Fritzler. Rahn inquired how the garage would be supported in the wetlands. Peterson stated there would be pilings in the wetlands. Rahn commented he personally feels the land alteration on this site is excessive and that it Was designed to the old standards. Mabusth inquired whether a preliminary grading plan has been completed. PAGE 11 IHMi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Weinberger stated the area where the fill will be placed will raise the building pad for the garage and a portion of the house by approximately two feet. Mabusth stated information relating to accrss, drainage and grading issues should be available prior to this application going to the Council. Mabusth stated the Applicant would need to work with Staff to insure that these issues are resolved prior to proceeding to the City Council. Kluth stated the Planning Commission could approve this application subject to certain conditions. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission should review this application once those issues arc resolved. Hawn stated in her view the Plarming Commission does not have enough information to determine exactly how close the garage should be to the house. Kluth stated a lot of these limitations are self-imposed by the architectural style of the house ra'.her than by the land. Rahn inquired where the Applicants were at on hardcover. Weinberger stated they are well below on the hardcover limits allowed on this property. . Hawn inquired exactly what other information is still needed as far as drainage and grading. Weinberger stated the approval of the design is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Weinberger stated the City Engineer only reviewed an architectural plan of the grading prior to this meeting, which showed the house and garage located closer to the wetland than the plan before the Planning Commission. Hawn stated she has gotten the impression from the other Planning Commission members that the garage should be located closer to the house. Mabusth stated she w ould like to hear from the City Engineer on how far back the house can be moved, which may allow the garage to be relocated. Hawn inquired whether this application should be tabled or have the approval subject to a number of conditions. Hawn stated she personally does not have a problem with the application, and if the garage is relocated closer to the house, the Planning Commission in her view should review it again. Kluth stated the idea behind relocating the garage is to get it out of the w etland area, Hawn noted even if the garage is attached to the house, a portion would still remain within the wetland buffer zone. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Peterson inquired whether the sewer line could be relocated back to where it was supposed to be. Weinberger stated the sewer iinc could probably be relocated, noting that it was placed in its present location because the previous property owners had requested it be relocated. Weinberger stated if the adjoining property owner agrees to give an easement, the sewer line could be relocated. Weinberger stated currently the City does not have an easement for the sewer line in the neighboring property. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have this application tabled or proceed forward to the City Council. Peterson stated they would like to move ahead. Hawn commented it is likely the City Council would send it back to the Planning Commission since there are a number of unresolved issues. Pcicrson stated in terms of the drainage to the street, there is a drainage and utility casement that would handle the runoff from the street, with a ditch carrying water from the north side of the road across into the wetlands. Peterson stated they could construct a swale or ditch on their side of the road, which should address all of the drainage concerns. Peterson stated if the garage is relocated closer to the house, it will impact the front yard setback. Rahn stated he personally would like the garage to be closer to the front yard setback than where it is presently proposed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would rather see the garage closer to the front yard setback than in its present location. Hawn commented it appears to be the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this item be tabled, with the idea that the Applicant look at revising his plans somewhat to relocate the garage out of the wetland area, depict access on the plan and the actual layout of the driveway. Hawn stated by that time the City should have the comments of the City Engineer concerning drainage and the Public Works Director on the access issue. Hawn stated the Planning Commission would like to sec the garage relocated further away from the Type 3 wetland. Rahn stated he would be more receptive to granting a front yard setback than a wetland variance. Other Planning Commission members agreed. Peterson requested his application be tabled. Hawn moved. Smith siconded, to table Application #02-2745, Hona and Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail, to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. V'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 13 7 Completion Date: 2/14/02 60 Day Deadline: 4/16/02 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner February I, 2002 #02-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson 1074 Wildhurst Trail Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) A B C D E F G H I J Application Plat Map MCWD Permit Approval (January' 25,2002 Letter) Site Plan etiand Impact Map Citv Enuinecr Comments • Copy of Plat of Wildhurst Estates Building Elevation Views Floor Pans Property Owners Notification List Applicatinn/Background: Property owners have requested variances to permit construction of a new house and detached garage on the property. 1 he variance is to permit land alteration and construction of the garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and w ithin the 26’ buffer area around the wetland The City's Flood Plain and Wetlands Management ordinance (Section 10.55) does not permit filling, grading, e.xeavation, hardcover, and structures within a protected wetland and within 26’ of the edge of the wetland. The property ou ners were aware of the wetland regulations and required setbacks, however the actual regulatory boundary of the wetland was revised when a new wetland delineation report was completed on the property in December, 2001. The property owners had done their original design based on wetland information that was determined in 1991 before the Wetland Conservation Act rules for delineationwere established when the plat of Wildhurst Estates was filed. In 2002, determination of a wetland boundary must be completed by methods required by the Welland Conservation Act. Attached is a copy of the Plat of the Wildhurst Estates showing the edge of the wetland as defined in 1 99 1 . The edge of the wetland IS shown on the plat as a Drainage and Utility Easement. When properties are platted it is standard procedure for the City to obtain a public drainage and utility easement over all protected wetlands, as was done in 1991. •020745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson 1074 Wildhunt Trail Febniao 19.2002 Page 1 of 4 The property met all code requirements in 1991 and was considered a buildable lot at that time. The new wetland boundary as determined by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc., Golden Valley, Minnesota, shows a larger wetland basin than what was thought to be located on the property. The larger wetland basin causes two development issues for the property- owners. First, the wetland basin’s size has limited the building envelope to a small comer of the property. The area available to develop is then substantially reduced by the required 30 ’ setback to the back property line and side yard setback. Secondly, because the area of the wetland is larger it then reduces the actual lot size. Properties in the LR-IB zoning district are required to have a minimum lot size of 1 acre. In 1991 the lot size of the property was 1 acre. Lot size is measured as the area of a property that does not include lakes, rivers, or areas of the property that is frequently under water or which sustains emergent aquatic growth (wetlands). Because the area of the wetland is larger than first believed the actual area of the lot is reduced to less than one acre. Additionally, in 1998 the City eliminated the use of wetland credit for sewered properties. A variance to lot area is required to permit construction on the property. Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B): A variance is required to lot area to allow construction on the propert}’ since the defined lot area is less than 1 acre. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8: Variance to permit land alteration and construction of a garage within a protected wetland and 26’ wetland buffer. Wetland Impact The MC WD has stated the total wetland impact of the garage is 130 s.f. Total impacts to the buffer encompass 776.1 s.f. The MCWD reviewed the application and variances were approved by the MCWD on January 24, 2002. There approval was subject to the property owners completing the following; 1.The property owners will mitigate a total of 2,180 s.f. of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures. Property owners will c.xecute a declaration for the preservation of wetland buffers. j.Site will be graded to direct stormwater away from the wetlands and tow ards Wildhurst Trail. City staff has discussed the issue of water runofTbeing directed towards Wildhurst Trail. The City of Orono is not in favor of having water draining directly towards the street. The property is located at a low point where water can reach elevation where it will cross the street. Wildhurst Trail also does not have stormwater drains, curb and gutter, etc. To protect the street and meet the intent of the MCWD approval the site drainage from the site will be managed by allowing only a minimum amount of runoff that will get to the street. The remainder of the runoff would be directed to a ditch 102-2745 liona and Kcnncih Peterson 1074 Wildhurst Trail Febniao 19,2002 Page 2 of4 r area to be graded along Wildhurst Trail and will be directed to the new mitigated wetlands. This will allow the water to cross over as much land as possible before impacting the existing wetlands and lake. Sewer Location A Sv-wer line has recently been relocated out of the building pad of the lot. The sewer line is now- located about 10' north of the south propert>- line. Because of the sewer location it is not possible to construct the proposed house to the 10' side yard setback. The City Engineer has recommended the house not be constructed within 15’ of the sewer line. The result is a house that czin not be built within 25' of the side property line. If the proposed house was allowed to be built only 1 O' from the property line, it could be done to not encroach into the wetland, and only have a partial impact on the 26' wetland buffer. Since the line was relocated there is no record of a new utility and access easement being recorded on the property. Because of the man hole locations on th^r^erty and sewer line the City may be required to access the property for routine maintenance, hcncei an easement is necessary. Cit\’ Engineer Comments City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit F. Review of Hardships 1.The property met all code requirements in 1991 and was considered a buildable lot at that time. The new wetland boundar>- as determined by Aquatic EcoSolutions, Inc., Golden Valley, Minnesota, shows a larger wetland basin than what was thought to be located on the property. The larger wetland basin causes two development issues for the property owners. First, the wetland basin’s size has limited the building envelope to a sntall comer of the property. The area available to develop is then substantially reduced by the required 30' setback to the back property line and side yard setback. 3.Because the area of the wetland is larger than first believed, the actual area of the lot is reduced in size to less than one acre. The City of Orono did find in 1991 that the area of the property was 1 acre. The change to the wetland determination method has changed the defined lot area of the property, as has the ability to credit w etland as buildable area. 4.The location of the sewer service 1 O' from the south property line shifts the building location an additional 15' to the north, which causes the wetland impact. If a house could be constructed at the 10' setback the proposed development would not impact the wetland. 0.The property owners have identified areas on the property to mitigate a total of 2,180 s.f of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures. 102-2745 Uoni and Kenneth Peterson 1074 Wildhurst Trail February 19. 2002 Page3of4 m Site Plan Issues The City of Orono only permits one curb cut to an individual property. The property owners have shown two access points on the property. It appears the primary purpose in having the two access points is to provide better access since the garage is a two story building. The two story design also contributes to some of the additional fill that is required. The additional fill is required for the driveway elevation to be raised to the 2"^ level garage stalls. The City Public Works Director did not approve the concept for two driveway access points to the property and has recommended the driveway access be reduced to one. It would be possible to construct a single story garage with 4 stalls, but doing so would require variances to permit the garage to impact the wetland buffer and would require setback variances for an oversized accessory building. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted. A recommendation of approval is conditioned on the following: 1. The property owners will mitigate a total of 2,180 s.f. of wetland on the property to compensate for the wetlands lost to fill and structures, as also required by the MCWD. 2. Site will be graded to direct stormwater away from the wetlands and into the ditch alone Wildhurst Trail. 3. All silt fence should be installed prior to any clearing, filling or grading activity. Silt fence shall remain in place until all vegetation has been established. 4. The City shall review the proposed driveway design and determine the appropriate access to the property. 5. A public drainage, utility and access easement shall be granted over the south 25 ’ of the property. 6. No grading or hca\7 equipment should be allowed within the easement area. Planning Commission Options for Action A. Approve B. Deny C. Table D. Other Action 102*2745 Ilona and Kenncih Petcrv>n 1074 Wildhunt Trail February 19.2002 Page 4 of 4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^ 2»27f/S~ Date Received"-/ Amount Paid d2SO ______ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 1(714 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) on t \ A. (r Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential y other (specify) VACAjJ-f Zoning District:^________ (month/year) APPLICANT jAd^ 6APTT61C. w/ Phone (home) *1^2 • &<l*7 . Name 0 Otitvl TVloAIA^ Phone (work) q ^2.. 4^\. .Address: 11 &>I U/A<j7A*C^ Ifc 2ijl City: lA/At^2At2v_______Zip: 1 Phone (home)OWNER (if different than applicant) Name * YCKJhl^H PETB2.*?flNl Phone (work) C>1 ^• 9Z7 .6ZT2. Address: NftLP pL. City: PL«V/V\^ai7'i4 Zip: ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S _____ Describe request in detail: ^ _________________________________________________________________________________________________ * (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Y O^her (specify) ^h/At2.ggritVI€KlT Pp l/ligT/AAiO < HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 1J an Qg Uigfl/tNO 4gTPA<V.fy ^blU7APiJ& 1/Aa;0 J[T VQgTU 't EA<if* A- LfvtA>tigir> LlNte \A/l7H-lf>J lMfW.-T4 ^TU- poJ>p. UfJ^\ (attach additional sheets if necessary) -U- O ft ^ is /•rn .V -J REQUIRED SUB\nTTALS ^ for*Your flPPliMtIon dfadlinf dafr In ---- Completed Application Form 2. CertifitH Pronartir _ r ___ 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' labels anH / must obtain this list labels anH mar, a.„ u Finance, A-603. Govt’Center, 348-5910) " County Department of reproducUon. ‘ -°Py 8^^^" x 11" for gi^e are proposed^ \n So^VoX^ol'o7co^^^^^^^ *" Sketches or plans of floor & elevatinn vi.L / reproducUon. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons ^Tan- , the property. This would include narae(s) of apDlicantL if As an addendum to this application nleac#. oh^ u ^ ^ ^ current owiier(s). persoM you wish notified of this appliLtion. ^ ^^P^rate list of any other Additional items as may be requested by City staff. larian?" applietttion tntTL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE TOe applic^t hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the 7 • Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered ^v’^ri • , r ^ ' and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of th!-: r • onginal fee payment) infonnation supplied is true and comet to the best of his/h«W^^^^ Applicant’s Signature^^_______________ OWNER’S SIGNATU^ members for PuV^eTo/invS^^r IS Ou.ner’s Signature iAlUJl Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv officec a-»x,o u e ^ . Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held L the third Mo^d Pl^gmonth. AppUcants must be present at all ,rh..d..i.ei ► “ . Monday of each Commission and CouncU. If applicLf L T'T make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in von ^ meeting, please & Zoning Office of tlus change ^oMo lhe"g. " " » f •. s' • f • J V J .-k" - • ' S*. a' V • «• * e y . V" y • f •i^lH^^pin County Tax^pr^^ 3 MiC ((I Hommm >Hmc>w LAPAY^TTE Avem 7 S • M f HEATHERCROFT *1/ •7 .' /• -C!-(v 'r Q ./il I Parcel !n1brm\u:.' • •V-w. Parcol ID 0711723240046 ^ i Ho... 1074 . StrMi Nam* WILOHURST TR • 77>m is not »legally recorded map. It represents a comp^thh (klnMniiti^'^'- anddata from City, County, end State road authorities and other sources. •■. JPN-2B-20B2 12:11 MIMCHPm CREEK URTERS»€D Hinelialia Creek 6124710682 P.02/02 natershed District Improving Quaii1yofWa$er, Quality of QnyRitfiMtorCinlw H«y«.isate.efaMm Mas: 29008ha^ywoodRo«l eaWar,MNSSS31-fl878 Phone (069471-can ta:(9S2)471< EnoK nWnQfrinmhatugwlioip WkbSte wmunhmhriwcfwitiOig BoafdetllanagM P»naiaQ.Bht James CaUm Lance Rsher Monica OraM Scott Thomu MaloolmRsM Robert Sehreeder 0s;sss::=:' /anuaiy 25,2002 Ken Peteison 14820 nihPbce North Plymouth, MN S5447 RE: MCWD Pennic Application No. 01 >470 Dear Sirs: ’Ihc Miimchaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the above mentioned permit qiplicatian at their Board meeting on January 24,2001. It was dte action of the Board to approve this application widi the following cooditioos: Reirnbunement of mailing costs in the amount of S96.40 Payment of Rule J fees in die amount of $112.50 Submittal oft declaration for the preservation of wetland buffers which must be executed and recorded • A revised site plan must be submiued showing the redirection of Stormwater Crom impervious surfaces ewsy from the wetland and inwards Wildhurst Tnil Due to die size and conqilexity of certain projects, the Board, by Rule J, requires that site inactions be conducted. In these cases, the applicant is required to pay to tlie District, a fee equal to (he actual costs of analjtsis of the project, field inspection, engineering services, legal services, and any subsequent monitoring of the work. These costs are referred to as Rule J fees. Once the above menlioned fees have been paid and the other conditions have been met staff will issue the permit You arc reminded that work on the project cannot begin until the permit has been issued. This permit expires one year from the date of this letter. If final municipal approval of the project results in changes to the project you must submit revised plans to the MCWD for review. Please call me at 952-471 >0590 with any questions. Sincerely, Michael D. Wyatt District Technician c:Lisa Tllman, Wencic Associates Paul Wienberger, City of Orono ^ J Bonestroo Rosene V S Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects February 5,2002 aontsiroo. tot«n«. Anderlik and Attociatet. Inc. It an Affirmative Actfon/rqual Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned ' r*** Frtnclpsli: Otto C# Bonestroo. PE • Msfvin L Sorvaia. PE • Glenn ff Coot. PE • Robert G Schurncm. PE • Jerry A. Bourdon, pf. ^ Senior Contulianit: RoOert W Roiene. PE • Joseph C Anderim. PE • Richard E Turner. PE. • Susan U Eberim. c PA Associate Principals; Keith A. Gordon. PE . Robert R Pfefferle. PE • Richard W f otter. PE . Oavid O Loshota PE . Mark A Hanson. PC • Michael T Rautmann. PE • Ted K Field. PE • Kenneth P Anderson. PE • Mark R Rolfs PE ’• David A. Bonestroo. MB-A • Sidney P viriliiamson. PE. L S • Agnes M. Ring. MB A • Allan Rick Schrmdl. P.E • Thomas W Peterson. FI. • James R Maiand. PE • Miles B Jensen. PE • L Phillip Gravel III. Pt • Daniel J Edgerton pe • Ismael Marttnee. PE. • Thomas A Syffco. PE • Sheldon j Johnson • Dale A Grove. PE. • Thomai A Roushar P£ • Robert J. Oevery. PE. Offices: St Paul. St Cloud. Rochester and Wiiimar. MN • Milwaukee W? • Chicago. IL \Mbtlie: WWW bonestroo com Paul Weinberger Zoning Administrator/Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 1074 Wildhurst Trail File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2745 Dear Paul: :• I) 1 wu I wrvyr.Uv.Q We have reviewed the proposed site plan for the proposed home construction located at 1074 Wildhurst Trail. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The proposed home location abuts the proposed san itary sewer easement. It is critical that the home construction not encroach into the easement to protect the City’s future access to the sewer. We assume the home will be slab on grade so that no basement excavation is necessary. • All silt fence should be installed prior to any clearing, filling or grading activity. Silt fence should remain in place until vegetation has been established. • We have no problem with the proposed wetland fill and mitigation provided the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) concurs. • It appears the proposed driveway will be constructed over the existing lift station. The City should review the proposed driveway design and detemiine whether this will create conflicts. • A grading plan should be provided for review. No grading activity or heavy equipment should be allowed within the sanitary sewer easement. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa, City of Orono 233S West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651*636*4600 • Fax; 651*636*1311 wyiLii gardens GARDf.NS *U4 VaJ ;uW\)trs<f tfwfK'iifS j~'Sa5)w FRONT C.LILVATION - rC.TC.K50N RC.5IPC.NCC. SCAir..*^-*^ U fr b H '■^'^v.3 .. :/ y i : •iii • > % • >• 5’! * 4 ii. KC.AR (EAST) ELEVATION 3f r. ••* .• II .*• I Ifj •: * /• /......... j M/• I ^ #•»—»L#« 4 IXIIwy^CMCM CAgU.-iJfV*— J^mdUmrn*r^ rCLMACt t. — ; ! < 1“ V / y 'A ■• V w I 'I i\ J / o-fc..^-, ';ji^ t M ^ 3E3 )"r' hL^*"' • * Asia MA)jg^Lg.Vr. L LIGHTING MAN 30^-.v»-.^ VvA RUN DATE 01/07/02 BATCH 505 fROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 13 0217 01000 WZLDHURST TR DAVID A TIHP I NICHELLE TIHP DAVID A TIHP 1000 HlLDtlURST TR HOUND HN 5530^ HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PHOPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 21 0002 0A505 WEST BRANCH RO HARRIET J HORGART HARRIET J HORGART 1003 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 5536^ REPORT NO. PI^35A01 PAGE 1^ 38 07-117-23 21 0013 01001 WILDHURST TR NANCY L FERRELL NANCY L FERRELL 1001 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 5536^ PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 9ROP AODR ^H<RER NAtCE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 07-117-23 21 0018 01003 WILDHURST TR HARRIET J HORGART HARRIET J HORGART 1003 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 55368 38 07-117-23 24 0030 01045 WILDHURST TR HICHAEL V HCKENNEY HICHAEL V HC KENNEY 1045 WILDHURST TRAIL HOUND HN 55384 38 07-117-23 24 0041 01040 WILDHURST TR J H PREW t K L PRCW JOHN I KAREN PREW 1040 WILDHURST TR HOUND rfN >5384 38 07-117-25 24 0011 01080 WILDHURST TR RVC HONES INC RVC HONES INC 15500 WAYZATA BLVO WAYZATA HN 55341 38 07-117-23 24 0031 01055 CITY OF CITY OF P 0 BOX WILDHURST TR ORONO ORONO 88 CRYSIaL DAY HN 55323 38 07-117-23 24 0045 01008 WILDHURST TR F G JORGENSEN I R H ASHER F 6 JORGENSEN t R H ASHER 1008 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 55384 38 07-117-23 24 0024 91085 WILDHURST TR H A SCHULTZ ETAL HARVEY A SCHULTZ 1085 WILDHURST TR HOUND HN 55384 38 07-117-23 24 0032 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HICHAEL/CHRISTINE LITTHANN HICHAEL LITTHANN 4172 UTICA AVE S BLOOHINGTON HN 55437 38 07-117-23 24 0048 01074 WILDHURST TR ILONA J PETERSON KENNETH C PETERSON 14820 13TH PL N PLYHOUTH HN 55447 M N „ : I f .* 0. I. » (:vl TOTAL BATCH 505 00012 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 13, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2740 Jeffry & Nancy TwidwcII 1865 Concordia St. Variance — Public Hearing LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 22,000 s.f. (.5 acre) Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet B Sur\ey (i-.xisting) C Site Plan (Proposed-Preferred) D Preferred Plan Elevations/Floor Plans E Preferred Plan Hardcover Calculations F Letter from ApplicantsT^lardship G Letter from Arborist H Letter from Adjacent Neighbors I Site Plan (Non-Preferred Option A & B) J Non-Preferred Hardcover Calculations/Elevations/I loor Plans K Site Photos show ini> trees Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (L)(2); Hardcover in 75-250’: Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover, l o permit 4,797 s.f. (33.54%) hardcover where 3,575 s.f (25%) is allowed. .Application Summary: 1 he applicants own the subject property and arc requesting a hardcover variance in the 75 250’ setback /one to construct a new residence on the lot. Background: The applicant’s first two proposals were more e.xpansiv e than the plan now in front of the Planning Commission. After reviewing the initial application, staff discussed lot coverage by structures on the lot w ith the applicant, explaining •*'at structural co\ erage on the lot was increasing and would be over the 15% allowed by city code. The applicant redesigned the residence to meet the 15®/b lot coverage by structures for the property. However, hardcover in the 75-250’ /one still exceeded the allowed amount. That proposal was on the agenda for the February Planning Commission meeting. The applicants decided to table that application prior to the meeting to work further with their design to better conform to city code. The applicant's have diligently done that. 1 his proposal further reduces the lot coverage by structures and hardcover in the 75-250’ setback /one. I lowever. hardcover in the 75-250’ .setback zone still exceeds the 25% allowed by city code. The proposed plan (Preferred Plan) locates the new residence behind the average lakeshore setback. All the structure is located within the 75-250’ setback zone. The structure is 2.565 s.f (11.7"b) which is well below the allowed 15%. Jeffry >Sanc^' TmiJ^cII IS65 Concur Jia Street Varijnees 3 13/2002 Page / The applicants have p;ovId?d three plans for the property. 1 he three plans are Preferred Plan, Non- Preferred Plan A and Non-Prcfei red Plan B. The three plans show how varying the placement of the residence on the property can meet hardcover requirements, which trees will remain or necessitate removal, and location of the residence with adjacent properties. The size of the structure remains the same with each plan. Preferred Plan: The applicant's Preferred Plan requires a hardcover variance in the 75-250 ’ setback zone, keeps the residence in line with the neighboring properties, and allows the three mature maple trees to remain. Non-Preferred Plan A: The applicant's Non-Preferred Plan A does not require any variances. It indicates the residence would be moved back on the property approximately 30' from the street and all three of the mature maple trees would be removed. Non-Preferred Plan B: The applicant ’s Non-Preferred Plan B does not require any variances. The residence is Hipped from Non-Preferred Plan A. Again the residence wold be moved back on the property and be located approximately 30' from the street and tw o of the mature maple trees w ould be saved. Hardcover: Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area: Proposed to be 4,797 s.f. (33.54%) per the preferred plan. The proposal exceeds the 25% hardcover allowed by Orono ordinance for new construction. The entire structure is located within the 75-250 ’ setback area. The applicants wish to construct the residence closer to the lake in line with other properties. By doing this they w ill be able to keep the three mature maple trees on the lot. However, it ittcreases the hardcover in this setback zone. If the applicant were to move the residence even further back on the propert>- to meet hardcover requirements in the 75-250' setback area a couple things would happen: • The average lakeshore setback would change for the adjacent properties. If adjacent properties decide to redevelop they would need to be located further back on the property than currently exist. A domino effect would occur, with each new residence being required to locate further back on the lot and closer to Concordia Street. Do we want residences to be located closer to Concordia Street? 1 he proposed location keeps the new residence in character with the neighborhood and minimizes the domino effect, but results in excess hardcover. • Hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is over the allowed 25%. To reduce this to the required 25%. approximately 1.222 s.f. of hardcover would need to be removed. The lot averages about 21 5' deep and is 102' wide. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included his statement of hardship in Exhibit G. The appliciuit should also be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. n02*2740A Santy TwiJwell 1865 Concordia Street yartances 3/13/2002 Page 2 Drainage: The applicant did not submit a drainage plan with the application. A drainage plan needs to be approved by city staff prior to City Council review of this application. Issues for Consideration: 1. A residence currently exists on the property in a non-conforming location too close to the lake and will be removed. Existing total hardcover on the site reduces from 7,698 s.f to 5,049 s.f. 2. The lot area and width are conforming for the LR-IC zone, therefore is not a hardship for this property. 3. The new residence will meet average lakcshore setback and all other required setbacks. Should the potential negative impact on average lakeshore setback for adjacent properties be considered as a hardship justifying e.xcessive hardcover? 4. Does the Planning Commission feel tree location and preservation is a hardship and meets the hardship criteria for a hardcover variance? Will the trees survive construction? Should a covenant or re.solution reflect if the tree/trees don't survive new ones must be planted? 5. The applicant has included sidewalk and driveway on the plan and in the hardcover calculations. 6. The proposed house and deck can meet the hardcover requirements for the property if it is moved back on the lot. 7. The house footprint is not excessive and further reduction of house/garage size won't significantly alleviate the hardcover issue. 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission must first conclude whether the hardships supporting this variance request are valid. Even if they are. Planning Cotnmission should consider whether there are alternatives for house/garage configuration that preserx e the desired square footage yet reduce driveway hardcover while preserving the trees. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variance and prior to going to City Council a grading plan be submitted and reviewed by City Engineer. 2. Recommend denial of variance, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. H02-27-10A Jeffry &. Nancy Th iJa etl 1865 Concordia Street Variances 3/13/2002 Page 3 •A ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB l.ot Area Lot Width Required .5 Acre 100' Actual .5 Acre 102' i The subject lot conforms to lot area and lot width. Lot Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 22.000 s.f.Allowed: 3,300 s.f.15% Existing: 2,498 s.f 11.4% Propo.sed: 2,565 s.f 11.7% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75'7,700 s.f 0 s.f 1,574 s.f 252 s.f (0%)(20.4%)(3.27%> Steps 75-250'14,300 s.f 3,575 s.f 6,124 s.f 4.797 s f (25%)(42.83%)(33.54%) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFF AND NANCY TWIDWELL , OF LOT i, BLOCK 1..FAGERNESS WOODS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA • •tPAOlM «an ar«"bMM ^ t* IM If*# #1 •» *«Mt •«# fl*rr«#« l| #•#« n#l m #wcr otMi#^i» Ey.1 <shA^ •I t»# #>aii» #a#c/4## #r t. «M »•*# i#c«b«* #f • rt ta fCO AM ■K^cSHl COFFIN & 6B0NBERG, INC •lt.47>494t 4i ■i w M e# ffmf I M * tMif UGMi JSiktL^ui^^ase£±X- .JlsMzll. muBmm mmm "5STT" lanar M-10* • • « • - •Pre^kv'red CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFF AND NANCY TWIDWELL OF LOT i BLOCK 1. FAGERNESS WOODS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA I .5• i 's: EXtSTINC HOUSE w.i 11 ;s?j II $/ V.. w <9/ /^// =^o */ k2v^ is 'X M *v ' / /2 >C:/ \"i/ V / / / r*J*5iSsE i /4s- XT— X lo' • 9hx» * •*xcs *^.»T »• tfi«. 6Mar.«f »l N«« ^Uf4»09 »W«% !»»• iKO<<««» oi •» >iowM OH0 9V^9«. tM »*»• ioc9<*«« o< «4 '^Nv«r»*r«'‘ ih«r«o« t| «o#« t« «r«». jr, otl^ »l» vZ—* Pf^-kr/^ct Sk^cS 5^Lve^ COmN k GRONBESG. INC 40 TAMM AVMc mm •l»-479-4t4f *' *O0v O0yw9 nMi fi« McrcAfOK. mumm M n»n w mm k*r* 4 * ■ _•♦rr ^ 'I f AJJ- > >i • i‘• \^ly \y.... . A'-^ . .■' vjM.*^.', Pk»oS- . • ■•v.v _ . .» ... ' r ■ '>V^i' T^Al'r?’v/^E,LL -CA^'vE. /AkJ. -i ^j^5e"" e-hvatok J ■ w£. //M i-oi. V *^1 , *N o ■V II > I « A -It* 9Bc#uo Flooc c:e.iLiMCi ! A I A-Pl^t^T PUo«. ■4r I Li**’' 'i ' ’i * f ^ ^ > r VT ivr v’j*'-m" rr^----^ L^I Wjvt, \.i ^ v/iA ^ i \ !.• 4 , ft. h "v‘i S^0 [If n ;.u: r\ .?' '".'i 1 «’ 1 4)m h 1 1^ 1 W- ■ " ■' ■ ................................................................. _ f ♦ — T^\DVsj£U‘w- HO^^e Ci^HSyJo .'AU. LAicEQ:::= •SCALE: QADC BLBATOU /AAfZ. 1-C2. w .J I I I I > ‘ • r, ‘ % »• ■ •. ! .\\'A ,'.'•••Vi . . '.V c; • ' •; , - ’. r vv Vv’\^ 'ife f ■ • > r I •,' ' '•' ».•''. , » > • '' ' ; •■ .r. ‘■■■.' ' • 'j ' ‘ ;< • •'tv:,. ■ • ■• . '•' '.1 • ■ J V • V r-1' ' 'i' • -C; ■ • ■ C>,%.I \ ■ -A.;, . I T ; i 's'V>"'Vv;‘msm - V.> A- J* ■V StctKio Pvc<ai- 4 o •,«^,T r*^«- •j^UowC LB.’BU V •» ■ - CPOMO /AU , K^O'fZ-TH EL&vKTioM"'" S/ZOC MAf :-0l- L- a “TVUCV4E.LL 'AOAE, O^2.0kIO . SOOTH £LJE.v;\T\0*4_.„ O^JVf c S^/.CC /^A(2. 1-02. Tvaj rvj E.=o- kio, M.1^ • S:^w£ it>"i\'-c‘ l-Ol. F^PB^O S(iHeM£ ALL ^\<3»hWr\ah!^T TP€£^ :p\p#* fL««»....:' ;^fe'T4.‘»F’Se«e»^ iUC*OSF vgM>oJT fuso^ i|S\4Sf AA2A SJMMM.Y House Ff<0MT fbfk.H MuO AomA lAMoie DAlVev^-^ (•» Sf If4 ^';i ©p 5<. fip U9>U Sir pfOMT VMAUC lO^ SP TtflT^L KC. 4111 <f « “hbSA^» TtfI>SL HA MW>\A)eO = Sl9?l: “TVJlDVslS UL- WOA\e Rf^i^FLoof*- flAsA SCALE. W *»’*<?' —1 1 r,7 1^,/ 1 9 Fki'-i-J FLi>Oa. A-C^ i ATTij /I 5is 6€JDud r'^OOP- Vb"*>'.p' //A<i. I-Oi. cf:)!s:o ,/\u. Pl2.5rcE.iC.6D HARDCOVE SETBACK ZONE: (CIBCLE ONE) (T 0-7y EVISTINO HARnrOVE. IN 7nNP LoeKToA .. £■ 250-500'500-1000' House Lenfth Width B. C. DriTtWFay D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other Pock, X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A A + B + B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70Nf, A. House _____________ X Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatiVDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X X 34- 14* US*!. ait- 1100 23.4A I?-! lOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •2V2 + B "noo X 100 -3.*n S.F. S.F. •STDtaevwALL S.F. S.F. • S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F, STgPe, S.F. ?A"!*io S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B y 1 00- •PP-EFEftP.ED HSJJ6E UasATlOtOi — hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75- 250 50^^ t EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 70NP; A. House Length Width X X X B. Gsrage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other Arne A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _____________ + B ____ _________________ ♦ B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7nWF A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D, Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ __ + B X 100 - 500-1000' \'2_ \ Ar S.F. O.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. CoMcAE' S.F. *2.00 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. n\ 5A- S.F. S.F. <■-«>& S.F. S.F. ItSoo S.F. A S.F. B % % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. r7o-S.F. 2.1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. [k^oo ST. A S.F. B % timm fc-i r-n • ir-'i March 4, 2002 Variance Request • Jeff and Nancy Twidwell 1865 Concordia Street. Orono MN 55391 Background and Our History A brief baci.ground regarding our property helps to explain why we are requesting a variance. Our property wos first developed in 1941 beginning with a small cabin. Over the years, there have been multiple additions. With these additions, the home was expanded to the south into a sloping hill. This has created 1) limitations for further expansion or remodeling, and 2) severe drainage and runoff issues. Over the past two years we have made two formal attempts at remodeling but due to the innumerable problems with the present structure and drainage, this has been impractical if not impossible. We have lived in our present home for 7 years. We love our beautiful lot and our neighborhood. For these reasons we have chosen to rebuild rather than move. We hope to spend the next 30 + years on this property. Our intent with the new project has been and continues to be 1) to provide an adequate home for our family’s needs including an attached garage, 2) to preserve the large maple trees in the center of the lot, 3) to improve the serious drainage & runoff issues that exist on the lot, 4) to markedly reduce the hardcover, and 5) to move the structure back to the accepted 75’ setback. Proposed Home Our hardship, and therefore request for variance, relates to preservation of the three large maple trees that run down the center of the buildable zone of our lot. These trees are an integral part of the beauty and makeup of this lot. While surrounding lots are heavily treed, we have few other mature trees and these are on the periphery of the lot. “Large Trees ” are specifically sited in the variance application packet as justification for hardship and this definitely pertains in the case of our lot. Earlier plans for rebuilding were withdrawn because, as proposed, they exceed^ the hard cover requirements and they did not preserve one of these three maple trees. We have worked diligently to re-design a home that is an appropriate size for the lot and neighborhood and to locate this home properly on the lot. Our new plan, 1) meets lot coverage restrictions, 2) removes all existing hardcover from the 0 - 75’ zone (except steps down hill to lake), 3) reduces hardcover dramatically, 4) preserves the three large maple trees in center of lot (see attachment from arborist), and 5) maintains “proper" alignment of the new home with adjoining properties on both the lake side and road side of the existing lot. 3hlc3- March 4. 2002 Variance Request • Jeff and Nancy Twidwell 1865 Concordia Street, Orono MN 55391 Comparison of Existing vs. Proposed When comparing the proposed hardcover to the existing hardcover, all aspects are markedly reduced. Hardcover Total hardcover 0 ’ - 75’ 75’ - 250 ’ Lot Coverage Existing 7732 s.f. 1574 s.f. (20.4%) 6158 s.f. (43.1%) 2819 s.f. (12.81%) Proposed 5049 s.f. 252 s.f. (on’y steps to lake remain) 4797 s.f. (33.54%) While the proposed structure could be built on the lot and maintain the 25% hardcover restriction, the following deleterious results would occur: 1. The three large maple trees would be destroyed. 2. An inconsistent ’’massing" effect would occur since the structure would be only 30 ’ off Concordia Street. This is totally out of character with all nearby properties in the neighborhood. 3. The new home would not line up with adjoining properties, properties that already maintain the proper 75’ lakeshore setback. 4. Domino effect could be created for any future building on adjacent properties. We are asking for a hardcover variance to provide a small amount of additional driveway to prevent all of the above problems, thus avoiding the potential of a very obvious aberration in the texture of the neighborhood. Alternative Siting rtto-*(s‘ Alternative siting of the home (i.e., flipping layout with garage and home adjacent to north property line) is not practical. The slope and lay of the land is from southeast to northwest. We face significant runoff from both the adjoining property to the south and Concordia Street. Placing the structuie on the north or lower side of the lot would only perpetuate the drainage problems we already face. Additionally, placing the structure on the north side would negatively impact our neighbors to the north. The Andersons recently completed significant landscape improvements along their newly installed fence to the noith of our propeily. A structure along this border would block sunlight and lead to loss of the new plantings. Neighborhood Support & Tree Preservation This project has the full support of our neighbors (see attachments). We have also enclosed a registered arborist assessment of the condition and preservation assurances for these specimen trees. We are willing to place a covenant on the property protecting the trees from future voluntary removal. We will voluntarily install a driveway drainage system :o mitigate the hardcover/ runoff of the entire NIarch 4,2002 Varianc* Raquaat • Jaff and Nancy TwMwail 1865 Concordia Straat, Oiono MN 58391 driveway. While Orono may not recognize this in hardcover calculations, this would 'Hinctionally ” reduce the hardcover for runoff far below the 25% limit. Summary In closing, the positive aspects of this project are obvious and ovenvhelming. The intent of the ordinances - to iniprove Lake Minnetonka water quality by minimizing water runoff, and to maintain proper size structures that beautify the Orono lakeshore community - are all met without question. We are asking to build an appropriate size home on our lot. We are asking for a variance only to add a small amount of additional driveway to allow suitable house placement to preserve three large trees, the loss of which would be an undeniable hardship in all reasonable judgment from neighborhood beauty, practical and legal perspectives. In granting this request, the character of our neighborhood is preserved. With our proposal Orono benefits. Lake Minnetonka benefits, our neighborhood benefits, and our family benefits. We thank you for your time, thoughtful consideration, and we respectfully ask for your approval of our variance request. I r Variance Request -1865 Concordia Street Jeff and Nancy Twidwell Please find enclosed supporting documents for our variance request. We have letters of support from 3 of our 4 neighbor. The remaining couple, Julie Borm and Jim Pecchia who live at 1885 Concordia Street, are out of town and could not be reached to write a letter. They were contacted previously by myself and have seen our proposal and are in full agreement with the plan. A letter can provided upon their return if necessary. Also enclosed is a letter from Steven Cook, a certified arborist and forester as well as president of The Cook Company, a forestry consulting firm. We asked him to evaluate the trees in question. JeffTwidwell WWM \ ww M r<« « •rMOC. oi r^>. ^2^- ik ri* .. S. * A. • * • . . .r li -. M ^ .. / I !>;: C’.JCii.’C >.Avf/,.iC V«;>';;. >.'611. f/>f- ;V-!•;>.?■.!. March 2.2002 Mis. Nanqf Twidwdl 1863 Concordia Street Orano, MN 55?^! Dear Mn. TwidweU: ® of on yourproper^, and iheir poteoiial lo survive p^Ue constnwion scenarios. ^ In that legsodt I made the following Pfwnmfpfy * “5“^!? *‘=">« •“ *■«“ «l we» » be inf000 condition. No si^ficam dieback was observed and all appeared to have full crowns. • Tiee muribcr 1,2 and 3 will all be lost in scenario “A". • If ^ compaction and root damage in^acts arc properly mimmized during construction activities, tree number 1 aould exhibit a decent cha^ of loog-tenn survival. Some of theprecautions recommended ate: a) Root cutting using a vibratory plow just outside construction limits before excavation. b) Ooveiiog soil io die north and east of tree number 1, and around the stem, with at least one fbot of wood chips. This mulch should also be used around trees 2 and 3. • Hw drivew^ location dqiicaMl in "C" has the least impact on trees 2 and 3 by using the ongmal area east of the trees as part of the path of the driveway. I have also outli^ oo scenario *C" two lecommendcd utility corridors for your new utility service which will jiost likely be underground. These corridors are recommended to minunLoe root dlsnqnloo of the existing trees. Plea.‘e feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely. Foresmr Page 1 of I SubJ; House Variance Date: 3/3/02 1.33:36 PM Central Standard Time From: s. d. towle@woi1dnet att. net (Steve Towle) To: JT4Huskers@aol com (Jeff and Nancy Twidwell) To Whom It May Concern, Our neightXKS aaoss the street from us. Dr. and Mrs. Jeffery Twidwell residing at 1865 Concordia St. Wayzata, Mn., have proposed certain improvements to their original home building project We are in total concurrence with these revised plans which include the following: Saving three large Maple Trees on the lot and setting the house in such a possition on the lot that it will be in concert with the homes on either side of them. Since purchaseing their home at 1865 Concordia the Twidwell's have maintained the highest standards of property stewardship and we as their neighbors are very pleased to endorse their building plans and hope that they will be fulfilled. Sincerely, Stephen Towle / Janet Gilbert Husband and Wife 1850 Concordia St Wayzata, Mn. 55391 Headers Return-Path; <s.d.towle@worldnet.att.r)et> Received: from rly-yh01.mx.aol com (rIy-yhOI mail.aol.com (172.18 147 33]) by air-yh02 mail aol.com (V83.35) with ESMTP id MAILINYH23-0303143336; Sun. 03 Mar 2002 14 33 36 -0500 Received: from mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc22.worldnet att.net [204.127 131.47]) by rly- yh01.mx.aol com (V83.35) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYH18-0303143311; Sun. 03 Mar 2002 14 33 11 - 0500 Received from oemcomputer ((12 92 30 86]) by mtiwmhc22.worldnet att.net (InterMail vM.4 01 03 27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020303193310 WDZW13933. mtiwmhc22 worldnet att net@oemcomputer> for <JT4Huskers@aol.com >; Sun. 3 Mar 2002 19 33 10 ■*•0000 Message-ID: <004a01c1c2eb$88bd6060$561e5c0c@oemcomputer> From: "Steve Towle" <s.d.towle@worldnet.att net> To: "Jeff and Nancy Twidwell" <JT4Huskers@aol com> Subject: House Variance Date: Sun. 3 Mar 2002 14 42 19 -0500 MIME-Version 10 Content-Type: multipart/altemative; boundary="-~=_NextPart_000_0047_01 C1C2C1.9F3F7FA0" X-Priority 3 X-MSMail-Pnority: Normal X-Mailer Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50 4807 1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5 50 4807.1700 Sunday. March UJ, 2W2 Amenca Unline; J1 4Huskers r H 3H/02 Orono Land Use Application # 01-2740 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing this letter as support for the home project of Jeffrey and Nancy Twidwell at 1865 Concordia Street. Our neighborhood is endowed with many mature trees and any effort to prcscr\ e this woodsy setting is commendable. The Twidwell,s proposal to try to preser\ e three mature trees with the placement of their new house is in our estimation the proper thing to do. We would urge you to approve this land use application. Sincerely, Vincent R. Anderson Virginia B Anderson 1855 Concordia Street taul & Karen Hanser i IIOOConconnaSiMt Wiyzata.WN SU*1 M«ch3.2 To the member* of the Orono Hanning Commiaaion and City Counci, We era wffWng to you in aupport of Jeff and Nancy TwMMefl'a planned buHcfng project for their property atlSSSConoordtaSbeet We underaiand that they are requesting a variance to increaae hardcover above the 25% Imit A* naighbora, we agree and believe that thia hardcover ia needed to provide some extra dilveMey to protect the three lar^ Maple treee In the mktde of their property. Since their lot in not heaviy wooded, loaa of theae trees vroukt aigniflcanlly impact the beaufy of their property as wMI as that of the neighborhood. We beiave that any dedaion between a eight variance in hardcover and the destnjction of decades old heaNhy treee should go in tavor of preserving the treee We understand that the home can be bdR on the lot and mainiain tfw 25% hardcover but it wi need to be the minimum 30 feet ftom the rood and dealroy the trees in question. Bidding that doae to the street is certainty out of character vdh the aurrouridhigpropertiea. Also, this wi take their home out of aiignmerl ^ their lakeahore neighbors to the north and south. In oonduaion, we strongly support their varianoeapplicaliaa Their plan makes sense to us and we respecthiy requot that it be approved. Sincerely, ■4,/' f Paul and Karan Hansen CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFF AND NANCY TWIDWELL OF LOT i, BLOCK 1. FAGERNESS WOODS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA dr* <%« w»e» duangi i# lp<9''dr §t (Bfi ^OMtd •^dee*r»* n 4m* »»•« di Pta*''A'3 Vits ^fctwcixA. •AH 1 mrto. 1 1 HHB * COFFIH t GtOHBnC, DIC 's^StSSSI X CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFF AND NANCY TWIDWELL , OF LOT i, BLOCK 1. FAGERNESS WOODS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA o o8 rS :m i;l tfCA Qfv>:n»ifcjit nr Pf »• MMtf *r ««twm w*#» i« r»»- th* bm0mr^ •» «w iK«l«gr •> •« tvttfif *«M« oii fvopt. M »n« iKO(i«i •! ^ It ^9n "•« ta inp* «ina» a^a«amaMt » »wcr6atHm»*4t T^:)\de4icL cv.«-v£L A-'h'^b S(K^Qc\ iari mwtoi ‘vm fco VKV • Ji&A -le cornu k GHONBEBG, IRC tonuiCMi •if-m-4i4f Mat * «• a lait uKIMO MOVfMVMi O 9mmm mm ■« um m m wm m mtm If m utmm mmBait .gJijr KAU ^s^ •B-104 Mc?r-r52.£PSP.?2.£0 HARDCOVEl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ^ Q.7S'75-250* loa^c^ ar IHEEl 250-500* • 500-1000* £ A .iKiitv G HARPCOVER IN 7(lf^ House Length Width X X X 3A- B. C. Diltumiy X X D. Bidewrik X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other RodX AiAeA A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ •*• B ____ ______________ B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House ________________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E. RMte/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 •• ai2_ 11 oo 29*2. 3. S.F. HoAg _ S.F. STtt-'ttWAWl. SJ^. CwtRU'^ S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. PATio S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ____S.F. S.F. 2s. 4A % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % 6(^loa- F IL MCJT fP-EF£|2.p.BD UCKTVDfA ^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250-500* 500-1000' I EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House Lxngth Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ ^ B ____ - - B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF A. House Length Width X X X ss as B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other Pe>ft.ai4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ + B X too \i\A 'Lee n\ 34 \e>yi 71*1- ^GO WO 3519 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. «oUcp.6TS S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.ftflfcVC cUTUft S.F. W»oO 6o«Lt S.F. ____S.F. ____________S.F. A-L.fea} 0/, ______ % A B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B y. \ \ ■ I ,1 ________ «. “ - **" .r* “ zr — — ■ ~ 1L ~ —- — — — - ' I i^y / / V' ^ '^V 'l I A i i. \ 1 i-» 11 1 ~ _________________ '* .7 pLoc^ ~1 C^CsJC /AU. AlffvvN^'i^’ r -'Nsir }>‘-". 'i^v.i''l ^C-=e~ ElEVAT'o^Ji / S^A _ c- V / .t' ^iOC.NU. 1-02:K ) ^ 0 j *» > \o it r TAJ\DVsie.i_i_ HOA^e Of^UO A\U . Lax-eqds 9CALB ■ S//vDC el&nIktoiU: .AA^A^il-o2. jr CE\U»sl3 V pUofs- ; . .'V t* - * T (*r » I . ^ / ‘-A, .-, •;C.Crr f*^«L . w,‘mR7 I I I I V mV- . fr VsIAIka/T LEi'El TOD\Aisi:c_i^//s~ r.:::;j:: _ ; Df^MO MkA , k.cn2.TM S.L&VA’noM'lT' SAkD^ V Z TVi'CV4£LL HoiA'c: ....C^OMO SOUTH ELE.VA^nQyL_: SC^L6 ..............................* g^.ccz ^ 1-02. b 4oT P«F6«>6D ^■^ b MtmiKtS >' - Tf-ma* MJBMMB e>' 2.6l3MIF|cA»4Trp-eee *1 fU6f.“. iw*o^ MAU^oOT fv^i^ TbTKLm.^F.- 4SN-4 S.F \\-----7 H------ \ • • " \ /\y. \ MoH' A V G> vr - Oo ti^is ‘ScLb’fJ 15’' "tnKics 3f\v/'6 ’^:l- MCA Mojsa FPOKfT fWoM t^sace o^ Iftlo (•» «i» if4 6^ 1'7Z 0P ndo 6A- Pf^ViT NA4AUC 10^ SF . TdTK. Rc. 351^ "TeTA^L HA AiUJvOeP i Wi»‘5F C^'O^JOA^kl. LAkA scAl-E. -r^lDv4>S LL. WOAAe fWrf^Loo**- f’LAid h AP-£A - ATTtc -•&io SF €€^;oud FLOOft- 0(20>^ S^-S Vb" »'.'■<>' 1*02- v? o Itl eJei. ? S^LE AiJktiL /, Sr I i**»*-v.»-l\.: . ''. Y ./idl'L 1 >V, ■ ;'.. ’ - K"! V P‘l m '■ ^ */. :ji KX V, •* ' ‘- ^ «"lii rf ( J , 'J '' h I- 7 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator March 12. 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2752 Jerry and Cindy Gray 880 Partenwood Road Variances List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Site Plan D Resolution No. 1861 - Approval of Variances in 1985 E 1985 Approved Site Plan Application Property owners had submitted a two-part variance application. 1. To permit additional hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback for expansion of the existing driveway. The expansion of the drive is to recreate the original design of the dri\ eway as a circular drive. 2. fo permit construction of a screen porch on the lakeside of the residence, fl ’ariance Application for Screen Porch - Withdrawn 3/8/02! 1985 Variance Request 1 he City Council approved variances for a previous property owner in 1985 to permit construction of an addition on the house. The approval included the requirement to remove a large portion of driveway to compensate for the additional hardcover the new addition would place on the property. A copy of the Resolution approving the \ ariances is attached. The resolution states in the conditions, the maximum allowed hardcover for the property is 7.087 s.f (38.8%). Additionally, the applicants were advised that future additions of hardcover may be approved only with further concurrent removals of existing hardcover. 1 he property owners have stated the house won a national award in 1978 from the American Institute of Architects and they would like to incorporate the original drive that was required to be removed after the 1985 addition There is no hardcover that can be removed from the property to allow a greater amount of hardcover on the site. Review of Hardcover Following a review of the approved site plan versus the actual development of the property revealed one issue. The approved site plan (Exhibit E) indicates a lakeside deck that runs approximately '/i the length of the house next to a dog run. The current site plan (Exhibit C) shows the dog run has been removed and replaced with a deck. It is unclear when the deck was actually constructed since a building permit was never applied for. The existing condition of the deck suggests the replacement was done some time ago. Staff did review air photos of the property, but there was no way to conclude when the deck was built. In 1992 the City of Orono adopted the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Shoreland Management Ordinance incorporated the hardcover regulations that have existed since 1975. The Comprehensive Plan (CMP Pg. 3A-27 and reflected in Municipal Code Section 10.56) states the specific intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is: A Protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka and other lakes within the City by allowing development of uses in the shoreland areas which are compatible with the goals and policies of this Community Management Plan. B Provide appropriate standards for development which will minimize the impacts of shoreland development on the water quality and the economic, aesthetic, and natural environment values of Orono's lakes. One of the primary ways the City has encouraged development that is consistent w ith the policies and goals of the shoreland overlay district (All land within 1000 feet of the lakeshore) is to limit the amount of hardcover. Second Driveway Access Section 6.05 of the Municipal Code requires a permit to be issued by the Public Works Director for additional access to the property. The site plan shows the new driveway arrangement w ith a second access to Partenwood Road. ITie request to allow a second access was not approved. 1 he position the City had taken to not approve the second access was ba.sed on minimizing the amount of accesses to the road. Section 6.05 does not limit the amount of driveway access to public road, however the City has had a policy to allow only one access per property. Primary Issues 1 . The 1985 re.soIution approving the garage addition on the property required a portion of the existing driveway to be removed. The driveway was removed in 1986 when the addition was complete. The resolution also stated any future additions of hardcover may be approved only w ith further concurrent removals of existing hardcover. 2. The decision to not permit a second access to Partenw ood Road is a decision of the Public Works Director. The only option for the property owners is to request in writing an appeal of an administrative decision to the Council. Concurrent review of the variance request and appeal should be done before the Council, following review of the hardcover variance by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application to increase hardcover on the property to permit an expansion of the driveway based on the following: A The City approval from r'^f* i>.quired removal of hardcover within the driveway and required any new hardcover to only r«.|^lace existing hardcover. B The property is located near the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka in three directions (Maxwell Bay to the South, Stubbs Bay to the North, channel connecting Maxwell and Stubbs Bay). Additional hardcover that is not necessary to provide adequate access from the street would reduce the amount of natural surface in the locality and be detrimental to the lake. C There is no apparent hardship that would require additional driveway area and access to the property. The Public Works Director has denied a secondary' access to the property. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2. To deny. 3. Table. 4.Other Action. Jan-22-20G2 04:2Q|HI Froi-CITY OF ORONO 49S224946I6 T-532 P COB/017 F-9S4 i. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE A* PLICATION Initial Applicarion Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stiuciures $250.00 After-dte-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY information Site Address flA_____ Applkaiion If QZ-'ZIS’Z. I ef X Date Received Amount Paid :^oo g? Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) -•7*?^ , _______________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ________________________(rronth/year) I (do) aq^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: >L residential ___^o*er (speciivi _____ Zoning District: ___________ APPLICANT Phone (home)__________ Name y\/'.rr>> fAj.i, l^c. Phone (work) Address: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name h-> t <y ^ O ^ ^ Cl th y Zip:4^ y 4t^7- Address:JU Phone (home) Phone (work)(V\l City: C^'icno . M Zip: ^) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ lO.oo o Describe request in detail: (attach additional sheets if necessary)■ N VARIANCES REQUIRED _____ Lot Area ___Lot Width 'X Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) Y ' 1) K'j i •"K HARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compile with Zoning Code requirements:Tbu ilie__hif-^rit/rn A - iv<’ u. -fe )<) i n ■clj'i-VC l/e 0 f l-t yiYll'tW/l uti I7/ p y • 1 x ^) (attach additional sheets if necessar^ ' , ei7tw-i>v6l^ pyic^'vi^l Tiif5 ■>.V,r4i wt.4 )<?//! \^U by -VV>c Cy S4-«^VsbS Cka^V* ^^ivtv>JiW'A\^C^ ----------------•«T.^-J ------------ tt\r^vJ%W , V ClWV i«.V v;»vvs*A»*'*'V govt lot 5 GOVT LOTS I& £ ..... •. » • : H .. • s... *••.• «/ U •*. •*. *i >... •.. ILlEQMMSf lai City of OROJNO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL |\J0. 1861 A RESOLDTIOK GRANTING A VARIANCE TO municipal zoning code SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE 1964 applicant") has^an interest (hereinafter "the Partenwood Road within the Ci^v property located at 880 legally describerasA)llLf: ^ of .Orono (hereinafter "city") and (hereinafter*'"tVe property °)^ and""County, Minnesota; T^lfso^^sttbTckTon^^^ 1585 "sgu^rt^fee? IT Jn""the 1635 square^feet of exi"tino°hA^i"^ concurrent removal of zone, for a net decrease ^ the 75-250- setbaclc reducing from the existira 7ii7 feet of hardcover, or square feet (38.8%) in the‘^7n• (39.1%) to 7087 hardcover is normally alioweL^ ^®tback zone where only 25% Orono, MinnesiJf®*'®^®*'^' ^^^OLVED by the City Council of FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #964. 2. The property is located in the iR-in Lalceshore Residential Zoning District. ^ ^ Family on Sep\o°mbo"r application proposed variance based upon the following fin^dings; Applicant is proposing a net reduction in hardcover y moving portions of the existing asphalt driveway. hlnr-Tf^ within the 0-75' setback zone i- lot area of 0.88 acre, the property io allowed relatively little hardcover compa-ed^to most other similar lots in the LR-ln zoning district Pago 1 of 4 0 d. w«. w • * r wm .* ..V *- --.O ' City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1861 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and rcco.-rjiiendations of the Planning Coimission, reports by City staff, connonts by the apolicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the conununity. 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; in necessary to pre serve 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 the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a 1S65 square addition to the existing home, along with the concurrent removal of 1635 square feet of existing hardcover within the 75- 250* setback area, for a not reduction of 50 square feet of hardcover or a reduction in the 75-25C setback zone from 39.1% to 38.8%, subject to the following conditions: 1. ^ Applicant shall remove the 1635 square feet of existing driveway and planting bed prior to issuance of j Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 2. The maximum allowed hardcover for this property is 7,087 square feet or 38.8% and the applicant is advised that this exceeds the normal allowance of 25% in the 75-250' setback zone. Applicant is further advised that future auditions of hardcover may be approved only with further concurrent removals of existing hardcover. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but arc permissive only and oxer ;ised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 23, 1986). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance .nhali constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority QTanted herein, and shall be punishaliic as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 4 m. A » r - s ‘v. -■>,. ‘ MMiti m City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _1961 4. The '.mdorsigned applicant has read, understood and here by 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. Page 3 of 4 SITEAPEAWTHIN 25V. HARDCOVER ZONE: ia240 SO FT LXIbllNGHARDCONTER^ RESIDENCE- 2500 DECKS: 1029 DRIVEWAYS 3090 DOO RUN 518 TOTAL' 7137 son HARDCOVER*/.: 39.1V. PROPOSED MATRDCOVER ^ ■iRrs»©ENcr=^ oecKs DRIVEWAYS: DOG RUN TOTAL* 3446 813 2310 Sl8 7067 SQ rt hardcover •/• 5 3ae*/. TOTAL SITE AREA: 38,275 SQ.FT PROPOSED RESIDENCE REMODELING MAYWn I f3IAV AT I AW’C a r-crsKtr> a/M SITE PLAN PROPOSED 50 NORTH t f ‘. S' TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Havsn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator March 12. 2002 SUBJECT: UQ2-2751 Terrance C. Johnson 1045 Linden Lane Variance Renewal List of Exhibits: A B C D E E G Application Resolution 3186 - Including Approved Site Plan (Variance Approval of 10/12/92) Cii> Council Minutes (10/12 92) Plat Map Property Photo Approved I Icvations Property Owners Notification I.ist Application Property owner has applied to renew variances approved in 1992. The original approvals were to permit additions to the existing residence and adding 3 to 4 courses of block under the existing house to raise the ceiling height of the walkout level of the house. The residential additions included in the original application are as follows: 1. Addition of second story over house. 2. Addition of attached garage and second story rcc room. 3. Addition to cast side of existing house. 4. Replacement of existing decks, addition of deck adjacent to rcc room and master suite. 5. Construction of open porch/portico over existing deck on lakeside, extend existing deck along house 10'. 6. Removal of existing detached garage and gravel parking area. 7. Construction of a new drivewav. Property owner has stated he was advised by the City that the application would not require yearly renewals. The variances expired one year from the date of approval, October 12,1993. llie intent is to complete the additions in stages w ith the raising of the house to occur first. Because the house, porch addition, and deck addition are located w ithin 75' of the lakeshore a variance is required. Site Plan Issues The primary issues as noted in 1992 were potential drainage problems that may occur due to the increased hardcover in the 75-250' setback. Secondly the increased length and steepness of the dri vew ay could create some runoff and access problems for tlie property. The approv ed plan show s a proposed driveway that would average a 12% slope. The City does not have a standard slope for a driveway, but generally a driveway sloping 10% or less is recommended. #02-2757 Terrance C. Johnson 1045 l.inden Lane_________ StafThad briefly discussed the option of lifting the entire house and moving the house back on the property. The option of moving the entire house has major cost implications since the entire lower level and foundation would be required to be replaced. The house is currently located approximately 70 ’ from the lakeshore. The deck proposed to be removed is 55 ’ from the lakeshore. The new attached deck and porch area would be appro.ximately 60’ from the lakeshore. Review of Hardcover The previous approval allowed hardcover in the 0-75 ’ /one of 7.2%, where 8.9% exists. In the 75- 250’ zone, hardcover will increase from 22.1% to 40.5% where 25% is allowed. In the 250-500’ zone hardcover reduces from 76.1% to 23.3% where 30% is allowed. The balance of hardcover moving closer to the house is due to the driveway extension and construction of a garage attached to the house. Except for the driveway, all parking areas and the detached garage located near the street would be removed. In 1992 the Planning Commission voted 4 to 3 to recommend approval of the application. The primary' concerns were the length of the driveway, potential! drainage problems, steep driveway, and amount of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. Council adopted Resolution No. 3186 by a vote of 3 to I approving variances. The resolution included language that allows the City Engineer to monitor the drainage situation on the property. Planning Commission Options for Action I. To approve if Planning Commission finds that sufficient justification exists to recommend approval of the site plan. If Planning Commission so desires, approval can be conditioned upon removal of certain aspects of the site plan since the original approval was nearly 10 years ago. To recommend denial. 3.Table. 4.Other Action, CITY 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-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U •'2.7^"7 Date Received Amount Paid '^iS'O PROPERTY INFORMATION , Site Address ^ / yirfe n Z « M €- Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not indued on required survey. Date Propei^^cquired_______________________________________l_(month/year) I (do) (dS^notD also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^"•^idential ___pother (specifV) _____ Zoning District: j R APPLICANT Name / € ^ • o oV\y\so^l Address: JO Z o City: Phone (home) Z - 23 S / Phone (work)______________ Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home) Phone (w'ork)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST-------------------- — ^------ Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: V a iria Q ^ujpuj u^\j\ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ------Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Sett .ck:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) '^■em 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) 4^ O /> i ’N " d REQUIRED SUB^^TTALS 1. 2. 3. All of tht following information must be .Mibmltted bv fh, npphVaHnn order for vour application to be cntniderori III ___ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners within ISO', labels and plat map (you must obtmn t^s list, labels and map from Hennepin County Departmenfof Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ ---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x H" for reproduction. ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing ^de are projwsed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A” x 11" Jbr reproducUon. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) ccpy 8'/j" x 11") ---- List of the leg£ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. Tins would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not cirrent owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate litt of anv other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5, 6, 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please ten ember that your yurniim gppluatum is not eontplelc if the above informatio n has nn. h,.»n t„.i..n.n APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or request, d bv the Zoning Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origmal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is tru^d correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date A- I^OSL OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further auLiorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. OwTier's Signatur Date l/o X Applicant must'liave 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. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plan ning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anangemenls to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ •% ^ •* •> u fT* o. 6 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF. THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^^-86 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AMD 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE fl621 WHEREAS, Terry and Jonell Johnson (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1045 Linden Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit "A" attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence and an attached garage, such construction constituting hardcover in the 0-75’ zone where no hardcover is allowed, hardcover in excess of the 25% normally allowed in the 75-250' zone, and structural encroachment into the 0- 75' lakeshore setback where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1621. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. The Orono Planning Commission originally reviewed this application on February 19, 1991 and voted 6-0 to table, advising applicants to submit a revised proposal excluding any additions in the 0-75' zone which are not above the existing house footprint and minimize hardcover to greatest extent possible. The applicants submitted a revised proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 18 and 20, 1991. The application was Page 1 of 8 GlTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3186 __ 5. again tabled on a vote of 4-0, with applicants being directed to provide a grading and drainage plan to confirm that runoff can be directed so as to not affect applicants ’ proposed improvements nor neighboring properties. A revised proposal (Plan D) was submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their September 21, 1992 meeting. Plan D included porch and deck additions in the 0-75' setback zone, addition of a second story above the existing house, addition of a two story attached garage and rec room with deck in the 75-250' zone, and construction of a new driveway leading from the street to the attached garage. The existing detached garage and parking area near the road are proposed to be removed. On a vote of 4 in favor, 3 against. Planning Commission recommended approval of the hardcover and setback variances necessary for construction of Plan D, based upon the following findings: a)Location of the existing garage is impractical for a residential home, requiring homeowner to walk approximately 175' from the garage to the residence. The location of the existing house partially within the 0-75' setback zone is a factor over which applicants have no control. c)The unusal shape of the lot, being 50' in width at the road and more than 150' in width at the shoreline results in a relatively high hardcover percentage in the 75-250' zone. The proposal results in a slight hardcover decrease in the 0-75' zone. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and tne effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and . welfare of the community. Page 2 of 8 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3186 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to permit the construction of additions to the existing residence which result in hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone of 7.2% where no hardcover is normally allowed, 40.5% hardcover in 75-250' setback zone where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and structural encroachment in the 0-75' zone yielding a structure setback of 60' from the shoreline where a 75' setback is normally required and no structure is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. 'llcant shall adhere to the "Plan D" grading plan (Exhibit " attached) and shall adhere to any modifications the Plan as recommended by the City Engineer now or in the future to prevent or eliminate erosion problems. 2. Hardcover in the 0-75' zone is approved at a level of 7.2%. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 40.5%. Hardcover in the 250-500' zone is approved at 23.3%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram included in Exhibit "B". 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 removal of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for Page 3 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3186 removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed pfior to the footing inspection for the construction. 3. 4. 5. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 12, 1993). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. October, Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of 1992. ting MayorJ. Diann Coettenv-ACiting K Page 4 of 8 ! • GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of Octoberr 1992, by J. Dlann Goetten & Dorothy M. Hallin, Acting Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. LIMDA S. VEE NOTARY PUBUC • MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My commission OApiros 5-12-96 ) Page 5 of 8 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this njL day of //QiJc’fy)199 2 before »e _^Note^y Public within ggr the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. MWMMHWMMMMMMMM WILL 8KA088ERQ. JR. NOtMtr PU0UC • MMNnOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY My Cofnmmion EnpifM Jun« 1>, 1997 {!am ’AEY PI ------- notary public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) }ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of _____________________' before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personaTly apeared 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 ms (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 6 of 8 siai, O - Ai# // * MM '7«V. #< “^rejtjgue^ AWt> fAeiaw^ AEitA I iiS.SM •**•*01 \ tfe'e^b/Ep K. \ As. ••' N •. \\ -5^ \ \ \N \ \\ £S2T®*^ (141.15) \ \ ^ <7 V \ \V \N \ <^ r T • A bfs •*. \ emmr’ B ^^OLtATiO0<^ -------------------- l'/*'(i^G X M99* J* V#\ /i\S9 ^ M.M. 'Ss » Nt ' %^1 r^M^fCAy •r^i (<(H..‘‘.«>)\ /■ •• #• .• ••r* 0^» M r* t *hi r« ,- ^ -V' -rtk ^ 4MS9*U‘I0 “*^. /0§.jr I I I > HA/^coi/eA, ft> ar igouLov^r^ *. 99*y9*99 ‘"0^ y0»** CCfITIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR •RRANCE C. JOHNSON HCNNePtN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LINDEN BEACH* AND LOT A. BLOCK t FOREST LAKE PARK \ Ok \ \ \ \ \ \ Cyi«rT?Ki t \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . :.^ILOI0C^" //A*.^C»vrA. ~ ^ SouAtt fooTA^s i 0-7S* 0-^-SOO\,. ----------^_________________Z-e-E" P«A :< >1, 2.VO > _C >3,^70 J) , C-3.UUO \____ . K SHet» 8.3A6.i ________________________________________________ ___ A._Per^ 6x26,______ 2^&__________ __________ _ ____A____________________________PO _ ____ C.'[ Oet^ .^:__V>gc^ lo XI7.7 ___Fi._4<^«E.c._.;i‘/jj_\S-_. -----_$-_A5>b____>. JL/fc.S'. ____H_. ytfets _____z-^^/LS^ I iT.A/K ^AlPA^. __ ___j^J...VpV£Pf^Ct^r^__ IZg -_<!.ao__ C ^0,S K') Cz 2.2 */0 ------V \ \ /I Ltouots^ Hw?Jbc»v«?<L MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 PUBLIC COMMENTS Go6tten announced the dedication of the Keiiey Parkway on October 14th has been postponed because of the untlmeiy death of Mary Keiiey. («3) 176*2iirpRRY JOHNSON, 1045 LINDEN LANE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION •3186 Mr. and Mrs. Terry Johnson were present. Gaffron explained the applicants originally submitted their proposal over a year ago. Since then, there have been many changes to the proposal. The applicants propose the removal of an existing detached garage to be replaced by an attached garage and a driveway. They also propose a new deck and a second story addition over the existing residence. This proposal results in the following hardcover percentages: 0-75’ reduction from 8.9* to 7.2*; 75-250’ Increase from 22.1* to 40.5*; and a reduction In the 250-500’ zone. He clarified that the applicants Intend to keep the wall and sidewalk system on the northwest corner of the house, but noted that It Is built with wooden cribbing containing non-compacted gravel, that only the cribbing Is considered hardcover, and the square footage of existing walkway hardcover is equivalent to the amount reported for replacement. Mr. Johnson stated they need to keep this system for drainage purposes. Gaffron reported the Planning Commission’s main concern was the steep lot and the amount of run-off funneled toward the lake. He stated the City Engineer had reviewed the property that day. Cook recommended the City condition approval on the applicants maintaining the drainageway in a manner that prevents erosion. Goetten asked if Cook felt the new proposal helps the drainage 81tuation. Cook noted the renovation will channelize the drainage and will increase the velocity of that run-off. Goetten asked who Is responsible If the Improvements on the property aggravate the drainage problem In the area. Cook stated the City should make It known It Is the responsibility of the property owner to correct any future drainage problems. 'I f - HINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Gaffron noted staff has discussed a retention pond somewhere on the property or elsewhere In the neighborhood, which may be realized at a later date. Goetten clarified the applicants Intend to use the existing foundation and asked If that foundation has been Inspected and certified by a structural engineer. Mr. Johnson stated prior to purchasing the property, they^ had a contractor visit the site who Indicated, because of the 12 block used, the foundation could support a second story. Goetten explained that If the foundation Is found to be unusable, the City will require the house to be moved further back on the property. Cal lahan said the Planning Commission felt the driveway would focus a major amount of water In a different location. He said he hesitates allowing double the amount of hardcover within the 75- 250’ zone. Butler felt, after review of the property. It Is a very awkward property and the applicants have a hardship for moving the garage closer to the house. She agreed the driveway may create a river on the property. Mr. Johnson stated the run-off actually flows across the property opposed to down the drive. He added, by decreasing the amount of hardcover at the actual point of the water entering the property, it will allow for better absorption. Jabbour suggested they consider a small landing area or berm at the top of the drive to prohibit water from Linden Lane entering the property. Gaffron noted Cook has recommended a 3% side-to-side slope for the driveway to help direct run-off to the sides rather than down the length of the driveway. Goetten agreed with Callahan that they should not allow the applicants to double the amount of hardcover within a zone. She said she would prefer the existing garage to remain in its present location opposed to the new garage. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 12, 1992 ZONING FILE #1621 - CONT. Jabbour felt this property Is a good example of the DNR’s Intent to allow a certain percentage of hardcover on a property within 1000’ of the lake opposed to a certain percentage within different zones. He felt the problem Is the need for such a long driveway, but noted the house Is of modest size. Jeff Johnson noted the Planning Commission felt the biggest impact of this project being the off-sIte drainage concern, and they felt If there Is a chance to improve that situation, it is more Important than the hardcover issue. Mr. Johnson felt they were actually Improving the drainage situation for their neighbors. It was moved by Butler, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #3186 for Application #1621 for Terry Johnson, 1045 Linden Lane, for variances to construct an attached garage and additions to the existing residence, subject to the applicant being informed prior to the Issuance of a building permit of the City Engineer’s recommendations. Ayes 3, nays 1. Goetten voted nay. Barrett suggested adding the following language to the resolution, "as recommended by the City Engineer or as may be required by the City Engineer In the future". This will ensure the ability by the City Engineer to monitor the situation In the future. Butler accepted the Attorney’s suggestion, Jabbour seconded the amendment. Ayes 3, nays 1. Goetten voted nay. Mrs. Johnson asked If they would have any recourse against the City If in the future the drainage problem became worse. Mr. Johnson asked that wording be added to ensure the City could not require the removal of the improvement should It be determined that it has caused additional drainage problems. (»#4) #1743 ALBERT HANSER, 1685 FOX STREET - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTION #3187 It was moved by Butler, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3187 for Application #1743 for Albert Hanser of 1685 Fox Street, approving the final subdivision of the property. Ayes 4,nays 0. J Wlt&t M I I? * ■ftO?-A7S'7 ' •■ * . *•'. ii^.r ., -xs J I ':.i n -* : ■'** :‘V * ^ il r? •^'A '* ■: n k -•SiM 'm: I I m < 4'* ■ V--ii« M •■■■* \>-x %• • • .^.^ • . ^ .• Y- • n1 1 1 irUN DATE 02/05/02 BATCH 510 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR L 38 07-117-23 13 0092 01005 LINDEN LA JASON BLISS JASON BLISS 1005 LINDEN LA HOUND HN 55369 38 07-117-23 13 0093 01015 LINDEN LA T J ERIKSMOEN A H H SAPA THORA J ERIKSMOEN HARY H SAPA 1015 LINDEN LA MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 13 0095 01095 LINDEN LA T C JOHNSON I J C P JOHNSON TERRANCE C JOHNSON 1095 LINDEN LA HOUND HN 55369 38 07-117-23 13 0207 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 07-117-23 19 0015 01067 LINDEN LA L C t K H KASPRICK L C I K H KASPRICK 1067 LINDEN LA HOUND HN 55369 38 07-117-23 19 0018 01055 NORTH ARM DR ANDREA DAHL ANDREA DAHL 1055 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55369 38 07-117-23 19 0020 01015 NORTH ARH DR R I L CONRAD RONALD C CONRAD 1015 NORTH ARH DR HOUND m 55369 38 07-117-23 19 0058 01065 NORTH ARH DR ROGER J ILLIES ROGER J ILLIES 1065 NORTH ARM DR HOUND m 55369 TOTAL BATCH 510 00012 .f •. y fr-J • « I i A •a REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 22 38 07-117-23 13 0099 01027 LINDEN LA L R t C L WITHAM LAWRENCE R I CHERYL L WITHAH 1027 LINDEN LA MOUND MN 55369 38 07-117-23 13 0209 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38 07-117-23 19 0019 01095 NORTH ARH DR SALLY A RHYLICK SALLY A RHYLICK 1095 NORTH ARH DR MOUND HN 55369 r 38 07-117-23 19 0066 00038 ADDRESS PENDING L C KASPRICK t K H KASPRICK L C KASPRICK I X M KASPRICK 1067 LINDEN LA CRCmO HN 55369 9 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner March 8, 2002 SUBJECT: «02-2758 Robert Pieper 3995 North >hore Drive Conditional Use Permit Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family I.akeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 1 .079 acres or 46.989 s.f. List of Exhibits: A Application B Guest Apanment/Garage Floor Plans C Photos of Property D Property Owners Notification List Pertinent Code Sections: 1. . Section 10.20. Subd. G Non-rental Guest Apartments. Background: The subject property was previously known as“Sand\ Beach Resort." Lhe property for many years liad cabins on it. The applicant purchased the property in 2000. In May 2000 the applicant applied to subdivide the property into 2 lots. The subdivision application received preliminary apprt>val to be divided into 2 lots. Even though the preliminary plat was approved, it never went forward for final plat approval. May 2000. a demolition permit was issued to clear the cabins from the property. .August 2001. a building pemiit was issued for the construction of a new residence. The proposed residence met all lot area, lot width, setba 'ks. hardcover, and lot coverage by structures sUmdards bv code. lebniary and March, 2002. the residence was part of the 2002 Spring Parade of Homes tour. It was duiing the Parade of Homes tour that Channel 5 did a preview of the residence. It was spotlighted on the morning show. Lyle Oman. Building Official, happened to be watching and listened to the description of the home. It mentioned and showed inside the home a nH)ther-in-Iaw apartment. Once in the office, Mr. Oman. ag^... ev iewed the plans. The plans do not indicate a mother-in-law apartment. A permit or conditional use permit had not been issued for a molher-in-Iaw i.,;artment. Tiw applicant was notified of the problem and promptly applied for a conditional use permit. «02*2758 Robert ^lepcr 39«>'5 North Shojc Drive ConJiiional Uvi Permit Pag' I Non-rental guest apartments are permitted by review of the Planning Commission and Council as a conditional use permit in ‘*R” residential districts. The zoning ordinance defines a non-rental guest apartment as, “An apartment within the principal residence structure on a K't for the sole use o'"-'’' e occupants of the principal rcsiucnce, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entry way and interior access method. Such apanmenis shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. The guest apartment does function as part of the main house because it is located above the garage and there is a door '/jading from the main house to the guest apartment. From the outside it appears to be part of the hou e. u J ane would not know it is a guest apartment. Parking: The garage is built to park 6 cars. The driveway is not completed, but there is plenty of room for an additional parking spaces if needed. Sewage: The property is sewvred. Interior access: There is a door leading from the main residence to the apartment. Entrv way: There arc 3 entiyways to the apartment. From inside the main residence, from the garage and another from the exterior of the structure. There is aceess from w ithin the residenee howev er, what appears to be the primar>’ entrance is the one located on the c.xterior of the residence. The exterior door goes to a stairway which leads up to the apartment. Issues for Consideration: I. Planning Commission should consider whether the outside door is a problem. Should the access door from inside the residence be a non-locking door? Close the access door from the garage? 2. Restrictive covenant should be recorded on chain of title (as part of the CUP resolution) sta:ing the apartment is w ithin the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. 3. There is adequate room for one additional parking stall if required. 4. The utilities must not be metered separately; and the apartment must not have a separate address. *02 ’7s* Robert Piepei 3995 North Shore Otwc Coniliiional Permit Pige 2 iff Options for Planning Commission Action: 1. 3. 4. Recommend approval of conditional use permit: a) Non-Rental Guest Apartment A recommendation of approval shall include consideration of the following: a)The apartment within the principal residence is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, and findings shall be made to permit the access to the guest apartment from the exterior of the structure. Mere than one exit should be available to occupants of the guest apartment area for fire safety purposes, especially since the apartment area is located next to and over the garage. Utilities shall not be metered separately from the principal residence utilities and the apartment shall not have a separate street address. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table. Other action. •02*2758 Robert Picpcr 3995 Nufth Shore Drive Conditional Use Permit Page 3 P|b-n-2C02 10:22an ProH:ITY Of Ol^C ♦6!22494S18 T-8!2 PC03/011 P-2C5 > AppUcation 7S S Date RgcdvadT" "^////o Amount Paid y 2 2 CITY or ORONO • GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ ^ .. Site Address ^UvdLL - (^C^O APPLICATp" ^ Phone (home)*'^ V ^~~X^/ 0 Name PjQ q '-, Phone (work )jy ^0 0 ") o Address / t/ T ll ^ Cirv J\ Zip V/d L/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone CnomeX Phone (work) Cit>- __ Date Property Acquired ^OI jcs^ ^00 C>_________________ I (dc) C(^~n5t)^so o^n the adjacent pajcsls of land FEES - CONDmONAL USE PER\UTS • S 75.00 For each variance icques: with CUP e-ppiication _______ S175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) X $225.00 Guest Kouse/Gucst Apaitments _____$2C0.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 ComcerciaLlndustrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated \vetla.d or floodplam ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or n ire ____ Grading, seawall, retaininj; walls withii 75’ of lakeshorc _____PRD.TID • see Fee Schedule _____ 5150.00 Rc.newal Fee (no change from origiial application) ______After-±e-Fact Fee - Double Cunent Applicat on Fee (raontn'year) OTHER APPUCATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (-t- ct iisdtani fees) _____$300.CO Vacation _____52C0.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivisicil _____$350 00 Reconing (PUD - refer to fee scbecule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Ainecdment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule /# * Vrr ^ i<’V'0& f .V -if ,1 _ t \■ 1 u ^ \___n ♦ .4 ^ - ti (•) > * ^ >'/' /ii rr^»!T:~ V. -r- ■ -•, ,.. J.- -. ^ • • ' ... -. -ft. i: /* 1 i .... ^■<ik •..' : *'T. ■ . - 'B *** ^'<- V *.-..J ..s -r>& SJ;A:- ’ r -V-^^yJ' I. V < . f 1 ‘ 1 V V r \ □ '■M', ■r; ‘ ') I 1 '^?v-. il'k 11 i; m iF,; . •:>. ' .*'1 • . - 1 i ^ 1^ • ■ it- JL‘^. ®i 4=^-r5d / ' m d-'V i L’f • 4i^Viafe ■‘;, -l-:'0fc:«r I ^ ■'■ • :V. A . - X ■ ^ * ’i,.1 mJimH "me: Smbo 38 07-11': Christine I "“OSNortl i.iound, M 38 07-1 r Dale J. Me 4041 Nortl Mound, M 38 08-1 r Col. & Mr 5101 Sprii Fairfax, V 38 08-11 Timothy L 3970 Nort Mound, M 38 08-11 Patricia M 1560 Nort Mound, M 38 08-11 Margaret 1 1550 Nort Mound, h/. 38 17-11 Lynn & F; 3925 Nort Mound, N! 38 17-11 Thomas L 1685 Com W'ayzata, 38 17-11 Howard R 1635 Com Way2ata,! Smooth Shoots^** 38 07-117-23 44 0003 Christine L. Wood *' 05 North Shore Dr. i.^ound, MN 55364 2.1S^ 38 07-117-23 44 0004 Peter & Elizabeth Luzaich 4009 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 Use template for 5160® D38 07-117-23 44 0005 Frederick A. Johnson 4017 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 440077 Dale J. McCurdy 4041 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0030 Gale R. & Marie R. Landberg 1545 Maple PI. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0048 Roger Granning 3898 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0049 Col. & Mrs. D. M. Englund 5101 Spring Rock Ct. Fairfax, VA 22032 38 08-117-23 33 0066 Diane Lee Dunlap 1545 Minnie Ave. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0067 Raoul Booton / Molly Holcombe 3950 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0068 Timothy L. Zwart 3970 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0073 Patricia M. Lawless 1560 North Arm Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0069 Leah Marie Vickerman 3980 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0071 Mark K. Rice 1570 North Arm Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0074 Margaret Peltola 1550 North Arm Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 08-117-23 33 0087 Paul E. & Mary J. Taylor 3883 Cherry .\ve. Mound. MN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0003 Patrick O’Flanagan 3895 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0006 Lynn & Faith Christine 3925 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0022 Thomas L. Palm 1685 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0039 Howard R. Alton III 1635 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0007 Lynn R. Christine 3925 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0024 John & Kristin Gehring 1687 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0043 Neil J. & Barbara L. Trainor 1675 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 38 17-117-23 22 0009 Robert Piper 1847 Shorewood Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 17-117-23 22 0032 Brian H. Williams Judy A. Fesenmaier 1680 Concordia St. Wayzata, MN 55391 AVERY* Address Labels Laser 5960 RUN DATE •S/a/l« ■ATCH SM' HENNCriN COUNTY ritOPCRTY ZHFOimATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4SM01 PA6E 15 ONNiR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB BB-U7-2S SS B074 oust NORTH ARM DR MAROARET PELTOLA NAROARET PELTOLA IBM NORTH ARM DR HOUND HN SS5A4 SB BB-117-2S SS 6BB7 BSMS CHERRY AVE PAUL E I HARV J TAYLOR PAUL TAYLOR SBBS CHERRY AVE HOUND NN SSSA4 SB 17-U7-2S 22 OMS 0SB45 NORTH SHORE DR PATRICK O'FLANAGAN PATRICK O'FLANAOAN SBYS NORTH SNORE DR HOUND NN S5SM ! PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER / NANE/ADOR SB 17-117-2S 22 BBIA BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSIGNED LYNN t FAITH CHRISTINE LVfM « FAITN CHRISTINE S92S NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN S5SM SB 17-117-25 22 0017 0S925 NORTH SHORE DR L S F CHRISTINE LYNN R CHRISTINE 3925 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN S55M 17-117-2S 22 0S9M N0RTH>N6RE OR H RICHARD ZUCKHAN H RICHkn^^KNAN IBirjtiPONT AVE S HBtSHN SMOS \ 1-\n ■ Z^ 2.C5co'^ (LdW.rY 0,(>cr PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 17-117-2S 22 0022 OlABS CONCORDIA ST T L PALM B H A PALH. THOMAS L PALM . IMR CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA HN 5SS91 SB 17-117-25 22 0024 010B7 CONCORDIA ST J N GEHRINO/K REINKE GEHRING JOHN B KRISTIN OEMUNG 1M7 CONCORDIA ST . . WAYZATA HN 55591 SB 17-117-25 22 0052 01600 CONCORDIA ST IivJ Ij L- rirsEDOK- (if ic^r» LTHGA D 5EML- ji/cVJ A- 16B0 CONCORDIA ST ^ ^ WAYZATA HN 5SS91 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER ■NAHE/ADDR SB 17-117-25 22 00S9 0S905 NORTH SHORE DR HOWARD R ALTON 111 HOWARD R ALTON 111 loss CONCORDIA Si ORONO HN BSS91 38 17-117-25 22 0040 01055 CONCORDIA ST HOWARD R ALTON III HOWARD R ALTON III loss CONCORDU ST ORONO HN 55591 38 17-117-25 22 0045 01675 CONCORDIA ST HELEN K ^RAINOR NEIL J I BARbARA L TRAINOR 1675 CONCORDIA ST WAYZATA IN, S5S91 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR TOTAL BATCH BOO 00050 / . f ^1^ RUN DATE 03/21/00• ^ • iATCN S04 PROf ADOR ONNER NAHt TAXfAVIR NAHC/AODR fROf ADDR OUNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR ORNER NAHE TAXPAYER , NAHE/AOOR »ROP. ADDR ONNIR mm TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP mm OUNER TiMf, TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADOR ORNER NuNE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNfORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASSAOi PACE 14 SO 07-117-23 44 OOOS 0400S NORTH SHORE DR CHRXSTXNE L ROOD CHRXSTXNE L ROOD 4005 NORTH SHORE DR mUND HN 55304 30 07-117-23 44 0004 04004 NORTH SHORE DR P S 0 E A LUZAXCH PETER 1 ELXZADETH LUZAXCH 4004 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 ISO 07-117-23 44 0005 04017 NORTH f^NORE DR 4017 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 30 07-117-23 44 0077 04041 NORTH SHORE DR DOS HCCURDY DALE J HCCURDY 4041 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 30 00-117-23 S3 0030 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED G R LANDBERG 0 H R LANDBERG GALE R I HARXE R LANDBERG 1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 SO 00-117-23 S3 0031 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED G R LANDBERG I H R LANDBERG GALE R t HARXE R LANDBERG 1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 SO 00-117-23 S3 0032 ‘ 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIONED 0 R LANDBERG 0 H R LANDBERG GALE R 0 HARXE R LANDBERG ,1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 SO 00-117-23 33 0033 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED G R LANDBERG B H R LANDBERG CALE R 0 HARXE R LANDBERG 1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 30 00-117-23 S3 0034 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXGNED Q R LANDBERG 1 H R LANDBERG GALE R 0 HARXE R LANDBERG 1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 30 00-117-23 S3 0035 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXOIED G R LANDBERG 0 H R LANDBERG GALE R t HARXE R LANDBERG 1545 HAPLE PL HOUND HN 55304 .5P 1.0-117-23 S3 0040 e^e^O NORTH SHORE DR Oi>oER GRANNXNO 0 WIFE dfOGER CRANNXN6 3090 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 30 00-117-23 S3 0049 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXMED D N EN6LUND ETAL* COL t HRS D H EN6LUND 5101 SPRXm ROCK CT FAIRFAX VA 22032 • I 30 00-117-23 S3 0000 01545 HINNXE AVE . DIANE LEE DUNLAP DIANE LEE DUNLAP 1545 HXNNIE AVE HOUND HN 55304 SO 0P-117-2S S3 0007 0S95i> NORTH SHORE DR R iOOTON I H HOLCOHBE RAOUL BOOTON/HOLLY HOLCOHBE 3950 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 SO 00-117-23 S3 0000 03970 NORTH SHORE DR TXHOTHY L 2WART TXHOTMY L ZWART 3970 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND Hf( 55304 30 00-117-73 S3 0009 03900 NORTH SHORE DR LEAH HARIE VICKERHAN LEAH N VICKERHAN 3900 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55304 SO 00-117-23 S3 Ooh 01570 NORTH ARN DR HARY K RICE NARY K RICE 1570 NORTH ARN DR HOUND HN 55304 SB 00-117-23 S3 0073 01500 NORTH ARH DR PATRICIA H LAWLESS PATRICIA LAWLESS 1500 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55304 \ •3 /(■ TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administratoi Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator March 12,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2759 John Collette 2160 Wayzata Boulevard Conditional Use Permit - Automobile Brokerage List of Exhibits: A Application B List of Current Tenants C Building Tenant Map D Letter of Request L Zoning Map F Section 10.40-B-1 District Standards G Property Owners Notification List Application ,\lr. Collette operates an automobile brokerage company. 1 le has submitted an application requesting a conditional use permit for a 208 .s.f. leased olTice space within the Orono Shopping Center. The propertv is located in the B-1. Retail Sales Business District. Professional offices and offices general ill nature are listed as a conditional use in the district. fhe applicant has stated the only use of the property will be for general administrative functions of the business. There is no intent to store vehicles or display vehicles for sale on the propertv. Automobile sales are not permitted in the district. Site Plan Review Since the use of the building does not require any changes to the structure no rev iew of the building and remainder of the site w ill be required with this application. However, there are performance standards listed within the code for offices. The impart on the site will be the parking and signs. The manager of the property has provided a detailed list of all tenants and square footage used by each tenant. The total parking required for the existing uses within the building, including the office use, is 81 spaces. I he propertv can handle parking for 128 vehicles. Mr. Collette has stated he does not intend to have any signs identifying the location of his office. If he chose to have a sign for the business, he would be allowed one small sign on the existing west pylon and a sign located on the building m-i ^ reater than 30" in height. 1 he building sign would be limited to the name of the business or company logo. 1 he Council adopted a resolution in 2000 that established sign standards for the property. #02-2759 John Collette 2160 Wav/ata Boulevard________________________________________________________ That resolution allows each building tenant to have one space on the west pylon and a sign located on the building not greater than 30 ” in height. The total sign space allowed on the building is 140 s.f. Staff is in the process of completing a property sign inventory for the new Curves exercise studio that has recently opened in the building. There are several other usej’ within the building that could be classified as “office” that have moved into the building over the years. The difference in their use, such as the insurance office and accounting office, is they are typically found in shopping centers, and can be regularity visited by customers. Staff initially was concerned with locating an automobile brokerage (sales) business on the property. The concern was there was a potential storage and display of vehicles on-site. The best way to handle the request for the office was the conditional use permit process. Mr. Collette has submitted a statement, attached as Exhibit D. The statement says he docs not need space for any cars. Mr. Collette docs not have any employees that would u.se the office space. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application based on the fact the intended office use is in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The intended use is consistent with several of the existing uses within the building. Staff suggests the following conditions be attached relating to the use of the building for an automobile brokerage: 1. At no time shall any vehicles being brokered be stored, displayed, serviced or parked on the property. 2. Any future signs for u.se with the automobile brokerage be in conformance with the provisions of the zoning code and/or provisions as set for by the approv ed sign plan. 3. Any requests to expand the use of the building for the automobile brokerage business shall require an application to amend the conditional use permit. Planning Commis.sion Options for Action 1. To approve subject to the conditions noted above and any conditions the Planning Commission deems appropriate for the use. 2. To recommend denial. 3.Table. 4.Other Action. 1-2WOOI OIrCipR FraKITY OtJJWW r \♦tS2t49481l T>84S P.OO2/O0S F-989 AppttcfttionH ^2- 2.^5 9 Dite Received"" AmouatPald ^ J a jT CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION . . Site Address !Z-( Wg UJ • Type of Application to be Filed (lei Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT .... Name ^^ ^UrTrC Addressyir/^ fsiet.-fv'ifu] Lj^ Phonefhomel O- ____ Phone (woric) L.n-nui - Y7/g 3 City Zip O^NER (if different than applicwt) Name Address City Phone (home). Phone (work). Date Property Acquired I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ____ $ 75.00 For each variance request vdth CUP application ____ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _ $250.00 Institutional (church, scltool, etc.) ____ $225.00 Quest House/Quest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Conunercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain - Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walla within 75 ’ of lakcshore PRD/TID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change firom original application) Afier-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 VtcaUon .. $200.00 Easement Vecatioa . $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision '350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) . 75.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____ $100.00 Appeals _____02ter • sec Fee Schedule (month/ycar) O 5^ f\ 3 o ’ • 1 _ • *'■'■. Spac.e ^ 4) . * • ' ‘ * ' ■ ' * ' * •‘ '•. VV./v*.v, ■■':*.;V/. .•,y;V !“' » : -• • .: • / -• T<5taA«* r vV liW| * » \ ♦ • *^dai 1 • ‘ ----- ---------------------- 196.1 ■ • . • . L^itcor IH39 . •* • irj‘' ■■•••■■' 'It 3 O Orjiiu L<UAHX,irU ;oOO ■ii^ ComDaiu*H50 " -U'' ‘r V-' Mm ' \ Ac^uvdLuA oCPif..■010 •r' S a Oft OxLr>/c.fe idr lj)om&.r\"Rita.; 1 I'i^l i 3ff\I^^OJLrA.HCA_ Coryvpo>iU-l 42Ci 114 IS ^ - 1 ^Qck rcj^re^distlv^^1230 16 duA^AVlL rVtAiL C(l)Lj£il UDMf> .ftftO '• 17 r^r^-vcJttatLv/^550 ‘ la.T^6, ktl*5«ndS^580 ( fiaferm^ Cojrvt^a.iL^-felilL.l3io 19 1 top* M » \oty\r^\^r\« E'Aq ^\2je. to K J40-IMHoo ^Fti \ 1 1 • •.* l&(V»(nc| V«cic(cs Sfo^hi yL<ti ^ Lifi <v -t , • ♦ ■■. > . .{, • \ ‘.if ■v'V)'""M^r:- • • . • • ______________________ . .% • . ■ • ;•. %•■ •»'if jt/^y - 70,0* . • •• 70.0 Mku.» • ..." Jm 1 • • *‘3 ^ i/c • •• .*•1- . ' • \ ^ . • ,. ’• /, :.* ••’ J- >1.; -.V 'V*i/Ax* r-:.*r’- * • - . '‘Vr- : * * * .• • .•*/• .*.■ -s’.*. **-'' It.*' '.^•* • . •..'.*■ .'■■■ " .V •,. ■:..*»t**.‘‘t/.■ •►. '' •■'f'/c,.,'/AVt,. * * ' «• * .*• * * *.?' '. • ' *i J ^’ ■ .7 « • *. *>!• - » 'w • ^ • ••* •. • * . - •■ . ‘ • ^ *tv.’ 'V • \' •j • ’•'t I lurJllTMarf ■■ iii I . ------IL4>l--A^ . ^... --uJ^±^-- A.-.^S. ,Js^\J*. 6 to^ -----.. 4^ jy __. i_____________________________Jr..^^ __?^^ 'y^JiLe^ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - -. . . . -------------- -------------------------- _________6^ t I 4 « I ---- -f •O) r^L_;c^. yf*^ ^ •' ^.........a ; ..L. » ^ jS I' •‘I k •... .............................................. • ......... - j?- y! . ' ^ .»/ '• f ~' " • MO 9(i, ! xif i ^Lipi f O) ---------amorc OH) m ——.^o^nor# --------------- *AJ« rf«. ; '5. Mum -it flpSr^ T*^.^»no»c *tOM r/»a* -?5UVC>^STT , .. '< ! B-fc/e^l^vPUF <e CO 7*ir«n # />/ rs«/ I «M g«r«n«T 7^1 y< $ . ..^^YZ atablvd w_....... mif t“"^=7—I !-,* • I* 4'j M; ERCML TT I f J- (60J S'i "WW DANIELS > • (.'» «•*» li I m % 0MHTOA kon (92! .c^^a a fiVf USTRIAL PARK t^f *•TjTiT r«j (33 i^si •' (34; sT\'3S; 1 > • iL-i£ # 0M0f<3A iorj • Mft tlW K §10.40 SEC. 10.40. B>1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-1" Retail Sales Business (District) is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shrill be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1. Arts and school supplies store. 2. Banks and insurance companies. 3. Barber and beauty shops. 4. Bicycle sales and repair. 5. Books, magazines, record shop. 6. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. repair. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. 9. Gift or antique shops. 10. Hardware store, paint store. 11. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply stores. 12. Jewelry shops and repair. 13. Laundromats. 14. Locksmith. 15. Music, radio, T\'. appliance sales and repair stores. 16. Newsstands. 17. Office supply store, office machine store. 18. Pet shop. 19. Pipe and tobacco shops. 20. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares, furniture, carpet store. 21. Postal substation. 22. Real estate sales. ORONO CC 332 (4-1-84) r. (^ i • ^ § 10.40 23. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. 24. Sewing center and yardgoods. 25. Sporting goods store. 26. Tailor shops. 27. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree lots. 28. Travel bureau. 29. Variety store. 30. Wearing apparel store, shoe store. 31. Off-sale Liquor Store Source: Ordinance 29,2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 32. Home and garden equipment rental. Source: Ordinance 152,2nd Series Adopted: 10-28-96 B. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-1" Retail Sales Business District no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. B. Motor Fuel Stations. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C. Restaurants (Class 1). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) Source: Ordinance 67,2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 D. Restaurants (Class 11). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-m, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertairunent. ORONO CC 333 (4-1-84) §10.40 E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street Parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is (in) another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the ”B" or "1" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found nccessarv- by the Council. F. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Personal wireless service and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Source: Ordinance No. 183,2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 . G. Nurseries. Day nurseries provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. H. Offices. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 1. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or cembinatien of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or stnieture on the same lot and customarily incidental theieto that is net attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna stmetme dees net ex ceed 65 feet and the antenna stnieture is set back from any let line a distance at least equal to the total heig ht of the antetina atnieture. Seufce: Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date; 6-5 »7S (Subd. 41 deleted per Ordinance No. 161,2nd Series, adopted 5-27-97) Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any "B-r Retail Sales Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: in this Chapter. A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. ORONO CC 334 (4-1-84) o §10.40 D. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. £. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use siiall not exceed j0% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 H. Communication Rcccptionn'ransmission Devices. 1. Accessory Antennas. Accessory aiiteruias shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVRO's, and amateur short-wave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory anteruias that are accessory to the principal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts provided they meet tlie following conditions: a. Height. A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height from ground level. b. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, comer s * yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. c. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signal.«^ at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the root of any authorized structure on the premises. d. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. e. Building Permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The Building Official must approve the plans before installation. ORONO CC 335 (4-1-84) 1 § 10.40 f. Lightning Protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. g. Electrical Code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the City of Orono. h. Color/Content. Accessory antennas shall be af a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 2. Amateur Short-Wave Radio Antennas and Towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas, may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: a. Height. When an amateur short-wave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. b. Yards. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, comer side or side yard. c. Setbacks. Amateur short-wave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. Source: Ordinance No. 1 83,2nd Series Adopted: 2-22-99 Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 1 5 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 335-1 (4-1-84) n o * L § 10.40 F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-1" Retail Sales Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: I. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailc', basemetit, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Plaruiing Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water nmoff 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 drainage. 1. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. ORONO CC 335-2 (4-1-84) RUN DATE 02/12/02 BATCH 510 fBOr ADDt OWNCR NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER . NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 5A-118-23 21 0002 021A0 WAYZATA BLVO W WILLIAH W WEAR I WIFE WILllAH W WEAR 2160 WAYZATA BLVD 8306 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0023 02106 SUGARWOOD DR R H SCNOHHER (EH SCHOHHER R H SCNOHHER (EH SCHOHHER 2106 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0030 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOHEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOHEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO 3525 WEBSTER AVE HPLS HN 55416 38 34-118-23 22 0017 02251 PINE RIDGE LA C ( L OTTEN CLIFFORD ( LOUISE OTTEN P 0 BOX 244 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 24 0001 02120 WAYZATA BLVO W WILLIAH WEAR ETAL WILLIAH W WEAR 36 HACKBERRY HILL LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34-118-23 23 0053 02205 WAYZATA BLVO W PERRY*S VENTURES INC PERRY’S VENTURES INC 2205 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0021 02102 SUGARWOOD DR T H KIHHES ( A E KIHHES TODD H ( ANITA E KIHHES 2102 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0024 02108 SUGARWOOD DR H L RICKS ( J H RICKS HICHAEL L/JACQUELINE H RICKS 2108 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0033 00038 ADDRESS PENDING GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC GREEN VALLEY ASSOCIATES INC PO BOX 800 2140 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 22 0014 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY m 55323 72 34-118-23 23 0004 00520 BRIHHALL AVE J ( W PROPERTIES INC JEW PROPERTIES INC P 0 BOX 703 BRAINERD HN 56401 72 34-118-23 24 0002 02073 >WAYZA]M BLVD W GREGORY r^SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE MRD TRACTOR INC 2073 W WAYMA BLVD P 0 BOX ^7 X LONG LAKE HN ^356 / REPORT NO. PI435401 PAGE 46 38 34-118-23 21 0022 02104 SUGARWOOD DR G Z GILL ( F S GILL GRETCHEN Z ( FRANCIS S GILL 2104 SUGARWOOD DR LONl KE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0028 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SUGAR WOODS HOHEOWNERS ASSOC SUGAR WOODS HOHEOWNERS ASSOC C/0 REBERS CONSTRUCTION CO • 3525 WEBSTER AVE HPLS HN 55416 38 34-118-23 22 0015 00038 ADDRESS PENDING CEL OTTEN CLIFFORD ( LOUISE OTTEN BOX 244 LONG LAKE HN 55356 38 34-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CEL OTTEN CLIFFORD E LOUISE OTTEN BOX 244 LONG LAKE tfH 55356 72 34-118-23 23 0023 02225 WAYZATA BLVD W PERRY’S VENTURES INC PERRY’S VENTURES INC 2205 W WAYZATA BLVD LONG LAKE HN 55356 72 34*118-23 24 0036 02064 WAYZATA BLVO HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL HIBNEL BUDGET RENTAL 2064 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE HN 55356 * a >.£; KUN DATE 02/12/02 BATCH 510 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 72 34-11B-23 2A 0030 020^5 WAYZATA BLVD W J t H INVESTHENTS J I H INVESTHENTS OSAl KINGSVIEW LA N HAPLE GROVE m 55311 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 72 3A-lia-2S Pit 0040 00500 SHAUCHNESSY AVE GREGORY H SHAUGHNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOK 407 LONG LAKE HN 55354 REPORT NO. PZ035001 PACE 07 72 30-1U-23 20 ^OB 02073 w\yZATA ^VD W GREGORY H S^UGmESSY LONG LAKE FOi^TRACTOR 2073 W WAYZAI^KbLVD P 0 BOX 407 / X LONG LAKE m 55354 INC 1 72 30-118-23 20 0048 *02073 WAYZATA BLVD W GREGORY H SHAUGNESSY LONG LAKE FORD TRACTOR INC 2073 W WAYZATA BLVD P 0 BOX 607 LONG LAKE HN 55354 M 72 30-118-23 20 0070 02140 DANIELS ST VB PROPERTIES LLC VB PROPERTIES LLC 1250 CRESTVIEW DR HUDSON W1 50014 TOTAL BATCH 510 00023 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE ^EST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE i - *• I li TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr March 13, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2761 Addison & Cindy Piper 1125 Spring Hill Road Variances/CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 6.6+ acres List of Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Survey D Project Descriptions E House Elevation/Floor Plans F Hardcover Worksheets G Septic Memo H Photos of Property I Property Owner's List J Sample Restrictive Covenant Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.20. Subd. 3(G)(1): Guest Houses: A separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings , including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. 2. Section 10.20. Subd. 3(Q): Acccssorv Bunding-Plumbing: Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessor) building that is conforming in location, si/e and height. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B):Avcragc Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessor) structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from tlie shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Section 10.03, Subd. 12: Crowding Principal Building: No accessor)'buildings or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved w ithin ten feei of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessor) structure. i*02-276l Addison A: C indy Piper 1125 Spring llill Road Variances 3/13/2002 Page I Application Summary: 1 he applicants purchased the subject property in November 2001. The applicants arc requesting variances and conditional use permits to remodel the pool house, construct a guest house, and construct a screen porch to the existing residence. The existing residence was built in the 1950's. 1. Guest House: Conditional Use Permit: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to construct a guest house on the property. The guest house would be used as a caretaker's living quarters, storage and provide 2 additional parking stalls. 1 he guest house will be 24' X 62' and will be located northwest of the existing residence into the side of a hill. (Sec Hxhibit ).The guest house will have a separate septic tank and will be connected by a gravity line to the existing pumping chamber and mound. 1 he guest house meets all setback and lot requirements. 2. Screen porch: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance: Idic applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 13.5' x 25' screen porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. The screen porch addition encroaches into the average lakeshore setback by 15'. The porch will not be visible from the adjacent residences. 3. Pool House: Conditional Use Permit and Crowding Variance: The applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to replace existing plumbing in the detached pool house and a crowding variance because it is located within 10' of the principal structure. The pool house has been on the property since at least 1994 as shown on aerial photographs. Conditional Use Permit is required because the pool house currently has 2 toilets and showers in it. The applicants wish to upgrade the current septic connections along with the other septic changes on the pronerty. The crowding variance is required because the pool house was built 9.3' rather the required 10’ from the principal structure by code standards. It meets all other code standards, but there is no permit on file for it. Hardcover ls,sues: The screen porch does increa.se the amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone. However, at 6,102 s.f.(8.51%) it is still well below the allowed 17,925 s.f (25%) by code. The guest hou.se also increases the amount of hardcover in the 250-500' setback zone. Houe\ er, at 16,455 s.f. (16.85%) it is still well below the allowed 29,292 s.f (30%) by code. The applicants are not proposing to make any changes in the 0-75’ or 500-1000' setback zones. k^02O76I Addison & Cindy Piper 1125 Spring Hill Road V'arianccs 3/13 2002 Page 2 Septic Issues: The existing system for the residence is sized for a six bedroom residence. 1 he remodeling that is to take place in the residence will bring it from 6 bedrooms down to 4 bedrooms. The guest house is proposed to have 1 bedroom. This will bring the total to 5, which is less than what the existing system is sized for. On-Site System Manager, Matt Boltemian. has reviewed the existing system and the proposed changes and recommends approval in regards to septic concerns on the property. (See Exhibit F ). Statement of Hardship: The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. There are no permits on record for the pool or pool house. Aerial photographs show that the pool and pool house have been on the property since at least 1994. 2. The residence has existed on the property since 1950’s. 3. The screen porch and guest house increase hardcover on the property but hardco\ cr is still well below the allowed amounts bv code. 4. Lot coverage by structures is not a concern with this property. It is approximately 6 '/i acres. 5. The guest house is propose to be constructed into the hill and will be screened partially by the hill and existing trees behind it. 6. The screen porch is on the lakeside. The adjacent property owners views of the lake w ill not be negatively affected by the porch. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval for a Conditional U.se Permit for guest house and plumbing in an accessory' building for property located at 1125 Spring Hill Road based on the structures meet the requirements established by the Municipal Code for a guest house and an “accessory structure with plumbing” CUP subject to the following condition: The property owner files the appropriate restrictive covenants on the property for a guest hou.se and an accessory building with plumbing. Staff recomniends approval for the average lakeshore setback and crowding variances. »02-276l Addison & Cindy Piper 1 125 Spring Hill Road VananccvCUP 3.13 2002 Page 3 ___i . ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR'IA Lot Requirements Hardcover Calculations LR-IA Lot Area Required 2 Acre Actual 6.6 +_acres Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed Shoreline Setback Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75"32.280 s.f.0 s.f 168 s.f 168 s.f (0%)(.52%)(.52%) 75-250'71,700 s.f.17,925 s.f 5,764 s.f 6.102 s.f (25%)(8.04%)(8.51%) 250-500'97,640 s.f.29,292 s.f 14.607 s.f 15.455 s.f (30%)(14.96%)(16.85%) 500-1000 69,450 s.f.24,307.5s.f 3.290 s.f 3.290s. f (35%)(4.94%) (4.94%) 8 AppKartion# ^2.-2767 DteRecdvcd Amount Paid •iZoQ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATIO' Site Address \W i LAjpf /t^cfsj Type of Application to be Filed r/K Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) ll S ^5^ APPLICANT Name ^ Address WitLoW u^lvti. Ci Phone (hoooeX Phone (work). City ^AAAfcL Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______________________ Address City Phone (home). Phone (work) Date Pro I (do) rtoperty / notV Acquired K|/?VLiVtfekp. 1^. also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - X S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory U« S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) V S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___$200.00 Duplex Ciedit/Bldg ___$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use ___$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - desi^^nated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-The-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezooing (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 App^s Other - see Fee Schedule LP i- Zip. (month/year) REQUIRED SURMTITALS 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Fonn. Describe request in detaU. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat miq> (you must obtain this Ust, labels and map from Hennepin County Departme^^of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor; - rerer to nandout tor survey infoimafioa. Attach legal descripdon to appliciition if not included on required survey. Topographic stirvey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in die property. This would include naine(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (lee staff for requirements). As an addendum to ^s application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above infoimarion not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;__________________________Date APPUCANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all uiformation required or requested by the 7nn?ng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hu/her Imowledge. Applicant's signature Date ^ ♦ f?» 0*2-.,_____ OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consuliams, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signarure Date AppUcaot must have all submittals ioro the City ofllces 25 days belbre the Plutniog Commisiloo Meeting. Plaiming Commission Meetings are held oo tiie diird Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commisi ion and Council. Tf an applicant is unable to a scheduled meetiag, please make anugemenu to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advbe the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. rr r.j j A •A-' « • \.y PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pipers as property owners are making a request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a detached building for use as a caretaker’s living quarters. In addition to living quarters this building will also encompass two additional garage stalls as well as additional storage for easy access to outdoor equipment and furniture. The building falls within a footprint of 24 ’ X 62’ and contains 1456 square feet of finished and unfinished space. The proposed structure will be constructed with a concrete slab floor with frost footings, poured concrete foundation and wood frame construction. Finished exterior materials will match the existing home on the site. The proposed building is sited north west of the existing home and is berraed into an existing hillside which serves to minimize the visual impact of the new building as the site is entered. Every effort will be made to preserve the existing trees adjacent to the building area. It will not be necessary to remove any trees to construct this additional building. The existing house will be remodeled. Upgrades to the mechanical systems, window replacement, and augmentation of roof and wall insulation will result in greater energy efficiency. Plan changes will be made to accommodate the needs of the Piper’s as new owners of the home. The reconfigured floor plan results in four sleeping rooms instead of the six sleeping rooms in the existing home. A new screen porch is proposed to be added to the south side of the house as indicated on the registered survey. Since we are proposing to berm the new garage/caretaker building into the existing hillside as shown only as a slight amount of re-grading will be necessary to form a swale to direct site drainage around and alongside the proposed structure. Low, dry-laid stone retaining walls will be installed as indicated on the construction plan to allow berming of site against the north and south elevations of the building as well as creating an egress window well at the south end of the building. Roof water from the proposed structure will drop onto turf and the paved entrance of the garage. This water will be flowed to follow the existing grades of the site, sheeting north easterly across the driveway into the wooded area beyond and below the drive. Grade changes will not be necessary for the proposed screen porch additional to the main house. Additional roof water will drop onto the planting beds to the south side of the existing house as the water percolates toward the lake. The proposed detached garage/caretaker building complies with all setback requirements. See the survey for the exact distances of building comers to property lines. The floor elevation of the new building is 990.5 ’ which is well above the minimal floor elevation of 945.3 ’. The proposed detached building will have its own septic tank and will be connected by a gravity line to the existing pumping chamber and septic mound. The installation of this new septic tank will also provide an opportunity to upgrade the current septic connections for the two toilets and showers and the existing detached poolside building. An alternate drainfield area has been located slightly north and west of the existing drainfield area. • J M * ■«. —i''‘J • ••• ■•'i The results of the hardcover calculation worksheet show that we are proposing no changes in either the 0 ’-75 ’ setback zone or the 500'-1000* setback zone. The proposed 25 ’ x 14 ’ screen porch addition to the existing main house increases the hardcover in the 75 ’-250 ’ setback zone by .47% to 8.51% which is well under theS5% maximum for this zone. The proposed detached garage/caretaker building will increase the hardcover in the 250 ’-500 ’setback zone by 1.89% to 16.85% which is also well under the maximum of 30% for this zone. 'O i 02/20/02 12:59 FAX 651 951 7327 SALA-ARCHITECTS-8102 t proposing no changes in proposed 25’ x 14* screen n the 75*-250’ setback zone Lone. The proposed detached OO'setback zone by 1.89% to e. ADDEIWUM TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Pipers as pn^ity owners are making an additional request for a variance for the construction of a screen porch addition to the existing home. Tlie proposed porch addition on the lake side of the home falls within the tangeit setback line established by the dwellings on the two neighboring properties. The south wall of the porch will lie in the same plane as the south wall of tlie existing house and the porch will be covered by an extension of the existii g roof plane. A number of existing site elements are closer to the lake edge thin the proposed south wall of the porch. These include the existing pool, dec c. retaining walls and a stone terrace as well as a portion of the existing livii g room. The visual impact of the porch addition from the lake will be minimiJ. Please refer to accompanying drawings and site plan. pj { i) • f • I f\TOl 4CKML -----UooSfc yya^\> f/<^ciA CiAAiuAt: ^ T-J MiJaSL - tr r r T ' ^ I*' ^/ ;*>! »* ■ - ^rrt Sf jr'if •> . -^trnrwrr^ t^mnr^wtm’mm mrnrn^ y »»n» mSoLAttD flJ^fLt^AltD t)^^f.«i wiTK 'riiA»45Lv^«»j'r ^ffnisic^b w»tw \yo4p tMAA )" iNWutep au4t. . S^L\P c^f.t Wi>^P WltW C^lkhC £ A. Ja - T ■ I U -1 V A T I ) « * • • • < •iL 5--^? >=fl % ^ 4 y T H L U t V ^ T I ? V pA^ClA SIMILAR •Uf exit TIM AfL M.p.^. dApfix ' • • ■ ■ . - •- *. V' r-t. •'1 •• • J 5 PgigaM,i ------- --------fl 4 fjg ^ I i 1 _->W^AP MATCH iXl^TlNfc l. «._4aUD C>T^t -r^ 4Ttf$ ------------------------------ ;. ' H' -' r» A PfWZ>"l|. " !' f~' \ y j"-./**r /' r .*.^ • . V y,-^ V 'V* *fiV^ TfT as *.\!x' .«L2n; w t ^ T t L t V A T \ ^ M P VfCK \\^. ,;... :.::c ... WAltb.... vy-tM . .. . -;>A •wi?nsT»??2tHt (. ;. .....fA:* • >.•«- • *■. •■. 1/ »••.*:•; %•. • • *. .' * ‘ * ' . •■...%••• ... '»... ••• #>•« •• <• •« ••» -•'•••. 4 V •| V-.-------------------- I i' -------------------»>••■• r *••«•••#« .*• •'< '*1* V<v^ ;»! \'»;' h* 7 lltelMIMHM • V • -V•;\'*; \*..'• V V .'^t- • % _ •: I, •^;,^ * 1- w ft: r - i--- \ 1 I i::=r.-.:-v %.-•-= r^=*l ......ll •i P I •4 ••• •- - % I .......{ ^ ku I -. —^ ■—■ - ■ — ■ ■ ■■■ ~ •• ••—iL *. #.•.••■ *•■. • • M O V. o »o to• • CM to s o» .CM CO CM CO to -I --.Lf .i7:r:A vj;vjr.«• ■ m •►•♦• ‘ • • . ) \ I !»».■♦•«—•••.. -<« •. □ ....1 - j V «»•»<*• .• ^ m • < n —••rl'Tti r^.rLrLj^ii- -♦-------I *# •**« - mm- ■ ft ft» • • ft ft* • ft • • ft ft ft •- \ CA >s: ;i CA \N^ X >-------- J / I-..: 1 ■■Li'i--------1 I t1 I I i 1.. I J I I •------------------ I’ 'N 1. •_______•c > £1 o CO •* • • •••• \ —-------------- . . I *.■.». —.......\ 11- *■ i I l^.± \ •h 4£;‘ ' in• —......•••« Mt i'iH ..I' l ■res r A ti \j---B f < ^ 6 H r..... I m . a #i .r»yl ■■^.r--------—• I a »V» •;____I ! J^iaU ►» I fi^Uki Ww *♦ ;......Hr--. '^v • ^1. DO O L.. Jlv. /\ y \ \ f y«ah faiM 4^. +1» irl in O Isa\ too\ o to cn «D g oacn M COcn M CO to •N § —^ (A \<r« Ilk K fr H 4|t • ••» * a .....kv. fm c» to too o to * • • • •• . t •• I • • V * I .. ) »/ t ^ K7rk/*i k>' fii o (A 1 f ( \ 4 < \ » < t { oro ri c o to o% CO oa c/i o OC oro hJ£vy 5 c P-I i *i__ hh ^ ELtV/rt»*f4 Sh'^ViuA ♦ (iMUSf'Ky I M ' WsV- «r t ^ I'vT. 6> 0 01 FTOM : qOFFlH & Cl-ClO rr.i £RG _ NO. : 9S2 473 4435 S^ACK ZOiNE; (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVER CALCULATIO/M WUKK5m!.l!,'l Feb. 12 2002 02:44Pn P2 7M50*250-500'500-1000' fC HARDCO\>Ea IN 7.QST A. Houtt . . _____________• % •LcfifUi Width X X X .*. B« darx|e * . C; Driveway . r» • • •• X X D. Sidewalk CU»9t X X V*. * IL Petio/Deek X X • V \ • f, Laadscape Uadcrlein By PlasUe Or Pabric X X X • • * • * ’.s • • b. Ocber I -1. a • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT.^L PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- __Akf: ____ ■ + B lZt^£>X 100 - . PROPOSED BURDCOVER IN ZONK — - . A. House _____________ ,r ^ ^/fdt^€S • ;•U.nftfi Width X X X B. detagt C. Dfivewey • t . •r • X X >-D.. Sidewalk X X E. Patfo/Deek X X F. Landscape Ucderlaio By Plastic Or Fabrie X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A :______________ + B .X 100 - S.F. S.F. __S.F, • __S.F. __S.P. S.F. S.F. SP. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. ,5^- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. « A B S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. '• ;V S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. 1 /€S :1S.F.- A 5.F. B 77 /W 3 vs • : esg d1 • b FROM : CCFFIN & GRONBERG FW NO. : HARDCOVER CAJLCULATiClN V SlETBACKZONE: (CIRCLE O?^ 0-75* Feb. 12 2802 e2:44PM P3 WUKR5HlbEX ‘ 350-500* 500-1000* HARDCOVER IN ».ftN*r. A. Houm • • « • . B. Cant* * ••. ■ C: Drivtwiy H .» • * • ;.* SIdewlUc .‘v*;-• .fi. P«do/Deck • wV/ • ■ *• *. . :< • P.«. Lan'dicip* Und«ri«In • ■ By PlMdc .. Or t^abrie .G. bthtr X X X X .X X X • X X • X ' X X • •« /if TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PRgp^gY AREA IN ZONE B 7/7<gg>X too “ /■ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN gONF. A. Hou*« _____________ X Width X X X C. Driveway » D. - Sidewalk m E. Pailo/Deck _____________ X • •• ■ • F. Lxndicapa Underliin .^yPIxsUc n; V* Of Fabric O. 0±tr X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDtOVER IN ZONl total fkopbrty area in zone A :_____________ + B .X too - 22ee. Vjr /4a ,S.F. S.F. S.P. ♦ S.F. • « 4 !• S.F. .S.F. " S.F." S.F. >.F. S.F. S.F. 5.F. .?-R- S.F. S.P. S.P. A S.F. B .S.P. «• « S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.Ft • S.F. •• •• S.P. • ^/^X-S.F. • t e FROi :■ COFFIN & GRONBERG FAX NO. ; 5^473 4435 hardcover calc ULAi ion WOKKSli&Ka ^tnACICZONEi (CIRCLE ONE) 0-71* 7M50* -»«A.«nA F«b._ 17_20m 04:06PM PS 500-1000' rv^gTTNq If AHPCQVF-P in 7.QNT A, Hou»e • • _ • • • • I _• •• / •*.•<. .. . X X X -•* • i*';- • •• 1 • • ; s- • • • • # B. Oanie.* C;. ©rivewiy • • • •• X X D. SIdewiIk • X X • .4 • •E. P«tfo/D«ck• • .7- X X .V'f, Laadictp* v:-' .•A- Vnderlxlft Plxitic , Or PxbHc '2i' tfyisxt X X X .1# • 0 • • •!k I •'V total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A- /4-coy B ,v; proposed hardcover IN ZONE -A.' Hottie • _ ^ .• * • *.L«a|Ui •i c B.' dari|« . Dnvew«y X x X *1 • X X • • •/. Sidewalk X* X *.E. Piilo/Deck X X • • F. Lxodaeape Underlain By Ptaitie Or Fabric X X X O. Other total hardcover in zo total property area in zone A • ______ +B /S£*-.S.F. WM*•S.P. “ M •’ S.R. • f 7s.p. ••1 !• _S.F. •r 8.F. Si S.F. V IS.F. * S.F. ^ cx IS.F. S.F. '■i =3 _S.F. /•z^ miL • it •^3//iT Ill1f S.F. f7A4c • _ X 100 - 7 F ts _S.F. WkLh * a t *• « S.F. . n S.F. AS.’imssr^_S.F. •_S.F. S.F. M _S.F. t3 #S.F. _____ M _S.F. S.F. ■1 “s.F. •• S.F. ■■1 S.F. • ■i _S.F. • 0 »♦ • • I* _S.F. m • a* •-S.F." “* S.F. • •• ; • «^ xlOO - A B »* .•14 *' •*t 11jr ^ f^zy • « Li FKCn : COFFIN t c 3B?G FPK NO. : 962 473 4435 Feb. 12 2002 02:4£Pn P5 rtP^A HARDCOVER CALCULA'llOiN WUKi&Stll:^!. A* * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 79>2S0* 250-500* HARDCOVER IN ZaVE A. Houm • S.F. % •Ccnftfi Width X X X B. Oani« * ► C. - Dtiv«wv S.F. S.P. • S.P. . •{. 5.P. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk • X X S.F. S.F. V.'*; **E. Pido/Dedc -•w: • X X S.F. S.F. P.' Laadseape Underlain • ■ By Plastic Or Babtlc X X X S.F. S.P. 0. Other I * TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PRO^-^AREA IN ZONE S.F. a S.F. B 100 S.P. A. House -A/O Ltftflh S.P. WltfA X X X S.P. S.P. S.F. • .D. * derate S.P. : .-fc. Driveway . •- • ! X X S.F. S.F. D.> Stdewalk X X S.F. S.F. *E. Pade/Deck I X X S.F. S.F. • • F. Landscape Uodcriidn : By Plastic ■ 'Of. Fabric X X X S.F. S.Fi • S.F. G. Other 11. S.F. A B . TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property *onb A :__________— » .X lOO ^29p‘’s.f.“ a ' S.F. B % • •#s/O .-f A I •it es>« I JL I (S' GITYoT ORONO Munklpal Offices $tmt Ad*tss: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 MaUIni Addnu: P.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 TO; FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg Matt Bohemian. On-Site Systems Manager March 11,2021 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 1125 Spring Hill Rd - CU Pemiit A new mound septic system was installed in 1997 for this property. The mound and alternative site are sized for a si.\ bedroom home. The existing house will be going from six bedrooms to four bedrooms and the guest house w ill be tw o bedrooms. The total number of bedrooms for the house and guest house will be six. so the current mound and alternative site will be large enough for the proposed plan. All water from pool house, guest house and main house shall go into the septic system. I recommend the application be approved in regards to septic concerns for a total of six bedrooms. Tekphoac (952)249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 WWWxl.OrOIMMIIIl.M n^s sp o'm iM ii ed. ■d-03-- a-nb! 7^.frf'■'•■. • f' ■■•• j '* ■*! Bi^y ‘*>1 i 2!^'S'^ i ' *■'r- * .V^ t ^ ' ’-, ii ''' ’ ^ r ^ ' ■■ X ■ I n ;‘2 — •* JP- ^ ■ r • \41 V>'Ll '1 ' . / • /• k I, ■r //^5 Spnna(J 09~'^lbl $ C ^76/ • -!T ^ *■ -(••■•■ ^ V .. - ■., i\2' i f4il/l3cL >'7' •'■:^ / ••'I- vS \ V * !•.- '• *. •> -<r i I *w- » ' wW-,'f.-y.'. ^v-'. ■' • ', .' • I ■ '..■ ' 1 . •’. *. 4 . *i 1 I *j ■ * T7^ '.^ty>‘: I I ■ < ; Y \ ■ ^ ■f^ * 1 * -. > ^ • .* ^^y^ f »Eli m .. .•.^• ,,r? f^'*’ vj - ?pfs^^::.- fiK-r- '/ri-, > r •'■■>‘^ jLfl>mm Ki. r“^N mi > t-,v— .-4,:' C-?r:.-^ 1 7^- ■ -^r‘ ^‘v * ^ ? K r-r^ f' •KL-ii.ii\*».-ii u • ■•'\' V. ^ • .1. H mm DATE 02/11/02 BATCH SOS rsof AODR OHNCR NAME TAXPAYER fONE/AODR SB 2S-lia-2S SA 0005 011S5 SIXTH AVE H E H S H S SPENCER EOSON If B HARRIET S SPENCER 1135 SPRING HILL RD LONG LAKE HN 55350 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SO 26-118-23 3A 0006 011A5 SIXTH AVE N J S MACKAY ET AL TRUSTEES JOHN S ft GRAY G HACKAY 1165 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE NN 55356 REPORT NO. PXA35A01 PACE 5 38 26-118-23 62 0006 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 700 SPRING HILL RO WAYZATA HN 55391 I SO 26-110-23 62 0005 PROP ADOR 00030 AODREbS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAHE SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB TAXPAYER SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB NAItt/AODR 700 SPRING HILL RD • HAYZATA HN 55391 38 26-118-23 63 0001 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 700 SPRING HILL RO WAYZATA HN 55391 38 26-118-23 63 0006 01125 SPRING HILL RO A L PIPER ft C PIPER ADDISON ft CINDY PIPER 1125 SPRING HILL RO LONG LAKE HN 55356 f • PROP ADOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 30 26-110-23 63 0005 01025 * SPRING HILL RO N 0 ft C BROOKS TRUSTEES BROOKS ASSOCIATES INC * 1650 U S TRUST BLDG 730 2ND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS HN 55602 TOTAL BATCH 503 00007 Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEHTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS I •1 id .1 &LL&T M'OUSe - ^ RESTRICTIVE COVENANT The undersigned, Addison and Cynthia Piper, owners of that certain real property located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota legally described as follows: Legal Description to be added, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property") does hereby expressly covenant and agree that the guest house located on the Property shall not be used as a second permanent residence on the property, will not be offered or used as rental property and will not be used for home occupation purposes. Said guest house may be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the Property, such as family guests (on a limited and sporadic basis), domestic help and relatives. This restrictive Covenant shall nm with the land, shall be binding upon the undersigned ouner, his heirs, his successors and assigns, and may be terminated only upon written agreement of the City of Orono. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned owner has e.xecuted this Restrictive Covenant this dav of . 2002. State of ) County of )ss. ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this Addison Piper and Cynthia Piper. Addison Piper Cynthia Piper day of ,2002 by Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 M ih ■Tbou — 3 CITY OF ORONO COVENANT FOR LIMITED WASTEWATER PLUMBING IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING THIS COVENANT, made and entered into this dav of , 20__, by Addison Piper and Cynthia Piper (husband and wife). (hereinafter referred to as "Applicants") and the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Applicants have made application to the City for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory’ building on property in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, legally described as: Legal Description to be added, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, 'limited wastewater plumbing' for purposes of this Covenant shall include all interior wastewater piping and fixtures; and WHEREAS, City staff have reviewed Applicants' application and have found that the building proposed for the installation of limited wastewater plumbing has met the standards established within Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F) of the Orono Municipal Code to allow installation of limited wastewater plumbing; and WHEREAS, Applicants are aware that according to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B), specific conditions exist under which limited wastewater plumbing may be allowed within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (F)(3)(B) allows issuance of a permit for installation of limited wastewater plumbing in an accessory building conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant and its filing in Applicant's chain of title; and WHEREAS, in order to identify all parties within an interest in the subject property, the Applicants are required to provide title information to City staff as requested. All parties with an interest in this property shall sign this covenant. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES TO THI.S COVENANT AGREE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. Applicants' request for installation of limited wastewater plumbing within the accessory building to include one toilet, one sink and one shower on the Subject Property is Page 1 of 4 iHii 3. 4. approved conditioned upon the execution of this Covenant by the City and the Applicants. The following conditions shall control the installation and use of the limited wastewater plumbing: A) The accessory building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by City code. B) The accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a Guest House conditional use permit is obtained from the City. C) 1 he accessor>' building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. This Covenant shall be binding upon current and future owners of Subject Property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Fee owner(s) of the Subject Property, if not the Applicants, consent to the execution of this Covenant and to its terms, as shown by their signatures upon this document. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STAT E OF Mns’NESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO: By:. Bv: Its Mavor Its Cit>' Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____________, 20 ___, by__________________________ , the day of _and and Page 2 of 4 of the City of Orono on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public APPLICANT(S); By:. By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (APPLICANTS) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________. 20___, by______________________ day of and (husband and wife/single/a Minnesota Corporation) as their free act and deed/on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public FEE OWNER(S): By: By:. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (FEE OWNERS) Page 3 of 4 j STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____________. 20 ___, by ________________________ day of and (husband and wife) as their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 iiiiL iki^ /.A TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator March 13,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2763 Cla>l and Julie Tabor 960 North Brown Road Sketch Plan Review List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Land Use Map D Existing Zoning Map E Memo From Mike GafTron Regarding Histoty of 960 North Brown Road F Copy of Registered Land SuiA cy No. 926 G ca. 1980 Plat Map H Current Plat Map 1 Neighborhood Petition Application Property owners are requesting a Sketch Plan Review’ to split two lots previously combined. 1 he lots were combined in 1984. Minimum Lot Standards Zoning District: LR-IA Minimum Lot Size: 2 acres Minimum Lot VV’idth: 200’ In I *^84 the property consisted of three tax parcels that were combined into one lot. The individual lot was platted at Tracts A and B. RLS 926. A copy of the RLS is attached as Exhibit F. The property totals only 3.66 acres. Rased on the property ha\ ing only 3.66 acres it is not possible to subdivide the property without granting a lot area variance for one of the properties fora lot less than 2 acres. If the properties would be split aloisy the old property line a lot width variance would be required because the lot would have frontage along the street of less than 200'. Mike Gaffron, Orono Planning Director, has prepared a memo that provides a background history of the 960 North Brown Road property. The memo is attached as Exhibit E. Cit>' Policy Relating to Combined Parcels The City of Orono has encouraged parcels held in common ownership to be combined when properties do not meet minimum requirements for lot area and/or w idth. Properties being combined require City approval. 1 he City of Orono’s approval assumes the property becomes one individual lot. Following a property combination it is assumed the common property line effectively disappears. A building could be constructed over the previous property line and no setbacks to the property line arc required. The remaining parcel functions as one lot. A subdivision to separate combined parcels is required in all cases where lots, siavc been combined. Section 11.03, Subdivision 2.66 of the Subdivision Ordinance defines the separation of lots previously combined as a “Class 1” Subdivision, which means that they arc exempt from platting, but still require approval via the subdivision process, and arc still subject to minimum lot standards. Histon of Creating New Building Sites Not Meeting Minimum Lot Area Requirements Staff has been able to identify only two occasions when a subdi\ ision was approved that created lots less than the required lot area for the respective zoning district since the rezoning of the City in 1975. 1. Plat of Bavside Beach - 1980 The Plat of Bayside Beach was a 3 lot plat that created three residential lots and a common outlot that is used as a shared driveway and also contained a shared septic system until the Stubbs Bay area was sewered. The total area of the property prior to subdivision was 2 acres. Three-'/: acre building sites were created with one-'/: acre common outlot. The ow ners of the property requested the City change the zoning from B-2 (Commercial - Marina Use) to residential. The property was rezoned to LR-1A which is a 2 acre residential district. Effectively the property was “down zoned" from commercial to residential. Rather than rezoning the property a'/: acre residential district, the City chose to rezone the property the 2 acre LR-IA district, and grant lot area and lot width variance as a’.l the surrounding properties were zoned 2 acre. 1980 was the final year the marina operated, before the re/oning to residential. The 1980 approval allowed a total of 55 boats on the property and within the individual slips. 2. Plat of Blue Hill - 1994 The Plat of Blue Hill resulted in a two-lot plat of a 3.24 acre property in the 2-acre residential district. The basis for the approval of the lot area variance to allow one lot less than two acres in size dated back to a 1980 Council resolution which was adopted during the process of assigning sewer units to the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project, that resolution appears to anticipate that the City would either grant a future lot area variance as part of the future subdivision ofthe property, or to rezone the individual lot to a 1-acre district. Following the 1980 sewer project the property owner did pay a sewer assessment assuming future use of one of the two tots as a sevvered building site. Rezoning the property to 1-acre was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Other properties in the area are all zoned 2-acre. The Council approved one lot to be less than 2 acres based on the “agreement ” that had been made by the 1980 resolution between the City and the propert) owner, t he MUSA separated the propertv to allow one lot to have sewer access and tlic second, larger property was outside die MUSA. L Based on tlie number of subdivisions that have been approved in the City of Orono it would be precedent setting to approve this proposed subdivision. An approval of the subdivision would certainly open the opportunity for many properties in the City that have been combined or are nearly large enough to subdivide to potentially do so. The two specific cases noted above had some unique situations and history behind them to justify variances. Comprehensive Plan The property has been guided for 2-acre rural residential development by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property has been zoned 2-acrc since at least 1967. One recent change to the property is its’ recent inclusion into the MUSA allowing sewer connection to the property. The provision of sewer to the property does not change the rural character intended for the district and the land use classification. The Sewer Policy Plan, within the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan states “Orono's urban and rural areas provide distinctly different lifestyles, amenities and ser\ ices which jointly benefit the community as a whole. Each area has separate planning priorities and separate environmental considerations. Urban areas and urban ser\ ices will not be permitted to encroach on or destroy the rural community.” (CMP 4C-6) The property is defined as a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan. The closest area to the property that is defined as urban would be the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The general sewer policy goes on to say in order to protect Lake Minnetonka from the severe negative impacts of excessive stormwater runoff that would be generated by developmeni densities in excess of 1 home per 2 aces. Orono will not allow residential development in the rural area at densities greater than 1 home per 2 acres. Sewer has been provided to a number of areas that are defined as rural areas. Generally the prefen ed method of sewage disposal w ithin the rural area is it individual on-site system. The rural areas that have been provided with sewer service have done so because the lots were developed prior to the adoption of current zoning standards. Many of the lots are substandard and had non-compliant or failing septic systems. The size of the properties did not provide for future septic sites so the logical solution was to provide sewer ser\'ice to those areas. Typical Subdivision Process This application is at the Sketch Plan phase since the subdivision application requires variances. 1 he Sketch Plan does not require a public hearing. The second phase of the subdivision process is the Preliminary Plat where the hearing is held. Following preliminary plat there is a final plat process. If the subdivision would be a lot division along the same property line that previously separated Tracts A and B it may be exempt from platting, but still requires approval via the subdi\ision process. The role of the Planning Commission is to review the proposed subdivision in relation to the general lay out of the lot division, its’ compatibilitv with the Comprehensive Plan, and to review impacts of the proposed development with the community. The process as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance only requires a sketch plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Since the subdivision would require either rezoning the property to one- acre or a lot area variance, this sketch plan will be reviewed by the Council. Layout The proposed layout of the property would be to have two lots w ith direct access to Brown Road. The layout will be the 2-lot general layout that existed prior to the lot combination. Planning Commission Action Requested A sketch plan docs not require an official action. Applicants should be advised of the Planning Commis'.ion's position on cieating a sub-standard lot. Applicants should be given a position on the following issues for discussion: 1. Creation of a lot not meeting the minimum requirements for the zoning district. A change to this policy would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance, and the long term policy of the City of Orono to protect rural areas. 2. The Land Use Plan designation of properties in the rural area with sewer service. The Comprehensive Plan states the provision of sewer does not change the rural character of the non- urban areas of the City. 3. Does the City of Orono want to change the long standing policy regarding the combination of substandard lots? Neighborhood Petition The applicants have provided a petition signed by a number of surrounding property owners. The petition is attached as H.xhibit I. Staff has received one call from a concerned property owner in the area that they had received information that the property may be available for a future town house development. Staff advised the neighbor the zoning of the property would not permit a town house development. The caller also stated they were not in favor of the development that would create a second building site. ii^ Application # 0Z~ ^7^3 Date Received Z-20-0*Z. Amount Paid ^ ~L7^ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 9UO /Jer-trW Property Identification Number (PID) ! 1 6- 2.% ^ ooa5 Please check one - Property ____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT >< Name Address City__ V koi Phone (home) 9S^-'7H5~ 9*/8 2_ Zip5T3rtf hone ( oric) feia.- e,K9-/Qoo OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address City__ (attach list if more than one) Zip Phone (home) . Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size I o 3. (ct* Present use (check) Present Zoning District -LRlft Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__ Other (specify)_________ prx- PROPOSAL _____ Division for Tax Purposes _____ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) ✓ Subdivision for Nev' Building Sites Number of Building Sites 1 1 Existing Units New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per3j(pUAcres Sq. Ft. Dry BuildableLand Residential _________Other (specify)_________ i » \ j J J J a ■) NnNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. 2. Completed application form. 3. Preliminaiy plat information on Certiflcate of Survey. 4. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt. Center 348-3271). 5. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application Zoning Official's Signature___________________________________Qgjg " MLNIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION ' 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed Certificate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Official's Signature^___________________________________ _ I. APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. ^plication Base Fees: y/ Sketch Plan Review (Class 1. II & III) $275.00 JF _____ Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement S350.00 _____ Subdivision Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $400.00 + $30.00/Iot (Class III & all non-residcntial) _____ Final Plat Application (Class 111) $225.00 _____ Legal Review and Filing: _____Subdivision only $100.00 _____Subdivision w/casements and covenants min. $200.00 ___ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and I! Subd'v- on Application $200.00 (No change from original application) -------- Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original applictiion) B. Special Improtement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $.5C/lincal ft; Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50/'1ineal ft.; Totals oo . lin. ft. X .50 = S. lin. ft. X .50 = S _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension $275 00 + $25/snib _____ Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 + $25/snib _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250 00 _____ On-Site System. Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $60.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fccs/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $250.00 ^$50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision $35.00/Dwelling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer. City Anomey, Planning Commission and Coon^iietessa^ to process this application and ftulher agrees to pay all additional fees established by r»rrlin?ir.r<» X ^ j \ ---------------------------- Date OX, ordinance. Applicant’s Signatu Owner's Signature Date - e>\_ Applicant must have.illsubminals into theCityOWce25daysbefore the PlannmgCommission meeting. Planning Commission meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building* Zoning Office ofthis change prior to the meeting ---- ' •7 I» • I I s MEDINA Sxis4>n^ Zonirt* •■i|;?.rrr?-—«—.-i«. __11 fH Ph II 9t Cr WORTH ShoteMOOtf RR-lB Si (2 DC KEY LAKE W«T?*TA a Su^or «ood» RR-1B Wtor Cir R*df fwood iCIf RQAO -'( 'W*.,f/o 0-=^;--.^ LAKE Su,„ MAPI fiOLLA lSt£ ^A n O Colin Of *V«^ L t>r>» O^— S.d« Oc lOrtQ' r' - • ABINGDON WAY RR-1B do «l 1 ^ D*CA£NSOW tirTjrqr £■ To: From: Paul Weinberger Mike Gaffron Date:2/27/02 Subject: Background Information on #02-2763 960 Brown Road North Here is some additional background information regarding zoning and past subdivisions and combinations involving the subject property: July 10,1950:Township ordinance adopted which zoned the portion of Orono including this property as “North Orono District"; no lot size or width restrictions. As of mid 1950’s: The property was unplatted and included all the land that was later platted as Long Lake Country Club Addition. September 12,1955: Village ofOrono Ordinance No. 7 adopted, establishing that all building lots in the Village must have at least 15,000 s.f. area and 100' width. February 10,1958: Village Ordinance No. 15 increased minimum lot size to 25,000 s.f./120'. October 12,1959: Village Ordinance No. 22 increased minimum lot size to 1.0 acre/140'. June 17, I960:RLS 926 filed, creating Tracts A, B and C; e.xisting residence on Tract A. September 14,1961: Tract C was platted as Long Lake Country Club Addition. Post-1962/Pre-1970: Tract A was split iiito two tax parcels: N. 160' (43125-3010) and S. 72' (43125-3020). Additional research of County records is needed to determine exactly when this occurred; however, it is clear that the S. 72' of Tract A would not have been buildable when it was created, as it was only 0.66 acres and 72'in width when 1.0 acre/1 40’was required for any building site after 10/12/:>9. Also, if it was split off after 9/14/67, the .V. 160' of Tract A would have also been unbuildable because it was only 1.46acres where 2.0acre/200’width was required. September 14,1967: New zoning code adopted, created new zoning districts. The area including subject property was rezoned as R-IA One Family Residential District requiring a minimum lot size of 2 acres/200' January 1,1975:New zoning code created new zoning boundaries and district; subject property included in LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District, requiring a minimum of 2 acres/200' May 9,1984: Until this time Tracts A and B had remained as three tax parcels: N. 160'Tract A (43125-3010) PINS #27-118-23 43 0011 S. 72'of Tract A (43125-3020) PINS #27-118-23 43 0012 Tract B (43125-6000) PINS #27-118-23 43 0010 In May 1984 the 3 parcels were combined into PINS #27-118-23 43 0025 and have remained as a single parcel since then. September 15,1997: Warranty deeds from Alvord to Tabor included Tract B and N. 160' of Tract A on one deed and S. 72' of Tract A on separate deed (I don ’t think this is relevant, but interesting). #02-2763 February 27,2002 Page 2 The basic City premise is that the entire property as it exists today is only 3.66 acres. The legal descriptions in County records exclude the road, and the plat maps have shown the road at 66 ’ width since at least the mid 1950 ’s. Subdivision code Section ll.OJ.def. of Lx)t Area, Minimum excludes right of ways and road easements from the calculable lot area for subdivision, so the lot area caimot include the 33' used for Brown Road. Section 1 1.02, Subd. 10(A)(6) prohibits the granting of a variance that would vary the minimum requirements for a lot as set forth in the zoning chapter as applied to the entire subdivision; this has been interpreted to mean that within a subdivision, while some lots may be slightly undersized and others sli{^tly oversized, the average of all lots must meet the standard. In practice, we have rarely allowed any newly created lots to be undersized even when the subdivision average is conforming. Section 1 1 .03, Subd. 2.66, Definition of “Subdivisic;^, Classification”, defines the separation of lots previously combined as a Class 1 Subdivision, which means that they are exempt from platting but still must be approved via the subdivision process, and are still subject to the minimum lot standards. Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subd. 6(C) disallows the separation by transfer or sale of commonly owned nonconforming undeveloped lots in a contiguous arrangement, except when approved by Council. Therefore, even if Tract B or the S. 72' of Tract A (both vacant) had never been legally combined with the N. 160' of Tract A, it could be argued that merely selling off the vacant parcels would be prohibited without Council approval, and each of these would have required a variance in order to construct a home on them. KCOidI civI:l/ duiivci MINNIMN COUNTY, MINNISOTA ■ . ■ OCNOrCS IRON HONUCNT. OCMTU JUDICIAL UNOUARK. ■CWUNDS IHDIN MC AtSUO. JUC. I960 eCAUl !■ - 160' COW. FICLO & NOWX tWyCTORt I htrtby ctrfify thtt In •ccordunct »lth the provisions of Chspttr 506« Mlnntsoto Slofutes of 1949,’ss smtndt'j, I hsvt surveyed the following described tract of land in the County of Hennepin end Stste of Minnesota, towit: Tracts A, 6 and C, Registered Land S**rvey No. 911, Hennepin County, Minnesota. leu? ft/ mfl; ' • 1A. f, r» ^ lR-i a (BROWN 18(9.08 RES 1*^ LZT' -i/I .... .... f • •• .• *. • mm rnmm m $ m m • • • • « « « We, Clayt & Julie Tabor, are in the process of asking llic City of Orono to allow us to sub-divide our property into two parcels. This would allow us to tear down the existing dwelling and replace it with a new home. A new home could then be built upon the adjacent lot. We would appreciate the support of our neighbors. Name Address Signature I ^ - /O oA/a(^ C6t*^~h f(Xi BrjK/A lO Di^\u') UAJl-fit i.A Y. / Olt2Ai> 77K-/W 6V(ji.^c> tOi\. ^ci /\J / /ierM U'rj/tt , Mr< 53 r/^l /7JA^ ?, r^o IgpO / / ^ 2/) ^^ Cj/yy\ (^^OLL'C^ JZC> ^ Li^(^ lA^ii t'O ^ /.tryo Lcitp (^tJ ^ K(^0»on ^d. i^n^Uclf^ TT M I (K-L a >^- (T, L ^AJ/^ LAK^^yy\\M 'h/vJ iSk, ■ * j» -^- J ^ 2-ft U^hy( WL ,C,0.KiuAJ*>^ ^ jL^“f ^ /^^TM."T^U US^*-»^A l^lcO i.l7--ScL/,.. .^Sf^i^U-cjk. ■ - /^??o uj. pTtt-io^ l>i>u^(aJb J^l La)^^£^^^Z!UAi Lrft^ UUrjC * r--r)rQ^L-<^t?n/ -^Tlt-iT^ fijC (Jioli^tuuO /9lf^ (^&-ct'tJX4^ ^.d. */5^rx^ V^y y ’---------- ^<>0 a/. X>rViA/n ^C^C e^ * ^6 /L» /4fvuiv\_ao55 s«tt« o <:.!__________ —^(jcLe./ ^-fvriVrv _2£)<< iUi-■^r^,---------- /ftoj /po*:a^£^L~~ /(?6^<D ll, l^fn.r^ Qc&s^ V^fiwAOts ^P<y<^(lH.AK>l^^O i^p9f^ PA^ ^oAS> • •(f Lfh-^ • «. • ; ■■ t* TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: List of Exhibits: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator March 4,2002 #02-2764 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment Add “Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) District’ A Draft Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance B Zoning Map (Highw-ay 12 Commercial Area) C Zoning Map (Navarre) Background Orono has established 6 zoning districts for commercial uses within the City; B-1 (Retail Sales Business District), B-2 (Lakeshore Business District - Marinas), B-3 (Shopping Center Business District), B-4 (Office and Professional Business District), B-5 (Limited Neighborhood Business District). B-6 (Highway Commercial District). Each district has a list of permitted and conditional uses along with standards for minimum lot size and width, and required building setbacks. While each district can be used for its' intended purpose, the zoning standards for each district only allows buildings that are required to meet minimum setbacks usually resulting in development that leads to a building set in the center of the property with individual site parking located around the building. Purpose The existing commercial zoning districts do not have the ' flexibility” to allow redevelopment to follow existing development patterns in certain parts of the City. An example wou’d be the Navarre commercial area where several buildings are located with a zero setback to the front property lines. Under the existing zoning standards redevelopment or new development of parts of Navarre would require new buildings to have a 20 ’ front setback from front property lines and 30' from rear property lines. The City may want to maintain the sidewalk, pedestrian nature of the Navarre Commercial District. A CPUD zoning district would allow the City of Orono to have the flexibility to consider such requests. Initially the City had considered creating a CPUD district as a result of a development proposal for a multi-unit office complex on a 4 acre parcel located on Shady-wood Road in Navarre. The specific proposal is a request to construct several office buildings on one property and plat each lot independently to sell each unit into private ownership, much like a residential towuhome project. The existing zoning of the properties suggests the site be used for general office, but the zoning of the lot as B-4 requires properties have a minimum lot size of 20,000 s.f. and have frontage of 100* along the street. Orono has recently established a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) district. The RPUD district allows residential properties the flexibility to provide densities and standards that are not available in any of the City’s existing zoning districts. The densities and use of a property within a PUD are guided by the Land Use Plan as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. The RPUD was used ¥ to permit the 62-unit apartment complex to provide an alternative housing type that was not currently available in Orono. Advantages Planned Unit Developments approve an individual site plan with individual performance standards written into the final development document. The advantage rezoning a property to PUD is the approval is subject to the final development site plan. If the project is not completed the property would revert to the pre-existing zoning district or be changed to match the guided use of the property as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. If a property were rezoned to another “B” zoning district and the development proposed for that site was never completed, the City of Orono would have little control over a new site plan on the property that met the requirements of the district. PUDs are widely used in other communities. The one item they have in common is the ability to provide greater flexibility in neighborhood development or non-residential areas than what can be done under a conventional zoning district. Some cities define each type of PUD district (residential, commercial, industrial) separately and some group all under one ordinance. Orono would have separate ordinances for each use. Orono ’s Municipal does not have sections that stand alone that define standards for items such as landscaping and screening. The RPUD district has listed standards within the district for these items. The proposed CPUD ordinance has also used the standards that are listed and defined within the RPUD inilXQlculljiJhlli—ffliJirjirr Proposed CPUD Standards The proposed ordinance lists the following as general standards all developments that would request a rezoning to CPUD. Please note the following are suggested standards that can be amended if the Planning Commission recommends 1. A CPUD can only be considered for properties guided for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. CPUD could not be used for properties within the B-2 district. The B-2 district is established for marinas. 3. Properties are subject to site coverage requirements and allowed hardcover. 4. Within the CPUD district the setback for all buildings shall be 35 ’ to any residentially zoned propert}. building setbacks to property lines not zoned for residential use shall be determined as appropriate by the City Council based on the use of the property, use of adjacent properties, and development patterns of adjacent properties. The setback for parking shall be 20 feet to street property lines and 35 ’ to property lines adjacent to residentially zoned property. The City Council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. 5. The building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. 6. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. 7. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. 8. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted as part of a general sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. 9. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. 10. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. 11. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer’s expense. Where public rights-of-way are available, at the City’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or such other material as may be approved by the City and shall be not less than 8 feet in width. 12. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. 13. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering standards are the identical standards as adopted w ithin the RPUD district. Please review the requirements within Subd. 6 (H) of the draft ordinance. Process The process is a four step process. 1 . Concept Plan Review - General review of the proposal with the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Master Development Plan and Rezoning - Approval of the master development plan includes all building and site plans. 3. Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee - Following the approval of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement w ith the City relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. 4. Final Site and Building Plan - Approval of final site and building plan for the entire CPUD. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance to establish standards and authority for the CPUD district as a conunercial zoning option, subject to any changes that may be proposed by the Planning Commission. Options for Action 1. Recommend to code amendment to add the CPUD zoning district. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Reconunend the CPUD district not be created. 4. Other. 4 DRAFT COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) district is to offer an alternative zone to development or redevelopment of properties located in commercial zoning districts in the City of Orono. The CPUD is to allow alternatives to the restrictions made mandatory in the commercial districts in such a manner that more efficient means of providing off-street parking, thoroughfare access, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, stabilization of contiguous property values, buffering of adjacent non commercial areas, and other general and pertinent planning considerations may be developed and utilized. Deviation from the definitive and precise requirements of individual commercial zoning districts within the community can be considered, and conditionally allowed as a CPUD if the Council finds the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The CPUD district will encourage the following: A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; B. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings; C. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands and trees; I O. hi^ quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; E. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and F. development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Subd. 2. Flexibility; The uniqueness of each CPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses: Any permitted use as regulated in the underlying zoning district and those specific uses approved by the City Council shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a CPUD district. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses: Any conditional use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a CPUD district. [Accessory Residential - Second Floor Residential located above commercial use - For Discussion] Subd. 5. Accessory Uses; Any accessory use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as a potentially allowable accessory use. Subd. Development Standards; Within the CPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: A. Comprehensive Plan. Proposed uses and development of property shall be only for uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezoning: Rezoning to CPUD shall only be considered for properties within the B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, and E*6 zoning districts. C. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages shall be is conformance with the requirements of Shoreland Ordinance. D. Setbacks and Separation of Uses. Within the CPUD district the setback for all buildings shall be 35 ’ to any residentially zoned property, building setbacks to property lines not zoned for residential use shall be determined as appropriate by the City Council based on the use of the propert>’, use of adjacent properties, and development patterns of adjacent properties. The setback for parking structures shall be 20 feet to street property lines and 35 ’ to property lines adjacent to residentially zoned property. The City Council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, e.xisting and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. E. Height Limitations. For properties guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. i F. Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. G. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. H. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted as part of a general sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. I Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other apprr -iate measures to reduce traffic geneiation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. J. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved CPUD development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved CPUD development. K. Lighting Standards. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general perfomiance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. 1 Trails. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer’s expense. Where public rights-of-way are available, at the City ’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or .such other material as may be approved by the City and shall be not less than 8 feel in width. M. Architectural Standards. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. i i A. elevations of all sides of the building; B. t>pe and color of exterior building materials; C. a typical floor plan; D. dimensions of all structures; E. the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. F. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessoiy buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. G. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. H. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed within a structure and screened so as to be not visible. I Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation value of the structure). ___ N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans 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 of the property with accurate dimensions b. locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads, trails and other improvements; c. proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals d. location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; e.a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions f. planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; locations and details of other landscape features including bemis, fences and planter boxes; h. details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; i. location and details of irrigation systems; and details and cross sections of all required screening. 1. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives, trails or storage shall be landscaped w ith a combination of deciduous and coniferous species including overstoiy trees, understocy trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, 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: Minimum Tree and Shrub Requirements Vegetation Type Size Quantity Overstory Deciduous Trees 2.5" bb (Caliper) 1 tree per 1,000 gross square feet of building footprint area or 1 tree per 40 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater Coniferous Trees 6 ’ height bb Minimum of 30% of required overstory trees must be coniferous Understory Shrubs 3 gal. potted or 18" 1 shrub per 300 gross square feet of building footprint area or 1 shrub per 30 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater Ornamental deciduous trees 1.5" bb (Caliper) Not required; but 2 ornamental deciduous trees may be substituted for 1 required overstory deciduous tree (maximum substitution=25% of required overstor>’ deciduous trees) Credits for Existing Trees: The City Council shall have sole discretion whether credit shall be granted for existing healthy trees (General Standards Adopted With RPUD Ordinance! 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. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. All new ovcrstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper oflVi inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of si.x feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 '/z inches. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, trails, 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. A sprinkler system shall be installed in new landscaping areas. 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. 2. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. All paiking lots containing over 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 stall" standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. Parking lot landscape arejB, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed tliroughoui ihe parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. .Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, omamerital or evergreen trees, plus ground 8 ____ 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 IS surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning Commission. 3. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 4. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls e.xceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. 5. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to tw o full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the e.xpcnse of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 6. Screening and Buffering. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: a. All buildings shall be adequately buffered from residential lots. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. b. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. c. Trash storage facilities shall be fully enclosed within a permanent structure that is architecturally harmonious with the buildings on the property. d. Access roads shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. e. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. f All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. g. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be requierd Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. Subd. 8. Review of Application; Procedures. A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a CPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant shall submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is required for CPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: A. B. C. approximate building, road and trail locations; height, bulk and square footage of buildings; t)pe and square footage of specific land uses and uses of each tenent; D. generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and preserved; and E. staging and timing of the development. The comments of the planning commission and city coimcil shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal CPUD application when submitted. B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to CPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning code amendment. The master development plan shall contain the followng: A. building location, height, bulk and square footage; B. type and square footage of specific land uses; C. number of dwelling units; D. detailed street and utility locations and sizes E. parking layout; F. drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage area*; 0. grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours; H. generalized landscape plan; 1. generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting; J. plan for timing and phasing of the development; K. covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; L. renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development; M. trail plan; and K. lighting plan. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the property to CPUD. After rezoning of the property to CPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the CPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance. C. Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee. Following the approval of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Cit>' relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement may take the form of: 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site Improvement Performance Agreement; and'or 3) another form of binding instrument as may be required by the City. D. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire CPUD or for specific parts of the CPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the city, including the following; 1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; 3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans; and detailed trail plan. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: buildings, parking areas roads and trails are in substantially the same location as previously approved; Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a CPUD on a consideration of the following: A. compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals. policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan; B. preser\ ation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearance of neighboring properties; C. creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to: D. an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; E. the amount and location of open space and landscaping; F. materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same w ith the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and airangement and amount of parking. G. promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of strucUires, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; H. protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.; and I. such other factors as the planning commission or city council deem relevant. The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. Subd. 9. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property within a CPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the CPUD zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. I t t If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a CPUD approved to be built in phases has not started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. Subd. 10. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original CPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: A. substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; B increases or decreases the number of units; C. increases the gross floor area of any individual building; D. increases the number of stories of any building; E. decreases the amount of open space or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or F. creates non-compliance w ith any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. O. Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, Daniel Kluth, Sandy Smith, David Rahn, and Alternate J. Mark Fritzler. Commissioners William Stoddard and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gafffon, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Lin Vee. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. CONSENT (#01) #02-2750 MICHELLE AND EDWARD WINER, 2010 SHORELINT DRI\T, variance Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether any of the neighbors have commented on this application. Weinberger stated Staff did receive one call from a neighbor who was not opposed to the project. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2750, .Michelle and Edward Winer, 2010 Shoreline Drive, granting of an average lakeshore setback variance to construct the addition and deck to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes 6, .Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#02) #01-2731 NAVARRE AMOCO, 3360 SHORELINE DRIVE, CO.NLMERCIAL SITE PLAN RE\TEW AND VARIANCES Kluth moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #01-2731, Navarre Amoco, 3360 Shoreline Drive, to allow the Applicant time to submit the requested items. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#03) #01-2735 PROPOSED ZONING CODE A.MENDMENT, SECTION 10.03, SUED. 14, STRl'CTl'RAL LOT COVTRAGE ORDIN ANCE STANDARDS Bottenberg stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a proposed change to the zoning code dealing with structural lot coverage ordinance standards. Bottenberg noted the Planning Commission had discussed this item in a number of work sessions, and nquired w hether there were any changes or concerns by the Planning Commission relating to this item. Kluth noted they were still working with the percentages. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (1101-2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Hawn commented the last time they reviewed this item they discussed the fact that this proposed amendment would affect very few properties but would require a large number of properties to have hardcover calculations done. Hawn stated it was her understanding the Planning Commission had decided at that time not to continue to pursue this item. Mabusth stated that was her understanding as well. Kluth stated the Platming Commission did request Stall to draft the model ordinance. Hawn stated the ordinance does not include anything about non-lakcshorc lots and percentage of hardcover on those lots. Smith stated it was her understanding pools were to be included in the hardcover, which apparently has changed since the last work session. Mabusth stated Smith is correct, noting that Smith and Lindquist were opposed to the ordinance since swimming pools were not included in the hardcover calculations, with the rest of the Planning Commission being in favor of the proposed amendment. Hawn indicated what she was referring to was her proposal that non-Iakcshore properties, in an effort to insure that those lots did not have a large amount of hardcover on them, was to put a percentage limit on those properties as well as lakeshore lots. Hawn stated since then Staff s study has demonstrated that a limit on those lots is not needed at this time. Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission should suggest a 35 percent limit on properties outside the 500-1000’ setback area. Mabusth commented Staff did a sur\ ey of non-lakcshorc lots and found that it was not an issue. Rahn stated the only other comment he had regarding the ordinance is under Item #1. which reads “all roofed structures that extend more than 6’ above grade level". Rahn stated he would like that to read all roofed structures more than 6’ above grade level. Rahn staled in his opinion the word extend gives the impression of a horizontal e.xtcnsion rather than vertical. Hawn stated it is her understanding this is addressing structures that are cantilevered. Rahn stated he understood it related to structures over sLx feel in height. Gaffron stated he is in agreement with Rahn that the word extend is somewhat confusing and that the w ord extend could be eliminated w ithout changing the meaning of the ordinance. Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2735, Proposed Amendment of Zoning Code, Section 10.03, Subd. 14, Lot Coverage by Structures Standards, with the words, wrhkh extend, being removed from Item #1 under Section 1. V’OTE: Ayes 5, Nays I. Smith Opposed. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (tfOI>2735 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Continued) Smith indicated she voted in opposition to the motion because in her opinion swimming pools should be included in lot coverage. (#04) #2333 PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMEN"*-, SECTION 10.20 SUBD. 4C, HOME OCCUPATION STANDARDS GafTron stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a summary of the conclusions reached during the December 20'*' work session. Gaffron stated Section 1 of the draft ordinance eliminates provisions for home occupation licensing and makes them an accessory use in residential zones. Gaffron stated the proposed zoning code amendment also eliminates most of the performance standards that were included in the current zoning code. Section 3 revises the Home Occupation accessory use entry as it appears in the list of R-1A allowed accessory uses. The new language requires that all home occupations meet the special provisions of Section 10.63, which has been added to the code. GaflVon noted Section 10.63 also contains a requirement that existing home occupations become conforming within one year. Gaffron stated the ordinance as currently drafted does not establish multiple regulatory' categories of home occupations, but merely creates a set of standards that all home occupations must meet. If an existing home occupation does not meet the standards, it would be in violation of the zoning code and would not be allowed. A violation of the standards would be treated as a zoning violation rather than a licensing violation and would be subject to the legal processes already established in the code for remedying such violations. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission rhould consider whether multiple regulatory categories would be useful. GafTron indicated it is common for cities to have a licensing requirement for those home occupations that have certain characteristics that have an impact upon the neighborhood, which might include employment of a non-occupant of the dwelling; having customers or clients or their vehicles coming to the property; manufacturing, assembly or processing of products or materials; parking more than one vehicle used in the home occupation that is V* ton or less capacity a id has attachments such as a plow, et cetera; parking a vehicle used in the home occupation that exceeds Va ton capacity; or if the business produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. Additional categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that do not meet one or more standards but might mitigate or eliminate the adverse impact upon the neighborhood if it is subjected to certain conditions. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could consider requiring a conditional use permit in which the Council’s authority to review or revoke the conditional use permit is spelled out if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to mitigate the adverse neighborhood impacts. Another option would be to require an annual license for such uses that have the potential to be a problem. Gaffron noted a public heanng on this matter was held by the Planning Commission on November 19* with no public comments being received. This item was then tabled to a work session on December 20*. w hich resulted in staff being dnected to make a number of reusions to the drafr approv ed by the PAGE 3 inJb MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (112333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Home Occupations, Continued) Planning Commission in 1998. Gaffron noted those revisions have been incorporated into the new draft before the Planning Conunission tonight. Gaffron recommended the public hearing be reopened to see if there are any public comments. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission would like to see an additional category for licensing or conditional uses, some additional work would need to be done by Staff prior to its approval. Smith inquired whether the licensing or conditional use category would allow’ the City to have some authority over those businesses which may not be able to meet all the enteria outlined in the ordinance. Gaffron stated it would. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application, There were no public comments. Kluth noted StaiThas listed a number of restrictions on home occupations without specifically identifying any particular home occupation. Kluth inquired if a resident is unable to meet those requirements whether they would be able to apply for a license or a cond fionul use permit. Gaffron stated if a business does not meet those standards outlined in the ordinance, they would not be eligible for a home occupation. Kluth stated he would be in favor of including language in the ordinance which would allow a home occupation to apply for a license or a conditumal use permit if they do not comply w ith all the critena. Kluth noted that the state licenses home day care and would not be covered under this ordinance. Gaffron stated home day care is licensed through the state and not by the City, w ith the City being required to allow home day care. Mabusth stated the Planning Commission has not thoroughly discussed w hether a conditional use permit or a license w ould be more appropriate in terms of enforcing any possible violations. Mabustli inquired whether Stall'prefers one over the other. Mabusth slated in her view she would prefer to see a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated one of the benefits of a condittonal use permit is that the Council would only see the application once unless it becomes a problem. Gaffron stated if a license is required, the Applicant would be required to apply once a year. Gaffron stated if the City would like to see a particular business on an annual basis, that requirement could also be included in the conditional use permit. llawTi stated she has concerns how the conditional use permit will be written, noting (he City does not know’ w hat types of businesses w ill be applying for a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated Orono ’s Zoning Code does not acknowledge what is called a “special use permit*’, which the statutes may allow' the City to do without having to meet conditional use permit mandatory approval standards. PAGE 4 MINUTES oF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Home Occupations, Continued) Kluth stated he is in favor of the draft ordmance, but would like to see some language included in the ordinance saying that if a home occupation fails these standards, they need to apply for a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated anytime a conditional use is listed in City Code, there should be enough standards attached to it so if those standards cannot be met, the Council can approve some conditions specific to one particular home occupation. Gaffron commented Staff would like the City Attorney to review that language prior to it being approved. Gaffron stated a third option could also be to broaden what home occupations would be allowed but to incor|torate stricter restrictions on the number of employees, et cetera. Kluth stated the conditional use permit language could be included later. Kluth stated the intent of the ordinance is to protect the neighborhood but still allow some businesses to be run out of the home. Ilawn stated the intent of the ordinance is also to allow the neighbors some recourse in the event a problem does develop. Hawn indicated she personally is happy with the restrictions contained in the ordinance, but that if other members of the Planning Commission would like to sec stricter restrictions, then perhaps this should be discussed further. Gaffron noted he has incorporated three questions into the ordinance, with the first question being found under Item J. Item J states, “no equipment, machinery, or materials other than of a type normally found in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed.” The question asks, “will this in effect prohibit operation of a landscape service or contractor with a backhoc or dump truck?” Gaffron stated that type of equipment generally is not associated with a dwelling use and there is a potential that some conflicts could arise. Kluth stated that also depends on how much land the person owns as well as the amount of screening that is provided. Hawn suggested adding the words, “to be parked outside”, noting there arc some larger properties where those t> pcs of businesses do exist. Rahn inquired whether the City requires that this type of equipment or vehicles be parked inside regardless of si/c. Gaffron stated the City does have an exterior storage ordinance that requires specific vehicles to be stored inside. Gaffron stated Items G and H deal with outdoor storage and parking. Mabusth inquired whether the existing home occupations would be grandfathered, noting there are one or two landscaping businesses that currently exist in Orono that would not be able to comply with this ordinance. Kluth inquired if they have an existing license currently, whether they would be grandfathered in. PAGES Il MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19, 2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Home Occupations, Continued) Gaffron stated the way the ordinance is currently written, ail home occupations would need to be brought into conformance within a year of its adoption. Gaflron stated the legislature has basically taken away the City’s ability to eliminate non-conforming uses by “amortization". Hawn inquired whether the issue of dispatching within the City is currently a problem. Gaflron stated the typical situation with a contractor is where they all show up at the residence and then leave for the job site in the morning and are gone all day. Gaffron stated technically that could be considered a dispatch center. Kluth pointed out the number of employees is covered in the ordinance. Kluth stated the language in Section 10.63 sort of implies that a dispatch center could operate out of a residence. Gaffron stated a business could also have off-site employees without operating as a dispatch center since they do not come to the residence. Hawn inquired whether a messenger or delivery service would be considered a dispatch center. Kluth stated in his view there are a number of conditions in the ordinance that would help prevent excessive noise and traflic. Mabusth stated the concern is how to deal with a property owner when the use becomes excessive. Gaffron suggested making that type of business licensed to allow for more periodic review by the City. Hawn stated when this issue was first looked at back in 1998, it became clear there were a number of existing businesses operating out of houses that w ere operating without licenses. Hawn stated this ordinance provides some standards for how those businesses should be operated. Rahn stated in his view there should be some type of language to deal with a situation that might not be covered under this ordinance. Smith stated the conditional use permit would allow additional standards to be imposed if needed. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to give some direction to Staff on whether additional language should be added to the ordinance. Mabusth stated there should be some language in the ordinance that gives the City the ability to deal w ith certain e.xemptions. Mabusth stated in her view she would prefer a license rather than a conditional use permit, and questioned w hether it should be considered a special use license or entitled something else. Mabusth suggested Staff consult with the City Attorney on the best method to utilize. Gaffron stated one other issue that he had some questions concerning relate to Item R, “any activity or event organized for the purpose of displaying or selling merchandise shall not be held more than four times per month GafTron stated there was once a situation in Crystal Bay where a resident was holding PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment - Home Occupations, Continued) a boutique every weekend, and the neighbors began to complain about the situation. Gaffron questioned whether four times a month is too much and should be reduced. Gaffron stated another situation to consider is a business that brings in a large number of people at certain times and whether that type of business should be restricted. Fritzler stated there are a number of businesses that have been operating for some period of time without any complaints. Fritzler stated in his view a licensing procedure may be better than a conditional use permit. Smith commented in her view the language already contained in the ordinance does not need to be changed, and that perhaps some additional performance standards need to be added. Hawn stated she likes the simplicity of not needing a license. Hawn stated it is very difficult to have one set of performance standards for 80 percent of the population and then grant special licenses for the other 20 percent who do not comply with these standards. Hawn stated she would prefer that more e.xemptions not be included in the ordinance. Kluth suggested leaving the language as is and amending it in the future if a problem arises. Rahn stated he prefer the license option if the home occupation could be reviewed upon a complaint being received. Rahn stated in addition to some home occupations not being anticipated, there could also be some complaints that are not specific to this ordinance. Rahn stated the City would need to deal with that type of complaint also. Smith stated the City could also consider grandfathering those businesses in that have been operating for a number of years. Kluth stated it should be non-transferrablc grandfathering. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #2333, Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20, Subdivision 4C, Home Occupation Standards. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #01-2706 RICHARD AND JANE STARK, 815 PARTENWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE CHANGES, 7:19 p.m. - 7:21 p.m. Richard and Jane Stark, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg stated the original variance on this property was granted in 1997, and has been renewed every year since then. The Applicants purchased the property and were granted a renewal of the variances to permit construction of a four-stall garage and additional living area to a one level residence. At the time the Applicant's builder applied for a building permit, it was discovered there w’as a conflict w ith the amount of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone versus the amount approved. The submitted plans showed a larger amount of hardcover than w hat had been approved. PAGE 7 ik MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#01*2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) The Applicants have indicated they have decided not to construct the addition on the cast side of the residence and are instead proposing slight.'/ larger decks and changing one of the decks into a screen porch. Both decks are located on the lakesr’c of the residence. Bottenberg stated the City Council did review ihis item last week and voted 3 to 0 to bring the application back to the Planning Commission for further review. The City Council stated they did not have any concerns with the changes Out would like the Planning Commission to review the proposed changes and make the appropriate recommendation. Bottenberg stated the hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback zone was appr oved at 15.3 percent, but the new proposal will reduce the hardcover to 15 percent. The new proposal also reduced the structural coverage by 148 square feet from what had previously been approved. Richard Stark stated he can add to StaTs report if the Planning Commission desires. Hawn stated the Planning Commission is familiar with this application. There were no comments from the public regarding this application. Kluth moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2706, Richard and Jane Stark, 815 Partenwood Road, granting of variances to hardcover. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn inquired whether there was any existing landscaping fabric on the property. Stark indicated if there is any still remaining on the property, it will be removed. NEW BUSINESS (#7) #02-2745 ILONA AND KENNETH PETERSON, 1074 WILDHURST TRAIL, VARIANCES, 7:22 p.m. - 8:06 p.m. Kenneth Peterson, /Xpplicant, and Jack Carter, Builder, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants arc requesting variances to permit construction of a new house and detached garage on the property . The variance is to permit land alteration and construction of the garage and a portion of the deck within a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area around the wetland. Weinberger stated the property is vacant and was originally part of the Wildhurst Estates subdivision in 1991. In 1973, a sewer line was installed across the property, with the sewer line crossing through the present building site. Weinberger stated the sewer line was relocated a couple of years ago across the south property line. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (0O2-2745 Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, Continued) Weinberger stated a large portion of this lot consists of wetland or shoreline area for l ake Minnetonka, with the actual building pad consisting of a small area. The entire lot consists of approximately one acre in size. In 1991, the assumed wetland boundary went around the 930 contour and the entire area was protected with a drainage and utility easement. Since 1991, the methods of determining wetlands have changed, with the Wetland Conservation Act being enacted. It was determined at the time the owners applied for a building permit that the wetland boundary was much further back on the property than originally believed. Weinberger stated the entire building area is located in one comer of the site, and is further restricted by the 30 foot setback to the back property line and side yard setback. Weinberger stated at the time the house was designed on the property, it was determined that the garage area would be located w’ithin the wetland area as well as within a floodplain, which has since been revised. The property met all code requirements in 1991, and was considered a buildable lot at that time. Weinberger stated some additional grading is being proposed to help raise the building pad in order to accommodate construction of the home and to raise the building pad above the floodplain. The Applicants are requesting a variance to lot area since the dry buildable area has now been determined to be less than one acre. In 1991, when it w as originally platted, it w as a one-acre lot and met the requirements, but the code no longer allows wetland credit for sewered lots. In addition, a variance to the wetland ordinance is being requested to permit land alteration and construction of a garage and a portion of the deck w’ithin a protected wetland area and within the 26 foot buffer area. Weinberger stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed this application back in January, and approved a vanance which allows the garage to be constructed within the actual protected wetland boundary and associated grading with the garage. Weinberger stated Uvo areas are proposed on the property for mitigated wetland, which will create a total of 2,180 square feet of w etland on the property. Weinberger stated the property owners would execute a covenant, which would be recorded on the Chain of Title, which would insure the protection of the wetland buffers. The MCWD also recommended that the site be graded to direct storm water away from the wetlands towards W'lldhurst Trail. Staff has discussed drainage tow ards Wildhurst with the MCWD. The City of Orono is not in favor of having water draining directly towards the street. The property is located at a low point where water can reach an elevation where it w ill cross the street. Wildhurst Trail also does not have storm water drains or curb and gutter. Weinberger stated a mutual agreement was reached with the MCWD that allows for only a minimum amount of runoff to get to the street, w ith the remainder of the runoff being directed to a ditch area along Wildhurst Trail and then off into the mitigated area of the wetlands. This w ill allow the water to cross over as much land as possible before impacting the existing wetlands and lake. The City Engineer is recommending that the foundation of the building be located 15 feet from the actual sewer line, which creates a situation requinng the house to be located further to the north and caused a portion of the garage to be located into the wetland area. Staff recommends approval of the application based on the five hardships outlined in Staffs report. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#01*2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) Peterson stated he has nothing additional to add to Staffs report. There were no public comments relating to this application. Hawm inquired what thoughts the Planning Commission had regarding access from Wildhurst. Kluth inquired why two curb cuts rather than one. Peterson stated two curb cuts make access to the property work the best. Peterson noted under Item #4 the City is going to review that item. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would be okay with this application proceeding forward subject to that condition. Peterson stated that would be okay. Kluth stated it was his understanding a property owner was only allowed one curb cut. Weinberger stated traditionally only one access is granted to a property, with each request being reviewed by the Public Works Director. Weinberger stated it has been the policy of the City in the past to only allow one curb cut, noting it might not be defined specifically in the code. Smith inquired whether the garage could be located closer to the house to eliminate the need to be within the wetland. Carter indicated they did discuss that with the MCWD, who had also suggested the garage be located closer to the house. Carter stated they onginally located the garage 20 feet from the house and have since relocated it six feet closer. Carter stated the problem with coming any closer to the house with the garage is access into the garage. Smith inquired w'hether the garage doors could be relocated. Carter stated it is a tuck-under garage, which limits which direction the garage can be accessed from. Kluth eommented the hardships arc very compelling in this case, but noted that there is nothing in the lay of the land that requires a two level garage. Kluth stated he is unsure what the hardship is for a tw o level garage. Peterson stated he did not want to construct a single level four car garage, which would add to the hardcover. Peterson stated the garage was stacked in an effort to limit the footprint. Rahn inquired whether this design was completed prior to the new atoning requirements being put into place. PAGE 10 L.J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) Peterson stated at the time they purchased the property, they understood there was a very definite spot for the house, and they designed the house to meet that specific building pad. Peterson stated in December the wetland issue with the building pad came up, which reduced the size of the building pad by approximately one-third. Peterson stated they attempted to relocate the house, but the situation with the sanitary sewer did not allow them to relocate the house very far. Rahn stated in his view the garage could possibly be relocated out of the wetland area if the garage were redesigned and attached to the home. Peterson stated the garage was stacked to lessen the footprint. Peterson stated due to the elevations of the land, the garage was located slightly away from the house. Rahn stated in his view a four-car garage is not a necessity. Hawn stated the Applicants in her view have done a fairly good job at designing the house and garage given the fact that they were unaware of the wetland constraints. Kluth commented they were also faced with the laws being changed. Kluth noted they are doing wetland mitigation. Kluth stated he has a problem with constructing the driveway in its present location. Carter stated they will avoid constructing the driveway over the lift station. Mabusth noted the Planning Commission does not have a copy of the wetland delineation, and inquired what type of a wetland is on this property. Weinberger stated it is a Type 3. Mabusth commented it would be nice if the City could give a little leeway on the 15 feet from the sewer line to the residence. Weinberger stated Staff can review that prior to this application going to Council. Fritzler stated in his view the garage should be located a little closer to the house, with only one curb cut being allowed. Kluth agreed with Fntzler. Rahn inquired how the garage would be supported in the wetlands. Peterson stated there would be pilings in the wetlands. Rahn commented he personally feels the land alteration on this site is excessive and that it was designed to the old standards. Mabusth inquired whether a preliminary grading plan has been completed. PAGE 11 \L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#01>2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) Weinberger stated the area where the fill will be placed will raise the building pad for the garage and a portion of the house by approximately two feet. Mabusth stated information relating to access, drainage and grading issues should be available prior to this application going to the Council. Mabusth stated the Applicant would need to work with Staff to insure that these issues are resolved prior to proceeding to the City Council. Kluth stated the Planning Commission could approve this application subject to certain conditions. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission should review this application once those issues arc resolved. Hawn stated in her view the Planning Commission docs not have enough information to determine exactly how close the garage should be to the house. Kluth stated a lot of these limitations arc self-imposed by the architectural style of the house rather than by the land. Rahn inquired where the Applicants were at on hardcover. Weinberger stated they arc well below on the hardcover limits allowed on this property. Hawn inquired exactly what other information is still needed as far as drainage and grading. Weinberger stated the approval of the design is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Weinberger stated the City Engineer only reviewed an architectural plan of the grading prior to this meeting, which showed the house and garage located closer to the wetland than the plan before the Planning Commission. Hawn stated she has gotten the impression from the other Planning Commission members that the garage should be located closer to the house. Mabusth stated she would like to hear from the City Engineer on how far back the house can be moved, which may allow the garage to be relocated. Hawn inquired whether this application should be tabled or have the approval subject to a number of conditions. Hawn stated she personally does not have a problem w ith the application, and if the garage is relocated closer to the house, the Planning Commission in her view should review it again. Kluth stated the idea behind relocating the garage is to get it out of the wetland area. Hawn noted even if the garage is attached to the house, a portion would still remain within the w etland buffer zone. PAGE 12 \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#01-2706 Richard and Jane Stark, Continued) Peterson inquired whether the sewer line could be relocated back to where it was supposed to be. Weinberger stated the sewer line could probably be relocated, noting that it was placed in its present location because the previous property ow-ners had requested it be relocated. Weinberger stated if the adjoining property owner agrees to give an easement, the sewer line could be relocated. Weinberger stated currently the City does not have an easement for the sewer line in the neighboring property. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would like to have this application tabled or proceed forward to the City Council. Peterson stated they would like to move ahead. Hawn commented it is likely the City Council would send it back to the Planning Commission since there are a number of unresolved issues. Peterson stated in terms of the drainage to the street, there is a drainage and utility easement that would handle the runoff from the street, with a ditch carrying water from the north side of the road across into the wetlands. Peterson stated they could construct a swale or ditch on their side of the road, which should address all of the drainage concerns. Peterson stated if the garage is relocated closer to the house, it will impact the front yard setback. Rahn stated he personally would like the garage to be closer to the front yard setback than where it is presently proposed. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would rather see the garage closer to the front yard setback than in its present location. Hawn commented it appears to be the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this item be tabled, with the idea that the Applicant look at revising his plans somewhat to relocate the garage out of the wetland area, depict access on the plan and the actual layout of the dnveway. Hawn stated by that time the City should have the comments of the City Engineer concerning drainage and the Public Works Director on the access issue. Hawn stated the Planning Commission would like to see the garage relocated further away from the Type 3 wetland. Rahn stated he would be more receptive to granting a front yard setback than a wetland variance. Other Planning Commission members agreed. Peterson requested his application be tabled. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2745, Ilona and Kenneth Peterson, 1074 Wildhurst Trail, to allow the Applicant time to revise his plans. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 13 MINlTi ES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, 7:30 p.m. («6) #02-2755 LONG LAKE FIRE STATION - CITY OF ORONO, 340 WILLOW DRIVE NORTH, CLASS HI SUBDIVISION. CUP, VARIANCE, 8:06 p.m. - 9:24 p.m. Gafiron stated this application deals with the new joint Long Lake Fire Station located at 340 Willow Dnve North, which consists ot‘6.17 acres and lies within the RR-13, single ' "ily rural residential zoning district. The area east of Willow Dnve and south of the railroad r -of-way and north of Watertown Road is guided for single-family residential use at a density of 2-3 units per acre. Gaffron stated the same standards apply to the fire station that were used in constructing the city facilities. The general performance standards which apply to similar development in residential zones will apply, such as the standard 30’ height limitations. 50’ building setback from all lot lines. 10’ parking setback, et cetera. Gaffron stated the jomt building committee and City Counctls have arrived at a mutually agreeable site plan, which involves a request for a conditional use permit for a possible 20’ by 22’ hose tower extending to a height of 34’-8” above grade where the maximum allowed height is 30’. Gaffron staled the tower would be used primarily for training purposes. Gaffron indicated it is also the City ’s intention to subdivide this propert>- so the fire station can be located on a separate parcel from the back lot which will ultimately be developed for single family, senior housing or another residential use not yet detennined. Future use of the residential parcel is likely to require some rezoning of the property. Gaffron stated the existence of delineated wetlands along the south boundary of the property has resulted in the road being placed further north than anticipated, which creates the need for a setback variance. The setback from the south side of the fir station building to the proposed right-of-way is 40’ instead of the required 50’. Gafiron indicated some factors which have impacted site layout include the necessary north/south building onentation to allow for direct fire apparatus exit onto Willow Drive without requiring additional turning movements. Gaffron stated the Fire Department requires direct access onto the main road without making a second turning maneuver. In addition, it is also required that there be driveway aprons on the cast and west sides of the building bays to allow for fire apparatus ingress-'egress. necessitating that administrative and training spaces be located on the north or south end of the building. Third, the road'dnvew ay access to the rear of the building must allow for the necessary w ide turning radius of fire apparatus; and four, the close proximity to the existing future Willow Drive bndge over the railroad and the new Highway 12 route limits safe road access points. Gaffron stated there arc also site limitations imposed by w idth of the site, as w ell as by the location of existing linear wetlands on the site and the need to create a road corridor to pro\ ide access to the rear of the property for future residential use. Gaffron noted soil conditions also require extensive soil correction work and limit use of the southerly portion of the site for building purposes. Gaffron stated the wetlands have been delineated as Type 6 and 7, and the proposed project will require some filling of the w etland as w ell as mitigation. Gaffron indicated the impact on the w etlands has been minimized by c.xpanding the road corridor and routing the road/dnvcw'ay northward o\cr a narrow point of the w etland. PAGE 14 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Gaffron stated development of the fire station site results in approximately 60 percent of Lot 1 being hardsurfaced and will require some stormwater ponding. Smith inquired whether the tower could be further explained. GafTron stated the tower is located in the southeast comer of the building. The hose tower height is necessary for it to perform a number of functions. Its primary purpose is for firefighter training, and will contain stairways, windows and a door to the roof that will allow for a variety of realistic firefighting and rescue scenarios to be staged. Its secondary use is to elevate hoses for drying. Gaffron noted this tower will only be constructed if the budget allows. Gaffron stated hose towers are sometimes treated as an important architectural design element of fire stations where the location makes it suitable for use as a clock tower or signature design feature. The Long Lake Station will be located in a neighborhood setting rather than a “town center" setting, and reducing the prominence of the tow er will minimize its visual impact on the neighborhood. Gaffron stated the tower is proposed to be 35’ tall where 30* is the normal maximum allow ed. Its flat roof w ill extend approximately 12 ’ above the 23 ’ flat roof height of the majority of the station building. The 20 ’ by 22 ’ area of the tower covers just under 3 percent of the total roof area of the station and is a relatively small feature in the context of the overall visual impact of the station. Staff is recommending that no signage be allowed on the tower and that its facade materials match the rest of the building so that it does not become unnecessarily noticeable, and the tower itself will not be lighted. Gabriel Jabbour, Building Committee, stated the exterior materials arc similar to the bricks utilized on the Pioneer Museum. Smith inquired what impact there would be on the training if the height of the tower is kept to 30’, Jabbour stated at the present time the sixth bay and hose tow er may not be constructed unless the budget allows for it follow ing opening of the bids. Jabbour stated the committee did discuss reducing the height of the tower, but noted the costs to construct a smaller tow er arc higher. Gaffron stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include whether any other conditions are necessary other than those proposed by Staff in order to allow the 35’ tower; w hether the hardships stated in Staffs report support the granting of the setback variance, and whether there are any significant impacts of the 40 ’ setback that should be mitigated by anaching specific conditions to the variance approval. In addition, the Planning Commission should consider whether there are any issues regarding the proposed plat of tne two lots. Mabusth stated it was her understanding the fire station was to have three acres. Jabbour stated it is a three-acre lot when the road, ponding, and wetland mitigation are considered. Jabbour stated there should not be a problem w ith the setback since the road is 60’ w ide instead of the standard 50’. Hawn noted if the sixth bay is not constructed, the setback variance would not be required. Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (M2-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Ron Miller, 270 Willow Drive, distributed photographs of the area. Miller indicated he is not in favor of the design of the fire station. Miller indicated he has visited a number of fire stations, noting they have not been constructed with more than five bays. Miller stated the three and a half acres to the north will need to be addressed by Mn/DOT, and suggested a road to the north be constructed. Miller noted the site consists of blue clay. He said the MCWD has proposed changes to their wetland buffer requirements which may be adopted on February 28"’. He further noted that neither MCWD nor the DNR would confirm whether the stormwater pond will be considered as wetland. Miller suggested that there are a number of ways to avoid the variance such as moving the building 10’ north or eliminating the 6"* bay. Miller stated in his view a hose tower is not needed. Rahn inquired whether Miller would prefer the height of the tower be limited to 30’. Miller stated yes. Mabusth noted the wetland mitigation would require replacement of the same type of wetland. Jim Dillman, 225 Willow Drive, questioned whether the City of Orono would get wetland credit. GafTron stated that issue has not yet been discussed by the watershed district. Dillman inquired what type of lighting would be installed on the fire station and what type of landscaping would be planted. Dillman stated he would prefer there not be bright lights on dunng the nighttime. Gaffron commented one of the things that w ill help is that the majority of the vrindows are on the east and w est side of the building. Gaffron stated the lighting w ould be a shoebox style and illuninate down rather than out. GafTron stated they are proposing to provide appropriate landscaping. Jabbour indicated the building committee is very sensitive to the lighting to be installed on the new fire station as well as the type of landscaping to be planted. Jabbour stated the landscaping would be appropriate for the area. Jabbour suggested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the use of this building be restneted to fire fighting activities. Hawn inquired how high the berm is on the south side of the road. Gaffron stated the height of the berm on the south and the north side is relatively small and w ill not really soften the appearance of the building. PAGE 16 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Jabbour noted the majority of the colored drawings are being shown to the City of Long Lake tonight, and apologized that Staff has a limited number of drawings available for the Planning Commission to review. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission should be looking at whether the hose tower should be constructed. GafTron stated the three issues the Planning Commission should address tonight relate to the subdivision, the impact of the tow er on the neighborhood, and the setback variance. Gaffron stated the City Council might be interested in hearing whether this building will be used for any ancillary uses and the impact that would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Gaffron noted the use of the building is not specifically related to any of the three issues Lefore the Planning Commission tonight. Kluth inquired if there is an agreement on the ancillary uses, how that would be enforced. Jabbour stated there could be a code amendment relating to municipal facilities. Kluth inquired whether the City of Long Lake '•is agreed to those restrictions on its use. Jabbour stated originally the building was expected to be constructed in downtown Long Lake, and little by little the project moved into the City of Orono. Jabbour stated the committee in his view understands what the intent of the building is, and that the neighbors need to understand what this project entails and the impact that it will have on their neighborhood. Kluth expressed concern that if there is no formal agreement on what t>pc of uses this building can be used for, there may be problems in the future that could dramatically change the character of the neighborhood. Jabbour stated in his opinion the two cities should enter into a more formal agreement regarding the use ol the building, and recommended the City of Orono consider adopting ordinances encompassing any municipal building. Kluth stated in his view there should be a formal agreement in writing that perhaps runs with the land, such as a restrictive covenant on the land restricting its use. Mabusth noted the building is located within the City of Orono and would therefore be subject to Orono’s rules and regulations. Mabusth stated the City of Orono has strict regulations concerning liquor consumption, et cetera. Jabbour stated he is not suggesting that there w ill be large amounts of liquor on the property. Kluth stated in his view the two eouncils and building committee will need to develop some tvpe of agreement restricting the types of uses for this facility. PAGE 17 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02*2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Hawn stated she would like to have the Planning Commission vote on each of the three issues before them tonight separately, and then discuss the use of this building or any other matter that may ansc and make the appropriate recommendations to the Council. Hawn inquired whether any members of the Planning Commission had any issues with the setback, Kluth stated the City of Orono has the responsibility to insure that there is a correct mitigation plan in place for those wetlands. Mabusth inquired whether there is any benefit to make Lot 2 an outlot. Gaffron stated it would be city-owned property, noting Lot 2 is considered a buildabic lot. Gaffron stated if it is made an outlot, there would need be conditions put on its uses. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether there is any benefit that would be derived by makip-^ it an outlot. Hawn suggested separate motions be made on each of the three items for consideration. Smith moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of the two-lot plat subject to MCWD wetland mitigation and stormwater management plan approval, subject to the Orono City Council determining whether any impact fees such as park dedication/fees and stormwater trunk fees are applicable. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of the side street setback to allow a 40* side street setback where 50* would normally be required based on the hardships outlined in the February 15,2002 Staff Report, w ith the condition that if the sixth bay is not constructed, the variance will not be used for any other purpose. Gaffron inquired what would happen if they decide to expand in the future, noting the vanance is only good for one year. Kluth stated they could ask for a renewal. Kluth noted they currently only have four bays. Kluth stated the motion restricts what the variance can be used for. Jabbour commented the building committee looked at numerous ways to avoid the need for a variance for a sixth bay but were unsuccessful. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Rahn inquired whether the sixth bay or the hose tower was of higher priority. Jabbour stated the sixth bay was their first priority, with the hose tower being their second prionty. Hawn stated she has not heard a ca.se for why the tow er should be five feet higher than the 30 ’ residential limit. PAGE 18 MINIITES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, Febiruary 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (MI2-2755 Long Lake Fire Station, Continued) Rahn commented the tower could potentially become a training facility for others also. Fritzler inquired whether the west metro area has a fire-training site that is available for training. Jabbour stated he is unsure about the west metro area, but noted Edina is proposing a training facility that would be available for all firemen. Fritzler, Kluth, and Smith stated they are against the hose tower since no hardship has been demonstrated. Gaffron stated no hardship is required for the hose *owcr, but that the Planning Commission needs to look at the impact on the neighborhood and how it can be mitigated. Gaffron stated the primary purpose of the hose tower is for training. Kluth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend denial of the conditional use permit for a hose tower 35' in height VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to give the City Council any admonitions concerning this project. Kluth noted other cities have restrictions on uses in residential areas, and recommended the Council look at limiting the use of this facility. Smith recommended appropriate lighting for residential areas be utilized on this fire station, and requested no neon or flashing lights be utilized. Hawn recommended use of this building be confined to fire-reiated purposes. (Recess taken from 9:24 p.m. - 9:.* p.m.) NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED (#8) #02-2746 MARK FINNEY, 3210 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 9:30 p.m. - 9:46 p.m. Mark Finney, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit construction of a lakeside deck, a 15 ’ by 10’ screen porch, and a 1,164 square fool two-story addition to the house. The addition would c .iitain a detached garage, three bedrooms, bathrooms, and utility room. A variance is required to permit the addition to encroach six feet into the ten-foot side yard setback requirement, and a variance is also needed to permit an alteration to existing non-conforming hardcover PAGE <9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. I (#02-2746 Mark Finney, Continued) in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback. Existing hardcover in the 75-250’ area consists of 5,851 square feet or 56.5 percent, with the Applicant proposing to reduce the hardcover to 3,838 square feet or 37 percent. Weinberger stated the existing house is located adjacent to the North Shore Marina, which does have two buildings used for storage and customer use just across the property line. The addition, located only 4’ from the property line, would leave a 10.8’ separation between the Marina building and the house, which does meet the required separation distance between buildings. The Applicant is also proposing a 32 ’ by 24’ detached garage. A building of that size would be required to meet a minimum setback of 15’ to the property line. The Applicant has stated he is willing «D construct a 30 ’ by 24’ building, which is a sUucture under 750 square feet, thus only requiring a 10’ •iSifcack. The detached garage is intended for storage and would not have a driveway, '*mh the garage door located on the east side of the building. Weinberger stated the screen porch is located at the 75’ setback, with the deck basically following the 75’ foot line around the house. The Applicant has submitted a statement of hardship basically saying that the existing house is located within the side yard setback and the attached garage will line up in the same area. The addition would also help screen the boat yard from the property. In addition, the lot is narrow and long, and by locating the addition within the side setback, it would allow for some yard space to remain east of the house. Weinberger stated the existing garage would be removed out of the 75-250’ setback and a new garage would be constructed in the 250-500’ setback. Staff recommends the addition be shiOed to meet at least a minimum setback to match the existing setback of the house. The existing house is not parallel with the property line. Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance subject to the hardcover being reduced from 5,851 square feet to 3,838 square feet. Finney stated he would like to construct the proposed garage as near to the property line as possible in order io screen a bathroom facility located on the adjoining property. Finney stated he also would like to screen off some of the boats. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth inquired whether the Applicant has considered planting trees and shrubs to screen rather than using the garage for screening. Finney stated he has shown his plans to the marina owner, who indicated he is happy with what is being proposed and agrees with it. Finney stated the garage would also help create a pathway to one side, noting he is located next to a commercial property. Hawn stated she does have some sympathy towards this situation since it is located next to a commercial site and the desire to screen the adjoining property. Hawn stated she would prefer to see the new attached ..'rage match the house setback on the west side, especially near the neighbor’s building. Rahn and KK i .greed with Hawn. PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02*2746 Mark Finney, Continued) Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02*2746, Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive, granting a hardcover variance to allow 3,838 square feet of hardcover within the 75*250* setback, and granting a side yard setback with the understanding the setback of the addition will match the setback of the existing house, and with the understanding the Applicant will not exceed 750 square feet on the detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#9) #02-2747 TONKA VENTURES, 3749 LIVINGSTON AVENUE, VACATION, 9:47 p.m. - 10:05 p.m. A representative ofllagle Crest was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated Eagle Crest is requesting a vacation of a portion of a dedicated drainage and utility easement. The drainage and utility easement was dedicated on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods in 1999. The purpose of the proposed vacation request is to construct an end towTi house unit 1.5 feet into the easement area. The request would vacate an area less than 10 square feel in area. The easement area contains both a sewer line and water main. 1 he sewer line would be located 7.8 ’ from the foundation when the building is constructed. The City has notified the utility companies of the request to vacate a portion of the easement. No concerns from those utilities notified have been received. Qwest and Reliant Energy/Minnegasco have both responded and stated they have no facilities within the easement area. Weinberger stated the City Engineer has reviewed the plans, and commented that there is a low likelihood that there would need to be maintenance done to this section of the pipe. Weinberger stated if there is ever an 'ssue with the sewer line near the building, there arc methods available to the utilities to access the sewer line within the casement. Staff recommends approval of the vacation request to vacate a portion of the drainage and utility casement as shown on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods based on the fact that the public use of the easement for sewer and water purposes is not negatively impacted by the vacation and no ncgati\e comments have been received from public utilities. Weinberger recommended the approval be made subject to the Applicant providing final "as-built" plans for the entire development of Lake Minnetonka Woods prior to review of the vacation request by the City Council. The Eagle Crest Representative had nothing in addition to Staff's report. Douglas Nieland, 3675 Lyric Avenue, distributed photos of the hill in the area Nicland stated he has e.xperienced drainage problems following regrading of the hill. Nicland stated the trees that were to b-> replaced have not yet been planted as well as some divots in his yard which also have not been repaired lollowing construction of a trench. Nicland stated he has spoken w ith Eagle Crest regarding those problems, who has indicated it was the developer that should be contacted. Nicland stated he has yet to be contacted by the developer. PAGE 21 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2747 Tonka Ventures, Continued) Haun stated perhaps the Planning Commission could make the vacation contingent upon the builder resolving these problems. Hawn inquired whether that would be acceptable to Nieland. Nieland stated that would be acceptable. Kay Rendson, 3685 Lyric Avenue, also e,\pressed concerns regarding drainage and erosion in the area of the hill. Rendson stated she has concerns if the grade is elevated. Ha\^^l inquired what specific items Rendson needed rectified on her property. Rendson stated the drainage needs to be corrected as well as trees replaced for screening. Hawn inquired whether the builder can be required to correct these problems. Gaflron stated in his view the two issues are totally unrelated, and suggested the Planning Commission make a recommendation to Council that Staff follow up with the neighbors to find out what the issues are and see how they can be rectified. Kluth inquired whether Staff has the authority to require the builder to rectify these issues. Gaflron stated the builder needs to comply with the overall site landscape and grading plan and obtain occupancy permits for the individual units. Gaffron stated in his opinion Staff should ^ able to request the builder comply with the grading and drainage plan as well as the landscaping plan. Constance Leaf, 3695 Lyric Avenue, indicated this project has created a number of aesthetic problems in her back yard area. Leaf e.xpressed concerns that the hill is eroding and causing drainage problems in her yard. Leaf questioned w hether there would be additional problems if the foundation is moved closer to the hill. There were no further public comments relating to this application. Mabusth recommended the City Engineer be requested to review the plans and visit the site to see whether they are being complied with. Mabusth moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2747, Tonka V'entures, 3749 Livingston Avenue, vacating a portion (10 square feet) of a dedicated drainage and utility easement on the plat of Lake Minnetonka Woods, subject to Staff review and approval of the final grading and drainage plan and landscape plan on east side of property, and further subject to Staff assisting in the enforcement of the planting of appropriate trees as originally called for in the landscape plan. V'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.oi. («10) #02-2748 RICHARD A. AND NANCY MARZAN, 2795 PHEASANT ROAD, VARIANCE, 10:06 p.m. -10:28 p.m. Richard Marzan, Applicant, and Kathy Alexander, Home Designer, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant is requesting a hardcover variance in the 0-75 ’ setback area to allow a 216 square foot deck and 20 square foot shed located by the lakeshore to remain on the property. A portion of the deck has a roof but is not enclosed. Bottenberg stated the Applicant owns the property and received a building permit in January of 2002, to construct a new residence on the property. The new residence meets all standards for the LR-1B zoning district. All that remains in the 0-75 ’ setback zone are the steps leading to the lake, a deck, shed, and two retaining walls. Bottenberg indicated the topography of the property is fairly flat except approximately 45’ from the lakeshore, at which point it drops significantly to the lake. The City does not have a permit on file for the deck or shed, although it appears it has been there for many years. A review of City files has determined that a boat house was located there at least until 1986. The zoning code allows stairways up to 4’ wide, but landings no more than 32 square feet in area. Decks and roofed shelters are not allowed. Bottenberg indicated the shelter is painted while and is quite noticeable from the lake. Alexander stated instead of remodeling the existing house, they elected to pull the house back beyond the 75’ mark, and also attempted to comply with all the other regulations and building standards applicable to this lot. Alexander stated the Applicant would like to retain the shed and try to blend it in more with the property. Alexander noted this is a pre-existing condition. There were no public comments relating to this application. Hawn inquired why the Planning Commission did not see this matter prior to the time the building piermit was issued. Weinberger stated the Applicants did contact Staff prior to applying for a building permit, noting an agreement was reached that if the deck and shed were not approved, they would be removed. Kluth inquired what the hardship is for keeping that structure. Alexander stated her understanding is that since there is not a primary structure currently, they need a variance to keep the shed llawTi stated there are two variances being requested tonight. The first one relates to allowing an accessory structure to remain without a principal structure. Hawn stated when the existing residence is tom down and a new residence is to be constructed on the lot, the project is then considered to be new construction and a hardship inherent with the land must be demonstrated on why the shed should remain. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02*2748 Richard and Nancy Marzan, Continued) Alexander stated part of the hardship with the land is that a portion of the property is located within the bluff line. Marzan stated there is a very steep incline down to the lake, and that they like to store items relating to their boat in the shed. Hawn commented it probably is dangerous for people to be carrying things up and down that steep embankment. Hawn stated the Planning Commission tends to be very consistent at not allowing structures to be located within the 0-75' setback area. Kluth inquired whether structures are allowed within a bluff zone. Mabusth stated 4’ wide stairs are allowed as well as a lock box. Mabusth suggested the Applicant look at making the shed into a conforming lock box. Hawn noted there is not much land available that is flat in this area. Rahn commented he w'ould not have a problem with the stairway or a 20 square foot lock box, but noted that the Planning Commission has in the past required that structures be removed out of the 0-75' setback area on new construction. Marzan stated the dock starts where the stairway ends. Marzan expressed safety concerns if he is required to build a lock box in that area, noting that the area is very steep and narrow. Smith commented the shed is oversized compared to what is normally allowed in this area. Hawn stated the land in this area is very limited. Mabusth stated in her view safety issues need to be taken into consideration, and that she would be agreeable to allowing the deck to remain in light of those safety concerns. Kluth stated he agrees with Mabusth. Kluth indicated due to the extreme steepness of the bluff and the angle ol the stairs, along with the condition of the structure, he would be willing to let the shed remain. Smith stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission would not approve a structure of this size. Rahn stated the deck consists of 216 square feet. Rahn noted there is no permit on file for the shed. Marzan stated if he is required to remove the deck and shed and rebuild a lock box. he would like to excavate the hillside and repair the retaining wall. Kluth commented the Planning Commission could allow this structure to remain, and if it if ever replaced, it needs to be reduced in size. Smith inquired whether the Applicant anticipates repainng the retaining wall in the near future. PAGE 24 Mb ___i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2748 Richard and Nancy Marzan, Continued) Marzan stated in his view the stairway and retaining wall have not been maintained well, and that he would like to remove the excess debris away from the walls. Marzan indicated they would paint the shed more of an earth tone color to blend in better with the lakeshore. Rahn noted the shed is not in anyone ’s line of sight. Mabusth inquired whether the shed could be brought into conformance while construction is going on. Marzan indicated he would really like to retain the shed and that he would be willing to paint it another color if possible. Marzan stated if it is not possible to keep the shed, he will comply with whatever the Planning Commission decides. Hawn stated it is her impression from the comments that the Planning Commission would like to see the shed replaced with a lock box. Smith, Rahn, and Fritzler stated in their view the shed should be reduced in size. Kluth reiterated he would allow the structure to remain until such time as it needs to be replaced. Mabusth noted no major structural repairs are allowed on non-conforming structures. Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2748, Richard A. and Nancy Marzan, 2795 Pheasant Road, granting of a hardcover variance to allow the existing stairway and 216 square foot deck to remain in the 0-75 ’ setback area, along with the 20 square foot shed being reconstructed into a lock box, with the understanding the shed shall be painted an earth tone color, and further subject to the Applicants being placed on notice that the deck is a non-conforming structure, and that if major repairs are necessary in the future, the deck will need to be brought into conformance at that point. VOTE: Ayes 4, Navs 2. Smith and Fritzler stated they would like the deck to be brought into conformance now. («i 1) #02-2749 THOMAS P. EGAN, 350,360, AND 370 BIG ISLAND, VACATION, 10:29 p.m. - 11:10 p.m. Thomas Egan, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant has requested that a portion of platted “Massasoit Avenue” be vacated Massasoit Avenue is an undeveloped right-of-way on Big Island onginally dedicated on the plat of Morse Island Park. The right-of-way has been used by Big Island residents and guests for interior pedestnan access to parts of the lakeshore and, periodically, for vehicular traffic for transporting materials for home construction and septic installation, fhe right-of-way is also used by utility companies for electric and phone service to the Island properties. PAGE 25 tMiia iB. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2749 Thomas Egan, Continued) Weinberger indicated the City of Orono maintains public access to the Island for pedestrian and other types of use. Weinberger stated the City docs have a policy not to vacate any public accesses to the lake. Weinberger stated the portion of the right-of-way requested for vacation is not a right-of-way that provides access to the public waters. The City of Orono has notified all public utilities of the vacation request, and Reliant Energy/Minncgasco has responded that they have no facilities in the right-of-way. Qwest did notify the City that they do have e.xisting facilities within the right-of-way and stated they respectfully decline the right-of-way vacation request. Weinberger noted included with the Planning Commission packet is a letter from Rick Jorgenson with Qwest stating that they respectfully decline the vacation request. Weinberger indicated he has spoken with Mr. Jorgenson who indicated that Qwest would not be opposed to the vacation of the right-of-way if it is determined that utility lines are located within the public land and adequate easements arc put in place for the utilities. Weinberger stated it is anticipated that location of the lines will be verified this Thursday by Gopher One. Weinberger stated the Public Works Director has reviewed this request, and has no objection to the vacation of the right-of-way. Weinberger stated the City at this time has no intention to ever use that portion of the right-of-way for any public purpose. Weinberger stated the City likes to insure that access is maintained to each individual island over public land. Weinberger stated public access remains open with the proposed vacation. Egan presented pictures of the cabin, noting there are trees located on both sides of the cabin. Egan stated he has a concern that the City may in the future request that the cabin be moved since it is located within a right-of-w ay. Egan stated if something happened to the cabin, they would not be able to rebuild since it is located within the setback and would need to be relocated. Egan stated he is attempting to avoid any conflicts in the future, and that due to the trees i«- V area, the road is basically unusable. Egan noted he has spoken with all the neighbors and he is u*-, j-^re of any objections to the vacation. Smith questioned whether Qwest knows where their utility lines are locate; Egan stated Qwest did supply a draw mg show ing that their lines are located dowi, the road. Egan stated he personally does not feel those are correct, noting there is a junction box that is approximately three feet tall located in the area where the lines come from, which is different than what Qwest’s drawing depicts. Egan noted the cabin w as constructed sometime in the 1960s. John Burch, 380 Big Island, indicated he owns the property to the left. B'irt* stated to his knowledge the phone lines were put in about 15 years ago and come up to the indixndua! Ca'.ins from poles that are along Lakeview Avenue. There were no further public comments relating to this application, PAGE 26 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2749 Thomas Egan, Continued) Gaflron inquired whether the residents were surprised after the survey was done in terms of the actual location of the cabins in relation to lot lines. Egan stated before he purchased the property, a survey had been completed which showed the property as depicted on the new survey. Egan stated the surveyor is also the same on both surveys. Hawn inquired whether there was further public comment regarding this application. Egan stated Rick Hanson, 340 Big Island, had to leave the meeting, but requested that the vacation be taken all the way to the edge of the road and up the adjacent road. Hawn stated she has one reser\’ation regarding this. Haw-n stated there may come a time in the future when some members of the general public would like to walk on Big Island, and if this easement is vacated, they would no longer have that right. Hawn stated the Planning Commission should discuss preserving the right of pedestrians to walk somewhere in this area. Egan asked if public meant landowners in the area. Hawn stated she means any person. Egan stated the landowners in the area do not want members of the general public walking around Big Island, noting some of the roads have been closed to prevent people from walking around their cabins in the w intertime and summertime. Egan stated he is unsure w hat the intent of the platted roads were at the time they were originally platted, but that the property owners would prefer that members of the general public not walk through their properties on Big Island. Hawn noted they are public roads, and if they arc vacated, the general public would not be allowed to access certain parts of Big Island. Egan stated the public has not been able to use that road since appro.ximately 1960, when the cabin was originally built. Hawn stated theoretically the public has the right to use that right-of-way. Hawn stated she would like the Planning Commission to look at ways to preserve the public's right to walk in that area. Egan stated there is a road located behind the cabin that touches every one of the lots, so there would still be access available to the general public. Egan stated in his view those platted roads were not designed to allow members of the general public access to every lot of the island but rather were designed to allow the property owners the ability to travel around the island. Hawn stated all public roads in Orono are open to the general public. Egan staled since these are not developed roads and are difficult to recognize, he personally would not be comfortable with the general public walking around Big Island. PAGE 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2749 Thomas Egan, Continued) Hawn stated at the current time they possibly are not easily recognizable by the general public, but the question is whether they are taking away someone ’s right to have access to certain parts of the island in the future. Kluth commented if the right-of-way is vacated, it would no longer be public land. Egan stated vacation of this right-of-way would not affect access to any of the individual lots. Rahn stated the reality is that the Applicant ’s situation will probably not change whether the road is vacated or not. but that the Planning Commission needs to look at whether they are denying access to the general public if the vacation is approved. Gaflfron suggested in exchange for this vacation that the City request a strip of land to the lake. Gaffron noted the road corridor stops 20 feet from the lakeshore. and that this might be an ideal place to request a dedication of land to the shoreline. Egan stated he does not o\vn that piece of land, and that is it his understanding that piece of land is tied up in a lease. Gaffron commented this area of land might have been intended as a swimming beach at the time it was platted. Hawn reiterated that the Planning Commission has to insure that the general public has access to Big Island. Egan stated in his view there might be a problem with granting that piece of land to the shoreline, and that the public can use Lakeview Avenue. Egan stated he is unable to obtain a mortgage on this cabin because it is located in the right-of-way. and that in his view it would not be a problem for the City to vacate that right-of-way, noting that it is usable at this point for a road or a pedestnan trail. Hgan stated the road has not been utilized for a significant number of years. Kluth recommended that this right-of-way not be vacated since they are unable to know what future use this piece of land might be needed for and that the City needs to preserve the nght to use that piece of land. Hawn stated she would be in favor of vacating the right-of-way if an alternative is provided. Egan commented the general public can still access Lakeview, which is a used pathway and does contain utility lines. Egan stated Lakeview also has vehicular traffic. Egan commented these arc seasonal cabins and that most of the platted roads on Big Island are unrecognizable by the general public. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to protect access on Big Island for use in the future. Kluth agreed with Hawn. PAGE 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02>2749 Thomas Egan, Continued) Egan stated the current situation is the fact that the City through the years has allowed structures to be built in the right-of-ways, which prevents him from being able to obtain a mortgage today. Hawn stated she would like to sec a pedestrian walkway somewhere in this area. Mabusth suggested this application be tabled to allow the Park Commission time to review Big Island for possible trail use. Hawn agreed that the Park Commission should review this application. Kluth commented that there is a value to this land that the City should recognize, and that it is the Planning Commission’s duty to make decisions based on what is good for the public. Egan stated he understands that but does not feel vacation of this portion of right-of-way would affect the general public. Mabusth stated in her view perhaps this should become a policy of the City that the Park Commission reviews any vacation of land to determine if there is some public purpose for the land. Egan indicated he would not be in favor of this going to the Park Commission. Egan stated legally he cannot get clean title until the right-of-way is vacated, and he would like to proceed forward to the Council. IlavNTi stated in her view it appears this application may be denied by the Planning Commission, and inquired whether Egan would like to have his application tabled or proceed before the Council. Egan stated he would like the Planning Commission to act on this application. Egan stated he is unsure what benefit would be gained by sending this application to the Park Commission. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend denial of .Application #02-2749, Thomas P. Egan, 350,360, and 370 Big Island, vacation of a portion of platted ‘‘Massasoit Avenue", without further input from the Park Commission on possible trail use. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays I, Mabusth opposed. Mabusth indicated she would prefer the City follow a procedure of having the Park Commission review applications requesting vacation of public land. Mabusth recommended the Council send this application to the Park Commission. Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend that all vacations of platted public roads be sent to the Park Commission for their review as well as the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 29 •......... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#12) #02-2751 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES, 11:11 p.m.- 11:29 p.m. Linda Welch, Sister, appeared on behalf of Mark Welch. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances that would permit removal of an existing house and construction of a new house on the property. Weinberger stated the property is located in the LR-IC zoning district and consistsof 6,615 square feet. Access to this property and five others is via a private, shared driveway that accesses North Shore Drive. The private driveway is located across the back of the individual lots. The driveway is required because the public road is located at a much higher elevation than the properties below. Weinberger stated the existing house consists of 599 square feet, with the Applicant proposing to construct a two-bedroom/two bathroom home w ith a one-stall “tuck-under ” garage. The new house would allow the property owners to have additional living space and one garage stall. Currently the property does not have a garage and was constructed in 1920. The proposed house would be located the same distance from the driveway as the current house. A number of variances are required for the new residence due to the small size of the lot. the drivew ay location, and elevation change. The Applicant is requesting variances to lot area and lot width to permit construction of a new residence. The defined lot area, minus the private driveway area, consists of 5,462 square feet. The defined lot width is approximately 50 ’ at the lakeshore, w ith the requirement being 100 ’ width at the lakeshore. Weinberger stated the proposed house would be located approximately 53 ’ from the lakeshore, which exceeds the existing setback of the neighboring two houses. Weinberger noted a 75 ’ setback is required. Weinberger stated the proposed building pad is located between the driveway and the 50 ’ setback. The Applicants are also requesting a variance to allow the house to be constructed five feet from the west property line where a 10 ’ setback is required. The 5 ’ side setback has been requested to provide one additional parking space on the property. The City ’s zoning code requires residential properties have two off-strcct parking spaces. Weinberger noted no parking is available on the opposite side of the shared drivew ay due to the topography of the land. A variance is also needed to allow the house to be built within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and a vanance to permit greater than 25 percent hardcover in the 75-250 ’ of the lakeshore. The Applicants arc proposing 16.4 percent hardcover where currently 17.6 percent exists in the 0-75 ’ setback area and 51 .6 percent hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback area where 54.4 percent currently exists. The proposed house would consist of 1,176 square feet and would not contain a basement due to the high water level in this area. Wemberger stated a variance is also required to permit one off-street parking stall to be located three feet from an interior side property line where olT-strcet parking is required to be located ten feet from a side property line. Weinberger noted the Applicant has submitted a statement of hardship. Weinberger staled the w ell would need to be relocated if the house is rebuilt in this area. PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2751 Mark WHch, Continued) StafT recommends approval of the application based on the hardships noted subject to the follo\\'ing conditions: I. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided 10' along the north lot line and S’ along the interior property lines. 2. A final grading plan shall be submitted prior to review of the request uy the City Council. 3. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. 4. Gravel shall be removed from the proposed parking area to leave a minimum 3' setbac'^. to the property line. Linda Welch stated she docs not have anytiung to add to Staff s report, noting she docs have pictures of the embankment and the lot. There were no public comments relating to this application. Mabusth noted a lakeside deck is attached to the house, and questioned whether that is included as part of the house footprint. Weinberger stated the proposal only includes the house footprint and not the deck. Weinberger stated this lot would be entitled to 1,500 square feet of structural coverage, noting the proposed house is approximately 1,100 square feet. Weinberger stated the overhangs on the sides are approximately one foot, with the overhang on the lakeside being approximately three feet. Hawn inquired whether the overhang has been included in the structural coverage calculation. Weinberger stated it has not been included. Hawn stated since there is an existing house on this lot, the Applicant is entitled to a replacement, and in her view the Applicants have done a pretty good job at designing the house. Rahn inquired what the preferred width of a parking stall was. Weinberger stated in a commercial parking lot a stall is 9 ’ by 20 ’, which is generally what is recommended. Rahn commented he was looking at other possible locations for the parking stall and whether that could be reduced somewhat. Gaffron indicated they would also need to be 20 ’ from a sewer tine. Mabusth inquired where the well w ill be relocated to. PAGE 31 H ..... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2751 Mark Welch, Continued) Weinberger stated that is yet to be determined. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2751, Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive, granting of variances to permit construction of a new residence on this lot based on the structural coverage being under the 1,500 square feet that is allowed; based on the finding that there are hardships imposed by the land; and that the hardcover is being reduced in the 0-75’ and 75-250’ setback; and'subject to all of Staffs recommendations contained in the February 12,2002 Planner's Report, and further subject to the relocation of the well in an approved location. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#13) #02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, 2817 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 11:30 p.m.- 1 1:41 p.m. Wesley Byrne, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to permit additions and remodeling to the existing house located on Casco Point Road. The variances being requested would allow for two additions onto the house. The first would replace an existing attached garage w ith a 32’ by 35 ’ two- story addition. The second addition would be a 20 ’ by 30 ’ attached garage with future liv ing space located above the garage. The property owners only intend to keep the existing house and foundation. The open porch, garage, and deck are being removed to make room for the new additions. Weinberger stated the proposed plan would reduce the total hardcover on the property. The driveway and parking area on the property is proposed to be reduced in size. Weinberger noted the total hardcover would still be over the 25 percent limit in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback, wth the Applicants requesting 32.1 percent hardcover. Weinberger noted the existing hardcover is 36,5 percent. The Applicants arc also proposing to reduce the size of ihe lakeside deck and remove a shed located near the street. A sidew alk and wood planter box would also be removed from the west side of the property. A variance is also required to permit a 9.7’ side setback for the residential addition located at the northeast comer of the new house. Weinberger stated Staff had requested the surv eyor to revenfy their final calculations to determine the actual size of the proposed house. The total structure was confirmed to be 2.612 square feet, which is 99 square feet more stmeture than the property is allowed. I he Applicant has submitted a hardship statement, noting that they are attempting to protect an 80-vear old oak tree located in the front. Staff recommends .he Applicants reduce the size of the house to not encroach into the side wd setbacks and meet the 15 percent lot coverage by structure. PAGE 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2753 Wesley Byrne, Continued) Bymc stated it was his intention to meet the 10-foot setback and that apparently an error was made on the plan. Bymc stated he does not have a problem meeting the 10’ setback. Bymc indicated he would be able to meet the 15 percent structural coverage limit by eliminating the outside stairs to the proposed garage and reducing the size of the house somewhat. Byrne stated they can also reduce the size of the stairwell. Hawn inquired whether those changes can be reflected on the plan prior to appearing before the Council. Byrne stated they can be. Smith inquired about the use of spa». j above the garage and separate access. Bymc commented that would be a guest bedroom, noting there is access to the second floor of the house. Bymc noted he will be removing the stairway to that bedroom. Hawn stated the only variance required would be the hardcover variance. Weinberger noted the Applicant has indicated he intends to keep the original foundation, and recommended that if any work needs to be done to the c.xisting foundation tbit this issue be revisited. Fritzler inquired how old the residence is. BjTnc stated it was constructed in 1940. Haw n moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2753, Wesley Byrne, 2817 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area, w ith the understanding the hardcover in that area will be reduced from what currently exists; and contingent upon the fact that if the existing f,>undation needs to be replaced or repaired In any substantial amount that the variance granted be withdraw n and that the plans will be resubmitted to the Planning Commission and viewed as new construction; and further with the understanding the side yard setback will be 10’ instead 019.7' and that structural coverage will not exceed 15 percent. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#14) #02-2754 MATTHEW AND K.\THY DOLLIFF, 2680 PHEASANT ROAD, VARIANCE, 11:42 p.m. - 11:44 p.m. Matthew Dolliff, Applicant, was present. 1 h' Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Botteiibcrg stated the Applicant i« proposing to construct a 467 square foot addition and 164 square foot entryway and walk to the residence. The addition and the walk will be located in tb.' 75-250’ setback area and w ill be on the street side of the i-csidence. The addition will increase the hardcover in the PACE 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2754 Matthew and Kathy DollifT, Continued) 75-250’ setback, and the Applicant is proposing to remove some existing hardcover to offset the increase. The hardcover proposed to be removed is the brick patio and wall, the oog run, and a portion of the lakeside patio, which will keep the hardcover at the existing amount. Bottenberg stated the addition would increase the lot coverage by structures on the property to 10.03 percent, which is well below the 15 percent allowed. A variaiivC to hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area is required to permit 34.19 percent hardcover. Staff recommends approval of the application. Dolliff stated they would like to increase the amount of living space in the house. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2754, Matthew and Kathy DoUifT, 2680 Pheasant Road, granting a hardcover variance for the 75-250' setback area, with the understanding the hardcover will not be increased from what is currently existing. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS (#15) REPORT OF PLANTVING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS JAM'ARY 28,2002, AND FEBRUARY II, 2002 None (#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Planning Commission scheduled a work session for March 15, 2002, at 8 00 a.m. (#17) PLANNING CO.M.MISSION APPROVAL OF .MINUTES FOR JANX ’ARY 22, 2002 .Mabusth moved, Kluth seconded, to approve the minutes of the January 22,2002 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#18) SELECTION OF PLANNING CO.M.MISSION REPRESENTATIV ES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 25, 2002 AND MARCH il, 2002 February 25 - Smith March 11 - Mabusth PAGE 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. I ADJOURNMENT Kluth moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 pm Elizabeth Hawn, Chair PAGE 35