Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2002 Planning PacketPublic Attendance Meeting D ate / t'l ’< <'.■ □ C ouncil B Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please fill out the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. "7^t‘c k. 4 5 K 10. 11. 12. i3cc' \J . ^ 7i 2. yllAi^liys ! 1 L/•ivO._______ . It30 2. -ZJ^O 02 j:_Z2?S. J ■S/e>Qy-v^ /VOS' j).- 6, L^^iz U) ipiUrp, oi sA- t f pUi.i^uu'K^ r ^C'2,'2 77C. 7. U/^po^~iAi L . .1 ,/\\ A 'LA^D^C€.X c./7^sg,^ ‘yo ">7^l f .-A w/nA/Ta'/C'tZ' 13.. 14. 15. XitOauVA • iii»>.m4r«n» • oMixoKbu ABUcarr ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15,2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parknav-Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Jim While 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 advisor} body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the August 12,2002 Cit}’ Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #02-2799 Teresa Koch, 2225 Bas^iew Place, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. #02-2800 Marlys McCarty, 225 Tonka Avenue, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 3. #02-2802 Janet Gillquist, 993 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 4. #02-2809 Rick and Knstinc Sterling, 1300 Vine Place, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) OLD BUSINESS 5. #01-2668 Manley Bros. Construction, 1973 Eagerness Point Road, Conditional Use Permit and Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 6. #02-2776 Hennepin County, 3880 Shoreline Drive, Renewal Variances (StafT: Paul Weinberger) 7. #02-2786 John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) NEW BUSINESS 8. #02-2791 David and Jodi Rahn, 1385 Rest Point Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 9. #02-2797 Jim Murphy and Sandra Smith. 30 Orono Orchard Road, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 10. #02-2798 Fred Shearer, 1405 Park Drive, Variances (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 11. #02-2801 Kathy Melin, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) 12. #02-2804 Phillip and Constance Martin, 1230 Arbor Street, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 13. #02-2805 Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 14. #02-2808 Jim and Jean Echtenkamp, 2800 Pheasant Road, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:00PM 15. #02-2803 Jeff Martineau on behalf of Cherry Stubbs, 2920 Fox Street, Class II Subdivision (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30PM 16. #02-2789 Dalilstrom Development LLC, 2550 West W'ayzata Boulevard, Preliminary Plat Review, General Concept Plan Approval and Rezoning from RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 17. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings June 24, 2002 and July 8,2002. 18. Other issues for discussion. 19. Planning Commission approval of minutes for June 17,2002. 20. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on July 22,2002 and August 12 2002. ADJOURNMENT \ 4400 C 3200 1^ ^ of Orono, Minnesota : Numbering Index Map IHsss^X03 SOOQ\ tJtK wcijrrcc, &i iux,ic north P^VtSgQ* »C ”. V 0*0 Ft» t.9M *X. 21, ••4 tr»t e.^13 Aim 10. SM AUC. tt.VM fC»r T. Iffo AAC 9. Iff A^U ■. If«> JAM. If. Ifl5 / TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 3,2002 #02-2799 Teresa Koch 2225 Bayvicw Place Variance Renewal-- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Rural Residential District (.5 acre) 7,515 s.f. (.173 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Resolution C Site Plan D House Plans and Elevations Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B): LotArea: The lot is 7,515 s.f. (.173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 50’ wide at the shoreline where 100’ is the minimum lot width for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L) (2): Hardcover in 250-500’: Within 250-500’ of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Variance Request: To pemiit 314 s.f (42%) hardcover where 224 s.f (30%) is allowed. Application Summary; The applicant has requested to renew variances to permit construction of a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished. The applicant applied for and was granted these variances in June 2001. The plans presented for this application are the same as were approved in 2001. Most of the lot is in the 500-1000’ setback area. A small portion by the street is in the 250-500’ setback area. The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance to allow 314 s.f (42%) in the 250-500’ setback area. The additional hardcover is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street rather than tapered. The lot is approximately .173 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is .5 acres. A lot area variances is required to construct a new residence. 002-2799 Teresa Koch 2225 Ba>view Place Variance Renewals 7/3/2002 Pace I The lot is approximately 50’ wide where 100’ is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new residence. This property is serviced by sewer and water. Statement of Hardship: Tne applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issue for Consideration: 1. Tholot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. The residence currently exists on the property in a non-conforming location too close to the side lot line, and will be removed. 3. The new residence will meet all required setbacks. 4. There is not additional land to combine with the property. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval to renew the variances to construct a new residence on the property. #02-2799 Teresa Koch 2223 Ba>view Place Variance Renewals 7/3/2002 Page 2 06/.13/2002 14:19 FAl 952 844 3359 Jan-OS<200Z OlilOpa PrarCITY OF ORONO SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES 49SZ2404SI6 12003 ^ T-403 P.002/005 M23 w CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AFPIIGATION TwWaii ApplicAtioa Fee S2S0.00 ^ mk m Andjeetam # Date Received Amount Paid Wl^.oo [jmewal Vazionce Fee S150.00 changi? from original f.lllw._____Hfbriiuu^toCEfblllDiig structures S250.00 After*riie-Fact Fees (PoaUe i^Ueatloii fee) • • Fiepetty Ideidficatioa Nuolier ^JLD.). AA m m _____________________________ , Actadi legal desex^oo to ^iplication if not included on required survey. Date PioBflILAKiukcd__________\<M*1______________________ 1 (do) ^ ni^also o>Mi the adjacent parcels of Und. Present use licfpiopeity: raidcntial other fspeclly). Zoning Dlsblst: L^, (month^ear) applicant :.,'? Name ___ ' Address:i^L- City. Phone ftiDoae^ Phone(woricl OWNER Cif dlSecent than applicant) Name _____________________ Address:City:. tf Phone Qiome). Phone (work).. Zip:. DESCRIPTICiN OF BEQUEST Estimated Caasm^m. Cost S O IL* Vo»g-v»r v ^05V tuc ^q^ —V jav / ____Describe ic<[uest in detaiL* (atmeh additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQl \/ Lot Area ___Setbaxilc: ^ Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Avemge Lakeshoie Odier (ipeeiiy) HARDSHIP/llESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTy CONDITIONS Describe urdue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properly conditions preventing compliance-with Zoning Code reoulfemeots: f T» ^attach additional sheets ifucessaiy) 7 u 06/13/2002 14;19 FAX 052 844 3350 J«n-0l-200{ OhIQps Frei-CIT^'OF ORONO SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES MS224g4l1B 121004 T-401 P.OOI/OOS F-223 1. 2. REQUn^D SirSMTITALS An of the follo^ylng Jnfonuatton tnuot be mbmlfted hv the annIipgHnn iTawi IHwa dafe order for vonr ■npMcatio»i_to be coiutdared gQmpli>ti». Cocipleted Applicadon Fonn Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you nu-'it obtain this list, labels and map flrom Hennepin County Department of Fitumce, A-603, Oovt Center, 348>S910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calcnlafioDS as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V4" x II* for lejaoduction. Tofographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) If any changes in gnide ana ptoposed. In addidon, provide one (1) copy 8 ’/i" x 11" for reproduction. Skitdies or plans of floor St elevation views ^ito'dde one (1) copy 8^4" x 11"). Llr; of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an inteiest in tiui propeiQ'. This would metude name(s) of applicant(s) if not cunent ownei^). Ai an addendum to this application, pleasa attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application- Aclditional hems as may be requested by City staff. The AppUcani and Property Owner must sign this appUcaiion. Please remember that your IMrianCft annilcaiion Is not complete tf the above itifnmiaHon h«< ni|t bean Incindfd. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant tiereby agrees to provide all infonnation required or requested by the Administrator, ugrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) ^or wniultant expenses incurred in review of this appUcation, and certifies^ the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicanfs Siipiature Date C pT— OWNER'S sk;natur £ The owner her:by acknowledges and agrees to this appUcation and further authorizes reasonable enny onto the property by City stfff, consultants, agents, Conuaission members, and ConneU members for jurposes of Investigation and verification of this request. Wl__Owner’s Signatire Date AppUcant must have all submitlals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Appllcauto most be present at an scheduled i^«v meetings of the PUnnlos Commission and CounelL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anangemsms to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the BuSding Sc Zoning Ofii:e of this change prior to tiie mggring 7 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.25, SUBDIVISION 6(B), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16(L)(2), FILE NO. ^01-2684 WHEREAS, Teresa A. Koch, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2225 Bayview Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 25, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to pennit residential construction on a lot that is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,515 s.f. (. 173 acre) where 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(C)(6) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone of 314 s.f. (42%) where 224 s.f. (30%) is allowed to permit additional driveway. 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 June 18,2001 , 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. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 1^1-2684. The property is located in the LR- 1C Zoning District, where .5 acres is the minimum Page 1 of 5 T B r 3. required lot area. The property consists of approximately .173 acres or 7,515 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 18, 2001 and recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The property has been developed with a residential use since at least 1900. B. The site plan indicates the proposed setbacks 10' to the side property lines and the house would be outside of the 75’ lakeshore setback. The entire house w’ould be located approximately 550' from the lakeshore, which meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new structures. C. There is no additional land to combine with the property. D. The hardcover in the 75-250’ zone will be 314 s.f. (42%) to allow for additional driveway. The additional driveway will allow for off street parking. The new residence will be located closer to the street than c.xisting residence, minimizing driveway hardcover on the lot. E. The existing 10' x 12' shed on the rear of the property will be removed. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance 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 applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessarv ’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City' Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Plaiming Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety' and welfare of the community'. Page 2 of 5 L CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based ”,pon one or more of the above findings, the Oronc City Council hereby giants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25, Subdivision 6(B) to permit new residential construction on a lot that is 50 feet wide where 100 feet is required, on a lot that the area is 7,51 5 :.f (.173 acre) where 21,780 s.f (.5 acre) is required, and Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2) to allow hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone of 314 s.f (42%) where 224 s.f (30%) is allowed to permit additional dri'’ev.ay. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 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. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property ne t w ith the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (June 25,2002). Violation of or non-compliance witi: any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself his heirs, his successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of June, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City’ Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner (s) Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) s The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of Jure, 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. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ) ss. ) Notary Public 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 his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Public On this day of and for said County, personally appeared 2001, before me a Notary Public within 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 of5 Exhibit A certimcate of survey for THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA QriVg rx./.j; - ffs.o LEGAL DESCRtPTiON OF PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE'S AOOlTlON TO THE VILLAGE OF f-*-^ /rs. j 9?3. 3 o : denotes Iron morker set o : denotes Iron mcrkcr found (90e.3): denotes existing spot elevotlon, mecn seo level doturr. Bearings shown ore bosed upon cn ossurr.ed dotum. • : denotes distance cs shown on the plot of WALLACE'S rt/Vir* • if* *‘0\ , ^ ThiS suri/ey inten.,j to show the boundaries or the cbove cesc^*re^ property -the location of cn existing shed, the location of cH vls’^ie "hcrccove*end the ^repe;. 1 location of a propoyia house the^’sen. It does not purport ;o s"*:.# c»>y other improvementi or encrocchmcnts. A oopriH t OROHBERa C9UK eooiuM iMKn n xiwc mvmxxsiLii uxuAwsai ew7j-mj »•<%.. ••ViiatO.VtV.tCT'tKm, 1 We| urlljf Id 9u 9r«tf «3 prtpifj r§ :r -jtr •- ::k: tje* *IMA ed tfdl en • liy rt^itgtj Cw Cv« y,' ij : aIs IT4 lr«i •/ ire of Urr4u:i 01 -toe _____Pages of5 T “TaTT" XI KO. 01-1C6 -JU I i. v—. ’t*. ■ A CERTiriCATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25. WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINI lESOT, Cw»f)-ft .Ch, £'•^ / ' ■ V ^ /y o ^'ik ra>i '.i*c •x25 • ' 0^ i /«;;•PROPOSED / , HOUSE ,/ 0 r' • / V EXJSTKC J HOUSE ' I (TO BE REMOVED) I r> f (m2) I .DOSTWC ./ SH£0 ' \ •; LEGAL DESCR’PTION OF PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE'S AOOUION TO THE VILLAGE OE .m:v:TC\<a r£-!-- o : denotes iron mcrkcr set o : denotes iron morker found (90e 3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean seo level cotur-. Bearings shov*n ore based upon cn cssumed dotum • ; denotes distance os shov»n on the plot of WALLACE'S AOI ^ This *^8 CfrveV ^Intends Ic show the boundaries of the above z-iiz^rfz orcperty. tne locotion of cn existing shed, the location of oil visible "horwcov*" , end the preposed locotion of 0 proposeo house thereon. It does not purper: ;o it.v cny other improvements or encroachments. (»PP1I( k OROrjBERG. IH& eoauK 0OO& UM n lUMCB taniwanou ucuniKSsai KMTHUI • M:/cru ><x« • v.r fixvt »cv« I Iwe/ crtif)f M lu %i<tf »a prcMfj t,i r# jtr •. :.*k: t;#- nwfv ere M I n i diy ngsicrij 0*» ri lx: !/.#..# \tcit \t4 ic«f el tN Stslt ef llrresot^ vsnS CrofWQ g^rfSJta Ut".'* f^elT “v^TT" CArc 4-t2-Ot jce AO 01-106 01-106 -JU •N >1 /• » c. CERTIf-iCATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA; BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA <s> ^ive onitl /F«C^CI£& A.'/;/eKt#7YV'hT //' / /• - ' rfi‘'u»xkr Wjr O 4, .^25 • • ' * / PROPOSED > /'WOUSE I<J/ oca / . - 'J > EXSTNC ^ ••? HOUSE ' » / s' C?(TO 8E REMOVED) I -V (MU) I yEXSTWC SHED » / (MW I ' V. ^ / / ''' c; LEGAL OESCRPTION Of PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VlLACE OE k!;\NTC,v><A * 7c S. 3 ‘ '....................971.3 o : denotes iron rr.crker set o : denotes iron mcrker found (906.3): denotes existing spot devotion, mecn seo level dolum Beorir.gs shown ore bosed upon cn assumed datum. <Jcnolcs dlslcncc cs shown on the plot of WALLACE'S AQ^'TiO.'i rt/J ml • **A f ^^0^ 0*• Thu $ufv#y intends tc show the boundones of the obov* Citzr TH property, tne listing shed, the location of oil visible "hcrccov**"’. ond the ormr Survey lecotion of on existing sneo. me locouon of oil visible "hcrccov** '. end the'proposed locotion of 0 proposed house thereon. It does not purport ;o ony other improvements or encroochments. ^ ra;4;iO iC lIC i y^r BLTVf r ooppiii ft 0R0i(BeRa ii|a cosine OOCIUM IMItSL n fUMGB cauMNsnea iocmukum ei-CTHlCI IWS/ atlih Set Si sref ra fimta t; ri a ..y- wat ai* M I •« « SJf ri;ity(j CM tsr«v r-i It: wtlm •m t«j ot IN StoU »l Wftu'.i scSET 8a TC 4-12-01 jcThoT 01-106 01-106 • • f**.. u] •/II PlICH ON »10U5C ROOT — ARIA RUfiNMG fRONf TO BACA W EHBEBfflEBQBSWa aonojcioo Suoaiaa'o'cipl-noioaciaoa =7 1 I- = rs FRONT ELEVATION SCMI v/"i! •• 1* 1 1 » • .* A f • If ' ' ../• • . •f ' • * \ I * ' * 4 .. . J! T ■•J. • • I. rar-M ^3 ••^i-.S j ^%"1) •WLb SECOND FLOOR PLAN jCAU l/«••l•-(r UJ CQ =fe RRST aCX)R PLAN SCMX t/VmV-QT 7/C/iCFA /<ocf^ UAiiDCOVEU C alcula tion wouiv Suek t SETBACK ZOr^: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-25D* a^O~SU0 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7.0NE A. House N P L<ng*Ji B. Gsrage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Piiio/Deck .F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric .X X X X X X X X X X s 8 8 8 m ts B C SF. SF. .SF. .S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. G. OUier total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -r B PROPOSED Hardcover in zonip A. House Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X \ iOO WiJih m 8 z±z.S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. .S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. A B 0. Other TOTAL RARDCO’.'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONLI A _____________ - B 224 .\ 100 2£a S.-f. SF. __S.F. __S.F. 29.9 9 */. A B +CJQ 4o Jiriv'fw’cu^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House /<oc// tlAio)COVER CALCULA'J lOiN WOKKodECT ri F A________0-75' X Length X X X B. Gvage C. Driveway N X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/5eck 3.7 X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4- B proposed hardcover in zqnf.- A. House Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk E Pfliio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other total Hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ______________ ^ B 75-250* WiJm S'-11-0/ 250-500' ^*^0~100^ 111 s F.-H<PU$E JttL O) ei O 7. S' •'< ICO WiJih m m m \ lAO » « 123 6^ 4- 674 A 2z.ir 69 12 i 347 SO \60 SF. SF. SF. -S hed SF. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F.-V/W»0 SF. SF. SF. SF. S F. ’CffHCH£.X£ S.F. A S.F. B % U 6^ S.F.- SF-Pouch g p ^ T S F. „ „ Remcx/C S.F.-owVfcU/A)’ SF. S.F.- SF. S.F. -DfiClC SF. SF. SF. SF. -,,^nqovf. 14/3 /.7L8 23.021 SF. A \ioA^1o & BAD-: VXSliXfSa: ''fi.-, ;V - -:^ ,<■■>• ' •■:'-‘i'.‘Vv' --.^'; * • • ;:-:vk'.^-.r ’ JiJQnSL ^ • -f^ r «_ • < ' * • ^ ' ^ •. . L ~ 4 » kV t?^ • . . • • ^V •^ ' • *• V i * ' V*. *'W^-■"^P’Vs#; ■; ■•■ <.■■'■. 'J ,i-;,v- ■’f"-. j.'.' -• .,^- ^ |#i __/?#•• »-J ^f53S •^wT- % • TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: July 3,2002 SUBJECT;#02-2800 Marlys McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 22,736 s.f. (.52 acre) List of E.xhibits: A Application B Analysis Worksheet C Survey D Hardcover Calculations E Views F Photos of Property Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback; To permit the residence to be 40.5’ from the front lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1 A zoning district. 2. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Rear V'ard Setback: To permit the residence to be 30’ from the rear lot line where 50’ is required for the LR-1 A zoning district. 3. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is .52 acres where 2 acres is the minimum lot area for the LR-1 A zoning district for new construction. 4. Section 10.23, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 181.88 feet wide where 200 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-1 A zoning district for new construction. Request: The applicant requests front yard, rear yard, lot area and lot width setback variances for construction of a new residence on the .52 acre lot in the 2-acre zone. The lot is sewered, and the proposed residence will be in character with the neighborhood. Application Summar>: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting front yard and rear yard setback variances to construct a new residence on the lot. A residential structure e.xists on the property. The structure was built in the 1950 ’s. The residence will be demolished and replaced by the new structure. #02-2800 Marlys McCart> 225 Tonka Avenue 7/3/2002 Page 1 The proposed residence is a three bedroom, one story structure of approximately 2,100 s.f. footprint. The property consists of three lots and a vacated street legally combined to form one lot. The 20’ X 100’ portion of Brook Street was vacated by the City of Orono in 1984 per resolution No. 1619. A condition of the vacation was that the property ouTier grant to the City a Utilities Easement over the northerly 15’ of the vacated Brook Street for future use by the City. In 1999, the property owner acquired the property north of the vacated Brook Street. The 15’ utility easement was vacated by the City of Orono in 2000 per resolution No. 4545 and moved to the south 15’ of the property enabling the property owner to redevelop the property. The proposed residence meets City ordinance standards of 15% for structural lot coverage. The property is allowed 3,410 4 s.f for structure, the proposed residence is 2,072 s.f The property docs lie in the 500-1000’ setback area from Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover for the project is 4,756 s.f (20.9%). Tbe property is allowed 7,957.6 s.f (35%) hardcover, therefore it is well below the allowed amount for hardcover. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The property owner acquired property to the north of Brook Street and the lot is extremely undersize for the LR-1A zoning district, but similar in size to other developed lots in the neighborhood. 2. The adjacent properties are developed, therefore there is not any additional land available to meet the zoning requirements. 3. The existing residence on the property is in a non-conforming location too close to the front lot line, and will be removed. 4. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance standards for structural lot coverage. 5. The proposed residence does meet City ordinance requirements for hardcover in the 500-1000 setback zone. 6. The property is in a neighborhood where lot sizes range from approximately 0.15 acre to 0 45 acre. If the % acre standards were applied to this application, all setbacks would be met. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. 002-2800 Marlys McCarty 225 Tonka Avenue 7/3.'2002 Page 2 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the front and rear yard setback variances as well as lot area and width variances to construct a new residence on the lot. i «^02-2800 Marlys McCarty 22S Tonka Avenue 7/3a002 Page 3 A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 07. -2%0 0 Date Recche^ iJhIo 7. Amount Paid <2^0 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)/3 oos’i Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent pifcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residentid ___pother (specify)______________________ Zoning District:_____________________________ APPLICANT Name_ Address: \ ' /4rt/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____ Address: Phone (home) ^ ____ Phone (work) - <?7/- 7/ City: Otop%A _____Zip:_, Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S _____________ Describe request in detail: yAMtANe.E - TfioNT Ahlt^ Petk/l P/east, prorl^e. /itinimum ^e,4-kAeJc t/'Arlm.rxee. (attach additional sheets if nece«sar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback: Front Side X Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prev'enting compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________ Lor /S K»T Tr> ________/^OA^T- SETAAtLl^< #28 (attach additional sheets if necessary) ouU required submittals for"m\kjiim.ds^^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property OwTiers List of owners within 150' i»t, i ^ . n*ust obfam this list, labels and man r ^ and plat map (you Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910) County Department of '-^cover reproduction. ’ one (I) copy S'A" x 11" for “ (.)'JprrxTr?: the property. This would include naraefs^ of r f ^ interest in As an addendum to this application olea^^* not current owner(s). persoM you wish notified of this appli^tion ^ ^ separate list of any other Additional items as may be requested* by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sion tw.. i- • .pn,„„,,pn h na, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Itss, '4"^^ :r;:; „,u„.d 5. ,.e zoning M^or consullant expenses incurred in review ofThis °I “"gmal fee payment) .nformatton supplied is tru^d correct to the best of hisdt« 4o“7edg7 Applicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE » entry onto the4X “.V°4'c^' aUff’Sr'suta 4en “ cS™1s^" “7°"“* reasonable members for putposes of investigation and verin^atL of * ™ ’’ OwTier’s Signature -----------------------------------------------Date ____________ Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv omr..c a Commission Meeting. Planning Commission ivu »• ^ before the Planning month. Applicautf mu., b"^™^ 7: ' ^ make arrangements to have an authorized agent aofnH • ° * scheduled meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting Building Date [rnr V #2800 Lot Area; ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Hardcover Calculations; Structural Lot Coveraee: LR-IA Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 22, 736 s.f. (0.52 acre) Distance from shoreliae Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000’22,736 s.f 7,957.6 s.f (35%)4,756 s.f (20.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,736 s.f Allowed: 3,410 s.f (15%) Existing: 1,131 6 s.f (4.98%) Proposed: 2,072 s.f (9.1%) r •■^3.5 ~7o)'^iuA Ttt fm w -' ■• :^‘-' ^'>\ - . ^.. - - r-w i. ::' ; • rA-T*' -'■• V v.t. \- ■■^''' l*- ••■ ■^;^‘'i • ' ' - -i" - .^' L*' iS.i'v;?^^ m fMr^ Su'Vi’*' •:T2>ai' 5f Ml .’. .V-ali:-* ■r i- - -V* / .--^v /: ^>>- .j > V '.> »f,V; « •*•*•» «i -iiil.. ‘' •• • T/? '^ *? .• ^ .-4ir .n *. - v« • » ^».,- -. *•- .•;■ •■.• •• • .,...■• ;* .' .• i- '.^'^'^K-’"- * i ••*■•.. J > " ■■ • A-.- V--' "' . v...-;^ •:/ -;•*••V *^. . • •r’• '*’-** • • ’• ^ *. . -* • . ,*: ••- • J; I-: i •. * •--.'■'Cx' , ■' :.^% •'.-. »ci3 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET X A «Iw fC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length 75-250' Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other 3o /S- X X X X X X X X X /oo /iL TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A A + -4- B B PROPOSF.n HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other ^LO 50 j 2£bl X X X X X X X X X /eo JiC TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE V7.s6>, - B 800 250-500 ’ X 100 X too X 100 - 873. C, /OB ^ooo 1BI2. o?J73 L S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B S.F. ^75Cf> S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. ST. S.F. S.F. _S.F. _ S.F. A B L'f 'l-/,- . * y$0 1n\m #280 TohicA ^VC. TO; 3 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner i TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 3,2002 #02-2809 Rick and Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 56,846 s.f. (.1.31 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Survey C Site Plan D Hardcover Calculations E Drawings F Plat Map G Property OwTiers List H Photos of Property Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or acccssoiy^ structure shall be closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of e.xisting residence buildings on adjacent lots. Variance Requested: To encroach 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summarv-: The applicant has requested an average lakeshore setback variance to replace a portion of the e.xisting upper level lakeside deck (8* .\ 42’) and to construct a 2' x 10’ addition on the lake side of the residence. Average Lakeshore Setback: All of the residence and deck arc within the average lakeshore setback zone. The subject property is a point located on Forest Lake. The existing topography, the layout of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening all suggest that the proposed addition and replacement of deck will not be within the visibility of either neighboring property and will not encroach on any existing view of the lake. Hardcover: Although the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is over the allowed 25%, the replacement of the existing deck and the 2’ x 10’ addition are over existing hardcover, therefore the improvements are not changing the amount of hardcover in the setback zone. #02-2809 RickKristinc Sterling 1300 Vine Place 7/3/2002 Page I » The prope^ does have a boat house located by the lake shore. The boat house appears to be in good condition and is not an issue at this time. However, the applicants are on notice if repairs are needed in the future, the boat house may need to be removed, subject to the pertinent zoning code sections. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structures on this property to meet the average lakeshore setback. 2. Are any neighbors’ views of the lake negatively impacted by the addition? Is the shape of the shoreline sufficient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance? 3. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area will not change. 4. Lot coverage by structures will remain at 7.4%, well below the 15% limit. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 2 ’ x 10’ addition and to replace the existing lakeside deck. <»03-2809 Rick/Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place 7/3/2002 Page 2 Application # Date Received lo-20 '02. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amount Paid ^ o/zt//c PROPERTY INFOR^UTION ^ Site Address_____( *3 C?C> (* Ml r \ACC Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ey. ^ Date Property Acquired ^/6I (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____________________________________ ^APPLICANT . Name V7/?' Phone (home) ^SS -joi-ofvs'Phone (work) Address: i’iooOt’Kn P'1 City: OroA^o Zip: iTiCH OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ___________ Phone (home)_ Address:City:. Phone (work^___ .. Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Estimated Construction Cost S___^ Describe req^st AA/if C— (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property condi^ns prevent! com^ancCj,with Zoning Cqde requiren^nts: preventing j2/ny^ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) # 9. a Ao 'O' J required submittals ^tr hr vm!r be .ikiuUi]it.dalUn *• ---- Completed Application Form 2- ---- List of ovvTiers within 150’ 4 , must obtain this list. labels and map from Ln?’ ^ Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910) ^^'^cpm County Department of r“rn " S'r 4" the property. This would include^^e o nf ^ in As an addendum to this IppHeatioT S ° "PP''f^"‘(^) i** not current ovv.ier(s). persons you wisli notified of this applicltion ^'^P^rate list of any other Additional item.s as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Administrator, agree! to^ p!y IddaTn^fe«'(^^^fninST n7 7 ^^^ncsted by the Zoning and/or consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this ° original fee payment) mfonnation supplied is^^dc^„ ,h, of 3. 4. 5. V^6. 7. 8. ^ Applicant's Signature OWTS’ER'S SIGNATu"^'^'"’^ 2, entry onto the property by CUy" s"^ff,To7!uhamr S'tr'co reasonable members for purpos^^^vesfiga^on and verifi;ation of Ui7a.que°st. Date z>. Owner’s Signature < Co^SouT^Ltr pt„:r„rcS^ ^f-ne p,a„ui„, make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in vn ”'""i* ° meeting, please & Zoning omee of this change prior to the meeting. ’’ “ 7*•*•/“* •■•'.' 'suJ*')J i- . “ • _ -/ x> HARDCOVER CALCULATIOM WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (^^7?) 75-250* 250-500* 500-1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ A House '10 A Length X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric •X . • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER FN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A. House _________ X Leng^ii X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVE^V ' .‘ONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN V ^ B 7Z7. Wid’Ji 537 nBb N 100 Width cs B X 100 #0 Q AQTT O' O ^ S.F.- boat Hoi^$ £ S.F. SF. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. cr _W<»0 5P 6iRcy.v<t.i SF. S.F. SF SF. SF. ConOlfTS ' Boat u A vs S F ?TFp _SF. S.F. 4-. 42. % 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. SF. SF. y» A B y •• • f SETBACK ZOiNTE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lcng;th L. HARD CO VER C A LC ULATlQilNVORKSUE ET •> .i_. B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pailo/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain Ev Plastic Or Fabric G. Other 0-75* X X X X X X X X X X y «a X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ -f B PROPOSED RARDCQVER IN ZONE’ A House ________ X Length B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 250-501)’500-1000 ’ 31^6 SF Wi<JJi 107 26^ m a s B s s X 100 Width MC7) O4-.C '•, us(r S.F. S.F. SF.-SHcD SF. .SF. SF SF SF.' SF. SF S.F. S.F coNccirr* OCwt-iiT/fty ai>j0 <rr COMCCt“l ■ PATfO So^l SF 2 7.73-7 SF. ®/o A B SF. S.F. .S.F. .S.F. SF. , S.F. SF SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF SF. S.F. S.F. y» A B OUNDATION WITH ARCHiTECT Taxpayer Service^! peparf^ehi UNt .5 MJ2 ^vS‘7'/ on- it~7- :z3-(b^ i> / » f.-* » t • • •. • * • M il Vx ..1 'r .*: Parcel Information • it - *•. f ^ : .' .IV; ■•: • -mm 'Parcel ID 07117234200M House Number 1300 •• V -<:U,7 Street Name VINE PL :(i ’ This is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compOation of iriformaVon • and data from City, County, and State road authorities and other sources. ' J irUN DATE §4/19/02 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATXON SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZA3SA01 PAGE 5 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 07-117-23 A2 0001 01310 VINE PL N R I J A SHIELDS MICHAEL R 0 JUDITH A SHIELDS 1310 VINE PL HOUND NN 55364 30 07-117-23 42 0002 01300 VINE PL R J STERLING IKE STERLING RICK J I KRISTINE E STERLING 1300 VINE PL HOUND HN 55364 30 07-117-23 42 0003 01325 VINE PL ‘ D D CARLSON I H J CARLSON DON U I NARY U CARLSON 1325 VINE PL HOUND HN 55364 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SO 07-117-23 42 0004 01345 VINE PL MARGARET H DAVIS TRUSTEE MARGARET H DAVIS 1345 VINE PL MOUND NN 55364 30 07-117-23 42 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 30 07-117-23 42 0034 01300 VINE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SO 07-117-23 42 0037 01360 VINE PL T 0 LANOON I ANY E LANOON TIMOTHY 0 I ANY E LANOON 1360 VINE PL MOUND HN 55364 1TTAL BATCH ^02 00007 I CERTIFY Tl’AT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION! OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPTN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BE: O O' HY KNOHLED&E AND BELIEF. Date CD 7^ Z I ' j. r 7 - « * • ( '.. ' ' 1 < ? (' 1^ •-' 'vu-Tm • •■:-'.‘.-5? 5 mi i4> .. 'F»Tk ■ '^r' '.■-••t ■■/' ■ ■ •■ •• - • • -• • :■-X-'■■■:- ■■^> *• • A'' ■.-' •• * • f * ‘f ^ * ‘ ‘ ' * . * • ’ rj( -ft V L " K* N M>m •JkMJj*.» t^.\t *.*•.^ ■, /;■ iff' 3v ■'V^|P 9S.P f '■ W V^. 1 . d^ . v-'v;;• a»ri. v -" 'cWsd '€> .1 Jj/Lmf- r r-4- ’<”A' mmi '> j’f.V, . '■/'•' ^.''!*.r■ ■ \ i '• ■.' • '•■• <} '/•' • 4 x' ; • ' V r ^ ■ v»:-r -•-* r •i I / ■ i'.' ^ ^’|? 1 >. ' •^'’ iyi'xL ’A f f- ' V ‘i 1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Mooise, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 12,2002 ^2668 Manley Brothers Construction 1973 Fagemess Point Road After the Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit Zoning District:LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Applicant has requested an after the fact conditional use permit and variances to permit construction of two retaining walls within 75’ of the lakeshore. The retaining walls were constructed to help stabilize the lakeside of the residence and create an improved walkout. The applicant has indicated the retaining walls were replacement walls. Since the original application a new set of owners have removed the retaining walls and have requested new walls be constructed on the property. A recent site inspection has indicated a few zoning violations that need to be resolved prior to review of this application. The property ow ners have removed between 2' and 4' of fill from the lakeside of the residence. A new lakeside deck has recently been constructed w ithout a permit, and a shed has been located on the property without a permit. Staff is going to require those zoning violations be resolved prior to review of this application. Staff Recommendation To table the conditional use pennit and variance request to determine what other applications may be required for the new walls. Stafl'is not prepared to make conclusions on the walls until a final review of other after-the-fact permits can be completed. Gp TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator June 6,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Renewal Variances and Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits: A Application B Resolution No. 4485 C June 26,2000 Approved Site Plan D Plat Map E New Site Plan - View 1 F New Site Plan - View 2 G Building Plans H Property Owners Notification List Application Hennepin County has applied to the City of Orono to renew variances to permit construction of a 7,200 square foot, three bay salt and sand storage building on the property and to renew a conditional use permit to permit construction of a stormwater management pond on the property. Modifications to Plan 1 he revised site plan has relocated the building closer to the property lines than previously approved. The 2000 approved site plan has the storage building 50’ from the north property line and 125’ from the east property line. The new site plan shows the building IT from the north property line and 67’ to the east property line. 1 he required setback to the rear property line for the building is 30’. The 27’ setback requires a variance. Approval of the site plan as a renewal will require the site plan to be amended to meet the previously approved setbacks. The new building location would not reduce hardcover as previously approved. #02-2776 Hennepin Count) 3880 Shoreline Drive Page I of 3 Background On June 26, 2000 the City of Orono adopted Resolution No. 4485 approving the variai.:es and conditional use permit for the Hennepin County Highway Maintenance facility located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. The salt and sand storage building required variances to permit the building to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory building on a property of 6.65 acres. The Municipal Code only permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building on the proper y, and an aggregate of 4,800 square feet for all accessory buildings. The proposed building is 60 feet X -?01 . • nl-.'sa 10' overhang for an extended roof for each storage bay. Initially, the City of Orono was concerned that the construction of such a facility on the property may expand the operation of the site. County staff has indicated the proposed building would actually have less impact on the surrounding residential properties bccau.se the number of salt and sand deliveries to the site would be reduced by approximately 60 trips annually. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because of the limited indoor storage currently provided. With the enclosed building they can stockpile the mix aiid accept deliveries during the daytime hours. Existing use of Property: The property has been u.scd as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 19^2 the zoning of the property was for commercial purposes, since that time the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility primarily being County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12 and County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. Other Public Uses of the Property T he DNR has located a wash rack for cleaning mussels offbeats, trailers and other watercraft. The wash rack is located north of the parking area and is used voluntarily by boat owners before boats are placed into Lake Minnetonka. T he LMCD iias used the property for storage of 4 milfoil harvesters. 1 he harvesters are currently stored in a parking area where the salt/sand storage facility is proposed. Hennepin County will continue to allow the LMCD to store the milfoil harvesters. The large parking area between the existing building and the south property line has been used as overflow parking for vehicles and boat trailers when the public landings arc full. The overflow parking would remain as a continued use. Overflow parking only occurs in the spring/summer/fall mainly on weekends not to interfere with the winter road maintenance facility operation. <>02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Page 2 of 3 Thb application requires the following approvals: 1.Renewal of a variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2)) 2.Renewal of a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan, the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) 3.Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for the land alteration on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21). The wetland alteration will occur within a non-City protected wetland, however the wetland is protected by the WCA and required MCWD board approval. This wetland and the wetland located over the southwest comer of the piuperty are subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to any future property ovsTier that the wetland will be subject to WCA regulation and/or Corps of Engineer jurisdiction. The stormwater pond shall require the County file a Conservation and Flowage Easement on the chain of title. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the renewal application subject to the conditions as noted in Resolution No. 4485 and requires the building to meet the setbacks as approved in 2000. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve, 2. To deny. 3.Table. 4.Other Action. #02-2776 Hennepin County 3880 Shoreline Drive Page 3 of3 r J|»t-Ii-2002 flZ:Oipi Frci-CITY OF OSCNO ♦3522434:16 T-835 P 028/:ir F-B21 A AppUcation FF 02.~2.77f^ Date Received__________ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 . ($50.00 per each additional variance) i/Renewal Variance Fee S150.00_ (no change firom original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION T) • S880 SUgr«\l>h^ Amount Paid Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_^g*117-*^3—^ ------------------------ Attach legal desciipUon to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired—^- - - - - - -^^- - - --- --- - - -‘ ‘ ^ I fdo) (doTiS) Filso adjacent parcels of land. Presttil use of proper: — Zoning Districi: residential other (specify). applicant Name 4 e wwa.^ % w .Address:__________________ Phone (home). Phone (woik)_ __City:.Zip:. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S<xwO-____________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:.__City..Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construaion Cost $. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback: ___Lot Width Front __. Side P^Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore nv A** itkttqtta T- i^r OPERTY CONDITIONS comritince with Zoning Code requirements:------------------------ ------------------------------ (attach additional sheets if necessary) HeR-19-2002 14J3S •>9522494616 99>c 6 P.C9 B CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .4485_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARL4NCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERiVOT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19-21 FILE NO. 2555 WHEREAS, Hennepin County (hereinafter the "applicant") is owner of a property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows (hereinafter the "property"): "Exhibit A" ; and >\TtEREAS, 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 public hearings on January 19. 2000 and April 17, 2000 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a land use application to the City of Orono requesting the following approvals: 1. A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the LR-IC zoning district. The facility was constructed at a time when the property was zoned for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970’s, hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non- conforming use. (Section 10.25) 2. Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OHWL of Lake Mirmetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of impervious surface from 148.835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35% coverage is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) Page 1 of 8 's'li ^eSAot CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 5 3. 4. ince to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot oversized i^cessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feel X 120 feet in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2)) Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater management pond. (Section 10.0:, Subdivisions 19-21). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2555. 2. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least 1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the properly was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-IC. Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has been allowed to exist as a I 'gal uon-conforming use. The facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility from County Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior. 3. The Plarming Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of the Zoning Code Amendment to the LR-IC District based on the following: A. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the property is currently used for. Page 2 of 8 4. 5. 6. 7. C. D. E. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 ^ There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in the early 1970s. Approving a Couv Amendment to permit this type of use in the LR-IC district would not be in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non-conforming status. The proposed height of the building was 42 ’ requiring a variance. The building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building. Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other locations that may be feasible. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60 trips annually and the salt/sand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours. The proposed building has been reduced in he ht from 42' to 20' and the building has been redesigned to not require a fully enclosed building but rather three storage bays for the salt/sand product. Elevation views, provided by Hennepin County, indicate the buildings would only have minimal impact on adjacent properties to the north. The 42 ’ building proposal would have blocked views from a small area in Spring Park across the railroad tracks. The storage bays would provide protection for the salt and sand product. Much of the salt and sand has been stored outdoors and could become part of the runoff from the site towards Lake Minnetonka. The facility is located within the 1000* Shoreland area of the lake. Page 3 of 8 ClTYaf ORONO IlK esBW 9. RESOLUTION OF THE C,TV COUNCIL NO. ^ Stormwater management pond has been proposed to treat stonnwater before leaving the site. Water drains towards the south side of the property and enters a culvert that carries the water directly to the lake. A management pond will treat much of the water before leaving the site. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a storm sewer pipe and are routed to Lake Minnetonka. 10. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Without indoor storage the County is required to make deliveries on a 24 hour schedule during snowfall events. 11 . The 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 properties, would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable haidship 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. 12. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keep'mg with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 4 of 8 'O. o\CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 44 8 5 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 variance 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2) to permit hardcover alteration in the 500’- 1000' lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X 120' (7,200 s.f.) accessory building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,400 s.f. is allowed; and for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land alteration for constructio .*■ a stormwater management pond. Approval is subject to the following conditions; 1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County. 2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities, and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal. 3. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono. 4. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer. 5. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product. 6. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax parcel. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 26,2001). Page 5 of 8 I I®;CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 5 ■ iolation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording cf this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of June, 2000. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Owners 'Re(>. Co. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour 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. ■n MARY ANN JOHNSON NOTAfty^UBUC-MNNESOTA CannMen Ei9t«i im. 3t, 20CS rtfarv PiiMir ^ VNotary Public Page 6 of 8 L m CITY ©f ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 8 S STAT]lESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ^ day o f N ^ , 20,££_, before me a Notary Public within and for said Coun^, personally appeared G-uv Jt' K'cajf^n, known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument' and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Pii^llc MARY ANN JOHNF^ NOrARVfUUC'MM STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of., 20 ___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared known to me to be the person described in anc who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed. Notary Public Page 7 of 8 A Exhibit A 44 8s s..u ^ • V '. • • . . i. • • * • ■ i'r »‘. • I ’ . ti'* ••■' ••k •A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS; Troct 1 •Toneni Property pef Certtflcote of IWe S6Q670 The East 50 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 of that part of Government Lot Township 117. Range 23. lying East of the East line of 'Streater s Spring Park Addition.County.'^Minnesota, the boundaries of which tract are marked by Judicial LandmarKa placed a- the Northwest and Northeast corners thereof, and by Judicial Landmarks placed ontract 33.01 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof and on the East line of said tract 33.01 fe North of the Southeast corner thereof, pursuant to Torrens Case No. 15147. According to the Government Suf'vey .thereof. All of Tract 1 is subject to permanent easements for street purposes as per Torrens Documents 1377 and 165S002 (County Highway Plat) Area of Tract 1 - 11.632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres). Tract 2-Tofieni Property per CortWcot® ofUtie SS9670 That part of Government Lot 8. Section 17. Township 117. Range 23. and that .Sliipi* Townsite of Langdon Park, all described as beginning at i(np rir^Sn'^nfrailel^wlthwith and 233 feet North of the South line of said Government Lot 8 and a Minnos-'t and 100 feet East of the East line of 'Streater-s Spring Park Addition ^Sn^hpriC^ricn* of w'thence North along the last described parallel line and its ^ .^* line of the Great Northern Railway Company; thence Easterly along |®^2h^iVn2®nJ^€sa}d^lectlon'^l7 to its intersection with a line drawn North at right angles to f9^5nrno?®n?^slid'^Sectlcn^7- from a point thereon distant 1315.97 feet West from the South Quarter-corner of said section _.thence South along said last described line to a point 233 feet North of the South line gfSection 17: thence West parallel with the South line of Section 17 to the point of begi g- the boundariea of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at 02*fetand the South line of which tract is further marked by Judicial *-andmarka placed thereon 50.02 f and 100.04 feet East of the Southwest corner of said tract, pursuant to Torrens Case No. lai According to the Government Survey thereof and according to the recorded pla- thereof. Sub)ect to a private driveway or street easement over the westerly 100 feet of Tract 2. Area of Tract 2 243. 101 Square Feet (5.581 Acres) Trod 3 * Abstrod Property pef Docuhent No. M45782 That part of Government Lot 8. Section 17. Township, 117. Range 23 .^)'i"Su“JJ2iin"cSintr'^ °100 feet Easterly of the Easterly line of ‘Streater-s Spring Park n” 2nd'^sSuth of theMinnesoU and lying North of the southerly 233 feet of said Government Lot 8. and South or Great Northern Railway right of way. Subiect to an easement for street purposes over Tract 3. lying No^'^h of a line oarallel wU 50 let southerly of the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern R?*lway right or ■ per Oc^j-sr.ts 23292.^7 seeSTPa Page 8 of 8 June ZUfZooo Si+t LAKESHORE OFFSET 500- 1 - r-j ' it srx.5 s:.;;? V TRAC . 3^1 ^ ^ t: * ?s».r\ viii *■—— ... .\ ssS? * ' ur'^<c^/r-it- ;»«£»* i /■ 0* 25' 80* 75* 100* '-U M'li ^:HL :''i itrc '; »‘ i I i'.-^te • ■:& fiK ; • » * Q-'.y ..Q..^-- ..Ih <4-----r*^ I 1 ^I \ • V ♦ vL • ->• \ —i‘ - f », __________________— E?!XK,-7"' wV —SH0RELIN6- srjnrjssrs-xz ORIVC--------iHCSAH-15^PtAT-MK ' lETONKA LAKESHORE OFFSET 250' J<“> (M)!(Ml (UmV,, MTtflVV it- ;-7JTIl-lT7rsS^ > ■ ;.^£I -y V ^ MMron l«MJ I J I 5 "i#/' »» • I* «'.m\fi%^*Jl’**>e N ;7*1 .^-A>0« ■ (IM)lltlj ii-1J • (•4) : 038) • * •ti!-.5*.«*?>• "uA m 1 (18) 03) • • 8 • f................ ^ /038) (Ulj/ 0 /V/ / /*!»• 08} » I -p<f *T •STREA ERS SPRING i A I .:?V,i -r* nPVDHDMt -«~— ” 1 n \ AVE \ * Yirk.iMJ> PAW . v^2a.tssy (4J) V- • ■■ v;/^:*.;y; :^M;-7 mm :’y ! • OU*10TO I» §S ^ » as SD JP »» SB * '®°\8l) (WJ* ,-TmT«f‘’"*r«J “ !j ' . ; prpr L fc »i * d :r • 2 - 1 ® > i^‘ •» •*(---------»’■■_____ ?*^j .5 (3,^00) (29) (2S) (27):« 1 ✓ ** LMNGSTON aa'(«^ *r aL«};j—,g?;----- vi'- “■ !■ * % * s' 5 " ?I •' if r ? • (145) h * *fiv§*si "^'t:* ^ .f • ! « C" « . TT-^Trprj M~nr Tryir u5 M gj ^ • 2| • 3 f 5( * ■ II) (50) (49) ‘ • a»*‘ •> (41)HI (ii) li >• « *• ? 5 iXv »*' *;^ «•? ti« a A »« ^ .7^. i(W> i(M 7^ («) ^ ♦ • / •< Pimtm /'O / ^ («)/t / / . / ^ f«jj / ■ / I i~TrT¥-ITrrB —If—I ^ ^ • ■■ •* » • 2 a 3 w > f 2 • ? I o* «y _Mr4ri€t (46)/ OL4 #/ (4^) 008 (105|^ 5E^7o w/: '7^ fe OAM NOIS; PLAT 00) Soon . *‘| 2(149)' JO*') ' • ±• l*ji a ‘ a ^ • .-' AO-1/7-^13- % (18) \ \ ,'<1 '■•' ^ ^RLS^NO660 ,p:cn ^ -• («) y \ \ P«» *;\ • v!"* **• • .I 0^-S^?70r> W# ^ .: * 08) lo arrh^i/ir . *«.ip.yii«jL.yu NEW DRAINAGE EASEICNT /• \ ».1 :a ^ ?^3 \ .“V •953 ^Sj \ 952 —951 11*^/ ^ I / I » i I I 111 I / ^.0 / / / ■/♦ri .• >■•••»•"?; *\ • r <>, >* “<• iyc^; i‘ fV-.vr • '. j i^nm '4* ‘.-v \rr,. «✓ Y>y,:c- ?^:< i I . a«iR''ttliV''9«:.3>^^^ SjlU SloUflS'iUlUiM ■■>■ - ■•■■■ •--'V;,^-,' . <0* X Hsf 1 • .< \ >;*'f ‘-** T^ l«/». • ‘ ^ y . \ - >'7\ .\\ \ ' 1'! I '\^ I ' ‘ "f'^s" " ' U "%-~'»"' f 'i'f N'( I , 'l/l't-'i"l,l^'*_ 11 ,11 ; (ssi 1 X . ' *«iS< , ."-t, • '\ 1 iP- ’ A’'» •^* w» • 'O’ ;/ •*!*..1 #••<A. •. •i.i;;\ t: \ V \ * i % X- J ^'r'v/'-*%..‘\ V' >•- voy.':r-'r'-:: • »•/? V?;^' -f-'-f If /I /1 / S2/ I I•irnS'i'll,a ' II'?)' I / r^o I \ !) J: I '' t f 111 I^:s ISS / / / I I , ^1 u, I t , » '^C,! "^'11 i^!j\11 r li ^ II 9J1 • ^ T*-V•;.■ »s.o I 1,1 •'iin / • •\ o \ :0NC. RETAINK4G WALLV \ \ V \ splash blk. at ^a. ram leader iv precast concrete panels • ; • with bricl{ pattern impressed 5 “ ajJprox. fl. eley. beyond,;^|crify\^ j abv. gratfl?. smooth fin’sh .........I ^...............................[’ to receive moisture Harrier : ; I I I I I i ; below grade, see sheet A3___ • I » • splash blk. ^ atjin leadeM(_. U. ► NORTH ELEVATION ^'\^poured cone footing for size and design Vsjy Scale : 1" - 10'-0"see structural /:-fl. clev. bfyondjvcrify , ^ ^ “ precasl fbncrete”sapeTs.ToF : I I panel design see sheet A3 • ------»-------------- - -p-^g^j0g ^IslurVBarfier* * T * for untJeTrground cone, wan surfaces cone, footing see structural N " © o i ^2:3. for wan panel (A) face design ^ see sheet A3 C!) (c) finished grade t«> <,ontractor, see site plan poured cone, retaining,^ waO, w/weepholes, for details see structural draintile poured cone, footing, see structural \bitumlnous,weari(^^CjDur^.& base by owner,. ^ . .SPt>5 VK«L<13t C«a.tac38C..................... slope southward 1/8* per foot. • typical UCtfill V • ___I 8*-0’ open * ^ r I • m ^ W M m. I^WESTSiDE ELEVATION \4y »cal«:r-10'-0’ cone, fc see sta otir ctu - ^ JOUMO Aq )u|of pue ••.........uojde snoujujn){q ' * -/-✓ -----aAoqe - * uiBoq *ouoo ; I I jauMo Aq qe|S snou|Uimiq i£S>fr6 :u6j‘iBAa|Vidoy .0 - .8C aSejois pues • )|es • «ueM|8ued '9U03 )Se39Jd J3UM0 Aq luiof PUB^ ■ - f I uojdB snouitunita ’ ^ * .T I • I I o uojdB snouiiuniiq ..a ____....____ . ‘Aqe ]|39p jooj ‘0U03 jseoajd CV aGedVoVeidp ijeM aas* J9UMO Xq qe|s snoumin^jq o' A. • S ■* iCOt'G :uoj)BA9|d jooy mO - ,0fr a6ejo)s pues - )|es ie3|dX) ^ 6u(jeoo 9A|J39JOJd oqe sjq^___'jqj^qe; j9ued * /q p^neb siujof ijaA ‘jo|03 '3U03 |ejn}eu ■ ■ ’qSjd!/»lVot)ai57M ‘s|9ued '3U03 )se39Jd J9UMO Xq qe|S snoununjiq n .......................1.............^ --7\ ££>f 6‘:ubiieA‘a|a jooy nO " i0£ a5ejo)s pues - )|es ...... 9Aoqe S)q6y ^ LXJ 9pej6MO|9q ~Y SueqjaAd^oj )|30|quse|ds -3uo3 ■uK)«oq V 8IPPIU1 ‘doj it (BM o) uaiSB; *inodsuMop' apiS i0jJ9}X9 uo J9jJJBq / n . (\y, ajnisjoui snonuj)uo3 apiAOJd/ ^ ')3aim3JB Xq pau|uua)ap aq 0) J0|03 *£v taaqs uo sfiBiap aes u6|sap uiaued 9|^ jo* uB|d a)ts uo uoi)B30| diuns 99^ ‘dujns 0) ujBjp 8do|s ipje/wuMop 6u{3e* sa|oq/w ad|d 93B|d *ad|duiejp au9|Xm«X|od paiedauoa patejopad \ RUN DATE M/tS/fi iATCN 5St HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORNATXON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PAGE 5 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 17 I7-117-2S S3 •••9 tSOlt NORTHERN AVE ROGER ALCAN MIENL ROGER ALLAN DUENL SGIt NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN SS58A 17 17-117-2S S3 ••19 •3014 NORTHERN AVE HAROLD R KOKESN ETAL HAROLD R KOKESCH 3014 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 S3 laiO •3042 NORTHERN AVE E R TXSCHLER • K J TXSCHLER ERIC R 71SCHI.ER 3042 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 17 17-117-23 33 RRIO •3052 NORTHERN AVE KEITH J ENERY KEITH ENERY 3052 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 ••19 •3077 PARK LA RANKERS TRUST CO Of CALXf WXLLXAN A ANDERSON 3077 PARK LA SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 S3 ••20 •3042 NORTHERN AVE JAN W STRUCK JAN W STRUCK 3042 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 17 17-117-23 S3 ••22 •3041 PARK LA A N HOUO ONE FARINHA ANGELA N HOUO 5240 NXNNEHAHA AVE NPLS NN 55417 17 17-117-23 S3 EOSO •3914 SHORELINE OR DOUGLAS C OANRLE DOUGLAS OANRLE 2443 NOUNTAXN VIEW DR ESCONDIDO CA 92927 17 17-117-23 33 9939 •3924 SHORELINE DR CLARK R OLTNAN CLARK R OLTNAN 3924 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK NN . 55304 PRW ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AMHI iX. 17-117-2/33 ORAO •3^2. S^ELXNE OR JOHN P^KASTER JOHN^^ RASTER 2A|fl CASCO POpiT RD WAVZATA NN 55391 17 17-117-23 33 9943 •S999 DEL OTERO AVE J N RARATZ ETAL JOHN HENRY RARATZ 3999 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 9944 •3924 DEL OTERO AVE CATHY JO TURNER CATHY JO ni»€R 5537 RARTLETT RLVD HOUND NN 55344 d, O 17-117-23 33 9947 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR DEL OTERtr^VE tidcsoN XPv 1; •3^ NICHAI l R ER] NXCHAEIJfli^RICKSON S9S4JNrC AVE SPRKNO PARK NIL 55304 17^17-117-23 33 9A41 •3949 "^NORTHERH^VE THONAS E CHRISTENSEN ET AL TMONAS 9 LUAtRI^CHRXSTENSEN 3949 NORfHERN AVL SPRlflb PARK NN 55^ 17 17-117-23 33 0944 •3914 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 3914 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 17 17-117-23 33 9945 93990 NORTHERN AVE ANTHONY R POLLOCK ANTHONY POLLOCK 3914 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 9944 •S999 NORTHERN AVE GERALD ROLAND HA?4SEN GERALD R NANSEN SOX 152 SPRING PARK NN 55304 17 17-117-23 33 9947 92250 HAZELDELL AVE ROSIN L SHERNAN ROSIN L SHERNAN 2250 HAZELDELL AVE SPRING PARK NN 55304 I HIM DATE M/DS/ID HEIMEPIN COUNTY PMPCRTV INFOMUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASSAtl PACE 6 BATCH 55t PROP AODR OMNER NANS TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AODR OMNER NANS TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR nk. 17-117-2S SrOESA . R2aA^ LllAt/Rlr T D t^WMSON TNOHA^iiTsVLENC L NASON t2»R LILAC IJS^ SPRINO PARK HN^S|SSRA 17 17-U7-2S SS Rt87 •M72 NORTHERN AVE NOREEN F BENJE6ER0ES NOREEN F BENJEOEROES SR72 NORTHERN AVE SPRINB PARK NN 55SM 17 17-117-2S S3 deVA •22AS HA2ELOELL AVE P A BARTON A H K BARTON P A BARTON B H K BARTON 22AB NAZELOELL AVE SPRINO PARK NN SBSBA 17 17-117-23 33 B137 0SB22 NORTHERN AVE M A SCHMELINC ET AL ELIZABETH N SCHNELINB P 0 BOX B1 3822 NORTHERN AVE SPRING PARK NN S53SA 17'^-H7^<i^S MSA •22aCX!<*Z<>-0ELL AVE DpUem ><SIPPEL ^bUQLAS J »pnL 22A1 NAZELOCLINWC spring'PARK MN Nu^SBA 17 17-117-23 S3 A1A2 •391E DEL OTERO AVE RICHARD S LIBERANTE RICHARD S LIBERANTE 391B DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK MN SS3BA 17 17-117-23 33 B1A4 •3A14 DEL OTERO AVE J A FRITZ IMS JENSEN JANES FRITZ • MENOY JENSEN SAIL DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARR MN 5S3BA 17 17-117-23 33 AMS •SAIB DEL OTERO AVE GREGORY A DAVIS GREGORY A DAVIS 3A1B DEL OTERO AVE SPRINO PARK NN 55SBA 17 17-117-25 53 A1A7 B3AB2 SHORELINE DR 0 A KLITZKA t V V RLITZKA B A B V V KLITZKA SAB2 SHORELINE OR SPRINO PARK MN SS3BA 17 17-117-25 33 BIAS A3AM SHORELINE DR VINCENT K BURNNART VINCENT R BURNNART ASA MAPLE CREST DR HOUND NN B53M 17 17-117-23 33 A15A A22A2 HAPLETON AVE THOMAS FREDRICK BROUELETTE TNONAS FREDRICK BROUELETTE 22A2 HAPLETON AVE SPRINO PARR HH 553BA 17 17-117-23 54 8821 83AAA NORTHERN AVE LOIS A TOMNER LOIS A TOMNER SAAB NORTHEIW AVE SPRINB PARK l« 5S3A4 17 17-117-25 35 ABBA A3A7A NORTHERN AVE ROGER DALE ROGER DALE SB7A NORTHERN AVE SPRINB PARK MN S53B4 17 17-117-23 53 A13B 83A32 NORTHERN AVE KEITH 0 TRASK KEITH 0 TRASK 3A32 NORTHERN AVE SPRINB PARR NN 553A4 17 17-117-23 35 8143 A3414 DEL OTERO AVE ZACHARY S SMANSON ZACHARY S SHAieON 3414 DEL OTERO AVE SPRING PARK NN SS3A4 17 17-117-23 33 8144 A34AA SHORELINE DR S M 8 P R OSHERA STEVEN M B PAMELA K OSHERA 3488 SHORELINE DR SPRINB PARK NN SS3B4 I 4 0 17 17-117-23 55 8144 83484 SHORELINE OR DONALD L LANOON DONALD L LANOON 3484 SHORELINE OR SPRING PARK HN SS3B4 38 17-117-23 33 8882 83888 SHORELINE OR CO OF HENN HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTN MARCIA HILDA N/C 480 417 STH ST N 0328 MPLS HN BB481 L RUN DATE M/E3/tt DATCN SSt PROf ADDR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR Sa 17-117-23 S3 aOES •3aSi SHORELINE DR COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ORONO SHOP C/0 HENN CO • P.S. BIO S2t NASHINQTON AVE S HOPXINS m 5S3A3 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INPORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST SB 17-117-23 S3 aaia •389# SHORELINE DR E J I N J HELD EDWARD J a HARSHA J HELD 3891 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 5SS91 REPORT NO. PIAS5491 PAGE 7 38 17-117-23 S3 •••5 •384# SHORELINE DR DAVID UH8EH0CXER DAVID UHBEHOgCER 3848 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 17-117-23 33 •••4 83858 SHORELINE DR JOHN C CHENOWETH JR JOHN C CHENOWETH 11445 R1NGS8OR0U0N TR S COTTAGE GROVE NN 55814 38 17-117-23 34 8883 •3778 SHORELINE DR NARY SOHNS NATTHEW SOHNS 1481 AVOCET LA HOUND NN 55344 38 17-117-23 33 8887 83888 SHORELINE DR JANET H OLSON JANET H OLSON 3888 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 8884 •3798 SHORELINE DR CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO ATTN RONALD J NOORSE P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55323 38Sj-117-23 3^^8884 •3748 X. SHORELINE DR TONKA VEtqURiES LLC TONKA VEfiTUKS LLC 7748prRANCC AH^ S 8778 EDINA NN 554! •887 UNASSICNED LLC LLC S 8778 38 17-117-23 34 0882 83788 NORTHERN AVE LEO J SLECHTA ETAL LEO J SLECHTA 3788 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 38X17-117-23 34 8885 •374V SHORELINEJUI TONKA VENTUREB^LLC TONKi^dVCURES LLC 77#r^ANChjiVE S 8778 EDINA NN 5^5 38V17-117-23 34y8(08 •S78Kv SHORELINE DR TONKA ihEftTURlS LLC TORUrVENTURES LLC 7748 PRANCE^AVE S 8778 (\ fN r< d EDINA EDINA NN 55435 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 3^^^7-117-23 >T8889 88838N ADDRESS UNASSI0IEO TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA'VENTURES LLC 7748* PRANCE AVE S R778 .S NN 554S5\^ 38 17-117-23 34 8858 83788 NORTHERN AVE N T CARL I J K JANES N T CARL I J K JANES 3788 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 8051 •3748 NQRTIffRN AVE J R QUAH I J E QUAN JOHN R QUAN 3748 NORTHERN AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AUR 38 17-117-23 34 8052 •••38 ADDRESS PENDING NCLEOD CNTY REG RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC 288 NORTH NILL ST PERGUS PALLS NN 54537 38 17-117-23 34 0045 80038 ADDRESS PENDING LAKE HTKA WOODS ASSOC LAKE NTKA WOODS ASSOC C/0 EAGLE CREST NORTHWST INC P O BOX 47333 PLYNOUTH NN 55447 38 17-117-23 34 0083 00038 ADDRESS PENDING LAKE NTKA WOODS ASSOC LAKE NTKA WOODS ASSOC C/0 EAGLE CREST NORTHWST INC P 0 BOX 47333 PLYNOUTH NN 55447 tUN DATE M/«5/tA mfmnn county phopciity intoiihatioh system mOfEITTY OWNEirS LIST tEPOrr NO« fZ4S54ll PACE 0 lATCH 5SA PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAffE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADOR ONNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR 17-U7-2S S4 RfRS •tiSR ADDRESS UNASSI6NED TONKA VENTURES LLC TONKA VENTURES UC 77Ai PRANCE AVE S R77R EDINA NN SMSS 58 21-117-23 22 IfOl •SY25 SHORELINE DR C N SMITH 8 S i SMITH CORTLAND SMITH i SUSAN SMITH S92S SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MN 5SS88 S8 2I-117-2S 22 8R04 •3845 SHORELINE DR R D JENSEN ETAL J 8 S RAUSCNENDORPER 3895 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 2f-117-2S 22 •••7 •3885 SHORELINE DR PAUL N LARSON PAUL N LARSON 3877 SHORELINE DR NAYZATA NN 55391 IS 43.^8 (ESS MASSl :0 RAILI MN >5(S 117-23 ADD^ESS^ UNASSXGNEO llEO RAILROAD AUTN DAKOTA'RAltNlNC 2«f NORTH NILt FERGUS FALLS MN>^85S7 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR TOTAL 8ATCH 555 •••88 38 28-117-23 22 •••Z •3935 SHORELINE DR J 8 S REDELL JANES DAVID BEDELL . 3935 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 28-117-23 22 0005 •3915 SHORELINE DR K 8 C KRUGER KONRAD CHRISTOPHER KRUGER 4831 HANITOU RD TONKA BAY MN 55331 SB 28-117-23 22 8088 •2485 DUNNOODV AVE BRENT D NALTON ET AL BRENT D 8 JULIE B NALTON 2485 DUNNOODV AVE QRONO MN 55391 38 20 117 23 22 0010 2435 DUNWOdDY AVE MARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE JAMES C BEISE 2435 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 \/S 38 28-117-23 21 8818 82428 DUNNOODV AVE CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH 2428 DUNNOODV AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 28-117-23 22 8083 83985 SHORELINE DR RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON RICHARD A CARLSON 3985 SHORELINE DR NAVARRE MN 55392 38 28-117-23 22 8086 83877 SHORELINE DR T M GREGORY 8 T A GREGORY T M GREGORY 8 T A GREGORY 3877 SHORELINE OR NAYZATA MN 55391 38 28-117-23 22 8889 82425 OUNNOOOY AVE N P NITHERS 8 L A SANNA NILLIAN P NITHERS 2425 DUNNOODY AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20 117 23 22 0011 2445 DUNWOODY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2445 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 f\ v/3 38 20 117 23 22 0012 2437 DUNWOODY AVE MARION C BEI3E TRUSTEE MARION 0 BEISE 2437 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 » RUN RATE M/tS/Rt HENNEPIN COUNTY mOfERTY XNFORNATIOH SYSTEN fROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PZRSMfl PARE 9 f\ Hio Application Date: 4/17/02 Deadline: 8/15/02 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator July 11,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Variances Zoning District: Application: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) The Planning Commission reviewed a request by the applicant for variances to rcde\cIop the property located at 3490 North Shore Drive. The property owners are looking for general site plan approval based on the site plan as presented at the May and June Planning Commission meeting. The general site plan approval would require the building not be 3 stories in height, as the zoning ordinance does not permit any residential buildings over 2 '/i stories in the zoning district. The Planning Commission provided direction to the applicant regarding the general site plan and provided direction that the applicants work with staff to redesign the roof line to meet the 30' height limit and 2 '/i stor>' limit. It appears the applicants will have this completed in time for the meeting on July 15**’. Required variances are: 1. Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10,048 s.f (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f (0.5 acre) is required. 2. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50’ in width where 100’ is required. 3. Hardcover: To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%. Attached in the June staff report Application Date: 4/17/02 Deadline: 8/15/02 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator June 6,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Variances Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C Building Height Memo Planning Report (May 17, 2002) Draft Planning Commission Minutes (May 20,2002) Application The Planning Commission reviewed a request by the applicant for variances to redevelop the property located at 3490 North Shore Drive. The property owners are looking for general site plan approval based on the site plan as presented at the May Planning Commission meeting. The general site plan approval would require the building not be 3 stories in height, as the zoning ordinance does not permit any residential buildings over 2 Vi stories in the zoning distnci. Staff has attached as Exhibit A a memo explaining the City of Orono ordinance and policy relating to detenuining building height. The Planning Commission is going to be asked to review the memo on height and concur that the policies outlined are in keeping with the intent of the zoning ordinance for determining building height. The applicants will request a recommendation of approval for the plan they have submitted based on being able to meet the height standards as specified in the memo. However, it is clear that the plan as submitted must be revised significantly in order to be considered as a 2-1/2 stor>- house. Additionally, please review the Planning Report dated May i 7,2002 which details the plans. Required variances are: 1. Lot Area- To permit construction of a new house on a 10,048 s.f (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) is required. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50 ’ in width where 100’ is required #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Page I of2 I 3. Building Height: To permit a house to exceed the 2 '/i story height limitation for a full 3 story house. 4. Hardcover; To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%. Staff Recommendation (Same as ^age 3 of May 17 staff memo) #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Page 2 of 2 •aMu MEMO CITY OF ORONO TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Paul Weinberger & Mike Gaffron June 13,2002 SUBJECT: Determination of Building Height - Half-Story vs Full Story The building height ordinance consists of two elements; 1) a limit on the measured height of a structure, and 2) a limit on the number of stories. In the residential zoning districts the ma.ximum height permitted is "V/i stories or 30* in height". Staff has interpreted this to mean that both standards must be met, i.e. you can ’t have 3 stories even if it meets the 30’ height limit, and you can ’t exceed the 30' height limit even if you only have 2 stories. Heieht Measurement The Orono Zoning Ordinance defines Building Height as “the vertical distance betw een the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the low cst ground level, whichever is low cr and the top of the cornice of of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic charges which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height." It is a relatively straightforward matter to measure (on a scaled drawing) the height of a building once the low er and upper measurement points have been determined. In most cases residential buildings are constructed with a gabled style roofline. The height of a gabled roof by City definition is measured at the vertical midpoint of the roof between the peak and the eave. How ever, there are many cases w hen the highest gabled roof has window s, dormers or an elevated ceiling height. It has been City policy to measure the building height differently than just peak to eave when the entire space located within the roof area is used as living space. When living space is located within the roof, if there are any windows to that space such as dormer w indows or gable-end windows (but not merely skylights), the height then is measured at a point half way betw een the top of the living space (or ceiling height of the uppermost level) and the peak. Defining “Half-Storv" The zoning ordinance does not define a Vi story. The Planning Commission reviewed a definition of a half-story taken from The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions (Moskowiiz & Lindbloom, Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1981) which defines the upper story as a half story when both these conditions are present: Building Hei^t June 13.2002 Page 2 the portion of it with headroom 5' or lower is at least 40% of the floor area of the story below (refer to Illustration A); and the roof intersects with the building outside wall at a point no more than 3' above the floor of the upper story. This definition was generally accepted as a reasonable definition for determining a half-story. This definitfon is consistent with definitions used by other cities to determine a half-story. The following definition is an example taken from the City of Edina Municipal Code. Half Story. The uppermost floor of a building in which (i) the intersection of the exterior wall and the roof is not more than three feet above the floor elevation, and (ii) not more than 60 percent of the floor’s area exceeds five feet in height as measured from the floor to the rafters. Floors not meeting this definition shall be deemed a story. Potential Issues Current City policy on building height treats a space meeting the proposed definition of half-story, as a full story if it has windows. This could be problematic from an administrative standpoint if, for instance, a half-story without windows and used as living space later had windows added and became a full story. A defined 2-1/2 story building would then become 3 stories by definition, without expanding the building envelope. The defined height in feet can also become greater than 30* by adding such windows, which changes the upper measuring point under current policy...see illustrations B-1 and B-2 attached... Does having a window in the half-story give the house the visual appearance of being a full story? What are the City ’s goals in regards to limiting height of buildings? Should the same building ^hsU be defined at difTerent heights based merely on the presence or absence of windows? ZrfiA^noh^ *A HALF STORY 5ee Story. Half. See Figure 17. IF TlOat, AJteA “a" I* AT l-BA-,T AO Vo A^BAk • Bf ** - THBM "a"* a HAL.F n1 Application Date: 4/17/02 Deadline: 6/16/02 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Mav 17,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2786 John R. Jones 3490 North Shore Drive Variances Zoning District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (1/2 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Site Plan D Elevation Views E Property Photos Application The property owner had submitted an application for variances to permit redevelopment of the property. There is an existing one level house located on the property. 1 he variances applied for on April 17,2002 requesting the following: 1. Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10,048 s.f. (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) is required. 2. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50* in width where 100’ is required. 3. Average Lakeshore Setback: To permit the house to be constructed encroaching T into the average lakeshore setback where no encroachment is permitted. 4. Building Height: To permit a house to exceed the 2 '/j story height limitation for a full 3 story house. 5. Structural Lot Coverage: To permit total structural lot coverage of 2,018 s.f. (20*?^) where 1,507 s.f (15%) is allowed. 6. l latdcover: To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%. 7. Side and Rear Setback: To permit the existing house to be converted to a detached garage located 1 ’ from the north property line where 10’ is required and 2’ to the east side property line where 10’ is required. (Through Lot) The property owner has worked towards reducing the number of variances and setback encroachments. Revised plans were submitted to the City of Orono on May Ib*^. The revised plans still do require variances, but have gone a long way towards reducing variances. The revised plans have proposed a single house with a 1 “ level tuck under style garage with access to Birch Lane. The layout of the property with access to Birch Lane is consistent w ith the development of the neighborhood. Required variances are: 1. ~ Lot Area: To permit construction of a new house on a 10.048 s.f. (0.23 acre) lot where 21,780 s.f (0.5 acre) is required. 2. Lot Width: To permit new construction on a lot 50 ’ in width where 100' is required. 3. Building Height: To permit a house to exceed the 2 ‘A story height limitation for a full 3 storv house. 4. Hardcover: To permit total hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to exceed 25%. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances The City has approved a number of variances to lot area and width for the lots in this area as nearly all lots are non-conforming. The property has been developed as a residential site for man> years, is connected to sanitar>’ sewer and does demonstrate a suitable building site. Hardcover Variance The property has a total lot area within the 75-250’ lakeshorc setback of 6,750 s.f The total proposed hardcover within the zone is 2,485 s.f or 37%. The existing house has only 1,265 s.f of hardcover on the property. The low amount of hardcover in relation to the hardcover proposed is due to the entire existing house being located ver>' close to the Birch Lane property line with little driveway. All existing hardcover is within the required 30 ’ setback to Birch Lane. Relocating the house to be more in line with neighboring residences and within setbacks docs create more hardcover on the property. The hardcover proposed is 1,500 s.f for the house and 985 s f for the driveway. The existing house is 920 s.f Building Height Variance The property owner has requested a building height variance to pemiit a full 3'*^ story on the house. The zoning code allows a maximum building height of 30 ’ or 2 'A stories, whichever is less. Building height is measured from the highest existing grade above which the house is built. The 2 '/z stor> height limitation allows a typical 2 story house with an attic space above, but the half-story would not be used for living space. This particular lot is located only 3-4’ above the lake elevation of Lake Minnetonka not allowing for a basement level. The building height variance is being requested to pemiit additional living space. The entire building does not exceed 30’ in overall height. The property owners submitted sketches that would have a 9 ’ ceiling on the 1*' level, 10 ’ ceiling on the 2*^ level, and 8’ ceiling on the 3''* level. They would be willing to lower the ceiling height to 8’ on each level. The total proposed height of the structure, assuming the 8’ ceiling heights, is approximately 28' to the midpoint of the roof. Some height restrictions used by cities were based partly on the ability to provide adequate fire protection, as equipment was only able to reach buildings of a certain height. The proposed individual house is not taller than other houses since it would meet the 30’ standard. The 2 '/j story height limitation versus a 3 story’ house would not change the amount of residential structure that would be visible from the lake. Many lakeshore homes are walkout style homes that have a full 3 levels exposed to the lakeshore. Allowing 3 story houses would mean houses having a walkout level could have as many as 4 levels exposed. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the application based on the variance requested for building height, fhe height variance recommendation is based on the following: 1 . The granting of a variance to height would be inconsistent w ith the intent of the zoning ordinance. 2. The granting of a height variance would be precedent setting for other lots w ith similar characteristics, such as not having the ability to have a basement level. Allowing 3 story houses would change how the City of Orono has viewed residential development. 3. No hardship has been demonstrated that requires a third level in the house. The request to have more living space may be a convenience to the applicant and not a hardship. Stall supports a scenario of a building that would be constructed within the site plan and not exceeding 2 'A stories based on the following: 1 . The lot was platted prior to current zoning standards. 2. The property has been developed as a residential site. Hennepin County tax records Catimate a construction year of 1900. 3. The property is served by sanitary' sewer. 4. Redevelopment the property as residential is consistent with tlie zoning district and with the development of the surrounding properties. 5. The lot has demonstrated a suitable building site. 6. The amount of hardcover proposed is the minimum amount of hardcover required to serve a house with a 1.500 s.f. foundation and provide a suitable driveway. The only concern is the house does not have any sidewalks or ground level patios in the plan. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 3*^^^ Application # 0*^ • SiHi^ Date Rccttved~ H-\n^03L Amount Paid 4^ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 0&-t/7 ______ Attach legal description to arolication if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired y — 9^ ______________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Y residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:___________________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT ___ Name ^ Phone (home ) Phone (work) ggZZ. Address: . City: Zip:_vr5;;22L>! OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF RE<}UEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width X Setback:Front X Side X Hardcover X Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________________ A i' (attach additional sheets if necessary) c - c / 1 *ss 0?-ll7- Z3{^ r •;‘* J ■;-.V . , . Parcelinformamh » . ... 1 <s«i^«.r»r.%<J*%s Hwhb«r’34«^r-^-^^ Nmm Npin^ 7M li noi&l9gBllymcofd9dmap.ltnpr^^ {■^ '•nd data hvm CIty. County, and State mid au ttoWrfiB^^iLii:— ¥ r t--« 'v ^• « I X LID. / Certificate of Sur ^POSED APt^A 1 n. f Oijts I < • I>12 M. fl. «r aaj mmm • • MS •% ft «r a02 • I4t7 m. ft «r aOS avw EXISnHG AREA TABLE • »*i • avii« a V 02St M *^^*** ** m tu • .................. - ^ M • m a* «. IT Mi «P«| \ § ■*! >M» • Mi % V Mi isor.joor • 47m»«« • H7 M «. V Mi I • I4I M % • Mi • *f_M ^ 9 Mi W KMMiMr - JL04I M. ft ar a07 mi . PJO JO RLK “ kuutijio, Ltd. •110 Mui ClrcU Dr. •ulU #100 MlmamUakA, Ma. •0040•.asMTSuu I M| otuy M Mi avfia JM Miiptfi Mi Pwm M M V Wi«v mM M Mi M Ikto Ml m Mrit M UiM M Apri 10. 2002 J JOHN R. JONES CHARLOTTE LIRA MM NONTH SHORE DRIVE ORONO, MN iSiil Ho rrr-s .’V • I Q) C k (0 Cl C D I X 0 IL < n «« H H N 0 1 1 t**l2c3t4r feue.vA-jno H- 'Siuipy L-IPA-ilb('A“e'5 Wcf^e IMAf. ' ?'(</■ o,-^ (4 W 0c V L (9a pc 3' X «!>«• •« ■ i ••'«| X 0 IL < Stn •• ri r-4 ^IPVS. feu£.Vy6rYlOCS. CVJ 0 1 . » 2 •i'C')- ■ 'fU:-j(r-^ \ ‘ r I •. 1 iW'-rm pi?, r ^ r ■ t . . . ^ vf If ■ • ■= . • / ^il/ ^ t • iteil i ...V - \ ..v.rflCIpi.:-/- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2769 MARK AND PAMELA PALM, Continued) Rahn noted that if the garage is tilni^ it still barely fits the setback requircpiefits. He suggested building a similar garage of no more than 750'ir£^hich then could be granted^>^^ack variances. He maintained that many design options seemlo be available. Again, Rahn stated that he could support five- foot setbacks if the mass of the building was t^t-enlarged. Hawn indicated she would not approve the requested^back variance and suggested Mr. Palm design something that meets the standards of the Comrnission as put forth, and returns with that for approval. She asked him if the matter should be table'B at this time. N/ Palm pointed out that several^ug^stions are simply too expensive andVjiat the Commission has suggested is no larger thmthe current 24’x30’ structure. He indicated he would work with reducing the proposed garage^to^O s.f. and move to at least 5 feet from the property line, Hawn mo>^d,^raitb seconded, to table Application #02-2769, Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive,yA the applicants request In order to allow them time to redesign the garage plan.-^ VO TE: Ay^"7, Nays 0. —— (#7) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES 7:41 - 8:28 p.m. John R. Jones and Charlotte Lipa, Applicants, were present. Weinberger explained that the applicant had submitted the application on April 17,2002, for variances to permit redevelopment of the property. Since that time, the applicant has worked towards reducing the number of variances and setback encroachments. Weinberger pointed out that resised plans submitted to the City of Orono on May 16th still do require variances, but have gone a long way towards reducing variances. The revised plans have proposed a single house with a 1st level tuck under style garage with access to Birch Lane. Weinberger stated that the layout is consistent with the development of the neighborhood and the required variances now include: Lot Area, Lot Width, Hardcover, and Building Height. While Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the first three variances, the building height permit to permit a full three story on the house is inconsistent to the zoning code. Weinberger stated that the zoning code allows a maximum building height of 30’ or 2 1/2 stories, whichever is less, and not three stories. The 2 1/2 story height restriction allows for a typical 2 story house with an attic above, not typically used for living space. ' / PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN JONES, Continued) Since this lot is only 3-4’ above the lake elevation, there cannot be a basement. The building height variance is being requested to allow for additional living space. Weinberger pointed out that the entire building does not exceed 30’ in overall height. Weinberger continued that staff recommends denial of the application based on the variance requested for building height. He stated that granting of a variance to height would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance, would set a precedent for other lots with similar characteristics by allowing a three story house, and no hardship has been demonstrated to allow a third level in the house. Weinberger added that staff would be willing to support a scenario of a building that would be constructed within the site plan and not exceeding 2 1/2 stories based on six factors he identified in his report. Mr. Jones stated that he has made an effort to meet every setback requirement and is unclear what constitutes a 2 1/2 story building. He asked for a clear definition of a 2 1/2 story building and how it has bearing on his plans since he has met the 30’ height requirement. There were no public comments. Rahn felt the plan shows a three story home. Mr. Jones maintained that the lower third level is mostly taken up by tuck under garage with one room. He asked once again for definition of the half story. He believed that his plans could be designed around this concept if he could be clear what encompassed the half story. Rahn stated that his vision of a half story is the attic space of a home with knee walls allowing only approximately half of the floor area of a second story. Kluth reiterated that the Commission docs not have issue with the height itself, but the third story. Mr. Jones asked for clarification in reference to the half story, questioning if what is allowed constitutes 50% of the floor area of a first or second floor. Gaffron handed out a general definition, from the Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, which defines the half story concept as floor area that is at least 40% of other floor level areas. He noted the City has not formally adopted a definition of‘half story’. Kluth stated a basement would not be considered a half story, however, an attic is considered a half story. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN JONES, Continued) Mr. Jones once again asked for clarification on this point. He asked, if the Commission could agree that 40% of the third level, or half story, was less than ihc defined five feet, could he take that back to his architect to complete his plans and move his application forward for approval. Betsy Nusbaum, 3480 North Shore Drive, neighboring property owner, stated that if the Commission took the time to look around the lake area, they would clearly see that many homes have a usable third story, or half story. She asked the Commission to determine what it will take in order for them to work with Mr. Jones so that he can meet both tlie height ai:d story requirements. Mr. Jones asked for further definition of a basement or walkout. Gafiron pointed out that a walkout basement is defined as such, rather than as a story, if 50% or more of its walls arc covered by dirt, and not built up artificially from existing grade. The measurement is taken from the pre-existiag grade of the property. Ms. Nusbaum maintained that there seems to be too much gray area and not enough definition. She pointed out that many lots on the lake arc and will be non conforming no matter what you do; however, people need to be able to work with what they have. Approximately five years ago, she stated that her family went through the same process that Mr. Jones is having to endure. At that time, she had hoped improvement in the process would have occurred in order for people to avoid having to repeat the same steps over and over again. She asked whether there arc no more definitions available to the public than there were five years ago. Hawn questioned whether it would be possible to permit certain exceptions, after determining certain circumstances exist, which would allow for certain things. Kluth commented that this could be precedent setting, since this case docs not follow the letter of the zoning code. Hawn voiced her concern over the mass that might exist by allowing three story castles to overrun the area. Mr. Jones maintained that while what he proposes is by no means a castle, they have tried to stay within the zoning code and even worked in a tuck under garage which uses up much of their valuable space. Rahn stated that the Commission is obviously having a difficult time giving Mr. Jones guidance on this matter. The Commission views this building as a three story dwelling which they cannot support. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 20,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN JONTS, Continued) Mr. Jones stated that he could go back to the architect and have a two level home designed, wath living space on the third or half story hipped roof level, if the Commission could support that. He reiterated the need to have confirmation that if he could design a house with approximately 40% of the area 5 feet high or less that the design would be acceptable. Hawn asked the Commissioners their opinion if the home were designed to the exact specifications as in the definition, would that be acceptable. Weinberger questioned whether the City wants to encourage people to finish the half story area off as usable living space. Hawn questioned why that mattered if it was finished or not. Bremer had no problem or issue with allowing people to use this .space and believed many already do. Hawn asked Mr. Jones if he were comfortable with this definition. Mr. Jones stated that he found this definition acceptable. Gaffron reiterated that this will operate as a functional definition for the half story, relative to a 2 1/2 story home, if everyone concurred. Weinberger felt he could accept this working definition and was comfortable with the discussion that led up to it. Once Mr. Jones returns to his architect, he can come back for approval on June 17, 2002, and finally present to Council on June 24, 2002, if all is approved. This schedule will only delay the project by two weeks. Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #02-2786, John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, at the applicant’s request for purposes of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #02-2790 GRETCHEN SHAW, 1750 SHADYWOOD ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT RENEWAL VARIANCES 8:29 - 8:33 p.m. Weinberger explained that the applicant requested an after-the-fact renewal of variances previously approved on April 12,1999. The variances of 1999 allowed the property owners to add a second storj' addition to the house located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and permitted the addition of an attached garage. The property currently docs not contain a garage. PAGE 10 1 Complete Date: Deadline: 7/1/02 8/31/02 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:July 11,2002 SUBJECT: #02*2791 David and Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Variances List of Exhibits: A B C D E F Ci H I J K L M N O P Q R Application Plat Map Letter of Application Site Photo Proposed Building Elevation Views Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Site Topography Property Owners Notification List MCWD Letter (Jim Hafner- 1998) Planning Commission Minutes (June 16,1997) City Council Minutes (June 23,1997) City Council Minutes (June 14, 1997) Resolution No. 3926 (1997 Approval) Planning Commission Minutes (July 20,1998) City Council Minutes (July 27, 1998) City Council Minutes (August 24, 1998) Resolution No. 4144 (1998 Approval) Proposed Site Sur\ey Application Summary: The propi:rt\ owners have applied for variances to permit construction of a 24* X 24* attached garage and walkway that would connect the new garage to the c.xisting house. The new additions require variances to permit new structure and hardcover within 75’ of the lakeshore. IJie garage is proposed to have a second stoiy "bonus room” including adding two dormer windows on the north side of the existing roof. A garage was constructed in 1998 that is proposed to remain on the property. If the 1998 garage remains on the property the total lot eoverage would exceed 15% of the lot area. To accommodate all the new hardco\ er a sidewalk between the existing garage and house would be <^02*2791 oihJ Jodi Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Page I of f removed along with the driveway access to the garage. Previous Variance Applications for Rahn: #2248 (1997) - Variances were approved to permit additions to the existing cabin 5.3 ’ to the property line. The variances also allowed an increase to the hardcover of 711 s.f. within 75’ of the lake. The entire cabin and additions are located within the 75' setback. I wo primary factors considered were the existing location of the cabin was entirely within the 75’ lakcshore setback, and there was a finding made at that time that a large portion of the center of the property was within the floodplain. The approval motion on July 14, 1997 had the requirement that no additional hardcover ever be allowed in the 0-75 ’ setback and the amount of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback area shall be subtracted from any hardcover allowed in the 75-250 ’ setback. #2390(1998) - Variances were approved allowing additional hardcover on the property to construct a 20’ X 20’ detached garage at street level. The variance approval was to allow a total of 2,371.75 s.f. of hardcover on the property. It was the majority opinion of the Council that the issue of a garage addition should have been considered in 1997. 25% of the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback is equal to 1,978.25 s.f. The variance approved total hardcover of 29.9% of the 75-250' setback. In October, 1998 (after final review of the variance applications) Jim Hafner. District Technician for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, visited the site and made a finding that the area on the property below the 931.5’ elevation was. in fact, not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. While the City of Orono would prefer to have any future development on the higher ground, development would not be restricted from the low area on the property that is not part of the 100 year floodplain. City staff had requested Mr. Rahn complete a new survey to measure the entire area on his and neighboring properties to determine if the entire low area on the property was not directly connected to the lake floodplain. The sur\ey completed by Mark S. Gronberg. Gronberg & Assoc., Inc. dated 7-1-02, demonstrates the 931.5’ contour (low area on the property) is not part of the 100 year floodplain. «u:-279l DnidanJ JodiRjtin 1385 Rest Point Rond P^2of5 Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd 2 16 (L): Additional hardcover on the property in excess of 25% of the 75-250’ Setback. Total Existina Hardcover = 2.611 s.f. which is greater than the 2,371 s.f. that was approved with the 1998 variance. Proposed = 3.477 s.f. 0-75’ Setback Existing = 1,316 s.f. (19.5%) • Proposed = 1,314 s.f. (19.5%) 75-250’ Setback Existing = 1,295 s.f. (16%) Proposed = 2,163 s.f. (27%) 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit new structure to be constructed within 75’ of the lakeshore. The new’ structure would be an enclosed walkway betw-een the existing house and garage. 3. Lot Coverage by Structure is proposed at a level of 2,334.2 s.f. This total includes all decks, the existing house, existing garage, and proposed additions. Based on the calculations provided by the applicant the total lot coverage by structure would be 15.9%. To get the total coverage down to a level to not exceed 15% the total structure required to be removed is 134 s.f. The applicant should be asked for his testimony regarding the status of existing structural lot coverage. Applicants Statement of Hardship Applicant’s Statement of Hardship is attached as Exhibit A. To summarize, Mr. Rahn has stated the restrictions placed on the garage has created a very unsafe situation as vehicles backing out of the driveway are blinded from view to oncoming traffic. Rest Point Road is a ver>' narrow road that has a steep hill immediately west of Rahn ’s driveway. Review Staff has determined the total lot coverage by structure is over 15% w hich is too much structure on the property. The total structure should be reduced. Mr. Rahn has stated he believes the actual structure is less due to some removals that would be required to make room for a walkway between the house and new garage. The primary- issue to discuss is the previous actions b> the Council in 1997 and 1998 that established parameters for new construction on the property. Two conditions on the site ha\ e changed since the 1997 and 1998 variance approvals that may have had some impact on what was approved at that time. I) The area located in the “bowl” on the 902-279I Da^idWKt Jodi Rahn I38J Rest Poinl Road Page 3 of 5 property was determined to not be part of the 100 year floodplain for Lake Minnetonka, and 2) there was some discussion in the minutes related to the total allowed lot coverage by structure being 1,500 s.f. This lot is allowed 2,199 s.f. of structure. tLot Size of 14,663 s.f X .15) = 2,199 s.f. Other Approvals in the Rest Point Road Neighborhood 1354 Rest Point Road (1999) - Received after-the-fact variances to permit a 195 s.f deck on the property. 1366 Rest Point Road (2000) - Received variances for an addition of a sun porch. The approval was subject to an equal replacement of c.xisting hardcover. 1386 Rest Point Road (2002) - Variances were approved to permit construction of a residential addition up to 15% of the lot area of the property. Such approval required an equal removal of existing hardcover on the property. 1392 Rest Point Road (1995) - Variances were approved for residential additions equaling 19.9% structural lot coverage and approved variances to allow additional hardcover on the property. Total hardcover on the property is equal to 31.4% of the 75-250* lakeshorc setback /one where 25% is allowed. 1405 Rest Point Road (2000) - Variances were approved that allowed new construction of a house on the property up to 15% of the lot area. The house was constructed 34 ’ from the lakeshore due to the general shape of the lot and the location of a City operated lift station. Total hardcover on the property is equal to 76.9% of the lot area in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone, (this lot has only 3,731 s.f in the 75-250’ setback). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the proposed lot coverage be limited to 15% of the lot area. Staff agrees the existing garage is not the safest access to the property. Planning Commission should also review the previous actions by the Council. Meeting minutes and Resolutions are attached for your review. Discussion Items: 1. Planning Commission should consider conditions and discussion regarding two previous variance approvals for Rahn. 2. Does the Planning Commission agree that the existing garage access is not the best location for a driveway on the property? 3. Does the determination that the area below the 931 .5’ elevation is not part of the 100 year flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka change how the Planning Commission considers new development on this property? 4. Does this property have a valid hardship to allow further development? 102-2791 David and iodi Rihn l3>5lUviPoimRoad 4 of 5 5. If a new garage is allowed to be constructed on the property should the garage (labeled shed on the survey) be removed from the property? Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. 102-2791 DmklmdJodiRAn I3S5 Rett PoiM RiMd h«e5or5 / / / ‘A Application # ^ 2.* *2 77/ Date Received 5-2.0-0TL CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ . j <7 / Site Address roiisiT l^o/9/y Amount Paid y2S0 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 33 0^1/ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv’ey. Date Propei^^cquired _______________________________________ I (do) (d^not)^so own the^acent parcels of land. Present use of property: U^sidential ___other (specify)_________ Zoning District: ^ f £_____________________________________ (month/year) APPLICANT ___ I t Phone (home ) ___________ Name y ^J cks/j _____ Phone (work ) 3 Address: / ^/C/J Cm: t^rcD/Jn Zip:^^.?^^7 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST_____________ _ _ ^ ^ Estimated Constniction Cost $ TL'^j^CPO Describe request in detail: Z- V Y *Z V'ffftr . Scf/Jwi ^oot>^ PorK^ex- (pt'J (attach additional sheets it necessary)<<:?y^ ' ) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Frcnt Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage __Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properw conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ ______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #27 9: in County Taxpayer Services b|i|a^ment u. O).'•'v V\ ^ » ;,r "t '^^arcel tnfonnation Parcel ID 071172333 House Number 138S Street Name REST POINf Mb^iP^;.. TTi/s isnoia iegatty recorded map. It represents a compHadon oi Infortnation and data from City, County, and State road authorities arnl othler^aouroii. C\y' ________________________ . *P •' r ....... To; Orono Staff, Planning Commissioners, Mayor and City Council This variance application is to construct an attached, 24x24 garage to the east side of our existing home. It will meet all setbacks and be under the allowed structural coverage of 15%. The current detached garage was built in 1998. The restraints applied to this garage have made it both impractical and unsafe. We currently back out onto a one lane street, in the middle of a steep incline. We arc completely- blinded to on coming traffic by a T tall fence to the north. These conditions have caused many near misses, and will undoubtably cause an accident someday. An even more dangerous component of the current garage however, is the full flight of exterior stairs. Our lot rises in elevation as it nears the street, requiring the stairs. We have had many minor incidents on these stairs involving friends and family members. Most recently, my Mother-in-Law fell down the stairs while visiting us on Easter Sunday. An ambulance was called and we feel fortunate that she wasn ’t more seriously injured than she was. There have been times over the past winters that we have had to just "close" the stairway because of ice and snow. This then leave us only the street as a path of travel to our home. The proposed garage will resolve these safety issues. It will also resolve another problem, space. Our current home has no basement due to the w ater table. This causes much of our 940 square foot first floor to be used up by utility/storage rooms. The second floor is mostly bedrooms. Included in this request is to have a "bonus room" above the proposed attached garage and add two dormers on the north side of the existing roof. The current walkw ay between the house and existing garage will be removed along with the stairway and approximately one half of the current asphalt driveway. It is my understanding that the only variance required for this project will be for "hardcover". When visiting the site, you will see that the lot is "soupbowl" shaped. This w ill allow the majority of the runoff to dissipate throughout the low lying sandy soils and severely lesson the impact of additional hardcover. It is my hope, that because of the unique elevation of this lot, and the necessity to resolve the safety issues, that this application will be considered in a fair and reasonable manner. Sincerely, z/ Dave Rahn 952-472-5796 Home 952-9398273 Days 612-508-7803 Cell E-mail drahn'r/ci.minnetonka.mn.us 41 r '< 1 1 . ! rr % J J J i-x 4- Mil 7?:/. ^ */:■-.. ^»A-<; l_ . * rV »-T - Vr’ ; VS-' . #W •' —_-:_’i.-r: -_--=r ^vi3fVV* r-rfrs..*,*-J J;',.’..'?! iv- ■;>:»'?«3iS»»8^i5 ajFvcv*^,'XhjJ »1. •->.•> -J. .; • * • . 4.V *:>iferir*’* m:& .......... ---------- E\ NORTH ELEVATIONr #2791 ___i HA >COVER CALCUL SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' FV1STINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X , _ Ai:ieit^'ORK r 75-250' ) EET 250-500'500-1000' Lcnftf)Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other A X X X 6 6 Zo X X X X X X X X X X *7^ zo Clo t ^tJL7Z. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL KOPERTY AREA IN ZONE B <3 X 100 X 100+ B PROPOSED HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House 9^ Length 7.C? Z.V B. Garage Cv Driveway JO n >-bu>y g %D. Sidewalk Z .*3 E. Patio/Deck X X Widih Zo Z V F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic . G. Other . X X X X X X X X X zy 3^ /('?orvr.> *>?- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 7.U3 * B 7<?/? tJJJLiL----- ... X 100 - 7-y/3 Voo 7Z. 13^ 3o Hc?o z yp /Zo "tT" 7T_ 7 y/, Z-7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. % 99 % % FI A B S.F. S.F S.F. S..V S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. A SF. B •i HA )COVE SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLlS ONE) CULATIONWORK "EET 75-250'iaO-SOO' ryiSTINC H«HDrOVER IN ZONE A. House 20*Z ____ Ungtti D. Garage C. Driveway X X X Width JA- /T- ). Sidew^______3. E. -fiatio/Deck D^t. J>€c^ F. Landscape Linderlain By Plastic G. Other T X X X X X X X X X A A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * B + B PROPOSEn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House "Z- yiZ-? Length 5? Width X X X It- B. Garage _ C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. -OtadD/Deck ?? F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X /< TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE i\iWz. - B xy<ra> X 100 ” X 100 = X 100 - 500-1000' S.F. nsf FI ..IS 72_ n.£> JILL 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. SJ. A SJ. B /Zf Z2. no 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. N* r r - •4 V • t /?. /V. ~Z- S.F. A S.F. B RUN DATE 05/01/02 BATCH 500 TROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADbX PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 36 07-117-23 32 0002 01360 REST POINT LA J H HOUTNAN t X J HOUTHAN J N HOUTNAN I X J HOUTNAN 1360 REST POINT LA HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 32 0039 01350 REST POINT RD L t S GRADILL LARRY I SHARON GRABILL 1350 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 33 0006 01398 REST POINT RD L X JOHNSON 8 C B JOHNSON LYLE X JOHNSON 2737 IRVING AVE SO NPLS NN 55608 38 07-117-23 S3 0007 01380 REST POINT RD 6 J LARSEN I S B LARSEN STEPHANIE B 8 GREGG J LARSEN 1380 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 07-117-23 32 0037 01375 REST POINT RD N B 8 L X GERLICHER NICHAEL B 8 LYNNE GERLICHER 1375 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 32 0001 01371 REST POINT LA XENNETH W 8 RENEE 6 E6GERT KENNETH W 8 RENEE 6 EGGERT 1371 REST POINT LA HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 33 0005 01390 REST POINT RD PON WALSH PATRICK J WALSH 1390 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 33 0011 01385 REST POINT RD D W 8 J L RAHN DAVID W 8 JODI L RAHN 1385 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 REPORT NO. PI635601 PACE 17 38 07-117-23 32 0038 01373 REST POINT RD X E ANDERSON OAK XRANER KIRK ANDERSON 1373 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55366 38 07-117-23 33 0002 01600 REST POINT RD LILLIAN D WILLIANS LILLIAN D WILLIANS 1600 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 33 0006 01380 REST POINT RD J T NYGARD 8 X N NY6ARD J T NYGARD 8 X N NYGARD 1380 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 38 07-117-23 33 0012 01376 REST POINT RD G R BLOON 8 T A BLOON GEORGE R 8 THERESA A BLOON 1376 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 0} PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 33 0013 01605 REST POINT RD C CAVENDER 8 B CAVENOER C CAVENDER 8 B.CAVENDER 1605 REST POINT RD HOUND NN 55306 TOTAL BATCH 500 00013 r. Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail; 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Photre; (612) 471-0590 Fax:(612)471-0662 EmaB: admtnOminnehahacreekorg Web Site: www.mntehahacreek.org Board of Marugers Pamela Q.Biixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W.LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid 0 FimM OR rtc^dld p«pir flORlWWiS I|I|MI30%P«Ii Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Qiiality of Water, Qttality of Life October 28, 1998 Mr. David Rahn 1385 Rest Point Road Orono, MN 55323 0 9 V99aCGi RE: Floodplain Boundary ( O* wriCiv3 Dear Mr. Rahn On Friday Ociu tw 2 s, 1998 you and I met on your property on Lake Minnetonka to discuss u lo' in y our yard bclcv.- elevation 931.5. As you know, land below the 931.5 elevation V...<I\vard of the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation of 929.4 falls within the 100 ye-- - odplain of Lake Minnetonka. The floodplain is defined as the areas adjoining a ..tercourse or water basin which may have been or hereafter may be covered by a 100 year regional flood. The characteristics of your lot and adjoining lots may present special circumstances for the low area in your yard. 1 observed an area of high ground that ran parallel w ith the lakeshore and extended across your lot as well as the adjoining lots on both sides of your lot. This berm area is approximately 20 to 25 feet in width and separates the low area behind your house from the lake. The presence of mature trees on top of the berm indicates it has existed for many years. There does not appear to be any direct connection between your low area and the lake either on your lot or through adjacent lots. You showed me a site survey plan of your lot that was developed prior to construction of the existing house and shows a spot elev ation on the berm of 932.0. You further indicated that no alteration of the berm took place during the construction of the existing house. Based on the information you provided and on my observ ations of site characteristics, it is my opinion that the low area in your yard is not adjoining the lake and therefore not directly connected to the 100 year floodplain of Lake Minnetonka. Please call me at 471*6282 if you have any questions. Sincerely, vWn Hafner District Technician c: Lyle Oman, City of Orono MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION meeting HELD ON JUNE 16,1997 J (HS - #2247 Wayne Holmes - Continued) Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2247 with the understanding that the building cannot be closer than 10* to any property line or other structure, at a maximum of 825 s.f, with retaining walls to be approved by the City Engineer, and plans submitted to staff prior to construction. The appUcant asked if a separate permit was required for the retaining walls. Gaf&on said it would be part of the building permit approval. Vote: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#9) #2248 - DAVID AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 8:40-9:02 F.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Moling were noted. The Applicant was present. Van Zomere.n *-eported that the application is a proposal for construction of an addition to an existing cabb to square off the residence and restore an existing deck and screen porch. The .3 acre property is located b the one acre zonbg district. The structure is located b the 0-75' setback. A hardcover variance is required to berease the hardcover firom 9% to 19%. Lot area and lakeshore setback variances are required A conditioi^ use pernut for land alteration is required for any alteration or excavation b the flood plab and 0-75* setback from the shorelbe. Van Zameren reviewed the topography of the property notbg that the shorelbe contour is at the 924.9' elevation. The 930- contour foUows the lakeshore; the 932' contour traverses the property, so the middle portion of the lot is considered to be b the flood plab. The concern is where the 931.5 elevation is located. The appUcant said he has Uved on Wildhurst Trail since 1975. He noted that the five other homes west of this property is evenly setback as proposed for this residence. There were no pubUc comments. Stoddard bquired what the Watershed District’s comments were. Rahn said the Watershed did not require any mitigation for the entry, deck, and screen porch as there are on post footings. Stoddard suggested relocating the structure to lessen the variances required. Rahn said his history as a contractor and buildbg official relates to his desire to restore the cabb with the addition to square h off and has not conadered relocation, more flood plab mitigation would be required, and its present location is the high spot on the property. He would like to mabtab the character of the property. He noted that b order to move the structure befabd the 75’ setback would requhe use of a holdbg area b that setback. Stoddard noted that mitigation can occur elsewhere. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 (#9 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continu^ to get a good sense of the layout aifd aDoJ^Dri^ttln there for a while future garage would be outside the 0-75 ’ setback garage. He indicated thi locale the garage and dHwOTy'foS'upWU Md clo»'t^Vn^s«b^ Mc^an inquired about the side yard setback. Rahn said the structure would be located the appUcam plans on residing in this residence. She asked if he d con«dered a two-rtory design rather than expanding out. Rahn said his neighbor ^ two-story design. The proposed design is one story Jth a steep Srnith^d she had a probkm supporting a plan with doubling hardcover in the 0-75 ’ and asked for less impact in this setback. Rahn said the current house is 600 s.f and the * numrnum at 1,300 gross floor area. He noted the residence next door is “ currently exists.He noted a lot hne rearrangement in 1961 deemed the property buildable. There were no public comments at this time. Lindquirt noted that buildable properties are allowed 15% structural coverage and the proposd IS at 1328 s.f. Concern was voiced with the stnicture location in the 0-75' but Lmdquist noted there is no other location in which the structure can be located. Lmdquist moved, Schroeder seconded, to approve Application #2248 for a conditional use p^t for Imd eliOTUon for setback in the flood plain, hardcover at 19»/., lakeshore setback as existmg and side setback if necessary. Schroeder inquired if a side yard setback is required even though no changes are made due >fnecessant.asideyardse,back . Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15 —-•.'•.ivTkr'J MINIJTES OFTHEBEGULAROHONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON J UNE 23,1997 (#10) #2247 WAYNE HOLMES, 1390 PAKK DRIVE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3919 Gafifron reported that the application is a request for side setback and side street yard setback variances ibr construction of a detached accessory storage building. The building as inhialfy proposed would be located 2.S' from the unimproved dedicated right*of-way known as Forest Avenue. The li^t-of-way b wooded and low land. It is a potential access for Higbwood Park. Staff and Planning Comn^ion agreed that the 2.5' setback was inadequate. CafiBron said the ^pBcant has agreed to maint^ a 10' setback by angling the building and'iemovutg 2* from one side. Thb would allow the large oak tree to be saved but UDght result in the loss of lUac bushes. Gafi&on said the iO' setback is typical of normal setbacks. There is a IS* setback requirement for buildings of this size; but he feels a S' variance b appropriate in order not to impact the tree. Additional grading or retaining wall would ^ required to eUminate any impact The applicant has proposed building a retaining wall. Gaffion said the Planning Commisaon and Staff recommend approval of tire amended plan. . Goetten asked how far the building would be from the oak tree. Mrs. Holmes smd they have reduced the building by 2' to increase die separation Gafifron indicated that the tree would be 10-12' from the building. Jabbour asked if there was any reason to maintain the 60' right-of-way. GaSron said there are no plans to improve the road, but h could be a potential park access in the future. Goetten asked that the applicants be considerate of the tree. Mr. Holmes said they will work around the root ^stem. Mrs. Holmes noted that the building is a pole bam and would be constructed on a floating dab. This should eliminate any problem for the oak tree. The applicant voiced satisfaction with the resolution as presented. Flint moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3919. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. (#11) #2248 DAVm AND JODIRAHN, 1385 BEST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE Ivlr. Rahn was present MD^TES OF THE HEGUIAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JUNE 23,1997 (^11 > #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the .3 acre property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District. The proposal is to add structure to an existing cabin located rvithin the 0-75' setback. The second story would require a variance to the side yard setback which exists and is proposed at 5.3* and 10' is required. Lakeshore setback variance is required. Average lakeshore setback is not an issue as the structure is located behind that line. A conditional use pemit is required for land aheration in the 0-75* setback. Van Zomeren reviewed the topography of the property. The 932' elevation line "wanders" on the property. The existing structure is located at the high point of the property. 1 he flood plain is located behind the structure requiring a CUP for any alteration. The proposal is to square off the structure v/tiich encroaches the 0-75' setback. T ne hardcover in that setback would increase fron: 9% to 19%. Van Zomeren indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the side setback and hardcover variances noting that improvements are limited to an area behind the existing lakeside setback and an additional ^f-stoiy. They also recommended approval of the CUP for land alteration. Goetten asked the applicant if he had considered moving the addition to the rear of the structure in order to get out of the 0-75' setback. Rahn said he met with the Watershed District. He said his design was an attempt to gain a favorable response from the Council. He indicated that moving the structure back would result in building in the 931.5' elevation which is the flood plain The plan as presented would not require mitigation of the flood plain as the additions would be built on posts. Rahn said the plan is an attempt to restore the existing structure. He thought the Council would be less receptive to a plan involving alteration of the flood plain. Goetten said her concern is with doubling the hardcover in the 0-75' setback with any new construction if there are other alternatives to consider. Rahn indicated that only one-third of the new hardcover is livable space, the remainder b decking. He said he tried to keep the structure compact and only squared the structure off The screen porch and decking b only 8' wide. Goetten asked if Rahn discussed adding to the rear of the structure with the Watershed. Rahn said he did. He met with Jtro Hafiier of the Watershed District. He said this recommendation is possible but would occur in the lower area of the lot and require major alteration of the flood plain. Rahn said the home is located similarly on the lot whh other homes in the neighborhood and b the only ummproyed rite. ^^NUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting MEL1> on JUNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) P'*"- would have to dig outthe soils ani switch with the soils where the cabin currently sits. Jabbour said he was concraed^with setting a precedent of allowing structure in front of the 75’ setback Rahn Cotnea s^d she could not support the application that adds to structure in the 0-75’ ^tbact She would only insider replacement. Goetten mforined Rahn that there are homes that simply cannot be added onto. She suggested Rahn add structure to the rear ^ responded that mitigation could take of .he design He suggested altenng or eli^ting Uie decks. Goeiien said the lot is only in acre in the one acre zoning and Rahn is asking for too much structure proposed in the 0-75' setback. Jabbour suggested Rahn add the structure upward. Van Zomeren noted that all buildable lots are allowed a 1500 s.f footprint. She asked if Ae CouncU would ^efer the appUcant move the structure back into the flood plain. Van Zomeren asked for Council direction on these matters. the present plan is for a 1-1/2 story ?' ■•’f “30'. the side is only 15' and would create J Ito tSer^it' * ;douHe-decker bus" i/he uUlized a mo:;,«“ He Mc“^ that the naghters supported tho proposed plan and the neighbor to the rear was concerned with obstruction of lake views. ranridering the open land owned by the adjacent neighbor as making up lor die addmonal hardcover. Jabbour informed him that this option was not possible Goetten suggested the applicant speak with Staff regarding other options. IVONUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CTTV COUNCIL ~ -MEETING UEU> ON J UNE 23,1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) Rahn said the only other option is to place the structure in the middle of the flood plain which would require mitigation. He reiterated that no mitigation would be required in squaring off the structure. Jabbour asked the Council for th^ opinion. Goetten said she would not approve additional hardcover in the 0-75 setback. Jabbour noted the applicant had suggested eHmination of the decks which would decrease the hardcover from 1320 s.f. to 1018 s.f. Rahn swd he has sold his other home and his family plans on living here year around. He also indicated that he will be planning on adding a garage in the future. Jabbour and Goetten both informed Rahn that structure in the flood plain is less of an issue than structure in the 0-75’ setback. Rahn said his dream is to restore the cabin and suggested dirainating the deck and maintaining the screen porch as planned. Goetten was informed that the 8‘xl2’ is to be located on the north side of the structure. Jabbour said there is 60 s.f. of existing deck and 252 s.f total of decking. Eliminating this decking and maintaining the screen porch would result in 1068 s.f of structure. The structure would be increased from 540 s.f to 840 s.f with a 132 s.f porch. Jabbour indicated that he is only conadering this option because the structure is minimal in size noting 1500 s.f is normally allowed. The option would also maintain the structure out of the flood plain and would be serviced with sewer. Jabbour said this situation creates a true hardship. Jabbour moved to approve Application #2248 based on the hardships and reasoning as stated with the remoi^ of decks as proposed by the applicant in order to facilitate the applicatioa The motion failed due to lack of a second Goetten said she could not vote in favor of the motion and noted that the application could be heard in front of a full Coundl. Rahn indicated that the guidelines have not changed since 1983 when the adjacent property was permitted 29% hardcover. Jabbour said he recognized the City made a mista!<e at that time. Rahn indicated that time is of the essence in providing a home for his family. Goetten said she would be willing to table the application to the meeting of July 141 Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to tible Application #2248. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. 15 I ■ ar « MiBiAaTitkaAB MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL meeting held on JUNE 25,1997 (#11 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) ^ do if the structure was moved back on the lot. Rahn noted e site wasjnsited, the Council would recognize that the cabin is built on the 3' knoll ’ To move the^cture behind the 75' setback would cause unbelievable land alLraSn fanrf ff f ® "niShtmare**. Rahn questioned why bulldozing of the noted the Kstorical improvement of properties little by little, Rahn indicated that TrS?!" r* viewed. He tte flodd^aio^ engineer a plan to maximize the lot but did not want to do so in Ja^ur noted.that movement of the structure into the flood plain might also encourage ^age to run toward the lake instead of away from it. Jabkiur saidL agrees S GoettCT regardmg keeping structure out of the 0-75’ setback, this property is a soecial case that would require digging up of the 0-75* setback and a condWonaJ use pei^iit. Rmt and Goetten indicated that they would visit the property prior to the review of July Van Zomeren asked if the plan should come back before the Council as it currently stands. Ooetten said yes and including detailed minutes from this meeting (*#12) #2249 U.S. MARSHAL, 2245 FRENCH LAKE ROAD - VARUNCE RESOLUTION NO. 3920 VARIANCE- Goetten moved, Flint seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 3920 granting a variance for septic system lakeshore setback for 2245 French Lake Road. Vote; Ayes 3. Nays 0. (#13) #2250 MAUREEN BELLOWS FOR ELLEN AND STEVE POLANSir\' I»00 FOX RIDGE ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUnON NO^Si? ’ Van Zomeren reported that the application is for a rear yard variance for construction of a third staU to “ e^stmg attached two car garage and 5' to an existing porch The 1 32 two-acre Zoning District. Van Zomeren indicated the ttCTt garage locaUon and unusual topography of the property. The addition will not be The P«^ng Commission recommended approval of the rear yard vanance tor 35' and setbacks where 50* is required MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL ~ ■ MECTINGHELD ON JULY 14,1997 L (M • #2246 Donald Currier, Xr. • Continued) Currier mformed FUnt that the antenna could not be nested or raised in the location required due to the trees. He noted the surv^ shows the trees plotted that are affected the antenna and the tree cover then drawn in. Jabbour noted that the ability to have a nested antenna is more visibly attractive than an antenna that must be fiilly extended at all times. Currier said trees would still have to be removed to allow for the fully extended antenna. Jabbour was informed that the neighbor in whose yard the anterma would fall, if it would topple, gave his approval. Flint questioned why the antenna caniK>t be moved 15' further along the same line noting the surv ey does not indicate trees in that area. Currier smd the tree cover is located there and would result in the loss of a lotus tree. Jabbour was informed that the horizontal vridth is a 34' manmum with a 20* long boom. Flint was told that the antenna is directional motorized by a rotor. In answer to the question of how dose the neighbor's structures are to the north property line^ Moorse said a letter indicates that the area is ungroomed without any structures. Kelley questioned what would happen if that property owner wanted to buUd a garage in that location. Currier said the neighbor told him he could put the antenna on the property line if he wanted to. Goetten reported that if the ndghboring property was sold, the antenna could create problems for the new owner. KeDey suggested a call option be placed on the anterma if that were to occur. Barrett indicated that this would be difBcuH to enforce. Peterson was informed that there were a couple other antennas in the City and no problems have been reported. The only other retractable antenna that was on a property in the City was remov^ when the resident moved. Jabbour said he feels the retractable antenna is a great idea. Currier indicated he would like to maintain the trees to lessen the visual impact. Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3925 per the Planning Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Flint. (#5) #224S DAVm AND JODI RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE- RESOLUTION NO. 3926 • ' David Rahn was present. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 (#5 - #2248 David and Jodi Raho - Continued) Van Zomeren reported that the applicadoo was reviewed at the June 23 Council meeting for the variance and CUP to restore and btuld an addition to an existing residence located in the 0-75’ setback. A 5.3' side yard setback would require a variance from the 10* requirement. A lakeshore setback variance is required as well as a 0-75' hardcover variance for l9^/o hardcover, currently existing at 9%, where none is allowed. The CUP is required to alter land located in the 0-75' setback. The topography is such that the structure could partially be in the flood plain. Ji^ur noted that it b necessary to see the topography and elevation of the property. Vtfn Zomeren agreed that the main issue is the topography of the lot and low elevatioit Van Zomeren reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval as noted in the staff memo.• • Petmon, who along with Kelley was not present at the 6/23 meeting, asked Flint his opinion of the application. She indicated she had a understanding of the thoughts of Jabbour and Goettea Goetten said Flint's opinion b similar to her own. Jabbour noted that it had been determined that the application should receive a full Council decision. Peterson brought attention to the discussion regarding the flood plain mitigation. Goetten indicated that she felt the residence could be moved back on the property. Jabbour responded that a move would eliminate a sediment pond that helps the lake and be a burden to find a new location for good stormwater management for the property owner and Watershed District. Jabbour acknowledged the importance of the 0-75' setbuk but felt this was a good example of where an exception could be made. Rahn also indicated that the roof line allows for water directed away from the lake. He also noted that the poim was sandy and water ponds in the low lying area. Kelley was informed that the applicant b the current owner of the property. Rahn said he reviewed the ordinance and referenced Section 10.55 r^arding flood plain management. It encourages providing storage for runoff and elevating the building site. He said the code also allows for the average lakeshore setback. Peterson said the Council historically docs not approve structure in the 0-75' setback but noted the extenuating circumstances involved m thb application. Goetten said the lot b very small and substandard. She agreed that H would be expensive to move the residence out of the 0-75' setback, but said she has never voted for new hardcover in that setback. The applicant responded that the land is highest by the lake and then slopes downward. MINUTES OF THE BEGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HEUIGN JULY 14» 1997 (#5 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn - Continued) .. Kelley asked for clarification on the hardcover calculations of an increase fi'oni 9% to 19% in the 0-75' setback. He was informed that the calculations do not include a driveway or potential garage. There is currently no hardcover in the 75-250' setback and the hardcover noted b the house footprint only. Kelley said a driveway and garage are bevitable and would need to know the calculations for them and what amount would be added in the 0-75' where h leads to the home. Jabbour noted that the application is enritled to 25% in the 75-250' setback. KcUqr questioned what percentage would be in the flood plain. Rahn said the garage would not be below the 931.5* elevation and no variance would be required for a garage. Van Zomeren agreed that no variance would be reqtured. Kdl^ said be has never turned down an api^cation for a two-car garage noting the necessity for garages in this area but felt the calculations should be included. He questioned a ridewalk leading to the residence. Peterson questioned the need for the calculation tince H is not included in the proposal. Rahn indicated that he b allowed 1500 s.£ of structure outside the 0-75' and as much as 2200 sT. with the size of the lot, Jabbour asked the applicant how he plans on walking to the house. The applicant questioned whether a >valkway is required. Rahn said he has no intention of putting in a ridewalk. Jabbour indicated that one would eventually be needed. Rahn said he uses the grass area now and the decking and entry are included in the calculations. He currently parks on the clearing on top of the hillside and there is no established driveway. Goetten questioned why the residence cannot be pulled back. Rahn said the residence would then be located in the flood plain. He said he has space for 1900 s.f. in the 75-250' setback. Kelley asked Staff if 25% hardcover allowed for the 75-250' setback includes land in the flood plain. He was informed by Gaffi^on and Van Zomeren that it did. Jabbour noted the structure could be a slab on grade without a foundation. Jabbour said he would make hb approval contmgent on no additional variances allowed in the future and any further improvements adhering to standards in the zoning code. Gaffron questioned with hardcover shown in the 0-75', whether this amount should be subtracted fi'om that allowed elsewhere. He felt it should be. Jabbour cited an example where this has been done in the past. GafiBron indicated that with 2000 s.f total allowed, it would leave 1000 s.f. for any future improvements. Jabbour said that was a good idea. Rahn agreed to comply with this request MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 14,1997 (U5 - #2248 David and Jodi Rahn > Continued) Jabbour moved, Peterson seconded, to zpprovc Resolution No. 3926 with the additional laaguage added that no additional hardcover ever be allowed in the 0-7S' setback and the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback be subtracted from the hardcover allowed in the 75-250' setback. No additional hardcover would be allowed beyond that guideline. Vote; Ayes 3, Nays 2, Kelley, Goetten. Goetten indicated that the ordinance docs not allow for aiQr hardcover in the 0-75* setback. Jabbour said the applicant would be allowed the hardcover as proposed in the application for the 0-75' setback and no more. (#6) #2252 BARREN AND CHRISTINE BIELKE, 2565 DUNWOODY A>T.:?^jL VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3927 Warren wd Christine Bielke were present. Van Zomeren reported that the application b a request for two variances, average lakeshore setback and hardcover, to add 6' and 4' to portions of the residence to enlarge the garage to three staBs. A portion of the garage is ahead of the average lakeshore setback but not as fiu* ahead as the further point of the structure. The property had been previously approved for a maximum of 35.6% hardcover in the 75-250' setback. The Planning Commisaon recommended approval of the application with the 35.6% of hardcover in the 75-250* setback. Goetten noted that the property has had other variances approved in the past. She questioned the amount of plastic removed under landscapmg. Van Zomeren indicated that the applicant had removed plastic prior to making application and before the survey was completed w thqr were aware that the prior owner was to have removed that plastic as part of a previous application approval Mrs. Bielke reported that their intent is to replace non-structure cement driveway and kennel with structure. There would be no net change. The hardcover would be reduced in general on the property. Goetten asked Van Zomeren to update the hardcover calculations for the file. Mrs. Bielke indicated that the surv^ was correct in its calculations. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Resolution No. 3927. Vote: Ayes 4 Nays 0, Abstain, 1, Jabbour. (Agenda Item #7 follows Mayor/Council Report Item #3 was continued at this time.) « •6775013 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 2ft_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 AND SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2 A.M) A CONDITION.\L USE PERAHT PER SECTION 10.55 AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 2248 WHEREAS, David Rahn and Jodi Rahn (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and all that part of Lots 15 and 22, and adjacent vacated alley, Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of the following- described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 15, distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a line forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the Cit}' for variances from Municipal Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 to allow additional structure to be added to an existing residence. Variances for side yard setback to allow a soutli side yard setback of 5.3' where 10' is required, hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, and lakeshore setback to allow the addition to encroach into the 75' setback the same distance as the existing residence are required. A conditional use permit for land alteration in the 0-75’ setback and floodplain is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tht City Council of Orono, Minnesota: 1. FINDLNGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2248. Page 1 of 4 " 3 ? 3 15?]| m CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 9 2R 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District where the minimum lot ^ea requirement is one acre. *3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 16, 1997 and recommended unan-mous appro val of the proposed varianees and conditional use permit based upon the followmg unique findings and hardships: a. The zoning lot does not meet minimum lot area, lot width or side yard requirements. b. The existing structure conforms to the average lakeshore setback but does not meet the 75 ’ lakeshore setback. c.The topogi ipiiy of the zoning lot is within the floodplain in the middle of the zonin^; lot. d. The Zoning Code allows 15% lot coverage. e. The existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback is 609.25 sq. ft. (9%). 4. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this z ning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not m.ercly serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy 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. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow land alteration in the 0-75* setback and floodplain will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pore a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding proRerty values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 4 GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ Q 2 fi CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants •variances for hardcover in the 0-75' setback to increase from 609.25 sq. ft. (9%) to 1,320.75 sq. ft. (19%) where none is allowed, to aiiow a side yard variance for the second st.ory to be located 5.3* ftom the south property line where 5.3' is existing and 10' is required, and to allow a lakeshore setback at the same distance from the shoreline as the existing residence where 75' is required per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5 and Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and grants a conditional use permit for land altei-ation in the 0-75' setback and floodplain per Section 10.56, Subdivision 10 and Section 10.55 to permit an addition to an existing structure located within the lakeshore setback on a zoning lot that includes floodplain, subject to the following conditions: 1.No new hardcover shall be allowed in the 0-75' setback. Further, any new hardcover in the 75-250' setback shall be reduced by the amount of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback. 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (July 14, 1998). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.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, here’oy agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. .» • .. '^'Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of July, 1997, • ^ 4 ^ ATTEST:' Dorothy M. Mallui, City Clerk GabrielSIabbour, Mayor Property Owcer(s) Page 3 of 4 ___i STATE OF MLNNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 9 2 6 ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this l^th day of July, 1997 by Gabriel Jabbour and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. S. VEE NOTASY PUELIC-MIHNtSOTA I MyCo,T,”v SS^31.2W Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of Jtt /y_____________, 199 7 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared D n l .v/ flo hn /ii/; »vf r //__________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed (he foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ^ LINDA S.VEE S NOTARY PUBLIC-MINfiESOTA V V^^.-y HENNEPIN COUCl f A*y Ji'’31. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this J day of /y_________ _____________. 199 7 . before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared Jc^/, Ko.hi\. lyieiifie^___________ 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 ac» and deed. J> (// Notary Public Page 4 of 4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20.1998 a/ (#2389 Daniel Kluth, continued) becoming more common. Hawn remarked the ordinance needs to be addressed regarding guest structures before a decision can be made on this application. Hawn noted the Planning Commission and City Council has previously informed people that the plumbing has to be removed in several cases where a new structure was being proposed to prevent that accessory building from becoming a dwelling unit. Kluth stated the structure will not be used as a dwelling unit. Ha^^ commented once plumbing is installed, the structure could be used as a dwelling unit in the future which is difficult for the City to enforce. Hawn sta'ed the City Council should have an opportunity to review the ordinance before a decision is made on this application. McMillan noted a shower could be installed in the unit without the City knowing about it. Lindquist suggested tabling the application until the ordinance could be reviewed. Chair Smith asked if the building was considered a garage with no plumbing, would any vanances Le required. Weinberger stated no variances would be needed if the structure was constructed without plumbing. There were no public comments. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission will either deny the application or table it until the ordinance is reviewed. Lindquist suggested the plumbing could be roughed in and not installed. Kluth inquired whether his application could be heard after the ordinance was reviewed later this evening. Lindquist commented the City Council needs to approve the ordinance after it is reviewed .by the Planning Commission, and suggested the Applicant proceed with tt '* construction of the structure without the plumbing. Kluth inquired what would happen if the application is tabled. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant would need to agree to a 60 day exteiision, noting the present ordinance does not adequately address thi:> issue. McMillan requested Staff prepare a report regarding the septic system. Kluth agreed to the extension. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2369, for property located at 2801 Fox Street, with the understanding the Application will be extended an additional 60 days as of August 22,1998. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. (#10) #2390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. 7:56 p.m. - 8:28 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Page 7 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1998 (#2390 David Rahn, continued) Mr. Rahn was present. Applicant Is requesting a hardcover variance in the 75 ’-250' setback to constmct a double garage, retaining wall, and driveway. Variances to the side yard hardcover and lakeshore se back were granted in 1997 to change a cabin into a residence A MnditiS use ^ permit was also granted to allow for land alteration In the 0-75* setback vuith a nnrti«« i„. .w.., oc were granieo in 1897 to Change a cabin into a residence A conditional use a'‘eration In the 0-75* setback, with a portion oflhe lot beina looted bel^ the flood plain elevation. Van Zomeren noted currently there is 792 souare feet of ^ ^-20-75 square feet of hardcover in thro-75® zone ^property is 1.978 square feet or 25%. The proposed hardcover represents more than what the previous City CoSneU resolution Staff did not make a recommendation regarding this application. **^® '^“'7 ^997 City Council meeting, noting he was not aware of the hardcover restnctions until recently. Rahn stated Mayor Jabbour recommended woroval conhno^^^^^^^ There were no public comments. Senw *^cSSh‘^r!IiiU%® where the owner has converted a cabin into a iroperlj concerns about the need for correct hardcover numbers regarding this SSIoS JmeZ'agT''"'""'''"''»' -aracover remaining before *^»® ^‘‘7 granted a variance from hardcover in the 0-75 ‘ zone allowino an ncrease In hardcover frorn 9% to 19%. a variance to the side yard setback, and a conSonal the 0 75^spmark"^ aeration subject to the following conditions: no new hardcover will be allowed in the 0-75 setback, with any new hardcover in the 75*-250 ’ zone being reduced bv the amount of .o“.ra “,;;L"nr,1,o°w?<. mTo "Jne" -i/propISnceO Chair Smith noted the two zones were combined into one. McMillan commented setbacks need to be maintained Hawn stated ^e City Council addressed this property quite recently notira the decision should hP made by the City Council whether the resolution should be amend^. Hawn remarked the current proposal is outside the recommendations of the City Council. Pages ----1 ■ iTiBB •nnn ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20.1998 (82390 David Rahn, continued) Chair Smith suggested the application may need to be revised because the garage cannot be accessed without a driveway, noting the Applicant has 657 square feet of available hardcover remaining. Chair Smith stated the Applicant knew the restrictions of the lot when the property was purchased. Van Zomeren stated the Applicant is allowed to go closer to Rest Point Road to stay out of the floodplain. Chair Smith stated City Staff is willing to assist the Applicant, and inquired whether he would like the matter tabled to allow him to submit revised plans. Rahn stated he would like the matter to be put before the City Council. Chair Smith noted the City Council has the option to approve or deny the application. Rahn inquired whether the property being located in the floodplain would be considered a hardship. Chair Smith stated the Planning Commission applies the codes as uniformly as possible to all properties, noting some properties are not able to accommodate all the wishes of the property owner but have to stay within what is acceptable for the neighborhood and City. Berg noted the Planning Commission is becoming more restrictive on hardc 'r in an attempt to comply with the ordinances. Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to deny Application 82390 as proposed for property located at 1385 Rest Point Road. VOTE: Ayes C, Nays 0. (#11) 82392 THOMAS BERSCHEID, 1365 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. 8:28 p.m. -8:35 p.m. The CertiHcate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. Berscheid was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on a through lot and a variance from lot setback requirements for an accessory structure. A conditional use permit is required for accessory buildings located on through lots in R Zoning Districts. Berscheid stated he is interested in constructing a loft above the garage with plumbing, and inquired whether it is permitted under the ordinances. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit will be required for a guest house. Chair Smith stated the Applicant would need to apply for a conditional use permit. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission cannot approve a conditional use permit to install plumbing in an accessory structure at tonight's meeting. There were no public comments, Weinberger noted the proposed structure meets the lot requirements. Page 9 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 20,1£98 (#2392 Thomss Berscheid, continued) Stoddard noted the accessory structure cannot exceed the principal structure in height. sSre'* PraPosed structure is 20 feet in height, which would not exceed the principal Lmdquist moved. Hawn seconded, to approve Application #2392, granting a conditional use fo 7!^he Anofi^^property located at 1365 Rest Point Road subject to, 1) the Applicant obtaining a building permit from the City of Orono prior to construction of Mw® 9*199?Md®3»?he A substantial conformance with the survey dated orantiL?hl*r ^ceives a building permit within one year of City Council granting the conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ^ 1 l 55 p*m?^ WCHARD AND CAROL KAIL. 2917 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES. 8:35 p.m. - The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Mr. and Mrs. Kail were present. on h5?n Applicants are proposing to remove an existing carport and construct a 20 by 20 detached garage. Variances are required for side yard setback to allow the oaraoe to 250^°50(r ietbact ® hardcover being reqirired in the ® substandard lot. less than 1/5 of an acre, and does not meet the lot Th®«f«f I ?• '^'2^ standards. Existing hardcover is at 39.4 percent, with the limit being 30 percent aS^S? property, also provides access to the Ir, r””' p™p"<y =nd erec, a by « ««"«• Mr. Kail noted that if a stall were added to the existing garage, it would give the oaraoe the appearance of a long barn. Mrs. Kaii said she was not opposed to that idea. McMillan noted the properties are not combined, M^n^he ru7u%'‘''’ "'"'a la combine me lols, but v.ould like lo do McMillan elated she would be In lauor of a oversized one-car jaraje lo replace whal is currently mere, mr mlo“a7r"'"' ‘ "’a*’™pa''y walch reduces possible sites M?al« a bl'“a”rag°e*’’' '"'y '“"“"al a ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 (#13) #2390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCES Mr. Rahn was present. Van Zomeren reported that the application was for a hardcovs: variance to allow construction of a garage in the 75-250 ’ setback area with a retaining wall and driveway turnaround. Previous variance were granted to convert a cabin into a year round residence. The previous resolution woulcfallow 657 s.f of hardcover based on subtracting the amount of hardcover in the 0-75' zone from that allowed in the 75-250 ’ zone. Planning Commission recommended denial, and the applicant requested the application be brought to Council. Mr. Rahn noted that it is difficult to build a two-car garage with driveway under 657 s.f He asked for guidance as to what might be considered. He confirmed that no variance would be needed if he did not exceed 657 s.f of hardcover. Mr. Rahn presented a revised plan that reduced the garage to 24' x 24 ’ and made some eliminations to reduce the hardcover to 31% or 2,453 s.f Jabbour reviewed the history of the property. The initial Council approval was related to adding to an existing rtructure. During the construction, much of the existing structure was removed, and a fallen tree damaged the remaining portion. Ihe Council then reviewed the project again and set a limit of 657 s.f of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. Rahn agreed that discussions had taken place about a garage. Rahn iiOted that in the Council minutes with the previous approvals, 1,000 s.f was discussed. His problem is building an accessory building large enough to park two cars. He stated that if he would be limited to 657 s.f, he would have to build an accessory storage building with no cars inside. Jabbour noted that each lot has limitations that the property owner must work with. Goetten commented that she had voted against the previous variance request knowing that a garage would be requested at some future time. Rahn distributed revised plans to the Council showing reductions in hardcover. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 (*#8) #2381 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF JAMES JOHNSON AND CHARLES LARSON, 4300 WATERTOWN ROAD AND 4285 SIXTH A\T:NUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4129 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4129 granting a conditional use permit to permit the construction of berms at 4300 Watertown Road and 4285 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#9) #2382 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OT TIM OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4130 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4130 granting a conditional use permit to permit alteration of the rear yard at 425 Turnham Road per staff recommendation, subject to septic site testing. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#10) #2386 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF KATHERINE COLGROVE 4260 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. ’ 4131 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4131 granting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration at 4260 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (*#11) #2381 BUSSE CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF BOB GEHRMAN, 4300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - CONDITIONAI, USE PERNHT - RESOLUTION NO. 4132 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4132 granting a conditional use permit to permit land alteration at 4300 Sixth Avenue North. Vote: Ayes 5, Navs 0. (*#12) #2385 STEPHANIE KROEGER, 3465 CRYSTAL PLACE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 4133 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4133 granting variances to permit construction of a detached garage requiring side yard setback, rear yard setback and hardcover variances for the property’ located at 3465 Cry stal Place. Vote: Aves 5 Navs 0. ' ’ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 (U13) #2390 DA VID RAHN, 1385 RESTPOLWT ROAD - VARIANCES - continued Kelley stated that a two car garage is reasonable for Minnesota^ and would be in fa%or of a garage at 24' x 24', minimal driveway and sidewalk. He noted that he also voted against the original variances but would have approved some type of garage at that time. Goetten cautioned Council to be careful in future applications when garage plans are not part of the initial proposal, especially on lakeshore lots where hardcover is an issue. Van Zomeren commented that 38% of the year-to-date building permits require some type of variance. Jabbour suggested the revised plan be referred back to Plaiming Commission for their review, and indicated at least two Council members were sympathetic to some type of revised plan. Kelley requested that a letter be sent to the applicant extending the application for 60 days. Flint stated that he was not sympathetic to the applicant's request, and felt the applicant should abide by the parameters established in the previous resolution approvals. He felt the minutes clearly reflected Council's intention. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to refer Application ^2390 requestinp a hardcover variance to construct a garage for David Rahn at 1385 Rest Point Road back to the Planning Commission at the applicant's request. A letter extending the application for an additional 60 days will be sent to the applicant. The applicant was in agreement. Moorse suggested the applicant meet with staff prior to the Plarming Commission meeting to develop the best solution to present to the Planning Commission. Vote: 5 Ayes, 0 Nays. (*#14) #2392 THOMAS BERSCHEID, 1365 REST POINT ROAD - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4134 Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4134 granting a conditional use permit to permit construction of an accessory structure on a through lot for the property located at 1365 Rest Point Road. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JULY 27,1998 MSOLOTTON BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - Go.tt.n movea. Pelerson s«ond.d, i-. .dopt Rmlulian No. 4135 granting ».rianc« to permit an acc.ssoo' atractur. to remain while the existing stnictnre Is d.Llished “nd a new principal structure is constructed, to permit construction of a residence w hich I '» • principal structure on a Road. Vo'r Ay« 5. Na" t "■* IttSOLDTION*NO* ' ''AWANCES - Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4136 granting a variance to u'itoe wheTxi m'"°“ principal structure located 9 feet from the side Ayes 5 Nay”o^* * required for the property located at 1060 Brown Road North. Vote: MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Jabbour received a request from the United Way asking for recommendations for two reputable human service providers in the area. He asked Council and staff to for%vard any suggestions to Jabbom asked how the City was addressing the Year 2000 problem. Moorse responded that the fl^nancial system and new phone system will be Year 2000 compatible. Staff is in the process of Identifying all systems which may be affected. Some individual PCs will need patches. Jabbour stated that he is planning to make a presentation to Minnetonka residents regardine public access at the request of Desyl Peterson. ^ ® Jabbour also indicated he has had several conversations with Mr. Dayton regarding Woodhill and will discuss further in an E,xecutive Session. Flint questioned if there had l^en any response from Wayaata or Long Lake regarding Orono's V vors'\T“*" ' <*>« he has contacted bothN.ayors. Moorse added that he had talked with the Wayaata Public Works Director and Long i-ake City Admimslrator ^d will be mecing with the Long Lake City Administrator on a “cm Tum nkrtocomi^L:;::^^^^^^ ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24,19«8 P (#5) #2390 DAVID RAHN, 1385 REST POINT ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4144 David Rahn was present. Van Zomeren stated the City Council has reviewed this application at its July 27.1998 meeting and referred the application back to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission recommended a 22’ x 22’ garage with sidewalk and driveway as presented at its August 17.1998 meeting by a four to two vote. Van Zomeren stated total hardcover would be 2.482.75 squa;e feet or 31.3 percent, noting the amount of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone be credited against the hardcover in the 75 ‘-250 ’ setback. Rahn stated the Planning Commission reduced the garage by two feet, noting he had requested a 22* X 24* garage, which is a reduction of 44 square feet. Rahn questioned the accuracy of the hardcover figures. Van Zomeren remarked the hardcover was miscalculated on this application and should be 2.532 square feel instead of the 2,482.75 square feet, because of the size of the garage apron shown. Kelley questioned whether there might be a need for retaining walls along the slope of the driveway. Goetten suggested a contractor be contacted to look at the property. Rahn stated if any retaining wall is necessary, it would be along Ihe south side of the driveway, and would possibly require a foot and a half high retaining v/all. noting he was a contractor for 15 years. Mayo* Jabbour stated he has serious problems with this application in that the Applicant was inforir ed at the time the residence was constructed that his future hardcover v/as limited. Jabbour expressed concerns that citizens in the future might coni truct their residences to the maximum hardcover limits and come back before the City Council ai a later time and request additional hardcover for a garage because it has been stated that all people in Minnesota deserve a garage. Rahn stated it was not his intent to mislead the City Council about his plans for a future garage, noting that his plans all along called for a garage to be built in the future. Rahn commented his hardcover was not reduced by subtracting the amount in the 0-75' from the 75 ’-250 ‘ area until the last cornment at the last City Council meeting before the Resolution was passed, and he was led to believe he had 1.000 square feet of available hardcover after the residence was ccnstructed. Mayor Jabbour staled he was entitled to 25 percent hardcover. Rahn remarked he understands the City Council ’s position, but is in need of storage space, noting the proposed garage is smaller than the minimum standards for an average garage in Minnesota. Rahn stated his other option would be to construct a buiidind pad and build a 20’ x 20' storaae building. Van Zomeren stated the accessory structure cannot exceed the height of the principal structure. Rahn commented he could construct it without a sidev/alk to reo jce hardcover. Page 5 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 24,1998 (#2390 Dsvid Rahn, Continued) reloinlinn'* application due to what was agreed to the last tiime in the Miyor Jabbour suggested the Applicant build what he can without a variance. >» "»* City IM »=en l-'ormed was told he could construct a 2A\ 2V otr^np far n^ ih! f ^ Wdich la a raddction '«VZVng Mayor Jabbour inquired what he could construct to meet the hardcover criteria. dHv^TraZ'tn'd rsISaS."®' "«'=^» ona".'??r garage"-""'"® R«Pt«edlative, staled he has the option of redocing It to a ^22* X 2zfamoe®^KXr be located at least 10 feet from the street, noting he is in favnrof the original®application. ^ ^ ^ mistake was made in not considering the garage at the time of IcTcoLTruc! 22°x 2?^^ *° approve Application #2390,1385 Rest Point Road TAKEN. ^ walkway, driveway and apron as proposed. NO VOTE Mayor Jabbour stated he would vote against the application. Wg^S^oo “ intent of the motion was to rescind what was In the resolutior to a Kelley stated yes. wa%";a"slM;J:u”h«"S"sqo“^^^ jot the nomber that was discussed at the time the resolution Kelley suggested removing the square feet of the shed to be removed from the total hardcover. App,leant needs „ Rahn stated he would be willmg to reduce the 3 fool apron at the back of the garage down to 1 fool. Page 6 o; ^m^ ^ fj ^ '•v 'XeWEPm COUNTY TAXPAYER 8ERV1CCS 6984334 12 tQ9B CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 144 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE ' SECTION 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2; AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1)&(2) FILE #2390 WHEREAS, Jodi Rahn and David Rahn (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1385 Rest Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 23, and all that part of Lots 15 and 22, and adjacent vacated alley. Subdivision of Lot 14, Rest Point Park, Lake Minnetonka, lyi-g Southerly of the following-described line: Beginning at a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 15, distant 75 feet Northeasterly from the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 23; thence Northwesterly to the Southeasterly comer of said Lot 22; thence Northwesterly on a line forming an angle of 74 degrees 55 minutes with the Easterly line of said Lot 22, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, and there ending (hereinafter the "property"); and WIIEREaS, 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 public hearings on July 20 and August 17, 1998, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to sp.ak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions I and 2; Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1)&(2) to pemiit construction of a two story 20’x20’ (400 sq. ft.) garage. Variances are required for street yard setback to allow- the garage to be located 17.1' from Rest Point Road per the plan in Exhibit B. Variances for hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to allow an additional 1,051 sq. ft. of hardcover for a 20’x20’ two story garage, 350 sq. ft. for a driveway, 19 sq. ft. for a garage apron and 282 sq. ft. for a 3'x94' sidewalk. Page 1 of 5 Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 1 4 >1_____ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2390. The property is located in the LR-IB, Zoning District, where 1 acre is the minimum lot area. The property consists of .33 acres or 14,663 sq. ft. The Planning Commission re'-iewed this application on August 17, 1998 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 2. 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The subject lot does not meet lot width or lot area requirements. B. This property is allowed to have 1,978.25 sq. ft. (25%) of the total lot area in the 75-250' setback in hardcover. The City Council determined per Resolution No. 3926 that the total amount of hardcover to be located within the 75-250 ’ setback shall be reduced by the amount of existing hardcover (1,320.75 sq. ft.) in the 0-75' setback. C. A portion of the yard between the house and the street is located in a flood plain area. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert>’; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstra ’.'le hardship or difficulty; is necessar}' 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. Page 2 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ ^ ^ 4 ' 6. 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 variance 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 variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B); Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2; and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1)&(2) to permit a 20'x20' gaiage to be located 17.1' from Rest Point Road and to allow an additional 1,051 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 1,978.25 sq. ft. (25%) is allowed and 2,373.75 (29.9%) is proposed. Approval was subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing shed in the south side yard shall be removed upon completion of the garage. 2. No fill shall be placed in the flood plain area and the sidewalk shall be installed at the original grade. 3. 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 appro . al, or this variance will expire on that date (August 24, 1999). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. 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 propcrt>-. Page 3 of 5 hO*. O CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 1 A\______ Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of August, 1998, . AT-l£STfi.• .'.O P»perty Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of August, 1998, by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mirmesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. C\/2/yiujLy ^ iLkrnH'U Notaryy Public ^^^JAMIE L 6EMAR NOTARY PUBUC-MNNESOtt lemCOUNIY MyComiitelai6»<wiAa.ai.«im Page 4 of 5 W1 CITY of ORONO !5B8B0, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 14 4_____ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this /0^'day of ______, 199S , before me a Notary Public . persoMlly appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in knd who executed the foregoing instrument, and within and for said County, personally appeared acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIELGByUR NOtMVPMU&MMNESOU HBMBW COUNTY N^^^ Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. On this day of , 199___, 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 5 of 5 Ocl'Jt-vJti'j U 'yxLf/ikj EXHIBITS io+OWft® 6,nwi|> / Page 5A of 5 RESOLUTION ^4144 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO " I, Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on _____August 24.1998_____, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 25th day of August ______, 19 98 . > .♦.. •‘■V : •••••• . * * t. * • / / Linda S. Vee, City Clerk •* * •• i • C.«v ci» cc» a» dj c.l ro foa*to a* CO Cij r? c: r* •i •a • • :*• V • •, • • • * 0> * • ¥ ^ City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (952) 294-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: July 15,2002 Planning Commission Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: Public Comments Regarding CUP for Smith/Murphy Heidi Hust 45 Smith Avenue Stated horses are well cared for and her children enjoy the horses. She supports the request to add the additional horse. Nancy Bordson 1290 Orono Oaks Drive Stated she has no problem with the request. She also stated it was an asset to the neighborhood to have horses. Peter and Geri Scherer 15 Orono Orchard Road (Written Comments Attached)-r John Dahlbec 1565 Orono Oaks Drive (Written Comments Attached) Paul Weinberger - Sandy Smith / Ji^pJ^JJ^Phy^equeM PageT^ From: To: Date: Subject: "Scherer, Pete" <PScherer@schererbros.com > "Weinberger Paul (E-mail)" <pweinbei ’ger@ci.orono.mn.us > 7/12/02 10:03AM Sandy Smith / Jim Murphy Request SCHERER BROTHERS LUMBER COMPANY PETER SCHERER President & CEO 9110 83rd Ave N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 direct 612.627 0871 fax 612 627.0838 email: pscherer@schererbros com Dear Paul / City of Orono Planning Commission: We are the neighbors perhaps living closest to Sandy Smith and Jim Murphy. Over the course of our first year as their neighbors, we have had great experiences with the presence and condition of their horses They have maintained their property well and the upkeep of the animals is wonderful. We have no concern about another horse (3) on their property and would heartily welcome the addition. We strongly support their request. Peter and Geri Scherer 15 Orono Orchard Road Orono, MN 55391 952-249-1566 Scherer Bros. Yards: Albertville, Arden Hills, Minneapolis, Shakopee * Scherer Bros. Cabinet Distributors * Scherer Bros. Marketing Services Scherer Bros. Installation Services * Scherer Bros. FarNorth Windows Component Systems Incorporated * Truss Manufacturing Company July 15, 2002 Jim Murphy and Sandy Smith request for additional horse 1. The current smell being generated by tlie raw sewage, wliich is not being removed from property is almost unbearable in the summer. 2. The rainwater run off, washes the raw sewage from corral into the nature wetlands on my property', a permanent silt fence should be installed. 3. Downgrading of the neighborhood, which is made up of higher end homes with neatly groomed yards. They have a horse corral the size of a postage stamp with no grass and two horses. 4. Doesn ’t meet current set back requirements. 5. Doesn ’t meet lot acreage requirement for the number of horses. 6. Doesn ’t meet acreage requirement for pasture even for one horse. 7. Current pasture approximately 5,000 sq feet. One horse requires 87,120 sq feet. Two horses require 130,680 sq feet and Three horses would require 174,240 sq feet. Today they fall short by 125,680 sq feet 8. All residents should be held to the same standard no matter what their position may be. With all these requirements they are currently not meeting, I find it hard to believe they have been allowed to have even ONE I lORSE on this property’. Our neighborhood is one of finer homes, as is all of Orono. These developments of smaller lots sizes weren'; intended for the raising of livestock in this manner. Nobodv should have to live ne.xt to a 'lamyard. I his request should not even be considered and I feel it is inappropriate to continue to have any horse on this property. Current conditions should be revaluatcd and all horses removed. As a member of the same development, neighbor, and the President of the Orono Oaks Homeow'ner Association, 1 request that their application for an additional horse be REJECT Thank you John Dalbec 1565 Orono Oaks Drive, Long Lake, Mn. 55356 Submitted to the Planning Commission On This Date. Written Response Requested. Application Date: 5/31/02 Deadline: 7/30/02 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator July 8,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Conditional Use Permit List of Exhibits: A Application B Letter of Application (May 30) C 1997 Findings D Council Minutes of April 27,1998 E Property Survey r Plat Map G Topographic Map H Property Owners Notification List Application The applicants have made a request for a conditional use permit to allow an additional horse on the property, making a total of three horses on the property. The applicants have noted in their letter of application that they have had two horses on the property since they purchased the lot in 1988. One horse is a 26 year old mare and the second is an 16 year old gelding. They have been offered one 4 year old horse that they would like to keep on the property. The property is located in the RR-IB zoning district where horses are a permitted accessoiy use. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) is the section that regulates the keeping of horses on individual properties. This .section has been consistently interpreted by staff as requiring 1 acre for the residence plus 2 acres of pasture for the first horse, or a total of 3 acres for 1 horse. The second horse would require an additional acre of open pasture. Each horse after that would require an additional acre. 5 acres is required to pennit 3 horses as an accessory use on the property. The Smith,Murphy property is approximately 3.6 acres in size. Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M) gives the Council the discietion to reduce the required pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes (this is the reason for the Conditional Use Permit request). The SmithT^lurphy horses do not require pasture land for feed purposes. «02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page I of 3 The property contains a 0.4 acre pasture area and a bam. The bam was constructed prior to any of the current standards relating to bams. Current standards require the bam to be located 75’ from any property line and 150’ from any adjacent residence. The bam is located appro,ximatcly 20' from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 ’ from the west property line. The bam is more than 200 ’ from the north property line and 500’ to the east property line. The applicants own the property to the west. The residential stmcture on that lot is approximately 60’ from the bam. The next nearest residential stmcture is 270’ and south of .he Luce I ine Trail. The Luce Line Trail is also a horse trail. The property being adjacent to the Luce Line provides additional opportunity to exercise the horses beyond exercising them w ithin the .4 acre pasture area. Regardless of the size of the pasture, a proper manure management program is vital to the protection of nearby wetlands and to eliminate odors. In 1997 Smith^Murphy contacted the University of Minnesota Extension Service to conduct a site visit to detemiine if any potential pollution impacts were present on the property. A copy of the letter is attached. It was the opinion of Jeremy Geske, Extension Educator, specializing in Livestock Systems that due to the size of the operation and the way it is managed that any impact to the wetland from runoff from the site is extremely minor. The use of the property for 2 horses has been allowed to continue over the years as a legal non- conforming use and the location of the bam was legally established since it was constructed prior to Standards that required specific setbacks. The bam was allowed to remain on the property when the property was subdivided in 1978. During that subdivision process the status of the bam was not discussed and w as not required to be removed. In 1987, prior to ownership by the applicants, the City received a complaint about manure storage on the site. The inspector did not find manure being stored on the site, but did determine there were 3 horses on the property and ordered the third horse removed. The property owner agreed to remove the horse because it was apparently not owned by the property owTier. In 1997, a coi..piaint was reeeived from an adjacent property owmer regarding the number of horses that were being kept on the property. The complaint was researched by staff and staff concluded the keeping of 2 horses on the property was allowed as a legal non-conforming use. A copy of staffs findings in 1997 is attached. The adjacent property owner had appealed the staff decision that the 2 horses were allowed to remain on the property as a legal non-conforming use. The Council reviewed the appeal on .April 27,1998 and affirmed the staffs conclusions which allowed the keeping of the horses. Issues for Discussion 1.Would the Planning Commission agree to allow temporar)- (or ongoing) use of the property for j horses it 1 of the e.xisting horses no longer was being kept on the property should it be revert to 2 or be allowed to keep 3 permanently? Docs one additional horse change the character of the property? ^02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page 2 of 3 3.Does the applicant's common ownership of the most affected property, located at 20 Orono Orchard Road, eliminate some of the concerns regarding the impact this “horse farm” has on adjacent lots. 4. 5. Has applicant demonstrated that the environmental impact of a 3'** horse will be minimal? If a conditional use permit is approved to allow one additional horse should there be some sort of sunset provision if the number of horses is ever reduced to 2 or 3. Other Recent Actions - regarding number of horses allowed on a property. In September, 2001 Council approved allowing 19 horses on a 13.1 acre property located at 4100 Watertown Road. The approval considered the property owners had established a rotating pasture schedule that would be used for managing the site. The property owners of 4100 Watertown intend to feed their horses separate from full pasture feeding. This property has a very large riding arena and paddock area for exercising the horses. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the application to permit the three horses to be permitted on the property per the request in the applicant's letter of application. One additional horse will not be significant change to the character of the property and the applicants own the property that has the most impact. The Planning Commission shall provide conditions that will ensure the impact of three horses will not change how the property is used. Planning Commission Options for Action 1. To approve. 2.To denv. 3. Table. 4.Other Action. IV02-2797 Sandra Smith and James Murphy 30 Orono Orchard Road Page 3 of 3 i t /I Application U Date Received .g)^3<~03— Amount Paid .^ / 7 C pA. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 30 Type of Application to be Filed___ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) •l/.'T. APPLICANT Phone (home) ^£>7- ^73 -S^UAjo Nam e*=^7^^^JD?A: Phone (work)^>- ^7:5 - Addres^T>7:6yio^ 'PD CitviAAf^^^^ Zip < OWNER (if different than applicant) Name KJAr' Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work) City Zip. Date Property Acquired ’^do) (d^>it5i0 ^so own Jft^adjacent parcel^ of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERADTS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application )( $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duple.x 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-the-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 #2797 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form. 2. ^ Describe request in detail. 3. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350’, labels and plat map (>ou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, . A-603, Government Center, 338»MrZlh^l z- ‘^44)-^^10 ^ ____Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. 4. 5.N Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. 6. Topographic survey (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 the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 7. 8. 9. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submir'd.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff: Date 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 bv original fee payment) and/or unusual e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. # Applicant’s signature —■Date OWNTR'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the propert>' by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature Date ^ ^/O 0^ Applicant must have all subminals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. • s • I >J n ,1. 30 Or<>Yuy’Oirchard/'Rocid/ Way^ato/, MW 55391 May 30,2001 Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission Orono Staff Members c/o Mr. Mike Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mike, Thank you for your help in our request for a Conditional Use Permit regarding our desire to have an additional horse on our property. The circumstances for our request are this: We have had the same two horses on our property since we moved to Orono in 1988. At this time, one of our horses is now an aged mare (26) and the other is an older gelding (16) with chronic lameness. Both are very comfortable and can be ridden lightly some of the time, but they do not offer the type of riding to which we have become accustomed. For this reason, we would like to have an additional horse on our property. A family member would like to give us a four-year old gelding. Otherwise, he will be sold shortly. This horse is well trained and needs more riding that he is cunently receiving. He would receive the same care as our other two horses and provide for longer, more frequent riding. We are not planning to make any changes to the property to accommodate an additional horse; there have been an outdoor turnout and additional stalls in our bam for many years. As you know, the City reviewed our property in 1997 and determined that having two horses here meet the requirements of a legal, non-conforming use. For background purposes only, a few discussion points that surfaced at that time are provided in a separate attachment. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Please contact us if you have any questions. We are hopeful to have resolution on this request as quickly as possible. Cordially, Sandra Smith Attachment James Murphy a O n Dr. Michael Murphy, University of Minnesota Extension Office, conducted a site visit and determined our use is in keeping wth appropriate standards and the number of horses should not be an issue, especially relative to adequate feed for horses. City codes about horses are a little vague in this area, but it appears the primary concern is that horses have adequate food by grazing. Our horses are fed hay and grain that meet all their nutritional needs. The turnout area serves as an exercise area, not a source of food • Numerous neighbors provided written and/or verbal support for horses on our property- adjoining property owners who have lived here since 1979 stated in writing that horses* have been on the property at least since then In fact, aerial city photographs taken much earlier show our bam and turnout, as well as an oval track that no longer exists. The bam has been here for more than 60 years and a variable number of horses has been on the property for the same period of time • At the time of subdivision that created our property, the City Council tacitly approved the continued use of this property regarding horses by leaving the bam and its use intact. The only documentation pertaining to the number of horses occurred in 1987 when the city advised the previous owner that two horses were permitted. The bam was originally a nine-horse bam • In late 1988, when we purchased the property we were told of this documentation by our real estate agent and the previous owner when we were shown the property. Our use has not changed from the previous owner, except for improvements • This property is 3.68 acres, well over the two-acre minimum for RR-IB zoning district. It adjoins other two-acre or larger parcels and the Luce Line Trail (and horse back riding trail designated for horses only) and other open space, including a shared private driveway. The city files on our property' include a reference to 4.2 acres; this may be so, accepting at face value the previous owner’s statement that it measures 4+ acres, “when* you include the driveway ’’ • The turnout area used by our horses has vegetation of various plant types every summer (We even have to mow it!) and we have maintained the same-sized area that was used by the previous owners. •• • rr "'U ‘iJj r > f / ■ ^UJ J i.furns CITY of ORONO Municipal OfHces ^»o5: Street Address: !750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 553S6 Malllnf Address: P.O. Box 66 ' Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 25,1997 John Dalbec 1565 Qrono Oaks Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Dalbec: In May 1997 staff received your complaint ihat there are too many horses on the property at 30 Orono Orchard Road North owned by your neighbors, James Murphy and Sandra Smith. You indicated a concern that because of a lack of pasture area this use is resulting in destruction of vegetation, topsoil erosion and waste discharging to the nearby wetland. I have inspected the site on two occasions and I have discussed this issue with the property owners. They have consulted experts to assist in determining whether there is a potential pollution hazard. They believe that the current number of horses and bam location must be considered as a legal non-conforming use. I have spent considerable time researching City records to determine whether there is a basis for their contention. Your specific concerns as expressed in your letter of June 11 are: 1. Lot size does not meet code for maintaining two horses; 2. Pasture size does not meet code for two horses; 3. 'Sewage' drained directly to w'etland; 4. Stable does not meet 75' to lot lines; 5. Stable does not meet 150' to adjacent residences. List of Attachments A - History of Property B - History of Pertinent Codes C - Plat & Topography Maps D - Letter from Jeremy Geske, U of M 6/23/97 Analysis of Issues Regarding concerns ^1 and #2: Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 2 Two horses are kept stabled on the property. The lot size is approximately 3.7 acres of which 0.1 acre is wetland. The fenced enclosure on the property in which horses are kept is appro.ximately 0.4 acre in area, including the 2200 s.f. bam. m Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) as consistently interpreted by staff would require 1 acre for the residence plus 2 acres of pasture for the first horse, or 3 acres total. The second horse would require an additional acre of pasture, for a total of 4 acres. When they purchased the property in 1988, Smith/Murphy were under the impression that the property contained the required acreage for two horses. They have had two horses at the site continuously since 1988. City records indicate two or more horses were at the site prior to 1988, and in 1987 the City represented to the previous owner that the property contained enough acreage to house two horses. The City never attempted to enforce the pasture acreage requirements on this property in the past, and never indicated to the owner that the lack of pasture was a problem. Code Section 10.20 Subd. 3(M) gives the Council the discretion to reduce the required pasture acreage if the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. A legal non-conforming use does not require specific Council action regarding the pasture requirement. City files and airphotos indicate the bam had been used historically for housing horses since the mid-1950 s or earlier. City records do not provide any documentation whether the use of the site for keeping horses was ever suspended for any length of rime. There is no evidence that this or any previous owner of the property ever had an intent to abandon the use of the property for housing horses. The aty did not require that the horse bam be removed at the time the propert>- was subdivided, suggesting that the City expected that the bam w'ould continue to be used for some accessory purpose when a new principal structure was built on the property. The City at the time of subdivision made no representations about the possible future uses of the bam. All of the above infonnation suggests that it would be difficult for the City to refute the argument that the use of the property for housing at least two horses has bee., continuous since the adoption of the codes requiring a minimum lot area and minimum area of pasture. John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 3 and should be 'grandfathered', i.e. considered as a legal non-conforming use. Staff is unaware of any past formal requests in the City for pasture acreage reduction, hence there appears to be no precedent for reference. Regarding concerns #4 and #5: - ^ The bam on Lot 10 is located approximately 20 feet from the Luce Line right-of-way to the south, and approximately 20 feet from the west property line abutting Lot 13. This relationship has existed for more than 40 years. The bam is more than 200 feet from the north line of Lot 10 and 500 feet from the east line of Lot 10. - Smith/Murphy are owners of Lot 13. The bam is approximately 60 feet from the house on Lot 13, and approximately 270 feet from the next nearest residence, which is south of the Luce Line. The bam was established in its current location many years prior to the 1968 and subsequent zoning code standards which made its location non-conforming. The standards for the 75’ lot line setback and 150 ’ "nearest adjacent residence" setback were established to provide a buffer between horse bams and neighboring residential properties. Except for Lot 13 which Smith/Murphy own, the existing bam location meets the intent of such buffering, in staffs opinion. On the other hand, if Lot 13 is sold to another party, the buffering might not be adequate. The Luce Line Trail is not only a pedestrian and bike trail but is also a horse trail by design, hence the adjacency to a horse bam should not be incompatible. Regarding concern #3: - The fenced horse enclosure is approximately 40-50 feet from the apparent boundary of the 3-acre Type 2/3 wetland located within Lots 10-1 1-12-13. A gravel driveway is located between the enclosure and the wetland. • The City has a 26 ’ wetland setback requirement in effect for structures and other activity occurring near wetlands. The enclosure appears to meet this setback. John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 4 The prope^ o\v^ers do not let manure accumulate to a point where it would harbor rodents, flies or insects. Staff has visited the site and has observed that such no> conditions do not exist.noxious During my inspections of the site on June 11 and July 2, 1997 1 obsened no excessive or malodorous aromas. There^ was no accumulation of manure and water on the site that would indicate a chronic mucky situation that could lead to a continuous odor or runoff problem. _ • During the July 2 inspection, which was the morning after a heavy rain, I found no indications that manure had been transported off the site to the wetland by runoff. While Aere was not a dense vegetative ground cover within the enclosure during both my insj^ctions, about half of the enclosure does have some vegetative cover, and there w’as no indication on July 2 that the area enclosed was eroding over the driveway and into the wetland. 1 did observe that the driveway gravel had washed down hill from the east and was a potential source of sedimentation to the weUand, which should be resolved by the property owners who share that driveway. SmithA^urphy have consulted with an expert from the University of Minnesota, who indicates in the attached letter that in his opinion, "the impact to the wetland from runoff through this lot is extremely minor". He also indicated that with only two horses, this site does not qualify as a feedlot. and with only two horses the amount of manure to be dealt with is minimal. This site does not strike me as an eyesore, and while I could see no visible Indications of runoff leading to the wetland, such runoff could possibly occur. Berming around the north Md west fence lines might help control runoff to some extent, although 1 have no compelling information that leads me to conclude that it is necessary. Conclusions 1.The City would have a difficult time simply requiring that one or both horses be removed from the site due merely to not meeting the total acreage requirement (which is calculated on the basis of pasture acreage requirements) for the following reasons: a. Horses have apparently been kept at the site on a regular basis since prior to the codes which established minimum acreage requirements! b. There has been no apparent intent by the cunent or past owners to abandon John Dalbec July 25,1997 Pages c. d. e. use of the site for horses; When the City allowed the horse bam to be within a 3.7 acre lot as part of subdivision of the property in 1980. the City did not require the bam be removed. In 1987, the City represented to the prior owner that two horses could be kept on the property. While that conclusion may have relied on incorrect information regarding lot size, the current owners relied on this representation and have had two horses on the site without incident or complaint until the current complaint surfaced. The City Council at its discretion can allow the pasture requirement, and hence the overall acreage requirement, to be reduced if it finds that the horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. The Smith/Murphy horses do not require pasture for feed purposes. In effect, the City has tacitly granted such reduction by its past inaction. 2. The locaUon and locational relationships of the bam were established prior to adoption of the codes which made the bam location non-conforming. The history of use of the bam for horses and the apparent intent by past and current owners to continue that use, plus the City's lack of action to restrict or eliminate the use when the subdivision occurred, make it difficult to require now that the use be ceased. 3. I find no compelling evidence that suggests the site is causing a pollution problem for the wetland. The enclosure appears to be kept in such a manner that manure does not accumu>ate to any extent. While stormwater from the site w'ould generally run toward the wetland there is no visual evidence that excessive nutrients are reaching the wetland (i.e. the wetland perimeter vegetation is not significanUy different from that of any other w'etland or frorn other locations around this wetland). It would be very difficult to establish whether nutrient levels at the edge of the wetland near the enclosure are higher than 'normal'. Absent any definite evidence of a pollution problem, and given the e.xpert opinion of a Uvestock Systems Specialist from the U of M that the impact of the site on the wetland is e.xtremely minor*, I must conclude that this site is not causing a pollution problem. There is no evidence of an odor problem (and no complaint of one). There is no evidence that the site is harboring rodents, flies or insects (and no complaint that it is). To summarize, mj conclusion is that the use of the property ’ for housing of two horses based on all available information appears to be a legal non-conforming use, that the location of the bam and enclosure in relation to neighboring properties was legally established prior to codes that required specific setbacks, and that the keeping of horses on this property is not causing a pollution problem. Mj conclusion in this matter, therefore, is that the two horses and e.xisting facilitieswill be allowed to remain on the property. I will recommend to the propert>- owners that they establish measures to John Dalbec July 25,1997 Page 6 eliminate erosion of the gravel driveway toward the wetland. Thank you for your concern as well as your paUence in allowing the City adequate time to mvesUgate the issues of this matter. Per your discussion with City Administrator Ron Moorse if you diMgree with the City staffs conclusions, you should detail those concerns in a letter to the Council for their consideration as an appeal of an administrative decision. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Asst Plaiming & Zoning Administrator cc: James Murphy & Sandra Smith Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mayor Jabbour and City Council • \ History of Property 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The existing horse bam has been at its current location and size since at least the mid- 1950's or earlier. The horse bam in the mid-1950's was accessor/ to the residence now owned by Mr. Struyk currently known as 40 Orono Orchard Road North. The property contained approximately 40 acres at that time, including the residence and the bam. The small house now known as 20 Orono Orchard Road I i. (the "comer lot") was already on a separate parcel as of the mid-1950's, although airphotos indicate that driveways interconnected the apparent ^se of the two properties. The low area north of the bam (now the middle of the wetland Tn Lots 12 & 13) contained an oval riding ring. The property, including the comer lot, was subdivide in 1978 to create new unsewered building sites of two-plus acres each. In July 1978 the City approved two optional lot configurations: a 1 2-lot plat with the bam and the comer house platted together as a single lot; or a 1 3-lot plat with the comer lot separate from the bam, but the comer lot expanded to contain at least 2 dry-buildable acres The second option was ultimately chosen, and the City allowed dry-buildable credit for the wetland area that exists today but which was dry in 1978. As a result, the comer lot platted as Lot 13 contains 2-p!us acres of which only half is considered dry- buildable by today’s standatrds and prevailing condition. And, Lot 10 with the horse bam contains approximately 3.7 acres of which approximately 0.1 acre is wetland. In approving the subdivision as it was ultimately configured, the City did not address the accessory structure status of the bam, and did not require that it be removed, although it became an accessory simcture without a principal structure. The City also placed no conditions on the future use of the propert>’, even though it obviously contained a horse ham and fenced area historically use to keep horses. A building pemiit was issued in November 1982 to Steve Neslund for a new home to be constructed on Lot 12 which was constructed during 1983 and Certificate of Occupancy issued in January'1984. Curiously, the Certificate of Survey used to obtain the building permit did not show the then-existing horse bam, although that survey purports to show "the location of all buildings, if any, thereon...". In July 1987 the City received a complaint about manure storage at the site. The inspector did not find manure being stored but did find 3 horses. The inspector somehow concluded that the site had 4.2 acres of land and ordered the third horse to be removed, which was done without question since the third horse was apparently being housed only temporarily for a friend of the owner. 7. 8. In October 1988 Neslund requested informa‘ion about how many horses could be housed on the property. Mabusth sent him the code but apparently did not deflne a number of horses, possibly because she did not have acreage figures for the property. In December 1988 Smith & Murphy moved onto the property. Within a short time they started using the site for housing of horses. The City has no record of complaint regarding those horses until Dalbec's May 1997 complaint. • * ORONO aiY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 U2353 Lett Busch, 1265 Shoreline Drive - Continued Jabbour o^^ssed his concern that the hardships be stated in the resolution and that the driveway be safe aftenmy hardcover removals. Kelley asked hownw City could be sure the next owner would not install a paved driveway up to the structure, which wBipld add more hardcover, and make it a 2-car garage. • m Goetten expressed her concen^about the size of the structure, indicating it was very large. Busch explained tl.at woodworking reqhires a large area to work, up to 24' when planing a board. Several pieces of equipment are used in making cabinets. Peterson asked what the net effect of hardcover would be. Van Zomeren responded that it would be 300 s.f. She suggested that if garage doorsVere not allowed, a building permit would be required to install them at a later date. Kelley commenteotliat garage doors would be needed to do the t)pe of w'oodworking Mr. Busch was proposing. Van Zomeren added that the surveyor did not show any easbqients for the sewer. In talking with the Public Services Director, these easements should be recordeoxThe applicant agreed to do so. Flint asked if there were no other possible location on the propert>- fbs^the structure. Van Zomeren e.xplained that a well on the other side of the garage limits that area. Goetten suggested that no more hardcover be allowed in the future if the motkm passes. Flint moved, Jabbour seconded, to amend the motion adopting Resolution No. 407^10 include the condition that no additional hardcover is to be allowed. Vote: Ayes 3, Nays 0. Kelley al^Peterson voted against the motion. (#14) JOHN DALBEC REQUEST FOR COUNCIL DETERMLNATION REGARDING THE KEEPING OF HORSES AT 30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH Moorse explained that Dalbec made a complaint about the keeping horses of 30 Orono Orchard Road North and questioned the legality of it. Staff researched the issue and prepared a letter to Dalbec listing the findings and concluding that two horses should be allowed to remain on the property. Dalbec has asked that Council reconsider the conclusion. Jabbour asked Dalbec to comment on his position. Dalbec distributed a letter to Council and the owner of the residence. Dalbec stated the lot size is too small, the paisture doesn't meet the minimum size, and the building doesn't meet the setbacks. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 JabW explained how the ordinances work. Prior to ordinances being adopted, propertv- owners could do whatever activities they wanted legally. When they continue to do these aairities after they are no longer allowed by ordinance, it is considered legally non-conforming. If the activity "“"-conforming. When an activity h legally non-confoiming, it is referred to as "grandfathered in". Oaffron agreed that the keeping of horses on this property is legally non-conforming. ^ ^ on Ihtc clarification of legally, non-conforming. Jabbour explained that when horses were on this property many years ago, it was legal to have horses there. Ih!J? «aff review represented in a 6 page letter to Dalbec. Staff concluded that there has been a continuous existence of horses on the property, and therefore the use should be ihe Tl"*-'” ”h'‘" P™Wem exists as indicated in the report from Jeremy Geske of enti^Zentlf '"‘c inspections, Oaffron also concluded that no environmental problems were created as a result of the horses. The fact that the property is less than 4 acres is not a factor in the decision to allow the horses to remain because they have been there continuously. Nothing in the information in the City's files suggest that there was any intent on the City or the property owner s part to not have horses. The horse bam and corral were allowed to t™rd^950'‘s "" ” "" ™ “• T*' u° V? responded that he had spent at least 25 hours, wd probably another 10 or 15 hours with other staff members and the City IhSs “ ” Commission have been involved in researching Preperiy- Mnny ta.xpayer dollars have been spent to teach this conclusion. There has been ” '''“™n* Commission. If there is any bias, it is toward Dalbec Since so much time has been spent to research the issue. n'i"" prapnny- 0“®“" confirmed that Muiphy/Smith own LoU 10 the “i"? *'i,°' “ '“PPO""'from Mrs. Bordson, a neighbor to uuot 37 12 - ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR APRIL 27,1998 (UI4) John Dalbec Request for Council Determination Regarding the Keeping of Horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North - Continued Dave and Barb Struyk, 40 Orono Orchard Road North, share a common driveway with Murphy/Smith. Mr. Struyk stated they had lived in the residence since 1979, prior to Murphy/Smilh. There were horses boarded there at that time; they like the horses and find it unfair that the Murpl^/Smiths are being questioned about the keeping of their horses. Jabbour noted he had received several letters supporting the contbued use of horses on the property. Kelley asked if the property were limited to 2 horses, not 3. Gaffron responded that m 1987, the City limited the use to 2 horses m a response to the prior owner. Jabbour added that if the horses were removed for more than 1 year, the use would become non-conforming and no longer be allowed. Attorney Barrett conunented that in the current circumstances, the use is allowed. If the property were to lose its legal, non-conformbg status, a variance could be applied for to consider the previous use of the property. Council has discretion to address the issue of pasturage. Flmt moved, Goetten seconded, to affirm staffs conclusions which allow the keeping of horses at 30 Orono Orchard Road North as outlined in the letter of July 25,1997. Murphy stated they felt this was an unfortunate set of circumstances and w ould like to have the same relationship with Mr. Dalbec as they had the first five years of bebg neighbors. He commended staff on a w ell done report. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #2354 KONRAD KRUEGER, 520 HANLON AVENUE - VARIANCE The applicant was not present. Goetten moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application #2354, providing the application be extended an additional 60 days by letter to the applicant. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (A short recess was held.) "^TNi^oo'or■fz^o-oo- _ OrA'n''B 3I-5. OJ n.oi" /7075'37"£ . •■ ;••/ j-'.* I V I— ^ - Z'**^ i\ • • . 4.»-• 5»., #2*77T sW 0 Parcel Information Parcel ID 3511823330010 House Number 30 Street Name ORONO ORCHARD RD ^ This tsnott l9gaUyncorded map. it represenh a compilation oUnfomnaPon ana data from City. CourOy, and Stata road auatorltias and other aourcas. ' #*■ ir*—Tj L. A RUN DATE 05/30/02 BATCH 509 PROF ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 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 HAHE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFO!’ .flON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS Li I 36 02-U7-23 21 0002 00090 SHXTN AVE E 0 JENKINS ACC JENKINS EDWIN D A CAROLYN D JENKINS 90 SHITH AVE WAYZATA HH 55391 30 02-117-23 22 0003 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED CARGILL HAC HILLAN JR ETAL LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P 0 BOX 5620 HPLS HN 55990-5626 30 02-117-23 22 0009 00095 SHITH AVE D W A H R HOST DAVID W A HEIDI R HUST 95 SHITH AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 30 35-110-23 33 0007 01555 ORONO OAKS DR J L HAUSER A L H HAUSER JACK L HAUSER/LXSA H HAUSER 1555 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 35-110-23 33 0010 00030 ORONO ORCHARD RD N J L HURPHY ASS SHITH JAHES HURPHY A SANDRA SHITH 30 ORONO ORCHARD RD N WAYZATA HN 55391 30 35-110-23 39 0012 01225 ORONO OARS DR J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS J DANIELS A J LYNCH-DANIELS 1225 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 02-117-23 22 0001 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE OF HINN DNR REAL ESTATE H6HT ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155 30 02-117-23 22 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN DNR REAL ESTATE HGHT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RO ST PAUL HN 55155 30 35-110-23 33 0009 00025 ORONO ORCHARD RD N K B DELANEY A H S DELANEY KEVIN A HARGARET DELANEY 25 ORONO ORCHARD RO N LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 35-110-23 33 0000 01565 ORONO OAKS OR JOHN A OALBEC JOHN DALBEC 1565 ORONO OAKS OR LONG LAKE HN 55356 30 35-110-23 39 0002 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN DNR REAL ESTATE HGHT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155 30 35-110-23 39 0013 01335 ORONO OAKS DR DIANE H HENNINGER ET AL TRST J HENNINGER A D HENNINGER 1335 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 RLI ORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 29 30 02-117-23 22 0002 00015 ORONO ORCHARD RO S P U SCHERER A G 6 SCHERER PETER L A GERI C SCHERER 15 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA HN 55391 30 02-117-23 22 0005 00265 ORONO ORCHARD RD S VILLAGE OF ORONO ORONO 66 CITY OF P 0 BOX CRYSTAL DAY HN 55323 30 35-110-23 33 0005 00030 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO STATE OF HINN DNR REAL ESTATE HGHT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155 MLrVil 30 35-110-23 33 0009 00020 ORONO ORCHARD RD N OLD ORCHARD FARH LLC OLD ORCHARD FARH LLC 30 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 » 30 35-110-23 39 0005 00090 ORONO ORCHARD RO N DIB STRUYK DAO BARBARA A STRUYK 90 ORONO ORCHARD RO N WAYZATA HN 55391 30 35-110-23 39 0019 01200 LYHAN AVE W C JURGENS i H A JURGENS W CLINTON 0 HARY A JURGENS 1200 LYHAN AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 ) r RUN DATE 05/30/02 RATCN 509 HU1..CPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSUri PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT HU 1*1^35^01 PAGE 30 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANC/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 509 00018 1 i r BY .U ^ r..o, AXATlONi TO TNE^I 4 * u /f^\ Y /o TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/IManner DATE: July 8,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances-- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre) 22,356 s.f. (.51 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application Survey Topographic Map Garage Plans and Elevations Hardcover Calculations Photo of Property B C D E F Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 9.8’ from the side lot line where 10’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 27.9’ from the front lot line where 30’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 3. 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. Variance Request: To pemiit 4,726 s.f. (31.3%) hardcover where 3,779.75 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Application Summary: 1 he applicant has requested side yard setback, front street yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the existing residence. The garage addition consists of an 11’ x 23’ third stall. The proposed third stall addition (253 s.f.) to the garage is on the street side of the existing residence. The garage is to be lined up with the existing garage and residence which is located 9.8’ from the west property line. The existing residence and other items located in the 75-250’ setback zone comprise 4,363 s.f. (28.8%) hardcover. The garage addition (253 s.f) and added portion to the driveway (109 s.f) increases the hardcover to 4,726 s.f or 31.3%. #02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances 7/8/2002 Pace I of 3 1 he residence was built in 1968 in its present location. The only improvement to the residence was a three season porch addition in 1983. Also, in 1988 the present owners vacated Forest Boulevard. Neighborhood History: In 1997, the adjacent property located at 1399 Park Drive was granted approval to construct a three stall detached garage in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. The variances approved were for side yard setback and hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. The side yard setback was to allow the detached garage to be located 8 ’ where 10’ is required. Hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone was approved to be increased from 25.32% to 30.08%. This adjacent property is similar in size and shape to the subject property. Statement of Hardship: The applicant should be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. The topography of the land to the east limits where a structure can be constructed. The land drops off sharply making it difficult to construct a detached garage there. The other possible location on the property would be on the lake side of the residence, but access would be nearly impossible. Issue for Consideration: 1. The topography of the land limits where additional building can be located. To the east the land drops significantly making it difficult to place a structure there. 2. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 3. The existing residence and accessory items in the 75-250 ’ setback zone have the hardcover at 4,363 s.f. (28.8%). The garage addition and additional driveway will bring it to 4,726 s.f. (31.3%). 4. The lot coverage by structures is well below the allowed 15%. 5. The lot is undersized for the LR-IB zoning district. There is not additional land to combine with the property. It was increased to its present size in 1988 with the vacation of Forest Boulevard. 6. Is there any hardcover on the property which could be removed to bring it more into conformity or to at least keep the hardcover at its present level? It would seem that substantial areas of existing driveway could be removed. 7. Is there sufficient hardship to grant the street setback variarice? 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. <>02-2798 Fred Shearer I40.S Park Drive Variances 7/8 2002 Page 2 of 3 staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance. Planning Commission could recommend approval of the street setback variance if it finds sufficient hardship exists and finds there will be no significant negative impacts to the neighborhood. Staff recommends that removals of existing hardcover be required to result in no net increase above the existing 28.8%. Options for Actions: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. 1 > It :■ I #02-2798 Fred Shearer 1405 Park Drive Variances 7/8/2002 Page 3 of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 22,356 s.f. (0.51 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Structural Lot Coverage: Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover 0-75'5,918 s.f 0 s.f 0 s.f 0 s.f (0%)(0 %)(0 %) 75-250'15,119 s.f 3,779.75 s.f 4.363 s.f 4,726 s.f (25%)(28.8%)(31.3%) 250-500’1,319 s.f 395.7 s.f 212 s.f 212 s.f (30%)(16.07%) (16.07%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,356 s.f Allowed: 3,353.4 s.f (15%) Existing: 2,283 s.f (10%) Proposed: 2,537 s.f (11.3%) :re) Proposed hardcover 0 s.f (0 %) •4.726 s.f (31.3%) ) 212 s.f (16.07%) overage s.f. (15%) f. (10%) f. (11.3%) CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /yotr Pari- Dy^ Application # 09- - Date ReceivedT" irh/oz^ Amount Paid ^3S(^ Property Identification Number ff.I.D.) 7-1/7-7? nbH^________________ Attach legal description to application if not inciuded on required su^ey. Date Property Acquired ^/go___________________________________^(month/year) I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PresentuSem property: vf residentitd Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Name Fre.<d ^ Address: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) yrj-V72-/479 _____ Phone (work) I City: /7^u.W Zip: Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: gJJ tk.vJ <iW) ,w (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback;Front Side 75- zro Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance \yith Zoning Code requirements: ,',j QAy.»tQv aPrj joteJuuipiiaitkc: Wiui '-wuc icHuucuicms. flpoY' i rJ <iOK><O q SMtI rKf Pppf —re-e»oJe.^c^cJ^ WJ 'r^ S*/cv«f<i iX/ fjrTvJt C.I '' 'Wi c(«»aKio p ft'im __________ 'fattach additional sheets if necessary) ^2798 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Alt of tht fallfffflnf infnrm.lion mu., h. h» ih, .nnii..ii„n ........... flrdcr for vour aDDlicati.,n to be cnn»irfered rnm^ in ■ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you _ Certtficate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/-" x 11" for reproduction. ry * ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. I.n addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/," x 11" for reproduction ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11") ---- List of the leg£ names (include marital status) o.'* all persons with an interest in the property. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ---- As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner muat sign Utis application. Please remember that your ruriantt ppplitation b not eomnlelt if the ahovc informaiin.. ha. n.. .............. 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 pavment) consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature /^^^^ JA//y ^ Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE Tlie owner hereby acknowledp and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto e property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature JA/a ±LS Date Applicant must have ^| submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Comnussion Meetmg. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must bt present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting please make aiiangements to tave an authonred agent anend in your place and to advise the Building A. Zoning Office of this chonge prior to the meeting. N O 07/03/2002 08:24 9529300921 SAM AT SELA PAGE 01 Bl. VD. 5 tMl -0* *• 6 >JOALOyV^tJL . . 3^ 3i^( SBA ROOFING AND REMODELING, INC. i.ln7/r^««‘ !/#«•/r i/lii/ 1405 Fvk Dr., Mound Drawimi# ... _ j Cuiiinclor# iU^K) =ftc^ Scale: W«ft^ 929.6 L «■ t) fy5 D B3T . wl *, “’'. r- * V' ;lf ''^^‘' ■ “*-■■ •ii‘- HARDCOVZR CALCULATION WORX5EIZT /5-ZfO*5^0-ICCO^ A. Kcuss LrztH V;ii X X X B. Gang? • • • • 4 C Drivcwiy X X D. Sidswxlk X X E Paiiarccx X X F. Landscap? Uodarlain By P!asdc X X X ■I ■i C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X ICO PROPOSED HARnCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ * Lrayia X X X B. Garag? C Dnvrvay X X D. SIdr.vaik X X E. Padc/Dcck X X F. Landicap? Ur.d?r!air. Bv Piasrla X X X G- C±?r total KAiCCCVER IN ZONE total PROPElTlf AXSA IN ZONc 4- B ____X ICO 3-/Ar V' "'‘T' 'lU V* . V ' SJ'. C T S-=. SJf. S--. S--. Si^*. c r S.F. SJ. SJ. S.F. S.F. S.F! A B *4/ 9 S.F. S.7. S.F. S.F. S.F. S7. S7. S7. s - S.F. S.F. S7. S.F. S7. SJ. •SJ. A "SJ. B •/> N V/ V Hfidiilii JiA? S-^s-o’z. HARDCOVER CALCrLA7I0^' VVORXSESZT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCI.Z ONE) 0-Tr rfO-*SC* feXTSTTS'G r-AaPCOVER T>' ZONE A. Kcuss _____________ s _____________ " V:d± B. Gang; • • • • i C. Criveway D. Sidswa3c E.:por<t, F. Landscape IfadertaLi By Plasde X X X X X X X X X X X X G. Other:er TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ____X ICO PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE A. House LgafA B. Carzgt C. Dnvc\vay • D. Sidewalk E. -ParlSTDKk F. Lzcdsczzt Ur.teici: By Plzsrlc C. C±cr X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ARE.A Di ZONs + B ____X ICO - 5CC-ICCC Z.CV4- Cg J212 7^ . ^2.0^ trnf 3i.*t \577 5*'3<^ :2.3"f 76 3/,3 -.i \- c c S_-. S--. s^. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. SR. S.F. SR. SR. S.F. ■2.0S.F. s.r. A SR. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SR. SR. SR. ^SR. SR. SR. VsR. S.P. • SR. S.F. A c % <^v^3\3 3-z5"'02_i^^ 1 HARDCOVER C.\LCULATION WORKSHEET #2798 r 0/1313 b(4- ^-zs--oz- II Complete Date: Deadline: 7/1/02 8/31/02 TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:July 8,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2801 Kathleen Melin ** 3309 Cry stal Bay Road Variances List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G Application Plat Map Site Survey Topographic Map Elevation Views Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Property Owners Notification List Application Summary: Property owner has requested variances to permit construction of a 12’ X 28' three season porch on the lakeside of the existing residence. Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.25, Subd 6(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit construction of a 12'X 28’three season porch located 23’ from the paved portion of Crystal Bay Road w here a 30’ setback is required. 2.Section 10.25, Subd 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: To permit construction of a 12’ X 28’ three season porch 8’ to the side property line where a 10’ setback is required. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) (16): Structure within 75 ’ of lakeshore: To permit construction of a screen porch 53’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75 ’ is required. •02-2801 Kathleen Melm 3309 Bay Road Page I of 3 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd 2 16 (L): Hardcover in 0-75 ’ Setback: To permit an increase of 300 s.f. of hardcover within 75 ’ of Lake Minnetonka. Existing = 731 s.f. (17.8%) Proposed = 1,031 s.f. (25%) Allowed = 0 s.f. (0%) * Hardcover calculations do not include the paved Cr>stal Bay Road and any plastic landscaping material. 5. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage by Structure " Lot Area = 6,058 s.f. Allowed Lot Coverage by Structure = 1,500 s.f Existing = 1,397 s.f (includes por ..i of house and shed located off the property) Proposed = 1,733 s.f (includes portion of house and shed located off the property) 6. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (6): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The total encroachment is approximately 8 . Rc'itu of Hardship: Tlie applicant has stated the hardship is th' ..ouse is located between the lake and a hill (see Exhibit A). I he State requires an undue hardship l>e present to giant a variance. The State Statutor>' test for a hardsliip is defined as: Undue Hardship: means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowTier, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There arc 6 individual variances required for this application. Fcr some time the City of Oiono has consistently considered properties “fully developed" when the property is at a total 15% lot coverage or at 1,500 s.f when the lot is less than 10,000 s.f in area. This individual property is just more th^ 6,000 s.f in area, thus the zoning ordinance permits total lot coverage by structure of 1,500 s.f The total existing structure of 1,397 s.f includes a portion of the garage and shed that is not located on the properi,.. This lot is immediately adjacent to the Dakota Rail right-of-way. Most lots along Ciystal Bay Road have maintained back yards that arc in the right-of-way. The attached survey indicates the location of all structures and hardcover setting this property in relation to the property lines. A variance to permit lot coverage beyond 1,500 s.f on this proper - would be inconsistent with other recent actions along Crxstal Bay Road. There have been two recent variances approvals that were for complete rebuilds, not an addition as in the case of this application. In each case the amount of structure permitted on the property did not exceed what had previously been on the property. One lot was allowed total lot coverage of just over 1,000 s.f total, me second lot was allowed a total of 1,500 s.f because the lot had been previously developed greater than 1,500 s.f i02-2S0l Kathleen Melln 3309 Costal Da> Road Page 2 of 3 \dditional structure on the property also adds additional hardcover to the property. The entire addition would be located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The total net increase in hardcover within 75 ’ of the lake would be 300 s.f. A 36 s.f. stair entrance would be removed to make room for the addition. The total hardcover would be 1,031 s.f. which is 25% of the land area within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The total hardcover figure does not include the landscaping plastic, an underground garage, and the paved width of Crystal Bay Road. The City of Orono has traditionally looked at equal removal of existing hardcover, but not necessarily allowing removal of driveway or landscaping plastic for structural additions. The structural addition within 75 ’ of the lakeshore requires variances to allow a new portion of a building within 75 ’ of the take. The new structure would encroach 8’ into the required average lakeshore setback. This property is 52’ wide lot at the lakeshore. The entire neighborhood was platted with 50 ’ being the average lot width. The average lakeshore setback distance is measured by drawing a straight line between each of the neighboring residences. No building can be added or expanded closer to the lake than the average distance between those two structures. The average lakeshore setback regulations are intended to protect lakeshore views for neighbors. It is this type of neighborhood, w here the houses are located relatively close to one another, that the lake views are most impacted by surrounding development. It is Staffs conclusion the front yard setback and side setback encroachments are due to the size of the proposed addition and are not direct hardships created by the property. The size of the porch could be reduced. The 30 ’ setback to Crystal Bay Road and the 10 ’ setback to the side property line could be met by reducing the size of the addition. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition being located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The addition could not be done without the need for variances. The property has a total of 1,397 s.f. of structure. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building already within 75 ’ of the lakeshore a variance to allow additional hardcover or structure is not warranted. Options for Action: 1. R«. commend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. 802-3101 Kathleen Melin 3709 Cr>ital Bay Road Page 3 of 3 I 1 L CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $230.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Appb’cation U D ^ I Date Rcceh'ed C> /f Amount Paid d, OV PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address *^3^^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) H-1 tH - ^-'^-<4 I •• qq t L? Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of lanu. Present use of property; \/ residentird ___pother (specify) Zoning District:______________________ _____ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Address: 193^ ^IVO Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) Vb</> City: U>UrLAr/ui._____Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home) Phone (work) Address: CJL^SntXf /V»y City: £OA-"^zA'rA_____Zio: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ OOO 3 T~ P‘orc.^4 (attach additional sl.eets if necessar)’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: i< <i.Tuc,kL Arsn> A- UttlL _________ (attach additional sheets if necessary)#2^O 01 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS m inc loiiowing iniormation must op h flEdtr for VQMr application to he cnnsidergd ladline date fp 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. __ Completed Application Form Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-5910). i^epanment oi CertificaM of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover 4. M& Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existinc / grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) coov 8'/." x 11 '■ frf r.r, J ® 5. j/ She.ch« or plans of floor & CeLion viewj’irovfde L 0) copv 8^^x“ H“l ■ the leg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest ^ the propeiy. This would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). s an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. ^ ^ “ ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour larianct pppliwtion k not yompku if thTohovc informniinn t,,s nnt APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Zonine Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) V application, and certifies .har^icinformation supplied is true and correct to the best of hi.s/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The hereby acknowledges and agrees to this applicauon and further authorizes reasonable tnMbeis*^fn ^ Y Ctty staff, con-tultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date 0(^-1')- Applicant must have all subminals into the City ofllces 25 davs before the Planning m!^“T y‘"T ■'''“•‘"8* S" held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannlna Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meetinr^leS make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the BuS & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. uuiiamg # P. Q n -fl. 3- . - Vi' N * ;County Taxpayer Services Depi^^^e^t ^ X ^0\ 2, i^)... '""'pu MC Norei:R£A/WANG£MeHT Of LOTS 4Z 43, ST, 50,59,69, 70 trt WALLACES ADOrnON TO THE VILLAOE Of MINNETONKA BEAt O'" k\ ^ \ r-a >- ia.«7 <‘->f , A \ •^^5) v.^ ^! 0 ■\ (23) a S3'3v *v»\<i: ^ ,oW2^;m ir.Ci" A *iV' \ ti'i^24) \ »X fi5 ^ V <T'.P5J-;<&.r7; ■T <T27; \ (61)V 0 * • 4 0 iiH 10 S 9 (24)(59)C BO 90 1 0 ^57J ^ X >A -cN S<i>^ / Ts> *y /• / /saj/v. t ' A e * *« 15066 \ (3) \ t7735 \ jr -----------\2 \ "3 (4) 2\ 1B9 6B \iv^ -* I 380-^I~7\II1-23- Parcel Information Parcel ID 1711723410016 House Number 3309 Street Name CRYSTAL BAY RD • • • »*** TNs is not a legaliy recorded map. It represents a compilation of information and data from City, County, and State road authorities and other sources. Uh LUI I, VVALLAUC.' C) MUU. UP IVII l\rt. DC.non AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED KENWOOD WAY HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY 029.4 CONTOUR UNE • Prop*i« ^ (. f M *fl i O LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES % —- - 1 In II ■'ill ' ' Ai i ts. .» ■?• ■ • ' ' I • • ^ M ?-A> ■ *r ' w *’-*• 'y.- , »♦ * iSSrVrtL* •- s;-..;-l ■ ,.-.<htp>s5. iL . ‘ 1 ' . «W ^ .J • ' * Vji ... m w-m :tli^ 1 y^' T ■ ■ ■ PM® ■ -<A‘ *>.• 'm'A • V P. 'I;U’.f.r'S -1 . ‘f ^4?.1 ^ 'i-... p'#-''mmrn ■ >''^'v‘-'j5a8s • - vt; gj»: < •? V.’ i • •• •, t I - ^ k -.ri 4 *'^'/ ''- - : >// ; ' -1: ■ " ^ ,f.-^ ;-■ • i. 4 / _ ^-4 i ■ T—r . • 1 ■ . rf^I ^••' Y-l. V l.i:r.W / V. • ■ \ O'cr r*‘ • 'Jf •• ■' LcVA-'~; iryr^ :.A\e '/c - i.o' i • V. i A. / V V 1 -r . V ^ -i. !■ i- T \r ■.. > ’ ' i V V V '.........->• «• • I V Vv.. :—w*. >•- J ^Xliz^ Pl^t doo'^ ^^iiiiczzis:t/>r ir^Q • <r/r'" 3. //C-.^/f//vy ^ .....• 11 T- 1 T(^'"C> ><L /tvm. ss ;C7v<; rf^ 2X«^ '>TUJ^ i L'.LP.<LZ. ■*^Ji';y. :,Tji .c^vt'.y X ’*♦ . . ................. U’ •• • *•# (■ ) ■ r r . . O «»«» • ••••♦ . •• - \'?. ■ o Y • • • •» |^thlx =ch Ale ’LiM /O'/c-ot * 1 rru. 7-/-oi ... i I) UARDCOVERX^LCULATION wouksueet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 7S-250' 250-500* EXISTING HARDCOVER TN ZONE A. House N_____________ Lcnj*W.cji B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Deck F. Landscare Undcrla.n By Plastic Or Fabric Q. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B X 100 - : ^cAC/cra,.' cKY/rJL ✓/< 7// Ci' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE' A House X Ur.gOi Width B. Garage C Driveway D. Sidewalk X X X X X E. Paiio/Deck ^V X X rr^^S F. Landscape AoC k Underlain ______ ^ By Plastic ____________ Or Fabric 0. Odier • x BS m Lex V/Auy^ii Moo, ar AH.v, V-v. Sr. 500-1000* 264- SF -HtfUS£ :2i Z3/ :z __145. ._JZt B7A -3€ -.JLB- •f-zol TOT.* L HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAI. PRO. cPTY area NZOr A B ?7C 70Z_= /078 ' d/a R V ICO - 2 €.27 SF. S F. c c - vvaul S • « S.F. CCJHCRirTe S.F.- DRIVEV>/Af S.F S F SF. „ _ w^D sf -st ^ps SF fioc^ ^ S.F.-PtASTiC. S.F. S.F. COKaFTt VWAU-S. PIUAOS /Hf<0 S.F.-STEPS S.F. A 4-1(7^ i S.F. B Z«.3S-____% S.F. SF S.F. S.F. -h 33€ SF. S F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF SF. SF. SF A SF. B % J K'^rhi.eff* /‘icuvj U i * ji/o UARDCOVER CALCULATi^lN WORKSHEET <7S05(^SETBACK ZONE:: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTINO ftARDCOVER IN 7.nNF. A House ______ UngUi B. Garage C. Driveway O. Sidewalk E Paiio/Dcck F Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0-75' X X X X 250-500' Width X X X X X X X X 21 g 0.-7^° E4. smrj s c G. Other total hardcover fn zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B X 100 Propose d hardcover in znrsnr A. House ____________ Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Deck F. Land5cape Undetiain 3y Plastic Or Fabric G Other X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in ZONE ^ ' B s 100 - Li! I •, 5 Mod . oe MixA.BiWft « 500-1000* ^78 s F. - kiMse \B7 L95St _s.F.-sHeo _SF. S F.-Wo^D~ WW4.5.. _SF. SF. _SF. _ _ ce»c. irCPPin^ SF.-4T«N€5 S.F. . S.F.- 3 vectcs SF. o r.- ptASTIC SF. SF. SF. _ S.F. a _ S.F. B % _S.F. SF. S.F. _S.F. .S.F. S.F. .SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. Vt A B RUN DATE tA/ia/02 BATCH 5*i HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 3S 17-117-2S 0052 0003B address PENOINO MCLEOO CNTV NEC RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAa INC 200 NORTH HILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 50537 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 38 17-117-23 A1 0000 00038 ADDRESS UNASSI6NED C I L ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENHOOD HAY HAYZATA NN 55391 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 17-117-23 01 0015 03205 CRYSTAL BAY RD HEATHER M JOHNSTONE HEATHER N JOHNSTONE 3285 CRYSTAL BAY RO NAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 17-117-23 01 0018 03325 CRYSTAL BAY RO 0 H STANTON 0 8 L STANTON DENNIS M I BECKY L STANTON 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA HN 55391 REPORT NO. PI035001 PACE 9 38 17-117-23 41 0004 02140 KENNOOD NAY P HARKUSEN t J ERICKSON PAUL HARKUSEN/JEAN ERICKSON 2140 KENNOOD NAY HAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED COL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENNOOD NAY HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0007 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CAL ROOD CLAIR ROOD 2215 KENNOOD NAY NAYZATA MN 55391 36 17-117-23 41 0013 03295 CRYSTAL BAY RO MARK C ZA6ARIA MARK C ZACARIA 1524 21ST AVE N E ROCHESTER MN 55904 36 17-117-23 41 0014 03309 CRYSTAL BAY RD KATHLEEN P MELIN KATHLEEN P MELIN 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD NAYZATA MN 55391 •TB 17-117-23 41 0017 03315 CRYSTAL BAY RO MARGAPET E COMER MARGARET E COMER 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RO HAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 43 0144 00036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED MC LEOO CO REG RAILROAD AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH HILL ST FERGUS FALLS MN 54537 TOTAL BATCH 503 00011 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESEh .'ATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPEPTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDCE AND BELIEF. DATE #2801 1 TO: FROM; DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Mootse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner July 8, 2002 SUBJECT: #02-2804 Phillip and Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) 20,484 s.f. (.47 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application cy 1 opographic Map Hardcover Calculations Views Photos of Property B C D E F Pertinent Code Section: 1 . Section 10.28. Subdiv ision 5 (B): Front Yard Setback: To permit a porch to be 26’ from the front lot line where 50' is required for the RR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B); Side Yard Setback: To permit an attached garage to be 15 ’ from the side lot line where 30' is required for tl»e RR-IB zoning district. Application Summary: The applicants have requested front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a front porch and an attached garage to the e.xisting residence. The existing single stall garage will be turned into living space. The existing driveway will be removed and a new one wMl be located in from the new garage. The proposed porch will be 4’ wide. 21 ’ long, and 26' from the front property line. The existing residence is 30' from the front property line, where 50' is required in the RR-IB zoning district. 1 he attached garage is proposed to be on the south side of the existing residence and 25’ x 36 ’ (‘^OO s.f.). The front of the attached garage will line up with the porch and also be 26' from the front lot line. It is proposed to be located 15 ’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required in the RR-IB zoning district. The lot directly to the south is vacant and has been for many years. The property is located in the 500-1000’ hardcover zone. I he existing residence and the ;*'oposed additions are still well within the allowed 35% hai'd.over at 14.9%. The property is s*wcr'd. »02-2804 Phillip Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street 7/8.7002 Page I of 3 Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1957. The property is located in a two acre zoning district. However, the neighborhood is more in character with half acre zoning standards. If half acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 30' required front setback. The proposed front porch and the front of the proposed garage would encroach 4* into the front yard setback. The side of the proposed garage would meet the required 10* side yard setback. The topographic map (Exhibit C) shows where neighboring residences are located in relation to the Arbor Street. In general, homes on the west side of Arbor Street arc 50-60’ from the traveled road. On the east side, they average about 40 ’ from the paved road. The proposed 4’ addition puts this house about 42 ’ I'rom the paved road. IILstor}' of Arbor Street: Arbor Street is zoned RR-1B. most of the properties in the area are half acre lots The residences in the area were built prior to the current zoning classification. Because of this, many variances have been applied for and approved in the area. Staff researched only Arbor Street. Three were found for Arbor Street. (1 wo of these 3 properties are located on the southerly section of Arbor Street not shown on the topographic map.) 1. 1185 Arbor Street - 1993. Approved to permit construction of a 10 ’ x 24 ’ 8 ” addition to the north side of the existing single stall garage which is located 27 ’ 3” from the street lot line (50’ required). 2. 1365 Arbor Street - 1996. Approved to permit construction of a partial second floor over the existing residence which is located 3’ from detached garage (10 ” required) and 29’ from the street lot line (50’ required) and 18* from the side lot line (30 ’ required). 3. 1380 Arbor Street - 1996. Approved to permit construction if a 10 ’ x 14' three season porch which is located 12.3’ from the north side lot line (30 ’ required) and 10 ’ from rear lot line (50’ required). Statement of Hardship: 1 he applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. <>02*2804 Phillip. Constance Martin 1 230 Arbor Street 7/8/2002 Page 2 of 3 Issues for Consideration: 1. Does the Planning Commission feel the front porch and garage addition are in character with the neighborhood? 2. Would the Planning Commission rather have the front porch be smaller and the proposed garage be in line with the existing residence? 3. The residence to the north has a small front porch, and its attached garage is setback from the front of the house. 4. The hardcover in the 500-1000’ setback zone is well below the allowed 35%. 5. The existing residence was built in 1957. 6. The property to the south has been vacant for many years. If and when it will be developed cannot be predicted. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommcndatioii: If the Planning Commission concludes that the addition as proposed w ill be in character with the neighborhood, and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood, and if Planning Commission also concludes that there are adequate hardships present, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of vanances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. 1 able, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. tt02-2804 Phillip^'Constance Martin 1230 Arbor Street 7/8/2002 Page 3 of 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: RR-IB Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 20,484 s.f. (0.47 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Structural Lot Coverage: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000'20,484 s.f 7,169.4 s.f (35%)3,050 s.f (14.9%) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 20,484 s.f Allowed: 3,072 s.f (15%) Existing: 1,196 s.f (5.83%) Proposed: 2,180 s.f (10.6%) . • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Recchcd^J V^loT, Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address / Z- 30 A ^ 60 R 57^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) / O /17 Z3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survev. Date Property Acquired__________tS JTUtJE I (do) ^on^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present _(month/year) properly: X residential Zoning District: other (specify) APPLICANT Phone (home) Name rHii-LipG, fCOfJSTAf^c.e Phone(work) Address: l‘L2>0 *^T. City: OftOMd?_______Zip: SS'39 1 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S COO Describe request in detail: W4<?iAtOce, tq Ai-uocaJ llT t=r 't'AAD .3g7~i3Ac-k Al^b 2.^ <gr YaAJ) 6£T 6Ac.j< (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ^ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Sidi Hardcover .Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: AlTActiEj^ SHB£.7~ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2804 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All-of tht fQllQwine information must he submitted hv the annlicatino dMrilinP HafA 8» order for vour application to he comiderpd cftmpl«»fi»r 1. 2. 3. 1/ 4. 5. 6. ^ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owmcrs List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\t Center,“48-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11" for reproduction.- - • -----------------------uxi A II ILM icj;iuuutuon. k;_ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). 4^ 7. 8. List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovvner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour sarianc? application is not complete if the above information hns not hi.«.n inriurfu^, 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 Vee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his^'her knowled^ie. w Date iZ- /S, ^CO 2 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. Date is ( Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present a? all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangernents to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. #2 % L Attachment We are requesting two variances from the existing building codes. Ssiif 5 “'back. n,e co* specifies e 25 ft »dr^r‘'rs, iu?S“fe. TTie swond VMMce would allow building the garage and covered front porch 4 ft closer ^ Wdened as it carries very little traffic. We are proposing to align the garage front with this 4ft wide porch. f b ghbors and believe they would welcome the Improvement to the area. - J .nni .•.vw ‘ -y .‘.L^ 7(-^ k I 1^ * •• ' Im .**> « - • « 8 & 9 OCk /l HdXW To Crystal Bay —iw 25th March____* V Rev. 6/ 10 02 ‘rank R. Cardarelle Pr^ I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE House 75-250*250-500* Length Widih X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 2.6 X X / D. Sidewalk Z'/z. X X 2.1 E Patio/Deck X X a /zo F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X ■ A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ____________________-*■ B ______________ ____ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______^ />»Zi, Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 36 z L>X X e 0 D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck id X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other X 100 X 100 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONTE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 30J-0 » B ^o. ,100 o-iono' 2.&0 z.\c ’to a Z03I ------5^ // 96 ^ * 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. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •lOD S.F. iff O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /V. y A B A B riflOR PLAN #SR04 Eiiniaa»^.'';T|F'f*Tw ''jrtTrfi^H T{MllMa.lJ*r pgjOH r.a. UTH CLEMri(}N f r- ■/./. ■. ■'■■/■ ^ .» f/ II V. ;*»e&KTTT^ ' 4 ■dJLi JiM OWIMM ru«MT*lg LtAf PpiGM gft I /)r« ‘ r . • ! £A^r £L£¥ATIdlii V\ j> ‘ MAPr H KSlDLtKL •JMLLUIL nmiirwr irtr rf% »*—*■- iCJM . 4 -'•4 r ■' • • •' {,.Vc-' •’-I 'X A * 4 • * * f ^ ■ -"s') LC - . ^ 'I r^. ran,j . '^} j-l^ k i'l ^.m^ ijr 'U ' .. m-^ . *, . * SW; •.* • »,v* I '••' * 1- I «• • . ■ K/v-v.''l'3 ^*r. ’^i “ ■ I r^i^ ■ •iMi r:i4. X.v^'^^ M-: «; ’ ’<• ; <=^- - • •.. / ail 7- * • y ir>. .. - CSJ*r"^ »*—.Lc: ■ -V r - - .. f^»-g; -. -• /. ♦ ■:‘^\v “IvX.^-, ^ V. »r>^BL** V.; • ••4 ,<r mwmmB;M jm^:rrr^ m ^• m. < ■ -b* r^c f I r TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator,Tlanncr DATE: July 11. 2002 13 SUBJECT:#02-2805 Carson Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 10,200 s.f. (.23 acre) (9,987 s.f. excluding area in 929.4 ’) List of Exhibits: A Application B Site Plan C Hardcover Calculations D Floor Plans/ Views E Topographic Map Application Summary’: The applicant owns the subject property. 1 he applicant has worked very hard with the city to best meet city ordinances and construct a new house on the property. The plan before you is plan number 3. The latest changes were made as this report was written, therefore the site plan (Exhibit B) is included and not a sur\ ey. The applicant has requested variances to permit removal of the existing house and construction of a new house. The new house would be a tw o story/four bedroom house with a two stall “tuck under” garage space. According to Hennepin County records the existing house was constructed in 1910. Tlie house is about 350 s.f. in size. The new house would allow the property owners to have additional living space and a two stall garage. The proposed house will use the same driveway but will be closer to the road than currently located. Please refer to the attached site plan that shows the location of the house. Due to the small size of the lot and zoning standards, it is not possible to rebuild on the property w ithout requiring \ arianccs. Below is a summary of pertinent ordinances that require variance review. 1. Section 10.23. Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to lot area and lot width to permit construction of a new residence on the property in the LR-1 A district less than 2 acre and 200' width. The defined lot area is 9.987 s.f. absent the area below the 929.4'. The defined lot width is iOO' at the lakeshore and at the defined structure setback. #02-2805 Carson Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street 7/8/2002 Page I of 4 2. Section 10.55. Subdivision 8. Section 10.22. Subd. land 2. and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) land 2: Variances requested for hardcover and structure within 75’ of the 929.4’, where no hardcover or structure is allowed and hardcover in excess of the allowed 25% in the 75-250’ setback zone. Total Area 0-75’ = 7,500 s.f. Allowed 0-75’ = 0 s.f. Proposed 0-75’ = 1,473 s.f. (19,6%) Total Area 75-250’ = 2,487 s.f. Allowed 75-250’= 621.75 s.f. Proposed 75-250' = 710 s.f. (28.5%) Hardcover is decreasing in (he 0-75' setback area and increasing in the 75-250' setback area. The applicant is removing the spa, shed and other accessories item. The size of the existing house is 350 .s.f. and the proposed house would he 1,498 s.f The existing house was built on the east 50'parcel in 1 91 0. The west 50'parcel was legally combined with it in 1996 creating a 100'x 102' lot minus2l3s.f. below the 929.4' = 9.987 s.f. Still well below the reepdred 2 acres. The property was connected to sewer in 1 998. The land elevation is about 2' hig'.er than the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. City of Orono ordinance requires the lowest level of the residence to he 3' higher than the 929.4'. The lot cannot accommodate a basement. 'The site plan shows the first level elevation would be 932.4 '. The new house is proposed to be located 50 'from the lake shore where a 75' setback is required. The proposed deck is closer to the lakeshorc, 37'. Both adjacent houses arc approximately 50' from the lakeshorc. City of Orono ordinance requires 75 'from the lakeshore and the D,\R requires a minimum 50 'from the lakeshore. 3. Section 10.23, Subd 6 (B): Variances requested to allow encroachment into the 50' front yard setback. Required front setback = 50' Proposed = 9.0' The proposed house meets side yard setbacks. The adjacent houses are located approximately 12 ’ and 19 'from the Fast lake Street. Other houses on East lake Street are setback from 9'-l 3' (See Exhibit F). <*02*2805 Carson Erickson 3415 Easilake Street 7.8 2002 Page 2 of 4 History of Eastlake Street: Kastlake Street is zoned LR-IA (2 acre), however, most of the properties are .11 or .12 of an acre. Most of the residences in the area were built prior to the current zoning classification. Because of this, variances arc needed to further develop the properties. Staff researched Eastlake Street and four were found to have been granted variances. 1. 3403 Eastlake Street - 1991. (.27 acre) Approved to permit construction of detached 2 stall garage which is 39’ from the street lot line (50 ’ required), 37 ’ from side street (50 ’ is required), hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback over the allowed 25% and the building is located in the flood fringe. 2. 3405 Eastlake Street - 1987. (.114 acre). Approved to permit construction of three season porch 15’ from front lot line (50 ’ required) and 11.5’ from side lot line (30 ’ is required). 3. 3465 Eastlake Street - 1996. Entire lot in 0-75 ’. Approved to permit reconstruction of roof on house. The rear of the house is located 69’ from 929.4’ and the side is 22’ from 929.4’. 4. 3424, 3444 and 3464 Eastlake Street - Approved to permit construction of an accessor>' building without a principal building on the outlot. 5. 3464 Eastlake Street - (1986) (.46 acre). Approved to construct brick patio in 0-75 ’(80 s.f.- 1.2%) and 75-250 ’ (4,187 s.f. - 32.9%). Additional hardcover in 75-250 ’ was approved because of the low elevation in relation to the lake level, the residence has no basement, hence increased bulk and hardcover above ground was necessary to construct a suitable residence on the property. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. Recapping the main hardships: The lot is extremely undersized for the zoning district. Approximately 75% of the pro; erty is within 75’ of the 929.4’ water level. The setback requirements are such that variances are required in order to build on the property. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot has an existing residence on the property. 2. The properties surrounding the applicant’s lot are also undersized and do not meet the required area in the zoning district. Most lots on the street are 50' wide. 3. Almost 75% of the property lies w ithin the 0-75 ’ setback area. #02-2803 Coriton Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street 7/8/2002 Page 3 of 4 L 4. A house could not be constructed on the property without requiring variances. 5. The proposed development would conform to side yard setback requirements. 6. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer. 7. There is no additional land to further combine with this property. 8. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Survey Changes: Due to last minute changes the survey of the subject property is not included in this report, only the site plan. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application a condition would be to have a new survey with proposed development submitted to the City prior to going forward to the City Council. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the required variances to construct a new single family residence on the property. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. <*02-280.S Carson Erickson 3415 Eastlake Street 7/82002 Page 4 of 4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) Actual 9,987 s.f. (0.23 acre) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75’7,500 s.f.0 s.f.1,473 s.f. (0%)(19.6%) 75-250'2,487 s.f.621.75 710 s.f. (25%)(28.5%) Structural Lot Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 9,987 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f. Proposed: 1,498 s.f. iMUm -A C' Y OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 6X'S Date Received Amount Paid it*^OO.Oo PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address FOR^IATIONe»sr lai^^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) II Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired \0^ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ^ residential ___^other (specify) Zoning District:_____L ^ .(nionth/year) ezuje^iJ Phone (home) _ Phone (work) » TSLl” rSiAlO MU Zip:_________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUESl’Estimated Construction Cost $ rjqj.es. in dejail: M/£ f7l»tt<BeO fe«y»0 Otum ^ MWa eu TWfi^e eoMUtuaoPdu^fTevnmuC'. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _X. Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback: Front >4 Other (specify) *9^ Side Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: tUT /"Ail kitT 7 I CIMiT "ir> AtAO Of^ Ccni1i£ LOT. IaJE CtMJfUOMi to /i/r (attach additional sheets if necessary/) #2805 ^ VARAINCE RBaUE5TEP FOR THE F0LL0WIN6; STUBBS BAY CRffiC SET BAC< OF 250*‘T3' . p ac,t i AferP PjPFFT LOT AREA OF 2 ACRES ANO LOT WIDTH OF'MO'^^^' unKt:?iruici FRONT SETBACK OF 50' REAR SET BACK OF 50'.PROPERTY LINE 3415 EAST LAKE STREET \oo.a lllllllil ^4 I O M O ► H H (A OZ \c >oooz >ro o M 0>ro >4 oo o o SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500* y VTSTIMG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______• Lftof^ X X X ‘ V ' • • .. :••' B. Oenje- • ♦ • C. Driveway •*. • • X X D. Sidewalk Af»2oi>i3 ' ^-6 X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landsc^e Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other rf/- f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • .____________ +. B . yPOPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ X htzi± X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X De Sidewalk X X E. Pacio/Dcdc X X F; Landacape Uaderialn By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0« Ocher WbSdi : •• •. (0. *7 ’7 n.<-/ xioo Wkl<h TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE V. A + B 7^tOQ„^xlOO 1 ’ 500-1000* a ■ Sl'I.S.F. • S.F. • S.F. S.F. ■ M\l-S.F. *^Va‘ *S.F. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. J25*S.F. /.3 S.F. V • S.F. 3'/S.F. S.F. S.F. A‘7. ti7 Q40 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. •PtCO1S.F. S.F. • -S.F. • • •S.F. 533 • S.F. S.F. S.F. ‘S.F. ---------- S.F. • _S.F. N-15 • S.F. a-^ro S.F. 56 A E SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* * • y yiCTTNG HARDCOVER IS ZONE A. House ______• » ham >cover calculatiqtlworksheet 250-500’ Ltoxli WUth X X X .. B. Oerese- C. Driveway D. Sidewalk * E. Patio/Deck F. Landsc^e Uaderiain By Plastic Or Fabric Hcg.:3S-SM G. Other • .? % X X X X X X X X 0.7 «.T P/7 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ■_ _ _ _ _. B ,xlOO yPOPOSEP TrARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ A. House _____________ ^ Ixzi'h YTwlth B. Garege C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pacio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X /G X X X X» X X X X X a1tJ> ma BS O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ - A *7/:j ♦ B XlOO 500-1000' S.F. S.F. S.F. ,s.p. S.F. i • • • ’■^5’ S.F. «. S.F. TV r> V(3 5"(r 0 /o9- S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. "S.F. S.F. _S.F. S.F. TTTTT 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. r »r»-« •• A f ?] w •'-.>' 41 O' o 7?^ SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING WOOD LAP SIDING 30’ MAXIMUM HEIGHT FAS VATION snii VATinN NO oCAlL AL ’ NO Sf:ALE 30' MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHINGLE ROOF WOOD SIDING WOOD LAP SIDING NORTH FLfVATIO'WfST Fir VATION NO 'jCAlt A2 NO otAlE mniii o o tii>3 5 I & 5 (< • ! # , » 1 r •• • 0•\ '•V ••• ' 'p , ■ V. r 'i) , MAIN FLOOR PLAN A*7I NO ^AU siTnnn itoor plan ■*'2 I NO 'jCALL ifiimii s *t5 g lP I^i: I*' I 0>i^^11 Si A-2 Complete Date: Deadline: 6/19/02 8/18/02 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator July 8,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2808 Jim and Jean Echtenkamp 2800 Pheasant Road Variances List of Exhibits: A Application B Plat Map C Site Topography/Measurement of Average Lakeshore Setback D Hardcover Calculation Worksheet E Resolution No. 2862 (1990) F Property Owners Notification List G Supplemental Application Materials - i.etter of Application Addendum to Application Letter of Request/Hardship Statements - Existing Site Survey Proposed Site Plan - Floor Plans Building Elevation Views - Neighborhood Photographs Application Summarx: The Applicants have requested a hardcover and an average lakeshore setback variance to permit redevelopment of the property. They intend to remove the existing residence and construct a new residence on the property. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd 2 16 (L): Hardcover in excess of 25% in the 75-250* Setback 2. Section 10.22. Subdivision I (B) and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) (6); To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. i02-2808 Jini and ican Echlcnkjiiip 28U0 f hcasam Road Page 1 of4 Background: This property did have variances approved in 1990 that allowed additions to the existing house, including a three-season porch and upper level deck additions. At that time the approval established a maximum allowed hardcover of 35.5% in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback area. That approval includes all existing hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback, but did not address the amount of hardcover located within the 0-75' setback. The hardcover is broken down as follows: 0-75 ’Existing 2.785 s.f (4.2%) m Proposed 1,802 sf (2.7%) 75-250 ’Existing 7,856 s.f (34.9%) Proposed 8,810 s.f (39.2%) Total Hardcover on property: Existing Proposed 10,641 s.f. 10,614 s.f. The total allowed hardcover on the property based on the 1990 variance is 7,988 s.f. or (35.5%) for the 75-250' setback. Adding the 2,785 s.f that had existed equaled a total hardcover of 10,773 s.f on the property. Total hardcover in the 0-75' setback would be reduced by 983 s.f The remainder of the hardcover within 75 ’ of the lake is primarily due to the seawall that surrounds the properly. The properly owner had initial discussions with staff to discuss future redevelopment of the site. Based on some unique features of the site the property owners have requested variances to allow the same amount of hardcover on the property as currently exists. The existing house was constructed in the 1 940s and has been vacant since 1998. The property had been for sale for much of this time. Average Lakeshore Setback V’ariancc The propeity is two acres in size w ith approximately 1,600' of shoreline and includes a peninsula. The line of sight is measured from the two adjacent properties resulting in no building area on the property. Because the lot is on a peninsula, views from adjacent residential buildings are not directly affected. The existing house is actually located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The new house is being mo\ ed further from the lake leaving more lake view for the house to the north of the peninsula. The houses located in the channel do not have a direct view of the lake based on existing trees and current location of the house. «02-280B jim ami Jean Echtenkamp 28(H) Pheasant Road Page 2 of 4 Review of Hardship The applicant’s hardship statements are attached. To summarize, the applicants have pointed out that they have a 2 acre lot in a 1 acre zoning district. 66,046 s.f. of the lot is located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore, and only 22,497 s.f. is located within the 75-250* lakeshore setback. 983 s.f. of hardcover that exists on the property within 75 ’ of the lakeshore will be removed based on the new house ’s location outside the 75 ’ setback. The property owners argue a variance should be granted due to the disproportionate amount of land located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. All th property within 75 ’ of the lakeshore would provide adequate absorption area. The total hardcover devoted to the house and driveway areas would not increase from existing levels. Hardcover that would remain within 75 ’ of the lakeshore would be for a seawall that was constructed around the peninsula in the 1970s to protect against shoreline erosion. The seawall, because it is located above the 929.4' high water level of Lake Minnetonka, is hardcover within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The seawall was constructed with City, DNR, and Corps of Engineers approval. Issues for Discussion 1.Based on the peninsula, is this a unique property because the lot is abutted by the lake on one side and the lagoon on the other? Because of this situation about Vi of the 2 diy buildable acres are in the 0-75’ setback. Is the average lakeshore setback variance justified based on the lot being a peninsula lot? The new house is proposed to be built further from the lake than the existing house which will open more view for the most affected property to the west. The Council adopted Resolution No. 2862 (copy attached) that established hardcover approved at 35.5% for the 75-250’ setback in 1990. The total allowed 1990 hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback added to the amount of hardcover that would be removed from the 0-75’ setback results in the amount of hardcover being requested in this application. The positive change is hardcover devoted to the driveway and house would be located entirely outside the 75' lake setback. f02*2SOS Jim and Jean Echtenkamp 2S00 Pheaswl Road Page 3 of 4 Jm Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the fact the property is a peninsula lot and there is no suitable building site on the entire 2 acres without a variance. The proposed house is located further from the lakeshore than the existing house. Staff can support the rationale in allowing additional hardcover beyond 25% in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback based on previous approvals o; hardcover on the property in 1990. In order for the Planning Commission to approve such a request a finding of hardship related to the size of the property and the fact that 1.5 acres of the lot is located within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The total hardcover shall not exceed what currently exists on the property. The property owners have worked with staff over the past several months to reduee as much mass and hardcover as possible. 1 he version of the plan for review has been revised and hardcover reduced as a result of some of those discussions. Any such approval is subject to the house not exceeding the 30 ’ height restriction. Applicants shall be placed on notice that the elevation sketches are somewhat rough and are very close to exceeding the 30' height limitation based on the roof design. (The sketches do indicate a building height of 30'. Varianee applications only require sketehes that ean, on occasion, vary slightly from final plans.) When more detailed architectural plans arc submitted for a building permit the height will have to be reviewed again to ensure that it meets all standards. No height variance would be supported by staff. Options for Action: 1 . Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. 102*2108 Jim and Jean Echtenkimp 2800 Pheasant Road Pi«e4of4 "I i! I 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 # Q^~2.Qf OS Date Received" /i 5 /o 2, Amount Paid ^ \ OO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address St^OO "^Vxeo^OJr>\ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ♦ 3.\ • VVI» 21^ • 'SIl - OOQ*4 ________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prooe^Acquired ■ ^002- _________________^(month/year) I (do) (do n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Y residential Zoning District:___________________ other (specify) APPLICANT Name -Avvts ojt^ ^c^\er^ca^ Address: ____^Citv:~\:(Bx^^c~■tt Phone (home) SSa. • *-VOV Phone (work) UV a. ♦ L ^ __Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (\vork)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost $ V, ,0C>0 (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width y Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: S>^> __________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ♦ •' /. •*’ ’ required submittals 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Fmance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ L;epanment ot Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover repJ^uS.“ "" Topographic survy (listing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existina grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) coov 8'/." x tl" f?.; Sketches or ptas of fioor dk elevation views'(ir^de^loKop; List of the leg^ names (mclude marital status) of all persons with an interest h Aw propeij'. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovvTier(s) As an addend!^ to Ais application, please attach a separate list of any oAer persons you wish notified of this application. ^ ^ “ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour larianct appitcanon la not tomplm if thVnho^c informntinn has »»» APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Zoning. Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pavS ^d/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies thaT ie information supplied is true and i^aect^J^«t of his^eriknowledge. Applicant’s Signature t)ate ~^V3VvQ, VH, a.OQ2- OWNER'S SIGNATURi: ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consul^ts, agents. Qo«rtnicc:««______ ^ ^ .. members for purposes of invesf^atioiv^Cnd^l^ficati"^ ' Owner's Signature nission members, and Council cquest. 'Date VS, Q-002. Applicant must have ^11 submittals into ‘'the City offices davs b/.fnr- »k- di Con»i„i„„ p,„„u„g Conuuisslon Meefin^gs 3,7:^ o„t.\hh?L^dav momh. Appheante muat be preseot al all scheduled review meeliag, „f ,he Pl.Li.. ComaiBsion aad Couaeil. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled-----° \ ... y, Heh^epin County Taxpayer Services Department #o // ^ ^ I rt- I- in- rr^WO'arcel Inhumation PamI ID 2111723320004 HouwNuoibarOOOO OtfMl Nam* PHIMANT no This is not a logaty tBOonM map. n mprasonts a compilation o/Monnation and data from City. County, and State mad authoritiaa and othar aourcas. % H2\rdcover information 2800 Pheasant Total property area Existing hardcover in the 0<7S’zone Total property area in 0-75’ zone Percentage of coverage Proposed reduction of hardcover in 0-75’ zone Percentage of coverage Existing hardcover in 75-250’ zone Total property area in 75-250’ zone Percentage of coverage in 75-250’ zone Proposed increase of hardcover in 75-250’ zone Percentage of coverage Net Change in hardcover on entire property Total hardcover on the property P 1 jJ . V \ * - / - 88,543 sf = ?7»S€f ■- 66,046 sf = 4.22 % = 983 sf = 2.70% 1902. s.f. ?*'o P« 2.7^0 ^ =r7 8S6sf tit -- 22,497 sf = 34.92 % = 954 sf ( pVOT Osf 12% /P 10 City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __ 2862 mm:-- p9sfc';iBronoJ A RBSOLOTION GRANTING A VARIANCES TO MDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 FILE #1582 WHEREAS, Carol Burgess (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner* of the property located at 2800 Pheasant Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, Attached, (hereinafter "the property"); WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 & 2 to permit the construction of 3 season porch and upper level dec)c additions, such porch and dec)cs encroaching past the defined average lalceshore setbac)c line where no encroachment is normally allowed , and such additions comprising hardcover in the 75-250' lalceshore setback 2one in excess of 25% hardcover normally allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1582. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Si/'gia Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 20, 1990 and recommended approval of the proposed variance on a vote of 5 to 0, based upon the following findings; a. Because this house is on a peninsula, the average lakeshore setback line is outside of the property boundaries. The proposed additions are no nearer the shoreline than the neighboring residence to the west. No lakeviews enjoyed by that neighboring property owner will be affected by these additions. The other abutting neighbor, adjacent to the lagoon, is so far distant that the impact of the view encroachments is insignificant. b. Approximately 3/4 of the dry buildable acreage on this 2-acre property are in the 0-75' zone. Because of this, the 75-250' zone is relatively small in relation to the total lot area. Existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 35.5%. Although the proposed additions increase structural hardcover on the property by 114 s.f. or 0.5%, there are areas of landscaping hardcover that can and should be Page 1 of 4 SI'- PRONO\ ■^9 <■!*>''■V 'sVv Vv?‘V -: • •City of OROrVO RESOLUTSON OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ___2862 vS:-' removed in equivalent amounts, yielding no net increase in hardcover on the property. c. Hardcover on the property as a whole is 13.3% of the entire lot, leaving 86.7% of the lot in vegetated area available for the absorption and filtration of run-off. -4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 & 2 to permit the construction of a 3 season porch and upper level decks, such porch and decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such improvements constituting additional hardcover in the 75-250' zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed in that zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75-250' zone is approved at a level of 35.5%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to the resolution as 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 removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 .1 ■ j City of OROINO 4. ,.-A,?'V 'K* ’it5r^.CITY- fepf,v-..RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2862 s’VV'- ••• *• V*. W'. 2. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (August 27, 1991). 3. 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. 4. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, h£s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Oron August, 1990. City Council on this 27th day of STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acJcnowledged before me on this 27th day of August, 1990, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. vCITY Of ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2862 _ _ _ .a yt 0 VV' •V*•vv- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) } ss. *o* ) day of 1990 his (their) free act and aeed. Hojsr^AjVjsi&sam**hennepim cquN^, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) «_ w• Aav of » 199 • before me sr.:'a;gn;.;s.¥”!r'x^";-s (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 • ^ /'f 1 t LEGAL DESCRIPTION c T <k4- 1 ii "Dhoac^^nt lawn" dcscrlbsd as follows; Beginning at the -Lot 13 and that part l_ot 13 in said -Pheasant Lawn': thence Northwest- Southeasterly • Ltween Lots 13 and M to the Northeasterly or most NortherlyI-L^rs^S^Lir^irti 3 enecUn, at an a^ -o. ^“rinftlJeWSee^sLd L^^ if and ! f a'dfsiancr" !Sr?ee ““ien?e easterly de|le=tin, viding line between saiau described course, a distance of 385 at an angle riaht anqle southerly 75 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minne- feet; westerly along the shore of said lake to the point of beginning, according tr^he pJ«“h««roi: ?i!rand o£ record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County and State." I hereby certify that this survey was prepared bv me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. COFFIN t GRONBERG, INC. ** ^ A, . • 'iV/--. • e. .e •r * *• *' f/ Mark S. Gronberg Mn. Lie. No. 12755 Engineers, Land Surveyors. Planners ___— f _ ten iKr osota ilr pa fsj 00 ON ro ^heamanh «' *A P »• • '- V>A ^ ^ KAfiDCOViS CALCULATION HORKSHEET ^?<fn&/rj^_ |Cesot.#_i®ii StTBACK 20HE: (CIRCLE che) 0-75’ (73-2^ 250-500' 500-1000' Existing Harocove.^ in Zone A. House i*/. 6 X 2/. 5-■Moo. 1 S.P*% •«LE-NCTH ^7. y X HIOIH Zi.7 S.F. •L-.<«• • •X .at • S.F. •> .f . •. • i-' K • • X .S.F.' ‘ •/ * X . • S.F. • A 3. G arage X «.■. S.F.=!bs •c. D riveway X m 2(>S^S.F. - X m • S.F. 0. Sicewalx 35 _ X s rs m 1 7<^S.F.JC r • • 5* >"4 Z.Z. o L , i - X ■S.F. !6f^'A- l.lCy S.F.1 •' iE. Patio /— ^y«Q. D eck >. V 2/- X im — /S.F. \g!y 'f '. - p.Landscape s'". X A C»a 2. lU S.F. ] AREAS UMCERLAIM 3Y X J m 34-&S.F. /PLASTIC SHEETING G. Other X X X 33^ AT IXA^r IH sf. LAKE Total Karocover in Zzuz - _ 7^/7.7 s.f. fT] Total Property Area in Zone - —s.f. "b1 7P^7. 7 -r [TL.££i2:£. X ICO - 3S.SO % mm DATE tA/lA/02 BATCH SOI HENNEPIN COUNTY POOPERTY INfORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 21-117-23 23 OOIA 00038 ADDRESS UNASSX^ED PHEASANT LAWN HONEOWNERS PHEASANT LAWN HONEOWNERS 2700 PLEASANT RD EXCELSIOR HN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 21-117-23 2A 000^ 02725 SHADYWOOD RD N D 8 R A NEEK NICHAEL D i ROBERTA A NEEK 2725 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 21-117-23 32 0003 02709 PHEASANT RD ELNER J NARTINSON ELNER J NARTINSON 2709 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 $0 REPORT NO. PI035001 PAGE 1 38 21-117-23 23 0015 02780 PHEASANT RD T J NAHONEY f K A NAHONEY TINOTHY J NAHONEY 2760 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 21-117-23 20 0003 02705 SHADYWOOD RD G 0 8 J N FOX , GAYLORD 0 8 JON NARIE FOX 2705 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 21-117-23 31 0003 02705 SHADYWOOD RD JANES E ZINNERNAN JANES E ZINNERNAN 2705 SHADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 21-117-23 32 0002 02795 PHEASANT RD RICHARD A NARZAN RICHARD A NARZAN 2795 PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR NN 55331 38 21-117-23 32 0000 02800 PHEASANT RD JANES D ECHTENKANP ET AL JANES 8 JEAN ECHTENKANP 120 BIRCH BLUFF RD TONKA DAY NN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 501 00008 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTV DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF DATE PARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, IV THI 1-n June 19, 2002 Mr. Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planning Ms. Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator City of Orono Dear Mr. Weinberger and Ms B ;tenberg; Attached is our application requesting a hardcover variance to reduce 983 square feet of non-conforming hardcover in the 0-75’ zone and increase the existing hardcover in the 75-250’ .Tone by the same square footage. The requested variance would create no change in the overall hardcover and would bring the property dwelling in compliance with set back requirements. Our application reflects the direction provided to us beginning with an initial meeting with Gaffron, our subsequent meeting with both of you and our follow-up meeting shortly before submission. As a direct result of your feedback we have made addition J revisions to our plans: 1. ^. 3. Reduction in main floor plan of our home from 3,800 square feet to 3,600 square feet. Reduction in the garage width and length by about four feet each way. Downsized turn around on the driveway, bringing the driveway into the build able zone (it is currently in the 0-75’ zone) and reducing its hardcover. Elimination of steps and walkway from main level to lower level patio on the lakeside, leaving that area in grass. We have attempted to be good stewards of this site and balance what is reasonable for the property while maintaining the spirit of the zoning ordinance. The plan reflects a much- improved site in terms of set back, hardcover in the varying zones and safety issues that currently affect both our property and our neighbors. Thank you for your consideration. Youp truly, />dean and Jim ^htenkamp . I .v.‘ ■ ■ < & Addendum to variance aPDiication for 2800 Pheasant Road m This addendum to the hardcover calculation worksheet clarifies the hardcover associated with the existing dwelling. The existing hardcover in zone submitted with our application is accurate in terms of total existing hardcover. However it is misleading in that the hardcover listed for category i^. House, calculates only the foundation hardcover. The calculation minimizes dwelling hardcover by applying the hardcover created by overhangs and decking to underlying patio and sidewalk. To illustrate this, the hardcover calculation on file with the City dated 1990 lists category A. House hardcover in the 0-75’ and 75-250’ zones as 3,103.7 square feet, exclusive of dwelling decking and a four season porch that was constructed after the calculation. This is an important clarification since we are referencing the approximate dwelling hardcover of the existing home at 3,500 feet. REQUEST To obtain a hardcover variance for the reduction of 983 square feet of non-conforming hardcover in the 0-7S ’ zone and increase the existing hardcover in the 7S-2S0 ’ zone by 954 square feet. The requested variance would create no change in the overall hardcover aifd would bring the property dwelling in compliance with set back requirements. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND mSTORY 2800 Pheasant Road consists of 88,543 square feet of land of which 66,046 square feet is contained in the 0-75 ’ zone and 22,497 square feet is contained in the 75-250 ’ zone. The property is bordered by 1,600 feet of shoreline, which minimizes the build able zone. Overall hardcover on the property is 12.01% leaving 88% in a vegetated state for absorption and run-off. Currently, 983 square feet of the existing dwelling is non-conforming hardcover located in the 0-75 ’ zone. In cooperation with governing agencies, a seawall was constructed around the peninsula in the 1970 ’s to protect against shoreline erosion. The homeowner is responsible for maintaining the seawall on an ongoing basis. The existing dwelling, built in the 1940’s, has been unoccupied and not maintained since 1998. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The spirit and intent of the zoning code is to ensure that the development and use of land is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive plan. The variance procedure allows the law to be modifled when: 1. A unique situation exists; 2. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship; and 3. The end result would be within the intent of the comprehensive plan o o ,r>. Unique Situation The two-acre property is bordered by 1600 feet of shoreline and includes a peninsula. Within the property’s total square footage of 88,543 feet, three quarters or 66,046 square feet are located in the 0-75’ zone. This results in a property where the average lakeshore setback line is outside of the property boundaries The actual build able area, within the 75-250’ zone, comprises a relatively small proportion of the total lot area. In addition, the long and narrow configuration of the build able zone requires disproportionate use of hardcover for property access. While the property is well over 300 feet deep, the wrap around effect of the peninsula precludes a 250-500 foot zone where 30% hardcover would be allowed. Both the attached survey and pictures illustrate the uniqueness of the lot. Undue Hardship Section 10.08 subd. 3 of the zoning ordinance set forth examples of “undue hardships’ Those specifically set forth and which apply directly to 2800 Pheasant include the following: 1. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Three-fourths of the dry acreage is in the 0-75’ zone. Adjacent properties with smaller lot sizes have sufficient depth to allow for build able area in the 250-500’ zone where 30% hardcover applies. However the unique nature of our lot, with lakeshore wrapping all around it, precludes having a 250-500’ zone. The circumstances of a 600-foot long. 75-foot wide peninsula are wholly unique to this property. In addition, the narrow aspect of the build able zone requires a disproportionate use for the driveway access hardcover, compromismg hardcover allocation for the dwelling. By way of example, if the Lakeshore did not wrap around the property and a normal 10’ side yard aCi back applied, our property would qualify for over 10,000 feet of hardcover in the build able zone, even with 800 feet of water on the lakeside and the peninsula, which is unique in and of itself It is the last 300 feet of lagoon lakeshore that creates the unique circurr>stances and hardship to our property by minimizing and eliminating the 75’-250 and 250’-500’ zones. 2. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential chara- • s r of the locality. The variance will result in 0 net hardcover change and reduce r-n- v»c i informing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Our proposed home is similar in srze .u neighboring properties The Pheasant road neighborhood currently has two remodel additions and one new home under construction Two doors down our neighbor is constructing a new home with dwelling hardcover of over 4,700 square feet. Even though it is on a lot one-half the size of ours, it requires no hardcover variance. Our current dwelling hardcover is approximately 3,500 square feet. The new home will be 3,600 square feet for the home and 1,100 for the attached garage. In comparison to the home under construction two .?,? (Cv>, ■ rr V; !f • % ^r. fi doors down, our proposed dwelling hardcover is S.3% of our total lot compared to our neighbor ’s new dwelling hardcover of 10% of their total lot. 3. Economic consideration alone is not the reason for this request. Economic considerations really have no bearing on the request. Should a variance not be granted, the applicant would be required to rebuild on the existing foundation. The resulting hardcover in both the 0-75’ and 75-250’ zone would be unchanged from today and would result in the continued non-conformity with the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive plan. Alternatively, if the variance is granted, it will be somewhat more expensive to set back a new home and foundation within the 75-250’ zone, but the result will be a reduction in hardcover bringing conformity to the 0-75’ zone, no net increase in overall hardcover, and a structure that more fully complies with the Comprehensive plan and spirit of the zoning ordinance. 4. The special conditions applying to the land are peculiar to such property and the condition does not generally apply to other land in the district. As stated, there is no other property in Orono that is two acres, peninsular, has one and one-half dry acres in the 0-75’ zone and approximately 1,600 feet of shoreline resulting in the average lakeshore setback line outside the property boundaries This condition reduces build able zone by significantly reducing the size of the 75-250’ zone and eliminating the 250-500’ zone that is available to lakefront neighbors who have much smaller lots. 5. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 2800 Pheasant has been vacant for over three years. We believe that the primary reason for this inactivity was concern that a new house could not be constructed via a variance request. In this case, a 25% hardcover limitation, combined with the difficult driveway access, would result in the inability to construct a reasonable dwelling structure In fact the resulting available hardcover available for this two-acre site, after driveway access, would be approximately 2000sf, inclusive of overhangs sidewalks, landscaping and patio. Such a limitation effectively deprives the applicant of it’s property right to construct a reasonable dwelling unit on their land. 6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. In fact, the granting will bring the property more within the spirit of the zoning ordinance by decreasing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone and significantly increasing the grassed surface for run off in the 0-75’ zone when the dwelling structure is moved back into the 75-250’ zone. In addition, the improved access to the house will promote safety by redirecting on street parking and improving traffic flow to and from the home. •-». •• .• «• ^ vV->/✓ 7, The granting of such variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship. The identifiable hardships to our site are: a) Reasonable and safe access to our home; and b) Available dwelling hardcover in light of the large amount of site area that is not covered. The current driveway is only eight feet wide and has a small apron that is partially in the 0-75’ zone. The proposed home includes a small circular drive that would be moved entirely within the 75-250’zone. We believe that the circular drive is important for access and safety reasons. The drive would allow for off street parking by visiting vehicles to the property. The neighborhood is currently served by the fire hydrant at the entrance to 2800 Pheasant. This area of the street also serves as parking for approximately six summer docks. Currently, dock owners and visiting vehicles tend to park in the cul-de-sac and on the street, limiting access and emergency vehicle parking and turn around in the area of the hydrant. In addition to the parking issue, the existing driveway style is hazardous and un^e, forcing guests to back out a considerable distance. In our plan, we have minimized dwelling hardcover in order to do the right thing in terms of safety for our family and neighborhood by allocating one-third of our requested hardcover for a safer turnaround access. This has been a challenge but we think we have achieved a safe and positive balance without increasing hardcover. It is preferable and important for vehicles to drive out rather than back out from the property. The proposed turn around effectively eliminates the safety concerns while using approximately the same iiardcover as the existing driveway, provides much better traffic flow and is aesthetically more attractive. Another hardship is the relatively small size of the build able zone for a two-acre site. Neighboring properties of approximately one acre achieve about 10,000 feet in the build able zone without variance At 25% hardcover, our site would be allowed just 5,500 of hardcover. As noted above, if a normal side yard set back applied, our site would qualify for over 10,000 feet of hardcover and a variance would not be required. With this limitation, we have attempted to present a plan that improves upon the site with no change in overall hardcover. In addition, *he instructions to the variance application require a hardship to be; a. Uncommon; b. Run with the land; And further the instructions provide examples of such hardships including; a. Lakes; b. Existing structure locations; and c. Unusually shaped property without adjacent vacant land. The above instructions are directly on po'mt with 2800 Pheasant. *5- . \ Comprehensive Plan L. Our request for variance also is consistent with the goals and spirit of the Comprehensive plan: 1. Impervious surface within the 0-75’ zone is being reduced tvith no net increase of overall hardcover. 2. Grassed surface is being increased in the 0-75’ zone, providing for additional area for rainfall run-off not only from 2800 Pheasant, but also the adjacent property which lies on higher ground and drains to the 0-75’ zone of 2800 Pheasant. 3. The proposed structure is not nearer the shoreline than the neighboring residence (in fact it will be set back some twenty feet further than currently exists) and is in keeping with the Character of the locality. 4. No Lakeview enjoyed by neighboring property will be affected, other than positively. In fact, view encroachments to our westerly neighbor will be decreased. 5. Granting the variance will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air and vrill not pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property. The turn around drive will actually improve traffic conditions and reduce fire hazard and visibility related dangers to the neighborhood Structural Mass The proposed home will fit well with the site and the neighborhood. Where an older home has sat vacant in a family neighborhood for several years, our goal is to build a home that will add to the neighborhood and where we can raise our family. It reflects many of the aspects of turn of the century lake properties. Visually it will fit well on the large site. The new home will be of similar width and depth to neighboring properties. The proposed width is actually less that the exiting home While the two and one-half level home results in more finished square feet than currently e.xists, it utilizes the same overall hardcover. We are not requesting a height variance. Our home will comply with the maximum height-zoning ordinance. SUMMARY In summary, while we are requesting a variance from the 25% hardcover ordinance, our application addresses the significant hardships associated with the property while more fully complying with the intent and spirit of the zoning ordinance than the exiting structure. Our new home will conform to and improve the conditions of the neighborhood and result in a residence that will be a part of Orono for many years Finally, our request addresses the exact circumstances that Section 10.08 subd. 3 of the zoning ordinance contemplate. f. ^4 ♦ • lit ' A. V ici CtRIiriCATC or SURVEY rOR JAMES ECHTENKAMP EASANT ROAD IN LG IS 13 i 14. PHEASANT LAVN HENNEPIN COUNT.*. MINNESOTA MINNETONKA I n y It mm% «w *•*« »v l««« U m* l« «• «« Ifcr—Miny ar ■■ <>■■<» ^ H« t«« Ui •! «.#• •# Itr lyiM 19 .•»««■ «• •• *»<«• IM« mm-m, • «r IM »*r% mi#vwm«*>«v fvaMi •« •<■ wM La«a t> t« • «i«M« •# M «nM« —<■><> •« «> •r 9« mw9M m ft* »■ i*^ frm iMft «*•«>«■« —.a’**. • a*ft*»— ml #«»% •« ft T% immt. «v« m .. N --«« mm mmrm •«• «*• «• •• ••>* aft >*»■•» «a «w p*« a* M* ftH« *r »aiar<« •« •* t0 9m ftft#ft»>^ af f»«aft ti •« far aMft faaiftt m* t« — ^ ftawa*»ft 9m. rnmmm tm 99t *«Mi tNa W*«ir 9%amm ft* 9mm 9m 99 9m mmrnmm m» mm mmmm-m ft-* ftiftar >a**.*iftii«* «r ftf •«* PW. It A GO O OD C/)?* U5, Sii C/0?r oSll KD? q:“u>: LET LD CJu “)a QCa. A .1*-^ 14' • U-.^ >«4 -^29.4 CONTOUR LINC K E » r y'.. tr -, .' S f V< * . ^'': J ' -.. ^ t . ,• r A T! n 4 \ .r JiO O AQw fZj Cv \J o S? sSEi Cl^l.nrKi pr-: I^q^K \1±-: -I \ I ® /:.•c. t ! V J-’-C') O / iiQrr ri.j O' o o I ' -A i , •« I lillff? i k^By^ . -«. *«-K . ^ ^ * I » v22Sii«l U'ln:. Igi!Mlii!l. 'lifijs^'^'lTfrit^^ viii(lillii|i)|flM| as^isrg&'*^^i■ Wiy^ jggg»ii I'l't'iii I i 111 ';lii|iiil^'S lii«jiiiilg?j;)rtTO w * f ’"V------------ UIm. €>\i4^ «&V,>^W •/p«. !•>"V ' •• *• ■K» 1^- 9* \o.e%.m*^^ t I -I l**- H (‘J *M l/i»"- v-<^"^ *5-H--r&r44«i->* M t'lnl*^ \ \ \ s »-c oc E I- h 8 SI c?p-^tk fe u & v/^*r I OH i/b*s l'^'* ' to/nfou (Ti ►-■ fij U 01 A * ’.VT^^Ss* '.j^* .* . ••" *^^^5?^^^^\5E?S55ift ^ ^ 4 . , . ‘^>* jM?^ Irjyg ^^i(li!'IIUlMll'ii4 ■■■^ • » » • « , . » /j • \\L iLifji 'kjimf^ZP-^^^Mi ' IliiiiliilSii’iii! ii, f % iiil Mi 5 t» Ot *HtV, w.. - -fe i .* N. *■* * - '^..r " T'!:'* - ■; i* * BX'S-ht^ C^v^l y/ ^U^CK'^ i*f^f njwii » ¥ ■»\ v.i A/vq4tx.^ a' 7^ /5 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator July 10,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2803 JelT Martineau on behalf of Cheny’ Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Preliminary Plat Review Lot Area; 7.75 acres (5.85 Dr>' Buildable) List of Exhibits: A Application B Property Owners Notification List C Plat Map D Lot Layout E Septic Review and Comments Application: Cherry Stubbs is the owner of the property proposed for subdi /ision. Jeff Martineau on behalf of Ms. Stubbs has applied for a preliminary plat of property located at 2920 Fox Street. 'Hie property is a 7.75 acre property to be divided to create one new building site (Lot 1), and driveway for back lot (Outlot A). The existing driveway off Fox Street will still be used by the house on the front lot. 1 he lots are proposed as follows: Lot 1 = 4.82 acres (3.10 acres dry contiguous) Lot 2 = 2.54 acres (2.31 acres dry contiguous) Oi:t*ot A = 0.25 acre (Driveway Outlot) Subdivision Standards: 1 he general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. Back lots are defined as “a lot typically separated from a public or private road by another lot and which gains access to the public or priva* e road via a narrow corridor. Such a separated lot is considered to be a back lot when the corridor is platted as an outlot.." The special requirements for a front lot/back lot division arc the back lot (Lot 1). because the property docs not have direct access to a road, must meet a minimum of 1 50% of the minimum lot standards in the zoning district, in this case Lot 1 must have a minimum lot size of 3 acres, and a principal building shall meet a minimum setbacks 1 50% of the district standard. The lot is in the RR-IB district, which requires a minimum lot size of 2 acres. Setbacks in the district arc 50’ front and rear yard, and 30’ for the side yard. <*02-2803 Martineau Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Class II Subd.-Prclim Plat July 11.2002 Page I Back lots are required to have a driveway access a minimum of 30’ in width. Outlot A meets the 30’ requirement. Wetlands: The surveyed area noted above reflects the recent wetland delineation. The wetland at the north end of the property is City protected. The smaller w etland nearer the center of the property is not City protected but is subject to WCA regulations. No wetland impacts are proposed. Septic Revieiy: Matt Bolterman. On-Site Systems Manager, has reviewed the septic sites and has determined both the primary and alternate drainfield sites meet all City and State standards. The site evaluations were completed by S-P Testing. Inc. The existing septic located on Lot 2 is a non-conforming system and needs to be replaced by 2010. If Lot 2 is redeveloped, the new- septic sites have been reviewed and it has been determined that both the primary and alternate drainfield sites meet all City and State standards. Yard Requirements: Required set’oacks for Lots 1 and 2: Lot 2 Front 50' (Front Lot) Side 30' Rear 50' Side adjacent to Outlot A 50' Lot I Front 75' Side 45' Rear 75* (Back 1 .ot) Both lots meet all requirements for subdivision w ithout the need for area, width or setback variances. Residence on Lot 2: The existing reside 'ce on Lot 2 does not meet the side yard setback from Outlot A. The setback from Outlot A is 50’. 1 t.c residence is located approximately 30’ which requires a variance. At this point it has not been determined if the structure will remain or be removed. The surx ey does indicate a building site which meets all setbacks. Many other outbuildings exist on the property, many of which would become non-conforming. Applicant should address the intent for these buildings. P02-28O3 Martineau Stubbs 2‘>20 Fox Street Class II Subd -Prelin Plat July 11. 2002 Page 2 Outlot A: Outlot A is created as an access outlot for a private driveway to serve Lot 1 . Access ouilots are required to be a minimum of 30’ wide to accommodate drainage, snow removal and screening without encroaching on neighboring properties. Outlot A is 30’ wide meeting the 30’ requirement. Trails: The subdivision proposal will go to the Park Commission on July 29, 2002. Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, reviewed this proposed subdivision and concluded a trail is not planned along Fo.x Street, even though the Comprehensive Plan does show' a trail along Fox Street as part of the trail system' plan. City Engineer Comments: Tom Kellogg, City Fngineer. has been sent this proposed subdivision. The plans for the subdivision were not received in our office until July 2,2002, so at the time this report was written comments had not yet been received from him. If there are issues or concerns by the engineer they will have to be worked out prior to going forward to the City Council. Easements and Covenants: 1. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 10' along the westerly exterior property line. Ten-foot drainage and utility easements along the south and west boundaries. A drainage and utility casement 5' either side of the boundaiy between Outlot A and Lot 2 shall be granted. 2. The delineated w etlands in the north quadrant and southeast quadrant of Lot I and northeast quadrant of Lot 2 shall be subject to a protective covenant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to property owTier and future owners that said wetland is subject to WCA regulation and/or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. 3. Covenants shall be filed on the chain of title for each lot as an aJ\ isor\ to future property owners that a primar}' and secondary drainfield site exist on the propert)' and are protected. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminaiy plat subject to the following: 1 . Creation of drainage and utility easements as noted above. 2. Conserv ation and Flowage Easements to reflect delineated w etland boundaries of the Orono-protected wetlands. C02-2803 Manincau Stubbs 2<>20 Fox Street Class II Subd.-Preiim Plat July 11,2002 Page 3 •• ■ Such recommendation is based on the following conditions: 1. All preliminary grading and driveway plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to placing this application on the City Council agenda for preliminary plat approval. 2. Review of the proposed access location for Outlot A by Hennepin County is required prior to City Council approval of the preliminary ’ plat. 3. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over all wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, 5’ along all interior ^»roperty lines and 10' along all exterior property lines. 4. Final Plat application shall include all required application fees, including payment of park dedication fees of 8% of the land value prior to subdivision, not to exceed $5,300 per lot and stormwater fee of $21,540 based on $2700 per acre Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. To approve. A recommendation of approval shall be subject to the conditions noted above. A recommendation of approval will place this item on next available Council agenda. 2. To deny, stating reasons. 3. To table. 4. Other Action. (I02*2803 Martineau/Stubbs 2920 Fox Street Class II Subd.-Prelim Plat July 11,2002 Page 4 Application tt 0 ^ Date Receivccf ^f\tlo2. Amount Paid ^ S3 O A CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address 7^7 0 /^a:x SrAffT Property Identification Number (PID) 0^^/jy.?3 -J^- aoop Please check one - Property x abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT ^ Nam e ^ )Q/gT'/>^i»^ 'Address ZjO! E • City____*y. <Q*7Ce _______Phone (home) W73 Zip .^T?f4^hone (work)^Kz. ^7.^ -^vokd OWTSER (if different than applicant) Nam e C Address City / ^ jTjTf -f t Ifl <^X- (attach list if mo/e than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Phone (home; S'. 7S't Acres Dry Land t Acres Wet Land 7> "ZS "t Acres Total, all parcels X Residential; no. of units ______ Other (specify)______ A/i /d PROPOSAL _________ Division for Ta.\ Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) '>C Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units ! New Units ? Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use(check) Units per 7.75 Acres T7.tT-0 Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land Residential ______Other (specify )_________ IO O. A Q '■ '*' /' v; ■■ ■■.>='; RUN DATE 06/17/02 BATCH 506 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 36 06-117-23 26 0007 00305 SUSSEX LA J R CAHP6ELL t S N CAMPBELL JON R I SUSAN N CAMPBELL 2066 CREEK LA MINNETONKA MN 55305 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 06-117-23 31 0001 00625 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S W t P LAWTON DR WILLIAM G LAWTON 625 SO OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI635601 PAGE 15 36 06-117-23 31 0002 00635 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD K J A D C KREUTER KURT J I DONNA*C KREUTER 635 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 06-117-23 31 0003 00505 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S D V i M HARMANN DAVID t MONA HARMANN 505 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0010 00565 OLD CRYSTAL DAY RD S J D FARMER i P J FARMER JONATHAN D FORMER 565 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-27 31 0013 00660 SUSSEX LA M 6 KERRISON t D J KERRISON MICHAEL t DAWN KERRISON 660 SUSSEX LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06 117-23 36 0006 02601 FOX ST DANIEL J KLUTH DANIEL J KlUTH 2601 FOX ST ORONO MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0006 00535 01D CRYSTAL DAY RD S ROBERT S BRANSON ETAL ROBERT S BRANSON 535 S OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0011 02660 FOX ST LESTER E THOMPSON ET AL LESTER E THOMPSON 2660 FOX ST RT 1 BOX 325T LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0016 02090 SUSSEX RD WENDY LEIGH PETERSON TRUSTEE DONALD C t WENDY PETERSON 2990 SUSSEX RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 36 0007 02905 FOX ST MARK F ENGEBRETSON ET AL MARK t CAROL ENGEBRETSON 2905 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0006 02920 FOX ST CHERRY C STUBBS CHERRY C STUBBS 2920 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0012 00660 SUSSEX LA D D MEYER I K W MEYER DARQN D I KERRY W MEYER 660 SUSSEX LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 31 0015 0.7980 SUSSEX RD WENDY LEIGH PETERSON TRUSTEE DONALD C I WENDY PETERSON 2990 SUSSEX RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 06-117-23 36 0011 03090 FARVIEW LA R K t S P SCHMIDT ROBERT K I SARAH P SCHMIDT 3090 FARVIEW LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 CO PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 38 06-117-23 36 0012 03080 FARVIEW LA J W PARKER I D C PARKER JOHN W I BONNIE C PARKER 3060 FARVIEW LA S LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 506 00016 liil& County Taxpayer Services Dep^HjPfe■V.----------1 i■ i tm#mr 1 .■ i 5 tam tMtf 3 ,i. 1! i 1 nf c9y'-//7- ^3- #2803 Parcel Information *arcel ID 0411723310008 House Number 2920 Street Name FOX ST • 'a 'V l- ::v^ This is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation of informaUpfi": and data from Oty, County, and State road authorities and other sourcesy/^i m m. : j Ai-y?-:- . *, 11 CITYof ORONO // vN // MunkIpaJ Offkcs Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Meiling Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 TO: .Wendy Bottenberg FROM:Matt Bolterman. On-Site Systems Manager DATE:July 12,2002 SUBJECT: Septic Review for 2920 Fox Street, 2-lot split Both lots are designed for new mound septic systems by Steve Schrimers. The existing house that will be abandoned has two new mound locations designed. Both lots are designed for 5 bedrooms and have an alternate and primary location that meet all Orono and State Septic Code. 1 recommend the application be approved in regards to septic concerns the 2 lot subdivision. Tdephone (952) 249-4600 • Fu (952) 249-4616 www.ci.oroao.inii.us /t Application Date: April 17, 2002 Initial 60-Day Review Eipiration: June 16, 2002 5/29/02 - City NotiHed Applicant of 60-day Review Period Eitension to August IS, 2002 Revised Plan Application Date: June 24,2002 Revised Initial 60-Day Review Eipiration: August 23, 2002 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn & Planning Commission Monbers Mike Gaffron, Planning Dirccto^^|M^^\ July 12,2002 #02-2789(Revised) Dahlstrom Development, LLC, “2550" VVayzata Boulevard - Public Hearing for Proposed PUD Development: 1) Rezoning 2) PUD Concept Plan Review Summar> of Revised Proposal Applicants have submitted a revised proposal to develop portions of this 51-acre site via the Planned Unit Development process. Proposed uses include a mixtureof residential housing types to be located north of Kelley Parkway, including 59 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story townhomes, and 66 lofts (condominium units). The proposal would create t\vo commercial outlots south of Kelley Parkw ay for future development. Property Owner: Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership Applicant/Devcioper: Dahlstrom Development, LLC Planner/Engineer/Surveyor: Landform Welland Consultant: Kjolhaug Environmental Services Attorney: Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Dahlstrom Development LLC has provided letters from property owners authorizing submittal of the application. List of Exhibits A - Excerpts from 1980 and 2000-2020 Community Management Plans (CMP) B - “Study A” and “Study D" C - Applicants Revised Submittals: 1 - Cover letter 6-24-02 2 - Revised Plan Sheets: CO.l - Title Sheet CI.l - Existing Conditions Cl.2 - Existing Slope Analysis & Drainage Pattern Plan C2.1 - Concept Plan C3.1 - Concept E.\cavation & Embankment Plan C3.2 - Concept Wetland Impact Plan C4.1 - Concept Utility Plan C5.1 - Conceptual Plat C5.2 - Phasing Plan D - Original Application Documents 1 - Application forms 2 - Property Owner Authorizations 3 - 350 ’ List of Neighboring Property Owners 4 - Plat Map 5 - Concept Stage Required Information 6 - Letter to MnDOT (Timerson) rc: Stormwater Pond Expansion 7 - Stormwater Pond Memo E - Selected Architectural Conceptual Elevations from Original Submittal F - City Engineer ’s Original Comments G - Notice of Council Action June 10, 2002 #02-2789(Res ised) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 1 of 13 I. Summary of Required Approvals The revised proposal does not require amendment ofthe 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. However, the Developer’s interpretation ofthe CMP in terms ofthe location of Kelley Parkway in relation to the MnDOT pond, requires some discussion (see Item II below). The required approvals include: 1) RezonittR. The entire site is currently zoned RR-1 B, One Family Rural Residential. The area south of Kelley Parkway which is guided for commercial development is proposed to be retained in its current RR-1R status until the owner proposes a development plan, or until the City rezones it to conform with the CMP guide plan. The residential area north of Kelley ^ Parkway is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. Planning Commission is asked to review and make a recommendation regarding whether RPUD is the appropriate zoning district for the residential uses that will be allowed, and whether any proposed uses are inappropriate or require special conditions or limitations based on the standards for the RPUD district. Planning Commission should also consider whether allowing the area south of Kelley Parkway to remain zoned RR-IB is appropriate absent a development plan, or whether it should be rezoned to B-6 (or some other commercial district) concurrently with this application. The application is being processed as a Plamied Unit Development per Section 10.53, and actual rezoning to PUD with the RPUD and B-6 as underlying districts, would not occur until completion of the Development Plan Approval stage. 2) PUD Genera! Concept Plan Approval , The first stage of the two-stage PUD review process is the General Concept Stage, in which Planning Commission and Council review all conceptual aspects of the proposed development. This is similar in scope to a combination ofthe sketch plan and preliminary plat phases of a standard subdivision process. General Concept Plan Approval is the City’s formal commitment to the development if specified conditions and goals are met. These conditions and goals will be documented via a Council resolution, hence all significant issues and concerns must be identified at the General Concept Plan review stage, and clear and concise direction must be provided to the applicant and documented in the General Concept Plan Approval Resolution. PUD Devflopntent Pla n Approval. In this final stage the developer will provide detailed plans for implementation of the approved General Concept Plan, as well as preliminary and final plat documents. Rezoning and formal amendment ofthe CMP will occur as part of Development Plan approval. A Development Agreement will be e.xecuted by the developer and the City to formalize all aspects of the approval. Development may then go forward as soon as a final building and site plan is submitted and found to be in substantial compliance with the w'ith the approved Development Plan. #02-2789(Reviscd) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12, 2002 Page 2 of 13 II. Concept Plan Review Process GOALS OF CONCEPT PLAN REV IEW Planning Commission's concept plan review on July 15 should focus on both general and detail aspects of the development plan. The developer has presented the City with a concept plan that includes a level of detail which should allow Planning Commission to begin to visualize and understand the various plan elements. Planning Commission ’s goal should be to identify issues and concerns related to the Concept Plan, and define for the applicants (and for the City Council) the positive and negative aspects of the plan. It would then be appropriate to define a goal or intent for each aspect. These goals and should then be discussed with the intended result that you provide specific direction to the applicant as to how the issue should be resolved. For example, in identifying issues, you might conclude that “the concept plan does not provide adequate separation between buildings”. There might be a variety of functional and aesthetic reasons for that conclusion, ranging from the need to provide sidewalks for adequate pedestrian access and landscaping around the buildings, to the concept of maintaining an ‘open’ feel that is so central to Orono ’s primarily rural character. In addressing these issues, the City needs to provide the developer with clear direction as to how you expect the issue to be resolved. Such direction could result in one of two actions: revision and resubmittal of the concept plan to reflect all required changes, so that the concept plan that is approved already incorporates the changes that have been directed and is completely acceptable to the City; or insertion of the direction into the concept plan approval resolution as a condition to be met before the City will grant final development plan approval, such as “In order to gain final development plan approval the developer shall provide a plan that shows the separation between the two-story lownhome units at 25 feet rather than 10 feet”. WHEN SHOULD CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL BE GRANTED? Staff and the applicant’s consultants have had some difference of opinion regarding at what level of the review process concept plan approval should be granted. This is to some extent due to conflicting wording and intent between the PUD and RPUD ordinances. The basic divergence of opinion is to what extent the City has committed to the development upon granting of Concept Plan Approval. Staff sees it as similar in scope to the preliminary plat approval, based on the wording of the PUD ordinance (10.53) and discussions with the City’s planning consultants. 10.53 Subd. 8 clearly states that the concept plan approval requires a public hearing by Planning Commission and a 4<'5 vote by the Council. Contrast this with the classic subdivision sketch plan review, where no hearing is held and no vote is taken. #02-2789(Revisecl) Dahhtrom Development M.C July 12, 2002 Page 3 of 13 To confuse the issue, the RPUD ordinance (10.33 Subd. 6A) treats the Concept Plan Review as a very informal process. Planning Commission and Council merely make comments to the developer, no hearing is held, no vote is taken, and the comments of the Planning Commission and Council are “for guidance only, and if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted”. Applicant ’s consultants have to some extent treated the concept plan approval as equivalent to the sketch plan stage, whereby the City is merely providing direction, “so you can go ahead and grant us concept plan approval and all the details will be worked out later”. The result of this divergence of perspective is the City ’s reluctance to simply grant concept plan approval without having all the details worked out, and the developer not wanting to commit his resources to providing great detail without some expectation that the project will be approved. The scope of this development necessarily places it under the umbrella of the Highway 12 PUD process. The RPUD element is secondary, given that the 50-acre property is guided and intended to be more than just a residential development. The mere determination of the route for Kelley Parkway has significant impacts on development outside the RPUD site. For these reasons, staff sees the granting of Concept Plan Approval under the PUD process as functionally equivalent to granting Master Development Plan approval in the RPUD process. Staff w ould argue that the level of detail and refinement needed for the Council to commit to this development may be somewhat greater than the applicants initially expected. 111. Comprehensive Plan Conformity A, PROPOSED LAND USES The proposed multifamily residential use north of Kelley Parkway is in keeping w ith the provisions of the CMP for this area. The variety of dwelling types will provide lifecycle housing options that are in keeping with the City ’s housing goals. The proposed Outlets for future commercial use south of Kelley Parkw ay likewise generally meet the CMP guidelines and would allow for the development of office uses as intended. The proposed location of Kelley Parkway will have some impact on the flexibility of these sites for future use, as noted below. Planning Commission should consider whedicr there are any concerns or negative impacts with allowing the commercially guided property to remain in an outlot status. B. DENSITY Background. The 1980 Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) guided this property for single family residential use at a density of one unit per 2 acres. By the mid-1980’s, support was growing for widening of Highway 12 in-place, to accommodate grow ing traffic levels. In anticipation of development pressure along the Highway 12 corridor through Orono. a stud^ -• ?.s commenced in 1985 that resulted in an amendment of the CMP in 1987. The amendment brought this area into the #02-2789(Ri-v|scd) Dablstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 4 of 13 the Concept Plan Review as a ike comments to the developer, g Commission and Council are ipon the planning commission when submitted”. 1 approval as equivalent to the so you can go ahead and grant . The result of this divergence pproval without having all the )urces to providing great detail rella of the Highway 12 PUD roperty is guided and intended nation of the route for Kelley ) site. For these reasons, staff s as functionally equivalent to Jtaff would argue that the level evelopment may be somewhat in keeping with the provisions ' lifecycle housing options that 3r future commercial use south ould allow for the development ! w ill have some impact on the erns or negative impacts with talus. I guided this property for single 1-1980's, support was growing affic levels. In anticipation of lO. a stud_, •• ».ommenced in ment brought this area into the MUSA, and it w’as reguided to allow' a single tier of commercial uses along 12, to be accessed via a frontage road with no direct access to 12. Per the 1987 amendment, north of the frontage road and up to the north line of Section 33 (i.e. the north boundary of the Dahlstrom property), multi-family uses at densities of up to 10 units per acre could be allow'cd via PUD. 2000-2020 CMP. The density guidelines for the area north of Kelley Parkway were refined as part of the 2000-2020 CMP update, resulting in a density standard of 3-6 units per dr\' buildable acre (CMP page 3B-34). The 2000-2020 CMP does not place any limitation on the number of units per building that are allowed in this area. RPUD Standards. Prior to creation of the RPUD District standards, the only zoning option which would* have allowed 2, 3 or 4 attached units was the M-6 District, and no zoning options were available that would have allowed a 66-unit condo building. The RPUD District allows higher densities than contemplated in the CMP, only in areas “currently zoned and guided for commercial use”. The applicants’ original proposal for the lofis/condo buildings was legitimate in part because they were south of Kelley Parkway in the area guided for commercial use. The revised proposal now places the lofts building north of Kelley Parkway, and absent commercial guiding/zoning, the density request is acceptable only in the context of the overall residential site density. RPUD does not plaee a limit on the number of units that can be attached, it merely requires that the guided overall site density limits be met. Use of Kelley Parkway for Density Credit. The applicants’ proposal is at a density of 6.0 units per drybuildable acre if the northerly halfofthe Kelley Parkway right-of-way (not including that portion within the MnDOT pond) is allowed for density credit. Staffinitially had concluded that no portion of Kelley Parkway should be allowed for density credit, because the CMP language (CMP page 3B- 34 and Map 3B-7) states that property “north of... Kelley Parkway” may be developed at a density of 3-6 units per acre. The PUD procedural standards in the zoning code arc silent as to whether right-of-way credit should be allowed. In past applications of the PRD ordinance, in most cases newly created interior roads w ere allowed for density credit. In the only residential PUD the City has processed (Orono Woods Senior Housing), density credit was given for interior roads serving both the senior housing and the office uses. It would not be inconsistent to allow the density credit as the applicants have requested. If density credit is given for the portions of Kelley Parkway as requested, the current plan is at 6.0 units per acre. If such credit is not allowed, the area of dry buildable decreases by appro.ximately 1 acre, and the density increases to 168/27.0 = 6.22 units per acre. The number of units would have to be reduced by 6 (to 162) in order to meet a 6.0 units per acre standard. Density Not Limited by Sewer Capacity. The guided densities in this area w ere originally keyed in part to planned sew er capacities. This area w as expected to require 300 to 450 total sewer units under the adopted plan amendment in 1987. A concept plan provided during the 1985 study by the Orono Plaza partner.' would have required up to 1200 sewer units; that intensive plan was considered to have the potential to place excessive burdens on sewer capacities, and was rejected. Four other schematics which varied the mix of commercial and multifamily uses with much lower sewer #02-2789(Rc\1sed) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page S of 13 hi capacity needs were considered as feasible. The current proposal for 1C3 residential units, plus the two commercial outlots having the capability of perhaps 75-100,000 s.f of office space, would in total likely have a sewer unit requirement of no more than 200-225 units, generally within the capacity needs range anticipated by the 2000-2020 CMP. Density Relationships. The CMP indicates that the area north of Kelley Parkway may develop at a density of “3-6 units per dry buildablc acre ”. What does this mean? First, this should be taken as an overall density for the area north of Kelley. Second, it suggests that an overall density of less than 3 or more than 6 units per acre would not be appropriate. The developer has a reasonable e.xpcctation based on the CMP that a proposed development with density in the range of 3-6 units per acre will be approved However, because this is a PUD and rezoning request, the City has the ability to determine whether the proposed density is appropriate in the conte.xt of the type and mix of the various dwelling units, as well as their massing, layout, site circulation, site amenities, etc. Density Numbers. The applicants ’ revised proposal is at 6 units per acre (including Kelley Parkw ay r.o.w. credit), and includes three types of dwelling units: 54 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story townhouscs, and 66 lofts/condo units, a total of 168 units on 23 dry buildable acres. To understand the density impacts, note that: - At a density of 5 units per acre, the total number of allowed units would drop to 140 - At a density of 4 units per acre, the total number of allow ed units w ould drop to 112 - At a density of 3 units per acre, the total number of allow ed units would drop to 84 Note that ‘Study A’ included approximately 75 units on roughly the same dry buildablc area as proposed by the developer, for a density of 2.7 units per acre. ‘Study A’ w ould nol ha\ c produced development at the minimum density for which this area was ultimately guided. Limiting density has its impacts, both for the developer and the City. The developer’s fixed costs (land, street construction, utility construction, etc.) likely increase on a per unit basis, tending to increase the price points. These increases can be minimized to some extent by varying the mix of unit types, their locations, and the length of streets and utility lines. As costs go up, the developer will tend to reduce the package of amenities, such as eliminating trails and landscaping features. From the City ’s perspective, rt lucing density may have both positive and negative impacts. The opportunity for a decreased massing of buildings may be created, although the type of units and layout of the development may have a greater effect on limiting massing. For instance, at 6 units per acre the developer might build three 66-unit condo buildings that leave a very' large portion of the site in open space; but this probably would not meet the intent of the Ci*y to provide a wider rance of housing options. Rementbcr that Orono has made a commitment to providing a w idei range of lifecycle housing options, and this is one of only three areas in the City where the 2000-2020 CMP allows for the higher densities necessary' to allow lifecycle housing to happen. In terms of thcConcepl Plan review. Planning Commission must attempt to reach a conclusion on whether the proposed density of 0 units per acre is appropriate, especially taking into account whether the type and mix of the various dwello'g units, their massing, layout, site circulation, site amen ties. etc. places the density on the land in an appropriate manner. #02-2789(Rc\ised) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12, 2002 Page 6 of 13 C. LOCATION OF KELLEY PARKWAY CMP Does Not Define Kelley Parkway Routing. A few years prior to completion of the 2000-2020 CMP the City had its planning consultant, DSU, drafl concept plans for the areas north and south of Kelley Parlcway as a guideline for discussions (see Exhibit B). Two of the concept plans, “Study A” and “Study D“, became the City ’s standard discussion guide for developers inquiring about the property. However, although these concept plans were described in the CMP as created “to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed ” (CMP page 3B-34), these concept plans did not become part of the CMP. The applicants have suggested that the routing of Kelley Parkway in their revised Concept Plan “follows your comprehensive plan”. That is not accurate, as the CMP docs not define a routing for Kelley Parkway but merely indicates it will be “300-500 feet north of Highway 12" (CMP page 3B-34), and on Map 3B-7 suggests an easterly terminus directly across from the platted potential future service road behind the Otten property. The point of this discussion is intended to address staffs significant concern about applicants’ proposal to locate a segment of Kelley Parkw ay within the existing MnDOT stormw ater pond right- of-way. Although Study A does show- a similar configuration. Study D docs not, and it was never suggested to the applicants that a routing through the MnDOT pond right-of-w ay was preferred or feasible. Public Serv ices Director Greg Gappa discussed this with Ben Timerson of MnDOT on 7- 10-02. It v. as Timerson’s opinion that such a reconveyance to the City, though potentially feasible, would likely take at least 6 months or even a year to process, and would not be a hiuh priority for MnDOT. Staff believes it would not be in the City ’s best interests to pursue such a request on behalf of the applicants. City support and partnering in gaining approval for the use and expansion of the MnDOT pond right-of-w’ay for regional stormwater purposes is one thing, pursuing a swap for road purposes does not rise to the same level of importance, especially w hen equally feasible and less complicated road locations arc possible. The City is working closely with MnDOT to ensure that the Highway 1 2 project proceeds as smoothly as possible. .MnDOT does not have the resources to deal efficiently with requests such this, and likely will not give it a high priority. The City should not make any requests that jeopardizes its relationship with MnDOT. A« a secondary issue, the applicant’s development timeframe may be severely impacted by w aiting for a MnDOT reconveyance process to be completed. Thirdly, w hile applicant has shown conceptual sketches how' the two commercial outlets might be developed, the Kelley Parkw ay routing through the MnDOT pond area w ould seem to make those commercial sites somew hat more restricted in terms of flexibility. We need to ensure that the location of Kelley Parkw ay does not significantly restrict the ability to develop the outlot parcels for office use. Planning Commission should make a recommendation, if possible, as to w hether the applicant and City should pursue use of the MnDOT pond area for Kelley Parkway. #02-2789(Reviscd) Dahhlrom Dcvelopincnt LLC July 12, 2002 Page 7 of 13 IV. GENERAL SITE PLAN REVIEW The following punchlist on various topics should provide Planning Commission with an outline of the site plan elements that should be considered prior to making a recommendation to Council on the Concept Plan. 1. Site Natural Features: Existing topography of the site is indicated on Sheet C 1.1. The high point of the site at elev. 1025 is at the far SW comer; the lowest point at elev. 1013 in the ditch just north of the MnDOT ponds. The site contains approximately 13.6 acres of wetland, of which 1.4 acres will be filled or excavated per the revised plans. Wetland types being impacted have not been disclosed as of this writing, since applicant has not provided the Wetland Delineation Report requested in prior memos. The full wetland delineation report must he submitted for review by staff and City Engineer. Staff would note that portions of certain City-protected wetlands on the site will apparently be impacted: filling of portions of a wetland are required for Kelley Parkway at its east end, a second is filled near the center of the property to create building pads and driveways, and a third is slightly impacted by fill to create a driveway for the four townhomes at the NE comer of the site. All wetland impacts will be subject to WCA rules as administered by the MCWD on the City ’s behalf. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed wetland impacts are reasonable in the context ofthe proposed uses and mitigation (see Plan Sheet C3.2). Plan Sheet C1.1 appears to indicate the extent of wooded areas and significant trees (no key is given to define what types of individual trees were included). Should a tree survey be required for areas to be disturbed? This is not a specific City requirement, but is alluded to in Subdivision Code Section 11.60... the applicant should do some degree of review of existing stands of trees to confirm the extent of woodlands to be impacted and determine if any should be preser\ ed... 2. Stormwater Management Applicants plan to expand the MnDOT stormw ater pond outside the MnDOT r.o.w. to manage stormwater quality and quantity. #02-2789(Rc\1sed) Dablstrom Developmeat LLC July 12,2002 Page 8 of 13 Staff ha^ some concerns about the impact of direct runoff to wetlands. A relatively small amount of storm sew'er is shown on the plans (Sheet C4.1). Applicants have indicated verbally that they will manage stormwater runoff viaraingardens distributed throughout the neighborhood. The plans do not indicate whether or where rural or urban road sections will be used to transport runoff. It is assumed that the proposed MnDOT pond expansion will accommodate flows from portions of the watershed outside the property. This is a positive aspect of this development. The plans appear to provide buffers around all wetlands. It appears that a few proposed dwelling units as drawn may encroach within Orono ’s 26' wetland setback requirement. The applicants should address snow storage/removal, as the site layout appears to have minimal areas which could provide for snow storage. 3.Utilities a) Looping of water mains will be necessary across the northerly tit. of the property. b) All water mains should be 8" diameter rather than 6"; 12" required in Kelley Parkway. c) The issue of burying existing power lines along Willow and Highway 12 should be discussed... especially if the commercial outlots won ’t be developed for a while... d) Sanitary sewer capacity to serve the development is lacking until MnDOT replaces lines downstream and City replaces certain segments south of Highw'ayl2... 4. Transportation a) The City Engineer in his preliminary comments indicates a traffic study should be completed. Staff and Council discussions are needed to establish who will complete this study and what the scope will be. The applicant has offered to pay his fair share of this study. b) The City Engineer is recommending that the right-of-w ay width for Kelley Parkway be 70* as defined in the subdivision code for a public commercial street (the portion of Kelley Parkway that exists has a 60* right-of-way; remember that it was platted at a time when this entire area was still guided for 2-acre SFR). The development plan Sheet C2.1 shows a 60' right of way. Note: Conceptual Plat Sheet CS.l does not dedicate Kelley Parkway. Kellev Parkway must he platted as a public road on the final plat. #02-2789(Revked) DahUtrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 9 of 13 .e) g) h) i) The City Engineer is proposing that the 41' width (back of curb to back of curb) of existing Kelley Parkway be continued at that width eastward to Willow Drive. Sheet C2.1 shows a 28' road. The City has not previously stated that 28' was acceptable, only that 28' was the minimum required for MSA funding. The probable use b / Public Works vehicles and commercial office traffic suggests that the 41' standard is reasonable. Interior private roads to serve the 102 townhome/townhouse units are shown at 20' width. The City standard for a private road serving 7 or more units is 28' width. The segments of one-way roads should be at least 14' wide if they are approved. Staff views the half-circular main entrance off Kelley as confusing and awkward as a main entrance to the site, and it should be reduced to a simple divided entrance. The one-way roundabout is an interesting feature with some potential to be a unique public space if developed with that concept in mind. ^^^lere parallel parking is proposed the road width should be at least 32'. Increasing the road widths will impact the setbacks between buildings and the road; the RPUD district does not set a standard for separation of buildings from interior private roads, only from streets abutting the site (10.33 Subd. 5G). Staff is concerned that 102 units will be ser\'ed by a single road access point; this reminds us of Casco Point. For safety and emergency purposes, staff recommends a connection between the SE loop and Kelley Parkway. A connection between * he Lofts driveway and the adjacent townhouse driveway should be considered as the hammerhead backup may be inadequate. However, the downside of making these two connections is that they will bring much traffic past many homes on what was intended as a private neighborhood loop road. Perhaps having an entrance at both ends and eliminating the middle entrance would help. This might also place more homes across from the storm pond which could become a visual amenity for more homes... In general, circulation in some areas also needs additional attention by the developer. A logical street name/house numbering system will be critical to making this development visitor-friendly. While the driveway serving the 4 homes at the NE comer would ideally be 150' south ofthe driveway across Willow and to the north, other factors such as limiting wetland impacts how headlights may affect the home across Willow, suggest that the proposed location is probably suitable. Planning Commission should look closely at the locations where sidew alks are and are not provided. The proposal does not include sidewalks for the tw'o northerly loop roads...is it the City’s goal to make this development easily walkable? #02-2789(Rcvised) Dahlstrom Development LLC July 12,2002 Page 10 of 13 n) Where will the MTC busses stop? o) Please review the City Engineers original comments (Exhibit F), much of which still is applicable to this revised plan. His comments address issues regarding sanitary sewer; water main; storm sewer; streets and trails; traffic; and financial guarantee. 5. Proposed Housing Types, Site Layout, Functionality, Etc. a) Planning Commission should discuss the 3 types of dwelling units proposed and consider whether they provide the appropriate types and mix of housing in keeping with the City’s housing goals. b) Is the compactness of building design and layout a positive or negative aspect? Does it contribute to the lack of a sense of open space? Additional separation is needed between the 2-story townhome buildings. Staff w'ould recommend 20-25' rather than the 10’ proposed...under the current layout, from most visibility angles, groups 1-11 and 22-30 will still look like a 300' long building... Although the units generally appear to meet the setback and separation standards of the RPUD district, should there be some minimum standard established for setbacks between buildings or between interior streets and buildings? c) Arc the dwelling unit door accesses and driveways functional or awkward for pedestrian and vehicle circulation? There are some driveways that conflict and buildings need to be rc-oriented. Each townhome unit needs a ser\’ice entry adjacent to the garage... the townhomes adjacent to Kelley Parkway would seem to be at risk for having public w'alking the sidewalks right in their front yards due to sidewalk placement... City w ould prefer sidewalks nearer the street for maintenance and public use reasons... d) The Lofts are proposed at three stories; the RPUD standards limit building height to 30'; now that they are proposed in an area that w as not guided or zoned commercial, the 3-story allow ance does not apply. Because this is a PUD, the City has every ability to accept or reject the concept of 3-story buildings if they don’t meet the 30' height limit. The larger issue is whether 3-story buildings are appropriate or acceptable in the context of this development at this location... e) Staff remains in opposition to the placement of dwelling units so close to the public works facility. The current plan shows the lofts overlooking Public Works. Wc anticipate never-ending complaints about the noise generated by the City uses. The 20' separation betw een the lofts parking access drive and the Public Works site would seem to leave little room for establishment of suitable buffers, and we aren’t excited about using City property as part of that buffer system. 0 In terms of the general site development, the cut/fill plan docs not really provide a sense of how much topographic change will be happening and how that will impact <t02-2789(RevLed) Dahlslrom Development l.LC July 12,2002 Page II of 13 the character of the various dwelling units. A preliminary grading plan would be extremely useful, as would conceptual elevation drawings of the various dwelling types, in this new setting as opposed to the Village setting... g) Staff suggests you review the purpose of the RPUD District: Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (‘CMP’ or ‘Comprehensive Plan ’). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the Planned Unit Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following: flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs; energy conser\'ation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustenng of buildings and land uses; preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive en\ironmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A B. C. D. E. F. G. 6. Recreation and Open Space VVhat portions or areas of the residential development are devoted to the 10% private recreational areas required by the RPUD ordinance? This must be exclusive of the areas devoted to public park dedication (8%). Staff would suggest that mere w'etland protection does not satisfy the 10% requirement; but trails around the w etlands might help satisfy this requirement for “active or passive uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools,, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots...”. The current plan appears to contain no private recreational amenities that would satisfy this requirement. Does Planning Commission accept developer ’s suggestion that tot lots, tennis courts, and other recreational amenities are unnecessary for this development? Staff would suggest that reliance on existingCity facilities 1/4-1/2 mile away will not necessarily serve the needs of the proposed inhabitants of the various housing types proposed... The public sidewalk system proposed needs to be examined carefully as to location and connectivity to serve this neighborhood and the general public. /t02-2789(Revised) Dahlstrom Development I.I.C July 12,2002 Page 12 of 13 The only public jail proposed in this revised plan is alorig Willow Drive north of Kelley. Staffis greatly concerned that if the trails are not initially constructed within or adjacent to the commercial outlets, it will be difficult to obtain them later... 7. Development of Kelley Parkway: Does the applicant ’s proposal provide the “parkway” character intended by the City? Since Orono has not striv'^tly defined the characteristics (landscaping, lighting, pedestrian walkways, bikeways, etc.) for Kelley Parkway, some attention should be given to this topic as part of the concept plan review... 8. . Landscaping, Etc. The final development plan will have to demonstrate conformance with the RPUD landscaping, screening and buffering standards, as well as lighting, signage, architectural compatibility, etc. Proposed street lighting, entry monument signage, etc. will have to be depicted and approved as part of the final development plan review process. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should first concentrate on whether this concept plan generally achieves the purposes of the RPUD District. Next, consider whether the mix and spatial relationships of the various unit types within the development and in relation to each other as well as the surrounding uses, is appropriate. Also discuss whether the lack of a defined proposal for the use of the outlets will cause potential issues in terms of whether the outlets can be used for their intended purpose. The issues regarding location of Kelley Parkway in the MnDOT pond r.o.w. seems to staff to be a critical factor in determining whether the entire concept plan can move forward Finally, review the many detail issues as outlined above, and make a determination as to what level of detail you believe should be shown on the Concept Plan that is ultimately approved, in the context that Concept Plan Approval is a commitment on the City’s part very similar to that of a preliminary plat approval, under the PUD ordinance requirements. #02>2789(Rcvised) Dahlstrom Developmcni I.LC Jul) 12,2002 Page 13 of 13 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan A-\ extent limited by environmental constraints, each such development must be analyzed and reviewed on an individual basis. The properties identified for residential development at densities of 2-6 units per acre include properties guide-planned for such use as a result of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 2 in 1988, as well as properties heretofore olanned for single family development at rural densities. All identifici properties are located relatively high in the Lake Minnetonka watershed, allowing ample opportunity for effective stormwater management. These properties arc detailed in the following tables and maps. f i V I'rj . m Site Description: SITE A (Parcel Group 1, Map 3B-7) 50-acrc parcel located north of Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road Background, Site Characteristics Planned Development Parameters A number of potential development schemes for this parcel which included townhomes and commercial development were reviewed in 1987 which became the basis for CMP Amendment #2 adopted May 23. 1988. This site was not subsequently developed, with the exception that the City of Orono municipal facilities were developed at the west end of the parcel in 1991. A development option for the vacant parcel was generated by the City's consulting planner, DSU Inc., in 1998 at the City's request, taking into account new information including the new MnDOT stormwater pond; City's new topography maps suggesting greater areas of wetland than previously anticipated; and the initial development of Kelley Parkway that established a service road corridor at tlie west end. The intent of this plan set was to show how townhomes and a small number of commercial sites might be developed. The result of the 1987 study was adoption of a plan with the following components: a. An cast-west scr\'icc road will be developed connecting Old Cr>'stal Bay Road and Willow Drive, located approximately 300-500 feet north of Highway 12. This service road will allow for one tier of developable lots between the service road and Highway 12, such lots to have access to the service road but not to Highway 12 due to traffic considerations. b. The portion of the prop :rty between Highway 12 and the service road may be developed with one tier of commercial uses, to potentially include professional office as well as limited service uses, and retail uses accessory to the office use. c. The portion of property north ot the service road may be developed for residential uses, potentially a mix of single family and multi-family uses at a density of 3-6 units per dry buildable acre. d. Conversion from 2-acre rural zoning to to the mixture of >es described above will be subject to strict performance standards which were added to the Orono Zoning Code in 1989.J City of Orono Community Management Plan Scptcaber 3000 Page 3B-34 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 9. more compact community scale retail area matches ihe :sign of new Highway 12 witli no interchanges thrq^h tgLake. Limits the impact on north/south roadways (i.e. i^reased traffic tod activity levels) as compared to the mope intense “big bo»’ retail uses. 10. Maintains \lower activity level in the area ><cst of Willow Drive. 11. Would create le\s pressure for providing an access from new Highway 12 to the retail area. Accordingly, this area shoum be developed with a mix of commercial uses including retail, servic(^tod office components. Access via a service road paralleling High\W>T2 should still be required rather than direct access to Highway 12. since existing traffic levels along Highway 12 are expected to mmai\at a level which makes direct all ­ way access difficult and daifgerous. The Highway 12 re-royfe ("proposed Hitoway 12") when completed in approximately 2p07 will have a significant impact on access for this area, beeausycurrent Highway 12 traffic levels arc e.xpected to increase between now and 2007, then should dlop dramatically when the Bypass Q{Kns. However, traffic levels on "o^Highway 12" after 2007 are afpected to again creep upward, and the hong-term need for a serv'i^road may again manifest itself For this r^on, it is in the best unerests of the City and the business communit\to preserve at lea^a partial service road corridor between Brown Roa^and Willow fiw future use, that will provide all properties with acc^s options ^ther than direct access from Highway 12. The City sup^rts the development of a "mid-point" connection to Highway 12 eUrectly across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a ri^t-in, right-out configuration. Further, if and when the ser\ ice road is constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highw-ay 12 should ultimately he removed 2.Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map 3B-7 as the ‘commercial’ portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan amendment, the City guided the portion of this area directly adjacent City of Orono Community Management Plan Scplcaber 2000 Page3B-39 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan to the north side of Highway 12 for commercial development. At that time, the City was not clear about the type of commercial development that should be planned for this area. Through joint discussions with the City of Long Lake regarding development along Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development in this area would be office development. Office development can provide services for Orono residents, can provide facilities for businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality employment opportunities. The development of this area for office use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a more compact pedestrian-friendly retail area versus a non-cobesive extended strip of retail development. Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto Highway 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay Road. The City's intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north of the service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by MnDOT midway between Old Crystal Bay Road and Wjllow, and the City's intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportimities for large office sites are limited. As many as six 2-2.5 acre office sites can be developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the intended residential development to occur. This area is guided f jr office use with minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. “Big box” retail uses will not be allowed within this area. City of Orono Commualty Manasemcnt Plan Scpicabcr 2000 PngcSlMO Tir ^ .. r: •5*IUV fUoP|N% Ajcce&6 #•: # • # # *n>W- • : . N ^ 0 Ml but^ J f \ , V/EILM4>5, a \ OJHpeuHEATEpy \ •••••• ) 3.9 Ac • • -a' \ 35</ A •A • •sss ■Mo' • • ^ /'r muiF Study A - Maximized Multi-Family ► 45-75 townhome units on 45 acres ► Four 2-pIus acre commercial sites along Hwy 12 BSIJ W-IL^Jf* ^ -Jso 7 Lot 3 2.2 Ac. Office 25.000 Sq. FL - 2 Stories 132 Parking Spaces 3434 Gri-in Space Lot 4 2.8 Ac. Office 21.000 Sq. Ft. 114 Parking Spaces i 43% Green Space ' Lots 2.2 Ac. Office 22,000 Sq. Fl - 2 Stories 111 Parking Spaces 32% Green Space Lot 6 2.7 Ac. Office 19.000 Sq.Fl. 117 Parking Spaces 28% Green Space City Of Orono Study D - Minimized ( ► Four 20-25,000 sf ► Multi-family reside area available than 3AREA LOCATION MAPI PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOT omojotmont DAMniOMOEVILOPNCffTliClORt OAXurruoM cnoii. &un TOinarvcw ricua»Bi CVt SKXT RCO Ml* a csMTirra* ttyjtm rra trt«ir*.-a» □abbreviations c DRAWING SYMBOLSC::CZDUTILITY SYMBOLS *c jt i •an* laa^n (•« A-w >n At C wAiaMa IM A4nM t Aon •twatMU •' •••aa / Ara«A«nM •wtmaa *-««n ••• t* c«* a* .A* »na :«• 'm Av Vt»4 fcS Ar»t vat*» 0* C«« Can In* Can Aaa Caa m A*» Ca-anin *<aA A** Cana* CW fnn CAaan An 9m Cna — ka 4Aan« C3LECAL DESCRIPTION! r99A .mm !■»■>«• i*«« tm In / k%n Aat kaaA ^aanaana LAa t«ri AAntC »«Aii. fCMf* wMa c«tAi COonniA’t »>:**! . ACOJkUi'H l»C «.»<? Ml A MkA; » Ta •m A C«ar«a ■•< <• Sm *mm Aatat twmmm *mm 9mm L*r« Cmm____ (Wan* l«ta'« C-nanA a^ •«» k*a« •f Cmmmm 9 9mm <'«r Ann* An 9mm m 'nnait •< »m*»m Cmmmi 9mm m kiat«« mrnmmt’mm 9<m 9 antcA 1mmmm» 9mm»-mmm 9mmmm / 9mmmifm 9m<mmm4 9-mmmm <A(na >»*-a»r-aVni# GIZDSITE SYMBOLSC »«r»c 9AAC«*a*(*t nzzzzD m • ccorcui iAM«£»aaC i»«xn*« a MAC a O COCVI^I •PuT«A\f9 A*a*C CaAinn't cjb * »Ca u» AAat*«aA» no** anc'cAi *t*o« CLAAtr «AC »WA1A4 tt'*Ai*«: *4^1 •OAa« «7A*nc «IAA r«t«.«Aa« M. Anx CkX* A*« wo*««* caA*»a hmt» Ua«* STA*«A« na* •C*l AHMA n CI *AA«X »•%.* COUtT lAia i*4»* »'*A fc». 4^5 - - ♦H M -< - - - •a XT •k.Un « »<*a aa*#* • v.A» L«AA» VAfiarWAa »•! IM *«1 CdiMmM tItXi’t: AAtA lAA.Cl rjivf«» A ta« «cn»a CAS iM VJA «M«*At KK-'Or •<>««*« AO K*c*ac -a.*CA«CaiXH> tKjnaOA CVtAtAAO 1KAAN<»* •aM'*«»;AACI lA«Aa IkitaS CZI3S1TE/UTIUTY CONTACTS CZ3SURVEY SYMBOLS! ymmt »m% fm »•• mm A m CI3ER0SI0N CONTROL SYMBOLSC niC99tC9» »*a J»H '/7 AA> • X- •s'A. aV^AJnart S|t tmC ;Amp 99m A «1AS*C CA*> STATVWS vA4« CJAKAA fAA SAatfaiS KUr «l>i 9f9UX^ aj9M9 »C5* •CM AdC ora •«• S1M» WO*» mnAHX »<?i •wTARf «««• a^AOM CATO MSM fton avoacu CA'l AAA>t *•» t/<fMAIa^ •A*t« *iA<n«\A tfVAAMAO a/njta t<MS nAAACA.AAO KtC*«K aAC«A;:«aAA7 'IkAAMCM jicvAcaanr ca $ nc«A.Ad*C <A«U/tr AA^iraAM CAl«>AAV Ma «« S’cwr •««« !&A4h? <A« “■ snivTcc COM? Aina C0KTACT5 5 ’Ara )i»i« AAtA-AA" AtarAA AA'Iat r*» ^ CM.X * t**0 ttu.9* AAMAAf AC let M Ct'S'Ak CA* m rs«j one CAAWA A| » £• *«v«t *KA 4A70AA-A«(X; ►aa •S7>H«-A4n ILK'0C icn ! a»A«AA<Al» »»A SS4A<? IM'A Ttkf WJ-Aag-j)/, -------- ___ ____. ___ . tk I«a <a «1 C«H» A’JO Vvrt^ i kAAt AJAi) 9. ’♦A'-*- •mt i SSAA7 CAA A«.1«A«H •rO- (aA»«1« T*U TTk>*SSa-%JBS *mrj9H. CA)Ml Ana l-AA.a^A.av^ ; »00 VAtAkiA AfttA* Aa |k.M ! SAciB avMAndS i* OA^ 'TWAl *%kA •'^-^^.•A»S QDESIGN CONTACTS C coaffA HMrt AaA-4.A#;:i M'.rtaaa CAa*«A A»nr| a#Ara A*fJ '»'r.««A* «.T»»a4» A»^a»r»AO aMan .a<na«A CnBENCHMARKSC •^4$ ».xatMAnt Aa nAI'-^AlT JkAOAaif A *a# ATIartl''kk .» Aa«, 4 im*a *a »a -^;soa »tt» SCRVICC COMfANICS COIfTACra |aA3««*X aXAOra* A AC iki»4»A •«.«>. S1«« AMAI ’JK a * to S' A.fn« •«.«*»•KA -*A«*AXS -Aa ak4 }»• AA */-7tj-Acrt VAM»-«'»’ »ak»^j‘«**#a~ LA^ V*A1 4?.' * '.1# ■*»■-A.A AlaA Arf..A*r :*JA(t »0 S' A.t’JM tAM't 'Hf A3-«;-4r»e a*» Saa .'J »Ai * j-n; Aort >XAdr»^ £AAA*M A*iMl A« ^ ACC^rKT-ajil 4«w' fc ’.tC a«»^ to S’ Aa*i>« aevka ’Hr A9-79}-Ar«6 a*A«inftj« a*. S^A^t ♦ aa c7-m-«ctr« »« . - ttaCMA lJCAK act 9.m99<A«J •L.a.l* •«»'- to O' A.fA« agrtiaf ’tk» «7-7t;-A^ii ’•AAAn-XS a*a »tAJ>»AA Cl MI.Afftt JO-«*«J CA**A»a At At • •l-.»A a«lr’-. to «' A.VJO •*«•-'H a av ;«;-v’5 a«A«*n.\S •*. fA'j • AA A; i?;.Aw » ->A.IIAV«a a.AAtC "AA'A. k*A CKA.1 ^.(AAVA i ;AC a <.Vr* «>? A'A* 9C "AAA^a't Ait'At aM##A>d« ta ttACI 'H* Clt4l-««« • At Cl'tAA.nA euArauaua Gopher State One Call mm r»» A<rtA - AS *v\a *«»A - '••;? ;•! •At s-ek».c%v«r*xMi <\*w 0 HI At A'05 ACO'CM aatam A»,n >C’ AM JCA HMCVtA drAA**«na fCAtArSB*AaA>« dCaai ^ «At Ak.A'. A«4 ffcvn M«co txiTMM «Torr •— cun > SATTAA* SCAM'VASat M MM M* m tmmm m.ta smnm m.H.m mm tmmtm ntsjtrr uAMMiu trww CftTVOION CONCEPT SUBMITTAL JUNE 24. 2002 ntcjirr PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Orcifio, Nlirmcaota xttL landform 1 NN C APOL iIS PNoe»• 1 X MA m* MHM "SnaA^* *"** ** •mhahcmi AnMHM FUHAMt eoom)ox0M0 fvouccr NO VQOU08 CML TTTIE SHEET C^4>A»jas CO.l - - * •' ' -1 1^ Jr !. I '/, V u V -' -'r- • I ' m ■'WS;a / ' • ", V •/' I- - /, . • / \ /, e^sS-^L^c-t I ' }'\ ' ■'" ■ ' -- --V' - - I- y / I I ey S’ D - • ■ • . yp \ J i •'• * '\ •'' ''''■•'' I o' ■ >^.'. •. tv '■■ ' ; r. /■-■■■ >v\!y', ■ :y.o \ ■ / , . ••;•. • ; '' H SG J !il ' y'-Vj' / "'■ ii/l !fl / / \/ ’..;iii! I Liil* ^7 ^' ' // ^ y r:y> i! f’ .; .. . • % yT ^ A J .1 - 'ij' ■ ' \ ■ ' a°o° »*.’. . V - ' y*» V. >:» V ✓I- ^ / ^ _ ✓\ / I . aKM* V Ci . 'V-. -.'* O '•i'K ■ ' ''''^- J , /-S r. *.i o « •h .:*! i,: ' / I 'i 505753 --------------^S^siros to^s sotroBj^B^l^y PAi^Cti B * 1 ,s wm.rn, m ----- :? ‘rr.O .. ■ * c:i ..sT_________.« • •• • Jl ____ __ ^ >>:;—- rf'-y t ------------------------—----------------' ^ SB8*St'tl"C. —-____ rfy'—'•—-^^ — J 1 ’—.: »r a .'.* * ir«* : r^E #t: .» .» | V. y|f; I < I > <t I iV f :. (^' T~: ------- ir* ^ r i ♦' i •J . --fc!u. •yw TTTf / / I V ji.'/t--1 c z* z*az**z i* ' ’I ’ ' I V, ‘ !.> ' I ' «Hr^ ] V I / \ Mr^K^wn >»n ' / , —- jA« - 1/ ,/'■'' ' ____^ .1 I 4r ;h* ^ \ J»* V» ra**oct • ” V JO i >' ' \' of ^ V ^ / •I U^- - ^ I'"/ • / • I ■~~-~ ~--I i/- \^\V. * / . ■-' ^ \ ,. s^s<-^:-s / ; / \ . - / ••••■( / • / /1 y . NIr' / / r V i) * ssrss44'c \ f - /■ * ' •■^V ;■'. "■ ./ i1'Ex ft- Vv w ^ ^^ ! \ •> C^CS2 ^ - > ' - ‘ / * IS'i \ • ‘ : V * '*, * \ ^ y<;■.;.i ':# S ^ r:^ ■ lx , -V /U-y /X k :;!>V'V>j:. ^ i 4#wtrt »**t / niMiiA^ii *411 \ • >7 V. I'I I */««c*«r*'t I'i I u«*«< y'i ^1' X'\% ,^1^'f- ■:■ .1.' “ ■, ,9,0 'S’ 3j>Sb f, 1 * > • ■» .r _ ^ I--.- •.v I — — X “t#-r V>j *!61 -----'X-^“---------rVlm I - I < ;'/i:^v'.t- » 'V . J' (\ I 'H *•••«» • 4V» •«•*««« -^jc-=» ■' — ^r- * • '- ,. ‘......— — ---------- - - .. . ▼ ^ C~% '.. “*■ ' : -----T-^——____'Z.-"~~T. T ^S: ”'iL DC • •• Mk •« • t J \ L. .o ,. • CT:i'f I-tjf :«*K*J wr»? UAt**; »r'« • cj *uas > ) •• •■ ri Ikc j Z T'l • ::>r : I' I i I RJHAMC caomtoziwo ftcjtcritf ftxToea CONOfT flAN C2.1 tCV^MNMVrOKY mm Kiva«NHerorY tlVMMH0T(XY ■M. tmmm mm -•ir- 160 KCjlLE IN fttr onhUJV^mjonM. OAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC TUUt DAiCNmOM r/tfPujkmsLAM. ’n«op»«Bi r*«XM»aiiw. OldHLtTVCDt r^^ty turn o>ici r*o %«« •ktm WfMJHmvjrr •*,4/^ iflMM >«<Mi laca^ •>/>•.«■ <•« *^«>»« («car* ftOJKCr MAJ4VXX UWW acrvcAnoN CONCEPT SUOMI7TAL JUNE 24. 2CX)2 nfOjfrr PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Orono, Niinne.^iota LANDFORM HI NMCAPOL IS ^HO1 N1 X HlMJhp rtojictMa rpwOM CONCEPTUAL PLAT C5.1 n t MNC APOL IS PHOf N t JC Kt HAMt OBOnOOUMO nt outer NO.notm PHA5M0 flAN C5.2 r LANDFORM MIMNCAPOLIS'PNOCNIX C-\ June 24, 2002 Michael Gaffron City of Orono . .. ... . . 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Revisions to Orono Village PUD Concept Plan and Rezoning Request Dear Mr. Gaffron, On behalf of our client, Landform is pleased to submit these revisions to our development application for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12. We have revised our plans based on the comments received at the June 10, 2002 City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Orono City Council denied our request for a land uses guide plan amendment. The requested amendment would have allowed residential and retail uses south of Kelley Parkway in area currently planned for office uses. Neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission have reviewed our rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat. Consequently, the City Council directed us to revise our plans to comply with the existing Community Management Plan and schedule a workshop with the Planning Commission to review the revisions before bringing our application back for formal City Council review of those items. The revised plan proposes no development south of Kelley Parkway at this time. While we continue to believe that retail uses are the best use at the northwest corner of the intersection of Willow Drive and Highway 12, we are not requesting any changes at this time. We understand that the Community Management Plan allows office uses and we will continue to work to find uses that are appropriate for this area. Because we are not currently proposing any development south of Kelley Parkway, we do hereby withdraw our previous applications for a commercial site plan and rezoning south of Kelley Parkway. The existing RR-1B zoning would be retained south of Kelley Parkway until either the City rezones the property consistent with the Community Management Plan (as required by Slate Statute) or until the applicant proposes development. Upon approval of the PUD concept plan for the area north of Kelley Parkway, we would prepare a preliminary plat for the entire site for review and approval. The area south of Kelley Parkway would be platted as two outlots. At some future date, development will be proposed south of Kelley Parkway and the applicant will be required to submit the necessary applications for site plan review. 650 BUTltn north BLiiLOiNG 510 flRST AvENUC NORTH MtNNEAPOLlS MN 55403 O^TiCC 612 25^9070 TA* 612 252 9077 www tanoform net Michaef Gaffron Page 2 Re: Orono Village Revisions June 24. 2002 We have reduced the number of units In this development from 235 homes to 168 homes. The area north of Kelley Parkway is planned with a mix of 59 rambler townhomes, 43 two-story townhomes and 66 loft units. The proposed density In this area is six units per acre, which is consistent with the City of Orono Community Management Plan. We are continuing to request a rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD for this area. The RPUD concept plan complies with ail ordinance requirements and the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Urban Residential Medium Density land use classification identified in the Community Management Plan. Our proposal continues to include construction of the planned Kelley Parkway in the first phase of development. The revised alignment of Kelley Parkway is consistent with the alignment shown in the Community Management Plan and allows us to reduce the amount of wetland impact. The sketch plat shows the townhomes platted as envelope lots surrounded by a common lot and the loft buildings would be platted on a single lot. As noted earlier, the property south of Kelley Parkway would be platted as two outlots to be developed at a later date. Upon City approval of the requested rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat, we would prepare the required PUD master plan and plat applications for development of the site. Any City comments on the PUD concept plan and sketch plat would be incorporated into the PUD master plan and plat, which would be submitted for City review and approval in August of this year. We continue to request that City Council approval of the rezoning, PUD concept stage plan and sketch plan be contingent upon filing the final plat. It is my understanding that this item will be scheduled for Planning Commission review on July 15, 2002. We request that a joint Planning Commission/City Council be scheduled for the week of July 8*’ to allow both the Planning Commission and City Council to review the revisions prior to taking action on the request in mid-July. As requested by staff, we hereby grant an additional 60-days to the City review period for the rezoning, PUD concept plan and sketch plat. As always, our development team is available to meet with City representatives at anytime to answer questions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Steve Johnston or me at 612.252.9070. Sincerely, landform ; idra Linda Planner COPY: Terry Dahlstrom, Dahistrom Development LLC Bruce Malkerson, Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP *Landforni Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 5S403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www landform net /■- Application U Date Received Amount Paid oo D-l CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATI Site Address m Type of Apphcationtole Filed J>Ub (bnc«r^-fWfe.kfld<^■ c^.LT^^hA. L(U Property IdenUfication Number (PJ.D.) --/7-- 0DQ^ ; APPLICAW ^ _ .... (home) nb3-^aO-S^Sl LLC Phone (work )i;'f3 - Q'TS'- Address_^^4~S i~Ar\4^ City H?p|g Zip ^S3l I 0\\^R (if differem than ^pUca^^ ^ ^ Phone (home) Namej) rorto PIq-zo, /^44^:7pm ^eigrs^yadVhone (work) ~9SZ - fj!2- 7W Ci5' Jjrnop^l.-^ ^zip £-6^2^-1001 Date Property Acquired ________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______5 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application ______$175.00 Residential Accessory Use ______$250.00 Institutional i'c!'»jrch, school, etc.) $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ' ______ $325.00 CommcrciaL'Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain - Gradir ,1 <nd filling - 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Gradui.-', ‘:'';a .vall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore ______PRD/PID - '.v'. 7 ' • ;ichedule - $150.00 Rcr.tw.d! I vc (no change from original application) ______Aftcr-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS y $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation ______$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easeui>mi ^'acation With Subdivision ^ $350.00 Rezoning VUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule jicyry# (6 s (month/year) 3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. f^Completed Application Form. ✓ Describe request in detail.2. 3. 4. ^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). ’ 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. iW.. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations mvolve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names Cmclude marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). —_Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). -r^.. As an addendum to ^s application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. VOU ARE REQUIRED TO JSUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUenON (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) rhe Appliewt and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete, initials of Clerical Staff:_______________ Date APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE rhe 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) md/or unusual expenses incurred m review of this application, and certifies that the information iupplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's __Date ^ £>:2— OWNER'S SIGNATURE fhe owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized rea^nable ;ntiy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council nembers for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Dwnet’s signature^---^g^%^!^..<,^ufc<> Date B r ^ ^ Applicant must have all submittals Into the City ofnees 25 days before Che Planning Commission Meeting, ’lanning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at alt cheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council If on applicant Is unable to attend a ■cheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place arid advise the Juildiog Sc Zoning Office of this change prior to die meeting. u Q O- 'T i^lJ J ^ #• • % Application # 'iX'l'6 1 Date Received'0“^ Amount Paid . _______ CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION. Site address kJ^A'________________________________ Property Identification Number (PID) OOcr> ^ * - - ____* . a - MPlease check one - Property pC abstract or Attach legal description to application. torrens? APPLICANT - Nam e*n!^)^ K\ ve.1 rcDrr^y\^ LL.C1 Address ~ Qty_[yjftp^e ^ Zip5SSll Phone (work) l^i^-dTiT - Phone (home) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_Qro>QQ__0a'Z^t Address_ M6~0O City Mrnrygq 72)M ^&i<ftrs<^onA ^ faWee-V Phone (hhone (home) (attach list if more than one) Zip Phone (work) <?5S>-993 - 91 )*- EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size / Present use (check) Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units Present Zoning District Other (specify) xy-Arrx.^'T PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites ________ Existing Units New Units *> • • • * Proposed Gross Density S.^ Minimum Lot Size uffr Proposed Use (check) ___^ 33^ Total Units __Units per Acres if __Sq. Fl Dry Buildable Land __Residential 2^___Other (specify) OoMM^rr • % • •• • ■^Addlcloaal Owner: Name: Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust Address: c/o Fredriksen . Byron (Attn: Greg Munson) 90r2nd Avenue South. Suite 1100, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-347-7146 9 #278 V « • • MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION ' y. Payment of fees (refer to "application fees" listed below. y. Completed application form. yf Preliminaiy plat information on Certificate of Survey. 4^ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Fbance Govt Center 348-3271). ^ 'As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of diis application. ToningOfficial's Signature ____________________________________Date MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION V Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if ^ipicable). Ef' Signed Certificate ofSurveyormylarcopies of form^ plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit Zoning Official's Signature _______ ___________________________ Date L APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check pC] those which apply) A. ^plication Base Fees: X Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & m) $275.00 _____ Subdivision ofa Lot Line Rearrangement $350.00 _____ Subdivbion Application (Class I & II) $350.00 _____ Prelimbary Subdivision Application $400.00 + $30.00/lot (Class HI & all non-residential) _____ Fbal Plat Application (Class HI) $225.00 _____ Legal Review and Filbg: _____Subdivision only $100.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and covenants mb. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determbed per Section 11.62) ____ Legal and Engbecring Review Fees (as bcurred) _____ Renew al of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from origbal application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Prelimbary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from origbal application) Renewal of Fbal Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from origbal application) Totals 22510) . lb. fr. X J0"$, lb. ft X .50 “ $ B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 + $.50/lbeal ft.; _____ Proposed Public Roads $950.00 + $.50/Ibeal ft; __ _____ _____ Request for City to Accept Existbg Private Road $950.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Mab Extension $275.00 + $25/stub » Proposed Watermab Extension $275.00 + $25/stub _____ Proposed Storm Sewer System (excludbg culverts) $250.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $60.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fees/Misc. Fees _____ Variance $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) _____ Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100.00 _____ PRD Application with Subdivision S35.00/Dwellbg Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zonbg Admbistrator, City Engbeer, City Attorney, Plannbg Commission and Council necessary to process this application and further agr*^s to pay all additional fees established by Applicant ’s Signature*^^i^^*T-g..^^^V^^^^Date ^ ____ Date i ^Owner's Signature ^ Applicant must have a^uttn^Bi ^^»d^City^OfficT2J diy^betore thVFfannbg Commission meeting. Plannbg CommissioD meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannbg Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meetbg, please make iirangemeats to have an authorized agent attend b your place and to advise the Buildbg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ) _____ /o • o r w • I I CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Mdreu: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 MaDlaf Addrets: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with M.S. 13.04, Subd. 2, "Rights of subjects of data", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license 'equested. . « 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. 4. 5. The information may be shared with other local, slate or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. You have certain rights under M.S. 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle Last Address ' City MM State Sr S3 11 PhoneZip 1 understand my rights as stated above. /Signature Telephone (612) 249-4 noxo I Offices MaiBBg Address; P.O. B« 66 Ciystal Bay. MN S5323-0066 f data", we would like to f of Orono or any of its al information. your qualification for the re that the City deny the >r federal agencies to the action to approve, some g page) to review private or permit. March 11.2002 Michael GafTron City of Orono 2750 Ke!-ay Pui Orono. MN 55356 # ^ RE: Orono Village Submittal Dear Mr. Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely. Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnership Owner's Signature j^Date c/^ 5~ Pol Of .'A ll Phone 6 <lJ #27 March 11,2002 Michael Gaffron City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Orono Village Submittal Dear M Gaffron: I hereby authorize and agree to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members and Council members for the purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Sincerely, Gilbe.iC Braun Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Tmst Owner's Signature:Date ^^ ^ 7^ RUN DATE 01/17/02 BATCH 504 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAVER NAHF/AODR SB 27-118-2S 9S 0009 00750 DICKEY LAKE OR ABRAHAM THOHAS ABRAHAH THOHAS 760 DICKY LAKE DR LONG LAKE HN 55556 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 27-118-23 33 0010 00770 DICKEY LAKE OR C 0 LEUKUHA A J M LEUKUMA CHARLES 0 I JILL M LEUKUHA 770 DICKEY LAKE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PI43S401 PAGE 96 36 26-118-23 43 0005 00770 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N INO SCHOOL OIST 8278 (ORONO) ATTN SUPERINTENDENT IND SCHOOL OIST R278 (ORONO) 665 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 L L PROP AODR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 38 28-118-23 43 8444- OOlO 00800 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N INO SCHOOL OIST NO 278 INO SCHOOL OIST NO 278 AOHIN OFFICE-SUPERINTENDENT 600 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 44 0002 00805 WILLOW VIEW DR D 6 SAMS I H J SAHS DOUGLAS B • HARY J SAHS 1185 LOHA LINDA AVE ORONO HN 55364 36 28-118-23 44 0003 00825 WILLOW VIEW OR LEGRAN CORP LECRAN CORP 1521 94TH LA N E BLAINE HN 55449 'L 'C L C L PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 28-118-23 44 0004 00845 WILLOW VIEW OR WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH LA N E HPLS HN 55449 38 2P-118-23 44 0007 00905 WILLOW VIEW OR HANS P 8ERGH/SHAR0N P BERCH HANS P 6 SUSAN P BERCH 10809 CHATHAM CT N BURNSVILLE HN 55337 38 26-118-23 44 0005 00865 WILLOW VIEW OR WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS 1521 94TH LA N E HPLS HN 55449 LLC LLC 38 28-118-23 44 0018 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH LA N E HPLS HN 55449 38 28-118-23 44 0006 00885 WILLOW VIEW OR WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH LA N E HPLS nij 55449 38 28-118-23 44 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC WILLOW VIEW DEVELOPERS LLC 1521 94TH LA N E HPLS HN 55449 c L PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 33-118-23 11 0003 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ORONO PLAZA ORONO PLAZA C/O REIERSCORD LAW OFFICE 4500 44TH ST W HPLS HN 55424 38 33-118-23 12 0007 02700 KELLEY PKWY H R A CITY OF ORONO H R A CITY OF ORONO 1335 BROWN RO S WAVZATA HN 55391 38 33-118-23 12 0008 02745 KELLEY PKWY WILLOW PROPERTIES WILLOW PROPERTIES C/O ALBERT B YNGVE 4535 BIG RICE LAKE DR N E REHER HN 56672 L PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 33-118-23 13 0002 02687 WAYZATA BLVD W ACE PROPERTIES LLC ACE PROPERTIES LLC 5500 ANDERSON ESTATES RO HAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 36 33-118-23 13 0014 02725 WAYZATA BLVD W VEDA INC VEDA INC PO BOX 375 LONG LAKE HN 55356. 36 33-118-23 13 0015 02605 WAYZATA BLVD W DRB 88 LLC DRB 88 LLC C/O BUSCH/FREORICKSON/BYRON 900 2ND AWE S 1100 INTRNL CT HPLS HN 55402 #27 89 RUN Oa.C 01/17/02 BATCH 50A PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB M>11B-2S 22 0005 00701 OICXEV LAKE CR P • K PUGH PATRICK > KAREN PUGH 725 DICKEY LAKE OR LONG LAKE NN 55350 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATZON SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 36 30-118*23 22 0009 00755 DICKEY LAKE DR T C ESAU SNA ESAU TERRANCE G A NARY A ESAU 755 DICKEY LAKE OR LONG LAKE NN 55356 REPORT NO. PI035001 PACE 37 38 30-118-23 22 0010 00765 DICKEY LAKE DR JANES FENSKE JANES E FENSKE 765 DICKEY LAKE OR LONG LAKE NN 55356 c PROP APGR OWNER «<(ANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 38 30-118-23 22 OOlO 02350 WAYZATA DLVO W C I L OTTEN CLI'FP.’ro I LOUISE OTTEN BOX 209 s LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 30-118-23 22 0018 60038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO C 8 L OTTEN CLIFFORD 8 LOUISE OTTEN BOX 209 LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 30-118-23 22 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO C 8 L OTTEN CLIFFORD 8 LOUISE OTTEN BOX 209 LONG LAKE N^' 55356 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 72 33-118-23 10 0011 02060 INDUSTRIAL BLVO W ETCO PROPERTIES INC ETCO PROPERTIES INC 15500 WAYZATA BLVD R750 WAYZATA NN 55391 72 33-118-23 10 0020 02055 INDUSTRIAL BLVO H LARTCH OEVELOPHENT CO FRED HANUS 15801 WEST OAKS NINNETONKA NN 15305 72 33-118-23 10 0012 02020 INDUSTRIAL BLVO U LUSE AND SON INC SAFEWAY STORAGE INC 2020 W INDUSTRIAL BLVO LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 33-118-23 10 0021 02065 INDUSTRIAL BLVO W LARTCH OEVELOPHENT CO FRED HANUS 15801 WEST OAKS HINNE'iONKA NN 55305 72 33-118-23 10 0015 02030 INDUSTRIAL DLVO W ETCO PROPERTIES INC ETCO PROPERTIES INC 15500 WAYZA1A BLVD 8750 WAYZATA NN 55391 72 33-118-23 10 0025 02010 INDUSTRIAL BLVO W SYSTEK CAPITAL REAL PROP CRP HC DONALDS CORPORATION P 0 BOX 66207 AHF OHARE CHICAGO IL 60666 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 72 33-118-23 10 0026 02000 INDUSTRIAL BLVD H SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC C/0 PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 539 HAIN ST S FINDLAY OH 05800 72 30-118-23 23 0001 02399 WAYZATA BLVO W uEORGAYN C KRAHER CEORCAYN C KRANER 2990 SUHNER SET LA LONG LAKE NN 55356 72 30-118-23 23 0002 02365 WAYZATA BLVO W R E 8 B N HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYEO 8 HOURI HAKZNI 5905 BERNARD PL EDINA NN 55036 1.. (. PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 72 30-118-23 23 0003 02305 WAYZATA BLVO W R E 8 B H HAUGEN ET AL OSCAR SEYED 8 HOURI HAKINI 5905 BERNARD PL EDINA NN 55036 TOTAL BATCH 500 00030 789 r (. L L V mm DATE 01/17/02 DATCH 500 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIOSSOOli PAGE 38 28 28-118-23-43-0011 2680 KELLEY PKWY CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 "^'■^S'JJTATION OF^INFORNAnON'S**irAPPEAl!s TWs"da TE*0N THE^RECOROS If KM2S? TO th S^SS?* DATE A 'j r^Mro fr .•«il ■!?«>. . SCHOOL . ^ o ?o/vo tar.tj (EILEY PKWV Oi^ 33-//S'-:^3-(7^ '^OOj Oknot»(>• ’- tAK£ DR ^ f i; . 1 >Tl* n# f 1 i '! -. i' ■B** 1 i • 1 1 ( • mm _ j 1 ■1 i- : t I ___■I f «tl • ^ . Al <f: . 'I Ub/V| zST -■g : gft. .* : • .. /,! » ViL-'’" M^=sr ___ A ' ar T irr'‘ ~ * *■ — i. — •' f #®ysTOi4«r- - V —^VO- -IV—I —I—mt *".i f **•*< w T* * y' J . INDUSTRIAL»*% I 2 3 3-//r-P3 mio f '? ^1*LA*<r c 1 '1 ■ f>ji »• * *m < vl •••• # JY-ua-pj<; -//VO^S ^■s PUD CONCEPT STAGE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS We have reviewed the PUD concept stage plan submittal requirements as outlined in Section 10.53 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to simplify City review of the submittal, we have noted each submittal requirement and identified where this information can be found or, In cases were the Information is not yet available, when the information will be submitted. 1. Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Trtle. A sketch plat has been prepared to provide the City with a general idea of how the property will be platted for this development; however, the preliminary plat is not included in this submittal package. Following City Council approval of this application package, Landform will prepare a preliminary plat, final plat and PUD development stage plan application for review and approval. 2. meral Information a. The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject property. The subject property is owned by Orono Plaza, a Minnesota general partnersMjj. The landowne- may reached at: Orono Plaza Attn: Tom Reiersgord Relersgord Law Firni 4500 West 44 “’ Street Minneapolis, MN 55424-1001 An undivided interest for the southeast 7.41 acres of the property has been conveyed to Gilbert C. and Anna Lou Ella Braun Charitable Remainder Trust, pursuant to an unrecorded deed. Mr. Braun is also a partner in Orono Plaza. b. The applicant ’s name if different from the landowner. Dahlstrom Development LLC is the applicant. c. The names and addresses of all professional consultants wno havn contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted, including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor. t . .11. / Hi!J V__.ti. % / *^ . • ia 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING S10 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX; 612 252 9077 iMwwlandfoan.net Michael Gaffron Pago 2 of 6 Re PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requirements April 17. 2002 Planner Wetland Consultant Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minne^ipolis, MN 55403 Photie: 612.252.9070 rav: 612.252.9077 Kjolhaug Environmental Services 28105 Wild Rose Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone; 952.401.8757 Fax: 952.401.8798 Engineer Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 Attorney Malkerson Gilliland Martin LLP Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-3205 Phone; 612.344.1111 Fax: 612.344.1414 Surveyor Landform 510 First Avenue North, #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612.252.9070 Fax: 612.252.9077 d.Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all legal, beneficial, tenancy and contractual Interests held in or affecting the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the subject property. We have attached a letter from the property owner authorizing the applicant to submit this and any other required applications. Present Status a. The address and legal description of the property. The vacant property does not yet have an address assigned. The legal description is as follows: Outlot B. Willow Properties Addition, except parcel 201 and 201a Minnesota Department of Transportation Right of Way Plat No. 27-57. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRS T AVE OFFICE; 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www.tancHbnn.nei #2789 ENL/E north MINNEAPOUS. MN 55403 rrrB~~ ^4ichael Gaffron Page 3 of 6 I^e: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requirements April 17. 2002 b.The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject property and all lands within 1,000 feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant and zoned RR-1B. The property to the north and east is guided Rural Residential, zoned RR-1B/RPD and RR-1B, respectively, and developed with single family homes. The property to the east, south of Kelley Parkway extended, is guided commercial, zoned B-6 (Highway Commercial) and developed with commercial uses including Otten Brothers Nursery. The property to the south, across Highway 12 in the City of Long Lake, is guided Commercial and Industrial, zoned B-2A, I-1 and 1-2 and developed with a mix of retail commercial, service retail and industrial uses, ' he property to the southeast, across Highway 12 ^ in the City of Orono, is guided Industrial and zoned Industrial. The property to the west is guided Public/Semi-Public and Commercial and is zoned RR-1B. The property guided Public is developed as Orono City Hall and Public Works and the property guided Commercial Is cun'ently vacant. We have included sheet C2.0 in the submittal package to Identify the existing uses, land use and zoning on the surrounding property. c.A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land within 1,000 feet thereof and indicating the location of existing streets, property lines, easements, watermains and storm and sanitary sewers with invert elevations on and within one hundred feet of the property. The subject property is currently vacant. We have included an existing conditions map in the submittal package (sheet C1.1). d.A written statement generally describing the PUD and the market which it is intended to sen/e and its demand showing its relationship to the City ’s Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable regulations of the City. A nan ’ative describ'ng the Orono Village project is included in the submittal package. e.Site Conditions. Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions on a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet. The existing conditions map is included on sheet C1.1 of the attached plans. f.Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements, public and common open space, residential and other land uses. 3N® The PUD concept stage plan/site plan is included in this submittal package (sheet 650 BUTLER NORTH BUiLOiNG 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. ^^N 55403 OFFICE: 612 252 9070 FAX 612 252 9077 www landfomi net Michael Gaffron Page 4 of 6 9- Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittat Requifements Apnl 17. 2002 A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations of land use expressed in acres and as a percentage of the total project area, which shall include at least the following: i Area developed to residential uses. Orono Village would include 235 market rate homes in a variety of housing styles. Approximately 42 acres of this 51-acre parcel will be devoted to townhomes, rowhouses and the Lofts. The remainder of the site is dedicated to streets and limited, neighborhood commercial. //. Area developed to residential by building type. Approximately 30 acres of property north of Kelley Parkway are planned for 41 townhomes. 8 acres of property in the center of the site are planned for 82 rowhouses. and 4 acres of property in the southwest comer of the site are planned for 112 units in the Lofts.m Hi. Area devoted to common open space. We have provided a Town Square in the commercial area and a Village Green near the Lofts. Both of these common areas are intended to encourage use by the residents of the neighborhood and visitors. The Town Square will be a community gathering space where Orono residents can linger over a cup of coffee or ice cream and visit with friends and neighbors. The Orono Village association would maintain both of these areas, which ( total approximately 0.6 acres. Our concept plan and sketch plat includes common lots over the wetland areas and surrounding the townhomes. as well as outlets for the private drives and private streets. The total area for the common open space areas, common lots and outlets is 28.5 acres. (•4* J iv. Area devoted to public open space. No public open space is proposed. The current plan shows a large portion of the site as common open space with private trails and sidewalks throughout the development. While these trails will be maintained by the Orono Village, they will be open to use by the public. Given the proximity of a number of public spaces at the City Hall complex and school facilities, a large public open space within this development would be redundant. However, we have provided public trails along Kelley Parkway, Willow Drive and HiqKvny i2. Additionally, we have retained large wetland areas within too development and have provided private trails around those features. The private trails and sidewalks within Orono Village will be maintained by the HOA. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUtLOING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MiNNEAPOL.S. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252,9070 FAX; 612.252.9077 www IarKlIofm i.ei mnnirrmim Michael Gaffron Page 5 of 6 Re: PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requuements ______ _____ Aph117.2002 V. Approximate area devoted to streets. Approximately 2.8 acres of the property would be dedicated to Kelley Parkway, a public street, arid 2.8 acres would be devoted to the private streets located in the proposed outlots. w.Approximate area devoted to, and number of, off-street parking and loading spaces and related access. The concept plan shows general compliance with City’s minimum parking standards. The townhomes and rowhouses have a minimum of two parking stalls for each unit as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to the two dedicated parking stalls for each unit, additional guest parking is provided in the townhome driveways and 46 on-street parking spaces on the private streets adjacent to the rowhouses. The commercial area would also comply with the City parking requirements. The Lotts would have one underground parking space per unit plus surface parking. We believe the proposed parking would be rrore than adequate for this use. The concept plan shows 99 surface parking spaces at the Lofts and 271 surface parking spaces in the commercial area. The total area devoted to these surface parking stalls is approximately 1.5 acres (exclusive of access aisles and drives). We have proposed screened loading areas for the larger commercial building. This loading area for the grocer would be screened from Willow Drive. Smaller vehicles would likely serve the smaller commercial buildings and loading would take place through the front door. Trash enclosures would be designed to be an integral part of the principal building. Access to this development would be provided from Kelley Parkway. There would be no direct access to Highway 12 or Willow Drive. vii. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to commercial uses. '?pk The concept plan shows approximately 39,000 square feet of complementary \ retail space In the southeastern 5.6 acres of the Orono Village mixed-use PUD. via. Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to industrial or office uses. No industrial uses are proposed. Office uses may be located in the retail buildings.■Alt 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFTICE: 612 252 9070 FAX; 612.252 9077 www landfomn net Michael Gaffron Page 6 of 6 Ro. PUD Concept Plan Stage Submittal Requirements April 17. 2002 h. When the PUD is to be constmcted in stages during a period of time extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space and dwelling units to be provided or constmcted during each such stage and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to stage. If the planned development is approved by mid-summer, the developer would begin construction In 2002. However, if approvals are delayed, the proposed scheduled would also be delayed. The initial phase would include construction of Kelley Parkway, several townhomes and rov^ouses in the central portion of the site in 2002/2003. Phase II would include the remainder of the townhomes and rowhouses in 2004/2005. The Lofts and the commercial portion of the site may be constructed as anytime. A graphic representation of the proposed staging plan is included in the submittal package as sheet C5.2. /.When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or service facilities. Maintenance of the common open space, private drives, private sidewalks/trails and communih spaces will be the responsibility of the Home Owners Association (HOA). Covenants will be drafted and submitted to the City with the PUD development stage plan and filed with the title to the property. The City will maintain the public trails along Willow, Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway. j. Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to the property included in the proposed PUD Landform will prepare development standards that will be included in the covenants for the property. A draft of those documents wr.l be submWed with the PUD development stage plan and filed with title to the property. The PUD concept stage plan namative provides a general description of the development plan. k. Schematic utility plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and storm sewers. The schematic utility plans are included in this submittal package on sheet C4.1. Ml ^ (J 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 Fiffsf AVENUE NORTH MIiWeAPOL OFFICE 612 252 9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 wwv, landfonn.net IRSTAVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLISTnFiSS- « • % • • • • LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIi-PNOfNIX b-4 > January 16, 2002 Ben Timerson Minnesota Department of Transportation 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville. MN 65113 Mr. Timerson, I spoke with you earlier this week about the possibility of expanding two existing ponds located In a MN/DOT easement for use In a proposed mixed-use development near the northwest quadrant of U.S. Highway 12 and Willow Drive in Orono. You responded with a phone call stating that typically MN/DOT does not reach this type of agreement with private developers, but would be receptive to a proposal from the City to expand the ponds as long as they are designed to accommodate all drainage from surrounding developrnents that may enter the ponds in question, and that maintenance and construction responsibilities are transferred to the City or their representative. I would just to take the time to thank you for your response and notify you that we will be pursuing this issue with the City of Orono In hopes that it agrees that the use of these ponds Is beneficial to the proposed development and surrounding area and will take the proper steps to get MN/DOT approval for these actions. If I have, in any way, misunderstood or misinterpreted your phone call or if you have any questions in general about this issue please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, LANDFORM hris Cunnington # a Q W J 0 ^ a.'' AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS MN650 butler north BUflDfNO 510 ETTiSTAVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 fAJt: 612.252 907 7 «*ww l«ndform net ! LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS- PHOENIX ¥ MEMORANDUM 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH, MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612 2529070 FAX 612 252 9077 DATE April 17. 2002 Michael Gaffron, City of Orono FROM Steve Johnston copy Terry Dahlstrom, DahlsL'om Development LLC Regional Pond Feasibility - Orono Village Feasibility Report for Orono Village Regional Pond The Orono \MIlagc project will require construction of a regional pond that would scr\'c the site and other developed and undeveloped properties north of US Highway 12 and east of Old Cr>’stal Bay Road. This 104-acre area, as determined by topographic information obtained by Landform and the City of Orono, is comprised of a large amount of woods, wetlands, open fields, 1-2 acre residential lots, city oflioes, .school district facilities, public works facilities, and two existing MN/DOT treatments ponds. The proposed regional pond will provide NURP standard treatment of storm water as well as runoff rate control for the 100-yr storm event. The regional pond w ill be constructed within MN/POT right-of-way in essentially the same location as the existing ponds. Preliminary correspondence inu cates that MN/DOT would be receptive to allowing construction s ithin the right-of-way if the City initiates the request. Preliminary hydrologic studies have shown that the pond volume necessary to meet NURP criteria is approximately 8.2 acre-feet. The current Orono Village concept pond has a volume of approximately 8.5 acre-feet. Furthermore, the runoff rate for the existing drainage basin is approximately 33.5 cfs through a 24” culvert under Highway 12. The new pond will be limited to this discharge rate under fully develop«'d conditions within the watershed. To detain this runoll rmd not flood the Orono Village project it will be necessary to lower the normal water level of the pond. This can be accomplished by jacking a new 24” culvert under Highway 12 approximately three feet lower than the existing cuKert. The new pipe will act as the primary pond outlet with the existing culvert providing for emergency overflow purposes. Page 1 ^2789 ^ 1 Bonestroo Bosene V ■ Anderlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects May 9.2002 Mr. Mike Gaffron Planning Director City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 FBoncitroo. Roicne. Anderlik and Atiociates. Inc. It an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer and Employee Owned Principals: Otto G flenestroo PE • V.irvinL Sorvaia. P£ • Giern R Cook P£ • TcOe^t G Schunicht P£ • Jrff/ A Bjurdon P£ Senior Coniultantt: RoPert W Rosene. P£ • Joseph C Anderlik. P£ • Richard £ rur.*er Pf • Susan V £t>erfm. C PA Associate Principals: Keith A Gordon. Pf. • Robert R Pfeffene PE • Richard W Foster Pf • David O Loskoia PE • Mark A Hanson Pf • Michael T Rautmann. P£ • Ted K field. Pf • Kervseih P Anderson, Pf • M.irn R Rolfs. P£ • David A Bonestroo MB A • Sidney P Williamson. P£ . L S • Agnes M Ring MB A • Allan Rick Schmidt P£ • Thomas W Peterson PC • James R Maland »*£ • Miles B Jenicn. P£ • L Phiit.p Gravel ill Pf • Daniel J Edgerton Pf • Ismael Martinez Pf • Thomas A Syfko Pf • Sz^eidon J Johnson • Dale A Grove Pf • Thomas A Roushar. P£ • Robert J Uevery P£ Offices: St Paul St Cloud Rochester and Wilimar MN • Milwaukee Wl • Chicago It VMrbsite; www bonestroo com ^^jATthAg/siTir Arif- ^ i ttvC i Rc: - Orono Pla/a PUD Concept Plan File No. 139-02-000 Plat No. 02-2789 Dear Mike: We have reviewed Ihe PUD concept plan for the proposed Orono Pla/a do vclopmcni The site is locnicd in *he northwest quadrant ot the intersection of Willow Drive and TH 12. The proposal provides for a mix of residential houMPg and commercial development. We have the following comments in regards to engineering mailers. ]. Sanitary Sew er: Sanitary sewer flovv^ from the sue will be rouicd ic an existing saniiar;. sewer along ihc nonh sule of TH 12. The existing sanitary sewer then flows southerly under TH 12 through a line just west of the Golf Dome property. This line serves an area north of TH 12 including the public schools along Old Cry stal Bay Road, the NV illou \ lew subdivision and the Medina Morningside neighborhood in NIedina. Prior to the consiniciion of the new Orono Middle School this sanitary line was nearly at capacity. The City recently constructed a bypass lift station along the south side of T.H. 12 to provide temporary relief for the additional flows generated by the school. During peak flow limes the bypass lift station pumps into an existing MCES forcemain along the Nouih side of TH 12. The lift station was an interim measure and will remain in operation until the downstream infrastructure is upgraded to provide the necessary capacity. Currently the system is at capacity and cannot accummvHJaic the additional flows generated by the proposed development until the system is upgraded downstream from the bypass lift station. Improvements to the existing sanitary line between the bypass lift station and the railroad tracks to the south would need to be a City project. The applicant should review costs for these impiovemeni^ with the City It is cur understanding the system along the railroad tracks and lo the cast will be upgr.idcd as par of the propey:d .MNMX)T IH 1^ improvement project. MN/DOT should be consulted to determine when the proposed sanitary sewer improvements will be completed and to verify that the necessary capacity will t>e provided Sar.uar.v sewer shall be in installed in accordance with City standard deiaiis. Final plans should include plan and profile views of all saniiaA^ sewer. 2. ater Main; The propc>scd w ater m.ain from west to exst should l^e 12 ” DIP. The liignment of the 12 * mam should follow’the alignment of the proposed Kelley Parkway. Water mam design thro’jghoui the .es: of the project appears acceptable. The two water mam laterals serving the units north of Kelley Parkway should be looped Final plans should include plan and profile views of the proposed water mam. water main dciafs and service locations 3. Storm Sevstr: The draft version of the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) ^hows that this site lies w ithin the Long Lake drainage district. The narrative prov ided w iih the application propo>es to expand the existing M.\'/DOT ponds ah>ng the south side of the sue As pari of the expansion the improvements propase to lower the normal water level of the pond by installing a new outlet pipe approximately 3-feei lower than the existing outlet pipe The existing pond outlet pipe discharges on the south side of TH 12 Storm water then flows overland through a tlrainage ditch along the west side ot the Golt Dome property The drainage ditch is very flat and the Golf Dome experiences occasional flooding during heavy ram events. The developer should provide additional infomiationosto where and at what elevation the proposed outlet will discharge south of TH 12. A minimum of 2-feet of freeboard should be prov ided between all basement cIcvationF and pond high water levels. The City has ‘^lorm sewer near the propiised westerly pond .Additional details such as connections to the City storm sewer, proposed emergency overflows and discharge ptunts should be provided for the pond along the wot boundary All storm ^ewer within 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. MN 55113 ■ 65F636-4600 • Fax. 65F636-I31I City pgh;-of-way or under pavement shall be RCP. There doesn't appear to be any proposed storm sewer to serve properues north of Kelley Parkway. Plans should include stonn sewer provisions for this area. All ponds should meet NURP standards. Ponds should have a 10:1 aquatic bench at the pond's normal water level (l^VL). All ponds should have an outlet structure and provided a minimum of 1-foot of skinuning to remove floatables and debris. Riprap should be provided at all inlets and outlets. Final plans should show plan and profile views of the proposed sewer and include storm sewer details. A drainage area map, storm sewer and ponding calculations should be submitted for our review. It is critical that an effective erosion control plan be included with the final plan set and implemented during construction due to the magnitude of the project and potential offsite impacts. Final plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for their review. 4. StrcetafTrails: Kelley Parkway is a municipal state aid (MSA) road. At a minimum, Kelley Parkway should be designed to meet MSA standards and should provide room for parking or distressed vehicles for both east and west bound traffic. A median could be incorporated into the design to provide a parkway appearance, provide traffic calming and accommodate construction of turn lanes. The design of the connection at Willow Drive should incorporate left and right turn lanes for eastbound traffic. Horizontal and vertical alignments should meet a 30 mph design speed. All streets within the project should have conciete curb and gutter and meet City standards for public or private roads. The proposed turnarounds on the north end of the two private streets north of Kelley Parkway do not appear to be adequate for emergency vehicle turning movements, plans should be submitted to the fire chief tor review and comment. A geotechnical report, R-value recommendation and pavement design should be provided for review. The applicant should anticipate typical street sections that include select granular material and draintile because of the poor soils. The proposed bituminous trail should be extended southerly from Kelley Pa'-kway to TH 12 and along Kelley Parkway to the west boundary of the site. The City should consider whether a bituminous path or concrete sidewalk is appropriate along TH 12 between Willow Drive and the west properly boundary. 5* Traffic: The proposed land uses will generate approximately 5,200 trips per day. We have concerns regarding the intersections at Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive, Kelley Parkway and Old Cry stal Bay Road and at Willow Drive and TH 12. At a minimum we recommend that the applicant commission a traffic study to determine whether improvements are necessary at these intersections. Additional concerns include the spacing of Kelley Parkway from TH 12 and access management along Old Crystal Bay Road. 6. Financial Guarantee: When final plans have been completed we will prepare an estimate of the total cost for the site improvements to determine the amount of the financial guarantee required. The developer will also be responsible for all pertinent City charges including, but not limited to, trunk sewer, trunk water, storm water area charge, and park dedication fees. Please contact me at (651) 604*4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Youra very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Tom Kelloj Cc; Greg Gappa, City of Orono « CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952-249-4600 ZONING HLE //02-2789 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 13, 2002 TO:Dahlstrom Development LLC 7745 Polaris Lane Maple Grove, MN 55311 Landform 510 First Avenue North #650 Minneapolis, MN 55403 COPIES:Orono Plaza •Attn: Tom Reiersgord Malkcrson Gilliland Martin LLP Reiersgord Law Firm Suite 1500 AT&T Tower 4500 West 44th Street 901 Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55424-1001 Minneapolis, MN 55402-3205 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Comp Plan Amendment / PUD Rezoning / Subdivision / PUD Development - Concept Plan Stage DATE OF MEETING: June 10, 2002 Council Action: 1. Motion to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment reques for conversion from “commercial office ” use to “multifamily residential” use (and rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD) for the area between Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway. Vote: 2 Ayes (Sansevere, Nygard), 3 Nays (White, Murphy, Peterson) Motion Failed 2. Motion to deny the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for conversion from “commercial office ” use to “multifamily residential” use (and rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD) for the area between Highway 12 and Kelley Parkw-ay. \'ote: 3 Ayes (White, Murphy, Peterson), 1 Nay (Nygard), 1 Abstention (Sansevere) Motion Carried These Council actions reflect that the Concept Plan as proposed is not acceptable. Council made no further motions. Some Councilmembers individually commented regarding their preferred level or types of retail uses that might be allowed at the southeast comer of the property, but suggested that no commitment would be forthcoming until applicants amend their application and provide a revised concept plan for consideration. Notice of Council Action June 13, 2002 Page 2 Council ’s denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment will obviously result in significant changes to the concept plan proposal, i.e. essentially a new proposal. Rather than requiring you to make a completely new application. Council accepted the idea that you can amend your current proposal, and start anew with the Planning Commission. This will necessitate a re-starting of the original 60-day clock in terms of the statutory review period, beginning on the date your revised concept plan is submitted. Please provide the City with a letter acknowledging the re-start of the initial 60-day review for your complete application (PUD Concept stage plan, commercial site plan, sketch plat, rezoning and land use guide plan amendment). Absent such a letter, staff will recommend that Council take formal action regarding the complete application that would require a new application submittal rather than a referral back to Planning Commission. From a scheduling standpoint, please be advised of the following: 1. The Planning Commission meeting tentatively suggested for the week of June 24-28 will not be held. 2. Once your amended proposal is received, it will be brought forward to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, as was your first plan. Deadline for submittal of items for the July 15 Planning Commission regular meeting is 4:30 p.m. on Monday, June 24 in order for the City to meet its legal notice publication deadline. 3. Assuming you meet the June 24 deadline. Planning Commission will likely want to meet with you in a work session the first or second week of July. We will be reviewing the status of application fees and will advise you of any additional fees due as the amended application moves forward. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder afler review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Councilman White provided slafT with an 11-point “scorecard" he devised for rating the strong and weak points of this development proposal. I’m including it here to assist you in reaching some conclusions of your own. Use it as you sec fit. Scorecard 5 4 3 2 1 0 I) Mix of land uses 2) Take advantage of compact budding design 3) Create housing opportunities and choices 4) Create walkable communities 5) Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place 6) Prescrv'c open space and natural beauty 7) Strengthen and direct development toward existing community of Long Lake 8) Provide a variety of transportation choices 9) Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective 10) Encourage community and stakciioldcr collaboration in develonmuit decisions 11) Open Public Space MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, Janice Berg, J. Mark Fritzicr, and Alternate Maureen Bellows. The following City Staff were present: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. and recorder Kristi Anderson. Commissioners Liz Hawn and Jeanne Mabusth; and City Council Representative Jim Murphy were absent.. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) 02-2792 PAUL T. AND KAY K. STUDEBAKER, 250 RUANN ROAD, VARIANCE (#2) 02-2794 CHRIS AND GAIL BOLLIS, 200 STUBBS BAY ROAD, VARIANCE Smith inquired whether there were any public comments regarding these two applications. There were no public comments. Fritzicr moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application tt02-2792 Paul T. and Kay K. Studebaker, 250 Ruann Road, granting a variance to construct a new residence on the property subject to height requirements, setbacks, and grading requirements per the permit process. V’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Fritzicr moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2794, Chris and Gail Bollis, 200 Stubbs Bay Road, approving a variance to allow placement of a 20’ x 22’ accessory structure between the principal structure and the street per the proposed plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#3) #02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRI\T, VARIANCE Smith delayed this item for later discussion as the applicants were not yet present. (#4) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES Due to lack of representation this item was tabled. PAGE 1 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. («5) #02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, 3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVT, VARIANCES 6:45 p.m. - 7:25 p.m. John R. Jones and Charlotte Lipa, Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated that the applicant was looking for general site plan approval based on the site plan as presented at the May Planning Commission meeting. Required variances included lot area, lot width, building height, and hardcover. As reviewed by Weinberger, the building height ordinance consists of two elements; 1) a limit on the measured height of a structure, and 2) a limit on the number of stories. According to residential zoning districts, both the 2 '/j story limitation and 30 ’ maximum height apply. Weinberger continued that in the past, it has been City policy to measure building height differently than basing the upper measuring point as the average of peak to cave when the entire space located within the roof area is used as living space. When living space is located within the roof, if there arc any windows to that space such as dormer windows or gable-end windows (not merely skylights), the height then is measured at a point half way between the top of the living space (or ceiling height of the uppermost level) and the peak. With regard to the 2 'A story definition, Weinberger pointed out that the Planning Commission reviewed and generally accepted a definition of a half-story taken from The Illustrated Book of Development Definitions (Moskowitz «S: Lindbloom, Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 19S1) which defines the upper story' as a half story when both these conditions arc present; a) the portion of it with headroom 5’ or lower is at least 40/b of the floor area of the story below b) the roof intersects with the building outside wall at a point no more than 3 ’ above the floor of the upper story. Weinberger maintained that this definition was consistent with definitions used by other cities to determine a half-story and cited Edina as one such example. The current City policy on building height treats a space meeting the proposed dtiinition of half story, as a full story if it has windows. From an administrative standpoint. Weinberger stated that this could be problematic if a half-stor>' without windows and used as living space later has windows added and becomes a full story. 'I hereby the building becomes a three story residence. He questioned whether the Commission believes allowing windows on a half story' gives a house the visual appearance of a full story ’. With regard to the three other requested variances, Weinberger stated that the Lot Area and Lot Width variances arc not unusual for a lot ol this nature, and the amount of Hardcover proposed is the minimum amount of hardcover required to serv e a house with a 1,500 s.f. foundation and provide a suitable driveway. Mr. Jones questioned the new definition with regard to windows. While he had received confirmation which would allow livable space on the half-story during the May Planning Commission meeting, Jones PAGE 2 OF 29 L L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, Continued) stated that at no time during that meeting was he told anything about w indow usage. lie added that as he looks around Orono it is clear to him that numerous half-stories with windows e.xist on both old and new construction. There were no public comments. Bellows stated that, as an architect, it would set a bad precedent to sway from existing City rules. While the hal.f-story topic may be an issue to address in the future, she believed that the sum of all the pieces in need of approval amount to too much for this space. Bellows stated that, in her opinion, it seemed that too much is being stuffed on a lot of this size, w hich in turn creates too much bulk on this site. She added that she could support the approval for some of the variances but not the height issue. Smith asked the Commission if they could support the variances for *ot area and lot w idth. Bellows stated once again that the issue revolves around uie height problem mostly and visually the windows make it look like a three story building. Berg concurred with Bellows, stating that she was opposed to masstng in height. She pointed out that, unfortunately, Mr. Jones could probably not have eveiylhing he wants on that lot. In reference to the overhead of the proposed residence with dormer, Weinberger questioned when the Commission felt the plan becomes a third stoiy versus a half-story. Mr. Jones reiterated that neither during the meeting one month ago, nor since, had either the Commission or staff ever mentioned anything about not allowing w indows to him. Rahn questioned the roof hips on the overhead. Jones stated that the hipped roof line not only softened the look but brought down the roofline rather than extending it further. In an effort to meet the definition as proposed at the May meeting, Jones said that they took the floor plan from the second floor line and brought the roofline down to no more than three feet above the floor plane and brought it in to cut out 40% of the space at the five foot point. Bellows stated that the overhead elevation plan clearly reads as a three story in her \iewr. Mr. Jones argued that he had met the 2 '/»story definition as provided to him at the last meeting, he has not exceeded 30 ’ in height nor has he exceeded the half-story definition provided by The Illustrated Rook of Development Definitions. Bremer staled that Mr. Jones w as correct in his recollection that w indow s had not bem a part of the definition or discussion at the last meeting, it simply was never addressed. Gaffron stated that there is no definition in place that has been adopted by the City currently that defines a half-story, let alone w indow s on a half-stor>’; however, what is being proposed has been treated as a third story in the past. PAGE 3 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, Continued) While he acknowledged that varying definitions exist, Rahn stated that the general definition agreed upon by the Commission dictates that the 30’ height point be taken from the midway point between the ceiling joist to the peak, which is assumed to be halfway up the roof, thus, this clearly exceeds the 30’ requirement. Rahn supported staffs general policy that the 30’ building height be based on the average height between the ceiling and the peak. Mr. Jones suggested that he cut off the roof, by making it a flat roof in order to meet the 30’ and 2 ‘/i story house standard. Bellows reiterated that this proposal is still too much for this site and the suggestion put forth by Mr. Jones would merely make the structure appear even more massive. Mr. Jones stated that if the Commission looks at the sites next door they w'ould sec that on cither side of him, they have both been granted variances allowing much more lot cover than he is proposing. Bellows stated that neither of these homes have the bulk he is proposing. Mr. Jones insisted that both properties do have bulk, in fact, his first and current proposal is smaller than the home built recently next door. Bellows asked if the lot sizes were similar. Mr. Jones stated that the dimensions arc the same. Bremer questioned if the neighbor in question is the same neighbor who spoke to the Commission last month. Mr. Jones stated that she was. Bellows believed the drawings looked like much more bulk. Mr. Jones stated that the figures in the draw ing are not done to scale and look tiny in the sketches. Bellows stated that they should be drawn to scale in order to give the City a true representation. Gaffron pointed to figure E.2, a photo of the Jones and the two neighbors properties The house on the right shows a tw o story home four feet above grade, w hile the one on the left is low er and consists of a 2 '/j stoiy home. Gaffron felt that in order to squeeze this house in between the other two, you would see what appears to be in effect a three story home w ith a flat roof, which would be taller and somewhat overwhelming to its neighbors. Smith clarified, with the Commissions support, that there is no problem with width and area variances; however, there is objection to the height and concerns pertaining hardcover. She continued by referring PAGE 4 OF 29 ik J • L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (^02-2786 JOHN R. JONES. Continued) to. staff report Exhibit A. the bold face print which describes the general measurement for height and encouraged Mr. Jones to scale back his application to meet the description therein. Mr. Jones asked what the height would need to be scaled back to. Weinberger reminded the applicant that any added windows would be deemed a full third story and if the living space can be contained within the half-story with a typical roof s'yle it will likely meet the 30‘ height Jcquirement.. It is how the top story is used which changes the definition. Assuming the applicants want windows, Bremer asked Weinberger to clarify for Mr. Jones whether windows can be used at all. Weinberger stated that in this case, the use of windows at all designates a third story. By allowing people who typically just have attic space the opportunity to add windows to create additional li\ing space for themselves, allows the third story scenario that we want to discourage. Mr. Jones asked Weinberger to explain why some of the current new construction in Orono on Crystal Bay have windows on the half-story. Gaffron indicated that many of the homes Mr. Jones refers to under construction arc walkouts and will appear to be three stories from the lake. He did point out that some 20-30 year old homes like those on the end of Casco Point arc classic c.\amples of three levels plus window s up into the roof space, which look like castles towering out there. Tod; y, Gaffron noted, he could not recall any homes constructed recently that reflect this four story effect. Bellows pointed out to the applicant that in some of those instances he may be referring to, the site may simply offer more elbow room for that bulk than is at this location. She stated that Mr. Jones was simply asking for too much house for his lot. Bellows continued that it was irrelevant for him to cite other houses unless there w as one or more in particular that had the same kinds of constraints that his offered. Mr. Jones indicated that w hile his situation and piece of real estate might be unique, once again, he asked the Commission to define for him the parameters, w hich w ill allow him to get as much house as he can get. Bellows stated that the Commission was attempting to work w ith Mr. Jones and, in fact, they had indicated that the lot area and width variances were acceptable. She did state however that the Commission w as not satisfied with the height variance requested and had some concern over hardcover. Bellows continued that the Commission w ill not be satisfied until the applicant meets the definition as was outlined in Weinberger's recent memo. Mr. Jones took issue w ith and reiterated his need to understand what would be acceptable w ith regard to height. He repeated that up until this evening he had never heard anything about window restrictions and fully believed that he had met the definition as discussed in the last meeting. He felt that precedent had already been established all over the lake with windows on a half story and noted that during the last meeting, he specifically asked the Commission if he follow ed the 60% requirement as defined for a half PAGE 5 OF 29 >fINUTES OF THE OROXO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. («02.2786 JOHN R. .lONTS, Continued) story at that meeting would that be acceptable, to which, everyone nodded in agreement. He continued that after the last meeting he revised his application to meet the definitions as discussed only to come back and find once again that he is being denied based on a new definition. Berg stated that, in her opinion, the roof line is simply too high. The lot won ’t sustain this level of massing and it needs to be brought down. Although absent from the last meeting, she stated that her position has always remained the same, that the City needs to get control of the massing on the lake and therefore that is the direction they arc giving to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acknowledged that, in May, the Con.mission determined that their reservations were not based on height but were rooted on the half story question, so at that lime a definition was found and has since been met. Mr. Jones added that in order to meet the definition the roof line could be changed, and he agreed it was too hi; 'i. He continued that, as it stands now. he can redesign the plan in order to bring the height down by changing the roof line. Bcilows reiterated that the rules state both conditions apply. 2 Vi stories and 30 ’ must be met and he is not doing that. Mr. Jones stated that, in fact, he had met those requirements, only to find that the rules had now changed. There was never any discussion about, or has ever been as far as he could tell, any discussion on record with regard to windows e.xcept for this new recent memo, lie asked to be told why he has not met both conditions. Bellows maintained that Mr. Jones was not meeting both requirements because by the definition that he had accepted if one takes the average height as half tlic distance between the ceiling height and the ridge the design, tt is over thirty feet. Mr. Jones maintained that the proposal is at 30 ’ and docs not e.xcecd it. Bellows did not believe the picture rellected whal he was stating. Gaflron stated that the issue is that the upper measuring point is beuveen the ceiling of the third level and the peak a:.d not between the lower gable and the peak. Historically, and consistently. Gaffron stated that if the windows did not c.xist on the third level they would treat it as a half story. Rahn felt that the new elevation clearly reflects a third story. He maintained that if you took a poll of people they would say that this is a three stoiy home with three sets of w indow s. More time needs to be devoted to the definitions than his iccn allow ed at this juncture and much of w hat is going on is subjective and opinion based. He encouraged Mr. Jones to bring in more clear elevations than have been presented this evening in order to obtain a clear definition and understanding by the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that this type of unique situation has come up in othci jurisdictions that he has looked into. In none of the cases were windows mentioned. In California, they eliminated the subjective and opinion based conjecture by strictly focusing only on height. If this isn’t a 2 Vi stov, Mr. Jones asked once again, that the Commission define to him what constitutes a 2 '/j story with livable space PAGE 6 OF 2V MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, Continued) Bellows directed Mr. Jones to lower his house so the highest point half way between the ceiling height and the ridge is no higher than the 30’ height requirement and story definitions. Mr. Jones asked if he could simply lower the roof line. Smith stated that his suggestion still constitutes a third story. She indicated that once Mr. Jones complies with a two story structure and a half story storage space, in her mind, that will qualify as a 2 Vi story home. Jt would function as a three story if there is livable space on that third story. Bremer slated that, as discussed last month, there can be living space and still constitute a half story, and she hoped that they were not goi .g to go back to regale that point once again. Ms. Lipa, applicant, stated that there seems to be some confusion now w'hether living space is allowed in the half story at all and asked the Commission to tell them one way or the other in order to avoid any future miscommunication. She indicated that it seemed to her the focus had shified from a height condition to tiie issue over their usage of the house. Ms. Lipa maintained that if usage has become the issue, the Commission needs to tell them that they do not want to have living space in the half story on this lot. Berg stated that this is a ground level home, not a walkout, and she did not want to set the precedent of allowing three stories by allowing a half story with windows that people can occupy as living space. Mr. Jones questioned then if he researched the permits granted over the past year whether he would find any with living space on a half story. Bellows acknowledged once again that each property is unique, and stated that Mr. Jones property will not support this much bidk. Mr. Jones maintained that he has reduced the bulk and asked how much bulk could be supported by his property. Bellows stated merely two stones and an attic. Bremer indicated that the home still reads as a three story. She stated that even though she was present last month when the initial discussions took place, and empathizes w ith Mr. Jones’ frustration, this is a more constructive discussion, which w ill give him the direction he desires. She explained that m her estimation the measurement of the story has been misunderstood as Mr. Jones has review ed the half story. Bremer reiterated that the height is measured as the average from the ceiling of the third story to the peak, w hich in this case indicates they arc higher than 30’. Weinberger asked, since there seemed to be general agreement on the other \-arianccs the applicant had requested, if there were parameters set by which they have to meet could they have a recommendation for approval ppRvided they meet those. PAGE 7 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (m-2786 JOHN R. JONTS, Continued) Smith indicated that this could be one direction the Commission takes and asked for comment on the hardcover request. Rahn stated that his original inclination would have been to push the driveway out to the street which would not increase the amount of hardcover but potentially give the applicant more usable living space; however, the structural coverage would increase thereby creating a new dilemma. He stated that he did not have an issue with the hardcover amounts as proposed and did not see any excessive use of hardcover. Rahn indicated that his only issue is with the height as designed and he would be reluctant to send anything forward to Council without first reviewing new elevations. Smith questioned whether any additional comments with regard to hardcover needed to be added to the discussion. Ms. Lipa stated that due to the unique nature of the lots along this street, both of their neighbors had received overages on the back lot hardcover restrictions just because ot the lots. In the original plan, they had designed a detached garage in the back, but in order to make a house vork for that lot, under Weinberger’s guidance, they designed a tuck under garage on the home e\en though it used up valuable square footage and did not match the character of the neighborhood. Smith asked Weinberger relative to the neighborhood how much over is the hirdcover on this application. Weinberger stated that this lot is fairly consistent in size to its neighbors but the overall hardcover proposed is slightly lower than the others. Gaffron noted that most of the homes built along Baldur Park Road in the 80’s were built with 35% to 45% hardcover and this is not out of character w ith those. Smith asked w hether, given the opportunity to reduce the levels of hardcover in this neighborhood, the Commission would do so. Bremer stated that she had no issue with the level of hardcover proposed and that it is consistent w ith the surrounding lots. She continued that it would be extremely difTicult to build on those lots any other way. Smith clarified that it is obviously consistent w ith the neighbors and asked if the Commissioners agreed the level of hardcover is acceptable. There was general agreement. As it stands. Smith stated that the height issue is all that remains and asked for direction as to whether to table the application in order to allow the applicant time to address the height requirement or vote now. Fntzlcr indicated that the City Council would want to see the issues resolved before moving it forxvard. Ms. Lipa asNcd for clarification over w hether the Commission is adamantly opposed to any li\ing space whatsoever or if a pla>Toom scenario could be proposed. Smith indicated that living space such as a pla>TOom would be acceptable without windows. PAGE 8 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. («02-2786 JOHN R. JONES, Continued) Bellows suggested the use of skylights or ceiling lights in exchange for windows. Mr. Jones accepted tabling discussion until the July 15, 2002 meeting. Bellows moved. Smith seconded, to table Application II02-2786, John R. Jones, 3490 North Shore Drive, at the applicants request in order to allow them time to redesign the proposal to meet building height restrictions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVT, VARIANCE 7:26 p.m. - 7:37 p.m. Mark Palm, Applicant, was present. To review, Weinberger reported that the applicant had applied for a variance requesting setback and hardcover variances to permit construction of a 35’x24 ’ two story garage, to replace an existing garage. The proposed garage was intended to be constructed 1..V from a property line where a 15’ setback is required. Weinberger reminded the Commission that a 15’ setback is required for all accessory buildings between 750-1,000 s.f. in size. The proposed building is 840 s.f. The current size of an existing garage and lean to structure is 900 s.f. Based on direction provided by the Planning Commission to design a building that would be built 750 s.f. or less, thus requiring less setback, and to build the structure with a minimum setback to the property line of 5 ’, Mr. Palm had submitted a revised plan. Weinberger states: that the revised plans reduce the size of the garage to 22 ’ X 34’. which reduces the overall size of the garage to 748 s.f. I he garage is also proposed to be relocated to meet the 5 ’ setback as recommended by the Planning Commission. Weinberger continued that the design is to have one-double .stall garage door and one-single stall garage door w ith some storage located above the garage that would be accessed by an interior stairway. The total height of the garage from the ground level to the peak of the roof is 20 ’. The roof style chosen is to architecturally match the house, including dormer window s on the building. Weinberger explained that the garage requires a variance to permit the garage to be located 5 ’ off the side property line where 10’ is required, fhe property owner agreed to resize the garage to allow a side loading garage and avoid the need for excessive fill. Based on his report, Weinberger stated that staff recommends the application for vananccs to permit alterations to 75-250 ’ setback, 250-500 ’ setback and side yard setback be approved allowing a garage 22 ’ X 34’ to be located 5 ’ from the adjacent side property line. The orientation of the garage takes advantage of the site topography and the overall size of the garage is being reduced as compared to the existing building. Mr. Palm requested that the Commission allow him to construct dormers on the garage but turn them 90 degrees in order for them to better parallel the look of the house. PAGE 9 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, Continued) There were no public comments in reference to this application. Rahn stated that he preferred that the dormers be rotated as it will better reflect the look of the home. Bellows complimented Mr. Palm for the idea and felt by doing the rotation the massing effect would be significantly reduced. Smith.moved, Rahn seconded, approving Application #02-2769, Mark and Pam Palm, 1447 Park Drive, granting of variances for replacement of existing garage to be located 5' from the adjacent side property line. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#6) #02-2793 REVIS L. STEPHENSON HI, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD, AFTER-TIUI-FACT VARIANCE/CUP 7:38 p.m. - 8:58 p.m. Weinberger reported that in November, 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. 1 he project required clear cutting the slope and depositing 3,280 cubic yards of fii: »he purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods apartment building located at the northwest comer of Highway 12 and Brown Road. At the time of the approval. Weinberger explained that the property owner stated that some existing less mature trees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill was placed on the hillside. Additional trees were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside was not to be a maintained lawn area that is mowed, but was to be left to restore itself naturally. Weinberger noted that during routine inspections of the property it was dctennincd that the amount of fill placed on the hillstde had exceeded what was allow ed by the Conditional Use Permit. The City of Orono requested the property owner have a new survey completed to indicate where the land elevations had changed and by how much. The new survey completed by Gronberg and Associates, dated 6. 6 02. confirmed the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area, but went beyond the property lines onto adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where the fill had been added within 26’ of the protected wetland.. Weinberger continued that staff sent correspondence ordenng Mr. otephenson to correct the work; however, the May 16. 2002 deadline was not met. MCWD also had issued a stop work request. Instead, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for an after-the-fact conditional use pemiit to permit additional land alteration beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint application including neighboring property owners, and an after-the-fact variance to permit the deposit of fill within 26’ of a wetland. With regard to land alteration, Weinberger referred to Exhibits B. C. and D that illustrate what the land alteration conditions are comparing the pre-existing, approved, and actual elevations of the hillside. The elevation of the backyard is 966’. with the lowest wetland elev ation of 938’. 1 he total drop of the hillside IS 28’. Weinberger s'ated that the approved plan indicated an overall slope would be decreased to PAGE 10 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2793 REMS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) a 4:1 slope, pointing out that typically the City requires grading projects to have a finished slope of no greater than 3:1. Since the City of Orono requires a 26 ’ setback to wetlands, Weinberger stated that the proposed grading plan did not impact the wetland or wetland setback. Currently however, the fill is located as close as 17’ to the edge of the wetland, with an average distance from the hill to the w etland boundary of betw een 20- 25 ’. Weinberger expanded on the three recommendation proposed by staff.: 1) The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26 ’ of the wetland be denied. 2) The portion of the afier-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City’s general recommendations that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. In essence the applicant '.ad extended his back yard an additional 38’. 3) Staff has requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. - Comments from the adjacent neighbor to the north. Toby Daylon, state that he has no issues w ith the project and is in full support of it. lie views it as an improvement to the property w ith regard to safety and believed the drainage was improved. A late fax submitted by neighbor Robert Hare supported the results of the project. Weinberger then cited 6 conditions in his report that should be included as part of any recommendation. Mr. Stephenson questioned Weinberger whether his intention was to approve the sideyards as long as neighbors voiced their support. Weinberger indicated that with neighbor support, it would create a better scenario; however, questions remain regarding allowing the slope to be less than 3 to 1 and fill to remain within 26 ’ of the w etland. Mr. Stephenson maintained that the land alteration on the overhead slide had been corrected. The existing grade is currently 2.9, since much of the fill tends to settle by one third over time. He believed the silt fencing in place as of late had worked effectively in containing the fill. He asked if the sides could be approved if the current slope is 3:1. Although feedback from the City Engineer had not been collected, Weinberger stated his desire was to sche'^ule the issue for this e-. ening in order to prevent any further delays. Mr. Stephenson stated that, early on, the construction people did not have adequate silt fencing and dumped more dirt than he had onginally intended. Mr. Stephenson questioned their motives to get rid of as much till as they could and new silt fencing was constructed to replace the old after going over it. In PAGE II OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2793 REVTS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) conclusion, Mr. Stephenson argued that more damage would be incurred by the wetland if the City required him to change the new buffer zone that had been created. The new buffer zone has cleaned out much of the buckthorn and other undesirables and been replaced with native grasses and trees. Mr. Stephenson added that the seeding he had done was necessary in order to avoid erosion problems during April and May rain showers. Smith asked Mr. Stephenson to help her understand how all of these errors evolved. She questioned whether he was there giving the crew direction or if someone else was the general contractor. Mr. Stephenson replied that at the outset, there had not been the wetland delineation that came later, nor did he feel the crew listened to his direction. He maintained that they had a copy of the plan in their possession but just did not listen to his requests for silt fence installation and fill limits. Smith stated that the project was under his direction and he should have managed it as such. Bellows pointed out that in any construction project, if the silt fencing is not up. they don ’t dump. She maintained that the City was very clear from the start that they were not pleased. She stated that it was obvious to her that the applicant thought he would get away with it. and even went so far as to plant trees. More than simply erosion control was done. She felt the applicant was not being totally upfrop* with the Commission, the area was once a densely treed spot, and now the applicant had created a grade almost as steep as before with no trees on the slope. Dave Pekin, 19501'o.x Ridge Road, a current eleven year resident and childhood resident, believed the project to be a vast improvement. Mr. Peltin stated that the drop off created a scary scenario, even as a child himself there years ago. lie disagreed that the removal of the old vegetation created a more dangerous situation, stating that previously the only thing to catch one from falling off the cliff were stumps, lie felt the newly created buffer was 100 times more valuable than what was there before. Eric Galatz, ot Leonard, Street, and Deinard, was in attendance representing Richard Chalfen of 350 Brown Road South. In addition to information provided to staff and the comments by Commissioner Bellows. Mr. Galatz asked to add a few remarks. Me reminded the Commission that since no hardship previously e.xisted, Mr. Stephenson had only created a hardship for himself at this time. On Jan, 4. 2002 Mr. Stephenson was notified by MCWD to install double silt fencing. On February 22. 2002 the City of Orono asked Mr. Stephenson to stop work on the project until conditions improved, furthermore, Mr. Stephenson w as responsible for obtaining a w etland delineation prior to commencing his work as required by the original pennit. 1 hrough their unauthorized grading and filling project, Mr. Galatz pointed out that the Stephenson's have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area, as well as. built a new deck and driveway. Mr. Galatz maintained that these facts disclose the Stephensons ’ failure to follow terms and conditions ofc.xisting pemiits and prior stop work orders. Mr. Galatz continued, that his client Mr. Chalfen, greatly appreciated his natural setting and privacy, which have now been significantly impacted. He stated that the City had granted variances that would ha\c preserxed that natural setting there originally, only now that has been compromised. Mr. Galatz PAGE 12 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III, Continued) encouraged the Commission to require that the applicant restore the landscape. In fact, Mr. Galatz stated, the applicant has not made any apologies to his neighbors or the City for his indiscretions. Mr. Stephenson asked to respond to each of Mr. Chalfen ’s issues independently. First, with regard to the driveway and deck, Mr. Stephenson stated that he had received a permit for the deck and has not changed his driveway in any way. Second, he indicated that he is apologetic to both his neighbors and the City. He questioned the need to file permit for his neighbors overflow fill amounts which arc less than 100 cubic Ccet of fill therefore not requiring permit. Finally, Mr. Stephenson stated that he disagreed with the view issues as put forth by the neighbor due to his proximity to the property. Bellows questioned if Weinberger could provide the Commission with a sur\‘cy of existing conditions since the completion of the work. Gaffron noted that by comparing Exhibits B and D this is displayed well. Bellows felt that the two exhibits were dramatically different and asked if it would be possible to quantify the amount of extra fill that w^as used. Smith inquired about the typical amount of settling one can expect. Weinberger stated that over a short period of time a little settling is somewhat common. Bellows reminded the Commission and applicant that the quantity of fill that is approved is for an amount only, not that which is needed to maintain a certain level after settling. Mr. Galatz stated that by extending the ridge out 38 feet, Mr. Chalfen ’s side hill view is now blocked by an 8 foot tall filled in hill, which obstructs his view to the woods beyond. Rahn felt it would be pertinent to obtain the City Engineer's opinion before making judgment and believed that when an applicant goes way beyond what has been permitted, there are additional issues to consider. Mr. Galatz urged the Commission to take action now since Mr. Stephenson has already been on notice for six months. Rahn expressed his empathy to the neighbors who w ould be subject to a new series of trucks disrupting their lives this summer, who, of course, feel it is an easier course of action to let it all go. Smith asked for Mr. Stephenson's feedback regarding page 3, of the staff recommendations. Mr. Stephenson stated that item #3 of page 3 had been addressed by providing adjacent property owner support. Item #2, with regard to the grade, Mr. Stephenson maintained that the 2.9 grade is extremely close to the 3:1 slope that was approved and should he allowed. In reference to item #1, wetland encroachment, Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be more than happy to remove the fill that had overflowed into the wetland area w ithout having to shave the w hole hill back. PAGE 13 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON HI, Continued) Fritzicr questioned if the applicants crew was running equipment beyond the silt fencing and w hy. Mr. Stephenson indicated that small machinery had been used. Fritzler then asked how far into the wetland the applicants property extends and what he removed. Mr. Stephenson stated that his property extends 100 ‘ into the wetland and that he removed much of the buckthpm at his own expense. Smith referred to page 4, the remedies to settle the issues, and asked for comment. VVcinbcrvjer reiterated that the entire project exceeded the approved 500 cubic yards of alteration and in order to maintain the required 3:1 slope the entire slope will need to be shaved in order to pull the hill from the wetland. Weinberger questioned how the Commission felt about the encroachment into the wetland. Mr. Stephenson asked what could be done to keep the restored wetland buffer intact. Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26’ thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb the wetland. Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits arc available which allow fill back to a wetland as long as the natural buffer is restored, much like the golf course had done. Since the variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained. Mr. Galat/ repeated that the hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ndge must be moved back. With regard to the neighboring properties, Gaffron stated it was his opinion that each will need to apply for their owti permit to have the fill remain, Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his neighbors. Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received arc enough to satisfy issue #3 for the City. Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP. Fritzicr voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the problem. Fritzler maintained that the integrity of the 26’ wetland setback needs to be restored. He added that, in his opinion, he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP. and require the applicant to move the slope back.. Bellows requested that item #6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since the neighbors are not co-applicants in this request. PAGE 14 OF 29 ^^NUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III, Continued) Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzler. Rahn indicated that in his view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and agreed with removing item #6. Berg concurred. Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done; however, he had created this for himself. Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item #6. Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves, he w'ould have had them do so. Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood. Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant would have follow ed the letter of the law right from the start. Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense, he had asked for neighbor consent to the co­ application. Mr. Stephenson e.\pressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement whieh he felt encouraged the City to do what ’s best for the environment and the majority of its citizens support. He stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the w etland buffer rather readily and reseed at his c.xpense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their support of the project. Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbors love w hat he has done, they did not file an application or join in the application. Mr. Stephenson questioned the purpose for an after-the-fact application in the first place if the City does not approve them. Berg stated that they are available in order .»allow the City to correct w hat was done improperly. Mr. Stephenson stated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing his work today. Rahn clarified that by not filing the application, Mr. Stephenson would not be e.xcuscd from correcting the problem, in ♦'act, the City had sent him notice to do so. PAGE 15 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2012 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON 111, Continued) Mr. Stephenson argued that the reasoning behind his denials aro not due to the fact that they are not reasonable, but that they were not approved ahead of time. He ciuestioned if he had come to the Commission with his neighbors to apply for a CUP to clear and.fill the area originally wouid he have been granted approval, he aigucd yes. Smith disagreed, and stated that the Commission likely would not have approved the way it was done. Rahn stated that the approval had required a 15’ setback to the s des, and he is currently in his neighbors property, which already reflects a 30’ encroachment without evcT going to the neighbors. For this, and other reasons, he argued that the Commission would not have gi ven approval to the variances as Mr. Stephenson believed. Bellows moved, Fritzler seconded, to deny the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Application #02-2793, Revis Stephenson 111, 1850 Fox Ridge Road, for additional Till to be added to his property at slopes beyond what was recommended and the placement of soil on neighbors property. It is further recommended that all three staff recommendations are followed and items #I - 5 of the subsequent staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:58 - 9:d5 p.m.) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P..M. (#9) #02-2788 BRAD AM) CAROL PASS, 250 NORTH SHORE DRIN E WEST, PRELl.MINARY PLAT 9:05 p.m. - 9:42 p.m. Brad and Carol Pass. Applicants, and Chuck Alcon, Project Manager, were present. Weinberger c.xplaincd that the applicants have applied for a preliminar>' plat of the 14 acre property at 250 North Shore Drive West allowing it to be divided into two building sites, shared driveway, and conservation outlot. While the properly owners own 20.5 acres immediately east of the property, for a total of 34.5 acres, if the potential exists for future development a right of way should be considered. The general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. Weinberger continued that the shared driveway also meets the minimum requirements. He added that Outlot B is planned to be part of a much larger conservation easement area that will be dedicated to the Hennepin Conservation District. 1 he Hennepin Conservation District would maintain and manage the conservation area. While Hennepin County has requested a land dedication totaling 60' from the center line of C.R. 19, the City has not always required the land dedication for additional right of way. In fact. Weinberger explained, that no other areas along this right of way arc dedicated more than 33', and this might infringe on the current wetland area. Weinberger stated that a variance is required to permit land alteration in a designated wetland for driveway construction. Dave Zetterstrom, Entrance Permit Coordinator for Hennepin County, has PAGE 16 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. («02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, Continued) reviewed the plans and noted in his letter dated May 21, 2002 that the proposed driveway entrance is the only location along the roadway frontage where access can be permitted for the property. With regard to staff recommendations, Weinberger recommended approval of the preliminary plat and wetland alteration variance for the shared driveway based on si.\ findings and 9 recommended conditions as cited in the staff report. Weinberger read a letter received from the neighbors Lisa and Tom Buettner, 325 County Road 19, which expressed their concern over the proposed use of the property. They noted that the land designated for “conservation" has been over run by minibikcs and ATV’s and cautioned the Commission to investigate the proposed use of the land. Attorney Chuck Alcon, representing applicants Brad and Carol Pass, offered comments pertaining to the staff report. He stated that with regard to the second driveway for a neighboring property located at the north end of the Pass property, the applicants will be asking the neighbor to relocate their driveway access onto their own property rather than granting them an casement. Mr. Alcon continued that his clients are confused by Hennepin County ’s request for 60’ from the center line when the City Engineer ’s earlier report recommended 33 ’. Unless this is intended to be a very large trail at some point, they don’t understand the need for the additional 27’. After speaking with Dave Zetterstrom this afternoon, who stated that he was unsure why the request was for 60’ was made since the City has no trail planned there, Mr. Alcon recommended they stay with the 33 ’ standard. He believed that this would have less impact on the wetland. With regard to the staff report on Page 4, item 4, Mr. Alcon stated that the Pass’ are currently working with the Hennepin Consen-ation District for the consersation documentation for Outlot B. with the access to Outlot B from the cast. He requested that the Commission allow the Pass’ to complete the process with HCD and present this to City Council with the final plat. Mr. Alcon stated that there are virtually three things going on with this overall property acquisition; first there i> a 1031 "like exchange ’’ process taking place on a portion of this property; second, .Mr. Alcon note.. I’.rat, in his opinion, the Pass’ are attempting to do something wonderful for the City of Orono by providing this conscn ation casement over this critical piece of properly, there are tax ramifications included in these discussions; lastly, the conservation easement that will be place over outlot B precludes any n jht of way going from left to right, and the City has approval rights w ith regard to the property to the r.ght should it ever develop to a buildable lot. Mr. Alcon requested in reference to item 7, page 4, that the Pass’ be allowed to record the conserxation easement over outlot B w ith access from the right of the overhead at the time of the final plat and hold the recording of the conserx ation easement of the second piece in order to comply w ith the 1031 exchange and IRS tax concerns. Mr. Pass stated that it is not he or his that are riding their Al V’s and mtnibikes on the property and he w ill continue to look into the problem. 1 hey do not plan to build anything on the wetland. Outraged by the activity on Outlot B, Mrs. Pass stated that this has always been a problem. Even with posted signage, snowmobilers and others feel free to utilize their land with no regard. She continued that PAGE 17 OF 29 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (^02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, Continued) her wish is to work with Hennepin Conscr\ation District and County to restore this piece of property utilizing native plantings. Mrs. Pass explained that they don’t approve of the many changes that have happened to the lake and want to do their part to retain this nice piece and make it a public conservancy, which will require some legal work. There were no public comments. Bellowjs questioned if the conscrv'ation easement on the second lot will be filed or granted. Mr. Alcon stated that the applicants request the conservation easement over the second 20 acre site not be tied to this application and filed concurrently in order to protect themselves. Gaffron questioned if the applicant could provide the City with a written commitment stating the intent for the 2nd conservation easement. Mr. Alcon maintained that this condition could be stipulated, but he believed there needs to be a little good faith here as well. From what he believed he had observed this evening, Mr. Pass indicated that if anything were to be proposed for the second consersation easement site, other than what’s been discussed, the Commission w’ould be able to guide the development. Berg noted that it would be difficult for the Pass’ to supply a written agreement until the “like exchange' 1031 would be filed. GafTron suggested leaving the agreement issue to the City Attorney and tax attorneys to determine the order for the process. Mr. Alcon maintained that his job is to protect the Pass’ and cannot promise more until the tax attorneys say it is o.k., and suggested the Commission brief the City Attorney and have both parties consult one another. With regard to the 60’ right of way request, Gaffron asked the Commission for their comments as this was unusually in e.xccss of what had been required elsewhere. He added that while it would seem unlikely the City would put a trail in this location, the Commission could leave it to the Cit>’ Council to decide if it were really ncccssar>', or consult the Park Commission as well. Mr. Pass maintained that this is a deeper requirement than proposed anv^vhere else, and suggested that if the Commission deemed it unnecessary to require it, to just forget it. Bellows moved to approve preliminary Plat and wetland alteration variances for Application #02- 2788, Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive ^^’cst, subject to staff recommendations with the exception of condition 6, to be modified to 33', and that condition 7 be met in a manner acceptable to the City Attorney in terms of coming to some written agreement w hich allow s the PAGE 18 Of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2788 BR.\D AND CAROL PASS, Continued) applicant to do what they need to do in terms of purchases while still providing the City with some written assurance. Mr. Aicon asked if proceeding to City Council to present the final access of conservation at the time of final plat could be added. Bremer seconded. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) WJM PROPERTIES, 260 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST, CO.MMERCIAL SITE PLAN/CUP 9:43 pjn.-11:20 p.m. Attorney Peter Johnson and Steve Fichtcl were present representing the Applicant. Weinberger reported that WJM Properties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to the use of the property located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard (formerly Washington Scientific). The request is to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail automotive operations under the Monies automotive sales group. The building is proposed to be used for auto prep, a body shop, storage, a central parts warehouse, offices, and a 32,800 s.f. indoor auto sales showroom for fleet sales and leasing to corporate customers. Weinberger noted that a conditional use permit is required for outside storage of vehicles that w ould be located in the south and southeast parking lots. The outside storage would be damaged cars and cars “in process”. The outside storage area would include the parking areas south and southeast of the c.xisting building. A second conditional use permit would be required for an “open sales lot” the .outside storage/display of vehicles for the fleet sales and leasing operation. The intent of w hich is to have these vehicles available for fieei or business customers for demonstration or test drives. Weinberger reminded the Commission that the Orono zoning ordinance docs not permit "retail sales” in the I, Industrial zoning district. Retail use of the property for general customer visits for the purposes of purchasing a vehicle or parts, is not permitted on the property. However, proposed uses such as the body shop, auto processing, and wholesale of cars and parts are permitted uses in the district. IJie I district lists “automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, uphols ’ering, tire recapping and sales when completely enclosed within a building. Weinberger noted that the body shop would be in an area of appro.ximatcly 45.000 s.f. and the auto prep area would occupy 18.300 s.f., both within the building and permitted within the I zoning district. Mr. Johnson indicated that the property would not be used as a dealership and parts would be sold only as wholesale at the eastern portion of the building consisting of approximately 62.700 s.f. Weinberger referred to the outside storage and the proposed use of berming. plantings, and many existing trees along the north side of the parking section to give screening to thai area. With regard to signage while retail use relics on advertising signage to attract customers, wholesale operations normally provide signage to identify the site. Weinberger mainiained that the proposed signage did not suggest that the building was a retail auto dealership, but rather identified the user of the facility. PAGE 19 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17, 2002 6:J0 o’clock p.m. (#02-2795 W'JM PROPERTIES, Continued) Weinberger indicated that the proposed lighting was not consistent with what had been approved as part of site plans foi propcitics along the llighwa) 12 area. Staff encouraged lighting similar to that of City Hall, with poles that stretch no taller than 25-27’ and diffuse light to the ground. Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan based on the 5 findings on page 5 and subsequent cc-iditions 1-7 on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report. Mr Johnson shared a revised section drawing based on earlier conversations with staff that afternoon which reflects revisions in lighting and bemiing. He reminded the Commission that Momes is an independent user w-ho will maintain a professional appearance and provide the architectural lighting, screening, and bermmg that the City is looking for. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith asked to be given a sen.se of the level of traffic to be gcnciated by this property. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the interior sales floor only makes up 20% of the w hole building. \V hi*e there needs to be a small outside display area for potential buyers to test the vehicles. Morrtes will not be marketing a specific brand of automr b le and rely less on advertising. He added that the buyer they will be focusing on v ill be th». commercial or fleet buyer, or commercial leasing customer. Smith inquired whether an ind vidual could slop in to buy or lease a car. Mr. John-on stated that w hde the individual could purchase a car, the City could monitor this and reminded the Commission that these are not the concentrated market. Bellow's questioned why the building needs cars placed front and center if the object is not to attract customers from the street. She asked if this parking area could be »liminaled altogether and the cars moved to the back, thus eliminating the need to be lit up at all times. Mr. Johnson contested that Morrics wants to put their best face fonvard and these cars are placed near the front door w here desired customers will enter. If reversed, the body shop w ould be in front, rather than screened and situated along the lower west boundary. He reiterated that this will be a post tile, car sales operation, but very much a sales operation whose goal is to sell or lease automobiles. Bellows stated that she didn’t believe the screening wrapped around the sides of the building adequately. She continued by voicing her concern over how the building sounds more and more like retail sales. If it looks anything like a car dealership, she maintained tlial Orono does not want it here. Mr. Johnson indicated that Morrics had proposed a 5 ’ high screen and reduced the level of lighting, after meeting with staff to determine how the lights should be situated and directed. He insisted they ’ve made an effort to create a clear professional appearance for the site on Wayzata Blvd. Berg inquired over the lit signage and hours of operation. PAGE 20 OF 29 ^UNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, i7,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Mr. Johnson stated that the sign will be lit from behind and in preparation for this proposal the hours of operation were not required. Berg noted that as a shopper, this looks like a sales operation to her. The hours of operation arc going to tell us if this is truly a retail or wholesale operation. Mr. Johnson reminded the Commission that they have the ability to dictate this since the applicant needs their approval. Smith believed that if she could be provided with the hours of operation, she and the Commission might gain a better understanding of which this is geared for. Mr. Johnson asked for clarification over what it was that was triggering the concern that th? building is a retail sales operation versus wholesale, was it the outdoor display. Bellows maintained that the display is triggering a use that they don’t approve of, and in addition to, hours of operation, the Commission needs to determine if this will result *n a destination operation. Rahn inquired where transports would be unloading vehicles. Mr. Johnson indicated that cars would be unloaded on site outdoors. Berg inquired over the number of cars on site in the eastern parking lot at any given time. Mr. Johnson stated that no changes would be made to the existing parking lot size, which currently holds 340 parking spaces, including 40 employee stalls. Bellows asked how man> cars would typically be on site at one time. Mr. Johnson estimated that an average of 250 cars would be on hand in the overnight storage area, with upwards of 400 on site at any given time. Mr. Fitchel interjected tiiat due to fluctuations in excess inventory this is a dilticult number to predict. Rahn questioned whether the proposal skirts the retail zoning ordinance and in essence still is retail. He stated that the Commission obviously has little objection to the other uses, such as, the automotive shop, prep etc. Bellows maintained that the original intent, as indicated in the letter Exhibit D, still is to provide a retail sales operation. Berg questioned the loading and unloading distractions near a residential area at all hours. She went on to inquire who the customer is specifically. PAGE 21 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. («f02<2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Mr. Johnson reiterated that the operation is designed to attract the commercial customer who shops for a company. Smith noted that according to the information provided by xMorries, on average 10 visitors a day will stop by the showroom. Berg asked if the average sole buyer would be referred out to this location m order to obtain a specific model. Mr. Johnson indicated that, in fact, the opposite would happen, the car would be sent out to the buyer ’s dealership loeation. Rahn inquired whether this would be the centralized location for all of the dealerships as their off-load location. He could envision an awful lot of transports were this the case, and asked how many t>pically arrive per month. Mr. Fitchel indicated that they average 10 transports offloading per month, adding that the furthest locations would not use this for their centralized drop off site. Bellows questioned whether the proposed berming and landscaping were in lieu of fencing. Weinberger stated that the City will almost always prefer landscaping to a 6’ high fence. Bellows then questioned the safety issues that might arise w ith transports turning at the traffic light. Weinberger stated that the City rcsen es the right to look into a future scrs ice road for the area, with a light. Mr. Johnson explained that access issues have been discussed at length and xMomes is willing to respond to proposals when they arc made. It is their intention to w ork with the City to pro\ ide better access. Smith clarified the figures. 10 customers a day. 10 transports a month, adding that all that is left to be determined is the hours of operation. She asked how the Commission could manage this application further to ensure that six months from now, the applicant has gone beyond what is been pictured. Mr. Fitchel stated that in his estimation, the fleet sales hours of operation may require some evening hours, while the wholesale hours may be more broad. Rahn stated that fleet sales could feasibly operate like normal business hours, 9AM to 6 PM t>pically, w ith a Saturday 9AM to noon schedule as a reasonable addition. Fritzler maintained that the body shop industrial operation would need to be open later. Bellows argued that if the parts and body shop arc w holesale, it should not be necessary for them to be open at odd hours. PAGE 22 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Fritzler inquired where trade-ins would be staged. Mr. Johnson stated that the body shop cars would be staged in the fenced in area. Bellows reminded the Commission that if 120 cars are coming in. and another 120 arc going out, along with the body shop, it seemed to her to be a more intense use than they had assumed. Bremer stated that the numbers of cars on site didn ’t concern her, due to the fact that the facility was built to hold that many cars, cars for the employees coming and going twice daily. These cars will not be coming and going with that frequency. With regard to the body shop, it is an allowed use which she had no issue with cither. Bellows repeated that she could not support a retail trade and asked for the definition of that term. Gaffron distributed a series of definitions, which defined retail trade as “establishments engaged in selling goo<^ or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering services incidental to the sale of such goods". In addition to the hand-out, Gaffron stated that if the Commissioners were concerned over the traffic and noise level, this is the middle of an industrial area. He added that a mere dozen transports per month is low in comparison to other trades and reminded cvei7onc that far less traffic is being proposed than was there before. To Gaffron, the remaining issue the Commission seemed to be wrangling with was w'hethcr the general public might come in off the su-eet to buy a car or part. Rahn stated that as a conditional use, the Commission could monitor the operation. Smith suggested adding an opportunity to revisit the conditional use after an amount of time if what w pictured today is vastly different si.\ months from now'.was ^7re'^'^ *^*’'*^*^'^*^*^ adequately hold the proposed number of cars sitting Gaffron asked the Commissioners to give thought to the other uses they could get into this industrial that could be w orse. He questioned where this type of use should be located w ithin a city if not the industrial area. area Bremer cited the “comment” section below the retail trade definition that identifies the important characteristics of retail trade, including; the establishment is usually a place of business engaged in activity to attract the general public to buy and sells to customers for their own personal or household use. Neither of which fit this operations inieniions as they ’ve discussed it. Bellows asked if the applicant could de-emphasize the display function as retail even further by increasing the screening or moving the vehicles. She stated that she would be more comfortable with the proposal if the hours of operation could be limited, lighting altered, and screening increased PAGE 23 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Bremer maintained that the Commission was presented with a legitimate application, which fulfills the City's desire to get people into the industrial area. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is well aware that huge restrictions will accompany approval of this site and they arc willing to work with the City to come to an agreement. Berg asked if the applicant would be opposed to more screening. Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission would find the screening acceptable if the berm were one foot higher and wrapped the comer. Smith asked the Commission to further define the findings and work through the parameters. With regard to item #2, the planting islands, Mr. Johnson pointed out four islands detailed in his initial hand-out. Smith again asked how many cars would be on hand at a given time. Mr. Johnson stated that 250 would be an appro.ximate overnight figure. Smith believed that an additional two islands, for a total of six planting islands in the eastern lot, would be acceptable. Item #3, Smith asked staff to work with the applicant to devise an effective screen of berm and vegetation. In reference to #4. Gaffron maintained that light posts do not need to exceed 25’. Bellows suggested a height of 20’ in the display area and 25’ in the overnight parking lot. All found item #5 acceptable. Gaffron stated that item #6 in regard to future access, it will need to be acknowledged that the applicant has committed to work with the City on revisions. Bellows stated that item #7, conversion to a sales dealership, will not be allowed any time ever. Bremer added condition #8. which limits the number of display spots to 40. With regard to #9. hours of operation. Fritzler stated that he had no problem allowing 9 AM to 9 PM as general hours of operation. Gaffron suggested requiring the applicant propose their hours of operation to the City Council for their discretion. PAGE 24 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued) Since hours set the stage for the operation, Rahn felt it important to be specific. Smith suggested a guideline of Monday - Friday 9AM to 6PM, Saturday 9AM to 12PM be sent to Council. Mr. Johnson maintained that restricting the hours of operation for the body shop and parts would reduce and limit the efficiencies. Bellows reiterated that the idea is to limit the retail or walk in business. Mr. Johnson was asked to address the hours of operation as they pertain to the showroom or auto sales only. Gaffron advised the Commissioners, while they probably cannot limit the hours for the industrial side of the business, they certainly are within their jurisdiction m limiting the retail aspect of the showroom side. Bellows inquired whether the City Engineer has reviewed the area to ensure access for semis loading and unloading freely within the site and in order to avoid standing on highway 12. Mr. Johnson stated that if parking spaces need to be eliminated in order to allow for easier access they will. Smith inquired w hat if any changes to the e.xterior w ould be made. Mr. Fitchel pointed out that exterior paint will be completed after the roof repairs arc made to eliminate the moisture problems. The brick and panel will remain on the east facade. Gaffror stated that all parties would like to see a higher quality than has been there to date. Smith asked if the City w ould like to limit transports. Weinberger noted that this would be too difficult to monitor. Bellows repeated earlier suggestions to review the entire operation after a certain amount of time. By reviewing the application for compliance at the City ’s discrcssion at a certain point in time. Smith moved. Bellows seconded, to accept Application #02-2795, WJ.M Properties, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard, a conditional use permit for outside storage and open sales lot, having reviewed the staff recommendations on page 5 and found them acceptable, having review ed, modified and added to the suggested conditions for approval on pages 5 and 6 as noted In the minutes. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 25 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17, 2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#8) MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SIIADYWOOD ROAD, VARI.VNCE 11:2Ip.m.-12:00 a.m. Gina Kosek, Applicant, was present. Dottenberg explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a walkway. The variance request is to allow hardcover of 5,882 s.f. (34%) where 3,745 s.f. (22.1 3'’/i.) exists and 4,230 s.f (25%) is allowed. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being a second story. Currently there are three patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting. The second story has a 9’ door and the ground level has a 9’ and 6 ’ door. The second story deck w-ill be over the lower deck and slightly smaller thus resulting in no additional hardcover. In 2000, Bottenberg explained, the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence. At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75 ’ of the lake. Bottenberg noted that the Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the application. At the time, the hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone appeared on paper to leave 485 s.f. unused. However, since the house was completed, Bottenberg stated that the driveway and retaining walls have been constructed. The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey and the retaining w'alls did not show up either. Additional retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for the driveway and as edging that the applicant did not realize added to hardcover totals. Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of this application for hardcover. Lven if the applicant removed the old south driveway (as required to by the original permit), all rock/retaining walls except one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%. If denied, the question regarding the patio doors remains, as well as, the requirement to remove the unapproved hardcover, Ms. Kosek stated that the driveway has not been enlarged from the original plan because it has always been there. The driveway may not have shown up on the survey, but it has ^en there all along, it has not been changed. With regard to the lakeside retaining walls, Ms. Kosek maintained that they also have been there since they purchased the home, and no one said anything about them. Prior to Augu^^t 2000. there was an old existing deck. As she redesigned the home she moved the deck design out of the 75 ’ setback area in order to add it later utilizing the additional 400 s.f. of hardcover they believed to have had remaining. She stated that even in conversations w-ith Weinberger, she w-as not aware that the retaining walls around the driveway used up this precious square footage until she filed a permit for her deck. Smith asked the applicant how they could help to make things right in order to obtain the variance. Ms. Kosek maintained that what she has proposed currently would hardly constitute a deck, it is more like two sidewalks with a spot for a chair, not even a table. She stated that originally two separate building sites, they combined them to one in order to create a home. ITcrc were no public comments. PAGE 26 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued) Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls. Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design to the construction, and it takes time to do this on your owti. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been told that no permit was required for retaining w’alls under 4 ’ in height, but never was she told that they counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls w ere removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were removed. Smith asked about the patio doors. Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75 ’ setback, which would have worked with the excess 400 s.f. they had allowed if it w eren’t now used up. Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance. Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28% hardcover variance she was requesting with a conforming lot, when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance to allow 37% hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers were a nonconforming lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks. Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting nd of an old shed within the 75 ’ setback, removing the stone borders in front, and any noncssential retaining walls, although the majority arc serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway. Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied. Ms. Kosek indicated that the patio doors were not added intentionally to cause trouble, they were moved w ith the thought the square footage was available. Bremer indicated that she did not have a problem supporting the request based on what had been suggested by Commissioner Rahn. The noncssential rock and old driveway need to be removed. She agreed that it was difficult to allow a 37% variance for a nonconforming smaller lot and not allow this more reasonable request. Berg concurred. Rahn believed the driveway could not be reduced and safely allow the applicants to access Highway 19, he was in support of the application and believed it to be a minimal request, Frtizlcr indicated that he did not wish to sec additional hardcover on the property and believed the retaining walls should have been built into the original request. PAGE 27 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued) Smith felt more concessions needed to be made before she could support the application. Ms. Kosek concurred with Commissioner Rahn that the old shed ought to be removed, in fact, she had suggested to him herself. Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the hardcover variance for Application #02-2796, Gina Kosek,. 1875 Shadv-wood Road, on the condition that the old shed be removed, all stone borders and nonessential boulder walls be removed, and the original sout." drivew ay as required by the first permit. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. With Fritzler and Bellows dissenting for reasons expressed earlier. (#4) #02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY, 3880 SHORELINE DRIVE, RENEWAL VARIANCES Smith moved. Bellows seconded, to table Application #02-2776 Hennepin County , 3880 Shoreline Drive, as no representatives for the Applicant were present. VOTE: Aye.s 6, Nays 0. (#12) PLANNING CO.MMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR M \Y 20,2002 Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, to approve the Minutes of the May 20,2002, Pl.'inning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, Berg abstained. (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron reported that the Dahlstrom Dcvciopir.ent proposal was denied by City Council. Gaffron requested that the Planning Commission hold an additional work session the week before the next meciing to discuss the future of that site and upcoming proposals being formulated by Dahlstrom. Smith mentioned that Long Lake is currently seeking grocery store bids. Gaffron added that the medical clinic proposal by Dr. Berg was approved. Fritzler reported that during the May 28. 2002 City Council meeting he attended the Croutteau revised plan was approved with a cantilevering revision and detached garage to be planned at a later date. (#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 24, 2002 AND JULY 8,2002. June 24 - Berg Julv 8 - Smith Gaffron scheduled July 10, 2002 for the regularly scheduled work session. PAGE 28 OF 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN’NING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 17,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Bellows moved, Berg seconded, to adjourn meeting at 12:22 A.M. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 A.M. Sandy Smith, Chair PAGE 29 OF 29 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 3 ROLL The Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jay Nygard, Jim White, and Jim Murphy. Representing stalT were City Administrator Ron Moorsc, Planning Director Mike Gafiron, City Attorney Scan Simpson, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Alissa Wintemheimer. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Items 5,6, 7, 8,9, 10,11, 12, and 13 w ere added to the Consent Agenda. Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Council Meeting of May 28,2002 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 28,2002. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—PAULINE BOUCHARD, REPRESENTATIVE Bouchard stated that the concrete pad and port-o-potty had been installed at Navarre Park. Hennepin County had approved construction of the sidew alk along County 19 from the train track to the park. The state still has to approve the sidewalk for MSA funding. The fence across Crystal Avenue in Crystal Bay Park was installed across both ends. Plans for the remodel of Hackberrv' Park were being finalized by the engineering firm an<i would be going out to bid in the near future. Kellogg stated that the county had reviewed the plans, but they had not yet been submitted to the state for approval. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS—PAULINE BOUCHARD, REPRESENTA TIVE —Continued White asked if the sidewalk would be on the west side of the street and if a retaining wall would be used. Kellogg stated they would be. White asked if there would be a nautical theme for the Hackberry Paik play equipment. Bouchard stated that they had held a neighborhood meeting, but a theme had not been chosen at that point. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS None. A representative from the commission was not present. PUBLIC COMMENTS Cliff Otten of 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard stated that he was in support of the development on Willow and Highway 12. Murphy asked him what Long Lake’s position was on the grocery store. Otten replied that officially he didn’t know, but thought they preferred it in the industrial area, not the downtown. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 3. #02-2782 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway—PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Review—Resolution No. 4823 Gaffron stated that the applicants were present. They arc proposing a medical office building at the northeast quadrant of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. At the last meeting Council reviewed the concept plan and made a number of recommendations to the applicants. The resolution for adoption contains a number of elements, including findings that establish a basis for rezoning from RR-IB, O^.e Family Rural Residential District, to B-6/PUD for medical office use. He stated that in the conclusions section the resolution grants concept approval and establishes specific conditions for development plan approval. Gaffron stated that Council should look closely at Section A, Development Standards and General Conditions. The resolution does not address the possibility of site expansion by acquisition of adjacent lands, however, the applicani may need to acquire more land in order to meet the conditions of the resolution. He suggested Council review the concept plan resolution and give the applicant direction for the development plan approval phase. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 3. U02-2782 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway—PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Review—Resolution No. 4823 —Continued Sansevcre asked if the applicant would be able to purchase the adjacent land to the west of the parcel. Dr. Karl Berg stated that they had only just found out they could not acquire the land to the west. Dr. Berg stated that they could not get green space around their building if the City requires intensive green space along Kelley. The green space requirements change the building to the extent that the drive-through concept would no longer work. Without the acquisition of the adjacent land, the current building plan would not work, so they would end up redoing tht building plan. He stated that a two-story building was not an option for their planned use of the building. The medical interior hasn’t been designed yet, so they still have some flexibility. Also, they would like to purchase the property to the cast of their parcel. Murphy asked if it would help if Kelley Parkway were moved north. Dr. Berg stated the road couldn’t be moved quickly enough. They would require a variance or some other direction from the Council. Mayor Peterson stated that she w as not willing to grant a variance on new' construction on the north side along Kelley Parkway. Sansevcre, Murphy, White, and Nygard agreed. Murphy stated he would like to see Kelley Parkway made more serpentine. Moorsc stated that moving the intersection of Kelley Parkway and Old Crystal Bay Road to the north would not solve the traffic problem caused by school traffic during morning and afternoon peak times. Moving it would be expensive and would affect the bcmied green space in front of City Hall and the Police Station. He staled that the green space issue w ouldn’t kill the medical office project because there was the chance that they could buy the property to the cast, or the City could buy it and lease it to the medical office development. White stated that even with the road made more serpentine, it would not affect the medical office building because of needing a straight stretch leading to the intersection. Dr, Berg stated that even if they arc unable to purchase the parcel to the east, they could take the building off the 45 degree angle and make it w ork on the existing parcel. He asked Council to give them direction on the storm water issue and whether or not they should continue on the current concept. Moorse staled that the storm water issue couldn’t be resolved at the meeting because the applicants needed approval from the Watershed District. Gaffron pointed out that the stonn water issue was addressed in the resolution, items 8 and 16. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEKTING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 3. U02-2782 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelle^ Parkways—PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Revien'—Resolution No. 4823—Continued Vicki VanDcll stated that in the table shown on page 4 of the resolution, the south side was lifted as a rear setback, and that according to the ordinance rear setbacks should be 10 ’ for parking not adjacent to residential. Gaffron stated it was considered a front adjacent io industrial for zoning purposes and that they used 15 ’ for a rear parking setback all the way through. Dr. Berg asked that the setback be made 10 ’ instead of 15 ’. Gaffron stated that he bad provided guidelines that met code and it would be up to Council to determine if 10 ’ or 15 ’ was appropriate. Gaffron stated that they viewed Kelley Parkway as the front because of the access and street address being on Kelley. He asked Council how much separation they wanted between the parking and Highway 12. Applicant questioned if the asphalt bike trail is adjacent to the property and joins the bike trail on the west side, and if they have a 5 ’ clearance on the west side, would they need a 20’ clearance to the south side? He stated it would be very beneficial to the project to have an additional 5 ’ for clearance and green space around the building. They are being pushed to the center of the property on all sides. Gaffron stated ihc intent was to have the bike trail along the south be abutting the property. They would either ha\ e 10 ’ or 1 5 ’ between the parking area and the bike trail. Mayor Peterson slated that they should stay w ith code and require 15 ’. Moorsc stated that this would be the first development on Kelley Parkway and will set the standard for development to the east. If the City does not stick w ith code, then they would be hard pressed to require future developments to conform to code. All of Council agreed that they should go with the code White asked if the lighting would be street or pedestrian lighting. Gaffron stated that it could be either or both depending on Council’s prefererice. Moorse stated they wanted low lights with shields to light the walkway. Dr. Kotteman asked if it was t>'pical for the developer to pay for the lighting. Gaffron stated for a new development it was, but for an existing lot the City could install the lighting and then assess it back to the developer. Gaffron stated that constniction of the trail could be deferred w ith the developer posting suitable financial security in the interim. Sansevere stated that w hen projects get deferred, they too often don’t get done in a timely fashion. Gaffron stated they would have to put an acceptable time frame on the trail construction. White asked if they could bind future Councils from changing the development to a retail comple.x. Gaffron stated that future Council would be able to chanee the development as it saw fit, but would be guided by the current Council’s decisions. Moorse stated that besides changing the development, a Council would ha\ e to change the zoning and the ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002 3. it02-2 782 Professional Properties of Orono, 7 765 Kelley Parkway—PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Review—Resolution No. 4823—Continued Comprehensive Plan to go over 5% retail. Gaffron stated that the Council needed to decide if Dr. Berg would cliarged Park Dedication fees because the development was part of a subdivision and the developer at that time paid fees in 1985 at the time of the subdivision. Gaffron stated approval of the concept would be good for 6 mo.nths and could be ex tended if nccessar)'. Dr. Berg stated they were motivated to work with the City apH see their project througli. Dr. Koltcman stated that the specifics of the plan would change with the acquisition of the parcel to the east. They svould like to use about Vi acre, or 30\ of the parcel to the east Sanseverc stated that the land would be used for the development regardless of whetner they purchase it, or the City does and then leases it to them. White moved, and Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4823 approvir^ the General Concept Plan for development of a 15,000 s.f. medical office building on Lot 1, Block 1, Willow Properties Addition. N ote: Aves: 5, Navs: 0. 4. #02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan \mendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review Gaffron stated that the applicants were present, and were proposing to develop a mi.xed residential and commercial development. Me stated that the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan discusses the development along ICeliey Parkway. South o^ Kelley ParV;way up to Highway 12 has been guided for office use. North of Kelley Parkway the Comprehensive Plan proposed developing multi-tamily housing at a density of 3-6 units per acre. The applicants were proposing to put residential south of Kelley Parkway, as opposed to office. They also proposed a change to the Community Man.igement Plan to allow retail on the northwest comer of Willow and Highway 1 2. The applicant proposed a grocery store, restaurant, and specialty retail Gaffron stated that the request was 3-fold; to change from office to residential uses between Kelley Parkway and 12, to allow retail at the northwest comer of Willow and Highw ay 12 where it is guided for office, and to detemiine if a grocery’ store is appropriate at that comer. Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval to amend the Community Management Plan to guide development for residential or office space north of 12. south of County 6. between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Roads. Thev also ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 4. U02-2789 Dahlstrom Dt velopment LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (JVW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued recommended that Council guide the appropriate spaces defined by Willow on the cast and Old Crystal Bay on the west, Highway 12 ou the south and Willow View development boundary on the north for possible retail that is not accessory to an office or anything else. They recommended that allowed retail uses be accessory to the residents of this development and surrounding community. They discussed, but did not reach a conclusion concerning whether grocery was an acceptable use for that parcel. They e.xpressed concern about traffic impacts and suggested a traffic study would be very helpful. Gaffron stated that staff recommended against allowing a grocco' store as proposed. Staff agreed with the Planning Commission that some minimal level of limited retail uses on the northwest comer of 12/Willow would be appropriate, including the restaurant use. In general the office market in that area is not strong, however, they have seen that uses such as the medical office building previously discussed are viable in the area. The City spent considerable time developing its 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (CMP). The applicants’ proposed conversion from commercial office use to multifamily residential south of Kelley Parkway, would result in an overall residential density significantly higher than the City intended for the property, and significantly increase the intensity and massing of stmctural development along Kelley Parkway. He asked Council to consider: 1. if it supported the CMP Amendment request for conversion from commercial office to multifumily residential and rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD for the area between Higliway 12 and Kelley Parkway, 2. if it supported the CMP Amendmeitt and rezoning from RR-IB to PUD for some level of retail commercial use at tiie northwest comer of the 12/Willow intersection that is not strictly accessory to the office use, 3. if it supported the proposed 30,000 s.f grocer)' store element of the development plan at the intersection of 12/Willow. Steve Johnston, applicant and Orono resident, stated he is president of Landform, Inc., and all aspects of the project design would be handled w ithin the 55-pcrson fimi. They were after a high level of detail and quality, and they focus on walkable neighborhood plans. He stated that they w ere currently researching the size of grocery store that the eommunity w'ould support and felt it was probably closer to 22,000 s.f than the proposed 30,000 s.f * Their level of quality development could be supported by the property values in Orono and there is demand in the community for that type of ho? sing. The City w ould benefit from adding iife cycle housing to the community. The development includes 2.5 miles of trails and sidewalks. They estimated the development would provide 5500,000 in park 6 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002 4. tr02~2789 DaMstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued dedication fees. The development would be maintained by an association with the resources to keep it properly maintained. The development has a SI.7 million landscape budget. Johnston said that sort of funding comes from density. The project was being funded 100% by the developer and would have a S60 million market value when completed. Johnston stated that they chose the retail location because there is existing retail on the three other comers of the intersection. He slate.: fh<e site was 37.5 acres of dry land, with 32.9 acres designated for residential. With rowhouses and 41 townhomes on 25.7 acres, they came to a density of 4.8 units/acre. the density range of 3-6 in the CMP. If one factored in the 112 loHs and the 7.2 a^J es d/ey uomprisc, the density would go to 7.3 units/acre. He stated that putting offices in the area would compete with Long Lake’s downtown redevelopment, and that the cost of land is too high to support small offices. Project Architect Carolyn Krahl stated that a walkable community is a return to what the baby boomers grew up with; streets with sidewalks, neighborhood quality, front porches and gardens, life cycle housing for both starters and empty nesters. The retail uses attached to the development would be ser\ ice-orientcd and based on the daily trips that people make. There is an emphasis on community and civic spaces. She stated that the changes to Highway 12 would make the area more livable. She stated they used the existing pond to create a natural community space. Office and residential wouldn ’t provide a synergistic mix, but residential and a certain type of retail would provide a flow back and forth. Ms. Krahl stated that they proposed cun ing Kelley to the north so that it wouldn ’t become a raceway or frontage road. They designed it to create a transition between the density levels of the rowhouses and townhomes. The northern area would consist of single family townhomes with a suburban feel. They used a single level design, and all units back up to a green space. There were no sidewalks because the streets arc walkable. The cast comer would provide a destination w ith the proposed retail. The lofts in the west comer were designed w ith singles in mind. The rowhouses in the middle would w ork for starters or active empty-nesters. They designed the internal street through the rowhouses to be a safe w alkable street with all houses having porches that face onto the street. All rowhouses have a front and back ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 4. #02-2789 Dahbtrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued yard area. By clustering the rowhouses together, they gained more green space and community spaces. Kendra Lindahl, Project Planner, stated that they had presented a bundle application with the concept and site plan. She asked that the Council approve the changes to the CMP. Ms. Lindahl stated that their goal was to create a master plan community, instead of a piecemeal series of developments. She requested that the zoning change not go through until the final plan was approved and that the current approval be contingent on future approvals, so that if the project was unable to be completed, the zoning and land would revert back to the current status. The PUD would be tied to the uses in the proposed site plan. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission needed Council direction and if the CMP changes are accepted, could meet on June 24'\ The application could come back to Council on July S"* for concept plan approval. The zoning would not be set until the end of the process. Gaffron stated that he disagreed with the density figures presented by the applicants, and pointed Council to the May 17*** memo included in the packet. Kelley Parkway was always planned as a throu^ road and there could be different developments to the north and south of it, so he took the 2.8 acres for the road out of the density calculation. The 5 acre commercial area was also removed from the discussion of residential density. The overall residential density was therefore 235 units on 31.3 acres, or 7.5 units/acre. While the City needs the type of housing proposed, it was not included in the CMP as an acceptable use for the area south of Kelley Parkway. Ms. Lindahl stated it was a mistake to separate out the different types of housing since the whole is one development with one developer and one association. She stated taking out the acreage for Kelley Parkway was unfair because it doesn ’t currently e.\ist and would be developed as part of the whole. Murphy stated he thought there would be three homeowners associations. Ms. Krahl stated that there would be three associations, one for each i>pe of housing because they would each have different fees, but they would all operate under one umbrella association. Johnston stated that the street acreage was not taken out for the Willow View development. He argued that when the roads don't currently exist, the density is taken from the whole property and computes the overall density. 8 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 4. #02-2789 DaMstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued Murphy stated he liked the developer’s plan, but didn’t think it fit with Orono. The density was too high. Ms. Krahl stated that Long Lake and Mound were both interested in rowhouse developments. Murphy asked how many rowhouses could be cut from the plan. Ms. Krahl asked if Council would accept sets of 6 rowhouses. Sansevere stated he also objected to the rowhouses. He liked the lofts and townhomes. He also liked the grocery store with limitations, but didn’t want the back of the grocery store facing the intersection, and was concerned there wasn’t enough parking. Johnston stated that they had looked at other concepts for the southeast comer and could meet the parking requirements easily with a 22,000 s.f. grocery. Sansevere mentioned that the developer would have no control over what goes in ne.xt to the development on the west. Ms. Krahl stated they wanted to influence that by drawing a business such as a doctor’s office or daycare center that would tie in with their life cycle development. Johnston stated that they had massed the rowhouses away from what the non-resident, passer-by would see. Murphy stated he wasn’t interested in sectioning-off dense areas. White stated that generally dense areas should be located near a point of mass transit, and there aren’t any connections near the proposed development. Ms. Krahl stated they were not trying to reduce the use of cars in the area, but provide housing that allows people to stay in Orono after they’ve moved past their large family homes. Johnston stated that the loft units would sell for SI80,000, the rowhouses for $280,000, and the townhomes for $450,000. Murphy stated that the primary need in Orono was for people ready to down-size, not the starter homes. He asked why people would gravitate toward the rowhouses. Ms. Krahl stated the rowhouses would be for more active people who might still have children coming home and would want the bedrooms upstairs, or who have a home elsewhere and only summer here. Mayor Peterson asked if they wanted to amend the CMP. Gaffron confirmed that changes to the CMP would only pertain to the 50 acre parcel in question. The Council could specify the density and type of zoning wanted. Ms. Krahl stated that they chose the comer at Willow for retail because there is already retail at the other 3 comers of the intersection. Moorse stated that the density was going to increase in that area regardless, and asked ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002 4. U02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued Council if they wanted residential or commercial density. He indicated that the CMP states that the area between Kelley Parkway and Highway 12 should be zoned commercial office. He stated that Council could agree to allow multifamily housing in the zone, without approving the development, then give the applicant direction. Sanseverc stated they should reduce the rowhouscs. Nygard stated he was fine with the residential plan, but did not approve of the grocery store. He also stated he wanted to see only 6 units/acre on the whole. Johnston stated that Willow View did not come out with 2 a' e lot sizes, it had 1 unit/2 acres that allowed them more communal green space, with lots smaller than 2 acres. Nygard restated that he wanted to sec the overall density between 3-6 units/acrc. White stated they h.- ’ put a lot of effort into the CMP, and he didn ’t want a grocery store or any other retail that the community doesn ’t need. Mayor Peterson stated that she also didn ’t want the grocery store or any change to the CMP south of Kelley Parkway. Murphy stated that the plan was excellent, but not for Orono. He w anted them to scale back. He also stated he was ambivalent about the grocery store, but would prefer it go into Long Lake. Terry Dahlstrom stated that a density of 3-6 units above Kelley Parkw'ay was too low for the cost of Orono land and the cost of development. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to support the CMP Amendment request for conversion from ^commercial office” to “multifamily residential,” and rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD for the area between Highway 12 and Kelley Parkway. Vote: Ayes: 2, Nays: 3 (Murphy, Peterson, White). Ms. Lindahl asked for Council to move to deny the request for legal reasons that would affect their purchase agreement. Gaffron stated that the motion to support the amendment had failed. For a positive action. Council should vote on a new ’ motion to deny the request. Sanseverc asked the attorney if a new vote was necessary. He said it w as not. White moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to deny the CMP Amendment request for conversion from “commercial office” to “multifamily residential,” and rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD for the area betsveen Highway 12 and Kellev Parkwav. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 4. U02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued Vote: Ayes: 3, Nays: 1 (Nygard), Abstained: 1 (Sansevere). Johnston asked if there was a middle ground where they could bring in an office development to the area. Mayor Peterson stated that their development must conform with the CMP. Moorse suggested they do what they can on both sides of Kelley Parkway as long as it conforms. Gaffron stated that they still had office guided for the northwest comer for Willow and asked if Council would like to take a vote to change it to retail that is not strictly accessory to the offices. Moorse stated that the issue of allowing retail commercial use at the northwest comer of the 12/Willow intersection needed discussion, and that Council should consider scale, proportion, and impact. Sarsevere stated he would vote to follow the Comprehensive Plan guidelines now, but upon seeing a new- plan with changes to the residential development, would consider retail options. Moorse stated that the question was of allowing non-accessory retail and the grocery store. A traffic analysis was needed. He stated that with a retail comer there. Willow, Highway 12, and County 6 would become major arteries. Johnston stated that Willow would be used to reach the grocery store whether it was located on that comer or further down the road in Long Lake. Murphy stated they didn’t have enough infomiation to make a decision given the changes required of the residential plan. Sansevere stated they shouldn ’t wait for Long Lake to do what ’s needed for the neighborhood. Murphy stated they need to support downtown Long Lake and wait for them to decide if they want to put in a grocery or not. Mayor Peterson and UTiite agreed. Ms. Krahl stated that Long Lake has already determined they want the grocery store located on Willow or in the industrial parkway between Brown and Willow because there isn ’t room in their downtown area. Regarding allowing a grocery store in the development: Sansevere supported it, Murphy stated he was ambivalent. Mayor Peterson, Nygard, and White did not support it. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 4. #02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC—Highway 12 at Willow Drive (NW Quadrant)—Comp Plan Amendment/PUD Rezoning/Concept Plan Review—Continued Council agreed that retail in the area should be kept to small destination shops, and that a strip mall would be unacceptable. GafTron stated they had sufficiently provided direction as to whether or not they would support a grocery store in the area and what sort of retail use would be acceptable. Ms. Krahl stated they would like to move fonvard and bring a revised plan to the Planning Commission in June. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere stated he was concerned about boat trailers continuing to park along North Shore Drive. He stated that the signs were confusing and should clearly read, “no trailers allowed.” White stated he had received a letter about a City action potentially affecting the healthy and well-being of a resident’s husband. Murphy stated that a well was accidentally capped on a resident’s property. As a result the husband, who is an avid gardener, was unable to tend his garden and it was emotionally upsetting. Mayor Peterson suggested the City try to move in and fill a holding tank that Mr. Jabbour volunteered to place on the people ’s property. Moorse stated that there was going to be a meeting in Mound regarding the fire station, and suggested Council authorize Gabriel Jabbour to participate. He also staled that Council should attend the meeting if possible. Mayor Peterson stated that the Art Center would be having its grand opening on June 23^*^. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *5. Golf Course Seasonal Employees Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to hire Dan Marselia as a Golf Course Seasonal Employee at an hourly pay rate of S7.50 under the monthly maximum earnings provision of the PERA rules. Vote: Aves: 5, Navs: 0.m Pm ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002 *5. Golf Course Seasonal Employees —Continued Sansevere moved, and While seconded, to hire Katherine Smyth as a Golf Course Seasonal Employee at an hourly pay rate of $7.50 under the monthly maximum earnings provision of the PERA rules. Vote: Ayes: 5, Nays: 0. Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to hire Paul Goldsmith as a Golf Course Seasonal Employee at an hourly pay rate of $7.50 under the monthly maximum earnings provision of the PERA rules. Vole: Ayes: 5, Nays: 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *6. City Recorder Fee Adjustment Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the following fee schedule for 2002 for the City Recorder, effective June 10,2002: 1- 2 hour meeting $135.00 2- 3 hour meeting $160.00 3- 4 hour meeting $195.00 4- 5 hour meeting $250.00 5- 6 hour meeting $325.00 6- 7 hour meeting $420.00 Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. Pay Requests—Long Lake Fire Station Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the pay requests for Office Products Company, BKV Group, and the City of Orono in the amounts of $261.25, $4,621.15, and $3,600.00 respectively. Vote: Aves 5, Navs 0. *8. Amendment #2 to the LOGIS Joint Powers Agreement—Resolution No. 4824 Sansevei V moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4824 authorizing an amendment to the LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement to include as part of the purpose of the organization the administration of a program providing group health, life, accident, and other insurance and personnel benefits. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 *9. Establish Reward Fund Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to create a separate account in the existing Forfeiture Fund for the estabiishment of a Crime Information Reward Fund Account of $2,000, to authorize the Police Chief to ofler rewards of up to $200, and up to $2,000 with the approval of the City Administrator, and to amend the Forfeiture Fund budget to reflect the authorization of expenditures up to $2,000. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *10. 800 MHZ Radio Agreement Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the Hennepin County 800 MHZ agreement Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. Police Radio Equipment Upgrade Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve expenditures of $17,900 for the lease of 800 MHZ radios in 2002, and to approve a police budget reallocation of $7,900 from automotive equipment (#550) to radio rentai (#414). Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. Urban Hennepin County Joint Cooperation Agreement —Resolution No. 4825 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 4825 authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of Orono and Hennepin County for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT None. *13. LICENSES RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSES 1.Don Lindall 666 Tonkawa Road ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10,2002 *13, LICENSES—Continued 2.Dwight Joyner & Mike Murphy 793 Femdale Road North 3.Chris & Erin Tully 1355 North Arm Drive 4.Eric Wilson 2683 North Shore Drive SPECIAL EVENTS 1. Applicant: Event: Location: Date: Time: Air Bom, Inc. Fourth of July party and fireworks 1535 Bohn ’s Point Road July 4,2002 1:00 p.m. - 12:00 midnight Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve all licenses. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *14. BILLS Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. ATTEST; Xlnda S. Vee, City Clerk