Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-16-2002 Planning Packet
V Public Attendance Meeting D ate Q-/(Lt □ C ouncil Q'I^amving C ommission □ Park Commission □ Other Please fillouttheinformationrequested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER /- . y 7i., < I- 2. Z/y / R^.v=n 3. TX l 'M ? t b ^ 2^_____^ J Au f ^ cu "" 11. 12. 13.. 14. 15. XivX>MaVA4AtiyairMl»t SupfonMFonM • OM) FOILMS\Pl BUC.ATT L ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday September 16. 2002 6:30 PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Representative: Jay Nygard 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 advisoiy body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the October 14,2002 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 02-2824 Betz Builders, 1045 Brown Road South, Variance (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. 02-2826 Michael and Deborah Benedict, 25 Orono Orchard Road, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) OLD BUSINESS 3. 02-2813 Mark Welsh, 3625 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Paul Weinberger) NEW BUSINESS 4. ^02-2820 Michael Lasher, 1360 Railroad Avenue, Variance (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 5. if02-2822 Danielle Henely, 3422 Livingston Avenue, Variance (StafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 6. #02-2823 Ronald Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, V^ariance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 7. #02-2825 ^^3yne and Karen Soojian, 4496 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 8. #02-2827 Sven Gustafson, 4515 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 9. #02-2828 Tony Lund, Vacant Lot next to 4515 North Shore Drive, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 10. #02-2831 Hope Chest for Breast Cancer, 3850 Shoreline Drlve^ Finding of Substantially Similar Use and Commercial Site Plan Review (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 11. #02-2764 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Proposed Section 10.46, Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance (Staff; Paul Weinberger) 12. #2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20, Subd. 4C, Home Occupation Standards (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 13. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings August 26, 2002 and September 9,2002. 14. Other issues for discussion. 15. Planning Commission approval of minutes for August 19,2002. 16. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on September 23,2002 and October 14,2002. ADJOURNMENT TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE September 3,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2824 Betz Builders 1045 Brown Road South Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) List of Exhibits: A Application B Survey w/ existing buildings and req’d setbacks C Plat Map D Property Owners List E Adjacent owners acknowlcdgement/Approval Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.28. Subdivision 5 (B): I.ot Area: The lot is 1.64 acres where 2 acres is the minimu:ii lot area for the RR-1B zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject property and is requesting a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was constructed in the early I950's will be demolished. The lot is approximately 1.64 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is 2 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new residence. The subject property is currently serv iced by an on-site septic system. The property w as brought into the MUSA with the adoption of the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. The property owner has indicated his preference is to ha\ e sew er brought to the property. 1 le has been working w ith Greg Gappa, Public Works Director, regarding how to bring to the property. Sewer is in the neighborhood and several surrounding properties. An easement is needed to bring from the adjacent properties or via Brown Road. If it is determined not feasible, then an approved primary and alternate septic site would be needed prior to issuance of a building permit. »02-2824 Hetz Huildcrs 1045 Brown Road S 8 31 ■::oo2 Page I of2 L 1 ANALYSIS Lot Area and Yards: RR'IB District Standards RR-IA Lot Area Required 2 Acres Actual 1.64 Acres Statement of Hardship: This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requiiemcnts. 2. A residence exists on the property. 3. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 4. Other issues raised b> the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area variance w ith the follow ing condition; To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all height requirements, setbacks, 35% hardcover (500-1000’ of French Lake OHWL), lot coverage by structures, grading requirements and aecess to sewer or approved septic sites. Exhibit D shows the building area of the lot. Placing a residence on the lot w ith sewer does not appear to be an issue. If the applicant decides to forego sewer and uses septic, the location of a residence may be altered to due to the location of the septic sites. «02-2834 Betz Builders 1045 Brown Road S 8/31/2002 Page 2 of2 ■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 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U ^2~2g2c| Date ReceKed g-'2l-02> Amount Paid gf) IFORMATI^ n fj ^ f IL o^ bcxjufL. PROPERTY INFORMATIOJ Site Address_____________________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) fCh‘/r^-~ _________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropsityAcquired_________________________________________(month/year) I (do) ^o no^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential Zoning District:. other (specify) APPLICANT Name UJL/y2£S Address: City:. Phone (home) " ^73 " ■'7-76^Phone (work) / -~Xyo3 Zip: /-CPA.4 LAti<c. - 0\VNER (if different than applicant^ \ j Phone (home) KJ W/rVI Cdz\Jc "Name fSTgU<>>\J Address: Phone (work) City:Zip: Estimated Construction Cost $ '^~dVOy CCO Describe request in detail: V"hp AayrvTW_ P^onAj0\p< /Wf kj<2.tx) J-kmt€L. ^ ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUE^ T( (attach additidnal sheets if necessary) ■/#// VARIANCES REQUIREDAM, 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 difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoni^ Code requirements: Lo'h /5> XI AC. /U/hJ^ (attach additional sheets if necessar>') #2824 r' I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All Qf thf following information must be k.. anmicatinn flrdtr for yowr anplitation to be consMprpH compiPt.. fffartlmf tfaifcJn ___ Completed Application Form ---- Certified Property Owners List of owr.ers within 150' labels and niat man must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Departmen^^ of Fmance, A-603, Govt Center. 348-5910). ^epanment ot ---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover - r?p^o^uS.“ "°P>’ ---- To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existine grade are proj^sed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A" x 11" for repX on — ? f f T one (1) copy sS^Tl n' ---- List of the leg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in a! would mclude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) _ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anT^ther 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 Applicem and Property Otvper must sign this application. Please remember that vour ■tppI.e.tM,- .. net eomplete if th^above .nformatinn h.. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applic^t hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Zonina Adm.mst.ator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fe L™enn AwIVanr, OWNER’S SIGNATURE “"“I '0 >Ws application and Rttther audtorizes reasonable enhy onto tfte property by C.ty staff, consultants, agents. Commission members id?ZcU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ’ Owner’s Signatur Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv offices 25 da\^befnre. th^ pu • Cohesion Meeting. Pla^ng Commission Meetings are h^ld ;„‘'S;e^lS^fMondav'^s g CnmmU, ““ M **! ^^eduled 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 vour place and to advise'’ r BuS & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ L CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BETZ BUILDERS IN GOV'T LOT 6. SEC. 10-117-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA LEGAL ocnipnoN or rnoim TMI p«r| L«t • Im ••flfMinf «t • IK« Catt IIm «f 10» I mI4 lot 23 Waal. OaaorlbaO •• foot SovtN of tho N»rtliooot eornor titaftof;^ ^ •••• 0 oraw Wf WWtW ^ I IMfioo OMtIfHfSnf Sooth on ooid Coot Moo 902.42 foot: thonca ^aot ol rioht onoioo to ooid Coot to ooid Coot Iloo to o lino ohich hooro Sooth 41 dof thonco North 41 doo*oso Coot to o lino droon Waot •Ith loorooo Watt through tho ^Int of cwimncoront , . - ... - .w •> 4 ***• A4I"* of h0|lnnln^ ot riflht onf)ld Coot lino: thonco Coat to tho paint of hoilnninf. . _ _ - _ prt lino 24S.00 foot: thonco Woat ot fl^ht onfldo onont: onflao donotoo Ifooowplior •#4f. I .Contoif Ino Swii Otv of O^tno Mortnfo onovn or# boood upo" on oottfmd ddiMn. Thlo oarvoy Intondo to ohoo tho hawndorloo of tho obovo daoorlbod ppopopty. ond tho location of throo oilatinf bulldlnoa thoroon. || may bo nocoooory to Judleloily dotomiino tho bowndorloo bocouoo of diffarortcoo rofordlnf tho loeotlon of tho Northaaol eornor of Oovornmont Lot t. It dooo not porport to ohoo any athar InipfCffWfWAto or oncroocivmnto. c Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department cr /o- ny- 2.3.- ........ •% ^ Parcel Information • ^4 ? *^"^arc«l ID 1011723240002 '^ House Number 1045 Street Name BROWN RD 8 This is not a legally laconM map. H rapnsents a compilation otmtomnaVon and data from City, County, and State mad authorities and other sources. L RUN DATE Oa/15/eZ ■ATCh SIA PROf AOOR OVNER NAME TAXPAYER HAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR SB 1B-117-2S 13 BOOl •!••• ORONN RO S J A I P A ABBOTT ET AL JANES.A I PATRICIA ABBOTT AA71 OENOA OR AHELIA ISLANO FL 3203A SB 1B*117'2S 2A 0003 tlOOS BRONN RO S R BERRETT A C BERRETT ROBERT « CLAIRE BERRETT lOBS BROWN RO S NAYZATA HN 5S391 SO 10-117-23 2A 0032 01120 WILLOW OR S JUOITH A CRAUNKE JUOITH A ORAUNKE 1120 WILLOW OR S WAVZATA NN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 10-117-23 21 0002 0003B AOORESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITEO LANO CITY OF ORimO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 26 0006 01105 BROWN RO S JERRY L CHRISTENSON JERRY CHRISTENSON 1105 BROWN RO S NAYZATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 26 0035 02160 CARRIA6E LA SCOTT AMESBURY NINTON SCOTT ANESBUHY WINTON 1910 lOS CENTER 00 OTH ST S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55602 REPORT NO. PI6S5601 PACE 27 30 10-117-23 26 0002 01065 BRONN RO S S 0 VANOEVEIRE ET AL STEVEN 0 VAN OE VEIRE 1065 S BROWN RO NAYZATA HN 55391 3B 10-117-23 26 0011 OHIO WILLOW OR S ROBERT H GLASER ROBERT M GLASER 1110 WILLOW DR S WAYZATA MN 55391 SB 10-117-23 26 0036 02120 CARRIAGE LA C 0 VELIE ■ 8 J VELIE C DECKER B BONNIE JO VELIE 2120 CARRIAGE LA NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 516 00009 9.#02-2827 MW 10.#02-2828 11.#02-2764 12.#02-2829 Sven Gustafson, 4515 North Shore Drive, requests variances to permit construction of a new residence on a 23,360 s.f. (.54 acre) lot where 43,560 s.f.(l acre) is required and 55’ in width where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. Tony Limd, “4515 North Shore Drive”, requests variances to permit construction of a new residence on a 26,920 s.f. (.62 acre) lot where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required and 65’ in width where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Proposed Section 10.46, Commercial - Plaimed Unit Development Ordinance. Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Proposed Section 10.03, Subd. 28, to establish residential remodeling “Total Replacement’’ standards. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend this meeting. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by September 11,2002. Plans are available in the City Offices. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4600. City of Orono By: Planning Commission • u V r v! I t yjr • • . Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner To be published the week of August 31,2002 38 10-117-2 3 24 0004 JERRY CHRISTENSON 1105 BROWN RO S WAYZATA HN 55391 9'7- 2.00 2_ 9 '■fit: ^ 02.-2S2-/\ ^•77- CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 24i 4616 • • NOTICE The Planning Commission will hold public hearings in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on Monday, September 16, 2002, beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. #2333 #02-2806 #02-2820 #02-2822 #02-2823 6. #02-2824 #02-2825 #02-2826 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment, Section 10.20, Subd. 4C, Proposed amendment of Home Occupations Standards ordinances. David and Lynne Teckman, 1625 Bohns Point Road, request variances for average lakeshore setback and to permit hardcover greater than 25% within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback to permit construction of a new residence on the property located in the LR-IB zoning district, and a conditional use permit to permit plumbing within an accessory structure. Michael Lasher, 1360 Railroad Avenue, requests a variance to permit construction of a 10’ X 20 ’ covered porch to be located 40’ from the front property line where 50’ is required. Danielle Henely, 3422 Livingston Avenue, requests a variance to permit construction of a two stall detached garage closer to the street than the principal structure and a conditional use permit to permit the detached garage on a through lot. ** Ronald Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, requests vanances to permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback, to permit hardcover greater than 25% within the 75-250’ lakeshore setback, and a 7.5’ side yard setback where 10’ is allowed to permit construction of a deck and three season porch to the lakeside of the existing residence. Betz Builders, 1045 Brown Road South, requests a lot area variance to permit new residential construction on the property witha !ot area of 71,438 s.f. (1.64 acres) where the RR-1B zoning district requires lot area of 2 acres. WajTie and Karen Soojian, 4496 North Shore Drive, request lot area, lot width and average lakeshore setback variances to permit construction of a new residence on the property located in the LR-IB zoning district. Michael and Deborah Benedict, 25 Orono Orchard Road, request a variance to permit a 28 ’ X 35’ storage garage to be constructed closer to the front property line than the principal residence. TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator,TIanner August 31,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2826 Michael and Deborah Benedict 25 Orono Orchard Road Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre) Exhibits: A Application B Description;'Hardship C Survey/Site Plan D Elevations/Floor Plan E Septic Report F Plat Map G Property Owners List II Permit Record Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (B): Accessory Building Location: No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. To permit a 28' X 35' accessory' structure closer to the street lot line than the residence. Application Summary': The applicants have requested a variance to permit a storage building to be located nearer the street than the principal structure. The building is 28' X 35' or 980 s.f. 1 he storage building will be located at the rear of the property appro.ximately 90' from the street. The accessory building meets all setback requirements for the RR-1B zoning district and the square footage of the building meets the size restrictions of the accessory' structure ordinance. The subject property is serviced by an on-site septic system. The new location of the storage building will not interfere with the current septic system or future sites within this property. There is currently a shed on the property which will be removed when the accessory structure is built. #02-2826 Michael Deborah Benedict 25 Orono Orchard Road statement of Hardship: The applicwts have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asl^d for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The accessory structure will not impact adjacent properties. 2. The accessory building meets setbacks and size restrictions of the accessory structure ordinance. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the placement of a 28 ’ X 35’ accessory structure between the principal structure and the street per the proposed plan. <<02-2826 Mictlael/Deborab Benedict 25 Orono Orchard Road mmm Page 2 of2 L A Application # ^diQ> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $2504)0 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming struchires $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received S Amount Paid 0^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)________________ Acquired, Attach legal description to applicaUon if not included on required survey Date Pi I (do) ^o no^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present uSTof property: X residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____________________ ,(month/year) APPLICA Name Address: Phone (hom^9St)47« • 2T9/ Phone (work) fe|>. Cily:tCN>a, iLA£g~~ZiD:^i^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) Cit>:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:&es A Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessaiy) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Setback: Lot Coverage Front Side Rear Average Lakcshore 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:,^_________ "j »7r/D A' (attach additional sheets if necessary) fr /w o O 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of th? folliiiying information nm.^t bf subm ingd hv the anniicntmn deadiini* «« order for vour a pplication to be tni»iH«>red compiPt^/ .Completed Application Form Certified Prope^ Ou-ners List of owners within 150’. labels and plat map (you must obtmn this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Com Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z' x 11" for To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existine grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/j" x 11" for reproduction^ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 854" x 11") List of the leg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propetiy. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s) As an addendi^ 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 0»ncr must sign this application. Please remember that your nrlanct appl itation is nol tomnlelt if the a bove information no, t— APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The appIicMt hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original L paymenO fnfo^viT “r ‘T”"* certifies thaTXinformation supplied *s and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicants Signature Date OWTMER’S SIGNATURE Ihe owner hereby acknowledps and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Counc I members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Date Applicant must have a 1 submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plannmg Commission Meetings are held on ihe 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 nlease make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ B Legal names of persons with an interest in : Michael DeWayne Benedict Deborah Ann Benedict Description of request: We are requesting a variance to build a 28 x 35 unattached garage that falls outside the required setback. Hardship/description of unusual property conditions: Because Orono Orchard Road N runs at such an angle to our property and the existing home, it requires the building setback line to run at that same angle which does not allow us to build the proposed garage anywhere except behind the house (see attached site plan). i m NORTH 0 40 00 I • / / BOiCNNAftK} Nn OOT NOMUCMr STMTCO 2713 A8 ItM, LOCATCO AT TMC NOAmCASTcofm OF Mvr n«. la amo hcathoi LANC* OEv! - ftO.44 mr (NQVD 2t) SCALE IN FEET > irCEND cur WMC O SAMrT/grr uanhol C • WAIUI MANNOII O TIUPNONC fCDCSTAL ^ 0 PO0OI POLE I___^COMTOUI UNC .••• SPOT OXVATOI •—(Mm€AD aicmc ICONCffCTC CITY OF 0 I 0 « 0 MINMIflOTA O OOlOm 1/2 MX I k MX MX MONUMoif ut. umoD *nj 2*224* • OCNOTa MCX HONUMOfT fCUC I L*gol Dticription AM ihot port of th* South«**l I/4 of Ih* Southo**! t/4 of Stellon 33. Towoihlp Ila North Ronoo 23. Voit of Ih* Sth Principol Moriaion. d**crlb*d o* folio**, vli: Btainnina •! Ih* South***! corn*r of *old South***l 1/4 of Ih* South***! t/4; th*nc* C**l along lh* S*ulh Mn* th*r*of o dl*lonc* *f 13.39 choln*; th*nc* North 46.9 d*gr**a Wool o diolonc* *f 13.50 choln*; thonc* North 36.5 d*gr*** W**t o dl*t*ne* of 5.53 choln* to th* V**l I In* of **ld South«**l t/4 *f Ih* South***! 1/4; thonc* South along *old V**l I In* * dIoloiK* of 13.36 choln* to th* plot* of boginning. CXCCPT That port of Ih* Wool 250 foot of Ih* Soulh***l t/4 *f th* S*vlh«**l 1/4 of S*cll*n 35. To*n*hlp 118 North Rang* 23. Wool of Ih* 5lh Principal Morldlon, lying North of Ih* South 400.00 fool Ihoroof ond Southorly of Ih* conlorlln* of Orono Orchard Rood, ond EXCEPT That port of th* N**l 50 foot of Ih* South 400 foot of th* S*uth***l 1/4 of th* Soulh***| 1/4 *f Saotlon 35. Tovnahip 116. Rang* 23. tying North of Ih* Sauth 374.0 f**t tharaof. according to th* U.S. OovariMMAt Survay tharaof. Hannapin County. MInnaaot*. Abatrocl. Im«&b---------M A ssocutis rn I o <• • I • •• •• I- 'j/ » • 1 • i " V. / • \* a . •. .• (T '• gLe\/ATIOM’ \ OfDf)0 f\g Tm 2^'0 ^Z'6 j^m %'6 3S'g DS Sl'O 53'D N 4 £ I SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 25 Orono Orchard Rd. N. PID: 35-118-23 33 0004 Building Type: residence BRs Install ’d for: 3 In Musa: No Permit#: 5017 Date of Permit: 11/21/77 System Type: standard trench Experimental: no Installer: Steve Schmit Appliances: Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 3 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: medium SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 20 Capacity: 1000, 1000 Cesspool: no DRAIN FI ELD Length of Lines: 340 # Lines: 4 Trench Width: 3 Treatment Area: 1050 Type of Filter: rock Soil Boring: yes Tile Size: 4 Under Tile: Perc Rate: 25 Setback DF-Bldg: 50 DF Ht above VVt: 0 Soil Type: sandy loam, sandy cL»y Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: 75 Pump Type: Well-DF; 100 Report in File Depth: Diameter: Method: INSPECTION RECORD DATE 11/23/77 7/27/81 7/31/86 7/15/88 10/26/90 4/10/94 7/24/98 6/27/00 DESCRIPTION installation no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing-pump tanks no surfacing-pump tanks non-compliant-repair by 12/31/2008 non-compliant, repair by 12/31/2010 PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 8/8/86 5/19/98 1500 2000 i 3 3 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department . € 3 Yx//r- ! n- Parcel Informations ^ * • i . .9* I^*>4 1 • V, • ^^Parcel ID 3S1 1823330004 House Number 25 Street Name ORONO ORCHARD RD ^ TNs is not a legally racordad map. It rapiaaants a compilation 0/Information and data from cay. County, and SWa road authorities and other aourcaa HIM DATE Oa/EI/ta iATCN 5A7 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROfEETY INFORNATION SYSTCH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4354R1 PAGE 17 PROP ADDt OWNER NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AODR sa t2-117-2S 22 tail •aasa address unassigned STATE Of NXNN DNR REAL ESTATE NGHT ATTN DEiDXE GURTIN sat LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL NN 55155 Sa 52-117-23 22 5552 55515 ORONO DRCHARD RD S P L SCNERER EGG SCHERER PETER L I GERX G SCHERER 15 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA HN 55391 3a 34-lia-23 99 0503 05135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N EDNUND W f RYDELL EDNUND W F RYDELL 135 ORONO ORCHARD RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDt OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 3a S5-lia-23 33 5553 55155 ORONO ORCHARD RD N N J I C F HELLING NATTHEW I CAROLINE HELLING 155 ORONO ORCHARD RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 3a 35-lia-23 33 5509 00525 ORONO ORCHARD RD N H D BENEDICT EDA BENEDICT NICHAEL E DEBORAH BENEDICT 25 ORONO ORCHARD RD N LONG LAKE HN 55356 35 35-118-23 33 0505 00035 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED STATE OF HINN DNR REAL ESTATE HGHT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL HN 55155 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 35 35-115-23 33 0008 51565 ORONO OAKS OR JOHN A DALBEC JOHN DALBEC 1565 ORONO OAKS DR LONG LAKE HN 55356 35 35-115-23 33 5509 00520 ORONO ORCHARD RD N OLD ORCHARD FARH LLC OLD ORCHARD FARH LLC 30 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 72 35-115-23 33 0012 50072 ADDRESS PENDING CITY OF LONG LAKE CITY OF LONG LAKE PO BOX L-1969 PARK AVE LONG LAKE HN 55356 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR TOTAL BATCH 507 00009 PERMIT RECORD /O’. Permit No. 3»1T9 Date Type of Permit /• /.? ~}(o ITIAU^ lAJ _ __ "^/</-77 rvs ‘t»j- tz£s yoi*)pl&l.- sePTic /-?-/t'77 ■^J(e^___A'.?-?'‘/a /'^7-^y Ipl4^'I}yCJc L 3 Application Date: 7/16/02 Deadline: 11/14/02 TO:“ Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:September 3,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 5,462 s.f. Exhibits: A Revised Site Plan (9-3-02) Approved Site Plan Hardship Statement Building Sketches/Floor Plan Site Topography/Neighborhood Map Draft Planning Commission Minutes (8/19/02) Staff Report (8/15/02) B C D E F G Application Review: The applicant received variances earlier in 2002 to pcmiit construction of a new residence on the property. The applicant has not yet built the new house and has submitted a variance application to make two changes to the approved plan. The changes to the approved plans include the following; 1. Shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line to straighten out the residence to run parallel with the property line versus having it run parallel with the lake shore angle. 2. Add 65 square feet to the front ofthe house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The 4.5’ extension will be from the center of the front of the house and angle back to each side. •02-281) M«t Welch 3625 Nonh Shore Drhe Pi«tl . J Planning Commission Review and Recommendation of August 19,2002: The Planning Commission tabled this application and advised the applicant to revise the site plan to push the house and eaves back on the property to meet a 50 ’ setback to the lakeshore. Furthermore the applictOit could not exceed 660 s.f. which is the existing hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback. The adjacent property owner to the west (3635 North Shore Drive) appeared at the hearing and stated he would be supportive of the variances as presented that evening if the existing arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the two residences remained. The new site plan does meet the parameters as established by the Planning Commissison. The revised application requires review of the following variances; 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-IC zoning district is 10’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 5 ’ and 7.5 ’ from west side property line. Side Yard: The rear of the residence is approved to be located 5 ’ from the west property line where 10’ is required. The lake side comer of the residence was approved to be 8.5 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing to locate this comer of the residence at 7.5 ’ from the property line. The 5 ’ side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking space on the property. ' accommodate the second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance was reqv : because the house was shifted towards the west side property line. The rear comer of the resides »- will still be located 5 ’ from the property line. The city prefers residences to be a minimum of 10’ apart, the lakeside comer will be 8.5’ from the adjacent residence rather than 9.5 feel per the prior variances approval. The 10’ separation between buildings that City strives to maintain is for emergency access as well as for aesthetics, to limit the visual density within neighborhoods. Access will be available from the cast side of the property. 2. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8: Structure within the 75 ’ lakeshore Setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1 and 2): Hardcover. Total Area 0-75 ’ = 3,750 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Approved = 615 s.f (16.4%) Proposed = 420 s.f (12.9%) Total Area 75-250 ’ = 1,712 s.f (Does not include 1,153 s.f of shared driveway) Allowed = 428 s.f (25%) Approved = 884 s.f (51.6%) Proposed = 884 s.f (51.6%) V02-28I3 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Page 2 Ii would be appropriate to restate the other variances that were required to redevelop this property. 4. Section 10.25, Section 6 (B): Lot Area/lot width. (LR-1C Zoning District) 5. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Side Yard Setback encroachment 6. Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A): Required parking in a Residential Zoning District. To permit one off-street parking stall to be located 3’ from an interior side property line, where off- street parking for residential lots requires a 10’ setback. Staff Recommendation (Revised Site Plan) Staff is recommending denial of the application as revised due to the following difficulties: Relocating the house to meet a 50' lakeshore setback pushes the house further back on the property and into the shared driveway. The new house on this properlj would encroach 5’ to 6’ into the driveway. The addition of the 4.5’ “V-shaped” prow and overhang causes the driveway encroachment. The previously approved plan had tlie house meeting a 53’ setback to the shoreline for the house, with the overhang being 48.5’ from the shoreline, but no part of the house encroached into the driveway. Both site plans are attached as Exhibits A and B. Stall has visited the propeity and determined the two adjacent houses are located at approximately the same setback as the existing house. If this house location is approved, it would set a standard to where new houses along this driveway are built. The primaiy concern with the proposed relocation of the house is the house vsould be located 6’ into a shared driveway. There are two properties that require crossing this property for their only access. Reducing the width of the dri\ eway from the existing 22’ to 16’ w ill make parking and passing of vehicles more dilTicult than what is there now. The decreased width of the driveway will contribute to potential snow storage problems for the driveway. There is little space to store snow along this street because of the steep grade up to North Shore Drive to the north. Snow storage to the south is restricted by the location of the houses. Staff is not aware of how snow storage is handled on this driveway, but does see narrowing as a concern The reduction in driveway width also makes backing of vehicles out of the garage stall difficult. 16’ in many cases is not adequate to properly maneuver in and out of a garage. The concept of shifting the drivew ay to the north or adding a backout area beyond the existing drivew ay is not possible due to the extreme slope of the hill leading up to North Shore Drive. Also any changes to the driveway and/'or addition of a backout area for vehicles would require removal of part of the hillside that supports the County Road and construction of a retaining wall system. This option would have to be reviewed by Hennepin County. The City would have further concerns with the land alteration and retaining walls since it would require additional hardcover on the property. This property does require lot area and lot w idth variances. Part of the review of lot area and lot width variances is to review if the property is capable of accommodating the proposed development. *02-2813 Mark Wckh 362.3 North Shore Drise Page 3 In this case, due to the decreased width of the driveway and its’ inconsistency with the alignment of adjacent houses Staff cannot recommend approval of the application. Staff is supportive of any plan that would result in the house not encroaching further into the driveway than the existing house and not within 50’ of the lakeshore. Both conditions could be met by removing the roof overhang from the lakeside of the house and reducing the prow to 4’ rather than 4.5*. Planning Commission Options for Action A. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation of approval for the application as revised, the following variances are required and should be noted in the motion: 1. To permit 420 s.f. (12.9%) hardcover and structure in the 0-75' lakeshore setback where 660 s.f. (17.6%) hardcover exists and no hardcover is allowed. [Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8] 2. To permit 884 s.f. (51.6%) hardcover in the 75-250' setback where 932 s.f. (54.4%) hardcover exists and 428 s.f (25%) hardcover is allowed. [Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 1 and 2] 3. To permit new construction on the lot with a defined lot area of5.462 s.f where 21,780 s.f is required and has lot width of 50' where 100' is required. [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)) 4. To permit a side yard setback of 5' for the house where a 10' setback is required [Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B)j 5. To permit one ofT-street parking space to be located 3' from the adjacent property line where off-street parking in “R" districts is required to be set back 10'. [Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 'A)j Any recommendation of approval shall be subject to the follow ing conditions, which are restated from the required conditions in Resolution No. 4763: a) Drainage and Utility easements shall be provided 1 O' along the north property line and 5' along the interior property lines. b) The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. c) Gravel shall be removed from the parking area to leave a minimum 3' setback to the property line. d) Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. B. A recommendation of denial, stating reasons, C. Table, providing direction to the application. D.Other Action. «02-28l3 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drl>e P^4 iNtKIN (JUUNIY, MINNESOTA 0 CENTEW.WE OF TRAVEL V SOUTH EDGE OF BITUMNOUS ROADWAY f^07 RD. NO. 51 NORTH SHORE DRIVE 4 R=987.68L=50.0 auo ^ L==49.80*€Aa«o ^-V0 2. R<v/iSj*-4. » i jAL description of PREMISEr~r~ LAKE 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 263 529.4 CONTOUR UNE denotes iron marker MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY denotes existing spot elevation, mean seo level datum ei • . I •. Exhibit A 813 Page 7 of 7 July 16, 2002 Description of Request: 1) shift the west side line from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet 2) Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.9 foot "v- shape* glass Prow. Hardship / Description of Unusual Property Conditions; The four main problem areas are the access road, lot size, well position and limited parking. The access road has a steep embankment which runs parallel with county road 51 and provides access to this lot and five other neighboring properties. The access road is narrow and congested due to resident and quest parking. The lot size is extremely narrow and the current home does not fall within the new city allowances. The new design is designed to accommodate the lot size and is positioned behind the two existing neighbor’s homes. The well position is currently out side of the city variances. Limited space for safe parking due to the narrowness of the lot and access road there is limited parking available for the residents and or quests. #2813 © It S«S£njLE]oi> I#.-:: > I I fXfjt** i loft i ?6Tl1G*4* ' I :Down iATvT)*• > I 'ifd i-p4 l:L a t I I Omdio ! , Bitow , I I ,i. n.V<1 u.:n- -* -viffn ^ V '*/!':4ii\ gr,^49ir\ i ,= eS J.:’^ _ *' ;/rr iO •I ii ».-r^ •v>: * r»t* - m '•''■I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. © Fritzler concurred with Rahn. Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve Application /I02-2812, Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 1/2 story addition over the existing garage of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) i/02-2813 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 8:06 p.m.- 8:40 p.m. Linda Welch, Sister representing the Applicant Mark Welch, was present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not yet built the residence and wishes to make two changes to the approved plan. Bottenberg reported that the changes to the plan include shiaing tlie residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The approved variances had not expired and the additional variances would include a side yard setback to permit the addition to be 5’ and 7.9 ’ from the west side property tine. Additional variances for hardcover and structure within 75’ of the lakeshore were also necessary. The proposed residence was originally approved to be 53’ from the lakeshore, the addition of the “prow” extends the house 4.5’ towards the lake which now locates the residence 48.5 ’ from the lakeshore. Bottenberg reminded the Commission that the DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50 ’ for a General Development Lake property. Although the residence would still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, the average lakeshore setback is not an issue. PAGE 16 NfINUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mondiy, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Smith asked what the rationale for the “prow” was. Ms. Welch stated that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. Mabusth reminded the Commission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the applicant of back in February. Gaffron noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal. Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the lake, however, this measurement did not reflect the eaves, which would extend even further into the setback, as would any steps. Rahn asked if the glass “prow" was all windows and no doors. Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very strongly to the lakeshore setback. Smith questioned whether the "prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the approved setback area. Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f. PAGE 17 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. hardcover that existed before removals. Rahn stated that he had no issue with the applicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2' which would still keep them within the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2’, the eaves on top of that would mean that much more encroachment. Rahn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within the 50’ setback and asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR 50’ setback. Gaf&on stated that City’s are allowed to go beyond the DNR recommendation, and have done so in some instances. Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50’ DNR setback and uphold this recommendation. Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment. Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65’ s.f. “prow” addition and a 1 foot gable overhang, which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed. Gaf&on pointed out that the 1,500 s.f. is a limit not an allowance to be met. Bremer stated that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed encroaching into the 75’ setback with a deck. She indicated that 50’ is much too close and she could not support the application. Mabusth stated that she had no problem with the west lot line realignment but had difficulty with PAGE 18 ; MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. going beyond the 53’ setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier application. Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus existing home construction. Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending eaves. Rahn maintained that the code did not read the way he felt it was being interpreted. Gaffron reiterated that property owners may be allowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover, however, little lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions. Smith stated that she could support shifting the residence, but could not accept the additional 64 s.f. Bob Liberman, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residenc- closer to the lot line would mean to his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He went on to question the possibility of losing the arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the two residences. He was concerned that they ren:ain in order to maintain privacy. Ms Welch stated that she assumed that the wall of arborvitae would remain to maintain privacy. Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch’s behalf and could speak to the need to keep the arborvitae. Gaflron stated that if the Commission supports the realignment it would not be an unreasonable condition that the arborvitae remain to maintain the privacy and screening, PAGE 19 MINUTES OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMNUSSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Smith asked Mr. Liberman if he could support the shift if the arborvitae remained, • • Mr. Liberman stated that he could support the shift if the arborvitae did remain. Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent. Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difficulty supporting the eaves and “prow”. Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the extending peak or “prow”, he felt the front either had to be straight across or moved back further into the house. Mabusth and Bremer felt the applicant needed to maintain a 53 ’ setback. Rahn stated that he liked the new design. Smith stated that she liked thf, ‘^;“ow” but wanted to see it at 53*. She questioned whether the Commission could support them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated that she could see that three of the Commissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. Ms. VV'elch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin existing home application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be allowed any decking. Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. hardcover. Smith suggested the applicants table the application in order to redesign the plan, pulling back the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53 ’ and coming back again. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. Smith once again asked if the Commission were willing to give a little bit on the square footage. Mabusth stated that the original home had 660 s.f of hardcover and felt it justified to hold the new residence to that figure, yet she stressed how important it was to maintain the 53’ setback. Smith asked if this meant up to the 50’ DNR recommendation. Fritzler and Bremer stated that they would adhere to the approved 53’ and no less. Mabusth stated that she would like to know how deep the proposed overhang would be. Rahn stated that he could support the 50’ setback. Ms. Welch asked the Commission to set the parameters for her and she would take them back to Mr. Welch to redesign and meet those. Mabusth reiterated that the applicant not exceed the 660 s.f and maintain a 50’ setback, and asked her to have the surveyor mark tlic eave depth and distance from the take on the survey the next time around. Ms. Welch felt she had enough to go on. Rahn still questioned the overhang status. Mabusth pointed out that if a structure meets setback, it is a legal nonencroachment if the eaves overhang 1 1/2’; however, since this structure does not fall within the legal setback of 75’, the overhangs are counted into the equation. Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #02-2813, Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive, to allow the applicant time for redesign purposes. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 21 A J © TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: . Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:August 15.2002 SUBJECT: #02-2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Mcaring Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 5,462 s.f. Exhibits: A Application B Description of Request C Survey/Site Plan D Staff Report from #02-2751 E Resolution #47o3 F Planning Commission Minutes - February 19, 2002 G City Council Minutes - February 25,2002 II Plat Map Application Summary: The applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not built the approved residence and w ishes to make two changes to the approved plan. The applicant is still proposing to construct a two bedroom/two bath home with a one stall “tuck under” garage space. fhe changes the applicant is proposing to the approved plan are: 1. Shift the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line - Straightening out the residence to run parallel with the property line versus having it run parallel with the lake shore angle. 2. Add 65 square feet to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow , “v-shape ” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The 4.5* c.xtension will be from the center of the front of the house and angle back to each side. #02.2813 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive 8^15/2002 Page I of 3 Discussion: The previous application approved the following varianees: ^ lAi - Section 10.25, SisGtieft 6 (B): Lot Area/lot width. - Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22, Subd. 1 and 2, and^ubd 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(l): Hardcover and structure within 75’ of the lakeshore, and greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone. • Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B): Sidc/rear yard setbacks. - Section 10.61, Subd. 5 (A): To permit one off-street parking stall to be located 3’ from an interior side property line. The approved variances have not expired. I lowever, because the site plan has changed two variances need to be revisited regarding the changes reflected in the new plan. Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1C zoning district is 10’. Variance Requested: To pemiit addition to be 5’ and 7.9’ from west side property line. Side Yard: The re^r of the residence is approved to be located 5' from the v^est property line w here 10' is required. The lake side comer of the residence was approved to be 8.5 feet from the property line. The applicant is proposing to locate this comer of the residence at 7.5’ from the property line. (See Exhibit C). The 5’ side yard setback was approved to provide one additional parking «^pace on the property. To accommodate the second parking space next to the house, a side setback variance was required because the house was shifted towards the west side property line. The rear comer of the residence will still be located 5’ from the property line. The city prefers residences to be a minimum of 10’ apart, the lakeside corner will be 8.5’ from the adjacent residence rather than 9.5 feet per the prior variances approval. The 10' separation between buildings that City strives to maintain is for emergency access as well as for aesthetics, to limit the visual density w ithin neighborhoods. Access w ill be a ailable from the east side of the property. 2. Section 10.55, Subd. 8, Section 10.22. Subd. 1 and 2, and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(I): Variauccs for hardcover and structure within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. Total Area 0-75’ = 3,750 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Approved = 615 s.f. (16.4%) Proposed = 680 s.f.(18.1%) ff02-28l3 Mark Welch 3625 North Shore Drive 8.15/2002 Page 2 of 3 Total Area 75-250' = 1,712 s.f. (Does not include 1,153 s.f. of shared driveway) Allowed =^428 s.f. (25%) Approved = 884 s.f. (51.6%) Proposed = 884 s.f. (51.6%) Lot coverage by structures will increase from 1,176 s.f. to 1,241 s.f. Still below the allowed 1,500 s.f. for the property. The proposed residence was approved to be 53' from the lakeshore. Adding the “prow ” extends the house 4.5’ towards the lake which will now be located 48.5 ’ from the lakeshore where a 75’ setback is required. Both adjacent residences are within 50' of the lakeshore. The DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50' for a General Development Lake such as Lake Minnetonka. The proposed residence will still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, so average lakeshore setback is not an issue. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their siaCk mm ot hardship in Exhibit B. To summarize the hardships, the four main problem areas are the access road, lot size, well position, and limited parking. Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. S02-28I3 Mark Welch 362 S North Shore Drive 8/15/2002 Page 3 of 3 ^1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Adminislrator/Planner September 3,2002 #02-2820 Michael Lasher 1360 Railroad Avenue Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits: A Application B Survey/Site Plan C Plans D Photo of Property E Letter from neighbor F Plat Map G Property Owners List LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) 22.137 s.f (.51 acre) Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.23. Subdivision 6(B): Front Yard Setback: Minimum front yard setback in the LR- lA zoning district is 50 ’. Variance Requested: To permit covered deck to be 40’ from front property line. Application Summar}': The applicant has requested a front yard setback variance to construct a covered deck on the street side of the residence. The covered deck is proposed to be 10’ X 20’. Discussion: The property is located on the comer of Railroad and Spates Avenue. The existing residence was built in the early 1960 ’s. The residence is located 50 ’ from the front property line. The property is located in a two acre zoning district. However, the neighborhood is more in character with one half acre zoning standards. If one acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would meet the 30’ required front setback. The property is serviced with a well. The well is located on the east side of the residence (behind it). The property is 1/3 in the 250-500’ hardcover zone and 2/3 in the 500-1000’ zone. The proposed covered deck is located in the 500-1000’ setback zone. #02-2820 Michael Lasher 1360 Railroad Avenue 8/31/2002 Page I of3 The covered deck will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,360 s.f. (10.6%) where 2,160 s.f. (9.76%) exists and 3,320.5 s.f. (15%) is allowed. The covered deck will result in an increase of overall hardcover to 4,680 s.f (31.2%) where 4,480 s.f (29.9%) exists and 5,250 s.f (35%) is allowed. In 2000 a variance was granted on this property for street side yard setback to permit construction of an attached garage to the north side of the existing residence. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicant should also be asked for theit testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in the early 1960’s, prior to current zoning standards. 2. If one acre zoning standards arc applied, the proposed addition would meet the front yard setback. 3. The structural coverage on the lot is increasing but still below the allowed 15%. 4. The 500-1000’ hardcover on the lot is increasing but still below the allowed 35%. 5. The well and pipe are located behind (east side) the residence. 6. The only neighbor impacted by the covered deck. Sherry’ Evans 1380 Railroad Avenue, has written a letter of support. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the front yard setback variance to construct a 10’ X 20' covered deck. #02-2820 Michael Lasher 1360 Railroad Avenue 9/3/2002 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Front Yard Setback Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)50’ Actual 22,137 s.f. (.51 acre)50* 40’ - proposed Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 22,137 s.f Allowed: 3,320.5 s.f (15%) Existing: 2,160 s.f (9.76%) Proposed: 2,360 s.f (10.6%) Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 25O-500’7,137 s.f 2,141 s.f (30%) 0 s.f 0 s.f 500-1000'15,000 s.f 5,250 s.f (35%) 4,480 s.f (29.9%) 4,680 s.f (31.2%) U02-2i20 Michael Lasher 1 360 Railroad Avenue 9/3/2002 Page 3 of 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) Applioition U '&0 Date Received ^ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ID - t I H- / ^f jrjr^n ____1! :—r-^1—^LAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prouerty Acquired_______JT /Iaj ^ O 1 I (do) {So ho^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: Xlresidential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: ^ ^________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name A7/A a ~ Address: /ACc /?/»///^oicr<3 Phone (home) *? j~>t • V? J *>C3 _____ Phone (work) - X - 7 J, City: g>/?c>/^o_________Zip: STJ ? / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)_ City:.Zip; DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^.OOO Describe request in detail: u^/^o jjryzC ) (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage A Setback: Front ___Other (specify)______ 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: tLotij o,yf (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2820 1 Exhibit A 1360 Railroad Ave., Crystal Bqr, Mn, 55323 LEGAL DESCRimONtAtttlut pot of Nodheast IMofibeSaiainrBSt l/aafSectioo 10.Towaabip H7.Raage23. described as follows:' BegimfoigatapoiiaaatheSoatberirIiMon«t6orEIIxidgeS.Bane^FintS<fodhdaoadis^ 205.08 feet Soullieasteriy from the Soutkwest comer Uweoft foeocoNbitliwesterijrtosiidSoullwericoaier, theoM Southwestern aloog the Easterly line of the rigbtrof-wqr of the OiertNorthemRaSw^ 179.06 feet; Iheocedeflectiiig left 90 degrees to aa iotersectioo with a line drawn thfou^ the point of begiODii^ alright angles Southwesterly fioin the Southerly lioejif said Lot 6; thence Mbrfoeasterly to the point of begjming; subj«t to that part thereof bring within Central and Railroad Avoures. I i/o' ^ f ^ A A A pi ^ • LEGEND: / Scrie:liadi~40feet Sewings ate assumed • Denotes Iran Pipe Found « PJ. - Denotes Power Pole M • Dantes Current Measured Distances D • Denotes Original Deed Measureoents Area-0^2 Acres t Land Stuvqfor.MalioaiseNo. 10941 6 r ^ I f- r I. o ///^ . 2 V '[oc. //*2" A Z JJj-v/V ^ r/ie.r^L t^fjc*io/t \ . r ooy//J^ i • . : /i" I it' ^ ___ _ hloose iC*ac, Otc-< "% % _ t « * 1 f » « 1 • !« ! 1 j____________________________. • 1 • 1 : . i 1 i ‘ : • 7X/a J jO ’ t t • • fl• • w yf i ! i • I ^ .i ^yus.r/^c, I r/pJS<-j^ : L. .y ---------j--;-;I.- :.—I - I I I A«—a.X© ^0/57^ ^ lG"oc !0' • t ' 1 t I 1 • I I • f \ I ! I 1 f I ! I I I I * \ I I I i. I#- M IKZ '. i30o OnotJO qsX' I • I 0 I ) y • •• t i’' ifs ^ A ^ V5 I. ii V ^ T 4 f f m j i j’-'■•w .'5 • f/'^' ‘ - ;?V' ' A L r/>v f !.'.»,• >N '*••*< -r.w*.»~ jr^*UA«t-»;A^j<»u»C>.Jci<MOuVi , y '.... . r '•' • - ■ ■■ • • ■';• ^ - ‘ * '• . '»* •».«-..■ ,.. ‘»* •».«-..■ <’^JT ' ^ t ■• r ;.>;?/ I ^i:1 ------------’•.1 V Is'^ f-' 4. i- j. Vj B li^ (yj^ /!^ /iH^^Ccf £K !p)^ ?o ?-&0> £uiC/u.'\^ rr ^m Ji '% \ '■^ f-^ Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departmein^ M »o /*U»u O?r /O /'53asy /o-z/y--dJ> Parcel Information Parcel ID 1011723310007 House Number 1360 Street Name RAILROAD AVE 77?/s is not a lagaily roconJad map. It reprasants a compilation of Information and data from Oty, County, and Stata road authoritias and othar sourcas. ►v"- mm OATC ia/2f/i2 BATCH sas HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPEIITV XNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPEIITY OmEBS LIST PROP AODR ONNCi NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB 1B-1I7-2S II 0002 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSZ6NED NCLEOO CNTY REQ RAIL AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 25 ADAffS ST N HUTCHINSON NN 55550 SB 10-117-2S 31 0001 02010 SHORELINE DR HICHELLE HARIE HUDSON-HILLER NICHELLE NARIE HUDSOH-MINER 2010 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA NN 55591 PROP AODR ONNER NANS TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR SB 10-117-2S 31 OOOS 02000 NORTH SNORE OR L G OODTREY B N J GODFREY LYLE 6 I NORHA J GODFREY 2000 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA NN . 55391\ SB 10-117-23 31 0005 01S90 RAILROAD AVE GROETHE-HILL INVESTNENTS LLP GROETME-HILL INVESTNENTS LLP IBIB LASALLE AVE NPLS NN 55003 PROP ADOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER I NANE/ADDR SB 10-117-23 31 0007 01300 RAILROAD AVE NICHAEL J LASHER NICHAEL J LASHER 1300 RAILROAD AVE CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 3B 10-117-23 31 OOOB 02055 SPATES AVE NARIETTA H ANDERSON ET AL NARIETTA N ANDERSON 2055 SPATES AVE HAYZATA NN 55391 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 3B 10-117-2S 31 0090 02000 SPATES AVE NARY A STINSON NARY A STINSON 2000 SPATES AVE HAYZATA NN 55391 3B .10-117-23 31 0095 020B0 SPATES AVE T B C NORSE TERRY D HORSE 20B0 SPATES AVE HAYZATA NN 55391 t PROP AODR OHIRER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 503 00012 L. r L REPORT NO. PX43M01 PACE 9 38 10-117-23 31 0002 02040 NORTH SHORE OR K 8 L ERICKSON KEITH R ERICKSON 2040 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA NN S5391 38 10-117-23 31 0004 01380 RAILROAD AVE SHARON V EVANS SHARON V EVANS 1380 RAILROAD AVE HAYZATA NN SC391 38 10-117-23 31 0020 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0096 02040 SPATES AVE HARRIET SPATES T0URAN6EAU HARRIET SPATES TORANCEAU 2040 SPATES AVE HAYZATA NN 55391 c. L 1.. C i, , wK. ' i! k C\ jl-f MM OATK li/st/aa MTti SVS •( • HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA354R1 PAOE II {e JSSK a SSI I? iS5SA?5S^S^?®ASfa IS J5S"£S e *2 !!?«. 'V DATE jr-2UZ, KST • I jjiithiri rtiinY^i HWlftll ^•mWOIiTi n imiTii gjaiil ^ ii t ,' TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:September 5,2002 SUBJECT:#02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue Variance -- Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 8.297 s.f. (.19 acre) List of Exhibits: A B C D E F G H I J Application Sur\ey Hardship Statement Elevations Map of neighborhood Letter from Building Official Hardcover Calculations Plat Map Property Oumers List Photos of Property Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D): Accessor>’ Building Location: No detached garages or other accessoiy building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 1C: Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Building: All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 12: Crowding Principal Building: No accessory building or structure snail be erected, altered, or me-. :d within 10' of the principal building, or within ten feet of another accessory structure. 4. Section 10.03, Subd. 15(F): Sidcya»-ds only; no structure shall be closer than 10' from any side lot line. 5. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 s.f. of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures. «02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9,5/2002 Page I of4 6. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 500-1000’ Setback Zone: There shall be no greater than 35% hardcover in the 500-1000 setback zone. Application Summary-: The applicant has requested a variance to permit a detached garage to be located betvveen the principal structure and the street. The building is 24’ X 24 . The detached garage will be located at the front of the property approximately 31 ’ from the street, but is proposed at 5’ from the side lot line where 10' setback is required. The proposed residence mcct5 all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. A conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a "through" lot. By Zoning Code definition a "through" lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot. both street lines shall be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets on two sides; Livingston Avenue and Shady-^vood Road. Discussion: The existing residence was built in the early 1960's. The property is located in a half acre zoning district and is unusually small at 0.19 acre but similar to surrounding properties. Because the property is less than 10.000 s.f it is allowed 1.500 s.f of lot coverage by structures. The property does not currently have a garage or storage building on it. The applicant wishes to construct the accessory stmeture to park a car and keep other items from the elements in the wintertime. Lot Coverage by Structures: The property currently has a house and deck which are included in the calculation. Because part of the deck is more than 6 ’ the entire deck is counted at structure. The deck was recently replaced by the previous owner without a permit. The deck is located too close to the rear property line, not meeting a 30’ setback. The property was sold before a permit or variance was applied for. With the addition of the proposed detached garage the lot coverage by structures increases to 2.164 s.f. The deck does provide access from the side of the house and wraps around the back. Only a small portion of the deck is necessary to provide access. Hardcover: fhe subject property is located in the 500-1000' setback zone. Currently the property has 2,928 s.f (35.3%) of hardcover. With the addition of the detached garage and removal of several 'terns (sec survey) the hardcover decreases to 2,989 s.f (36%). This property would be allowed 2.903.95 s.f (35%). «02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9 5 2002 Page 2 of 4 L Side Setback: The garage as proposed is 5’ from the side lot line and 8’ from the neighboring residence structure. A 10’ lot Ime setback is required. Applicant wishes to have a 5’ setback to avoid relocating the gravel driveway. Neighborhood: The neighborhood has a mixture of attached and detached garages. Tlie properties that have detached garages, the garage is located either on the side or in the rear of the property. 1 his property is unusual for the neighborhood because the house is located so far back on the property. Driving the neighborhood, most homes are located much closer to the road. A garage could not be constructed on the rear of the property due to the topography and lack of space. 3436 Livingston Avenue - Granted a variance in 2000 for a garage. Approved 1,968 s.f. (43.4%) hardcover in 500-1000’ setback. Existed - 1,816 s.f. (40.3%) Allowed - 1,575 s.f. (35%) Setback - 5’ side yard instead of 10’ Adjacent property garage located 3’ from property line. Met lot coverage by structures. 3477 Livingston Avenue - Granted a variance in 2001 for garage Approved Setback - 5’ side yard instead of 10’ Met hardcover and lot coverage by .structures. Structures met 10’ setback. Exhibit E shows the size of other properties in the Livingston Avenue neighborhood. Ihc subject property is similar to other lots in the neighborhood. Statement of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. I.ssues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in the early 1960’s, prior to current zoning standards. 2. The property does not currently have a garage on it. <<02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/5/2002 Page 3 of 4 ■ 3. The garage does meet the 30’ setback from the street. 4. There is not room on the rear of the property to place a garage. 5. The rear of the property drops significantly. Access from Shadywood Road is not doable. 6. The deck is not visible or accessible from Shadywood Road. Is it a concern? 7. Neighboring residence is 3’ from lot line. 8. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff would recommend approval of the variance and conditional use permit to construct a detached garage on the property with the following recommendations: * The garage be located 10' from the side property :ine. The adjacent residence is 3’ from the property line. * To meet the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage by structures: House - 1056 s.f. Deck 140 s.f. Garage - 300 s.f. Total 1496 s.f i.e. Reduce the garage to 20 ’ X 15 ’ (a stall and a halO and the deck reduced to 14 ’ X 10 ’ to meet yard setbacks. (This will also meet the allowed hardcover on the property). Planning Commission should determine whether there are sufficient hardships to allow the detached garage to be 5 ’ from the side pioperty line, lot coverage by structures to be ever the allowed 1,500 s.f and hardcover in the 500-1000 ’ setback zone to be over the allowed 35%. #02-2822 Danielle Henely 3422 Livingston Avenue 9/5/2002 Page 4 of 4 1 ANALYSIS Lot Coverage 8,297 s.f.Allowed: 1,500 s.f.House: 1056 s.f Existing: 1,667 s.f Deck: 532 s.f Proposed: 2,164 s.f ProDOsed Garace: 576 s.f Total: 2,164s.f Hardcover Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1000'8,297 s.f 2,903.95 s.f (35%) 2,928 s.f (35.3%) 2,989 s.f (36%) L Aur18’2002 03:lBpi Froi-CITY OF OROtIO «B5224B46I6 T-864 P.002/0G8 F-565 AppOcatioii U -cP SPeP Date Received Amount Paid CITY OFjORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change fiom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) . (Ovom.mK^ Property Mentific^on Number (P.I.D.1 ^ j *7 ! ! ^ ^ 2>C)T) 2-^— Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ^ll\U ~XlOO^-^_______^_____________^(month/ycar) (6o n^<•I (do)fCdo noQ ^also own the adjac'ent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential ___^other (specify). Zoning District: ____ Name Phone (home). ,............................Address: Ci^ \k](h^T^ Phone (work ) _Zip:_5j5^2Z_ OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home). Phone (work).. Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estiimted Construction Cost ^ ^ ^ C./U'’ . {(paA.A^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage X Setbac..,.Front y Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properw conditions preventing compliance vrith Zoning Code requirements: y____________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) t Ufi-'f/L.vu. (c-i- 1 4 Q> % <9 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR \ DANIELLE HENELY OF LOT 21. BLOCK 2. NAVARRE HEIGHTS HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA REMOVED legal C'ESCKIPTIC n of FKEMISES Lot 21. Block ?. MAVAKRE HEIGHTS o : denotes iron Bearings shown ore tosed upon an assimed dotun This survey intends to show the bourdories of th^ obove described rrcperty the tocotion of on existing house o^d ?hei*. and the location cf all visible "hordcover** thereon, and the proposed location of o proposed goroge and drive^oy it does not purport to Show ony other inpr ov»Tnon t E or enc f .*'OClrrv»n t s -N 89*42' 11" W 50.00 « LIVINGSTON AVENUE GRONBERG k ASSOCUTES. INC. inBlK OBQA l« SIRtm 91 lUaOS 4«ll91CiaiC UKU0.il«H I h(*r utWf tM la utti ta ftftti « a inia 117 6k\ u ^- •aoi oa M I •• • dar >.9sl««4 &H <a lord iunfa aa.i IM lo*l ol tM Stott of Umnoto ypTir Voft>f*Q Umryito \ hrrf^ >?755 'XAt£ r*-20* IA»C b/22/02 j^e NO 02-368 £ D2-388 (L 3422 Livingston Ave Orono, MN 55391 I have just purchased a property without a garage. Because of the harsh winters I very much would like to build a 2 car detached garage. My lot is very long and narrow. The house sits very far back leaving a large front yard. Because I have virtually no side yard on either side of the home a garage attached to the side of the house would not be possible. I have the only house on my street that sits this far back off the street and the only one without a garage. #2«o 22 R muR s ii 0 r\RIGHT ELEVATION©^ /SCALE: 1/4" - I* -O' L ^ A.' - I . i it -pm _______i /^REAR ELEVATIOM V^I^SCALE: I/-1- = 1' -O' iUH f b: .1. - I <;-?,i . • * 1» S-. ., f:..1 r .-. » %. ■<r^.. i:.i-?:^n5<i'■;.^M v« .-*/..' .\_Uc:. TT—n"'v ^■». /!’ ■ — T *''^ 'tS' \v’TV . * '>.' ^ V '* .. ^ <» • ■ tf«> >;»:< -i n , , 4.3 . „ ' • ■ * . A.' K*“i« ■•-wm- - Ji 0.147 A- ■• 6.150 • k.-e r- 0.151 I'. .li' 0.151 ;1 ’ 3472 [3460 345213444 343 8 3422|^^^J[4 ii . OjP^ rr;,'’ ; t ■■ I 0.204 ii Mmmi-w 3477 3475 ......- !_Jl I . - LIVINGSTON AVE • I rntmm i ~ ■ i ■■ ■ ■! ■! ■■■■■■ ~ ■ -«v"^r7. *i«^:-.3473,^^;_ r, 3445 0.160 0.153 .1 m-:. 3433 ' ik •- «0.225 3405;/; • ■• k?N4it- 0.Z7O - ,• ni* tw< >M .iiiSSi - -.- • »• - tv.?-/’-'.' N Zoning Application #02-2822 Co$ CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Stmt Jtddms: 2750 Kelley Perhway Ororc. MN 55356 Mailini Address: I’.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 March 1,2002 Mr. Damon Serna “2 t/^^^„^3^ivmgston Ave. ^ Wayzata,MN 55391 COPY RE: 3422 Livingston deck construction Dear Mr. Serna; On October 11,2001 this office notified you of zoning violations regarding a deck constructed on your property without a building permit. As of this date the violations still exist. ihis letter is to require you to remove the deck or submit r variance application with the required submittal^ A deadline of March 15,2002 has been established. If this deadline is not met The City will initiate leg:.l action. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official Enclosure CC: Paul Weinberger, Planning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Planning Administrator Marc Davis, Building Inspector Tdepbooe (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249^16 www.cl.oronojnii.iis HAPDCOVER CALCULAl lUiN VVUKKbliJibl ’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ EXISTING HARDCONTR IN ZONi; A. House ■ sneo Mouse Length X X X B. Garage - C/ Driveway D. Sidewalk (cofJC/7-^re)X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape ^^c-fc^plAer’/c, Underlain ^oex! fZftJ 6 By Plastic 5>roK)e Or Fabric X X X 0. Other MTfes 4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ^OZ & "T 3 _ PROPOSED HARDCOVER fN ZONT; A. House Lcni’Ji X X X B. Garage C. Driveway 2^ X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pa:io/Dcck X X F. Landscape '^ock IPfA^.TiC Underlain P By Plastic ^ TOf \*/A ' Or Fabric X X X G. Other 75-250’250-500’•500-1000;) Or WidJi 81^1 X100 WiJA Z4 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY /i-REA IN ZONE A So 3.7 * B PjZ87 X 100 C5 hO 6V-,S.F. S3 7/S.F. f S3 /V'l •S.F. s:/3 S.F. S3 . it. S.F. _?£/S.F. r=:S.F.» • __/'T/S.F. =■ S.F.• S3 S.F. • S3 S.F.• • gg £”3 S.F. &S r?S.F. at S.F. • rs 4/S.F. • t S.F. ? 2 9 S.F.3'S3 -To . JcP fe S3 S.F. * 1B3 •# S.F. =S.F. S3 S.F. 1 S3 S.F. s S7o S.F. 8S'S.F. 22 /sz S.F. ~S.F. ra Sr.Z S.F. s=S.F. S8 £S S,F. .-i »«S.F; . ‘3/S.F. • 1 • U .'7 S.F. r; n - V S.F. •A >: '<T\ • S.F. • • J '^0 ^ ^ ^ 'H' Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department i''V (12S) y /,.!*’ /* (t27j • 905 /.'7-2S-3V-(r2r> V 13 (70) W) ■ 7» 50 50.1 50.2 50.3 503 503 ••«o «»lO ^ 0 & ft 0 10 ft a 5 7 - 5 - 5 3 4? *:■■(12 ;fto;(9)(8)r7j >so 60 50 50 50 50 2 (18) ft 8 ft ft«»8 17r m 12"13 • • •# 0 14 (16) 15^ «/ (17) 60 50 50 50 SO l<55b; 47<a *, 'a ^/(75) '%>/ 20 'V, ^5; (t5) (81) V'/ " A (77) (82)(8) 5 '^5(78 L I'l-'in- 3 Parcel Information Parcel ID 1711723430022 House Number 3422 Street Name LIVINGSTON AVE This IS nofs legally recorded map. it represents a compilation oT information and data from City, County, and State road authormes and other sources. MIN DATE 00/20/02 •ATCN 500 MENNEflN COUNTY P0OPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWIER NANi TAXPAYER NANE/AOM PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAI« TAXPAYER NANE/i^DDR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR 30 17-117-23 30 0052 00030 ADDRESS PENOXNO NCLEOO CNTY REG RR AUTHORITY DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH NILL ST FERGUS FALLS NN 50537 30 17-117-23 03 0000 02203 SHADYWOOD RD K W a S A RODEWALD KEVIN W a SHIRLEY A RODEWALD 2203 SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATA NN 55301 30 17-117-23 03 0007 03057 CRYSTAL PL STEVEN J LEWIS STEVEN J LEWIS 3057 CRYSTAL PL WAYZATA NN 55301 30 17-117-23 03 0020 03030 LIVINGSTCXI AVE SUZANNE CAOLA SUZANNE CAOLA 3030 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55301 30 17-117-23 03 0023 03010 LIVINGSTON AVE CARL E 0ORG III 0 C 6 BORG CARL E BORG III a CAREN BORG 3010 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55301 30 17-117-23 03 0060 03003 ' LIVINGSTON AVE DENNIS L HEGER DENNIS L NEGER 3003 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55301 r. 30 17-117-23 03 0001 02105 BAYVXEW PL R P NEYERS a J E MEYERS RICHARD P a JANICE E NEYERS 2105 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA NN 55301 30 17-117-23 03 0005 03003 CRYSTAL PL 0 N RODEWALD 0 K J NADER DANIEL H RODEWALD KATHLEEN J HADER 3003 CRYSTAL PL WAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 03 0010 03052 LIVINGSTON AVE COROIN MARTIN CORBIN MARTIN 3052 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 03 0021 03036 LIVINGSTON AVE ROXANN N BEISCH ROXANN N BEISCH 3036 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 30 17-117-23 03 0062 03033 LIVINGSTON AVE JEFFREY A KLENAN JEFFREY A KLENAN 3033 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 30 17-117-23 03 0065 03005 LIVINGSTON AVE CAROLYN N TILLOTSON CAROLYN N TILLOTSON 3005 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 'J y) REPORT NO. PACE 15 38 17-117-25 A3 0802 02298 SHAOYMOOO RO DAVID T PICK DAVID T PICK 2296 SHAOVHOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 93 0006 03999 CRYSTAL PL HICHAEL HOHS ET AL HICHAEL « KATHRYN HOHS 5110 91ST AVE S HPLS HN 55917 38 17-117-23 93 0019 03999 LIVINGSTON AVE PATRICIA J GOAR PATRICIA J GOAR 3999 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 93 0022 03922 LIVINGSTON AVE 0 A SERNA t 0 L SHELDON D A SERNA • D L SHELDON 3922 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-23 93 0063 03935 LIVINGSTON AVE 0 V 0 E N BRUCE DENNIS V I EVELYN N BRUCE 3935 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 17-117-25 93 0196 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HC LEOD CO REG RAILROAD AUTH DAKOTA RAIL INC 200 NORTH NILL ST PERCUS PALLS HN 56537 I li- ^ ^ r HUN DATE 06/20/12 BATCH 506 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORHATXON SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35601 PACE 16 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TARPAYER NANE/ADOR 36 17*117-23 63 0156 03605 LXVINOSTON AVE S A PATTEN • C SCHOTT SHERYL A PATTEN CYNTHIA SCHOTT 3605 LIVINGSTON AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 36 17-117-23 66 0069 02300 OLIVE AVE NAR6ARET A HOOD NAR6ARET A WOOD 2300 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 36 17-117-23 66 0060 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED TOWN OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL DAY HN 55323 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/Amm 36 17-117-23 66 0107 02306 SHADYWOOD RD NICNAEL SODERLUND HICHAEL SOOERLUNO 2306 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA HN 55391 TOTAL BATCH 506 00022 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IHFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, Tp INE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. -^ DATE \ . * * > I L • / 1 1 5W>-> /v,. >/»•' '.r a ‘vy’ - .*■ y% i 4 »Sft ' S'S 7A '. '>> t* ^ V ' -y * w ^i — r ^■ % i-f >* vv> . . . > ->x Zsf.-' .i : 1^'t r i (il-T 1 »1 it.;'-'IS; iAvVH Jl V Ml u r '1 ^ Vf^ * ✓ • • ' 'i^r 'r • >;/ . V ^ "V • -y / ’V A- ‘»3 —iT- V'-T. i- * I ’^r: ,‘ - * ^ ■" :.. ■.* -V ' •y -<■ ,' ■..• 'i V. *'> V ‘ * Vi r/ ' / <a.>-* * .vv r V /V > ■ ■ i-L ■ •■mr\ y»» m.BffliM a i7.« >,-i A 4 • 1 -f: ii<i ’ SH- [jka ji T ’mi5! », ^n>7 #fte -■■ '>ii' k • I - -< I * i I V ^ VbV •'x- ^ i - - - ' ,-. ■SI?'- -■■■' ' I TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 5,2002 #02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 13,272 s.f. less Co. Rd. 51 ROW = 10.673 s.f. Exhibits: A Application B Sur\ey C Elevations D Letter to ov\-ner in 1 981 E Permit for deck in 1 976 F Plat Map G Property Owners List H Hand drawn sketch of deck removed I 1990 Air Photo of Propert>’ J Photos of Property K Hardcover Worksheets Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): Side Yard Setback: Minimum side yard setback in the LR-1 C zoning district is 10 ’. Variance Requested: To permit addition to be 7.5' from side property line. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to eneroach 19' into the average lakeshore setback. 3. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L)(2): Hardcover in 75-250* Setback Zone: Within 75-250 ’ of the lakeshore there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. V’ariance Request: To permit 3,419 s.f (36%) hardcover where 2,369.5 s.f (25%) is allowed. 4. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14(C): Lot Coverage by Structures: In all zoning district, for all lot of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessor) structures shall not exceed 1 5% of the lot area. Variance request: To permit 2,57 1 s.f. (24%) where 1,600.95 s.f (15%) is allowed. «02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9 5 ^002 Page I of 4 Application Summary: The applicant has requested variances to side yard setback, hardcover in 75-250 ’ setback zone, average lakeshore setback and lot coverage by structures to replace a deck and construct a three season porch to the lakeside of the existing residence. The applicant has removed the existing deck due to safety concerns. It had rotted and people were beginning to fall thru it. The proposed deck is slightly larger than what existed. The proposed deck is 20 ’ X 30 ’ X 17 ’ (571 s.f.). The deck that was removed was 19 ’ X 30 ’ X 15’ (512 s.f.). Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1976. At that time a variance for lot area was granted. There have not been any additions just upgrades to the existing residence. A new roof has been put on the residence and the patio doors on the lake side were installed in 1999. Because the applicant has removed the deck and the permit on file did not specify the dimensions of the deck, the applicant has provided an air photo from the Spring of 1990 and submitted a hand drawn measurement of the deck that existed. Also, when visiting the property you can see the old footings. The photo shows the deck that was removed existed on the property for approximately 25 years. Side Yard Setback: The deck that was removed was in alignment with the east side of the residence. The proposed deck will continue in a straight line with the east side of the residence. The deck is proposed to be 7.5 ’ from the side property line. The subject property is required to meet a 10 ’ side setback. The hardship, if one exists, is purely aesthetic. Average Lakeshore Setback: The deck including the railing is 6’ in height and is considered structure. The proposed deck encroaches 19 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. The proposal also includes a three season porch to be constructed on top of the deck on the northeast section. This porch will be more of a potential view encroachment than the former deck. Hardcover: The hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is more than the allowed 25%. The applicant is proposing to remove a substantial amount of driveway to lower what exists on the property. The property currently does not have a deck, therefore the deck is not included in the existing hardcover numbers. When the removed deck is calculated into that, the amount of hardcover drops from approximately 4,089 s.f. (43%) to the proposed 3,419 s.f. (36%). #02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page 2 of 4 Shed by Lakeshore: The shed located by the lakeshore is non conforming. Staff reviewed the record for this property and it was determined that staff had attempted to get the previous property owner in the 1980’s to remove the shed. It was referred to as a fish house on a concrete block foundation. Orono zoning Code prohibits the placing of temporary or permanent structures within 75 ’ of the lakeshore. The structure is larger than a permitted lock box. Lot Coverage by Structures: The amount of lot coverage by structures is increasing slightly due to the larger size of the deck. The lot coverage by structures was 2,000 s.f (2,512 s.f. with old deck) and is proposed to be 2,571 s.f. an increase of 59 s.f. to what previously existed. Statement of Hardship: The applican* should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue, Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1976. 2. Does the Planning Commission feel the deck and three season porch are in character with the neighborhood? Will the three season porch limit lake views by adjacent neighbors? If so. what is the hardship? 3. Would the Planning Commission rather have the deck be the same size as existed and meet the 10’ side yard setback in order to bring the deck into greater conformity? 4. The hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback zone is above the allowed 25%. The existing driveway is proposed to be reduced to 16’ wide and should not be reduced any further. Arc there other items in the 75-250 ’ setback zone that can be removed to further reduce hardcover? 5. The lakeshore shed is non-conforming and should have been removed or relocated in 1981. 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. #02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page 3 of 4 1 Staff RccommcDdation: Staff recommends the applicant be permitted to construct a new lakeside deck , replacing what existed with the following conditions: 1 . The deck be the same size as existed. 2. The deck (and porch is approved) meet the 10 ’ side setback. 3. The shed located by the lake be removed. 4. The shed on the rear of the property meet a 3 ’ setback from the property line. 5. The porch be allowed only if Planning Commission concludes it will not encroach on lake views enjoyed by the neighbors. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. #02-2823 Ronald Cloud 3460 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page 4 of 4 ANALYSIS Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 10,673 s.f. (Minus ROW)Allowed: 1.600.95 s.f.15.0% Existing: 2,000 s.f.18.7% (Does not include removed deck) Existing: 2,512 s.f.23.5% (Includes removed deck) Proposed: 2,571 s.f.24.0% Hardcover Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*1,195 s.f.Os.f.77 s.f.77 s.f. (Minus ROW)(0%)(6.4%)(6.4%) No Change 75-250'9,478 s.f. 2,369.5 s.f. (25%) 4,089 s.f. (43%) -with removed deck 3,577 s.f. (37.7%)-without deck 3,419 s.f. (36.0%) L 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 strucUires $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application #^Z‘Z8 23 Date Received 8/2 I lo 2 ~~ Amount Paid S2SO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address A4a>cT»i ^^3^1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) OTs- (1 7 - - cj I - Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X. residential ___pother (specifyX Zoning District:_______________________ .(month/year) Phone (home) ____________Phone (work) 9b& Address: City: ________Zip: APPLICANT Name ***f*. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: 3C^t»T«|U 3 aOQfliO (attach additional sheets if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side 2Sl Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulw^r unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: *T»6S V»*»0 • (attach additional sheets if necessary) O O ^ ' A A REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of tht foliowing information mM^t hf swbniingd hv the apniicatinn deadline jp ordtr for vour anplication to be fnn^idered complete: ................. 1 2, Completed Application Form Certified Propei^ Owners List of owTiers within 150', labels and plat map (you Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. To^graphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8*/i" x 11") List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the propeiy. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(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 sarjanw appliention i? not complete If the above informatinn has not h^pn APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information suppliers true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5, 6, 7. 8. z z /_z / Applicant’s Sj^aturc Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledp and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for pulses of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's SiMature QILg Date OL4a^MJt Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 davs 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 to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. * a O O O Q r i * * 1 W C^cfar •fo Co4'C' ^ 2,^10 6 “^'^ ^^lrt.^^ /X>tdc~Hor\ Clouet 3*f(e0 K) ^lnpr<Qr r4 A"- X<w‘ ■^f®j(o.-'r<- Vc fcpV’^'^- - pccL ^^-Hri^cfvcr^. ft? be -f rtr<v.*f^cjL — 5/’t^ T)eclc*v^ +0 b€ cectar^ —-fo b< C'cciar" O o r^- if> //'o pecificotion 3 Bay Victorian Roof ^ . O % O ~f i /'\- 1 :,:,:,v;.| STD 19 A ^ • I • <11 I>«clC lThrOr\ ftdei;fioi^ . ll^ It Ron ChucL '}H(tO U ^h,f€ Pk 553^1 Tiopoieci DsckL. / J?>rc.lrv ftJtii'Horv 15- n‘ b ' • CITYofORO Pnj«: Offico Unx Crystal Bay. MinnvMutj ri5.‘l2J» Municip 4 On tin’ i\orth Shorv of Lake Minnclonka BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL CORRECTION ORDER February 2, 1982 John G. Nelson 3460 North Shore Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Re: 3460 North Shore Drive - Fishhouse Dear Mr. Nelson: An inspection conducted at the above subject property on Januar 1982, revealed that the fishhouse has not been removed. You notified this department in a letter dated October 3, 1981, that you would need special equipment to move the fishhouse at that time. You asked for an extension of time until the ice Wc safe to drive on. Now that the ice is safe to dr:.ve on, it shot be possible to remove the fishhouse within 10 days (February 12 Your failure to eliminate this code violation will leave no alternative but to refer the matter back to Council for directi If there is some reason why you can not comply, please feel fre to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, T " • I . / A.>•/•*. /''• •• ' • / Thomas J. Jacobs Building Official cc:Council Walter R. Benson, City administrator Alan P. Olson, City Planner Jeanne A. Mabusth, Zoning Administrator A ^ * 4 "iS.w iV»i^;l' wm • t '•• ^-r. :• • -.ylU.Y- ^M • \ " ;v •: ’.‘5 ::* . :t.\k ' Xii P:- *, /vOf'/. u&aufiMcu CITY of ORON I'n.Hl OlTiiv Mox <Mt«('rvHliil Minnfxi>t;i .').*i:i‘J.<*Muiiirip,it O On the Sorth Shorv itf Lake Minnetonka March 12, 1982 John G. Nelson 3460 North Shore Drive Wayzata, ^LN 55391 Dear Mr. Nelson: I promised you that I would write this letter as a follow-up of our meeting at your residence on VJednesday morning, February 24, 1982. At our meeting, you agreed to lower the existing accessory structure into the lakeshoro bank and to remove the propane gas tank from the side of the structure. You stated you would complete this work sometime during June of this year. The City Council has recom.mended that in the future should residents wish to rebuild such lakeshore storage sheds that they be constructc as a lock box not to exceed 4’ in height. Such structures may be allowed to cover more ground area if the 4' height is maintained. I'm glad we were able to clear up any misunderstanding that may have arisen over Council's original directive and to thank you for your patience. Sincerely, . /•, ,\t.o Jeanne A. Mabusth Zoning Administrator • * » fi cc; Thomas J. Jacobs, Building Offici NO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka September 17, 1981 ore Drive 5W9^; Ko; North Shore Drive rJor.sov;ners Dear Mr. Nelson: You and I have a problem which must be addressed. Several property owners in your neighborhood have been using the area between the read and Crystal Bay for storage of fish houses, lawn sheds, trailers and other similar items. The practice has gotten to the point where the City has received complaints about the situation. All affected property owners are receiving this same letter. An in.spection of the entire area was conducted on August 31, 1981. On your property we found: One 8 X 12 fishhouse on a concrete block foundation Orono Zoning Code Section 34.202 prohibits the olacina or keeping of any temporary or pci:.:anont building o- structure within 75 feet of the shoreline. In order to comply with this ordinance, you will have to remove or relocate all of the it^ns listed above. “ 1 mos(, lots in your area, are crowded and hav'c special problems due to the location of the road. You may find it difficult to relocate the structures at all. if you do so, they must bo placed in the side or rear of your property not less than 10 feet from any property lino. They may not be placed between your house and the road. Any new slab, footing, or foundation requires a building permit. BLILDISGA ZOMNO - 47J-7J57 ASSKSSINC AOMIMSTKaTIO.N a UNANCt - 47J 7JSS PL sue WORKS - 4 Vi''TV ‘ ^ t ^rr I ir I application for building pirmit AND CERTIFKATE OF OCCUPANCY VILLAGE OF ORONO, MINNESOTA IICTKMS ACC$NW«es«EO I THRU IJ MUST BE F1LLC3 IN ^ggC^RCRMIT IS ISSUED (Plrtit Print or Typol SITE ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIRTICN PLAT NUMBER DWNER (NamtJ *1oLk AJ^' (AdOrtif)ITcl. No I ARCHITECT CNamt)fAGdPott)(Ttl No ) 8UM.0EM (NAmt)(Addr»t%)(Ttl. No.l TYPE OF WORK yZE OP STRUCTURE Hoi^tl IWidtttI y lOopItil --------------- COMPLETION DATE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 'RONT YARD - FKUL » NO OF STORIES let- ;S f I 10 ESTIMATED COST 12 PROPERTY DIMENSIONS 1$ PROPERTY AREA SO FT ir. REAR YARD ESTIMATED COST 13 NO Of families (If Appl.cabUl 16 LOST AREA PER FAMILY SO FT c^ Ac*>P ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND SIGNATURE: Th# undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the VILLAGE OF 0R0F40 to take the action herein requested, that all sialcrntnls herein are true and that all work harcin nrentioned will be done in accordance with the ordinance of the VILLAGE OF ORONO, the State of Minnesota, d rulings of the Buildwg Department. I?' PERMIT FEE ^ <9 STATE FEE penalty fee____ TOTAL F£E__*2^^ zoning district fire zone aggregate floor area FLOOR AREA RATIO material file WITH OFFSTREET PARKING CONSTRUCTION FOOTING__ FRAMING Final CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISUEO j date H«nnepln County Taxpayer Seivices Depaith^^ ■■**: «/;:i v- /n- ■c< Parcp! Information Pwcol ID 0t1172343002« •. . 4V:-; V r t House Number 3460 ttieet Name NORTH SHORI DR . . ^ ; . . ' Thisl$not»ltgallyncofd9dmtp.ltnfins9t^teompaaUotiofMomMion and data »om CHy. County, and Stala toad authoribaa and odmaourcas. • ». 03 mjH DAT! 99/ZI/92 MTCN 5«1 HENNEPIN COUNTV PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWIERS LIST REPORT NO. PI43M91 PACE 1 0 • fnor AODR ONNCR mne TAXfAYEII NAHE/AOOR 30 00-117-23 43 0001 03470 OIRCH LA T N BERNARD > L K BEIOMRO TNOI^S M BERNARD 3470 OIRCH LA MAYZATA NN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0002 03490 BIRCH LA E LILJEOUIST A S IILJEQUIST . ERIC J 1 SHELLY R LILJEOUIST 3490 BIRCH LA MAYZATA HN 55391 SO 00-117-23 43 0012 03470 NORTH SHORE DR HAROLD J BROUELLETTE HAROLD J BROUELLETTE 3470 NORTH SHORE OR MAYZATA HN 55391 • • • i-, ' ! PROP AOOR ONHER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 00-117-23 43 0013 03400 NORTH SHORE OR BRUCE A NUSBAUN BRUCE A NUSOAUH 3400 NORTH SNORE OR MAYZATA HN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0014 03490 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN R JONES JOHN R JONES 3490 NORTH SHORE OR MAYZATA HN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0015 03490 NORTH SHORE OR K H CARLSON A D L CARLSON KENTON H A DIANE L CARLSON 3490 NORTH SHORE OR MAYZATA HN 55391 • • f PROP ADOR ONHER HAHE TAXPAYER HAHE/AODR 30 00-117-23 43 0020 03442 NORTH SHORE DR OERALO J RAY ETAL 6ERALD J RAY NORTH SNORE UR HAYZATA HN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0021 03450 NORTH SHORE OR MILLIAH C ODDEN MILLIAN C ODDEN 3450 NORTH SHURE OR MAYZATA NN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0023 03450 BIRCH LA E R ENGLER A 0 ENCLER EDMARD R A BONNIE ENCLER 3450 BIRCH LA MAYZATA HN 55391 • PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 OO-liT-ES A3 0024 03440 NORTH SHORE DR J t H ERLER JANES t NARY ERLER 3440 NORTH SNORE PR HAVZATA HN S5S91 30 00-117-25 43 0025 03450 NORTH SHORE OR A K EVANS A N K EVANS ANY K • NAOMI K EVANS 3450 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA HN 55391 30 00-117-23 43 0024 03440 NORTH SHORE OR RONALD TRUHAN CLOUD RONALD TRUHAN CLOUD 3440 NORTH SHORE DR MAYZATA HN 55391 I PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 30 00-117-23 43 0027 03440 OIRCH LA 0 S t D K 1N6VALS0N OOUOLAS I DEOORAH INCVALSON 3440 OIRCH LA MAYZATA HN 55391 SO 00-117-23 43 0020 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O SOX 44 CRYSTAL SAY IM 55323 TOTAL SATCH 501 00014 •V ! ? i ! I i I I I ( ; • 1 « I « t • X ——... f I * i t I . I • I i I i i I I i i)eaK. R^r^Oy'ecil ! i ->!"•••:-::r^-;.;r-.-.: ^ I )* i rjL’: —' —: ••■ I j I i ♦ ! I *--'1i- W7^’- ■ .. W li'. ,:t4 :.:^ ,1.,:, . -'.;s-.-. , ■. ■■vl/,:j--,;.;,:,£'^:--i.V I < r ^ ,' I • ' .• V ' V ^ •'^S ‘^4 li x ‘:V \< *• '“j ». •4.^ . 4*« ' '• ••. ^ *. • •» • ■,. y !•> w [vj.^ ■-• ,yi. ■ r >.-v - 1 ». •> *> ' - • - :-^ V'-itei^ i»1^ • > '<5.» ■ j. *t I' ^ ' MiLl'.-Tr.>£irii; t VI*; i--«r - “^Vi .y <m.y •L v*^A;-Jk; :•f^, /^7 » '. '> I'cC t' -71 ^ i ^ ^ 1 '■'■ J^yrriiair’ ilMlhf 'P'Kifl^^>4 ‘J *-I •# »-♦. F >#^ ‘ •■l1^<:'Sl At. :.,. .,.-.j.^> . j :^.i .^,*r ,.^wi ■ / <> •C;‘.» :. I f I* L "VV ’ 1 !T • :1^f. A -> • ?7' .} '%:r'/^ wr->4'r. ijs . •I : IS? f. :!?-• ga ' • # c'- ^ Sr:. •/ t ->J?r3 i.V , * -V i ** • >1 I i or ‘‘k ^ # o4 P % l^. *' • V, *-r--;^-« :7; . .V r. I ^ iwnwiiiiiiPWliii |_ ' •/ >,. U . '!'•■' ' * n • \ »s. . ■ A,: . . :<^ • . .• • HABDCOVERXI^L SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCtE ONE) y;yignMO HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______• • * CULATION WORKSHEET 7S-250’ 250-500’ K Lioi^ B. -Oaraic- . . V .• • • C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landsc^e Uaderiain By Plastic Oc Fabric V.. X X X X • • . X X X X X X X X X • .t <• •• • •• •• • . G. Odxer TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • • :________. B .xlOO ypnPQSED -HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ A. House _____________ Ltziii . Wld(h B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Imndscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A _ _ _ _ _ _ __ + B _ 500-1000' XlOO ^ ' » •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. 77 S.F. V S.F. S.F. 6-.?% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ■S.F. • S.F. S.F. • m S.F. • • • ••S.F. • •• • • S.F. S.F. S.F. ---------------------^S.F. S.F. '77 • S.F.\— rS.F. —m£.S.F. L-.M_f* ^ • ^ I hardcover calcula tion worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ (^S-250>^ 250-500’ yiyfgriMO BARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______■ • * '-------------------“ 500-1000’ ' ■S.F. Leo|^ X X X B. Garage " • • • • C. Driveway • • • • • • ••••* • X . * ** • . • X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Dcck X X F. Landsc^e UaderlaixL By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other ,vsA TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •A • • '_________+. B . ‘-ppnPQSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Le:|:h X X X B. Garas^ C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X O. Other VOA. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A -• + B. S.P. S.P. s.p. • J S.P. _gy3L.'s.F. M S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. M S.P. xlOO B677 -S.P. ciLj-A S.P.n ^ wdih r( /\Of I ?gg^— „ S.F. « S.P. ^ S.P. S.P. 41a S.P. S.P. ■-37.^S.P. S.P. 61L S.P. S.P. S.P. S.P. S.F. U3.S.P. _ xlOO 7 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 9,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2825 Wayne and Karen Soojian 4496 North Shore Drive Variance — Public Hearing LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 23,523 s.f. (.54 acre) Zoning District: Lot Area: Exhibits: A Application B Survey/Site Plan C Applicants Letter D Elevations E Floor Plans F Hardcover Calculations G Plat Map H Driveway Layout Pertinent Code Sections: 1 . Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Area: The lot is .54 acres where 1 acre is th'; minimum lot area for the LR-1B zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B)and Section 10.03, Subd 6(A)(1); Lot Width: The lot is 120 feet wide as measured at the 75’ setback where 140 feet is the minimum lot width for the LR-1 B zoning district for new construction, however, no width variance is required because this meets 80°/b of the standard. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6); Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. 1 o permit a variance to encroach 45’ into the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicants own the subject property and are requesting a lot width, lot area and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was built in 1951 will be demolished. A lot width variance is not required because the width meets 80% of the standard and this is a sewered 1-acre district. A lot area variance is required due to the lot area being .54 acres or 23,523 s.f. where 1 acre or 43,560 s.f is required in the LR-IB zoning district. U02-2S25 Wayne and Karen Soojian 4496 North Shore Dr he Page I of 2 r An average lakeshore setback variance is required because the proposed residence lies closer to the lakeshore than the two adjacent properties. The new residence is to be located in the same place as the existing residence. The house to the west is approximately 140 ’ away and its views of the lake will most likely not be affected. The house to the east is approximately 30' distant and some l^e views may be slightly affected The existing residence on the property to the east is non conforming and it is likely it will be redeveloped and at that time it will be located in a conforming location. If the proposed residence was located behind the average lakeshore setback, with setbacks the build''ble area would be approximately 15* wide. Statement of Hardship: The applicants have submitted their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence exists on the property. 3. The new residence is proposed to be in the same general location as the existing residence. 4. The new residence will slighily limit the lake view of the property to the east, how ever the possibility of that property redeveloping is likely considering the redevelopment in the area. 5. The non conforming location of the residence to the east leaves a small, approximately 15 ’ wide building area meeting the average lakeshore setback. 6. The proposal meets hardcover requirements, height and yard setbacks. However, in order to meet »he hardcover limit of 25%. applicant has proposed a “bare minimum ” driveway with no backup apron, and very- little guest parking capacity. Staff questions whether this is reasonable given the busy nature of North Shore Drive. (See staff comments on Exhibit H). 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. To obtain a building permit the new residence must meet all setbacks, hardcover and structural lot coverage requirements. Planning Commission may wish to make a recommendation regarding the driveway situation. ^02-2825 1^0} ne and Karen Soojian 4496 Sorth Shore Drive Page 2 of 2 Apr-26-2Q02 09:33u Fim-CITY OP ORONO 49522494616 T-lIB P 007/015 F-426 A ■5 . f CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION .. Initial Application Fee S250.00 fhSt> (SSP.OO per eadi additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S2S0.00 Afler-Ae-Fact Fees ODouble application fee) ' Appfication U ^ ^ Date Received"" g'/^l / « Amount P^ ctl ) pJL^ • • • PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address (MAHON ^ V kIoC th SnofcA Property Identification Number 0*7117 2 3 looo ft- ______________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P^^grty ^aMuired 3^01 ________________________^(month/year) I (do)/m noQ^so own the adjacent parcels of land. PrcsennSTtif^perty: residential Zoning District; L»f^ I B________ other (specify) APPLICANT . , Name WAV*J6 f KAg<l4 SOQAtAiO Phone (home) ^ fi » iYS • _________________________________Phone (work) 5^1» •’77a J Address: _ City; 2ip; + T m Phone (home) ______OWNER Of different than applicant) Name • ■_______ Address; Phone (work) Gityi.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Hstimated Construction Cost S 4oo, ____ Describe request in detail: f mcu %h i nc«ui>o& 4 Kitw ________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) -.4. VARIANCES REQUIRED yC^ Lot Area Setback: ' y jX. Lot Width JLot Coverage Front Side Hardcover _ _ Rear Average Lakeshore Otiier (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difliculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Codeyequirements; ‘ ‘ ‘ * ‘ [bnal sheets if necessary) r p ■> >• ✓ /\ /\ / * PiONIKR N * f / EinU WATERS ASSOCUTES, INC. ikfNERS A BUILDERS l6Bjkflrllotd iclIO ea Mrk. MN SS546 • 2)974-0004 (932)974-0003 eBscN«mbcr-000)30l / . engineering ^ -k JC if LABO SURVCYORS • OML ENONEERS LAND PLANNERS • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2422 Enterprlso Orivt Mendoto Heights, MN 55120 (651) 681-1914 FAX: 681-9488 625 Highway 10 N.E. Blaine. MN 55434 (763) 783-1880 FAX: 783-1883 / DETAIL fm m \ \ / Boundary Exhibit for: WAYNE SOOJIAl / / / / / \ ^-WATERS EDGE 3-18-02 / ..V' V. / House Address: 4496- North Shore Drive* / / / /"/^v NOTES: 1. No TJtle Opinion was fumishod for this property. 2. Benchmark used for survey Is located In the Southeast comer of Bridge 7258 (Hendrickson Bridge). EL m 947,21 (NGVD 29). 3. Boundary exhibit Is based on monuments found In the field. ' / ' \ \ V" r V, Pa HCSAH PLAT 50 \\ / / / V xx.?" I V ^5“ / A rj V' Bearings shown or* assumed LOTS 1 & 2 . BERGQUISrS 2ND ADDITION TO SAGA HILL HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .Vo We hereby certify to Wayne Soojion that this survey, plon or report wos prepared by me or under my direct supervision ond thol I cm a duly licensed Lend Surveyor under the lows of the Stole of Minnesota. Doled this ^ doy of _______.A.D., 2002. \ cale: lm£h.40teei SITE PLANo ,o O) Signed: PIONEER ENGINEERING. P.A. Terrence E. Rothenbocher, L.S. Reg.'^No. 20595 Thomos R. Bolluff, LS. Reg. No. 40361 I^LfN ' ’S5I r 4 *■ L Variance Request Soojian Residence 4496 North Shore Drive Orono, MN The Applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and build a new one on the above reference site. The property is located on Forest Lake near the channel that leads to the West Arm of Lake Minnetonka. The property is approximately .50 acres in size and is zoned for residential use. The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District. Hardcover is limited to 0% for the first 75’ from the lake and to 25% from 75’ mark to 250 ’ from the lake. Existing Conditions: The existing home is located approximately 103 ’ from the lake, 44.5’ from the front building line and 20.1 from the east property line and 29.9 feet from the west property line. Existing impervious area on the property is 34%. The home directly to the east is 8’ from the front property line and 8’ from the side yard line. With the exception of a small area of steep slopes along the north property line the slopes on the property range from 10% to 20%. The steep slope along the nonh property line continues into the property to the west. Mature shade trees are located on the property, which the applicant plans to preserv’c. Project Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a new home in the same location as the existing house. The house will be 103.1 feet from the lakes edge and 30 feet from the front building line. The imper\ ious area has been reduced too less then 25%. A reduction in imperx ious area was achieved through careful site planning which included designing a side loaded garage and by reducing the amount of asphalt pavement. Attached are plans and elevations of the proposed home for your review. Variance Request: Variances are requested for lot size, lot width, and average lakeshore setback. Lot Size: As stated above the existing lot size is approximately */2 acre while the zoning ordinance requires a 1-acre minimum lot size. We believe a variance is appropriate because this is an e.xisting lot of record that was configured under laws that predate the existing zoning ordinance. Lot Width: The ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 140 ’ at the waters edge. The properties width is 131 ’. Again the property was configured prior to the enactment o the current zoning requirements. A variance is required to allow the property owner reasonable use of the property. Average Lakeshore Setback: The ordinance requires that new structures be setback the same distance from the lake as the homes that are located on abutting properties. The home located on the property to the east is a located within the front and side yard setbacks creating a nonconforming structure under the current zoning regulations. If this home w ere built to current standards it would not be in its current location and would undoubtedly be built closer to the lake. The shoreline of the lot to the west is irregularly shaped and changes course from a nonhwesi bearing to a westerly o o o <2: 1 bearing. The topography of the lot the bearing of North Shore Drive also follows this alignment creating a ^pezoidal lot. Because of the shape of the lot the existing house on the lot is situated behind the existing house on the applicant's property. If a line were drawn between the two comers of the adjoining homes the applicant would have a buildable area that is only 15’ wide. This would be an undue hardship on the applicant for constructing a home. The applicant is cognoscente of protecting the views of the adjoining property owners. This was accomplished by constructing the house in the same location as the existing structure. The sight lines currently enjoyed by the adjoining property owners will be maintained. Conclusion: We respectfully request that the variances be granted for the property. The existing home wilt be located in the same area as the existing home. The Impervious area has been reduced from 34% to 25%, which is an improvement of over 26%. Sight lines have been maintained for the adjoining property owners. The proposed home is a reasonable and equitable use of the property, which will not have any negative impacts for the adjoining neighbors or the City of Orono. O /* * "'V KITtHEM } j i::li p---^-----1---- t 1 -H—1—i—f-—H- OWMCKi1 1 BEOAoOM 1 1 _______ SM/e. KirmwATUks A AtaoruTu^ PC. *}i«tA«laal iMlIt (•flltUAMt AifWA 2t« 11 I ifiS \(fi M- \A0-S ■■’.i o Q E? SOOJIAN RESIDENCE "R. C(k irc9. - W\ r ■p" - JuHI-2002 02>47pi Froa-CITY OF OMNO '' HARDCOVER CALCVLAT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) a-75* EMCTiNc WAwnroygR in zone A. House ____________ Lcngih 49S22484SI6 . WORKSHEEi 250-500* T-627 P,fll5/0I7 F-9II • SOO'IOOO* Width B. Once C. Drivewqr D. SidewiQc B. Pntioi/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Other ^TOOP x A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE. it-4 ^2. + B + B X 100 a x 100 - 17 II SJ. SJ. SJ. . SJ. IMCL: AfAvIf SJ. ' SJ. S.P. SJ. SJ. S.P. S.F. S.P. S.F. S.F. 4fi SJ. SJ. A /-4,000S.P. B -iZLsi ..% PBftPOSRn WAPDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _________ Lcit|di WUUh ■ IS3 6.n /6 ss. B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Liadscape Underlain By Plastic X X X X X X X X X X X X C. Other \/BAktJDk S.F. S.F. S.F. - ^ 76 sj. Xoifi-SJP. ________S.F. sj. ____ __SF. SJ. SJ. total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOjl^PERTYARyiNZONJj,^^^ xlOO i3*4t/r Rce'dL ‘lisloa CP- &F. 1 k r Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 07-//7-a3- Parcel Information Parcel ID 0711723310008 House Number 4496 Street Name NORTH SHORE DR TNs is not a legaUy recorded map. It represents a compilation of intdrmation and data from City. County, and State road authorities and other sources. NT’S PROPOSED DRIVEWAY LAYOUT ncnts: way width is 8' from R.O. W. to apron, not wide enough for comfortable vehicle ess egress, but functional. *" ''^'hicles to be able to enter m Shore Dnve moving forv,ard. This meartan additional 120 s.f would have to ho 3ved from the house. ° drive\vay layout has a high potential for “creeping expansion" that will result in this erty ending up with more than ifs 25% hardcover allotment sometime in tht future.. /\♦ 4 / / / \ ^ * PIONBBW ^ ^ engineering ★4 t rin^s shown ofs otsumsd / IVATERS CUTES, INC. /isTBorasHfr / / tRoMi / e. MN 5SM6 KNM 74-0005 mbcr - 0001504 //' "Vv. </ « »^'^oT9.T4r50-' V // , / v'p^. " 'VC We hereby certify to Wo my direct supervision oi Minnesota. Dated this _ sale: 1 tneh = 4Qtee^. • 'i-, p, VA'/^- • 0-^ I \ R6\HsBd: Add Areas Revised: Areas 8/H \ Revised: Add 75" S( Revised; Areas 9/0. ;02046Bts.dwa JuHI-2002 02:47n FroKITY OPY OP OKM har O) SETBACK ZONE: (CORCLE ONE) R IN ZONE ♦»22404lll T-027 P.018/017 P-Oll 500>10M* pviynwc WAR A. Hoose Lsf^WMlh X X X B. Qttige C. Drivewiy X X D. SidewiOc X X E. Fttio/Deck X X p. Lndieipe Ustelilii By Pliidc X X X O. Oiber FtajT<joeP A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TW^PJpPERTY area W ZONE ♦ B X 100 X 100 PROROaRB harucover in h A. Home Widdi X X X B. 0«age a Drivewiy X X D. SkkwiDc X X E. Pido/Dedc X X F. LmAraipt Underiain By PlMk Q. Odiar TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE *erty area in ZO B rUiis:X 100 - ml S.F. SJ. S.F. S.F. \UCL. Aff S.F. SJ. S.F. SJP. SJf. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. AA^Z, SJ. A ■> / />i^Q sj?. S.F. S.F. SJ'. 74a SJ». ^ S.F. SJ. SF. _SJ. (O SJ. ____S.F. S.F. SJ. SSiate-S-F- A [33551 S.F. B33CSE— 12 ' i J h1-1I-2002 K;47 m Pro^lTY OF OM^I itB224l4lll T-627 P OIB/OIT F*Slt HARl .i)VfiR CALCUL SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*7y :r in zone 2S0-500'.1000' ____ [G .HAB A. Hooie WIM X X X B. Omge C. Driv0Wiy X X D. SidewtOc X X B« Mo/D^X __ X __ R Lwteape VndtMn ByPlisdc X X X Q. Oihtt Ptia^TfcroOP A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ♦ B X 100 X 100 harpcovkr in 2 A. House _ WidA X X X B. Omge C Drivewiy X X D.!W|DC X X E. PMioDeck X X F. Lamtenope Undeflaln By PioRk G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE iRTY AREA IN ZO « B X 100 - ml S.F. SJ». S.F. SJ. \klC0L • I (oleS. - sf- S.F. SJP. SJ. 4 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 4^S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % % I La%C^ sj. S.F. 9.F. S.F. 740 SJ. :z4£u«. SJP. gn SJ. Sjr. 13Q-SJ'. _SJ. j GLsj . ____S.F. S.F. 9J. _33iato-SJ'- ^S.F. B 33u35Z_IL> I •J I HI NKY J » A51‘> NORTH SHORc OR ORONO MN 5 556A LOT 003 BLOCK BFRGOUISTS ADDN TO SAGA HILL Sale Oalu Sale Date. Amount Amount Remarks: Ol {o) Hi>l> HM YES ISTD NO YEAR 19 % OWN SR LAND STRUCTURE TOTAL MARKET y .‘V). ■• *^0 A >v 0 O -V s C„/o 7 7 y X ««\\\•J \0 t -- »•• •# V > V )r~ 4 , 1 'j 1 »%\ ^3 /-,/h 0 5 C'c r*(0 / //7 0 -X ±L . i )//t ii/C'• ^< -•«•' /•‘‘j \ \V .1 1 ' ^'J . } «:>)0 7 7 J 'J //0 ( ) s’V /)1^0 {i •* t *f 0 )0 > L y /0 0 7 7 c>I -7 *:.Ci 1 Cv y '/6 '7 •J />*- )C. t i 9 1 ' ) w- «> y ,'/1 ('*1 A 0 )7 I • N • //// 0 1 •J)1 , •!1 \-C>• * - X Jl ?!,i/0 :?V 0 <)0 I 7 o 0 ' / i V 1 1 1-/nJ 0 9 0 J J 1 o 7 \ s ‘K 1 P 7 i O c;8 2 7 c)!7 0 y 0 1 /0 c<r>t J 1 -' . ) i 1 1 t'/t 0 C 1 »■ « ;)2 0 tr 7 o ' / 7 1 ‘\ *V )./Z' , ,)N 1 A-7 ()o n> V ->lD J y •J 0 i ) , K -17 1 M f-* 0 U i‘>\1 f L.O 7 0 / '»7 4 />r4 0 1 1 >7 '■7 t)0 \ / \ol f / C-/'j J o 7 ‘ •c *.w V.c. . / o /' HM YES STD NO YEAR 19 V, OWN SR LAND ------------------------------1— STRUCTURE TOTAL MARKET V7 y r. f>r /X /^7 7 \V V '1 \> m o \<•/ >1 ■/ .■,///%. X ■fyx.s 7-■o o o /(C O 0 o 't515 NORTH SHORE OR ^QNO MN 55364 u 009 BLOCK RERGOUISTS AODN TO SAGA HILL HM ES STD NO YEAR 19 H OWN SR LAND STRUCTURE TOTAL MARKET i •c -./ * \rJ >J y ' r J —n •L *0 i %X ^ 1 ’.1 )A ''z '-I I J •y^7 7 r n -1 , 1 7 . > X 1 V i?<y 0 0 If1 C*)rj y*> X ?>%o 0 u )0 c> L o o M G a V V/-/7 /0 0 I 0 '/v ■]a r: j /Cl •1 7 I n /V 4 • 1 •/>'I J J V .*7 X /7Y f X .X 1 O O r' O (o ) f C-'/V 1 /. y <\L # / »c> «C'f ••* ' *V / /1 i \I •I i 7/7 /•> r A ^n 7 ->• .i / ).) \(r V.•J !.■>t K 7 1 0 C V,f / f ') \it /O C c a c c //y 1 y • 1 ;‘/(*U *1 ^ j_6 /u-c 0 •/a L.w ftc Romarks Sale Date ____ Sale Dale _____ aaa<i )P Amounl Amount /Vc 5^ o Ooj K) \ OO (jCt A"/T-y yj. ^ HM! YES STD NO YEAR 19 •/. OWN SR LAND STRUCTURE *TOTAL MARKET m XOMEWOOD EVELOffMEMTS BESIAH ' BVIEB 4420 Shoreline Drive Spring Park MN SS384 952^71^584 Office - 952-471-0639 Clx MN 11) * 20330592 Stonewood Design-Build, LLC is managing the redevelopment of the two lots located at and adjacent to 4515 Northshore Drive. We are developing plans for replacing the existing home presently at the 4515 address with an exciting new custom home, and the construction of a comparable new home on the adjacent vacant lot. Separate parties are purchasing the two home sites, with both homes being architecturally designed by the Sharratt Design Company of Excelsior. The two lots have always been two separate parcels, with the vacant lot always being considered for a buildable lot with separate sewer stubs, Property Identification Numbers, and tax statements The two parties have applied for Council approval for two variances: • Lot size (cument code requires a variance approval for all lots being redeveloped or build on with less than one acre of area) • Lot width (current code requires a variance approval for all lots being redevelop^ or built on with less than 140 feet of lakeshore) The variances they are requesting approval for are normal, reasonable, and customary. There are no other issues such as hardcover, height, or setback exceptions that are being requested. The lots are adequately sized and appropriate for what they are intending. We are seeking your support and enthusiasm for this r^evelopment. If your personal homestead falls short in either of these two stated requirements (minimal lot size and / or lot width at lakeshore), then your property as well would require this same variance process in the event of a new home proposal on your property. To familiarize you with Storrewood and our abilities, we encourage you to consider taking the time to do any or all of the following; • Call our office for a time to stop by and review our plans and surveys. We are located in the Wells-Fargo Bank Building in Spring Park at 4420 Shoreline Drive (County Road #15). • Attend the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on September 16 at Orono. • Visit Stonewood's two fall Parade of Homes models nearby during the September 7-29 weekends (Thursday -Sunday hours). The homes are at 5958 Hardscrabble Circle (off County Road #44 south of Mound), and 5774 Sunnybrook Circle (SW quadrant of County Road #110 and Game Farm Road). We look fonward to reviewing the redevelopment plans with you. and are excited about Stonewood ’s involvement with these two lots as they are redeveloped. Very truly yours. Stonewood Design-Build, LLC ' one • s* TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 5,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2827 Sven Gustafson 4515 North Shore Drive Variances — Public Clearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Lot Area; 23,360 s.f. (.54 acre) Exhibits A Application B Letter from Applicant C Site Plan/ Survey D Elevations E Floor Plans F Hardcover Calculations G Map of properties in area H Plat Map I Property Owner's List Pertinent Code Sections: 1 . Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: The lot is 23,360 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 55' wide where 140' is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to tear down and construct a new residence on a lot that does not meet lot area or lot width requirements. The lot is served by sanitary sewer and currently has a house and detached garage on it. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 55’ wide at the shoreline where 140' is required in the LR-IB zoning district. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 23.360 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR- IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. H02-2827 Svnn Gustafson 4515 North Shore Drive 9/5/2002 Page I of 2 Discussion: When land use applications requiring lot area and/c lot ^vidth variances are submitted and reviewed a condition (hardship) looked a; is whether there is uind available to combine to make the property conforming In most applications, the property being redeveloped does not have land available in which to make it conforming. However, in this application the subject property is non-conforming in lot area and lot width and there is a vacant parcel of similar size to the west. The same person has owned both properties since the early 1980's. The two properties were never combined and within the last several months were sold to different parties. Therefore, the land is not available to combine to make it conforming. City ordinances do NOT prohibit separate sale of adjacent substandard commonly owned lots in sewered areas. Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. The lot has an exis ' :g residence on the property. 2. The properties on either side of tlie applicant's lot are undersized and a majority of developed lots in the neighborhood do not meet the required area or width in the zoning district. Most lots are 50' wide. 3. The applicant ’s proposal will be developed consistent with the locality. 4. The proposed development would conform to setback requirements as well as all lot coverage and hardcover ‘cquirements. 5. The lot is provided with sanitary sewer. 7. Does Planning Commission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property. *02-2827 Sven Gustafson 4515 North Shore Drive Parlances 9/5/2002 Page 2 of 2 ANALYSIS LR-IB Required Existing Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)23,360 s.f. (.54 acre) Lot Width 140’55’ Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 23,360 s.f Allowed: 3,504 s.f Proposed: 3,066 s.f 15.0% 13.1% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shore Total Area in setback Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’4,632 s.f Os.f 0 s.f. (0%) 75-250’13.650 s.f 3,412.5 s.f 3,372 s.f (25%)(24.7%) 250-500’5,078 s.f 1,523.4 s.f 1,502 s.f (30%)(29.58%) 1 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 structtires $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address N Application # Date Received Amount Paid . CH^o»0 $53^1/ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) r>"J 11 OaoA Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date P^^^Vcquired fmQnth/vga^^ I (do) ^0 not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___^other (specify)________ Zoning District: _______________’ APPLICANT Name SUCtO Phone (home) 41^* Phone (\vork) fctX - 7* X^’JQ rVAlllir Zio: Phone (home).OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 4£lPhone (work) —______ Address: ^I S l\k»«TH 5Hoa€ ^blCitv: _________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: oP ^rRucTaf 5 dP _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Vi\RIANCES REQUIRED _)C 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: ^Ittr 1$ t'HtM I »M6 fr af ----------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1 . 14:S7 SHfiRRPTT & MflCDCWfiLD 952 470 8407 P.02/03 B Btonawottd Davalopmant - Lot 8 The mislino Property (Lot 8) is substandard in area bastd on Orono's Zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires 43.560 square feet as a minimum. The property is 23.360 square feet The existino property is substanderd with respect to iength of shoreline. The ordinance requires 140 feet of shoreline leng^. The property’s length Is 55 feet. Both existing lot area size and existing shoreline length are pr»«xlsting conditions. Hardcover requirements and building setbar^ are met with the proposed home design. The request for a variance is based on the fbet that both conditions currently exist on a bulldabie lot and that hardcover and set back requirements are met with the proposed home design. Therefore the applicant requests a variance to construct the proposed home design. m •* * - V , M • •• • __ I e a M-k SHORE S t4'S0'X’ 1> NORTH DRIVE arutjos cuwe SCALE IN EEET - EXISTWC ifOT ELEWMTOH X(9#B0) - PROPOSED SPOT ELE^^JIw' ^ - 0«)£CTION,..SURrX^ ORAffUGE • R2004 “•"NOV. 15. 2000 7/17/02 nrv - 929 90K»< - 929> LAKE MINNETONKA • el* "1*4« • »i- doeu Lot <5.f, LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 8 fc 9. AND 1/2 ADJ VACATED ALLEY . SlTft PLA k A BERGQWSTS ADDITION TO SAGA HILL ^ ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. KWPCOVP CXLCS 1-24-01 •7S95S•t m tn *t LMO »r OOlfrr t)Mt MV; OM IMCR tfr owcf jpwivi #•>I m * ear eMrnp um » mvctor r>c CAst or lie fTAii op mtnoiK P%M1 A rXIRWlf to MM CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT __ l.ondrrMok Jt C»rdarejj0 Surveyor 6440 rLYt<C aooo DRIVE EDEN PRAWE, • jslOT' yd 5CAi-^- CL ?<ec‘cl ^ ^«A.\ - ^ ^^^^«Miasr^s (Sr »WU£ ••«i»«»i»»»» * '» V« •« »« 4M 9 1» »# 4mmmmtmmmrn \ \mjmmmmm.%^] ^ivsSS/Stp* kVwvxial^r; -•f • V-o’ fpajr ELB/>CTOJ SD^ A;6 'll- woz. \.. \y /<-V f \- '• l» • • V.d r^\ < "■1 • •'• * »v r ? ( MCMC. U^B^'G\OE. E.LE.VATIOV4 <QOC ScA V = I'-O'Mi. 'ix-'isxfi. L k^Mr>-rn -^TlTTITimri !■ Ti—^j-■_______j •Vv • ^ . I* ^ ^‘v 1 NC .* '•J Bi^TAfiSCM McWs£ eDe ELEVATlOkl 3c»k, V • i’-o ”:;.._ ^S»OC^ ULC A,U=». 21 - '2072. ?> CQ QQ (M =tfe .—i ►- - L- • iTga^' > -tevio* g»Js»Tir6ow RF-6.T FLoo»L.p|JjJ S^U V -S^'^,' ^5?. 'ZOO'L n^ FU4.<5.F. PI- FiiA<.T n^ *** FlA l«Vao '“gi? 3t6o PIC ep •Tv (j -:. t'^Xi - t ■■ (. .'• f\}\a: < 8 V>, ~rrmrrfJfTi>J^fl pLoo^ y ••»\'-o" tcac. uc AJ(2.. -11,2002. |'2.fcO P»U.^,.F. ' 4uo £>0M^ ^ ^AJPM&hEO (.■ ( ■) f if ..^ i, • l i * •. • ^ A UJUjeJd- L&vJBL V ' » T-o" LLC. Ajfe.lo-‘lCO'2-.. . OFliJ. ^F. - lAjPlMlfiMCP i> eQ CO CQ =fe ... .* < hardcover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250’ 250-500’500-1000' y VTCTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______•S.F. Ltaj^VUiii X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. .. .•'x S.F.• B..Oar»ie. •_____________ ... , ------------------- . C, Driveway .' x * ‘ _____ ■* _____________*.F. ___ X ____________ • ■* •_____________S.F. D. Sidewalk X X E. Parto/Deck X X F. Landscipe Uuderlaln By Plastic Or FAtic X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • ■ _ _ _ _ _ _ +.. B . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House lxzi±, X X X 6. Girajc C. Driveway X X B. Sidewalk X X B. Patio/Deck X X F; Landscape Daderlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _____________ + B. S3 KS xlOO ■ WMih XlOO 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. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. f* I F ... ••• * I HAKDCOVER CALCULA' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ • • f7p«nnNG HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House______• . X ' ___ ORKSHEET 250-500'’ 500-1000' ■ ■ • /iL/5 Lio|±Wlddi X X X B. Oarasc . <•• • <i. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Forfc • .t •• • • • . '55a act'-' X X X X X X X X X O. other TOTAL HARDCOVER LS ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • •________ . B . yRQPOSEP HARDCOVER TN ZONE ’ A. House _____________ X Lc:|& B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Patlo/Deck F; Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X • _ • X X X X X X X X X O. other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A _____________ + B . 5/0" ^40 - QS xlOO • Widih XlOO - S.F. • S.F. S.F. s.p. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. 0‘t () S.F. S.F. "s.F. "S.F. S.F. a 37a s.F. s.F. -7 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. 55 hardcover calculation worksboee * I SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’ |:;yYCT1NG BLARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______• . X Ltos& 75-250' KSgEEX (^^-sooy 500-1000' ViUi .. B. ‘Oerise ' C. Dtivewiy D. Sidewalk E. Petlo/Deck F. Landsc^e Uoderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X . • • • • • ^ ••_______• . X • ________* • * X X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • _____________ . B .xlOO ygnPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X Le:i:h • yrath B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk « E. Patio/Deck F; Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X m O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ A ____________ ♦ B.XlOO 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. /5A-^ S.F. 6 S.F.r» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.r» HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET - GUSTAFSON RESIDENCE Site Area: 13650 Total Hardcover allowed in Zone: 25% 13650 S.F.x 25% - 3412 sf A. House 1915 sf B. Garage « 572 s£ C. Drivewi^«5108f D. Sidewalk-40 s£ E. Front Porch = 95 sf F. Deck-240sf Total hardcover in Zone: 3372 sf Setback Zone 250-500 Site Area: 5078 sf Total Hardcover Allowed in Zone: 30% 5078 S.F. X 30% - 1523 sf A. Garage-244sf B. Driveway-1258sf Total hardcover in 2U>ne: 1502 sf Total Proposed Hardcover on She: 4874 sf West Arm 0.2 0.2 Acres 0 - 0.249 0.25 - 0.499 0.5 - 0.749 0.75 - 0.99 1-100 N jl w 1 s 0.4 Mil E S ■fi Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department oi-in-S5- i^2R Parcel Information Parc«l ID 0711723310006 outo Numbar 4518 Straat Name NORTH SHORE DR TNslM not a legally ncord0d map. UmpnaaMi a compilation at Monnation and (Ma from City, County, and Slata road authotms and othar sourcaa. ■ VA *. . f t . t ; KUN DATE 97/30/02 BATCH 505 HEmiEPlN COUNTY PROPLRTY INFORHATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 07-117-23 31 0001 0A4A5 NORTH SHORE DR 6AYLE ERNEST WITTIG GAYLE, E WITTIG A«A5 NORTH SHORE OR NOUNO NN 5536^ PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 36 07-117-23 31 OOOA 0AAB5 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN 0 I DEBRA N KNODEL JOHN D I DEBRA N KNODEL NORTH SHORE DR NOUNO NN 55304 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 36 07-117-23 31 0007 04515 NORTH SHORE OR H J RIGELHOP ETAL H J RIGELHOP 4515 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND NN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 3B 07-117-23 31 0010 04470 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN J GROTANS ET AL JOKN» ILZE I PETERIS GROTANS 4470 NORTH SHORE OR NOUNO NN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 07-117-23 31 0017 01337 REST POINT CIR ROBERT N ZAUN ROBERT N ZAUN 1337 REST POINT CIR HOUND NN 55364 PROP ADOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER • NANE/AODR 38 V-117-23 31 0020 01336 REST POINT CIR JANICE K DE NATTEO JANICE K DE NATTEO 1336 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND NN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0002 04455 NORTH SHORE OR GREGG D KLOHN GREGG KLOHN 4455 NORTH SHORE OR NOUNO NN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0005 04495 NORTH SHORE DR NICHAEL P RYAN NICHAEL P RYAN 4495 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND NN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0008 04496 NORTH SHORE DR W J SOOJIAN 8 K D SOOJIAN WAYNE J I KAREN D SOOJIAN 10202 HARNONY CIRCLE EOEN ^RAIRIE IW 55347 38 07-117-23 31 0013 04448 NORTH SHORE DR NURIEL G SENN NURIEL G SENN 4448 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0018 01320 REST POINT CIR SHAWN HEAKINS SHAWN HEAKINS 1320 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0021 01340 REST POINT CIR JAO( EDWARDS KUTZ JACK EDWARDS KUTZ 1340 REST POINT CIR NOUNO NN 55364 REPORT NO. PI435401 PACE 22 38 07-117-23 31 0003 04465 NORTH SHORE DR J L THEISEN JR ET AL TRSTEES BARBARA A/JOHN L THEISEN JR 4465 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0006 04515 NORTH SHORE OR H J RIGELHOP ETAL HENRY J RIGELHOP 4515 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0009 04480 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN J GROTANS JOHN J GROTANS 3200 29TH ACE N E HPLS HN 55418 Cc; I i; - 38 07-117-23 31 0016 01347 REST POINT CIR W E P1NE6AR IRA PINEGAR WILLIAH 8 REBECCA PINEGAR 1347 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55364 m 38 07-117-23 31 0019 04545 NORTH SHORE OR C A I H L ALBRECHT TRUSTEES HAROLD L t CAROL A ALBRECHT 4545 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55364 0 38 07-117-23 31 0022 01342 REST POINT CIR H J ALTENHOFEN ET AL HARK J ALTENHOFEN 1342 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55364 8801 4 (. \ . i. RUN DATE 07/30/02 BATCH 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3B 07-117-23 31 0023 013AB REST POINT CXR ACE PROPERTIES UC ACE PROPERTIES LLC 13A0 REST POINT CIR MOUNO MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0027 0129B WILOHURSr TR R L iXRKELAND ET AL SUBJ/LE ROBERT L t MARIT BIRKELANO 129B WXLOHURST TR MOUNO MN 55354 SB 07-117-23 31 0030 04500 NORTH SHORE OR BETH E BESSESEN BETH E BESSESEN 4500 NORTH SHORE OR MOUNO MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0039 04450 NORTH SHORE OR B J WARO i S RYAN-WARO BRIAN J WARO/SUNHI RYAN-WARO 4450 NORTH SHORE OR MOUNO MN 55354 SB 07-117-23 32 0024 04515 TONKAVIEW LA KATHLEEN 0 ASH KATHLEEN Q ASH 4515 TONKAVIEW LA MOUNO m 55354 36 R7-117-23 32 0052 01354 REST POINT CXR 0 S WALSH 6 A L HEIEN OENNXS WALSH/AMANOA HEIEN 1354 REST POINT CXR MOUND MN 55354 T REPORT NO. PI43S401 PACE 23 36 07-117-23 31 0024 01350 REST POINT CXR RXCHARO L ANFINSON RICHARO L ANFINSON 1350 REST POINT CIR MOUNO MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0025 00036 AOORESS UNASSI6NE0 TODD C BIRKELANO SUBJ/LE ROBERT I MARIT BIRKELANO 1296 WILOIIURST TR MOUND MN 55354 . j 36 07-117-23 31 0026 0003B ADDRESS UNASSX6NE0 BRUCE R BIRKELANO SUBJ/LE ROBERT i MARIT BIRKELANO 1296 WXLOHURST TR MOUNO MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0029 04510 NORTH SHORE DR P SAWICKI I K M SAWICKI P SAWICKI I K M SAWICKI 4510 NORTH SHORE OR MOUND MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0031 01299 WILOHURST TR PATTI MAE SCHIMMEL PATTI MAE SCHIMMEL 1299 WXLOHURST TR MOUN9 MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 01355 VINE PL DANIEL B VENTRES DANIEL B VENTRES 1355 VINE PLACE MOUNO MN 55354 0035 JR JR 36 07-117-23 31 0040 01297 WXLOHURST TR DEAN T LUNOBLAD ET AL DEAN T LUNOBLAD 6 SHERRI J STELOW-LUNOBLAO 1297 WXLOHURST TR MOUND MN 55354 36 07-117-23 31 0041 00036 AOORESS PENDING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 1500 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDINA MN 5340 i 36 07-117-23 32 0030 01310 REST POINT LA E D A C L REINHART ERIC D REINHART 1310 REST POINT LA MOUNO MN 55354 36 07-117-23 32 0031 01350 REST POINT CIR OBJ BOIES JR DAVID B 6 JENNIFER BOIES JR 1350 REST POINT CIRCLE MOUND MN 55354 36 07-117-23 34 0002 00036 ADDRESS UNASSXO4E0 HENNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY 1500 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDINA MN 55340 36 07-117-23 34 0003 04425 NORTH SHORE OR NORMA J DICKEY NORMA J DICKEY 4425 NORTH SHORE DR MOUNO MN 55354 ^j.y\nn 14 V RUN OATC 07/99/02 iATCN 505 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35AQ1 PAGE 2^ PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 96 07-117-29 94 0004 04495 NORTH SHORE OR GORDON W LUNONAN GORDON W LUNDNAN 4495 North shore dr HOUND HN 55954 30 07-117-29 42 0004 01945 VINE PL . HARGARET H DAVIS TRUSTEE HARGARET H DAVIS 1945 VINE PL MOUND HN 5535^ TOTAL BATCH 505 00090 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS I ^ . ifn I t\mt\ 4510 North Shore Drive 4500 North Shore Drive September 12, 2002 Page I of2 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN To: Planning Commission City Council Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner '^ear Sir or Madam: Reference: #02-2827 &. 02-2828; Request for Variance 4515 North Shore Drive This is to inform you that we are adamantly opposed to the granting of the above referenced variances. The two parcels combined just barely exceed the area requirements for the current zoning. Furthermore, the total width of the two lots combined is only 120 ft, 20 feet shy of the ’ current zoning requirements for a single lot. Even combined, these two parcels create a non- conforming lot. The City of Orono has a responsibility to the community to uphold the planning and zoning laws, act to improve public safety and to be stewards of Lake Minnetonka. To allow the construction of two residences on what would be two lots that meet less than 50% of the current zoning requirements is unthinkable when run-off, safety and conservation issues are considered. Two residences will produce more runoff than a single residence and much of that runoff will come down those new driveways onto North Shore Drive to be carried on the road to the Forest Lake Channel. The existing homes that are located down hill fi-om 4515 have a long history of water i runoff issues. About 5 years ago, to help alleviate the water inundating our homes, the county modified North Shore Drive so that h would carry water past our homes and to the channel. There was concern expressed by the Hennepin Co Transportation Supervisor that in doing so, he was creating hazardous driving conditions and the potential for hydroplaning as people round the curve. If the runoff from 4515 increases, it will exacerbate this danger and we fear that the water running on the road will overwhelm it’s capacity, possibly coming down our driveways, again damaging our homes. Seven years ago, development of several individual lots (the majority with lot area variances granted) on Tonka View created huge amounts of nm off that inundated the down hill properties. During heavy rainfall, the Sawicki’s had water six inches deep sweeping down the driveway from North Shore Drive, sweeping across the front deck and beating against the front door. The Bessessen’s also had huge volumes of water cascading down their driveway, and flowing overbnd into basement windows causing extensive damage and rendering their well unsafe. Together we had uninsured damages in excess of $50,000. For two years we lobbied and battled with the chy and the county to alleviate the run off problems. Only after hiring a hydrologist to prove that the new development was the source of the water and hiring counsel to bring a law Page 2 of 2 suit, did the City of Orono respond by installing a small storm water system at the base of Tonkawa and Wildhurst Trail. This has prevented further damage to our homes, but the burden of the added run-ofT is still borne by our lakefront yards. Both lawns are being washed away and water stands after every heavy rainfall. It is unfair to have turned our beautiful sweeping lawns into retention ponds for overbuih lots. And when the additional development across the street creates problems, will we again be forced to hire hydrologists, attorneys and then again pay for expensive repairs? In addition to the runoff issues, the neighboring lakeshore property owners fear that forcing two dock systems into minimal coved lakeshore will create dangers to boaters and swimmers using the adjoining properties. We see the overdevelopment of this parcel as a renewed threat and ask that the City of Orono deny this request. Reference: ff02-2823 3460 North Shoiv Drive and 802-2825 4496 North Shore Drive Regarding the request #02-2823 we ask that you deny any request that increase hardcover beyond the 25% permitted in the 75-250 ft range. What possible hardship exists that justifies such a variance? Current lake levels are already overflowing into yards and basements of existing properties and this demonstrates that the lake simply caiuiot handle the current runoff. Allowing' hardcover variances will further increase runoff and negatively impact the surrounding properties. Regarding #02-2825, again, it seems that someone is overbuilding a non-conforming lot. Docs being denied a lakeside porch or deck or a three car garage create a hardship? Encroaching into side setbacks and the average lakeshore set backs create hardships for adjacent properties. Also, this property is located above us and a rearrangement of the hardcover may cause even more of the runoff from this hardcover to flow down to lawns and basements. We believe this should also be denied and the owners sent back to either design a smaller home or include an onsite water retention system. Fiimlly, in recent history, another Orono resident, seeking to subdivide a 1.5 acre parcel with 400 r feet of lakeshore, was told by City staff that Orono would never grant the lot area variance to approve the two .75 acre lots each with 200 ft of shoreline. Subsequently, they sold their property as a single site. Another Orono resident, non lakeshore, was told the same thing regarding a sewered property on Brown Rd. I believe that if other residents have been told not to even apply, that the Planning Commission and Staff need to be consistent and deny all lot area variance requests. For if you grant these, you continue to set precedents that will lead to the deterioration of the character and integrity of this city and our fragile lake. Sincerely, 4510 North Shore Dri^>/^^ , / Kathy Z. Peter Sawicki 4500 North Shore Drive 8-31-2002 CITY Of ORONO 2750 KELLY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356 LETTER to ORONO BUILDING & ZONING OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAND USE APPUCATIONS NO. 02-2827 & 02-2828 in SECTION 10.24.5(B) ZONE LR-1B This letter Is to advise the City of Orono Building and Zoning department that I (we) oppose the requested Variances to minimum lake shore lot area and lake frontage by Stonewood Design & Builders, purchaser's of Lot 8&9 of Berquists Addition to Saga Hill (4515 N.Shore Drive). While the original planning, which was done 50 years ago. was for two 1/2 acre lots, the city now has zoned this area to have 1 acre minimum lots for sufficient front yard setbacks and shore line usage to provide environmental safe guards of land use. This is particularly true in this case as this is a coved shoreline frontage on these lots and the safe distances between individual dockage and swim areas are at a minimum now and the addition of 2 more shore line usage's would make it even more hazardous. The loss of shoreline coverage is also at risk with 2 dock and swimming areas instead of one. To appreciate the problem we recommend the zoning personnel go to the area and took at the crowded shoreline now and it will be apparent that 2 homes will only increase* the hazards. The sale of these 2 lots now gives the City the opportunity to combine lots to meet city Zoning of 1 acre minimum and the 140 foot lake frontage. The purchaser is a contractor and therefore has the opportunity to construct one large home on the combined lot instead of 2 smaller homes and thus can recover the high cost of the 2 lots even with only 1 home. The lot on the west side of the two lots is one acre now and the one on the east side is approximately 1/2 acre, however, if you look at the platting of the surrounding area many of the lots have been combined in the past to provide sufficient room for a home and lake usage and still keep the environmental impact to a minimum. This helped the tight compaction of homes in the past but still did not give enough space to meet present day usage and conservation needs. Across the street are 3 homes with 1 acre lots and some that are smaller but were combined in the past to improve closeness and land use protection. One lot will fulfill the long needed improvement in home compaction and environmental protections that the city is trying to accomplish with Hs present zoning requirements. Please disapprove these requests for variances which will help improve and meet our lakeshore congestion and land use. Name of Property Owner, print name)(print address] Name of joint Property OwnerJ^ J Properly Owner sig (print name] jf.PA , (print addres^ ^ 01 Date a Jgirtf Properly 17' 61 Date 8-31-2002 CITY of ORONO 2750 KELLY PARKWAY ORONO. MN 55356 — • t \ J >■? I n Ct I Y Ur LETTER to ORONO BUILDING & ZONING OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAND USE APPLICATIONS NO. 02-2827 & 02-2828 in SECTION 10.24.5(B) ZONE LR-1B .This letter is to advise the City of Orono Building and Zoning department that I (we) oppose the requested Variances to minimum lake shore lot area and lake frontage by Stonewood Design & Builders, purchaser's of Lot 8&9 of Berquists Addition to Saga Hill (4515 N.Shore Drive). While the original planning, which was done 50 years ago. was for two 1/2 acre lots, the city now has zoned this area to have 1 acre minimum lots for sufficient front yard setbacks and shore line usage to provide environmental safe guards of land use. This is particularly true in this case as this is a coved shoreline frontage on these lots and the safe distances between individual dockage and swim areas are at a minimum now and the addition of 2 more shore line usage's would make it even more hazardous. The loss of shoreline coverage is also at risk vnth 2 dock and swimming areas instead of one. To appreciate the problem we recommend the zoning personnel go to the area and look at the crowded shoreline now and it will be apparent that 2 homes will only increase the hazards. The sale of these 2 lots now gives the City the opportunity to combine lots to meet city Zoning of 1 acre minimum and the 140 foot take frontage. The purchaser is a contractor and therefore has the opportunity to constmct one large home on the combined lot instead of 2 smaller homes and thus can recover the high cost of the 2 lots even with only 1 home. The lot on the west side of the two lots is one acre now and the one on the east side is approximately 1/2 acre, however, if you look at the platting of the surrounding area many of the lots have teen combined in the past to provide sufficient room for a home and lake usage and still keep the environmental impact to a minimum. This helped the tight compaction of homes in the past but still did not give enough space to meet present day usage and conservation needs. Across the street are 3 homes with 1 acre lots and some that are smaller but were combined in the past to improve closeness and land use protection. One lot will fulfill the long needed improvement in home compaction and environmental protections that the city is trying to accomplish with its piesent zoning reqiiire(rients. Please disapprove these requests for variances which will help improve and meet our lakeshore congestion and land use. Name of Property Owner -JacIC EP(A?ARDjr gtV</, [print name][print address) Name of joint Property Owner [print name][ print address] Co I Date Date I► 8-31-2002 CITY of ORONO 2750 KELLY PARKWAY ORONO. MN 55356 LETTER to ORONO BUILDING & ZONING OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAND USE APPLICATIONS NO. 02-2827 & 02-2828 in SECTION 10.24.5{B) ZONE LR-1B This letter is to advise the City of Orono Building and Zoning department that I (v0B oppose the requested Variances to minimum lake shore lot area and lake frontage by Stonewood Design & Builders, purchaser's of Lot 8&9 of Berquists Addition to Saga Hilt (4515 N Shore Drive). While the original planning, which was done 50 years ago, was for two 1/2 acre lots, the city now has zoned this area to have 1 acre minimum lots for sufficient front yard setbacks and shore line usage to provide environmental safe guards of land use. This is particularly true in this case as this is a coved shoreline frontage on these lots and the safe distances between individual dockage and swim areas are at a minimum now and the addition of 2 more shore line usage's would make it even more hazardous. The loss of shoreline coverage is also at risk with 2 dock and swimming areas instead of one. To appreciate the problem we recommend the zoning personnel go to the area and look at the crowded shoreline now and it will be apparent that 2 homes will only increase the hazards. The sale of these 2 lots now gives the City the opportunity to combine lots to meet city Zoning of 1 acre minimum and the 140 foot lake frontage. The purchaser is a contractor and therefore has the opportunity to construct one large home on the combined lot instead of 2 smaller homes and thus can recover the high cost of the 2 lots even with only 1 home. The lot on the west side of the two lots is one acre now and the one on the east side is approximately 1/2 acre, however, if you look at the platting of the surrounding area many of the lots have been combined in the past to provide sufficient room for a home and lake usage and still keep the environmental impact to a minimum. This helped the tight compaction of homes in the past but still did not give enough space to meet present day usage and conservation needs. Across the street are 3 homes with 1 acre lots and some that are smaller but were combined in the past to improve closeness and land use protection. One lot will fulfill the long needed improvement in home compaction arwl environmental protections that the city is trying to accomplish with its present zoning requirements. Please disapprove these lequesis foi v.'iriances w;iic.h will heip iniprove unJ ineet our ta'KC-shc<e cengestion and land use. Name of Property Owne r Z/jl/tau'i /.^aaj (print name) Name of joint Property Owner [print name] Prd^rty Owner sign ^44^* A/. SJ^ajg.is rmjue. (pnnt address] (print address] ?-y- Oate Joint Property Owner sign A/ /j9 Date 8-31-2002 CITY of ORONO 2750 KELLY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356 LETTER to ORONO BUILDING & ZONING OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAND USE APPUCATIONS NO. 02-2827 & 02-2828 in SECTION 10.24.5(B) ZONE LR-1B This letter Is to advise the City of Orono Building and Zoning department that I (we) oppose the requested Variances to minimum lake shore lot area and lake frontage by Stonewood Design & Buiiders, purchaser's of Lot 8&9 of Berquists Addition to Saga Hill (4515 N.Shore Drive). While the original planning, which was done 50 years ago. was for two 1/2 acre iots, the city now has zoned this area to lidve 1 acre minimum lots for sufhcient front yard setbacks and shore line usage to provide environmental safe guards of land use. This is particularly true In this case as this is a coved shoreline frontage on these lots and the safe distances between individual dockage and swim areas are at a minimum now and the addition of 2 more shore line usage's would make it even more hazardous. The loss of shoreline coverage is also at risk with 2 dock and swimming areas instead of one. To appreciate the problem we recommend the zoning personnel go to the area and look at the crowded shoreline now and it will be apparent that 2 homes will only increase the hazards. The sate of these 2 lots now gives the City the opportunity to combine iots to meet city Zoning of 1 acre minimum and the 140 foot lake frontage. The purchaser is a contractor and therefore has the opportunity to construct one large home on the combined lot instead of 2 smaller homes and thus can recover the high cost of the 2 lots even with only 1 home. The lot on tt« west side of the two lots is one acre now and the one on the east side is approximately 1/2 acre, however, if you look at the platting of the surrounding area many of the lots have been combined in the past to provide sufficient room for a home and lake usage and still keep the environmental Impact to a minimum. This helped the tight compaction of homes in the past but still did not give enough space to meet present day usage and conservation needs. Across the street are 3 homes with 1 acre lots and some that are smaller but were combined in the past to improve closeness and land use protection. One lot will fulfill the long needed improvement in home compaction and environmentai protections that the city is trying to accomplish with its present zoning requirements. Piease disapprove these requests for variances which will help improve and meet our lakeshore congestion and land use. Name of Properly Owne r " hC ^ of (print name] Name of joint Properly Owner (print name] Property Owner sign (print address] (print address] ' Date 4 Joint Property Owner sign y) /> Date 8-31-2002 CITY Of ORONO 2750 KELLY PARKWAY ORONO. MN 55356 LETTER to ORONO BUILDING & ZONING OFFICE and CITY COUNCIL REGARDING LAND USE APPLICATIONS NO. 02-2827 & 02-2828 In SECTION 10.24.5(B) ZONE LR-1B This letter Is to advise the City of Orono Building and Zoning department that I (we) oppose the requested Variances to minimum lake shore lot area and lake frontage by Stonewood Design & Builders, purchaser’s of Lot 8&9 of Berquists Addition to Saga Hill (4515 N.Shore Drive). While the original planning, which was done 50 years ago. was for two 1/2 acre lots, the city now has zoned this area to have 1 acre minimum lots for sufficient front yard setbacks and shore line usage to provide environmental safe guards of land use. This is particularly true in this case as this is a coved shoreline frontage on these lots and the safe distances between individual dockage and swim areas are at a minimum now and the addition of 2 more shore line usage's would make it even more hazardous. The loss of shoreline coverage is also at risk with 2 dock and swimming areas instead of one. To appreciate the problem we recommend the zoning personnel go to the area and look at the crowded shoreline now and it will be apparent that 2 homes will only increase the hazards. The sale of these 2 lots now gives the City the opportunity to combine lots to meet city Zoning of 1 acre minimum and the 140 foot lake frontage. The purchaser is a contractor and therefore has the opportunity to construct one large home on the combined lot instead of 2 smaller homes and thus can recover the high cost of the 2 lots even with only 1 home. The lot on the west side of the two lots is one acre now and the one on the east side is approximately 1/2 acre, however. If you look at the platting of the surrounding area many of the lots have been combined In the past to provide sufficient room for a home and lake usage and still keep the environmental impact to a minimum. This helped the tight compaction of homes in the past but still did not give enough space to meet present day usage and conservation needs. Across the street are 3 homes with 1 acre lots and some that are smaller but were combined in the past to improve closeness and land use protection. One lot will fulfill the long needed improvement in home compaction and environmental protections that the city is trying to accomplish with its present zoning requirements Please disapprove these requests for variances which will help improve and meet our lakeshore congestion and land use. Name of Property Owner of ?33/!> ^<J<q [print name][print address] Name of joint Property Owner [print name][ print address] Date Joint Property Owner sign Date « • TO; FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner September 9,2002 #02-2828 Tony Lund 4515 North Shore Drive (vacant lot shares address with adjacent lot) Variances — Public Hearing Zoning Dutrict: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 26,920 s.f. (.62 acre) Exhibits A Application B Letter from Applicant C Site Plan/ Survey D Elevations E Floor Plans F Hardcover Calculations G Sewer Analysis and As-Built Map H Map of properties in area 1 Plat Map J Property Owner’s List Pertinent Code Sections: 1, Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Area: Thelotis26,920s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): Lot Width: The lot is 65 ’ wide where 140’ is the minimum lot width for the LR-IB zoning district. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on a vacant lot that docs not meet lot area or lot width requirements. A lot width variance is required due to the lot being 65 ’ wide at the shoreline where 140’ is required in the LR-IB zoning district, measured at the shoreline and at the 75 ’ setback. A lot area variance is required due to the lot being 26,920 s.f. where 43,560 s.f. is required in the LR- IB zoning district. Neither lot area nor w idth meet the 80% standard for sewered lots in 1 acre zone. M2-282S Tony Lund 45IS North Shore Drive (vacant lot) Variances 9/9/2002 Page I of 3 The proposed residence meets all setbacks in the LR-IB zoning district. The proposed residence meets structural and hardcover coverage requirements of city ordinances. Discussion: When land use applications requiring lot area and/or lot width variances are submitted and reviewed a condition (hardship) looked at is whether there is land available to combine to make the property conforming. This property does not have land available to combine in order for it to meet conformity. This property has been vacant and owned by the adjacent property owTier since the early 1 980 ’s. The lot was part of the Bergquists’s Addition to Saga Hill subdivision. The Bergquists’s Addition to Sage Hill took place in the 1950 ’s. The Bergquists’s Addition to Saga Hill included land along North Shore Drive which was subdivided into 9 lots of similar size. The subject lot was never built on. The properties in the Bergquist’s Addition met the zoning standards of the time. Under current zoning standards the area is zoned LR-IB (Single Family Lakeshore) -1 acre lots. All of the other lots in this subdivision have remained approximately half acre in size. This lot continues to be in character with the surrounding properties. The city does NOT have an ordinance requiring that 2 lots have to be combined if they are owned by the same person. The ordinances do not prohibit the sale of vacant substandard commonly owned lots except in unsewered areas. However, in order to build on the property it must meet all other zoning standards, (i.e. yard setbacks, hardcover and lot coverage by structures). Note that except for a sliver of existing driveway and a portion of a small shed, the property has not been encroached upon nor used to support development on the adjacent previously commonly-owned lot. Sewer. The property was separately assessed for sewer footage and provided with a sewer stub in 1970. Because it was vacant at that time, it was not charged the uiut fee. The unit fee due if the property is developed is $6,703 for 2002. Access from North Shore Drive: Currently there is not access to the property from North Shore Drive. Because North Shore Drive is a county road, Hennepin County decides where access should be located. A copy of the application was sent to Dave Zetterstrom at Hennepin County regarding the access. At the writing of this report comments had not been received from Hennepin County. The applicant will need to get approval from Hennepin County before bringing access to the property, (and before building permits could be issued). »02~2S28 Tony Lund 4515 North Shore Drive (vacant lot) Variances 9/9/2002 Page 2 of 3 Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1 . The property does not have a structure on it. 2.The City of Orono does not have a requirement that 2 substandard lots owned by the same person have to be combined. 3. The properties on either side of the applicant’s lot are undersized and a majority of developed properties in the neighborhoods do not meet the required area in the zoning district. The lot is in character with many other lakeshore lots in the area. 4. 5. The applicant's proposal will be developed consistently with the locality. The proposed single family house would conform to setback requirements as well all lot coverage and hardcover requirements. 6.The lot has sewer available to it. The applicant is required to pay the unit fee and connection fee. 7. Does Planning Contunission have any additional issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances to construct a new residence on the property, subject to: • No other variances shall be granted, • Payment of the sewer connection charge of $6,703, Access location to be approved by Hennepin County prior to City Council Action. M02-2S2S Ton}- Lund 4515 North Shore Drive (vacant lot) Variances 9/9,'2002 Page 3 of3 ANALYSIS LR-IB Required Existing Lot Area 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)26,920 s.f. (.62 acre) Lot Width 140’65’ Structural Coverage Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage Percentage 26,920 s.f.Allowed: 4,038 s.f. Proposed: 3,809 s.f 15.0% 14.1% Hardcover Calculations Distance from Shore Total Area in setback Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’5,895 s.f Os.f Os.f (0%) 75-250’15,355 s.f 3,838 s.f 3,739 s.f (25%)(24.4%) 250-500’5,670 s.f 1,701 s.f 1,692 s.f (30%)(29.8%) I •t • Application U Date Receive J~ 'ft > ^0*^ Amount Paid cii^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION -awsu-------- Initial'Application Fee $250.00 ___ ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confon.iing structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address VA6^t l^l»a at ^$1$ 5M#0c. Property Identification Ni.mber (P.I.D.) 1117.1^ i T____________________ SSS6*j Attach Icg^ description to ^plication if not included on reC|uLred survey. iL^ ^ Date Prope^Acquired_7/^Z i/tA P»tcW fmonth/v^.-.r^ I (do) IPo noP also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; residential ___^other (specif/) Zoxiing District: Z_R~lg _____________~ APPLICANT Name TbiJH Address: 3SO Lauf, Phone (home) ____ Phone (work ) X tL-'7 $ /» Z^ City: _____Zip; OWNER'(if different than applicant) Name N tLl A ua IL 13 Phone (home) Phone (work) *“ Zip:Address: ^SljT Citv: oc.o»»o DESCRIPTION OF REQUES'T Estimated Construction Cost $ 6do Describe request in detail: Cojo5rftucri<>i^ o» jaew 5i»*yc fhm^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _V Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSfflP/DESCRIPTlON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance \viA Zoning Code requirements: X/flo^ttST H *f tTtA»j ^ UlK TKaM I /<!/> ft* . (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2828 flUfr-21-2002 14*57 SHPRRATT & nPCDONPLD 952 470 8407 P.03/^ 8TONEWOOD DEVELOPMEWT ■ LOT ft The existing property (Lot 8) is substandard In area based on Orono's Zoning Ordinance. The ordinanoe requires 43,560 square feet as a minimum. The property is 26,920 square feat The existing property ia substandard with rasped to length of shoreline. The ordinance requires 140 feet of shoreline length. The property's length is 65 feet Both existing lot area size and existing shoreline length are preexisting conditions. Hardcover requirements end building set backs are met with the proposed home design. The request for a variance Is based on the fad that both conditions currently exist on a buildable lot and that hardcover and setback requirements are met with the proposed home desiga Therefore the applicant requests a variance to consbud the proposed home design. ,C P 4.'' ' .V .) • •• • .• . * • • • > . • llj . w' ^ 6 SHORENORTH DRIVE Tmtios cuw -it!___'-------- SCALE IN EEET ’■’a - EXSTtW ipOT aeWTION. X(998.0) - PROPOSED iPOT ^..... - 0«£CTWN,^«RrtC£ DRAtJACE 7/17/02 acv ^2®.® 929.4 LAKE MINNETONKA -ri.o. - «n-in-»-k -»t -H35T-^- . ------ :“LJwt> HoUfe wtofoeALLEGAL DESCRIPTION; _ _ , . . LOTS 8 & 9. AND 1/2 ADJ VACATED ALLEY . - PPoPoSBO 6lTB PLM BERGQUISTS ADDITION TO SAGA HILL - SEaS- u*. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. R2004 1*^CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY **"NOV. 15. 2000P* *9%. HANDCOVOI CALCS 1-24-01 •cmbt cbuty n^f im utMTf •«$ mvoo rr7oi uco m muf mwwbi awNat 1 AM * K4V *ANCX»MCA nc LAMt or M fMTi or imbsota .'vtci 4 frmnnriiif «« w mm STONEWOOD DEVELOPMENT g ~ AJ*. ll-l^^ ___ Lond Fr^oM R, CMrdMr9ll9 Surveyor 6440 FLYMC aOUO DRIVE EDEN PRABC. (L ] r I r\. _______________ •■/. .V-r;. .(.-S', f . .•< .',• ■' •' ,J ' ^ ■ ■ • •' c._^' ^ o . k \ ‘ ^ . ____________ ......................... : .LUKID Wote___________ 'SOC Lkc.__^ill/etr_________ • • W ••v_^ ) C• • ’ * < >:.* ^4-c?e ^SA-^-(“ . feuBLv^x-t-tn'1-4 A-t >■ \ - f I ’ k •j .V ^ • r rLoop. as 2.0 sas. PLCOP. no5 VJ/O LB>/&L *&30 TbTAL 4555 gT C-) A' ) C' I r- , *; r ‘ . <) -JUD HC/AB Rp-s;r FLoofz-Mb. l’=>-'200'2. ±'blo 9in I t TjjrfTwnrTTi r c©) c?#^r *. SDC u.t ..:: _.,^u.V •\-o .. . Ms? ho5 FikJ. $.F. =1*: a • I wu« , 5ckU V*” »r-o* l‘5-'l^ ^io -nkJ- Sjf.:: r::: f \-J f , •• i • V ■ ^V * *. ■ (?/' . v\ :/ W ^!l • t /••• •• .• •. .... habd cover calculation worksheet SETBACK ZONES (ClRCI£ONE) 75-250* 250-500*500-1000' rs HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________^ X S.F. L>0|^VIUi X X X S.F, S.F. S.F. B. ‘Oaraje •*. • V >• • • C, Driveway ‘ i . • •* • .s , .• •• • S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Fatio/Decic X X S.F. S.F. F. Laadse^e Uaderiala By Plastic Or Fabric X X X SJ. S.F. SJ'. G. Otber S.F. TOTAL FARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTV AREA IN ZONE A • • • ■■ . ____________® . -er S.F. X 100 • > S.F. % A. House S.F. • Wilth X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.P. E. Patio/Deck X X S.T. S.E. F; landscape Uaderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F- S.F S.F S.F O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ’ TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A _____________ **■ B-XlOO r .*••• ^ I • HA10)COVER CALCULA.T1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75’ EXISTING ELARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______• ..X ATK2£L£C|ORKSBEET 25O-S00* Ltq|&Wdih B. "Quzse • «• • • • • • • • X* X X X V.- C. Ptlvcway V. Sidewalk E. PatioAJeck V5lf>>0 F. Ltndscspe Uaderlaln By Plastic Or Fiibnc X X X X X X X X X O. Odier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTV AREA IN ZONE •A • • • ■ +. B . PROPOSED 1HAKD COVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ X LtsjA B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk• • •* * E. Patio/Dcck P. Landscape Uaderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X O. Ocher TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A _____________ + B . • •• • xlOO Wtddi 500-1000' - S.P, ms. s • S.F. S.F. s.p. S.F. S.F. S.F. .S.F. S.F. _ S.F. SJ. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.P. S.F. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. XlOO - S.F. S.F. S.F. 55 * •V •.V* HA10>COV£R CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCXXONE) 0-75’ 75-250’ <^0-S0^500-1000 ’ fO HARDCOVER IN ZONE • • A. House iMgh X X X B. Qttase • •• • • • • ••• __ > Xmrnamam # •« • • • • •• *• ••• •••*•»• •• C. Dtlvewsy D. Sidewalk E. Petlo/Deck F. Landscape Uodeclaln By Plastic Or Fabric . •• •« • X X X X X X X X X • J • • • 3kQ. s.r. • S.F. S.F. S.?. .S.F. ■ S.F. S.F. S.F. _S.F. S.F. " S.F. SJ. ”S.F. "S.F. O. Odier S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • • • ■ •__________ ■ +. B .xlOO / S.F. •^hno S.F. ■ % yp OPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ A. House _____________ : LkiCi Widdx B. Garaje C. Driveway D. Sidewalk • * • E. Patlo/Dcck E; Ltndicape Uaderlaln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X X X X X X X X 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 O, Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A _____________ ♦ B.XlOO - S.F S.F S.F HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET - LUND RESIDENCE Zone 7S-2SQ She Area: 153SS Total Hardcover allowed in Zone: 25% 15355 S.F. X 25% - 3838 *f A. House » 2324 sf B. Oarage ■■ 505 sf C. Driveway » 225 sf D. Sidewalk ■■ 65 sf E. Front Porch “ 220 sf F. Deck « 400 sf Total hardover in Zone: 3739 sf Setback Zone 250-500 She Area: 5670 S.F. Total Hardcover AUowed in Zone: 30% 5670 S.F. X 30% -1701 S.F. A. Garage « 360 sf B. Driveway® 1332 sf Total hardcover in 2^ne: 1692 sf Total Proposed Hardcover on She: 5431 S.F. #2 o o o 1 J V . il MEMO CITYOFORONO TO:Street File 4515 North Shore Drive FROM:Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:June 4,2002 SUBJECT: Analysis of paid sewer assessments The property is two tax parcels, Lots 8 and 9, Bergquist’s Addn. to Saga Hill. The properties were part of the 1970LS-1 (Forest Lake/Saga Hill) sewer project. The project was assessed SI,270 per unit plus S7.80 per foot and each unit was assessed a $225 connection fee*. Lot 8 has paid the full assessment and the house was connected to sewer in the early 1 970s. Lot 9 paid the $7.80 footage fee, but has not paid the unit fee and the connection fee. Based on the 2002 fee schedule Lot 9 would owe for the portion of unpaid assessment if the property were allowed to connect to sewer. Staff is suggesting the following is the total unpaid assessment. Total Assessment due at the time of the 1970 project. Lot 9 $1,250 Unit Charge (unpaid) $ 585 Footage Charge (paid) $ 225 Connection Charge (expired*) $ 1,835 Total Assessment for the property (1970). The total paid portion is 31.88% of the remaining assessment that would have been due in 1970. $585/$ 1,835 = 0.3188 The 2002 Fee Schedule lists the total connection fee for the Forest Lake/Saga Hill project is $9,840 per unit. If the property is approved to have connection to sewer the assessment due would be 68.12% of $9,840, to reflect the unpaid portion at the time of the original project. $9,840 X 0.6812 $ 6,703.00 is the unpaid balance of the full connection charge based on the 2002 Fee Schedule. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances Required: Hennepin County Tax records estimate the lot area of Lot 9 to be 30,400 s.f This docs not meet the minimum requirement of 1.0 acre for the zoning district. The lot is also less than the minimum required 140’ of width at the lakeshore and structure setback. To build on the propert>' variances must be approved by the Council for lot area and width, and Council must approve cormection to sewer. * The $225 plant charge was never inflated and the plant is paid for. No additional plant charge would be due. G YT tt VM. )rest ake F 4515 Lots West Arm 0.2 0.2 Acres * ' t 0 - 0.249 0.25 - 0.499 0.5 - 0.749 0.75 - 0.99 1-100 W X Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department oi~in-di5- Parcel Information Parcel ID 0711723310006 ouse Number 4518 Street Name NORTH SHORE DR This is not» hgaUy ncordsd m»p. It npnsonts 9 oompOation o! information and data from Oty. County, and Stata road authoribas and othar tourcas. Y)iUN DATE t7/3E/02 N , I I . V., BATCH 515 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPIRTY INFORNATION SYSTEN PROPERTY OHNERS LIST PROP AODH OHNER NAHC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOM 5B •7-117-25 51 •••! •AA45 NORTH SHORE DR GAYLE ERNEST HITTIG GAYLE} E HITTIG AAA5 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 553AA 58 07-117-25 51 0002 0AA55 NORTH SHORE OR GREGG D KLOHN GREGG KLOHN AA55 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND NN 5556A PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 56 07-117-25 51 0000 04AB5 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN D A DEBRA H KNODEL JOHN D • DEBRA H KNODEL A0B5 NORTH SHORE DR, HOUND HN 5556A 3B 07-117-25 51 0005 0AA95 NORTH SHORE DR HICHAEL P RYAN HICHAEL P RYAN AA05 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 5556A PROP AODR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 56 07-117-25 51 0007 OASIS NORTH SNORE DR H J RXGELHOF ETAL H J RXGELHOF A515 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN S554A 56 07-117-25 51 0008 0AA96 NORTH SHORE DR H J SOOJXAN 8 K 0 SOOJXAN HAYNE J 6 KAREN D SOOJXAN 10202 HARHOHY CIRCLE EDEN PRAIRIE HN S55A7 PROP ADDR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 56 07-117-25 51 0010 0A470 NORTH SHORE DR JOHN J GROTANS ET AL JOHN, XLZE i PETERIS GROTANS AA70 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN S5504 56 07-117-25 31 0013 0A4A6 NORTH SHORE DR HURXEL G SENN HURXEL G SENN AAA6 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 5S56A PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR 56 07-117-25 51 0017 01557 REST POINT CIR ROBERT H ZAUN ROBERT H ZAUN 1557 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN SS50A 56 07-117-25 51 0016 01520 REST POINT CIR SHAHN HEAKINS SHAHN HEAKINS 1520 REST POINT CIR HOUND IM 5S56A PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER * NAHE/ADDR 56 y-117-25 51 0020 •1556 REST POINT CIR JANICE K DE NATTEO JANICE K OE HATTEO 1556 REST POINT CIRCLE mUND HN SS566 56 07-117-25 51 0021 01560 REST POINT CIR JACK EDHAROS KUTZ JACK EDHAROS KUTZ 1560 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN SS566 REPORT NO. PX65S601 PAGE 22 38 07-117-25 51 0005 06665 NORTH SHORE OR J L THEISEN JR ET AL TRSTEES BARBARA A/JOHN L THEISEN JR 666S NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN SS566 36 07-117-25 51 0006 06515 NORTH SHORE OR H J RXGELHOF ETAL HENRY J RXGELHOF 6515 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55566 56 07-117-25 51 0009 06660 NORTH SHORE OR JOHN J GROTANS JOHN J GROTANS 5200 29TH AGE N E HPLS nn 55616 .i tC;.’: II - 56 07-117-25 51 0016 01567 REST POINT CIR H E PINEGAR ERA PINEGAR WILLIAH E REBECCA PINEGAR 1567 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55566 t .-V r 5a 07-117-23 51 0019 0AM5 NORTH SHORE OR C A t H L ALBRECHT TRUSTEES HAROLD L B CAROL A ALBRECHT 4545 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 555b4 «•f 4 . I 56 07-117-25 31 0022 01562 REST POINT CIR H J ALTENHOFEN ET AL HARK J ALTENHOFEN 1562 REST POINT CIR HOUND HN 55566 L 1.. RUN DATE #7/30/02 ■ATCH S#5 HE(MEPZN COUNTY PHiirCRTY INFORNATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXA35401 PACE 23 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 07-117-23 31 0023 tl3AS REST POINT CIR ACE PfIOPERTIES UC ACE niOPERTlES UC 1346 REST POINT CIR MOUND HN S53M 36 07-117-23 31 0024 013S6 REST POINT CIR RICHARD L ANFINSON RICHARD L ANFINSON 13S0 REST POINT CIR hound HN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0024 60636 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO TODD C BIRKELANO SUBJ/LE ROBERT I HARIT BIRKELANO 1296 MILOHURST TR HOUND HN 55344 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 30 6^-117-23 31 0027 61296 MILOHURST TR R L BIRKELANO ET AL SUBJ/LE ROBERT L 6 MARIT BIRKELANO 1296 MILOHURST TR MOUND MN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0026 60036 ADDRESS UNASSICNED BRUCE R BIRKELANO SUBJ/LE ROBERT I MARIT BIRKELANO 1296 MILOHURST TR HOUND MN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0029 04510 NORTH SHORE DR P SAMICKI 6 K N SAMICKX P SAMICKI I K H SAMICKI 4510 NORTH SHORE OR HOUND HN 55344 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 07-117-23 31 0030 04500 NORTH SHORE OR BETH E BESSESEN BETH E BESSESEN 4500 NORTH SHORE DR HOUND HN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0031 01299 MILOHURST TR PATTI MAE SCHIHHEL PATTI MAE SCHIHHEL 1299 MILOHURST TR HOUNO HN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0035 01355 VINE PL DANIEL B VENTRES JR DANIEL B VENTRES JR 1355 VINE PLACE MOUND HN 55344 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 56 07-117-23 31 0039 04440 NORTH SHORE OR B J MARO 6 S RYAN-MARO BRIAN J MARO/SUNHI RYAN-MARO 4440 NORTH SHORE OR mound HN 55344 36 07-117-23 31 0040 01297 MILOHURST TR DEAN T LUNOBLAO ET AL DEAN T LUNOBLAO 6 SHERRI J STELOM-LUNOBLAO 1297 MILOHURST TR HOUNO HN 55364 36 07-117-23 31 0041 00036 ADDRESS PENDING HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT OF NAY 1600 PRAIRIE DRIVE MEDINA HN 5340 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 07-117-23 32 0024 04415 TONKAVIEM LA KATHLEEN G ASH KATHLEEN 0 ASH 4415 TONKAVIEM LA HOUNO HN 55344 36 07-117-23 32 0030 01310 REST POINT LA E 0 6 C L REINHART ERIC 0 REINHART 1310 REST POINT U HOUNO MN 55344 36 07-117-23 32 0031 01540 REST POINT CIR 0 ■ J BOIES JR DAVID B t JENNIFER BOIES JR 1340 REST POINT CIRCLE HOUND HN 55344 PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAK/AOOR 36 07-117-23 32 0042 01354 REST POINT CIR 0 $ NALSH SAL HEIEN DENNIS MALSH/AHANOA HEIEN 1354 REST POINT CIR HN 55344 36 07-117-23 34 0002 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ISNNEPIN COUNTY HENNEPIN COUNTY RIGHT or MAY 1406 PRAIRIE DRIVE HEOINA HN 55346 36 07-117-23 34 0003 04425 NORTH SNORE DR NORMA J DICKEY NORMA J DICKEY 4425 NORTH SNORE OR mound HN 55344 im ,r /. l£.i>s V.. L \ RUN DATE IZ/Sf/OZ BATCH 515 HENNEPIN COUMnr PROPERTY INFORHATXOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXA35A01 PAGE 2A PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 3S •7-117-23 3A •4A3S NORTH SHORE OR GORDON N LUNONAN GORDON N lUNDMAN M3S North shore dr HOUND NN 5BSA^ 30 17-117-23 42 0004 •1345 VINE PL . MARGARET H DAVIS TRUSTEE MARGARET M DAVIS 1345 VINE PL MOUND MN 55364 TOTAL BATCH 505 00036 X CERTXFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORNATXON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS L MUM C- J L TO:Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE:September 9,2002 SUBJECT; #02-2831 Hope Chest for Breast Cancer 3850 Shoreline Drive Finding of Substantially Similar Use/Commercial Site Plan Review - Public Hearing Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Lot Area:35,028 s.f. (.80 acres) Building Size: 6,720 s.f. Exhibits: A B C D E F G M I Application Letter from Applicant Site Plan/ Survey sign Design Brochure News articles regarding business Property Owners List Plat Map City Council report - June 17, 1998 Application: This application is two fold: 1. Finding of Similar Use: The B-5 district does not specifically list furniture store as either a permitted or conditional use. 1 ’ir /■':'».tng code does give the Planning Commission and City Council the authority to interpret wtieii a proposed use is substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district. 2. The second part of this application is the commercial site plan review. Application Summar}*: The applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at 3850 Shoreline Drive which is currently operated as “Bay Furniture.” The applicant intends to operate an upscale resale store called “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer ”. The proposed business will continue to sell furniture, antiques, crystal/china, jewelry and home accessories such as lamps, pictures and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories. There will also be a section devoted to gifts for women with breast cancer and books, supplies, etc. regarding breast cancer. The proceeds of “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer ” will go to organizations dedicated to breast cancer research, education and care for the under-served (limited or no health insurance). “Bay Furniture ” has been in operation since 1986. The property is zoned B5. Limited Neighborhood Business District. The B-5 zoning district is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a ser\ ice primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. #02-2831 “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer" 9/10 02 Page I of 4 lo Permitted Uses within any “B-5” Business district are as follows: Municipal buildings Offices Clinics Art and school supply store Book and magazine store Office supply store Banks, loan company, insurance company, real estate office. Barbershop, beauty shop Camera and photograph supply store Locksmith Hobby shop Gift store Glassware and potteiy Antique store Jewelry store Watch repair Library Museum Record shop Music store Tobacco shop Galleries Pet shop Background: The property is zoned B-5, Limited Neighborhood business District. A furniture store is not listed in the B-5 district as either a permitted or conditional use. In April 1986. the City Council determined that the proposed furniture store was compatible with the other uses in the zoning district and would operate substantially similar to a “gallery”. In October 1986, the City Council approved the commercial site plan for the furniture store. Again in June 1998, the City Council approved the commercial site plan for the current furniture store. Ms. Hensley is asking for the same consideration that was granted, noting “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer” is compatible with the other uses in the zoning district and would operate substantially similar to a “gallery” and furniture store (as the property has ftmetioned since 1987). “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer” is \ ery similar in use to the furniture sales use currently in the building, the only difference being resale of “pre-owned” furniture and accessories versus sale of new furniture and accessories. “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer” plans to use the building ver>' much the same as it is currently. TTie interior of the building will remain the same with partitions dividing the building into sections. Minor remodeling may occur such as installing new carpet. The e.xterior of the building will also remain the same with potential of adding additional Iand.scaping such as flowers and bulbs augmenting existing landscaping. »<02-283 1 “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer” 9/10/02 Page 2 of4 “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer" hours of operation are as follows; Monday - Friday from 9 AM - 7PM, Saturday 9 AM - 5 PM, and Sunday 12PM - 5 PM, (And may 6e open till 9PM one night a week depending on need.) Since “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer” is a resale operation, it is estimated by the applicant that 90% of the donations will be picked up by the business at donor homes or businesses and delivered daily to the dock area. The dock area is currently located on the rear side of the building. Individual donors wishing to drop off small items such as suits, will use the small door at the rear side of the building. These drop offs will only be allowed during store hours. Site Characteristics, Conformity: (B-5 Zoning District) Site Area: 35,028 s.f. (.80 acres) Building Size: 6,720 s.f. Required Parking: 6,720 s.f. -500 s.f. = 6.200 (Minus first 500 s.f. of floor area in principal structure) 6,200 s.f./500 =12.44 13 parking spaces are required. Hardcover: The property is located within the 250-500’ setback zone and 500-1000’ setback zones. Hardcover was not reviewed with the original site plan review in 1986 because the Shorelajid Ordinance establishing hardcover limits for commercial district was not adopted until 1992. A new survey is being prepared and estimated to be submitted around September 18, 2002. W'hen the survey is submitted the hardcover will be calculated and compared to the approvals of 1986 and 1997. The applicant has stated she is willing to make changes to the property if needed. It appears to staff that recent paving of the parking lot has expanded beyond past site plan approvals. Signage Allowance: The property is allowed a maximum of 50 s.f of signage. The applicant has submitted a drawing of w hat the sign w ill look like. The proposed sign meets the 50 s.f requirement. The applicant plans to use the existing pylons for the sign. Minimum sign setback to property line: The sign must be located 10’ from the street right of way. A permit was issued in 1998 for the existing sign. At that time setbacks were checked. «02-283 1 “Hope Chest for Breast Cancer ” 9.10/02 Page 3 of4 ‘s* Drainage and Stormwater Management Plan: A new survey has not been submitted but is anticipated to be done by September 18, 2002. The sur ey will be reviewed to determine if any modificaiions to the property have occurred since the 1986 and 1997 site plan approvals. At that time, if there have been modifications to the property, the property then will be brought into conformance to prior approvals. If variances are required to bring the property into conformance with prior approvals, a drainage and stormwater management plan will have to be submitted and reviewed. Drive Location and Access: The applicant has stated the existing curb cut off Shoreline Drive will continue to be the access to the property. Pick Up Vehicles: The business currently uses a truck and 2 trailers to pick up donated items. The truck is the applicant ’s personal vehicle and stored at their residence. The 2 trailers will be stored on the property, in the comer of the parking lot. Applicant should be asked to provide more information about the use of the trailers; for instance are they open or enclosed? Staff Recommendation: 1. Staff recommends approval based on a conclusion that the proposed use is substantially similar to the existing use as a furniture store and to other permitted uses in the district. 2. Staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the following: a. Stripe the parking lot, so that each stall is 9’ X 20 ’, with a minimum of 12 spaces, per the approved plan. If survey submittal confirms the parking area has expanded past the prior approvals, the parking area shall be reduced to match prior approval. b. A sign shall be clearly visable on the drop-off service door stating drop offs are only allowed duritig business hours. c. Applicant and staff should develop a set of controls to ensure that drop-offs don ’t become a problem. Many issues can not be dealt with at this time due to an updated survey not being ready. However, many of these issues can be worked out at either the next Planning Commission meeting or prior to moving forward to City Council. Because the applicant is purchasing the propeny with contingency on City approval, at a minimum the finding of substantially similar use needs to be voted on. #02-2»3l "Hope Chest for Breast Cancer" 9/10 02 Page 4 of 4 > - lii|*2r*2302 34:0t» Froa*ClTV OF CMNO t|5»4l4lll T-«! P JOr/OU F-flJ AppfcitioB# O ‘2 * 2 g 3 < Ihitt Rcettved ^‘J-CZ Amount Paid ^427? CITY 6F ORONO > GENERAL LAND L’SE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION 3SS^D izu.XX Type of Applicatioo to be Filed _____________________________ Propcity IdeotificatioB Number (P.I.D.) /7-//7-2.? 33 OOff* applicantPLICANT . Phone (homc)__C| H ^ Name H c..%x __________ Phone (»T>rk)_.i ^2. : D4>V>T AddresslLfiJr>t"0iV^ Zip # SSJIJ 6-S di\sfrit f- OVV’NER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_________________ Name___________________________________ Phone (work)_________________ _______________Zip__________Address.City Dote Property Acquired__pvaxiJUann. pC«»KLe------------------- 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of landO FEES . CONDITIONAL DSE PERMITS - _____ S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP applicatioo _____ $175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Conunercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more _ Grading, seawall, retainir>g walls within 75* of lakesbore PRD.TID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afier-ihe-Fact Fee • Double Cunent Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS \ $275.00 Commeitul Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) * 5300.00 Vacation _____S200.00 Easement Vacation _____SlOOOO Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #28 Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Resale Shop Summary The mission of the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer is to provide funding to organizations dedicated to breast cancer research, education and care for the under-served (limited or no health insurance), which includes early detection, medical serv ices, and hospice care. The business is based on passion...a passion that comes from the hearts of people who have been toiirhcd by breast cancer. The premise for the Foundation is that people who have been touched by breast cancer form a very special community that w ill rally behind a donation, volunteer and shopping opportunity to support the search for tlic cause and the successful treatment for breast cancer. The Foundation encourages a unique, fun environment in which to donate, vvork^ volunteer and shop, all based on the overriding passion driven by the legacy of our sisters, mothers, daughters, wives, aunts, grandmothers and friends who have been lost to breast cancer. The primary source of funds is an ongoing revenue stream from the resale of donated, upscale clothing, furniture and accessories with a secondary source of funding being direct financial contributions. For the ongoing revenue stream, the foundation contracts with the Hope Chest Resale Shops (the "Resale Shops") to solicit, pick up. document for indiv idual la.x purposes, process, market, merchandise, inventory and sale the donated items. The majority of the inventory comes from upper income, individual donations and surplus donations from very upscale retail businesses. The typical donator is a woman who regularly changes her wardrobe and redecorates (furniture, accessories, dish ware, etc) her home. The donators arc provided excellent serv ice and attention throughout their donation process. The kevs to success for the foundation arc Community awareness and support for the business concept o Strategy: Create a community of supporters who regularly donate and proactively spread the u ord about the Hope Chest Foundation • Seek support from local organizations ■ Local women ’s organizations: Minnesota Women's Economic Roundtable, Minnesota Women Business Owners, Minnesota Women ’s Campaign Fund, Women Lawyer’s Association • Health related organizations; Oncology Association. Nursing Association, United Health Care, Health Partners, Piper Breast Institute, • Active membership is local business associations: Chamber of Commerce. Rotary. ■ Conduct champion-hosted donation parlies where participants bring an item to donate and learn about the donation opportunity ■ Proactively seek public relations opportunities for coverage in Minneapolis area publications. T\' and radio show s ■ Network e.xtcnsively with leading women and men in the community to seek support • Communicate to supporters quarterly through an email newsletter High quality, upscale donations of items o Strategy: Solicit donations from upper income households with a focus on women ■ Women because they control 80” o of the disposable income spending decisions. As such they tend to also control the donation decisions for used items they no longer need • Women because of the personal implications of breast car»cer ■ Upper income because the business model for the shops is based on an upscale, high quality product and brand name strategy. In fact, the Hope Chest Resale Shop ’s success is determined by maintaining a standard and quality of inventory that sets it distinctly apart from other resale shops. o Strategy: Create an exceptional donating experience that encourages repeal donations, un.solicited word-of- mouth promotion and references • Provide pick up service for large items: scheduled in advance, clean van. neatly dressed drivers (Hope Chest logo shirt), polite, rcspcctfL* of property, careful, friendly, on time, thankful for the donation • Arrange for in-store appraisals of high end items • Print a year-to-date summary' of donations upon request • Email reminder in November to donate prior to year end and email annual statement in January' Orono exec summarv.doc # 1 t Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Resale Shop Summary ■ Seek input on areas for improvement in the donation process: possibilities include surveys, focus groups, and /or a Donators Advisory Group • Provide smooth in-take process for items brought to the shop: courteous, quick, friendly, thankful for the donation o Strategy: Solicit new product donations from upscale retail (Van Gogh’s Daughter of Wayzata donated all of th^ir inventory when they closed their retail store) 3. Strategic partnerships with foundations and corporations o Strategy: Focus on private foundations with an interest in breast cancer ■ Private foundations because by providing seed funding they can create an ongoing revenue stream back into their organizations o Strategy: Establish a strategic partnership with the Komen Foundation • Special promotions in conjunction with Komen Race week o Strategy: Seek corporate sponsorships where a business adopts the shop as their corporate cause, promotes the mission and conducts donation campaigns • Sample of existing supporters: Minneapolis Foundation, Department 56, Wells Fargo, InfoPac, Supervalu, Dorsey and Whitney, Lindquist and Vennum, Periscope Marketing, Health Partners, United Health Care, Health East (Hope Chest is the lUnchcon key note speaker at Health East’s Breast Cancer Survivor Conference in October) o Strategy: Focus on locally owned businesses with concentration on women owned businesses Locally owned because of their desire support endeavors in their ow n communities Women owned because of the personal implications of breast cancer Hope Chest will be the quest speaker at the National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) annual luncheon in December 4. An exceptional shopping experience o Strategy: Ensure special attention to the store environment, attention to customers, appealing merchandising and extraordinary scr\ icc ■ Train all employees on the importance of the customer experience with specific details on w hat to do, how to take care of customers • Ensure the store and merchandise are meticulously clean, organized and appealing ■ Utilize retail consultant on the original layout and merchandising plan ■ Utilize stale of the art systems to quickly process sales and to personalize the buying experience Strategy: Proactively seek customer feed back: surveys, focus groups, walking around discussions Strategy: Provide a small point-of-sale area that focuses on breast cancer support and gifts for victims Komen Foundation race items: sweatshirts, hats, etc. Breast Cancer books Breast Cancer gifts: bears. CD’s Strategy: Attract and retain repeat shoppers • Private shopping parties hosted by an existing customer ■ Frequent Shopper Club • Wish List: call when a certain brand in their size comes in • Birthday mailing to spouse ■ Gift Certificates o o The value proposition of the Hope Chest Resale Shop is to offer • Brand name, high quality merchandise at a substantially discounted rale over original retail • A shopping experience that is enjoyable and encourages repeat buyers • The satisfaction of a ”good buy" w ith the know ledge that a portion of the money is going to a good cause The strategies that support this value proposition arc: Strategy: Market Segmentation The market segmentation strategy is to focus on women in the mid to upper income households Orono exec summary.doc 9/2/02 4:41 PM O Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Resale Shop Summary • Women because they control 80% of the disposable income spending decisions. As such they tend to purchase not only for themselves but also for all items within the home. • Mid to upper income because the Resale Shop does not cater to the unemployed or to lower mid income buyers who typically are only price driven. The shop's product quality and brand name strategy in conjunction with the pricing strategy automatically drives the segmentation to mid to upper income households. In addition the high serv ice, boutique environment caters to buyers who appreciate and actually require these attributes. The Resale Shop's success is determined by maintaining a standard and quality of inventory that set it distinctly apart from other resale shops. This brand name, high quality strategy is positioned to attract the identified market segments: mid to upper income women. This target market is further segmented based on buyer’s needs and attributes. • Professional women: Personal income can vary in this group. They may be near or at the top of their organization, in the middle aspiring to climb (dress for the position you want theory) or at the beginning of their careers. They also may be in support roles that require them to dress professionally due to customer or investor contact. • Stay at home wives/mothers: Mid to upper household incomes; w omen who w ish to dress themselves and their families well but do not wish to pay full retail for the items • Resale groupie: Women of varying incomes who love a great deal; these are destination shoppers who w ill make the resale shops rounds on a routine basis and thrive on finding the "steal of the century" • Teens and college students with limited discretionary income but in need of that "intcrv iew" dress or special occasion item • Perpetual hostess: entertains often and likes to have new and'or theme accessories; i.e. Christmas dishware. garden party, etc. • Beginning households: women who appreciate quality furniture and accessories but arc on a limited budget Strategy: Positioning For women in mid-to-upper income households w ho appreciate quality and name brand merchandise, a "good buy" and the satisfaction of conU*ibuting to the fight against breast cancer, the Resale Shop offers a fun and unique environment in which to shop. Unlike other, typically "Mom and Pop" resale business. The Resale Shop is based on strong business and retail practices that a*'C important to the target market: meticulously clean, attractive and inviting merchandising, c.xpert and friendly service, systems to provide efficient and quick check out and personalized promotions. Strategy: Inventory Sourcing An individual’s decision to donate is based on multiple drivers Women who regularly change their wardrobe Women who redecorate their homes (furniture, accessories, dish ware, etc) Women who love shopping and simply buy because they have the opportunity: once the purchase is complete, the allure is gone, so off it goes to resale, label still on Women w ho have recently lost or gained weight; or who buy new clothing as a futile attempt to do so Disfavored boyfriends or ex-husbands, whose gifts of clothing, jewelry, etc. will never be worn Garment-industry insiders who arc legitimate source of sample merchandise People who make buying mistakes Women moving or dow nsizing their homes Closing an estate follow mg the death of a relative Strategy: Logistics of operation • Hours of operation: Monday - Friday: 9 - 7; Saturday: 9-5; Sunday 12 -5; the shop may also be open till 9 pm one night a week, actual day to be determined • Parking: o An estimated 20-^ spaces arc available in the store parking lot at the side of the building 3 Orono excc summary.doc 9/2/02 4:41 PM ■ ■ - L«. j' • f' 'J ■)•t / • . "v c- \ Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Resale Shop Summary • Prdiminaiy plans for design of premise o Premise will remain very much the same as the current use o Potentially new carpeting; (to be determined once store is vacant) o Outside: no dramatic change; perhaps new bulbs and flowers to augment existing landscaping o Signage: new sign to fit in the upri^ts already in place (same square footage) • In take ofSonations o It is estimated that 90% of the donations will be picked up by the business and delivered daily to the dock area in the rear side of the building o Individual donators using the door at the rear side of the store will drop off the remaining 10%. These drop-offs will be during store hours and typically consist of 5 -10 hanging dresses, suits, etc. All of these keys to success, value propositions and strategies will lead to an extremely successful business model that can be replicated across the country. The goal is to provide $7 - SIO million dollars to the mission fund of the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation from these resale shops over the first five years of operation. ^ ' Orono exec summary.doc 9/2/02 4:41 PM V 4I-) y Hope Chest for Breast Cancer^^* Business Model Barbara S. Hensley Barbara Hensley, founder of both the Hope Chest for Breast Canccri^' Foundation and the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer"^* Resale Shops will ehair the lH)undation and be CFO of the Resale Shop. In her role as creator of the I lope Chest for Breast Cancer' '*, Barbara I lenslcy brings e.xtensivc business c.xperiencc to the organization. Prior to founding the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer''*, she was Vice President ol Product Strategy and Management for Ccridian Corporation. In this capacity she had responsibility for the creation and management of products that provided over S900M in revenue. Prior to this position she was Vice President of Marketing e.stablishing market strategy and leading the Marketing Communications and Public Relations functions. Before joining Ceridian, Hensley was responsible for marketing and then sales at Datakev, an entrepreneurial, high technology smart-card company. Prior to Datakcy, she spent 13 years with I loneywell in various upper level ’ management positions including customer satisfaction, distribution, marketing, customer serx ice and information technology. She was an in.structor at the Wooster campus of Ohio State University teaching courses in small business management, marketing, economics and busii.css. Hensley has also owned and operated a successful retail business. The Sewing Basket. The business was the exclusive di.stributor for Bernina sewing machines in Springfield, Missouri and provided accessories, kits, furniture, fabrics, training, creative sewing lessons, etc. Hensley has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Austin College, Sherman, 'I X; a Ma.stcrs Degree in Business Information Management from University of Missouri, Columbia, MO.; and a Masters Degree in Urban Affairs from Webster University, St. Louis, MO. Confidential and Proprietary 8/5/02 Copyright: Barbara Hensley LOT tURVlYt COMPANY, INC. UUtDtUBTBTOU unamuo UNOCR LAPS or fTATt or MoticBaTA tttl.YMAHMlIcrtk MMU4ia oivoicf NO mn r • 1*0 •CAii r 10^ Q-ocNommoN ■pNh.1 Vr^tHiTY ■HEN a BARBARA KATAINEN NORWEST BANK •nnr|«M SMlIflnlr \ <v.; V / \ V v/e«T 5! ! ^•pfrtr OMcrirtlon: U I /f '3 '8 C3 • •* ^rrgL « I I 6fd>p.Y fTAHe • Nt **« V »■ 3? •*V. 4_ nsoi vcfT - i- ^pS5S5T5t?—------- i SHORELINE DRIVE j (COUNTY ROAD NO 15) R «»^#r U#rW, md titiMtH la HMMla Coaity *-^^1 L*« <*«.r pS^n n<r m > iT fif Sanrnr Notvt: 1. A/#t iJi Flood Z«>o C (oroa irf ■ utiMl rioodUi • net a flood hasard aroa) por FBtA Ite t. Arm inriialliia re^ • 40.791 S,. Ft! S. Area cacliaJlnf road • SS.014 Sq. Ft. 4. A/ea 0# balldlnf • i.720 &q. ft. 5. Fr«n>ort)r daacriptlvi and •a«Mta. If any. Niomi par Lwn'ort Tula Inaarapcr CorTOfatlai Policy NMbar I2-0I-99447I dated U-i4-t9#7. d. Property Addroaa - StSO Staroliiia Orivt 7. Proparty aanrad by Ninelpaul Saniury Savor. Matar aaiiia md ttoai awor alao natoral too. talapficna and aJactricity. *• ^ P^rtWd apacaa -10 opan apacat 0 y f ^ y. rV^ Ike Cat tka al ■erlUd <tapA« and Mrba:a of a a«vay o# *rrod to in tba lapai t ail aocJi boUAlnaa • or from cmiMd In tAa rool p!^it! lAa a^^abar of apwJ fm irJLsKi!-- 751 — .ttj». • «■* rop.< . • ^« •• • - a 'I.. a * . «.bi^*u'^i5L?*nm to t»« •crao ------- •riatlnt atTvcf 00 ^52e^JJal H »! ^r'*' “* tlM« Itw ,r.i«t 1. i. RiLod tbia ipip ^ ^ Ooc«har, 1992 J. 4. S. 7. tba •. 9. P 7 r y ‘-- ■ .. : -i * ^0 1 •• »*-.*-«* W J West of ^0 Piftit Princip^ J Draft signage for 3580 S. Shoreline Drive Same dimensions as existing Bay Furniture sign Final rendition to be completed by design artist -------------- 96 ” ___________________ HOPE Chest FOR BREAST CANCER unlocking the treasures of hope Upscale Resale Furniture • Clothing Accessories • Gifts I? C # * •• if *• •' .1 Orono Signage.doc 14’8’ 9/2/02 12:43 PM -—rrwr::' T CONTACT US TODAY AND SHARE YOUR PRECIOUS GIFTS Go online lo learn more about monetary and store item donations, store location and hours, shopping online for specialized gifts for those with breast cancer, and volunteering arfd sharing your talents: WWW hopechcsi forbreasicancer.org Or. call us direct at (Q52) 402-0645. c Your time, talent and treasures give hope to those touched by breast cancer a1 r L J U4VI|t|..MLANDDRIVC . MiAKOPfE. MN $)37« r ml) 402^5 • p («)i) 401^4 hop«<hr»ifutbrr«sii «nccr off HOPE Chest FOR BREAST CANCER vnl0(bln^ fk< rrrtfsurri of kept Providing support to those touched by breast cancer through the sale of donated designer furniture. accessories and clothing V. A Living Tribute to Sisters Lost to Breast Cancer —'Q HOPE Chest FOR BREAST CANCER Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation unlotkin^ the treamres of hope stirs the spirit oEa community ‘WMf ii- - <•o" Hcce Chest ^:r 9rejs: Career founder Bjrbjrj Mers ey (<ef: v\ th ner sisters Patsy and Kathy in 1 95 J. Look for the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer'** Foundation brochures at the Komen Foundation's Race for the Cure on May 12"'! V^licn Barbara Hensley lost rwo sisters to breast cancer, she knew she wanted to do something to serve as a lasting - and living - tribute to them. Barbara’s sisters Parsv Miller and 4 Kathy Morgan, suffered not only from the treatments and debilitation of the disease; they also struggled to pay for their care. Combining her background in business with her vision. Barbara developed a unique plan. She established The Hope Chest for Breast Cancer™ Foundation Fund to solicit contributions from the Twin Cities community and direct them to organizations providing direct medical services and hospice care, especially to those with limited or no health insurance, as well as to organizations engaged in research and education. Additional fund proceeds will be generated through the sale of clothing, furniture, and accessory donations made to Hope Chest for Breast Cancer™ Resale Shops. The first shop is scheduled to open in late spring of 2002. The idea was complex. It had a challenging business plan and required tax. legal and marketing advice. Barbara started her search with a list of ten people, and the list and the referrals mushroomed beyond her wildest dreams. Within less than a year, she had corporate and trademark legal services, web design, public relations, appraisal, and marketing sen ices provided pro bono, and had established partnerships with other foundations and corporations for the other services she needed. To set up the charitable part of her plan while she was awaiting IRS approval for her foundation, she was referred to The Minneapolis Foundation because of its histor)*of supporting nonprofits, expertise in tax law, and commitment to developing flexible charitable planning strategics. /\s a community foundation, The Minneapolis Foundation was able to create a vehicle for accepting, investing, and distributing the contributions she receives from the community while assuring donors of tax dcductibilir/. The Minneajxilis foundation is also able to handle the philanthropic, accounting, investment, and record-keeping details so Barbara can concentrate on realizing her dream. In the process, Barbara has been able to meet remarkable people who share her vision and optimism. “People who have been touched by breast cancer form a very special community, eager to contribute to the search for successful, compassionate, and accessible treatment for the disease," says Barbara. “There are enough survivors - both women and men whoVe been treated successfullv 4 and the friends and families of those who weren’t - to fill the hope chest several times over.” • Catalyst • Newsletter of The Minneapolis Foundation rr ^a "4^i Pago 6 — Edon Pralrlo Newt — Thursday, July 4. 2002 Woman unlocks hope for breast cancer patients Barbara Hensley said the goal of her foundation is to ‘completely eliminate breast cancer.’______ B> Renee Stewart Grief has a way of working itself into a person's mind, b^y and soul Once it takes up residence, it can take you over and take you under, or you can turn the intruder into inspiration, motivation and purpose. Barbara _______ lnfbcinatkM|ia orbf k.. i n TtfifaiTi ■u Heruley of Shakd^^e knock ’s about grief It struck with the deaths of her sisters. Kathy Morgan in 199-4. and Patsy Miller in 1996 Breast cancer Not once, but twice. Hensley ’s inspiration came to her a year ago while on \acation in Sanibel Island. After going to a consignment shop in a church, grief met inspiration, and her odyssey began. **1 needed t'' find the opportunity to make an income and still give something back to society." she said In September of last year, she left Ceridian. where she was the executive vice president of product stratcg>'. and created the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation The not-for-profit foundation s goal “is simple and clear - to completely eliminate breast cancer " In the meantime, the foundation funds agencies that support rocarch, early detection, treatment and hospice care of breast cancer patients It also helps people w ho "fall between the cracks" and have inadequate or no health insurance According to Hensley, the foundation is supported through monetary donations and fbr-profit retail shops, which will account for most of the funding The shops w ill accept donated, new or slightly used designer furniture, home himishingj and clothmg and colJcaibles or rare pieces The profits from the sales will finance employee w^ges and the foundation Hensley said people who want to volunteer their time tiii r* • 'A found iiion licMNlex doisn i jiiNt want to make a cnntrihution toward hrea»»t earner rescan h anil treainicnt she warns to make a ugmfuant conirihutton she s.iid the huMfioH pl.in |nr 5” ^ million to he don ited in the hi*si foe xearv In addiiion the pl.in outlines the opi ning of SO shops n.itionw ide Hope ( hest is lollectinv: Ucasures that will fill the lirsi store for which llenslcN is aids eh searching lot a location Tlie store will inchide the donated items .is well as a selei fion of appropn.iie gifts for people Imng with l ancer Small ho|H’ chests will be filled with theme ifi'ins iiuiuding ie.i> soups I oiniort goodies and mspir.uion.iJ gifts Henslex noteil that people often gi\e fxaiietus gifts wh:ie ihi x are ir the hospital hut it is often during thr treatment phase of their illness that lancer patients most appreciate am! need thoughtful gifts from loved ones am! fnends Kn online serxiie will enable shoppers to ordi r collectables antiques and otfii r gift items Menslex .and her dream have ‘ It s the most wiinderful experiem e. si,:* sa.d adding that throughout her business career siie never expenemed .is much satisfaction or worked as hard as she IS nov\ vciih Hope Chest 'll s dc'hnitely mx passKui for the rest of mx working career I li fislt \ said She hxsn't done it alone businesses h.ixe stepped in to help including an .ire.i groverx ih.un that iloiiaied storage span to Hope ( hest. Pcnscope Marketing ilonatcd the design and development of brochures liifoPac International offereil website development l.iw firm' stepped in xvnh their services and fden Prairie s Oepanmeni So gave Us support, as well ‘Vir love the concept (of Hope I hest) because it involves people on a d.ix-to-dav basis * said *vusjn hngel iha:rwoman and ( J‘0 of Oepartmcni Through the sale of fixe priHlijct^. the tompanx donateil ^ prrient of its proceeds to national brwa.st cancer urgani/jiions and Hope ( hest l-ngel noted that this vear S^O.OOo was donated to those groups Kngel said she finds it fXTson.ilIv rewarding tv» lac a pan lomiminitx she s.iid hoping ih. the »-ntire comiminitx will re.iih out and support the org m /.ition whu h slu s.iul 1% t'.iscd on a ijiMvfUi .ind sin mg uU-.i Hope ( hi f -^gel s.ii,* gi\( V w. mien rhi pi *uer (• • p n lu ipati .tiul make their oven t fu tu t*s ‘ an* she ill pes to ciniliii.u ’ lirp.irtment s siip|V4irt fhn >ugl a s,H t M.' v di ssgut-il proiiiii t for Hope t 111 >t It ilot sn t surpiisi III iislev lh.lt Hope ( lu st li.is reci ived the iiUMiu >> support th.it It h.*s >he said lilt* Iwins ( itirs IS .1 \en )>hil.iiithropK iomnn.Miv \Vi belteve in l.iking i .ire of our lommunitx .ind profile m ou communiix she s.nd tUiisIcv Ih lie Vi s, i«'ii K\en II die midiili of the night her mim IS Mill working on her missfim. hirpa^smi! I hin.eih f»>r the foiinil.iri*Ml and shires - Ho|H* C hest - laine to her me night Ir enibla/ons md : ilks il>oui the mis%: 'f'. she s.ud - to piovidc hofx- Hopeihesrs she iv red .ire lisct! tf» plan. f. »r tlu- liiiun to plate one s va!ii.ihli s m with the hopes of pulling (hem out again lor bn asi caueef fiatii n> Hcnslcv wants them of h i * j ca . The Shakopee Valley News | Breast cancer, hope become city woman’s passion Page 1 of2 5? Q tUSE 1. a 1/ #■ w ShakooeeSSUSS NEWS Breast cancer, hope become city woman's passion Tuesdty. Jufy 02,2002 By Renee Stewart; Correspondent Grief has a way of working itself into a person's mind, body and soul. Once it takes up residence, it can take you over and take you under, or you can turn the intruder into inspiration, motivation and purpose. Barbara Hensley of Shakopee knows about grief. It struck with the deaths of her sisters, Kathy Morgan in 1994, and Patsy Miller In 1996. Breast cancer. Not once, but twice. Hensley's inspiration came to her a year ago while on vacation in Sanibel Island. After going to a consignment shop in a church, grief met inspiration, and her odyssey began. "I needed to find the opportunity to make an income and still give something back to society," she said. In September of last year, she left Ceridian Corp., where she was executive vice president of product strategy, and created the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Foundation. The not-for-profit foundation's goal "is simple and dear — to completely eliminate breast cancer." Meantime, the foundation funds agencies that support research, early detection, treatment and hospice care of breast cancer patients. It also helps people who "fall between the cracks" and have inadequate or no health insurance. According to Hensley, the foundation is supported through monetary donations and for-profit retail shops, which will account for most of the funding. The shops will accept donated, new or slightly used designer furniture, home furnishings and clothing and collectibles or rare pieces. Profits from the sales will finance employee wages and the foundation. Hensley said people who want to volunteer their time in the shops may do so, and their wages can go directly to the foundation. Hensley doesn't Just want to make a contribution toward breast cancer research and treatment; she wants to make a significant contribution. She said the business plan calls for $7.5 million to be donated in the first five years. In addition, the plan outlines the opening of 50 shops nationwide. Hope Chest is collecting treasures that will fill the first store, for which Hensley is actively searching for a locabon. The store will include the donated items, as well as a selection of appropriate gifts for people living with cancer. Small hope chests will be filled with theme items, including teas, soups, comfort goodies and Inspirational gifts. Hensley noted that people often give patients gifts while they are in the hospital, but it is often during the treatment phase of their illness that cancer patients most appreciate and need thoughtful gifts from loved ones and friends. An online service will enable shoppers to order collectibles, antiques and other gift items. Hensley and her dream have come a long way In a year, but she finds the work "magnificent." http://www.shakopeenews.com/print.asp?ArticleID=2722&SectionID=2&SubScctionID=2 7/12/02 9 The Shakopee Valley News | Breast cancer, hope become city woman ’s passion Page 2 of2 *It's the most wonderful experience," she said, adding that tliroughout her business career she never experienced as much satisfaction or worked as hard as she is now with Hope Chest. •It's definitely my passion for the rest of my working career," Hensley said. She hasnt done ft alone. Businesses have stepped in to help, including an area grocery chain that donated storage space to Hope Chest; Periscope Marketing donated the design and development of brochures; InfoPac Intemationat offered Web site development; law firms stepped in with their services; and Department 56 gave its support, as well. "We love the concept [of Hope Chest] because it involves people on a day-to-day basis," said Susan Engel, chairwoman and CEO of Department 56. Through the sale of five prooircts, the company donated 5 percent of its proceeds to national breast cancer organizations and Hope Chest. Engei noted that this year $50,000 was donated to those groups. Engel said she finds it personally rewarding to be a part of Hope Chest. "I have a great need to feel that I give back to the community," she said, hoping that the entire community will reach out and support the organization which she said is based on a "unique and strong idea." Hope Chest, Engel said, gives "women the power to participate and make their own choices," and she hopes to continue Department 56's support through a specially designed product for Hope Chest. It doesnt surprise Hensley that Hope Chest has received the business support that it has. She said the Twins □ties is a very r:Wl?/'.thropic community. "We believe b '.jking care of our community and people In our community," she said. Hensley believes, too. Even in the middle of the night, her mind is still working on her mission, her passion. The name for the foundation and stores — Hope Chest — came to her one night. "It emblazons and talks about the mission," she said — to provide hope. Hope chests, she noted, are used to plan for the future, to place one's valuables in with the hopes of pulling them out again. For breast cancer patients, Hensley wants them of have a Hope Chest of their own. Additional information is available by calling 402-0645, or by visiting www.hopechestforbreastcancer.org . Content C 2002 Shakopee Valley News Softefara C 1996-2002 lupl Software. AU Rights Riserved i http:/'www.shakopccncws.com'print.asp?ArticIeID=2722&SectionID-2&SubScctionID=2 7/1202 c c r RUN DATE 9S/29/I2 BATCH 501 HENNCflN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AODR OWNER KANE TAXPAYER NANC/AODR 17 17-117-25 53 0M5 §59ti DEL OTERO AVE J N BAiATZ ETAL JONN HENRY BABATZ 590B DEL OTERO AVE SPRINOPARK NN B5SB9 :.p. PROP i • ^ OWNER ADDR WANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 5B 17-117-25 55 0005 O5BA0 SHORELINE DR DAVID UHBEHOCKER * DAVID UNREHOCXER SaOO SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 f PROP AODR OWNER WANE TAXPAYER ^ NANE/ADDR 58 17-117-25 55 0151 05880 SHORELINE DR COUNTY OP HENNEPIN COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ATTN NARCIA HILDA N/C 608 617 5TH ST N 8320 NPLS NN 55601 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 58 20-117-25 21 0018 02620 DUNWOODY AVE CALVARY NENORIAL CHURCH CALVARY NENORIAL CHURCH 2620 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 38 20-117-25 22 0007 05865 SHORELINE DR PAIR. W LARSON PAUL W LARSON 3877 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 PROP AODR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 58 20-117-25 22 0010 02655 DUNWOODY AVE NARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE JANES C BEISE 2655 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA NN 55391 REPORT NO. P165S601 PACE 1 17 17-117-23 33 0166 05900 SHORELINE DR D A SHOSTAK ASK SHOSTAK DENNIS A A SHARON K SHOSTAK 5900 SHORELINE DR SPRING PARK HN 55586 58 17-117-23 53 0006 05890 SHORELINE DR E J A N J HELD EDWARD J A HARSHA J HELD 3890 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55591 58 17-117-23 53 0006 05850 SHORELINE DR JOHN C CHENOWETH JR JOHN C CHENOWETH P 0 BOX 652 SPRING PARK HN 55386 38 17-117-25 33 0007 05800 SHORELINE DR H E BREWER A B L BREWER NARK E A BARBARA L BREWER 3000 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 58 17-117-23 36 0005 03770 SHORELINE OR CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLY PKWY ORONO HN 55356 58 17-1X7-23 36 0006 03790 SHORELINE DR CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO ATTN RONALD J HOORSE P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55325 58 20-117-23 22 0006 05895 SHORELINE DR J P RAUSCHENDORFER ET AL J A S RAUSCHENDORFER 5895 SHORELINE DR WATZATA HN 55391 58 20-117-23 22 0006 05877 SHORELINE DR T H GREGORY A T A GREGORY T N GREGORY A T A GREGORY 3877 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 22 0008 02605 DUNWOODY AVE BRENT D WALTON ET AL BRENT D A JULIE B WALTON 2605 DUNWOODY AVE ORONO HN 55391 38 20-117-25 22 0009 02625 DUNWOODY AVE W P WITHERS ALA SANNA WILLIAH P WITHERS 2625 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HH 55591 38 20-117-25 22 0011 02665 DUNWOODY AVE A B NELSON ETAL ALVIN B NELSON 2665 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-25 22 0012 02637 DUNWOODY AVE NARION 0 BEISE TRUSTEE HARION 0 BEISE 2657 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA HN 55591 t \ M. (C% O ^o oA JL % •»* I mm DATE iil/Ef/iE I BATCH B«1 ^. V , : S« 2t-U7*aS 22 ISIS PHOT AMi / «2AM BUNHOOOY AVE tWNit NAHE ; ■ V UMUNOCXEE ETAL TAXPAVEE .0; MBEHT lEMHOCtCEE HAIK/AOIM ' 2A«B DUNHOQOV AV .. / MAV2ATA NN. BSSfl . ■ v'V VU, A*. • ^ <■’ •; ' ti S> • *1:-rr. . •. •Vi!. •t o'i ' •‘‘V-'i • .»I • V * . • • • * Jk r \\ 'A .T- )• .T • ' • * . v' * •* , ♦ V--' *:• I r • • * 4 • * I J. V > * • •. I.'. ^ • I* I' »• f . ..jr • '» i’ ‘■‘•.J, 4 f t, A/; . «w > V . • » o * • * : • ♦■ •- **■. s •C' 4-T T o :;V v«• c f * * » * V ■ > r IN •* . . f ' .VV*. * ' • I • • /« f *. / ♦ I. • C • • t •-1 O 1 > / • » . . i* •. • V- • ,• r^:>x ■' . .♦i;•• ’J? .• r* V.. ■ V •jf ■ ,?• *1: . HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORNATIM SYSTEM PROPERTY CHNERS LIST • \ TOTAL BATCH 501 00019 i: * I • • ; i REPORT NO. PIASS4AI ♦A • PACE . \ . V / • .* i V.. « - . !• l' I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, 10 JNE BEST ' OF HY KNOHLEDOE AND BELIEF. itif • I • : >.•.1 r A ‘ » ‘ • • ‘^ .7 • i.jt ;t' .* , 1 • . . ' % * r • .. ^ ;r*- *• .» -I ’• • • /• . • • , • • i . * • ‘ ^ ' •** /: '1 '• * ’ • ' { •• •• ' i, •. . r . \ I. t \ V 1 V * •* t \ * I • I . I ' V ■/••V ^ • • ■ V '' y ■- ;*• ■/ *’•• *1 • 4 # A ► 5;# « 0 ■' V r 'r'f ♦ • • V. ,1■'* : .*..<*,• J .A* .. *• * 1 J Parc^ Information:/2$3iParc«l 10171172333C Houm NumlMK 3850 StTMt Nam* SHOlUUNe DR Ttmt$noi»l9g»0yf9cord»dmap. H rwfi/9S0nt$ s compOation of infomMon wliUlMtnmOty. County, andStatomadMthOfWesvtdotheraouroas. M r ^ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; June 17,1998 ITEM NO.: ^ Department Approval: Name Elizabeth A. Van Zomeren Title Planner/Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2377 John Chenoweth, having an interest in 3850 Shoreline Drive Orono MN rinding of Substantially Similar Use and Comme: jial Site Plan Zoning District: B-5 Limited Neighborhood Business District Lot Area: 35,028 sq. ft. (.80 acres) Application: Tlte applicant intends to purchase the property as 3850 Shoreline Drive, which is currently operating as "Bay Furniture". The applicant intends to operate a furniture store at this location and include home accessories such as lamps, pictures, baskets, etc. He is concerned about the limitations of the B-5 zoning district and is requesting that the City Council approve his site plan and find that the proposed use is similar to the current use which was granted a finding of substantially similar use in 1986. The applicant has also requested that the City consider e.xpanding the uses listed in the B-5 district. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: To approve the commercial site plan and find that the proposed use substantially similar to the current use and compatible with other B-5 uses, subject to: 1. Applicant to provide a landscaping plan to show which plants will be trimmed, removed or replaced. 2. Restripe the parking lot, so that each stall in 9 ’x20’, with a minimum of 12 spaces. 3. Applicant to work with staff to determine signage in compliance with Section 10.61. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To amend as approve the findings as recommended by the Planning Commission. City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 Phone: (612) 473-7357 Fax: (612) 473-0510 MEMORANDUM DATE:June 10, 1998 TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Liz Van Zomeren, City Planner/Zoning Administrator SUBJECT: John Chenoweth, having an interest in 3850 Shoreline Drive ^ ^ 3y~7 __________Commercial Site Plan and Finding of Substantially Similar Use ' Zoning: Lot Size: Building Size: B-5, Limited Neighborhood Business District 35,028.00 sq. ft. (.80 acres) 6,720 sq. ft. Required Parking:6,720-500=6,200 6,200/500=12.44 Twelve (12) parking spaces are required. Application: The applicant, Mr. John Chenoweth, is interested in purchasing the building at 3850 Shoreline Drive which is currently owned and operated by Mr. Steve Katainen as "Bay Furniture". Mr. Katainen has operated the business at this location since November 1987. The property is zoned B5, Limited Neighborhood Business District. A furniture store is not listed in the B5 district as either a permitted or conditional use. In April 1986, the City Council determined that the proposed furniture store was compatible with the other uses in the zoning district and would operate substantially similar to a "gallery". In October 1986, the City Council approved the commercial site plan for the furniture store. Mr. Chenoweth is asking for the same consideration that was granted in 1986, noting that his proposed business is to continue to sell furniture and add home accessories such as lamps. 11 pictures, mirrors, glassware/ceramics, and artificial plants and baskets. He also proposing to paint the interior and exterior and remove overgrown shrubs and bushes. He has indicated that signage would be in conformance with the Zoning Code. Staff Recdmmendation: 1. To recommend that the proposed furniture store with home accessories is substantially similar to other permitted uses. 2. To recommend approval of the commercial site plan, subject to the following; a. The applicant is to provide a plan for removal/replacement of plantings to be reviewed by the City's consultant to effectively screen the use along the east property line. b. Applicant to restripe the parking lot to so that each stall is 9' by 20', with at least 12 parking spaces. c. Applicant to submit signage plan that is in compliance with Section 10.61, and obtain a sign permit. Attachments: A application B Applicant's letter C Elevation D Survey E Floor Plan F Zoning Map G B-5 District H Zoning District standards I Staff Report from April 10, 1986 J Notice of Council Action--4/21/86 K City Council rainutes--4/14/86 L City Council minutes--10/27/86 A Application U /Q-'bD^ Date Received 3 ^ Amount Paid ^j?5^.c30 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address b>g . Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) I"7 — I I "7 ~ QQQto APPLICAN'^ Name_ Address ^ Phone (he CkeAipu/ej^ Phone (w 43ity 6n> Phone (home) Phone (work) ~~7/ Q - ~7? f ^ Zip ^^0/6- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name S-nepac/J K«sr*n>.t rvjc. <0 Phone (home) ^^2.- 7 f P Phone (work) Addres s Z»6o be A» _ City ^T. pr^L /w»j Zip <c;cs-| i -y Date Property Acquired ND\/ 1^ S "7 _ (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 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 Duplex Credit/Bldg _ $300.00 CommercialAndustrial Use _ $250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading ana filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more _____ Grading, seawall, retaiiting walls within 75' of lakeshore :»J!u rr n.-rj PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee I , • ■ V. ' OTHER APPLICATIONS $250.00 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) _____$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5100.00 Appeals b: \ X Other - see Fee Schedule SuR;T>MJTIWM SlKlUW- I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1- ____ Completed Application Forni. ____ Describe request in detail. ------- Certified Prope^ Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you rnust obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). -------Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. ^ . ■ . ■ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. -------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 prope^. 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. 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 submitted.) 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 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 Zeuing Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is ^e and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. ' ('L .Applicant's signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATl The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council member^or purposes of inv^tigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature ^ / / 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. AppiicatiU must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to Mead a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 06-0S'98 FRI 12:19 FAX 6129S21167 CHENOHETH BUILDERS BsyuimnniMiiiis 7453 }• ranee/Vc Sozlc EdinjAla 55435 June 05.1998 Cit>'OfOrono p 6. Bov 66 Ciystal Bay. Mn 55323 Liz VanZonieren, I am wriODg this lener in refiirence to my covcrsaiioo with Steve Katnincn on June 5. 1998 Tbe changes I’m planning to make arc 1) Paint the exterior and interior. 2) Remove overgrown shnibs and bushes. 3) New sign (follow local code). My goal in this business is to continue with furniture but I want to diversify tnio home accessories which includes ligliting(lafflps). pictures, mirrors, g)as$warc(bowls,vases.&other glass hems). ceramic(bowls.vases.pots), •nd greens which include artificial trees and baskets which will be pre-evade or custom order. If there are any questions or comments please contact me. Sincerely, John Chenoweth 0002 </ / t;i: 1 V# • t • in u ’^ yir.v ’a t ion *. 6uyvdi^ 1) V/t'^T e West S15.00 fett of tht South ^ ^jfyemient Lot 8, Section 17, '*est of the Fifth Principal _________tfCW ^ > >>4> f fToor 'F^a^n N -^ •. j ■'''\f='.11 MtM I 'A* • • .«' .mb’ I. “O m g'Ji-M'JR'i'' '•• LU m ------------------- *: • ■ IV ‘ ^ ‘ ' l^feoa^r) '•'6 33fflrrfelfeEI5 •-''..^••.v V-*'i., U-lc-l 1^ — , „ 1 __:A • * •r*/ 3 9 -§ 5^ (J^ n B'5 LiHlteD Nl6.l(fl4BOl2-tlOODH "P/STEICT § 10.44 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a buildinq permit in any "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business \ District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the \following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art and school supply store. Book and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office.G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. T. U. v: Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Fee snop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. Within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. 3 4 5 7 8 Veterinary clinic. Kennels. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) ■an 9. d. single building ehall be 4.000 s.f of gross floor area. ^ shall not exceed Standard forrestaurant uses Annlfra f\*^n parking requirement needs for the site will be niet.^^ demonstrate that the total parking of ««alf A combined •>' 'i-ofod lo a maximum a maximum of 60 seats. ^ shall be limited^ TO: FROM: DATS: SOHJ: Mayor Dutier Mark Bernhardson* City Administrator Orono Council Members Jeanne A. Mabusth* Zoning Administrator April 10, 1986 •1013 Furniture Minnesota, 3850 Shoreline Drive Commercial Site Plan I Zoning District - B-5 Area -> 40,808.81 s.f. or .93 acres 20,000 s.f. required Application - Commercial site plan review for proposed 80' x 84' structur* (6720 s.f.) to house furniture sales/storage operation. I • 'i ••• List of Exhibits - ^ A ~ Application . B. - Plat Map . , i vjC - City Engineer Cook's.Letter ■^D - Minnehaha Crc'ek.^’dtershe l. District Report - Planning’C6mmissibn’'Minu :es:.;'3/lt/86 F - Drainage Study :r,; G - Landscape Plan-; ’ • • ' . • tl - Site Plan * I - Vs'atershed - local J - Building Plans s elevations Steve Katainen, ov.ier of Furniture Minnesota, has purchased the site construct a "gallery" furniture store - "gallery" operation has he • defined by Katainen as a satellite store handling limited lines furniture. The furniture store would be operated as Katainen's larn<* store in St. Paul but on a much smaller scale. The store would car**, limited brands or special lines in limited quantities. Katainen w; M such determinations as soon as the needs and tastes of the local comnuini' ' are determined. Furniture sales use is not specifically addressed und«r B-5 zoninn. rsKod the Planning Commission to determine the compatibility of ♦ {•reposed use in relation to the intent of the B-5 zoning ilir.ttitt a pattern of surrounding existing commercial development. The intent of the district is to provide a district for bur. i n-’src.s tt* •* supply conn.oclities or perform a service piimarily for resit.ent*. and wi not ojnerato high traffic and excessive amounts of hardcover. Planning Commission found the proposed use compatible not requirino special zoning amendment. The use would be a low traffic ntnor.Ttor and for h^.rdcover the B-5 district has no hardcover controls. The proposed i. will generate less hardcover than the mixed use facility apptovet Lowell Zitzloff in 1979 on the .same site. Review the site plan - - there is adequate green area around the building, structure anil to. .n pond. i: JCITY OP OROMO •'•O. Lex CC 553,3 473-7357 Ketalnen OJI Payne Ave. -t. Paul, mn 55101 COPIES: zoning pile no .101 notice op council ACTlor Date of .*'0-ice: 4/21/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . date op ^:BETING: 4;r4';86"- -VOTEr':'--:'--------- coo:;ciL ACTIOS - motion, * Acai.n^t Dept.°^ >^iSht-of-way of cty. ’5 .., *■ A.T.ended land<?r»a uo .icr.r.e Ki"f • -* -tuff f'Gfrr •*•»«• ec;.i 5- 2 SAC ...... ‘•■" ■•-7:.:2-ss04.o5, pern.it ^^ ' 8 0 <:. 0 0 f .f • •....•t-:ro cr-t’r.-, , ............. ‘‘!'*''>'<=v. • iy tho'c^’tf.^i^ ''ecoro..r”;,r y’''.‘.- ■,•• •-•^ c,.ty Ceunci 3. 1: ., * . Hk < MINUTES OP THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 #1010 DUANE H. HALL 1860 SHADYHOOD ROAD PRELIMINARIL SUBDIVISION Administrator Gerhardson explained the ^ for a subdivision and variance at 1860 Shadywood properties are legally combined. Applicant IS requesting to a subdivision of a lot line rearrangement to create a new building site and lot area, lot width, and hardcover. Planning Commission recommended denial of this noted that Mr. Hall has notified staff letter (attached to memo) that he present at this meeting but requests Council to act on his application in his aosence. Mayor Butler asked Attorney Blatz her opinion regarding action on this application without applicant's presence. Attorney Blatz stated her recommendation would be to defer action until applicant and/or a representative for applicant is present. Based on Attorney Blatz's opinion, it was moved by Councilmember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to table this application. #1013 STEVE KATAINEN 3850 SHORELINE DRIVE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW Acting City Administrator Gerhardson explained the application for a commercial site plan reveiw for proposed 80'x84* structure to house furniture sales/storage operation. He noted that the furniture store use is not currently addressed in the B-5 zone, however the Planning Commission has found the use to rneet the intent of the B-5 zoning district. Applicant nas provided all necessary information and has agreed to enter into a developers agreement to assure completion or certain site improvements. Steve Katainen was present for this matter. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the City Engineer and M.C.W.D. has confirmed that the property r? drainage problems and are satisfied with ne hydrolic information submitted by applicant's engineer. Mr. Katainen indicated that the proposed building would oe finished on all four sides with brick 6 wood siding, firiali^ed^^^ building drawings have not been 8 *v MINUTES OP THE REGDLIVR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 14, 1986 #1013 STEVE KATAINEN continued Because Council would like to see the final plans before giving final approval, it was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by CounciImember Grabek, to grant preliminary approval of the Commercial Site Plan and i£«S final plans for signage, lighting, landscaping, and exterior finish of building will grant tinal approval; and developers agreement to be provided before issuance of building permit. Motion, Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1986 JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE* SANDY BEACH PLACE RESOLUTION <1980 It was moved by CounciImember Frahm, seconded by Councilmember Hammerel, to adopt Resolution #1980 approving a Joint Use Dock License to Sandy Beach Place period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. ENGINEER'S REPORT: ORONO MWCC INTERCEPTOR UPDATE City Engineer Glenn Cook introduced Michael Lynch of Bonestroo & Associates who is working for the Metropolitan VJaste Control Commission on the Metro Waste Interceptor in Orono. Mr. Lynch reported that the infiltration/inflow study done in 1981 indicated that it would not be cost eliminate the infiltration/inflow to extend ^ interceptor system. At that time, Orono to±d MWCC to increase capacity or there would be a problem in the near future. He noted that in April 1985 they reached capacity in which 15,000 gallons of sewage overflowed into Lake Minnetonka. At this point, he was hired by MWCC to study the system to determine the areas that were under capacity and present a preliminary design report. Upon approval of the report by MWCC they anticipate improvements to begin in Spring 1987. Mr. Lynch explained the findings of the study which contained present and future daily wastewater flows, future flow summary, and lift station & interceptor analysis. He pointed out that most of the lift stations were currently over their respective rated capacities. He presented three alternatives to improve the system taking into consideration cost efficiency and causing minima1 disruption. Because this project is only at the preliminary stage, requested Mr. Lynch to keep them informed on this matter. '^’e»wor. tl': I ••V'.U—*•>-''•• MTMUTKS OF TBB RBCOLf^ ORONO COUIICIL MBBTING BBLO OCTOBER 71, 1986 /noiay!XATAINBN itoO^HORBLXNB DRIVE PINAL APPROVAL OP COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN Steve Xateinen was present for this matter. City Administrator Bernhardson explained the plan whic was conceptually approved by the Council on April 1 1986. Applicant has fulfilled all requirements. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the on : outstanding concern was the type of outside lightir- proposed. Mr. Katainen stated that he proposes a light above cc<': of the 3 side windows in the porticor 1 coach light c; each side of the door and a light above the door, sp^ : lights on the building facing the parking lot. stated the type of lighting for the sign has not been determined. 1.« • %.•; * - V . . 4 . , ‘ •./‘‘j.' r • #. -•I V. r Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the spot light should be directed ;to shine down. She stated that r.h feels assured that staff and Mr. Katainen can wcri- togcthcr on the appropriate lighting. It was moved by Counci Imember Callahan, seconded 1. CounciImember Adams, that the Council approve the fin.-; and amended commercial site plan and pre 1 iminn r •, building plans for Stephen Katainen for a propor.r furniture store on the property located at .inr>' Shoreline Drive, subject to staff approving th lighting. Motion, Ayes 4, Nays 0. #1064 CITY OP ORONO SPATES AVENUE - LIFT STATION CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT City Administrator Bernhardson reviewed the is**; regarding the requirement for conditional ‘jne porni? for lift stations, an ordinance that has boon cn •' books since at least 1968, however the City, has nev^; previously filed a formal condtional use porri* application for construction of a lift station. When issue was raised this year, staff had two courser. action to recommend to Council: a) obtain an after-the-fact conditional use permit; b) request an ordinance amendment to dclet'^ requirement never utilized. Staff chose the former as it felt that location revi^'v of such facilities is appropriately a land use issi;^. Mmk&- 102386.1 TO; PROM: DATE: Mayor Uutler Orono^CoCl!?ii®SJ'beij^ Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, zoning Administrator October 23, 1986 iv;v*h7;S OCT 27 1953 - 0? miij List of Exhibits:A B C D C F G SkJj^h Applicant ^ketch of Sign yellow Page Add Landscape Schedule front Elevation Sice/Rear Elevation Tr,. =.v..op.r-s A,r« ! r^-Vul it'dlcapl™ TT retention pond h*« k and PlnuViF^^^ paving of CO-., .a. The ey^rv.-«^-___ • T "‘‘""I ai ‘xi:: " '"o-iptoal Sketch r., ... ( ‘ I oppeatsnce) piywood sidina (wood li^r‘s the « conceptual sketch r . \ I ^ appearance), /“jx^frsu; ‘'.“.rf mm jv r .. ‘-'•AO.. - »v i • .V t . . tsfiul •» ; :.y jk... . p. .n;: : jt-.-pS-n --• •• • r n.; ci-~' .•::!' ^°anci .'•■*.•• r / i‘ro,)o....! : r-u‘-‘£ ‘ “ ’ ‘ • •*- Ii... • /. . •^:o:v o) ‘ • ‘V - , :..pV.; »k •j . . < .% - « :*•? -s> . - Jl7. : .r^ .Th., .. te ir. W''( .^'•: .>1 -•• <*/ £'■'/ •. VVj .;f,i rrr {'if*A' fio f • . ...^ It r PURWITUR^M^NNE^OTA^ 0AY NOtjH »Hoee OF UW M,NNtTO«KA ^^^>0^000 ^ NAVAe£eAQEAV»UA660F0aOMD ) tecflOH h :<•V i; •Vf^rouc.siser^MOP__ 50FA^ TOAniTtnuAt <♦ WAU, 4V5TEWiF TIONAL EARLY AMERICAN COMTEMPORARY <..^1 »««£ 0» TH* »WtST NAMU M fUWTUU M tad wet rstr kttit tl cn» , ■= £s-‘^ 3jsw^ ^tt-l-ClTV 1 i i-------------- CA««iero*4 ■ ■ T W ^*ti4 "-rTwiTr »^muEAtn^TTl.^ ou«RijTNoecAOL^. kui^ j ^ RMJU U^TION KxrC j VftjM6 teiicLip -»». rtuju U7CATI0N 3Sft!lTOS?g MJMWESOTA TT^ ^ TOTO 07f PAyM&Av ir.FAuL. BC£^c>;,vAKy PER LOCATION J /I TO: FROM: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administ Uor Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE:September 9,2002 SUBJECT: #02-2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Ordinance List of Exhibits: A Draft Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance B Zoning Map (Highway 12 Commercial Area) C Zoning Map (Navarre) Planning Commission Work Session Discussion (September 4,2002) The Planning Commission d ^cussed revising the CPUD ordinance to include for the provision of future mixed use and redevelopment opportunities for the existing commercial districts, primarily considering the possibilities of future redevelopment of Navarre. The primar}’ purpose is to consider possibilities of mixed uses of buildings and properties to include retail, residential, and office use. It was the conclusion of the Planning Commission that the item be scheduled for the September 16* meeting to be discussed with ultimately a recommendation being made on the existing ordinance language. Additionally, the recommendation on the ordinance would provide an opportunity to get the ordinance in front of the City Council. Background Orono has established 6 zoning districts for commercial uses within the City; B-1 (Retail Sales Business District). B-2 (Lakeshore Business District - Marinas), B-3 (Shopping Center Business District). B-4 (Office and Professional Business District), B-5 (Limited Neighborhood Business District). B-6 (Highway Commercial District). Each district has a list of permitted and conditional uses along with standards for minimum lot size and width, and required building setbacks. While each district can be used for its' intended purpose, the zoning standards for each district only allows buildings that are required to meet minimum setbacks usually resulting in development that leads to a building set in the center of the property with individual site parking located around the building. Purpose The existing commercial zoning districts do not have the “flexibility” to allow redevelopment or new development to follow existing patterns in certain parts of the City. An example would be the Navarre commercial area where several buildings are located with a zero setback to the front property lines. Under the existing zoning standards redevelopment or new development of parts of Navarre would require new buildings to have a 20’ front setback from front property lines and 30’ from rear property lines. The City may want to maintain the sidewalk, pedestrian nature of the Navarre Commercial District. A CPUD zoning district would allow the City of Orono to have the flexibility to consider such requests. «02-2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance Page I of 4 Advantages of Planned Unit Developments Planned Unit Developments approve an individual site plan with individual performance standards written into the final development document. The advantage of rezoning a property to PUD is the approval is subject to the final development site plan. If the project is not completed the property would revert to the pre-existing zoning district or be changed to match the guided use of the property as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. If a property were rezoned to another “B’ zoning district and the development proposed for that site was never completed, the City of Orono would have little control over a new site plan on the property that met the requirements of the district. PUDs are widely used in other communities. The one item they have in common is the ability to provide greater flexibility in neighborhood development or non-residential areas than what can be done under a conventional zoning district. Some cities define each type of PUD district (residential, commercial, industrial) separately and some group all under one ordinance. Orono would have separate ordinances for each use. Orono ’s Municipal Code does not have sections that stand alone that define standards for items such as landscaping and screening. The RPUD district has listed standards within the district for these items. The proposed CPUD ordinance has also used the standards that are listed and defined within the B-6 district and generally follows those as established for larger scale commercial developments. Summary of Proposed CPUD Standards (A full copy of the proposed ordinance is attached as Exhibit A) The proposed ordinance lists the following as general standards for all developments that would request a rezoning to CPUD. Please note the following are suggested standards that can be amended if Ae Planning Commission recommends such. 1. A CPUD can only be considered for properties guided for commercial use by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. CPUD could not be used for properties within the B-2 district. The B-2 district is established for marinas. 3. Properties are subject to the hardcover requirements as regulated in the Shoreland Ordiance. 4. Individual setbacks would vary depending on the type of development proposed on an individual property, current development patterns of surrounding properties, and the general use associated with the CPUD. The setbacks can be established by the City. This relates to the general “flexibility" the CPUD can allow. However, the ordinance is written where in no case can a building within a CPUD be located closer than 35 feet to a residentiallv zoned propeitv. 5. The building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. 6. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. W02-2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance Page 2 of 4 7. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. 8. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted as part of a general sign plan approved by the city ai'.d shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. 9. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. 10. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. 11. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer's expense. WTiere public rights-of-way are available, at the City’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trail and sidewalk widths shall be determined by the City to accommodate existing trail/sidewalk systems and/or by anticipated useage. 12. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. 13. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering standards are the identical standards as adopted within the B-6 district. Please review the requirements within Subd. 6 (N) of the draft ordinance. Process The process is a four-step process. 1 . Concept Plan Review - General review of the proposal with the Planning Commission and City Council. (Typical Sketch Plan Review) 2. Master Development Plan and Rezoning - Approval of the master development plan includes all building and site plans. (Public Hearing. Preliminary Plat review would run simultaneously if platting is required. Generally platting is done with a PUD.) At the Master Development Development stage is where the City makes a formal conunitment to the applicant. 3. Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee - Following the approval of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. 4. Final Site and Building Plan - Approval of final site and building plan for the entire CPUD. (Final Plat review would run simultaneously if platting is required.) «02-2764 Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance Page 3 of 4 REVISED DRAFT (pudpc2.doc) CPUD - COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE Subd. 1. - Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) district is to offer an alternative zone to development or redevelopment of properties located in commercial zoning districts in the City of Orono. The CPUD is to allow alternatives to the restrictions made mandatory in the commercial districts in such a manner that more efficient means of providing off-street parking, thoroughfare access, separation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, stabilization of contiguous property values, buffering of adjacent non commercial areas, and other general and pertinent planning considerations may be developed and utilized. /I Deviation from the definitive and precise requirements of individual commercial zoning districts within the community can be considered, and conditionally allowed as a CPUD if the Council finds the particular areas to be developed can offer greater value to the community and meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The CPUD district will encourage the following: A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings; preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands 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 consi.stent with the Comprehensive Plan. B C D E. F. Subd. 2. Flexibility: The uniqueness of each CPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding area or the city as a whole. 3ubd. 3. Permitted Uses: Any permitted use as regulated in the underlying zoning district and those specific uses appro^’ed by the City Council shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a CPUD district. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses: Any conditional use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as potentially allowable uses w ithin a CPUD district. Subd. 5. Accessory’ Uses: Any accessory use as regulated in the underlying zoning district shall be treated as a potentially allowable accessory use. Page 1 of9 Subd. 6. Development Standards: Within the CPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: A. Comprehensive Plan. Proposed uses and development of property shall be only for uses as guided by the Comprehensive Plan. B. Rezoning: Rezoning to CPUD shall only be considered for properties within the B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 zoning districts. C. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages shall be is conformance with the requirements of Shoreland Ordinance. D. Setbacks and Separation of Uses. Within the CPUD district the setback for all buildings shall be 35 feet to any rcsidentially zoned property, building .setbacks to property lines not zoned for residential use shall be determined as appropriate by the City Council based on the use of the property, use of adjacent properties, and development patterns of adjacent properties. The setback for parking structures shall be 20 feet to street property lines. E. Height Limitations. For properties guided for commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of the underlying zoning district shall apply. F. Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage shall not be permitted within a CPUD district. G. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a CPUD site. H. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are pemiitted as part of a genera! sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated within the CPUD approval. Any changes to signs not permitted with the CPUD shall require an amendment to the CPUD approval. I. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a trafllc management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. 1 he plan may include travel demand management strateg'-< use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traftlc generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. J. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved CPUD development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved CPUD development. K. Lighting Standards. All CPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting per the Zoning Chapter. L. Trails/Sidcw alk. Pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer ’s e.xpense. Where public rights-of-way arc available, at the City’s discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or such other material as may be approved by the City. The width of the trails shall be determined by the t>pe of trail and necessary width to accommodate the existing connections and anticipated use of the trail. Sidewalks shall be constructed of concrete and use of curb and gutter shall be incorporated when deemed necessary by the City. M. Architectural Standards. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be Page 2 of 9 prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and shall show the following for all structures; A. elevations of all sides of the building; B. type and color of exterior building materials; C. a typical floor plan; D. dimensions of all structures; E. the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. F. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessoiy* buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. G. Accessor)' buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. H. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened so as to be not visible. I. All trash and recycling facilities shall be fully enclosed within a structure. No exterior trash and recycling facilities shall be permitted. J. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the renovations exceed 30% of the pre-renovation value of the structure). N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and shall show the follow ing: a. boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions b. locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads, trails and other improvements; c. proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals d. location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; e. a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions f. planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; g. locations and details of other landscape features including berms, fences and planter boxes; h. details of restoration of distuibed areas including areas to be sodded and seeded; i. location and details of irrigation systems; and j. details and cross sections of all required screening. 1. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives, trails or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Proiect Value Minimum Landscaoe Value (Including building construction, site Page 3 of9 preparation, and site improvements) Below $1,000,000 2.0 % of Project Value $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1% of Project Value in excess of $1,000,000 $2,000,001 -$3,000,000 $30,000 + 0.75% of Project Value in excess of $2,000,000 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 $37,500 + 0.25% of Project Value in excess of $3,000,000 Over 54,000,000 1.0 % of Project Value a) In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/i inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1 'A inches. d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, trails, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. e) A sprinkler system shall be installed in new landscaping areas. 0 Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be used for landscaping. g) When it is determined by the City that the amount of screening provided by the requirements noted above does not adequately address screening and/'or is not compatible with surrounding properties, the City Council may require additional landscaping and screening to ensure that surrounding properties have an adequate buffer to the use(s) and structure(s) proposed with the CPUD. 2. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. All parking lots containing over 30 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Page 4 of 9 Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the City. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the City. 3. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. 4. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. 5. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may. at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to .seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. 6. Screening and Buffering. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this subdivision: a. All buildings shall be adequately buffered from residential lots. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within SO feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. b. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. c. Trash storage facilities shall be fully enclosed within a permanent structure that is architecturally harmonious with the buildings on the property. d. Access roads shall be screened as necessarv to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. Page 5 of9 e. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. f. All-required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or w ithin ten feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. g. Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at the time of installation. Subd. 8. Review of Application; Procedures. A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a CPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant shall submit a concept plan for review and comment by the Planning Commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is required for CPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information us is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the follow ing: A. approximate building, road and trail locations; B. height, bulk and square footage of buildings; C. t>pe and square footage of specific land uses and uses of each tenent; D. generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut. tilled and prcser\ed; and E. staging and timing of the development. The comments of the Planning Commission and City Council shall address the consistency ol the concept plan with this section. I hc comments of the Planning Commission and City Council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the Planning Commission or City Council regarding approval of the formal CPUD application when submitted. B. Master Development Plan and Kezoning. Approval of a rezoning to CPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning code amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: A. building location, height, bulk and square footage; B. type and square footage of specific land uses; C. detailed street and utility locations and sizes D. parking layout; 0. drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; I*. grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours: G. generalized landscape plan; 11. generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting: 1. plan for timing and phasing of the development; J. covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; K. renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development; L. trail plan; and M. lighting plan. Page 6 of9 Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the property to CPUD. After rczoning of the property to CPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the CPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment. C. Development Agreement/Financial Guarantee. Following the approval of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the terms of the CPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement may take the form of: 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site Improvement Performance Agreement; and/or 3) another fomi of binding instrument as may be required by the City. D. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire CPUD or for specific parts of the CPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the City, including the following: 1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; 2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; 3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans; and detailed trail plan. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: buildings, parking areas roads and trails are in substantially the same location as previously approved; Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a CPUD on a consideration of the following: A. compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan; B. pre.scrvation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearance of neighboring properties; C. creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to: D. an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; F. the amount and location of open space and landscaping; 1'. materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an e.xpression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in temis of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular trafilc and arrangement and amount of parking. Page 7 of 9 G. promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; H. protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.; and I. such other factors as the planning commission or city council deem relevant. The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. Subd. 9. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property within a CPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the CPU!) zoning map amendment became effective or if within that period no e.xtension of time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a CPUD approved to be built in phases has not started w'ithin this period or if w ithin that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the CPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the ab.sence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the CPUD. Subd. 10. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original CPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: A. sub.stantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; 13. increases or decreases the number of units; C. increases the gross floor area of any individual building; D. increases the number of stories of any building; E. decreases the amount of open space or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or F. creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the Council. Page 8 of 9 Subd. 11. Platting Procedure. The platting procedure shall follow the platting procedures as specified in the Subdivision Ordinance. Page 9 of9 r *'T ■ Highway 12 Commercial Area Zoning Map RR-1B / 0.5 / » - - r' \7^ 0.5 1 Miles City of Orono ;Commercial Zoning Districts N A E y s I ‘ 1 I**'-Cl 1 1 I I 1 I * I ~» >-v> . «»o«r«titN » V ,..t. *«. * LKJsiC, ' ff^i^ .v^ I V' ^ II’T’•.t ?1.!«I 4 1 i III Ii ipxbt^ 1 »*i >:i*if-•***■**"' r* "ixiV f*i m R?^L1Iv 11's- T*. -1 ^ r^r^: S!i *»»»^ ^ • .'• L -•B'- «C.^y > I V' —«-•- . .. mi 'T>f t 'mmrrz. vt#**l*«*« »»• Sv—i ^ 2 -“^ • '”*^*- .• .1/ • I w *. t *i * I**." ^ * .—. •• _ -••• C, ’■'-: i' 'J;l.».‘ ----* • I A/«/•. A'/9 i^yJ^PiPf COMM£/fCML D/sr^icr >f- ■* • . %><4* •*< 1^ 12. Chair Smith and Planning CommissionersTo: From: Date: Subject: - #2333 - Amend Home Occupation Standards - Review Revised Draft Ordinance Mike Gaffron, Planning Director September 10,2002 List of Exhibits A - Revised Draft Ordinance w/9-4-02 Changes B - Memo and Exhibits of 8-29-02 Planning Commission reviewed the most recent draft version of the Home Occupation ordinance revisions at the September 4 work session, and suggested a small number of revisions. These revisions have now been made and the significant changes are summarized as follows (refer to Exhibit A): Page 3 of 7; (10.63 Subd. 3, Home Occupation Regulations, Item B) - deleted “customers or clients; and delivery or service personnel ” from the list of employed persons who can be on the site. Page 3 of 7: (10.63 Subd. 3, Home Occupation Regulations, Item E) - combined the two concepts relating to conduct of home occupations in principal dwellings and the allowance for same in an accessory structure for RR-IA and RR-IB Districts. Also added a condition 3 to this, requiring that for Home Occupation in an accessory structure, the properly must be conforming in area and acc. struc. eonforming in location. Page 4 of 7: (10.63 Subd. 3, Home Occupation Regulations, Item G) - added language requiring that parking area needed by principal residential use cannot be taken up by home occupation parking needs. Page 6 of 7: (10.63 Subd. 4, Prohibited Home Occupation, Item L) - added language indicating firearms dealer home occupation will be prohibited except when dealer is Federally licensed. Staff will be asking the City Attorney to review this prior to your Sept. 16 meeting. Page 6 of 7. (10.63 Subd. 5, Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons) - added language to include “or other legally recognized” disability. Staff Recommendation This item is published for a public hearing at your September 16 meeting. Planning Commission should take a close look at this final draft and conclude whether it meets with your vision and intent for regulating home occupations. Options for Action 1) Recommend approval and direct staff to send it on to City Council for adoption. 2) Same as 1) but direct staff to make specific changes first 3) Continue to a work session for further discussion. 4) Other Itu. ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADDING ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.63 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.40,10.02, 10.20, SUED. 4C AND 10.61 SUED. 2A REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION USE AND LICENSING The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 5, Section 5.40 regarding licensing of Home Occupations is hereby revised as follows: “SEC. 5.40. HOME OCCUPATIONS Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to to engage in, or carry on, a Level 2 Home Occupation, as that term is defined in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code, without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. l evel 1 Home Occupations as defined in the Zoning Chapter are not required to be licensed as lone as all conditions set forth in the Zonine Chapter are fully met. Subd. 2. Regulation. Licenses will only be issued if the specific use is permitted or othenvise allowed by the Zoning Chapter, and if all conditions set forth in said Chapter are fully complied with. Subd. 3. License Period. All licenses for Level 2 Home Occupations shall e.xpire on September 30 of each year. Application for renewal of an e.\isting Level 2 Home Occupation license shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date." Subd. 4. Public Notification and Hearing. The City Council shall hold a public hearing for all Home Occupations required tn he licensed. The owners of all parcels within 350' of the property (or a larger area at the discretion of the Citvi shall be notified 10 davs prior to the public hearing . Section 2. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.02, Definition 30: “Home Occupation is hereby deleted and the following new definition of “Home Occupation" is hereby substituted in its place: ‘30,Home Occupation - Any gainful occupation carried out by the occupant of a residential dwelling unit that occurs within the principal or accessory building on the property and does not change the primary residential use of the property. Level 1 and Level 2 Home Occupations shall be as defined in Section iO.63, Subd. 1." Page 1 of 7 r Section 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.20, Subdivision 4(C), ‘Home Occupations" is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: “C.^ Home Occupations. Home occupations as defined in this Chapter. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.63, and the licensing provisions of Municipal Code Section 5.40 when applicable.” Section 4. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10.63, “Home Occupations ” to read as follows: ‘SEC. 10.63. HOME OCCUPATIONS. Subd. 1. Purpose . Home occupation regulations are established to ensure that home occupations will not adversely affect the character and livability of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The home occupation shall function as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal use of the dwelling unit. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare within residential neighborhood, home occupations shall be divided into two regulatory levels: Level I Home Occupations: Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 and which have no potential neighborhood impacts. Level 1 Home Occupations may be operated without a license or permit. Level 2 Home Occupations: Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 but which could have potential neighborhood impacts; and home occupation that do not comply with all standards of Section 10.63 Subd. 3 and which arc not ‘prohibited home occupations ’ under Section 10.63. Level 2 Home Occupations are required to be licensed per the provisions of Section 5.40. Level 2 Home Occupations may include but are not strictly limited to: a) b) Those with employed persons other than occupants of the dwelling. Those carried out partially or w holly in an accessory structure where allowed, including storage of materials, equipment or commercial vehicles in an accessory building. Those involving the use or parking of a commercial or non-passenger vehicle, whether such use or parking is in a building or outside. d) c) Those which do not meet one or more ofthc specified performance standards. Those which generate excessive traffic per the standards of Section 10 63 Subd. 3(N). Page 2 of 7 In cases where it is unclear whether a Home Occupation should be classi fied as Level 1 or Level 2, the Zoning Administrator shall make such a determination subject to City Council confirmation if requested by the operator of the home occupation. Subd. 2. License Required for Level 2 Home Occupations. An annual license shall be obtained by any person operating a Level 2 Home Occupation as defined in the Zoning Chapter, per the provisions of Chapter 5.40 of the Orono Municipal Code. Subd 3. Home Occupation Regulations. The regulations recognize that many types of home occupations can be conducted with minimal or no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Home occupations shall be subject to the following standards: A. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, and shall result in no incompatibility with or disturbance to the surrounding area. B. Employed Persons. No one other than the occupant(s) of the dwelling and one (1) employee or associate shall be on the property at any given time in relation to the home occupation. No employee or associate or combination of same shall work on the premises for more than forty (40) hours in one week. The home occupation may employ additional non-resident employees only if their work activities are performed off the premises. Personal vehicles of employees working off the premises shall be parked within a building or shall be fully screened from the street and from adjoining properties. Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. C. Exterior alterations or modifications that change (he residential character or appearance of the dwelling unit or accessory structure to that of a commercial nature shall be prohibited. D. Interior alterations or modifications that eliminate the kitchen, habitable areas for sleeping, and bathrooms, shall be prohibited. E. The home occupation shall be conducted within the enclosed area of the dwelling unit, with the exception of lessons or instruction for outdoor activities such as equestrian training and riding, tennis and other court sports, gardening and swimming. In the RR-1A and RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential Districts, home occupations or storage associated with the home occupation may be conducted within accessory structures subject to the following conditions: 1. No home occupation conducted wholly or in part in an accessory structure shall produce noise, light and glare, odor, vibration or traffic that will in any way have a perceptible effect upon adjacent or nearby property. Page 3 of 7 r 2. The home occupation shall conform with all other applicable zoning requirements. 3. The property must be conforming in area, and the accessory structure must be conforming in location. F. Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Outdoor storage or display of materials, goods, supplies or equipment related to the conduct of the home occupation shall be prohibited, except that licensed passenger vehicles used in the home occupation may be parked outside provided they are in compliance with all other requirements of this section. G. Parking. All vehicle parking required for conduct of the home occupation shall be off-street. The off-street parking area required for the principal residential use shall be retained exclusively for the principal residential use and shall not be made unusable by the home occupation. Off-street parking areas providing more than two spaces for the home occupation shall be visually screened from adjacent residential lots. H. Commercial or Non-passenger V'ehicles. Parking/storage of any commercial or non-passenger vehicles used in the home occupation shall be within a fully-enclosed building. Noise, odors or vibration from the operation of such vehicles shall not be discernible at the property line. I. No equipment, machinery, or materials other than of a t>pc normally found in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed. J. No retail sales and delivery of products or merchandise to the public shall occur on the premises except w hen accessory to the services provided. K. No home occupation activity of a non residential character shall be discernible from any private or public street. There shall be no exterior signage or display, or interior signs or display which arc visible from outside the dwelling, c.xcept that a single nameplate sign of not more than two square feet in area per surface nor more than two surfaces, may be placed on the property. Such sign if displayed shall include only the name of property owner and the site address, and shall not identify the type of business. L. The hours of operation that a home occupation may be accessible to the public shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. M. The home occupation shall not generate excessive traffic that is detrimental to the residential character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. For the purposes of this provision, more than five (5) customers or clients per day, or more than two (2) customers at any given time, may be determined Page 4 of? to be an excessive and detrimental level of traflic. The number shall apply to each dwelling unit, regardless of the number of home occupations conducted in the dwelling unit. The criteria used by the Zoning Administrator to determine impact shall include, but not be limited to: 1 . The characteristics of the neighborhood, including current land use, lot sizes, lot widths, parking availability, and screening. 2. Type of street, width, and traffic volumes. 3. The availability and location of off-street parking. N. Shipment and delivery of products, merchandise, or supplies shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and shall regularly occur only in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles typically used to serve residential areas. O. No sound or noise created by the operation of the home occupation shall be audible at the property lines except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Home occupations shall otherwise comply with all noise provisions of the Zoning Chapter. P. Any activity or event organized forthepurposeofdisplayingorselling merchandise shall not be held more than six (6) times per year. This section shall not be construed as requiring a license or permit for occasional ‘garage sales ’ or ‘tag sales ’. Subd. 4. Prohibited Home Occupations . The following uses, by their nature of operation, have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations. These uses have objectionable operational characteristics that adversely impact residential neighborhoods and shall be prohibited as home occupations: A. Service, repair, or painting of any motorized vehicle, including but not limited to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, personal watercraft, recreational vehicles. and snowmobiles. time. B. Hair styling establishments that serve more than one (1) person at a C. Adult uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. D. Dispatch centers where persons come to a site and are dispatched to other locations. E. Medical or dental clinic. Page 5 of 7 \ wu*. .'Mil .‘ill III. .1'.'i. n*> ’ Mil F.Rental businesses. G. H. Contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. I. J. Churches and religious institutions. Tow truck services. K. Ceramic studios with kilns of volume six (6) cubic feet or more. L. The sale, lease, trade or other transfer of firearms or ammunition by a firearms dealer, except when such dealer is Federally licensed to conduct such activity. M. Sale or use of hazardous materials in excess of consumer quantities which are packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use. Subd. 5. Reasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons. Persons with physical or other legally recognized disabilities may request reasonable accommodation by requesting a waiver of one or more of the foregoing requirements. The Zoning Administrator may only grant waivers on the basis of the applicant’s physical limitations to function within said requirements. Subd. 6. Conformance Required. All existing home occupations shall be brought into conformity with this ordinance within one year of its adoption.” Section 5. Otono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Section 10.61 Subd. 2(A) is hcrcbv amended by adding Section 10.61, Subd. 2(A)(4) to read as follows: 4. Home Occupations. One nameplate sign containing name and address but not to contain business name or type of business, and such sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area per surface, nor contain more than two surfaces.” Section 6. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Page 6 of? Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this__day of____, 2002 by a vote of ayes and___nays. ATTEST: r Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 7 of 7 I iirnrTTriTim~w iin»-i nr ORDINANCE NO.____, SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADDING ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.63 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.40,10.02, 10.20, SUBD. 4C AND 10.61 SUBD. 2A REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION USE AND LICENSING The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 5, Section 5.40 regarding licensing of Home Occupations is hereby revised as follows: ‘SEC. 5.40. HOME OCCUPATIONS • Subd. 1. License Required. It is unlawful for any person to to engage in, or carry on, a Level 2 Home Occupation, as that term is defmed in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code, without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. Level 1 Home Occupations as defined in the Zoning Chapter are not required to be licensed as lonc> as all conditions set forth in the Zoning Chapter are fully met. Subd. 2. Regulation. Licenses will only be issued if the specific use is permincd or othenvise allowed by the Zoning Chapter, and if all conditions set forth in said Chapter are fully complied with. Subd. 3. License Period. All licenses for Level 2 Home Occupations shall expire on September 30 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing Level 2 Home Occupation license shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the e.xpiration date." Subd. 4. Public Notification and Hearing. The City Council .shall hold pl E.ubHc _hearing for all Home Occupations required to be licensed. The owners of all Egrcel§ wjthtn ?50* pf the property (or a larger area at the discretion of the Citv'i »;ha!| be notified 10 davs prior to »hc public hearing Section 2. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.02, Definition 30-“Home Occupation” is hereby deleted and the following new definition of “Home Occupation” is hereby substituted in its place: ‘30. Home Occupation - .^y gainful occupation carried out by the occupant of a residential dwelling umt that occurs within the principal or accessory building on the property and does not change the primary residential use of the property. Level 1 and Level 2 Home Occupations shall be as defined in Section 10.63, Subd. 1.” Page 1 of 6 Section 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 1 0.20, Subdivision 4(C), “Home Occupations is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its place: “a Home Occupations. Home occupations as defined in this Chapter. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Zomng Code Section 10.63, and the licensing provisions of Municipal Code Section 5.40 when applicable.” Section 4. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10.63, “Home Occupations" to read as follows: ‘SEC. 10.63. HOME OCCUPATIONS. Subd.l. purpose . Home occupation regulations are established to ensure that home occupations will not adversely affect the character and livability of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The home occupation shall function as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal use of the dwelling unit. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare within residential neighborhood, home occupations shall be divided into two regulatory levels: ).^vel 1 Hpme Occupafiops : Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 and which have no potential neighborhood impacts. Level 1 Home Occupations may be operated without a license or permit. ](.evel 2 Home Qccupatiof^s : Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 but which could have potential neighborhood impacts; and home occupation that do not comply with all standards of Section 10.63 Subd. 3 and which are not ‘prohibited home occupations ’ under Section 10.63. Level 2 Home Occupations are required to be licensed per the provisions of Section 5.40. Level 2 Home Occupations may include but are not strictly limited to: a) b) Those with employed persons other than occupants of the dwelling. Those earned out partially or wholly in an accessory structure where allowed, including storage of materials, equipment or commercial vehicles in an accessory building. Those involving the use orparking of a commercial or non-passenger vehicle, whether such use or paricing is in a building or outside. d) e) Those w'hich do not meet one or more of the specified performance standards. Those which generate excessive traffic per the standards of Section 10 63 Subd. 3(N). ■ ’ Page 2 of 6 In cases where it is unclear whether a Home Occupation should be classified as Level 1 or Level 2, the Zoning Administrator shall make such a determination subject to City Council confirmation if requested by the operator of the home occupation. Subd. 2. License Required for Level 2 Home Occupations. An annual license shall be obtained by any person operating a Level 2 Home Occupation as defined in the Zoning Chapter, per the provisions of Chapter 5.40 of the Orono Municipal Code. Subd. 3. Home Occupation Regulations. The regulations recognize that many types of home occupations can be conducted with minimal or no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Home occupations shall be subject to the following standards: A. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, and shall result in no incompatibility with or disturbance to the surrounding area. B. Employed Persons. No one other than the occupant(s) of the dwellingf^t-rt..^ shall be on the property at any given time in relation to the home occupation. No employee or associate or combination of same shall work on the premises for more than forty (40) hours in one week. The home occupation may employ additional non resident employees only if their work activities are performed off the premises. Personal vehicles of employees working off the premises shall be parked within a building or shall be fully screened from the street and from adjoining properties. Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. C. Exterior alterations or modifications that change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling unit or accessory structure to that of a commercial nature shall be prohibited. D. Interior alterations or modifications that eliminate the kitchen, habitable areas for sleeping, and bathrooms, shall be prohibited. E. Except 03 noted bvlu»7lhe home occupation shall be conducted within the enclosed area of the dwelling unit, with the exception of lessons or instruction for outdoor activities such as equestrian training and riding, tennis and other court sports, gardening and swimming.--------- P. A^ccSLUiy Sliuvluiva. In the RR-IA and RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Districts, home occupations or storage associated with the home occupation may be conducted within accessory structures subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 1. No home occupation conducted wholly or in part in an accessory structure shall produce noise, light and glare, odor, vibration or traffic that will in any way have a perceptible effect upon adjacent or nearby property. 2. The home occupation shall conform with all other applicablezoning requirements. , , , . . G. Outdoor Storage Prol^ted.Outdoo^SSr^Vo?disp1^ofrnaten^sf l^!r^ goods, supplies or equipment related to the conduct of the home occupation shall be / */ prohibited, except that licensed passenger vehicles used in the home occupation may ' ^ ^ be parked outside provided they are in compliance with all other requirements of this section. . / ^ ----------- ^vawiauuiuu iiiauc uiiubdDic oy iHc nomc occupation. Off- street parking areas providing more than hvo spaces for the home occupation shall be visually screened from adjacent residential lots. I. Commercial or Non-passenger Vehicles. Parking/storage of any commercial or non-passenger vehicles used in the home occupation shall be within a fully-enclosed building. Noise, odors or vibration from the operation of such vehicles shall not be discernible at the property line. J. No equipment, machinery, or materials other than ofa type normally found m or compatible with a dwelling uni^hall be allowed., • , j • ' l' i fi fi 11 I - ri -JaiL s ' ' K. No retail sales and delivery of products or merchandise to the public shall occur on the premises except when accessory to the services provided. .1- •t. r activity of a non residential character shall be discernible from any private or public street. There shall be no exterior signage or display, or interior signs or display which are visible from outside the dwelling, except that a single nameplate sign of not more than two square feet in area per surface nor more than two surfaces, may be placed on the property. Such sign if displayed shall include only the name of property owner and the site address and shall not identify the type of business. ’ M. The hours of operation that a home occupation may be accessible to the public shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. N. The home occupation shall not generate excessive traffic that is detnmental to the residential character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. For the purposes of this provision, more than five (5) customers or clients per day, or more than two (2) customers at any given time, may be determined Page 4 of 6 to be M excessive and detrimental level of traffic. The number shall apply to each dwelling unit, regardless of the number of home occupations conducted in the dwelling unit. The criteria used by the Zoning Administrator to determine impact shall include, but not be limited to: 1. The characteristics ofthe neighborhood, including current land use, lot sizes, lot widths, parking availability, and screening. 2. Type of street, width, and traffic volumes. 3. The availability and location of off-street parking. O. Shipment and delivery ofproducts, merchandise, or supplies shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and shall regularly occur only in single rear a.\le straight trucks or smaller vehicles typically used to serv’e residential areas. P. No sound or noise created by the operation of the home occupation shall be audible at the property lines except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Home occupations shall otherwise comply with all noise provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Q. Any activity or event organized for the purpose of displaying or selling merchandise shall not be held more than six (6) times per year. This section shall not be construed as requiring a license or permit for occasional ‘garage sales’ or ‘tag sales’. Subd. 4. Prohibited Home Occupations . The following uses, by their nature of operation, have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations. These uses have objectionable operational characteristics that adversely impact residential neighborhoods and shall be prohibited as home occupations: A. Service,repair,orpaintingofanymotorizedvehicle.includingbutnot limited to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, personal watercraft, recreational vehicles, and snowmobiles. time. B. Hair styling establishments that serve more than one (1) person at a C. Adult uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. D. Dispatch centers where persons come to a site and are dispatched to other locations. E. Medical or dental clinic. Page 5 of 6 F. G. H. I. J. K. Rental businesses. Contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. Churches and religious institutions. Tow truck services. Ceramic sUidios with kilns of volume six (6) cubic feet or more. V M. Sale or use of hazardous materials in excess of consumer quantities N which are packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use. ^ « ___ • \ Seasonable Accommodation for Disabled Persons. Persons with physical c>r disabilities may request reasonable accommodation by requesting a waiver of one or more of the foregoing requirements. The Zoning Administrator may only grant waivers on the basis of the applicant’s physical limitations to function within said requirements. Subd. 6. Conformance Required. All existing home occupations shall be brought into conformity with this ordinance within one year of its adoption." Sections. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 10, Section 10.61 Subd. 2(A) is hereby amended by adding Section 10.61, Subd. 2(A)(4) to read as follows; 4. Home Occupations. One nameplate sign containing name and address but not to contain business name or type of business, and such sign shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area per surface, nor contain more than two surfaces." Section 6. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this__day of . 2002 bv a vote of___ayes and___nays. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor Page 6 of 6 To: From: Date: Subject: I 146(2^ s&ssioi^ /Ojre-S. Chair Hawn and Planning Commissioners Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director ^ t ^ ^ ^ /yt^ ApriI25.2002 I ri #2333 - Amend Home Occupation Standards - Review Revised Draft Ordinance B List of Exhibits A - Revised Draft Ordinance Planning Commission reviewed the draft Home Occupation ordinance revisions at the March 18 work session prior to the regular meeting, during which Planning Commission suggested a number of revisions. The item was tabled for drafting of the revisions, which primarily related to incorporation of a 2-tier system whereby non-impact home occupations (Level 1) would not need a license; and potential-impact home occupations as w'ell as non-compliant home occupations (Level 2) wgpld be licensed. Plarming Commission clearly favored licensing over the CUP process because the CUP would run with the property and potentially establish property rights for uses which could be better regulated by licensing. « I believe we have made excellent progress toward a home occupation regulation that protects our neighborhoods without being overly restrictive. The current draft ordinance contains the following elements: ® 1 The licensing provisions of 5.40 are revised rather than deleted, and now will reference the distinction between Level 1 Home Occupations which require no license, and Level 2 Home Occupations which do require a license. Also, Subd. 4 is added which requires a public hearing and public notification fo; Home Occupation license request. The idea is that if a home occupation rises to the Level 2 ;ry, it has potential impacts worthy of public discussion. The definition of Home Occupation is shortened as previously proposed, to no longer include performance standards which will now be in 10.63. The definition does, however incorporate a reference to the distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 home occupations. Section 3 . The ‘home occupation ’ listing in the R- District list of ‘Accessory Uses* is shortened as previously proposed, and merely requires that home occupations comply with 10.63 and (when applicable) 5.40. This is the meat and potatoes of this ordinance. It creates Section 10.63, a new section which includes; Subd. 1 - A purpose statement and a detailed distinction as to the difference between Level 1 and Level 2 Home Occupations. Subd. 2 - A statement that Level 2 Home Occupations are required to be annually licensed. Subd. 3 - A long list of the regulations or ‘perfonnance standards ’ with which all home occupations shall comply. Items (L) and (R) have been slightly revised per the March 18 discussions. Subd. 4 - A list of ‘prohibited’ home occupations, which would not be allowed with or without a hcense. ' Subd. 5 - ^lows City to waive one or more requirements if necessary to accommodate a disaDlea person. Subd. 6 - Requires all existing home occupations to be brought into compliance v^thin one year. Since home occupations have been regulated by licensing in the past the one yc^ Imut means that any current licenses will be allowed to continue to expiration wthout havmg to comply. A home occupation that was not licensed in the past but should have been, would presumably have no legal stanis in which to claim this is an amortization. Section 5 . (Ordmance will become effective as soon as it is published in the official newspaper). Staff Recommendation Pla^g Coi^ssion should take a close look at tWs (final?) draft and conclude whether i» meets with your vision and mtent for regulating home occupations. - You may wish to provide examples of Level 1 Home Occupations (see page 2 of 6) or vou mav suggest that examples are not needed. * / r *nay . Do you agree with the provision for a public hearing? - Do any of Ihe Regulations (A tiini R on pages 3-1.5) seem ambiguous, unclear, or unreasonable? Options for Action 1) Direct staff to put this back on your May 20agenda for a formal recommendation to Council 2) Same as 1) but direct staff to make specific changes 3) Continue to another works session for further discussion 4) Other • . t ORDINANCE NO., SECOND SERIES AN ORDINANCE ADDING ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.63 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 5.40,10.02 AND 10.20, SUBD. 4C REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION USE AND LICENSING The City Council of Orono ordains as follows: Section 1. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 5, Section 5.40 regarding licensing of Home Occupations is hereby revised as follows: ‘SEC. 5.40. HOME OCCUPATIONS % Subd. I. License Required.' It is unlaw'^.'l for any person to to engage in, or ca^ on, a Lsyel 2 Home Occupation, as that term. defined in the Zoning Chapter of the City Code, without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. Level 1 Home Occupations as defined in the Zoning Chanter are not required tn be licensed as long as all conditions set forth in the Zoning Chanter are fiillv<orf«Blied with.' Subd. 2. Regulation. Licenses will only be issued if the specific use is permitted or otherwise allowed by the Zoning Chapter, and if all conditions set fonh in said Chapter are fully complied wth. Subd. 3. License Period. All licenses for Level 2 Home Occupations shall expire on September 30 of each year. Application for renewal of an existing Level 2 Home Occupation license shall be made to the City Clerk at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date." Subd, 4. Public Notification and Hearing. The City Council shall hold a public.headogJbr all Home Occupations reouired to be licensed The owners of all parcels within 350' of the property for a larger area at the discretion of the Citvl shall be notified 10 days prior to the public hearing . Section 2. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.02, Definition 30: "Home Occupation” is hereby deleted and the following new definition of "Home Occupation ” is hereby substituted in its place: ‘30. Home Occupation - .^y gainful occupation carried out by the occupant of a residential dwelling unit that occurs within the principal or accessory building on the property and does not change the primary residential use of the property. Level 1 and Level 2 Home Occupations shall be as defined in Section 10.63, Subd. 1.” Page 1 of 6 Section 3. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10, Section 10.20, Subdivision 4fC) “Home Occupations ” is hereby deleted and the following language substituted in its pi;lacc: “C. Home Occupations. Home occupations as defined in this Chapter All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.63 and the licensing provisions of Municipal Code Section 5.40 when applicable.” Section 4. Orono Municipal Zoning Coue Chapter 10 is hereby amended by addin2 Sect 10.63, “Home Occupations” to read as follows: *ion “SEC. 10.63. HOME OCCUPATIONS. Subd.l. PlirpQse . Home occupation regulations are established to ensure that home occupations \yill not adversely affect the character and livability of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The home occupation shall function as an accessory and subordinate use to the principal use of the dwelling unit. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare within residential neighborhood, home occupations shall be divided into two regulatory levels: Leys! 1 Hpth? Occupations : Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 and which have no potential neighborhood impacts. Level I Home Occupations may be operated without a license or permit. F»fnmDlc3QfLovcl Hipme Oe'gupaTion54 nrliidr hiif arr not otiictly limited-tu. X X —11/ ^.evel 2 Home Qccupatjpns : Home occupations that comply with all standards of Section 10.63, Subd. 3 but which could have potential neighborhood impacts; and home occupation that do not comply with all standards of Section 10.63 Subd. 3 and which are not ‘prohibited home occupations ’ under Section 10.63. Level '> Home Occupations are required to be licensed per the provisions of Section 5.40. Level 2 Home Occupations may include but are not strictly limited to: a) b) Those with employed persons other than occupants of the dwelling. Those earned out partially or wholly in an accessory structure where allowed, including storage of materials, equipment or commercial vehicles in arl accessory building. c) Thoseinvolvingtheuseorparkingofacommercialornon-passengervehicle, whether such use or parking is in a building or outside. d) Those which do not meet one or more of the specified perfoimance stand ^ • Page 2 of 6yVj iiii y^2r'0'2. In cases where it is imclear whether a Home Occupation should be classified as Level 1 or Level 2, the Zoning Administrator shall make such a determination subject to City Council confinnalion if requested by the operator of the home occupation. Subd. 2. License Required for Level 2 Home Occupations. An annual license shall be obtained by any person operating a Level 2 Home Occupation as defined in the Zoning Chapter, per the provisions of Chapter 5.40 of the Orono Municipal Code. Subd. 3 . Home Occopation Regulations. The regulations recognize that many types of home occupations can be conducted with minimal or no effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Home occupations shall be subject to the following standards: A. The home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, and shall result in no incompatibility with or disturbance to the surrounding area. x j,2. — fcr^ er EtnpW^dPers-^ No ono other th ;o<XUStomers or and dAliv^i B. one (1) employee * • - --- • » - -----—w - W VII property at any given ti in'relation to the home>^cupation. Under no. jitone time. No employectTi corXhnation of<i^l^g^shall work on the premises for more than forty (40) hours i<;. ,.e week. The home occupation may employ additional non-resident employe-.s only if their work activities are performed off the prenuses. Personal vehicles of employees working off the premises shall be parked within a building or shall be fully screened from the street and from adjoining properties. Domestic employees shall not be considered employees of the home occupation. C. Exterior alterations or modifications that change the residential character or appearance of the dwelling unit or accessory structure to that oi a commercial nature shall be prohibited. D. Interior alterations or modifications that eliminate the kitchen, habitable areas for sleeping, and bathrooms, shall be prohibited. E. Except as noted below, the home occupation shall be conducted within the enclosed area of the dwelling unit, with the exception of lessons or instruction for outdoor atiivlies such as equestrian training and riding, tennis and other court sports and swimming. ^ -* F; Accessory Structures. In the RR-1A and RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential Districts, home occupations or storage associated with the home occupation may be conducted within accessory structures subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of6 r 1. . No home occupation conducted wholly or in part in an accessoiy structure shall produce noise, Ught and glare, odor, vibration or traffic that will in any way upon adjacent or nearby property. 2. The home occupation shall conform with all other apolicablezomng requirements. G. Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Outdoor storage or display of materials goods supplies or equipment related to the conduct of the home occupation shall be prohibited, except that licensed passenger vehicles used in tlie home occupation may be parked outside provided they are in compliance with all other requirements of this section. H. Parking. All vehicle parking required for conduct of the home occupation shall be off-street. The off-street parking area required for the principal residential use shall not be reduced or made unusable by the home occupation Off- street parking areas providing more than two spaces for the home occupation shall be visually screened from adjacent residential lots. I. Commercial or Non-passenger Vehicles. Parking/storage of any commercial or non-passenger vehicles used in the home occupation shall be within a fully-enclosed building. Noise, odors or vibration from the operation of such vehicles shall not be discernible at the property line. J. No equipment, machinery, or materials other than of a type normal ly found m or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed. K. No retail sales and delivery ofproducts or merchandise to the public shall occur on the premises except when accessory to the services provided. ^’t occupation activity of a non residential character shall be disccmable from any private or public street. There shall be no exterior signage or display, or intenor signs or display which are visible from outside the dwelling. .1, u occupation may^e^c^sib'r^^^^ /vltvthe public shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. - N. The home occupation shall not generate excessive traffic that is detrimental to the residential character of the surrounding properties or the neighborhood. For the purposes of this provision, more than five (5) customers or clients per day, or more than two (2) customers at any given time, may be determined to be an excessive and detrimental level of traffic. The number shall apply to each dwel ing uiut, regardless of the number cf home occupations conducted in the dwelling umt. The criteria used by the Zoning Administrator to determine impact shall include, but not be limited to: Page 4 of 6 •. * 1. . Thecharacterisdcsoftheneighborfaoodiincludingcuirentlaiid use, lot sizes, lot widths, parking availability, and screening. L 2. 3. Type of street, width, and traffic volumes. The availability and location of off-street parking. O. Shipment and delivery of products, merchandise, or supplies shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and shall regularly occur only in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles typically used to serve residential areas. P. No sound or noise created by the operation of the home occupation shall be audible at the property lines except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Home occupations shall otherwise comply with all noise provisions of the Zoning Chapter. r Q. Hazardous materials in excess of consumer quantities which are ' packaged for consumption by individual households for personal care or household use, shall be prohibited. _______________________ R. Any activity or event organizea tor me pu^< merch^dise shall not be held more than one time perSfeth. Sudtaai>»itie9 shall ■ bft Umitrd tn nn morp thtml rugtnmra nt onec. This section shall not be construed as requiring a license or permit for occasional ‘garage sales’ or ‘tag sales’. Subd. 4. Prohibited Home Occupations. The following uses, by their nature of operation, have a pronounced tendency to increase beyond the limits permitted for home occupations. These uses have objectionable operational characteristics that adversely impact residential neighborhoods and shall be prohibited as home occupations: A. Service,repair,orpaintingofanymotorizedvehicle,includingbutnot limited to motor vehicles, trailers, boats, personal watercraft, recreational vehicles and snowmobiles. time. B. Hair styling establishments that serve more than one (1) person at a C. Adult uses, as defined in the Zoning Code. D. Dispatch centers where persons come to a site and are dispatched to other locations. E. Medical or dental clinic. Pages of6 • *. F. G. H. L Rental businesses. Contracting, excavating, welding or machine shops. Commercial kennels and veterinary clinics. Churches and religious institutions. J. Tow truck services. K. Ceramic studios with kilns of volume six (6) cubic feel or more. L. The sale, lease, trade or other transfer of firearms or ammunition by a firearms dealer. .. - Rga^pnablt AQCQpvnodation for Disabled Persons Persons with physical disabilities may requwt reasonable accommodation by requesting a waiver of one or more of the foregoing requirements. The Zoning. Administrator may only grant waivers on the basis of the applicant ’s physical limitations to fimction within said requirements. Subd. 6.CgQf9nnfflgeR?qtii|^. All existing home occupations shall be brought into conformity with this ordinance within one year of its adoption.” Section 5. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this day of 2009 bv a voteof a yes and ___^nays. ------’ ^ ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayoi Page 6 of6 4 / permitted^ § 10.61 Subd. 2. Signs in "R" Districts. Within "R" Districts, the following signs are A. Nameplates. 1. One nameplate sign for each dwelling and such sign shall not exceed two square feel in area per surface, and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than two surfaces. 2. One nameplate sign for each dwelling group of six or more units, and such sign shall not exceed six square feet in area per surface and no sign shall be so constructed as to have more than tw'o surfaces. 3. One nameplate signer each permitted use^ use by conditional permit other than residential and such sign shall not exceed-twelve-square feet^ area per surface. B. Illumination. Symbols, (statues, sculptures and int^ated architectural features on non-residential buildings may be illumU^ted by flood lights pro>Wed the direct source of light is nt» visible from the public right-of-way orltdiacent resh r • . •rstnct. C. Setbacks, Etc. Any sign over one-half square foot shall be set back at least five feet from any property line. No sign shall exceed eight feet in height above the average grade level. Signs may be illuminated but such lighting shall be diffused or indirect. Subd. 3. Signs in' B' and "I" Districts. Within the "B" and "1" Districts nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations: Source: Municipal Code Effective Date; 9-14-67 A. "B-r, "B-2" and "B-4"; Size. Within the "B-l", "B-2" and "B-4" Districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each from foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building. jJL „ ^individu^ sign shall exceed fifty square feet. 71^ / I ' Source: Ordinance No. 172 EfficiveDate: 1-1-75 ^'Si//^sss B. "B-3": Size. Within the "B-3" District, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of four square feet per front foot of building, plus one square foot per front foot of property not occupied by a building. No individual sign surface shall exceed 100 square feet. ORONOCC 381 .43-1-84) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Absent were Commissioner Janice Berg, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Council Representative Mayor Peterson. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2811 DANIEL AND RUTH PARTEN, 1015 TONK.AWA ROAD, VARIANCE Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2811 Daniel and Ruth Parten, 1015 Tonkawa Road, approving the average lakeshore setback variance subject to the Findings and conditions set forth in the staff recommendation memo dated August 5,2002, in order to make changes to the residence. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS (#2) #02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, 2765 KELLEY PARIOVAY. REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN 6:35 - 7:20 p.m. Dr. Karl Berg, Dr. Bill Kottemun, Dr. Eberts, and Bob Ritter, Applicants representing Professional Properties of Orono, were present. Gaffron explained that since receiving Concept Plan approval per City Council Resolution No. 4823 on June 10, 2002, the applicants have continued to revise the site plan, whereas a number of the changes proposed do not change the use of the site they do significantly affect the parking layout, access location, site circulation, building size and orientation, etc. which staff concluded require a Revised Concept Plan review and approval. PAGE I of28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) The Applicants also advised the City that they have signed a purchase agreement to acquire the adjacent 2.5 acre parcel to the east, which in the Revised Concept Plan indicates the potential for additional parking on that site as well as shared access to Kelley Parkway. Gaffron continued that, the latest issue with the purchase is that the applicants’ environmental consultant has suggested that the site may contain small pockets of defined wetlands, although not originally mapped on the site. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer is currently reviewing the wetland status of the property and will provide staff with additional information soon. GalTron reported that, John Smythe, the City wetland delineator, indicated that small pockets of wetland, approximately 50 ’X50 ’ exist at the center of the property, although it cannot be concluded currently by slide analysis whether these have been man made from grading or naturally occurring. Gaffron implied that the Watershed District may require a small amount of mitigation off-site if the spot is found to contain wetlands regulated under the WCA rules. With regard to the Concept Plan, GafTron pointed out 5 revisions: First, the building is 16,000 s.f. rather than the original 15,000 s.f; Second, the front entrance of the building has been revised so that it faces northeast towards Kelley Parkway; Third, the easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property directly across from the police station access as required by the City; Next, the westerly access from Kelley Parkway will be ‘in-only” w hich provides for easy patient drop-off and pick-up and less stacking backups; Finally, the easterly parking lots are connected by two “through” corridors to addifional parking on the adjoining property. Based on the applicants’ revised plan, 67 stalls are on site and 15 arc provided on the adjacent property to meet the applicants expectation that 83 stalls w ill likely be necessary to adequately ser\ c their intended use of the building. Gaffron added that the proposed parking on the adjoining piopcrty can be dealt w ith cither by an casement or moving the lot line to include these within the property itself Gaffron stated that the two options for allowing the required parking and shared access to occur outside the boundaries of the property arc 1) require that parking easements or agreements be established betw een the two properties; or 2) require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that all parking for the comer lot is within the comer lot. In any case, Gaffron acknowledged that the shared access location is appropriate to ser\ e both sites, while likely an additional access to Kelley Parkw ay would be developed for the easterly parcel. As far as the trail along Highway 12, Gaflron indicated that there were a number of issues that should be taken into consideration: i .e., the safety aspect of proximity to Highway 12, as any trail should be significantly separated from the traveled right-of-way; aesthefic impacts; the impact of pedestrian traffic near the medical building windows; and topographic issues. PAGE 2 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) With regard to the topographic issue, Gaffron stated that if the trail is to run south of the power poles, almost in the ditch, discussions will continue with Hennepin County about converting the ditches along the Willow-OCB Rd. segment of Highway 12 into storm sewers, which would provide an urban section and allow for a more attractive transition from Highway 12 to the development along it. Gaffron noted that, while no specific plans arc in place, aAer speaking to Hennepin County this past week this option could provide the City with an opportunity to eliminate the ditch. Gaffron indicated that staff found the Revised Concept Plan to contain a number of elements that make it superior to the approved plan, primarily in terms of access to Kelley Parkway and site circulation. He added that a resolution to amend Resolution No. 4828 will be presented to Council on August 26, referencing the Revised Concept Plan and incorporating any necessary revised conditions. Smith inquired why the building size increased to 16,000 s.f versus the original 15,000 s.f. Dr. Kotteman stated that the potential tenants for the professional building required that much more square footage once everyone was able to put a pencil to the numbers. Smith indicated that three issues were under consideration this evening, including, placement of the lot line, topographical issues, and trail considerations. Smith agreed that the revised plan was a much better proposal and could support moving the lot line. Mabusth stated that she agreed, especially, in light of the possibility of newly defined wetlands. Hawn preferred the cleaner process of moving the lot line, as opposed to easements etc. She asked if any unreasonable restraint would be put on the next door property by moving the lot line. Gaffron indicated that the size of the adjoining lot would be revised from 2 1/2 acres to 2 acres, thus reasonable for development. Hawn stated that she was uncomfortable with the awkward traffic pattern created by the Kelley Parkway access and islands within the lot. Gaffron indicated that staff had also struggled with this question, and came to the conclusion that due to limited volume, generally no one should be stacked up waiting to get out. He indicated that the proposed plan is a common parking scenario. PAGE 3 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) Rahn asked if the parking design was meant to service the next door property located where it was. Gaffron stated that the applicants were required by the City to align the access opposing the Orono Police Station existing driveway. Rahn stated that he was in favor of moving the lot line in order to locate the parking within the property. Dr. Berg acknowledged that Hawn w'as correct in her observation that the current flow pattern is not the best; however, indicated that they may be developing the other property w hich would complete the traffic flow and provide a better circular pattern. Hawn asked the applicants how they felt about the trail located closer to the building. Dr. Kotteman stated that this was the first he had heard of the potential to fill in the ditch. Gaffron stated that if the storm sewers can direct the flow underground, the grade would be virtually flat, allowing the trail closer to Highway 12 with a 6” curb and gutter. He reiterated that, if the ditch is filled in, the trail can be moved off the encroachment on their property. Smith asked what might happen to Highw'ay 12 that could impact this area over the next several years. GafTron indicated that, while the City does not plan on one, the City traffic consultant pointed out that they could have another access point from these properties onto Highway 12. He added that discussions need to occur between the Orono and Long Lake Park and Planning Commissions and City Councils w ith regard to the character of that road. VVTiile it would likely not be much wider, it would offer sidewalks. Gaffron stated no one currently has any idea of the streetscape plan for the Highw ay 12 roadway yet. over the next few years, however, this would need to be determined. Other questions, like buried power lines, w ould need to be addressed, however, due to the cost, likely a half million dollars burying the lines from just Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road, this would be prohibitive. In terms of patients. Smith asked the applicants how moving the trail closer to the building impacts the comer. PAGE 4 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) Dr. Berg felt it would adversely affect those patients receiving dental treatments near the windows at that comer of the building. Smith asked if landscape screening could offset the privacy of patients. Dr. Berg believed landscaping would help, but the tenants would not want to hide the signage. Smith indicated that more could be done with window dressings to assist in screening. Mabusth asked if the applicants could commence building a pemianent drainage pond as opposed to the temporary solution proposed earlier. Gaffron noted that this could be resolved later with the development of properties further to the east. No one had looked at this question yet, but these details would be worked out prior to final resolution. Mabusth inquired about sidewalk access along Kelley Parkway. Gaffron stated that the sidewalk for this property would straddle their property line, be 6 ’ wide, 8 ’ off the edge of the pavement and 20’ from parking, meeting City requirements. Mabusth asked if the applicants would be responsible for landscaping along both Kelley Parkway and Highway 12. While they do have landscaping requirements, Gaffron noted that the City would need to give them better definition of what should happen along Kelley Parkway. They will need to submit a landscaping plan to meet the requirements. The developers of the Dahlstrom property have suggested that they would provide the City with some ideas of strcetscape for Kelley Parkway. Gaffron stated that the City would obviously like this to match that proposal, but frankly, the City hadn ’t gotten that far yet. Hawn reiterated that no concrete plans can really be made until the City knows if the County will fill in the ditch. Gaffron indicated that discussions with the County are in the early stages, and he would consider holding off on forcing this trail to be built until some of the County decisions are made. Mabusth cautioned that this could be a ways off. PAGE 5 of 28 reatments near the ant to hide the signage, ist in screening, t drainage pond as ■properties further to the r worked out prior to final property line, be 6 ’ wide, ^uirements. Jong both Kelley ity would need to give hey will need to submit a Strom property have ipe for Kelley Parkway, posal, but frankly, the r know s if the Countv will ?s, and he would consider isions are made. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) GafFron stated that, if the Commission ’s tecommen.dation is that the trail situation would be better resolved once we know whether or not this was to remain a ditch or turn into a storm sewer system, that would be a reasonable recommendation. Smith asked about the next five years. Dr. Kotteman reminded the Commissioners that the trail to the east dead-ends anyway with no where to go now. He suggested they escrow the funds to build the trail once the property to the east is developed and the City knows what direction the strcetscape and trails w ill take. There were no public comments. Smith inquired what the view from Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road would be. Since the repositioning places the back of the building along that intersection, she wondered if passersby would look at trash receptacles or what the view might be. Gaffron noted the entire building would be of the same material and landscaping would surround the building. Dr. Berg stated that while they had not invested in an architects rendition at this point, the intention would be to make the building as attr :tive as possible. Berg indicated that the applicants desire a professional looking building and have even considered a false front with gable and garden to resemble the front of the building. Dr. Kottemen added that they would commission the architect to create a false front rendition once they are confident they’ve been given the go ahead. Gaffron noted that the next stage would require the Commission to see the exact particulars of the design elements. Dr. Berg indicated that the building will be very tradi'.ional looking. Smith complimented them on the nice design thev had vhoson which compliments the look of City Hall. Gaffron reminded the Commission to consider site plan, layout, trail, and easements versus lot line at this time. PAGE 6 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISS:ON MEETING Monday* August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) Smith indicated that, it sounded to her, as if the Commission would prefer to defer the trail issue until they have a better idea of what's going on with Highway 12 and the adjoining property to the east. Hawn concurred stating that an escrow would be a good alternative for the applicant. Gaffron indicated that the existing Resolution No. 4828, section 1 1, docs contain the language allowing construction of the trail to be deferred until development of the property to the cast occurs subject to the developer posting suitable financial security in the interim for such construction. Mabusth asked if the trail should be contingent based solely on the development to the east or if it should include the final plans for Highway 12 as well. Hawn inquired what the property to the cast was guided for. Gaffron noted that the immediate property to the cast was guided for professional office, while Dahlstrom would develop the next parcel over with a trail connection to Willow, Smith asked if the trail issue should be deferred to City Council. Gaffron suggested that the Commission leave it to City Council to consider when the trail development should occur and provide them the flexibility to decide. Dr. Berg questioned where the dumpster should be located within the property. 1 le felt the dumpster should be located at the northwest comer as opposed to the southeast comer due to handicapped stalls located in that portion of the lot. Gaffron stated that cither location was acceptable as long as they were totally screened. Mabusth pointed out that the applicants would lose parking stalls in the northwest quadrant as well. Dr. Berg noted that, originally, they had proposed placing the dumpster in a central location between the two sites for access by either development, but were told incy could not propose that without a development plan for the second parcel. PAGE 7 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 oVIock p.m. (#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) Gaffron stated that if the Commission recommends the lot line be moved, it would be feasible to put the dumpster in a central location on the property. One enclosure for the two properties. Smith stated that she could support this alternative. Hawn stated that moving the lot line would be consistent with what they have done in the past. Hawn moved, to recommend City Council approval of Application #02-2782, Professional Properties of Orono, 2755 Kelley Parkway, granting approvai of the new site plan, entrance facing Kelley Parkway, with respect to the trail. City Council work toward development of the trail in conjunction with the other properties, and the Applicants place in escrow the funds for its construction. Mabusth added that City Council be given the options, to develop the trail now if it chooses, construct it upon development of the easterly properties from Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road, or with the final resolve and design of the County Road once Highway 12 no longer exists; however, of the alternatives, the Commission would recommend deferring trail completion until a comprehensive trail plan can be developed. Hawn moved that, furthermore, the lot line be moved to include the east parking lot, and the dumpster be allowed to be placed at the southeast corner of the new ly created lot; of particular concern to the Commission is to ensure the backside and southwest corner of the building be landscaped; and, if possible, the traffic flow be improved by creating another cut in the adjacent property as soon as possible Bremer stated that she was concerned that the financial implications to the applicant if the Commission docs not allow them to wait and defer trail construction until a comprehensive plan can be developed could be a bit onerous. She felt forcing the applicant to remove and change a trail they were only recently required to construct would place undue burden on the applicant down the road. VOTE: Aves 6, Navs 0. (#3) #02-2801 KATHY MELIN, 3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES 7:21 p.m. 7:48 p.m. Applicant Kathy Mclin and Bob Koelfgen, Metro Handyman, were present. PAGE 8 of 28 1^^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) Bottenberg explained that the application was tabled at the July 15,2002 Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could redesigi. the proposed three season porch. New plans have been submitted to staff which reduce the three season porch in size from 12’ X 28’ to 8.02’ X 16.4’ for an additional 136 s.f. in the 0-75’ setback zone. Bottenberg stated that staff again recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition being located within 75’ of the lakeshore. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building already within 75’ of the lakeshore, variances to allow additional hardcover or structure is no? warranted. Smith asked if the decrease in the size of the deck and removal of shed were i vilected in the numbers. Hawn pointed out that the shed is located mostly in the ROW. Melin stated that she hoped she met the requirements and was under the allowable 1,500 s.f hardcover, if not she questioned what else to do Mabusth asked if she could remove any hardcover within the 75-.250’ s.f setba».!-. Hawn questioned whether the screened porch could rep’ace the side deck, Smith stated that the lot size was acceptable now at 1,397 s.f Rahn stated that the proposed deck was stiil encroaching into the average lakeshore setback approximately 4’. Mabusth questioned what happened to the discussion from the last meeting with regard to bringing the deck around to the side. The Commission had found that somewhat more acceptable at the time. Hawn reiterated that the Commission did not want to see anvlhing additional added to the 0-75’ setback. She stated that she did not see adequate hardship to support the request other than a small lot. She asked for more information in order to prove to her there was sufficient hardship. Melin stated that she w’ould consider going to the side, but was limited elsewhere by railroad, ROW, and the vacated neighboring lot. PAGE 9 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNMSSION MEETING MoDday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continutd) Mabusth asked why the vacated Kenwood could not be used. Melin indicated that Weinberger pointed out the vacated Kenwood property belonged to the neighbor. Smith suggested bringing the side deck forward a bit and screening it in as a preferable alternative. By moving the side deck forward to the 75’ line and enclosing the whole thing she would have lake views. Mabusth pointed out that screen doors already open to that deck and the Commission would prefer this option, to encroaching any further into the 75’ setback. Melin pointed out that the front steps provide a poor entry to the home and that the wood steps are unsafe in the winter. She hoped to clean up the appearance and make a nicer cntiyway with a bigger access area to the home. Smith suggested removal of the side deck and simply alleviating the safety of the front entrance with a better landing and side steps. Gaffron stated that the current steps offer a 4 ’ landing. Mabusth asked how the applicant would access the proposed deck. Koelfgen indicated that steps down would be added. Rahn stated that even an 8 ’X8 ’ deck with safe steps built down to the side would require a 3’ landing before the steps. He questioned how the position of the windows would be impacted and pointed out that a 16 ’ length was proposed to avoid difficulties with regard to the windows. Smith asked if the applicant were willing to give up the side deck. Rahn reiterated that what w as proposed wouldn’t add much, it would virtually add only structure over hardcover. Smith asked that if a three season porch is added to the front not exceeding 8 ’X8 ’ with steps to the side w hat would need to be removed to keep the hardcover equal to what it was currently. Gaffron stated that the applicant would need to remove 50 s.f elsew here to keep it equal. PAGE 10 of 28 » MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued) Bremer asked the client if, in reality, an 8 ’X8 ’ deck was doable. She questioned whether it was cost effective to rebuild for this minor increase. Melin asked if she would be allowed a greater size deck if it were not enclosed. Rahn stated that the hardcover does not change if the structure is enclosed or not, she would not be allowed any larger deck. Smith stated, once again, that the options were an 8 ’X8 ’ deck on the front or a bit larger deck on the side. Melin indicated that she could run decking steps around to the side. Hawn stated that it was not the Commissions job to redesign the deck for the applicant. Melin stated that she agreed with Bremer that it would not be cost efferlive to construct the small deck out front and was leaning towards enlarging the side deck. Hawn reiterated that she still found it difficult to see any hardship to support the variance request. Mabusth asked how the side deck would resolve the safety issues on the front steps and what would be removed. Smith stated that, in her estimation, if the side deck wac enclosed and steps were added to join the side from the front, this would be acceptable. Rahn reiterated that removals would need to occur if any additional hardcover was added. Smith suggested the applicant present the Commission with a new sketch plan. Mabusth moved. Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2801, Kathy Melin, 3309 Cry stal Bay Road, to allow the applicant time to develop a new sketch plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Commissioner Hawn left at 7:50 p.m. (Recess taken from 7:49 p.m. - 7:53 p.m.) PAGE 11 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 oVIock p.in. NEW BUSINESS (#4) MARVIN AND MARY SMITH, 1940 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, VARIANCE 7:54 p.m. - 8:05 p.m. Marvin Smith, Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant had requested a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 1/2 story addition over the existing garage. The screen porch above the garage would be removed and the addition would be constructed in its place. While the property was located within a two acre zoning district, the neighborhood was more in character with one acre zoning standards. Staff recommended approval of the front yard setback variance to construct an addition over the existing garage. Mr. Smith stated that revised plans from a new architect did not change the peak height of 30’ for the 2 1/2 story structure. Gaffron noted that since defining a 1/2 stor>- the revised plans should meet the 30’ height requirement and new definition. There were no public comments. Bremer stated that she had no problem with the addition and complimented the applicant on the revised plans. Rahn stated that as long as the height requirement was met, he had no problem supporting the application. Fritzler concurred with Rahn. Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve Application ^02-2812, Mar\ in and Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 1/2 storjf addition over the existing garage of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#5) #02-2813 MARK WELCH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 8:06 p.m. 8:40 p.m. Linda Welch, Sister representing the Applicant Mark Welch, was present. PAGE 12 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Bottcnberg explained that the applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the property in February, 2002. The applicant has not yet built the residence and wishes to malcc two changes to the approved plan. Bottenberg reported that the changes to the plan include shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line, straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65 s.f. to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, “v-shape” glass point on the lakeside of the residence. The approved variances had not expired and the additional variances would include a side .»rd setback to permit the addition to be 5’ and 7.9’ from the west side property line. Additional variances for hardcover and structure within 75’ of the lakeshore were also necessary. The proposed residence was originally approved to be 53 ’ from the lakeshore, the addition of the “prow” extends the house 4.5’ towards the lake which now locates the residence 48.5 ’ from the lakeshore. Bottenberg reminded the Commission that the DNR minimum lakeshore setback standard is 50 ’ for a General Development Lake property. Although the residence would still be further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, the average lakeshore setback is not an issue. Smith asked what the rationale for the “prow” was. Ms. Welch stated that the “prow” is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake. Mabusth reminded the Commission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the applicant of back in February. Gaffron noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal. Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5 ’ from the lake, however, this measurement did not reflect the caves, which would extend even further into the setback, as would any steps. Rahn asked if the glass “prow” was all windows and no doors. Ms. Welch stated there were no doors. Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area. PAGE 13 of 28 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mooday, August 19,2002 6:30 oVIock p.m. (#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very strongly to the lakeshore setback. Smith questioned whether the “prow” could be set back further into the house to meet the approved setback area. Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f. hardcover that existed before removals. Rahn stated that he had no issue with the applicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2 which would still keep them w'ithin the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2 ’, the eaves on top of that would mean that much more encroachment. Rahn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within the 50 ’ setback and asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR 50 ’ setback. Gaffron stated that Cities are not prohibited from approving encroachments of the DNR recommended setbacks, and have done so in some instances. Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50 ’ DNR setback and uphold this recommendation. Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment. Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65 ’ s.f. “prow” addition and a 1 foot gable overhang, which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed. Gaffron pointed out that the 1,500 s.f is a limit not an allowance to be met. Bremer stated that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed encroaching into the 75 ’ setback with a deck. She indicated that 50 ’ is much too close and she could not support the application. PAGE 14 of 28 MINUTES OF THE OPONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Mabusth stated that she had no problem with the west lot line realignment but had difficulty with going beyond the 53 ’ setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier application. Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus existing home construction. Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending eaves. Rahn maintained that the code did not read the way he felt it was being interpreted. Gaffron reiterated that property owners may be allowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover, however, little lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions. Smith stated that she could support shifting the residence, but could not accept the additional 64 s.f. Bob Libennan, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residence closer to the lot line would mean to his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He went on to question the possibility of losing the arborvitac privacy hedge that exists between the two residences. He was concerned that they remain in order to maintain privacy. Ms Welch stated that she assumed that the wall of arborvitae would remain to maintain privacy. Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch’s behalf and could speak to the need to keep the arborx itae. Gaffron stated that if the Commission supports the realignment it would not be an unreasonable condition that the arborx itae remain to maintain the privacy and screening. Smith asked Mr. Liberman if he could support the shift if the arbor\'itac remained. Mr. Liberman stated that he could support the shift if the arborvitae did remain. Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent. PAGE 15 of 28 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o^clock p.m. (#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difficulty supporting the eaves and “prow”. Fritzler stated that, as proposed, he could not support the e,xtending peak or “prow”, he felt the front either had to be straight across or moved back further into the house. Mabusth and Bremer felt the applicant needed to maintain a 53’ setback. Rahn stated that he liked the new design. Smith stated that she liked the “prow” but wanted to see it at 53’. She questioned whether the Commission could support giving them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated that she could see that three of the Commissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted. Ms. Welch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin c.xisting home application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be allowed any decking. Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage. Smith suggested the applicants tabic the application in order to redesign the plan, pulling back the “prow” a bit to maintain the 53’ and coming back again. Smith once again asked if the Commission were willing to give a little bit on the square footage. Mabusth stated that the original home had 660 s.f of hardcover and felt it justified to hold the new residence to that figure, yet she stressed how important it was to maintain the 53’ setback. Smith asked if this meant up to the 50 ’ DNR recommendation. Fritzler and Bremer stated that they would adhere to the approved 53’ and no less. Mabusth stated that she would like to know how deep the proposed overhang would be. Rahn stated that he could support the 50 ’ setback. Ms. Welch asked the Commission to set the parameters for her and she would take them back to PAGE 16 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (^02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued) Mr. Welch to redesign and meet those. Mabusth reiterated that the applicant not exceed the 660 s.f and maintain a 50’ setback, and asked her to have the surveyor mark the cave depth and distance from the lake on the survey the next time around. Ms. Welch felt she had enough to go on. Rahn still questioned the overhang status. Mabusth pointed out that if a structure meets setback, it is a legal noncncroachmcnt if the caves overhang 1 1/2’; however, since this structure does not fall within the legal setback of 75’, the overhangs arc counted into the equation. Smith moved, Fritzicr seconded, to table Application #02-2813, Mark Welch, 3625 North Shore Drive, to allow the applicant time for redesign purposes. V'OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #02-2814 WILLI AM AND SANDRx\ KEEGAN, 2707 WALTERS PORT LANE, VARIANCE 8:41 p.m.-8:48 p.m. William and Sandra Keegan, Applicants, were present. Bottenberg explained that the applicants have requested a side adjacent street setback variance to construct an attached garage. The three stall attached garage, 960 s.f., will be on the south side of the residence. She continued that in 2000, the applicants had applied for a building permit to construct the three stall attached garage, which was granted without need for a variance but has since expired. Bottenberg stated that in 2002 the applicants submitted the same plans to obtain another permit and were told they need a side yard adjacent variance. Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the side yard adjacent setback variance to construct an attached garage. Staff also suggested the Planning Commission consider allow ing a turnaround to be constructed with the leftover 208 s.f. of hardcover available, since Walters Port Lane is such a narrow private road. Smith indicated that she had no difficulty supporting the application and felt it a good idea to include the turnaround area as part of the application. Mabusth agreed, suggesting that even part of the existing pavement be left for additional parking, but she encouraged the applicants to save the mature trees. PAGE l?of28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2814 WILLIAM AND SANDRA KEEGAN, Continued) Sandra Keegan indicated that they had no intention of removing any of the existing big trees. Fritzler moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2814, William and Sandra Keegan, 2707 W'alters Point Lane, approval of a side yard adjacent street setback variance to construct an attached garage on the propert>'. \'of E: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#7) #02-2816 ORONO MONTESSORI, INC, 3800 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8:49 p.m.- 8:56 p.m. Michael and Lena Kuru\ ilia, Applicants for Orono Montessori, Inc., were present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants were requesting a conditional use permit to operate a Montessori School/Day Care Center for 60 children in a building that was previously approved for 60 children and 10 day care providers. The previous day care ceased operation in October 2001 and a new conditional use permit is required. Bottenberg explained that the Orono Montessori School/Day Care Center lost its home in the lower level of St. Edward’s Church when it burned down recently. The hours of operation for the facility will between 7 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Bottenberg noted that Mr. Kuruvilla of Orono Montessori School came before the City Council on July 22,2002, and was granted a temporary conditional use permit for the purpose of opening the school pending approval of the formal process. Since day care facilities are allowed uses in rural residential districts and licensed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services the zoning application addresses how the facility will operate as a land use. Bottenberg pointed out that use of the facility w ould be temporary since the School plans to move back to St. Edward’s when it is rebuilt, and because it is anticipated that the building will be removed when construction begins on Highway 12. Access, parking, land.scaping, and Signage issues were addressed Bottenberg indicated that stafT recommended approval of the conditional use pemiit subject to the conditions that the applicant obtain a license from DHS, and the number of enrollees be limited to 60 at one time. There were no public comments. Mabusth stated that it was good to see the building being used for w hat it was intended. She asked why there had been any issue with the landscaping. PAGE 18 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2816 ORONO MONTESSORI, INC , Continued) Mabusth moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2816, a Conditional Use Permit for Orono Montessori, Inc., 3800 West Wa>*zata Boulevard, for a daycare facility and school subject to the staR conditions that the applicant obtain a DHS license and limit the number of enrollees to 60 students. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Kuruvilla clarified that he would have 60 enrollees, plus the appropriate staff. (#8) #02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, 2180 ABINGDON WAY, CONDITIONAL USE PER.MIT 8:57 p.m. - 9*45 p.m. Jim Robin, Landscape Architect representing the Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to alter land in excess of 500 cubic yards. The applicants are constructing a tennis court on the property and a conditional use permit is required because the applieant is proposing to move 1,040 cubic yards of fill. Gaffron noteJ that the applicants own the property (Lot 6) and the adjacent vacant property (Lot 5). He pointed out that of the 1,040 cubic yards of fill to be moved, approximately 120 cubie yards will be trucked from the site to another loeation, approximately 500 cubic yards will be trucked to lot 5 and the remaining 420 cubic yards will be used as fill on lot 6 to construct the tennis courts. The tennis court will be located southeast of the residence and meets front and side yard setbacks, the 26’ setback from the delineated wetland on the property, and will be 180’ from Long Creek where a 100’ setback is required for non-seu ered property. Gaffron indieated that it appeared that the plan did reflect a slight encroachment of fill into the 26’ wetland setback area at the south end of the court, and suggested that modifications be made to the plan which incorporate a low retaining wall or other method to ensure this area remains undisturbed. Galfron acknowledged that recent VVCA (Wetland Conser\ation Act) regulations show that areas now defined as wetlands art more extensive on the site than those protected in 1983. Since the subject property is serviced by an on-site septic system, staff reviewed the existing proposal and found that it would not directly impact the systen . Furthermore, the area being used for the tennis court would likely not be suitable for a future septic site due to its proximity less than 75 ’ to the wetland. Gaffron noted that staff did have concern with regard to the proposed “Wetland Buffer Mitigation’’ proposed directly downhill from the existing mound system and would recommend that another buffer mitigation site be located that would not impact the mound. PAGE 19 of 28 LA MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued) Mabusth asked if tiic wetlands were merely types 1/2 or more. Gaffton noted that, in general, the newly defined wetlands were extensions of the original wetlands and not viewed as wetlands themselves in 1983. Smith asked if there was a list of notified neighbors. Gafiron stated that the nearest neighbor is Susan Wilson, w ho lived across the creek to the east and up the hill. Mr. Robin stated that he wished to address each of the concerns or conditions noted in the staff recommendation. He began by stating that the applicant has no intention of compromising any existing wetland sites and intends to steer clear of any risk to the septic sites. He added that more heavy duty silt fencing wa*^ not an issue and the applicant had already committed to doing that and more. As far as the delineation and new recording, Mr. Robin stated that the applicant would prefer to not have to go to the added expense of additional surveys at this time and asked if there w'ere other options. Mr. Robin indicated that the setbacks to wetlands do vary depending on the type and size, and he believed the court to be shoehomed in to fit the appropriate proportions currently. He continued that discussion had taken place with regard to moving the court to the other site, howe\ sr, since no residence exists on that site, the accessory structure could not be supported there. This would also limit future potential sale of that parcel. Mabusth asked why trees were removed from the shaded area. Mr. Robin stated that llie applicant was trying to eliminate the infestation of buckthorn and w as also forced to remove the box elders that were beginning to fall upon themselves. Mabusth asked where and if a hone were to be placed on the upper lot. Mr. Robin stated that there were no plans for ? home to be built on the upptrr lot, but they have merely opened up the piay area. With regard to staff recommendation #5, the encroachment into the 26’ setback, Robin explained that the applicant w ould be building a concrete curve around the entire court approximately 6" to 12” to avoid spilling of additional fill. He pointed out that approximately 120 cubic yards of soft soil w ould nc>;d to be removed from that end of the court providing a diagonal support system. PAGE 21 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o^clocL p.m. (1102-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued) Mr. Robin maintained that, with regard to condition 116, the applicant would locate light fixtures on the east side pointing west. Although the electrical will be built, there were no definite plans for the type of fixtures proposed. Smith asked what hours the lights would be lit. Mr. Robin stated that he assumed they would be lit during the early evening hours in winter, when it gets darker ean;cr, to allow the children time to play on the rink. He estimated the lights would be lit from 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. He indicated that the lights would not be attached to a timer, but would be required to be turned on or off manually. Smith stated that the timer idet was to ensure that the lights did not get left on. Mr. Robin indicated that the electrical supply could be attached to a timer, but he would still design the lights to only be turned on manually, and as the electrical supply was cut, the lights would assuredly be turned off Smith asked if the applicant was amenable to working with the neighbor. Mr. Robin believed that the applicant intended to be good neighbor and allow no light sources to go beyond the property lines, however, he would want to be able to use the rink in the evenings as well. Smith reminded the applicant that the deciduous trees would offer a different lighting perspective in the winter than they do now. Smith questioned the applicant with regard to condition #5. Gaffron asked that the applicant assure the City that it would be removed. Mr. Robin stated that he wo-ld submit a revised plan showing that they have accomplished the removal of the additional fill within the 26’ buffer. Smith asked Gaffron for his opinion pertaining to condition #3. Gaffron stated that he would recommend that the Commission support the position that a copy of the notification document be attached to the file to make everyone aware that they may have to deal with WCA or MCWD later. He added that this has been done on a number of fbdi visions PAGE 22 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Coolinucd) the past. He would not require the applicant to obtain a new survey, since the City is not typically concerned with type 1/2 and their impact on the septic, or the septic impact on them. Mabusth questioned condition #1, the grading boundary lor the septic in the northern area. Gaffron stated that he was unsure where the silt fencing ran on the northern piece with regard to the septic site location. Mr. Robin stated that the fencing runs through the wooded area and the stumper was self propelled so as to lessen the disturbance. Gaffron suggested that the applicant leave a 30 ’-50 ’ buffer uphill and to the side, along with heavy duty clearly marked fencing up north, to ensure positive controls of where the dump trucks arc driving and putting their fill. Mr. Robin stated that they will add signage to the silt fencing and communicate in dollars and cents with the drivers about where, and where not to, place the fill. Smith asked if any provisions or direction could be given to the applicant, with regard to lighting, in order ,o avoid any future issues with neighbors. Either by suggesting the type of lighting or hours of operation. Gaffron acknowledged that the Commission felt the need to tighten up the restrictions as a matter of recourse il the nciglibors are unhappy with how things turn out. Smith maintained that she did not want to be confronted with problems from neighbors’ 6 months down the line. Mr. Robin asked if they were proposing to tie the issue of lighting to grading. He pointed out that the applicant was committing to meet zoning issues and ordinance requirements w ith regard to '!,e visibility of lighting, and they will do their best to make sure they are not creating a monster, but beyond meeting the City ’s ordinances they could not commit, in public, to something they don’t know how people are going to react to until the actual thing is finished. Gaffron concurred, stating that the City cannot always ensure the future hapniness of neighbors and regulate to do so. PAGfc23 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued) Smith asked how they could agree that it will be minimal, that it will not operate in the middle of the night. Bremer stated that she assumed there were many other tennis courts in Orono who have not been limited in any way with regard to lighting or noise. Rahn stated that he was unsure he could support the proposal knowing that the court is already being shoehomed in to a wetland area, where it may not belong in the first place. He imagined the noise created from banging pucks on the rink walls at night would be obtmsive and woiried about the complaints that might come back to the City. He didn’t feel this was the location for a hockey rink. Mr. Robin stated that they have no choice where to place the court and asked Rahn what he proposed the owner do. Rahn stated that as far as he was concerned they could use the other lot, however, it was obviously a monetary issue as far as that went. He acknow Icdged that there were no regulations regulating people shooting pucks off the boards at 9:59 p.m. at night, but argued the City \souId sure hear about it. Bremer asked if there were noise ordinances that would be impacted. Gaffron reiterated that the CUP was for grading and not the use of the court. He continued that he didn’t believe a few kids, some of who would likely be neighbor kids, using the rink w ould impact the neighbors all that much. He reminded the Commission that even the nearest property, the Wilson’s, was approximately 500 A. away. Gaffron staled that it would be difficult to find a ' location that is more remote from adjacent homes than the applicant has proposed. Mabusth asked if there w ere any w ay to legitimately deny this application. Rahn stated that if the delineations and moving of the w etlands is involved they could. Mr. Robin stated that they were not moving any wetland. Gaftron pointed out that they are encroaching buffers in a couple of small spots and mitigating. PAGE 24 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (U02-2S19 TIM DEVRIES, Continued) Mabusth inteijectcd that the applicant really had no option of placing the structure on Lot 5 because then he would have to legally combine the lots to get the credit for the principal structure, and he would not want to do that. Rahn stated that, in reality, he does have the option to do that but he chooses not to. Rahn asked if the applicant was encroaching the buffer or not. Gaffron maintained that he is not encroaching the City ’s 26’ wetland buffer based on the changes he is going to make to the plan, therefore, there is no variance or hardship needed for this. Mabusth asked if the City needed a mitigation area for the w’ork. Gaffron reiterated that the City did not require it, but the Watershed does and what they ’ve indicated they require is that the applicant merely protecting part of the area from any further change. Preserving the mound area virtually forever. Rahn asked for clarification if all that was before the Commission is moving dirt and fill for grading. Gaffron stated that because it is over 500 cubic yards being mo\ ed they needed to review it. With regard to the CUP, Smith asked for clarification that soil from one area of the owner’s property is being moved to another area. Mr. Robin stated that if 300 cubic yards is 1 foot deep, three times that amount is being moved, half will stay and half will move up to the northern property, with 120 cubic yards of the soft bored soil likely removed entirely. Gaffron noted that approximately 10-12 trucks will be leaving the site. Smith asked, with regard to lighting, if the Commission could make a recomnicndation. Gaffron stated that it would be bordciiine to attach any lighting recommendation to a grading pennit. Rahn stated that they will be required to meet the existing zoning codes and lighting is already in the ordinance. PAGE 25 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued) iMabustb moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Application #02-2819, Tom Devries, 2180 Abingdon Way, for alteration of 1,040 cubic yards of soil subject to staff conditions #1-3, #5, and #6, as an advisory to the homeowner. Mr. Robin inquired if the delineation report would be attached to the file. Gaflron aeknowledged that the copy of the document would be available for future development Robin asked if the applicant could continue to manage the buckthorn in the buffer area and how to handle that. Gaffron suggested the applicant submit a plan for redevelopment removing either a bit at a lime or all with an instant plan for revegetation. Mr. Robin stated that they would like to come to the City with a program of how they plan to manage that zone rather than let it get out of hand. Fritzler seconded. There were no public comments. \'0 TE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on Julv 22, and August 12,20U2. Smith reported that on July 22, 2002, the City Council tabled the Revis Stephenson application for further discussion. The Hennepin County application was approved. Mabusth reported that at the August 12, 2002 Council meeting. Attorney Galatz, for Stephenson’s neighbor, brought in a sample of the size tree being planted on the slope. Which, in fact, seemed quite adequate to many of the Council members. The City Council incorporated some of the language from the Attorney’s original document and approved the application. Gaffron added that the Stephenson’s were required to plant 35 trees, including maples. The slope had settled enough by this point, that the slope was no longer an issue. Mabusth reported that Landform was directed to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues, draft a resolution, which approves their concept plans. PAGK 26 of 28 MMI MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 19,2002 6:30 o’clock p.m. (PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued) Gaffron indicated that they will be discussing trail locations, pedestrian safety and circulation, street widths, loft sizes, etc. with the Landforms e.xpcrts this upcoming Thursday, with a report going to Council at their next meeting. Smith asked if the Planning Commission with regard to the Landform application could have addressed anything further. Mabusih stated that Moorse brought up the issues with pedestrian safety, which had not really been addressed until then. Gaffron added that Dahlstrom Development has been hesitant to supply the City with comparative samples of their developments to see what their quality is, no indications of their financial capabilities, which is necessary, but helps their competition once it becomes public. Smith indicated that the Planning Commission was still awaiting the market study and analysis that supports the development as they are proposing. Gaffron pointed out that they have a consultant that is expected to come in and make some recommendations regarding afTordable housing. Mabusth reported that a citizens group attended the meeting regarding the issue of affordable housing and lack thereof in Orono. She stated that Council member Jim White answered there objections rather eloquently explaining that City’s do not have the mechanisms or resources to pursue that kind of funding to offset housing costs. Smith encouraged staff to pursue the market analysis, addresses to go visit, studies of the financials, and the traffic study. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron apologized for not supplying the Commission with a calendar of additional work session dates. He indicated that the meetings w ill likely take place the first Wednesday of eveiy other month. The first work session was agreed upon to be scheduled for Wednesday, September 4 2002, at 5;30 p.m. Smith suggested the next meeting be scheduled for November 6,2002, the day after elections, at 5:30 pm. Smith asked NIabusth to fill the Planning Commission Vice-Chair position PAGE 27 of 28