HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2001 Planning PacketPublic A ttendance
MrETING DATX CJ-.'il C/
□ Council
Planning C ommission
Park C ommission
PifASC nLi.o(n"niE info »iation M:Qi>Esreo
BFIA>W FOR OCR CTTV RFCORDS.
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
February 21,2001 - 6:30 p.n.
2750 Kelley Parkuay - Couacil Chamben
UPDATED - AGENDA onMn,
Council Representative: Richard Flint
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
1/1 h
Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wbh 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 Commbsion is
an advisory body to the City Council If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they wUl be scheduled for the March 12,2001 City Council meeUng unless otherwise
noted by the Chair.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. M2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code,
Section 10.45 (B-6 District), (Staff: Mike Goffron)
2. #2644 Gary & Joan Marquardt, 2617 Casco Point Road, Variances.
(SudT: Paul Weinberger)
3. 02654 The Lion Group, on behalf of James Bull. 1330 Cherry Place, Variance.
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
4. 02656 Surface Water Management Plan. City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. (Suiff: Mike Gaffron)
5. 001-2660 Keitl: Waters & Assoc., on behalf of Jeffrey & Leontyne Ma-xwell,
740 WilluH Drive South, Variances. (Staff: Wendy Boltcnberg)
6. 001-2661 Thomas A Ingrid Anderson. 3550 North Shore Drh e, Variances.
(Staff: Paul Weinberger)
7. 001-2662 RVC Homes. 1080 WUdhurst Trail, Variances.
(Staff: Wendy Bottenberg)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
8. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings
January 22,2001 and February 12.2001.
9. Other issues for discussion.
10. Planning Commission approval of minutes for January 17,2001.
11. Selection of representatives for City Council n>eetings on February 26,2001 and
Match 12.2001.
ADJOURNMENT
If
From:
Date:
Subject:
/
Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Mike Gadron, Planning Director
February 8,2001
1^2638 (Part 2) City of Orono • Amend Section 10.45 B-6 District • Clinics
Lbl of Eahibils
A - Draft Amendment
B - Existing Section 10.45
C - Public Hearing Notice
D - 2000-2020 CMP Excerpt
Summary
During the review of the B-b landscaping and architectural standards and in attempting to determine
which zoning district the Dunbar office project should fall under, staff concluded that rezoning to
B-6 would be necessary as opposed to B-4, because B-4 does not allow PUD*s. While the B-4
Office and Professional District lists "Clinics. Clinics for human care on an outpatient basb only"
as a permitted use. the most closely related B-6 permitted use is "A. Offices (business and
professional)".
Staff feels it would be appropriate to add "Clinics for human care on an outpatient basis only" to the
list of pcmiitted uses in B-6. This would moic correctly accommodate the medical office building
proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in keeping with the City’s intent for the B-6 district as
identified in CMP Amendment #2 (the 1988 Highway 12 Corridor Study) which is carried forward
in the 2000-2020 CMP (Excerpt attached as Exhibit D).
This proposed amendmert has been published and officially noticed for a public hearing at your
February meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to add "Clinics for human care on an
outpatient basis only" to the list of permitted uses in the B-6 Highw ay Commercial District.
ORDINANCE NO.SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHARTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 10.4S, SUBDIVISION 3.
ADDING "CLINICS” TO LIST OF PERMITTED USES
IN THE B^ ZONING DISTRICT
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10. Section 10.45. Subdivision 3 is hereby
amended by adding "Clinics" to the list of permitted uses in the B*6 Highway Commercial Zoning
District. Section 10.45 Subd. 3 shall henceforth read as follows:
“Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any Highway Business District, no structure
or land shall be used except for one of tl;e following uses or uses deemed similar by the
Council:
A. Offices (business and professional).
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Libraries.
D. Motels, and hotels.
E. Clinics for hu.m>in core on an outpatient basis only.'
Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordiiuuice 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 26th day of Febiiiary. 2001 by a
vote of___^ayes and nays.
ATTEST:
Lindas. Vee. City Clerk Barbara Peterson. Mayor
§ 10.45
SEC. 10.45 B-4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL'dlSTRlCT
Subd. I. Purpose. The purpose of Ihc B-6 High\wiy Commercial District is to provide
a commercial district specifically tailored to accomplish the commercial development objectives of
the !Iigh\%Tiy 12 Corridor Study Section of the Orono Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Application. All applicants for a building permit in any "B-6" Highway
Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for
review.
Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no structure
or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council:
A. Offices (business and professional).
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Libraries.
D. Motels, and hotels.
C. Restau rant s (Clas s-}): Deleted via Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series
Effective Date: 10-28-96
Subd. 4. Relationship with Chapter 10.53 Planned Unit Development. Other t> pcs
of commercial uses and mixed use developments may be applied for through the planned imit
development process. Applications that include commercial uses within the Highway 12 Corridor
shall assume the B-6 District as the underlying zoning district.
Subd. 4.1. Conditional Uses.
A. Within any "B-6" Highway Business District, no Siniclure or land shall be
used for one of the following uses c.xcept by conditional use permit:
1. Restaurants (Class 1).
2. The following uses when such use includes a drivc-diru condition:
a. Offices (business and professional).
b. Banks and financial institutions.
c. Libraries.
d. Motels and hotels.
Source: Ordinance No. 152,2nd Series
Effective date: 10-28-96
ORONO CC 351-1 (Sec. 10.45: 5-8-89)
§ 10.45
shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council
for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course,
ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff
whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water
Management Plan and shall be consistent with oUk: applicable regulations or City Code provisions
and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the
drainage.
G. I leight. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in
height except as provided in Section 10.75.
t ?
i
H. At least twenty five percent (25®/o) of the land area shall be landscaped wi]
approved ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the lam ra
withinVparking area shall be landscq^.
&
)llowing minimum sizes shall be required at the time of planting:
brerstory Deciduous Trees
rental Trees
Conilkrous Trees
Major Shrub Plantings
2-1/2 inches in diSnreter
1-1/2 inchesitfmometer
6 feet tal
5gallp<(s
I. All trash and^r^h handling cquipjnwt shall be stored within the principal
structure, within an attached structure^c^siblc fron>-<vithin the principal structure, or totally
screened from cyc-lcvcl view from public sh^ts apd adjacent residential properties. If accessory
structures arc proposed, they shall be construc^<^f the same building material os the principal
structure and be readily served through swi^il^g
J. Garages, ac^^ structures, s^qn walls and exposed areas of reUiining
walls shall be of similar type, qu^l/and appearance as the pKMipal structure.
K. Th^rotind level view of all mechanicaNtfilitics shall be completely
screened from contigumis'propcrtics and adjacent streets, or designediqjbc compatible wiili the
architectural treatmept^f the urincipal structure.
L. External loading and service areas must be completely setwned from the
ground levpfview from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent except
at accesapoints.
/ M. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be sciHned
wKcncver it may be directed onto adjacent residential windows.____________________
"S.
V-1
I
'8
(Sections 10.46 through 10.49, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.)
ORONO CC 351-3
(Ordinance 67,2nd Scries
Adopted: 5-8-89)
Minimum Landscape Value
(Including building construction, site 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
ofS3.000.000
Over $4,000,000 1.0 % of Project Value
In instances vvhcrc 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
ns is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan.
c) All new overstor>’ trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from
the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a
minimum caliper of ^'/» inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum
of six feel in height Onuunenlal trees shall have a minimum caliper
of 1 Vi inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots,
driveways, patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall be covered
with sod or an equivalent ground cover approv'ed by the cit>'. This
requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an
underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of etch new
development, except one and two family dwellings and additions to
existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the
existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all
landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural stale.
f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees sh^l be
composed of one species. The City shall maintain a list of prohibited
species which shall not be used for landscaping.
Page 2 of 6
1.
Interior Parking Lot Landsca.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed to
incorporate onpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as
required by the City. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum
of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe
and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the **150 stall”
standard and shall be required by the city when wananied.
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be
reasonably distributed throughout Uic 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 shrxrbbcry as determined appropriate
by the Planning Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be
provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
previdei, cr majer faction ther**o^ Parking lot landscaping shall be
contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or
equivalent approved by the Plaiming Commission.
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 arc required
by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be replaced
within th'vc 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.
Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged
walls which cumulatively c.xcccd 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.
Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or c'.her similar improvements to property arc required by this
ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal
to at least one unc-Iiairiluio ilic \aluc ufsuch screening, landscaping or
other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon
reimbursement of all c.xpcnscs incurred by the city for ciiginecriiig, legal,
contracting cr 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 one
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
Page 3 of 6
amount and under such conditions that the city may detcnninc 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 awner
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 wliich may not exceed nine mont^
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.
Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with
the requirements of this subdivision:
1. Principal buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto located in the B-6 zone shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any “R" district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces
shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet Parking
facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones.
3. External loading and service arras must be completely
screened from the ground level view from contiguous
residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets,
except at access points.
4. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within
the principal structure, within an attached structure accessible
from within the principal structure, or totally screened from
eyc-lcvei view- from public streets and adjacent residential
properties.
5. The ground level \iew of all mechanical utilities shall be
completely screened from contiguous properties and adjacent
streets, or designed to be compatible with the architectural
treatment of the principal structure.
6. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall
be screened whenever it may be directed onto adjacent
residential windows.
Page 4 of 6
Required screening or bufTering 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.
All required screening or bufTering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No
screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-way or
within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway.
Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a height
needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Screening methods
incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to
screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required.
Height of plantings required under this section shall be measured at
the time of installation.
I. Architectural Standards
1.It is not the intent of the Cit:. to restrict design freedom unduly when
revievring project architecnire 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 prepared by an architect or other
qualincd pcisuiii acceptable to tlic City and slull show tltc fo’.lov. ;r.g for all
structures in the B-6 District:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of e.xtcrior 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.
2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal
shall not be permitted as exterior materials for principal and accessory
buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all
accessory buildings. The cit>- may, at its discretion, allow architecturally
enhanced block or concrete panels.
Page 5 of 6
Accessoiy buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal
structures. Accessory stiuctiues for trash and trash handling equipment shall
be constructed of the same building material as the principal structure and be
readily served through swinging doors.
All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and
recycling storage areas shall be fully enclo^ or screened so as to not be
visible with materials compatible with the principal structure.
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)."
Section 2. Adoption and Publication. This ordinance shall be published in The Pioneer and
The Laker newspapers and shall become effective immediately upon publication.
A^ted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 12th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of o ayes and 0 nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor
Page 6 of 6
i;
i*
ijiJL
CITYOFORONO
2750 KcUcy Parkway. P.O. Box 66
CiystalBay,MNSS323
PhoDC (952)249-4600 Fax (952)249-4616
NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley
Parkway on Wednesdi^, Febniaiy 21, 2001 on the matter of application #2638, a proposed
amendment of Orono municipal xoning code Section 10.45, Subd. 3 to add "Clinics” to the list of
permitted uses in the B-6 Highway Commercial District
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at this time. Written
comments arc solicited. A copy of the proposed amendment is available in the City offices for
review.
City of Orono
By: Planning Conumssion
To be published the weeks of February 3 and 10,2001.
. ...-lMiMiiiiyiiaiSdiii
r>
rMPPartSB. Land Use PUo
Urban Commercial Land Use
Urban commercial development is limited to t>^’o areas which are provided
with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major commercial
center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This
area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service
businesses, plus adequate professional ofTices, to serve the needs of most
Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied
living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered
appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and t>*pc of
retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important
development parameter for the Navarre commercial area. The City will
encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow
tor an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business
opportunities.
An additional conmcrcial area is designated along High\^*ay 12 where the
availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar
commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make commercial use
appropriate.
Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to
Highway 12 area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake
downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a
compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the exterision of retail
development w est of Willow Drive in Orono.
The retail development in the Highway 12 area will be
comraunity/neighborhood scale rather than *big box ’ regional scale
development The types of retail uses will be those that focus on providing
services to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono, while also
drawing from the traffic stream that will be on current Highway 12 after the
Highway 12 Reroute is open. However, the retail development is not to draw
substantial traffic from l^yond Orono.
The dcvclopr-.fr.! plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally-
owned and operated businesses that provide services to Orono and Long Lake
residents. Additionally, the Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian-
friendly area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways
providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public
amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the
public.
The two commercial areas along Highway 12 within Orono arc identified in
Map 3B-7 and include the following:
City of Orono Cooioittotty Management Plan
SepMiacr^SOOO
Poge 3B-37
rMPPartSB. LandUicPUn
1.Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12
(Wayxata Boulevard) from Brown Road North to Willow Drive.
This area was reviewed as part of Comprehensive Plan Amendment
No. 2 in 1989, resulting in a guide plan calling for commercial uses
abutting Highway 12, with primary access to a service road
connecting from Brown Road to Willow Drive, and elimiiuUion of
direct access to Highway 12. The area is currently bounded on the
north by existing residential development at densities ranging from
1 unit per 2 acres to 1 unit per 1.3 acres.
The western half of this area has since been developed via PUD as a
nursery/gaidcn center with included leasable commercial spaces. The
east half of this area includes a strip shopping center, a new 10,000
s.f. office building, and a vacant 6.5 acre parcel at the northwest
quadrant of Brown Road and Highway 12.
The City Council in February 1998 adopted a General Concept Plan
for development along Highway 12 indicating that the Council's
vision includes community scale retail development (as opposed to
regional or ‘big box ’ scale development) focused in a more compact
area in or near downtown Long Lake (closer to Brown Road than to
Willow Drive, at least in the short term) for the following reasons:
1.Focuses on downtown Long Lake remaining a strong retail
area, and helps preserve owner-operated small service
businesses in Long Lake which are vital to Orono and Long
Lake residents.
Focuses on maintaining a vital dow-ntown and "sense of
place" for both Long Lake and Orono.
3.
4.
A compact retail area encourages pedestrian activity.
It is easier to plan, coordinate and control the development of
a more compact retail area than an e.xtended retail strip.
Focusing development toward Brown Road could strengthen
the ability to obtain derirable development on the north side
of Highway 12 east of the Otten Brothers Nursery.
6.
7.
Enables better control over the amount of retail development
that occurs along Highway 12.
Provides the opportunity to generate stable jobs in office, high
tech, medical, etc.
City of Orono Community Manatcmcnt Plan
Sepuabtr^MN
Pagt3B-38
J
r'MPPartSB. iJiadUicFUa
8.A more compact community scale retail area matclies the
design of new Highway 12 with no interchanges through
Long Lake.
Limits the impact on north/south roadways increased
traffic and activity levels) as compared to the more intense
“big box” retail uses.
Maintains a lower activity level in the area west of Willow
Dnve.
11.Would create less pressure for providing an access from new
Highway 12 to the retail area.
Accordingly, tliis area should be developed with a mix of commercial
uses including retail, service and office components. Access via a
service road paralleling Highway 12 should still be required rather
than direct access to Highway 12, since existing traffic levels along
Highway 12 are expected to remain at a level which makes direct all
way access difficult and dangerous.
The Highway 12 re-route ("proposed Highway 12") when completed
in approximately 2007 will have a significant impact on access for
this area, because current Highway 12 traffic levels are expected to
increase between now and 2007, then should drop dramatically when
the Bypass opens. However, traffic levels on "old Highway 12" after
2007 arc expected to again creep upward, and the long-term need for
a service road may again manifest itself. For this reason, it is in the
best interests of the City and the business community to prese^e at
least a partial service road corridor between Brown Road and Willow
for future use, that will provide all properties with access options
other than direct access from Highway 12. The City suppo^ the
development of a "mid-point" connection to Highway 12 directly
across from Brimhall Avenue, such access to be at least a right-ln,
right-out configuration. Further, if and when the service road is
constructed, all other existing accesses directly to Highway 12 should
ultimately be removed.
Property abutting the north side of existing Highway 12 from
Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road. This area (shown on Map
3B-7 as the ‘commercial’ portion of Parcel Group 1) currently is
vacant property, comprised of 3 tax parcels with some 2600 feet of
Highway 12 frontage. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan
amendment, the City giuded the portion of this area directly adjacent
City of Orooo Conmwilly MaoifMont Plan
S<p(taikcr __,!••§
Pafc3B-39
I
i
CMPP«rt3B. L«»dU»ePUn
to the noith side of Highway 12 for commercial development At that
time, the City was not clear about the type of commercial
development that should be planned for this area. Through joint
discussions with the Ci^ of Long Lake regarding development along
Highway 12, the City has determined that the optimum development
in this area would be office development. Office development can
provide services for Orono residents, can provide facilities for
businesses owned by Orono residents, and can provide quality
employment opportunities. The development of this area for office
use versus retail use enables the Highway 12 retail area to remain a
more compact pedestrian-fnendly retail area versus a non-cohesive
extended strip of retail development.
Access to all office uses will be via a service road connecting Willow
Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, with no direct access points onto
Highway 12. Development of this service road began in 1991 with
the extension of Kelley Parkway eastward from Old Crystal Bay
Road.
The City’s intent is to have a single tier of office uses between Kelley
Parkway and Highway 12, with primarily residential uses north of the
service road. Due to construction of a stormwater retention pond by
MnDOT midway between Old Crystal Bay Road and Willow, and the
City’s intent to develop the area north of the service road residentially
at a density of 2-6 units per acre, the opportunities for large office
sites are limited. As many as six 2-2.S acre office sites can be
developed along the Highway 12 frontage while still allowing the
intend^ residential development to occur.
This area is guided for office use with minor retail and service uses
allowed only as accessory uses to the office use. **Big box” retail uses
will not be allowed within this area.
City ofOroDO CoDDBolty Maaagemtol Plan
S«yMib<r_,2tN
Pag«3B^0
2^
Application Dale: 11/1 S/00
Deadline Date: 3/16/01
FROM;
DATE:
Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moofsc. City Administrator
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administralor/Planner
February 15,2001
StBJECT: «2644 Gary and Joan Marquardt
2617 Casco Point Road
Variances -- Public Hearing
Zoning District:
Lot Area:
List of Eshibits
LR-IC One Family Lakcshorc Residential District (1/2 acre)
17.467 s f. (.40 acre)
A Analysis Worksheet
B Application
C .Xpplicant ’s Summary of Permit Request
D Plat Map
H Sur\ey
F Sur\cy/'Site Plan
G Hardcover Calculation Worksheets
H Lakeside Elevation View
1 Side Elevation View
j Lower Floor Plan
K Upper Floor Plan
L Site Photos
M Propert) Owners Notification List
Application Summary
The applicants arc requesting a two part application to 1) permit a second story addition above the
existing single story house within a required side yard, and 2) addition of a 30' X 30' attached garage
2.85* from the side property line where 10* is required and 21 .76' from the front property line where
30' is required.
A 20' X 22* two stall detached garage, located 1K from the front property line would be removed as
well os a 75 1 s.f. deck on the lakeside of the residence.
The site alteration would include an increase in structure on the property. Currently, the properly
is de\eloped over the 2S°/o allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback.______________________
*2(44 G»> JBii ton Nfjrquvdl
26l7CMCoPounRoad
Viru(w«» - hiblM Hunng
fi«elor5
Pciiincnt Code Sections
1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (1.) (2): To permit an
alteration to existing hardcover o\er the allowed 25*/o.
I.ot Area 75-250'
Allowed I lardcover
U.xisting Hardcover
Proposed 1 lardcover
12.727 s.r.
3.181 sf.(25%)
3.710 s.f. (29%)
4.902 s.f. (38%)
Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To permit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures.
Lot Area
Allowed Coverage
l:xisting Coverage
Proposed Coverage
17.467 s.f. (15%)
2.620 s.f. (17%)
2.970 s.f. (18.5%)
3.237 s.f.
267 s.f. increase in lot coverage
3. Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (U): To permit an encroachntenl into the side setback 2.85* from
the side property line for construction of a 30' X 30' attached garage, where a I O' side setback
is required and to permit the garage addition 21.76' from the front property line where a 30’
setback is required.
4. Section 10.25, Sulxlivision 6(B) To pomit an encroachment into the side setback 2.64’ from
the side property line to permit the addition of a second storv- above the existing residence
within the required 10' side setback.
Required Setbacks I.R-IC
Front Yard = 30'
Side Yard = 10'
Discussion: Applicants have addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the
existing garage location. The existing garage is located only 18' from Casco Point Road and laces
the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road without the
ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a ncighKiring fence,
tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street. 1 he attached garage allow s the vehicles
to back out into the yard and approach the street at an angle improv ing views to the street us well as
allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the
applicant's property. In the applicant's letter of request they have stated there have been dozens of
br^e screeching near misses while backing out.
The concern is the location of the proposed attached garage that would be located only 2.85' from
the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. Construction of the house was before the adoption
of the current zoning standards. The site plan shows the location of the house in relation to the
property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property line than the house.
•2644 G«> and Joan KUn)uanil
2617 CatcoPoMU Road
Vanaocci - Public I icanni
f^2orS
The second stor>’ addiiion is within the lO* side setback. Adding a second story would place a full
two sior>' structure only 2.64* from tlic side lot line. The adjacent house is more than 20* away
allowing for adequate separation bclNscen the existing buildings. Ilowcx'cr, redevelopment or
additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings.
Rtview of Hardship
1. The total hardcover on the property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway
required to safely access the house. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and
telephone pole bloek much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. Ihe
attached garage allows the vehicles o back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron
would make more scn.se) and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street
os well as allowing vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily
view entering vehicles from the applicant's property.
2. The property as developed exceeds the allowed hardcover. A large 730 s.f. lakeside deck
along the lakeside of the house would being removed to reduce some hardcover closest to
the lake. A 14' X 14' four season porch would be constructed in its place. The four .seastm
porch would be located 105' from the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka.
3. The properly was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The house is
opproximately 10' from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a point where the
house is only 2.85 ’ from the property line. A second story addition has been designed to
leave the front V: (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/j (street s:de)
would have a second story. This concentrates the ma.ssing of the structure further from the
lakeshorc. and eases the burden of the \ iews from adjacent residences towards the lakeshore.
4. The overall lot coverage by stmetures increases b> 267 s.f. Most of the massing has been
relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage.
For a lot co\ erage variance to be approved an actual hardship must be demonstrated to allow
the increase in structure. The Council has in many situations allowed a property to replace
the total existing structure when remodeling, but it is uncommon to allow a net increase
when already exceeding 15%.
Staff Recommendation
Staff can support the project to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines
without the property owners having to request trees be removed to open site liner.. Staff also
supports equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before renu>deling.
Under that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f. on the lot. The
reduction in total structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24' X 26’ two stall garage and
not require any other structural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed driveway
be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron.
Also, Staff suggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot
line.
•;M4 G») and foao Mar^uardl
2617 Casco Po«l Road
Vananen -hMicHranne
Pi«cJor5
Optic— for ActioM:
1. Rccomincncl approval of variances.
2. Recommend denial of variances, slating reasons.
3. Table for additional information or plan revisions.
4. Other action.
•2M4 Ovy Hid JOM KUf^yardl
2617 Ccco POM Road
Vvunce* -PMMkHcariag
PifcdorS
EXHIBIT A
analysis worksheet
Lot Arcit
LRIB Lot Area
Required 21,780 s.f.(l acre)
Actual 17,467 s.f.(.40 acre)
Sinictural Covrigc !
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
17,467 s.f.Allowed: 2.620 s.f.
Existing: 2,970 s.f.
Proposed; 3,237 s.f.
Hardcover Calculations ;
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
setback
Allowed
hardcoNcr
Existing
hardcover
Proposed
hardcover
0-75*4,740 s.f Os.f 411 s.f
(8%)
No
Change
75-250*12.727 s.f 3,181s.f
(25%)
3.710 s.f
(29%)
4,902 s.f
(38%)
•2644 Oif) m4 Jom
2617 Caacs Poml Road
Varianen - hiUic HcaHot
f^5ors
i
j
j
1
J
Marquardt November 2000
Background
Affidavit For Building Permit
Gary and Joan Marquardt
2617 Caaco Point Road
Orono MN 55391
612-720^916 W
953-471-0476 H
■or ^
— t— — t
My wife and I have lived at 2617 Casco Point Road since November 1905. We raised our children
here and have been contributing members of our community.
We have done little to our house since purchasing it. In the storms of May a year-and*a-half ago.
we sustained serious roof damage and serious deck damage from our neighbor's 250-year-old
oak tree falling across our house and deck. We began then planning our remodeling project with
these needed repairs as a beginning point.
Wo enjoy our neighborhood, our community and our location and as we approach retirement we
have decided to live In this house through our retirement years. In order to be safe and
comfortable our project planning addressed the following Issues;
1. Garage...The entrance to the garage has been a dangerous feature since we moved In.
a. Our garage door Is only 18.4 feel from the road making ingress and egress a very
dicey maneuver.
b. We have had literally dozens of brake screeching near misses backing out.
c. The garage is very small, barely wide enough for two cars and too short for my car.
It will not accommodate our two cars, much less a lawnmower and snow blower,
thus we always have at least one car parked on the road.
2. Entry to our house...Tho entrance of the house is on the very East end of the house and is
difficult to negotiate with grocery bags etc. ard poorly placed. With the entrance trapped in
a corner of one end of the house the middle of the house has very little natural light.
3. The deck...Our deck was damaged, and it Is weakened by the storm damage In 1998, and
it Is old and rotten and at the least needs replacing. We have in our proposal the removal
of the deck to help with our hardcover situation with a proposed on-ground patio near the
proposed new entrance.
4. Road noise...Our house is very close to the road with the master bedroom on the very East
end adjacent to the existing main entrance. We have an Impossible time sleeping past
6:00 in the morning due to road noise.
5. Roof... The existing roof was wind damaged and damaged by trees falling. It needs to be
replaced and some of the underlying sheathing and underlay needs repair or replacement.
This repair is best done when we add the second story. The sight lines and the height of
the house is not an issue with any of the neighbors.
J
]
]
Marquardt November 2000
Planning and Preparation
We have a rather extensive plan to remodel our house and remedy the five problems that we have
stated above as well as adding needed living space on the proposed new second story on iiie
East half of the house. Other than the proposed new attached garage, the footprint of the existing
house does not change. There are setback issues and hardcover issues that are ever-present on
Casco Point with the pre-existing pie shaped lots that will have to be dealt with.
We had a survey and hardcover calculation done through Danburry last spring. We were not
finished with our planning when Danburry went to the city and have opted for different contractors
for this project.
We have talked with all our neighbors and shown them our plans. We have been especially
detailed In our meetings \with both the Hedbloms (North of us) and the Stinsons (South of us) and
have letters from them stating that they have no objections to our proposed remodel plan.
Our hardship case is based on the issue of safe access is the existing garage and our need to
move the entrance and the master bedroom to have a living condition where we can sleep without
being awakened by road noise.
]
Planned Remodeling
We propose to raise and remove the existing garage including the driveway and concrete pad.
The part of this space not needed for the proposed new driveway will become lawn and garden
space.
We propose to build a new attached garage situated on the East end of the house running along
the lot line. The existing garage and slab will be removed.
The existing master bedroom will be converted to storage area where It attaches to the proposed
new garage.
We propose an earthen berm along Casco Point Road around which the proposed new driveway
would go. This would help reduce noise and water runoff from the road toward the lake.
The roof must be replaced due to storm damage no matter what. With this in mind, on the existing
footprint of the house, we propose to add a second story on the East half of the house to allow for
a master bedroom, a master bath, an additional bedroom and walk-in closet. Having the bedroom
upstairs will further abate the noise problem from Casco Point Road.
]HarquardI Novembor2000
We propose making changes to the first floor to move the main entrance of the house to near the
middie of the house on the South side. This will provide a more central entrance better natural
light penetration into the house as weii as some major room re-arrangement ber. jath the
proposed new upper levei. Contractors have told us that removing the existing roof and trying to
construct a second floor over the existing walls is fraught with problems and it would be advisable
to tear down the above ground structure to the first floor deck and rebuild the walls of the first floor
beneath the proposed new second floor. The West half of the house would be re-roofed but
otherwise remain in tact.
We wish to remove and not replace the existing deck that covers the entire West side of the house
and part of the South side. This deck would be removed to make some progress with the
hardcover situation that Is difficult in all of the pre-existing pie-shaped lots on Casco Point road.
We propose to backfill along the South side of the house and instail an on-ground stone patio
extending from the proposed new entry toward the lake near the West end of the house. This will
provide less outside patio space than the existing plan but from a landscaping point of view and a
hard-cover perspective is a big improvement.
We propose to add a three-season sunroom on the Southwest comer of the house just off the
existing dining area. This would be a three-season porch on the upper level and a screened
porch on the lower level.
We feel that we can accomplish all of this without losing any significant trees and with little
disruption to the neighborhood. We have provided drav/lngs. hard-cover calculations, photos,
dimensions, and drawings.
Variances and other Issues.
There are several issues that we wish to address in order to get this plan approved.
Setback:
Our house is less than 3 feet from the lot Ime on the North side, and is not parallel to the lot
line on the North side. We understand that the setback recommendation is ten feet. It is
presumed that this is a fire issue for separation tet.veen buildings. We have had extensive
discussions with the Hedbloms who live just North of us. There is more than the prescribed 20
feet between the Hedblom garage and our house The oblique angle h^»tween our existing house
and the lot line is an Issue that must be looked at. however we feel that maintaining the North wall
of the proposed new garage at the existing setback from the fence would be sufficient given that
the Hedblom’s garage is the adjacent structure and ALL of the proposed new garage would abut
their driveway which is not suitable for structure building in the future.
Hardcover.
We believe that our hardcover calculation is better than many with lots of this configuration.
We feel that it Is likely that we can remove the existing garage, solving a very unsafe situation,
add the berm, a curved driveway with a tum-around and the new garage and at the very least
make the hard-cover situation no worse and perhaps improve it slightly.
]
1
1
]
J
«
J
]
]
]
Marquardt
Second Ston/
November 2000
tom.
Lake aetha^^
Conclusion.
opportunity to explain our project and work vlth the city auS2s to seerm^Slr
Sincerely,
Gary and Joan Marquardt
1
L
IV
'Jj
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERr/ AREA IN ZONE
* B ____X ICO -
S.F.
S.?.
I
\
hardcover calculation worksheet
SETBACK ZONE: (ClRCLi: ONI) 0.75* IJO-SOO*
EXISTINC HARDCOVtP m -------- .. ^
A House ’> .V V A ' x *
S00.1000*
Ganie
C. Driveway
Z. SidewaUc
T2.-3
I'toen
1. ?;i;o/Decl;/Z.7
•" *6V
Lan>!icape
jcderlain
2/ Pliiric
ITT
WUUi
-K>/7.
?/.rr^-:r
total HARDCOV'ER I>; 2C.se
TOT.^ PROPPRI V .AREA IN CC.'.E
HARnrn\TR tn >nw
• rc: -7
6A^i^Uf,
2 4T2;L_ -. .;o
Jt.a
V.i.T
'zo.'y
C. C.T.s-.vjy
99tU,tid
1. ‘iiiDesi
iiZZfi
‘Jcdtrioia
Sv
j. Ci:r
:r;.'frV»rw/v V. A^/
ZT.AaJ^/3
TOTAL H.ARDCOVER W ZCNT
property AREA IN ZONE
\ ICO
—sp
—&40»/ s.p.
S.F.
S.F.
s
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
~Ijf.__s .-
^ ^ S..-.
____________S.F.
- ^ S.F.
JiTk). 6 f.F
v^.
--i£2J.
/44a.i
cfao
1^/4
Z^A.
1
S.F.
!" •*■
s.r.
S.F
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S..-.
J3gLS.i?.
S.g.z5if.v r-
LAKESIDE ELEVATION
iittiMi
1 lakeside elevation
FewA Sf AS«w
\ Po«.c«
a**® STot^v
AOilTlON
"SSfM6C
3
nth AMTION
^1
SEC
SCAU
«____ I____ I. - • • •
XI
^ MAROUAROr
^ HOUaEiV
« -A J!P
C _•
EXIS28NG DECK ONT>VO SlDE^pEXI^NG^^
OVER improvement
1\fM
___ HJKSm'T^'
> ilfe-:' Ir4:i■
LOOKING NORTHWEST
ii^
CoMpItteDalt:
iODajDMdliM:
2/13/tl
4/l4ni
Chair Hawn and Orooo Planning Commusioo Members
Ron Moorse, City Administralor
FROM:
DATE:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Pianner
Febniary 13,2001
SUBJECT: #2654 James Bull
1330 Cfieny Place
Variance — Public Hearing
ZmObc District:
Lot Area:
LR'IB One Family Lakeshore Residential (I acre)
29,719 s.f. (.61 acre)
UstofEikiblls:
A
B
C
D
E
F
Applicatkm
Plat Map
Site Survey
Site Topography
Propert)’ Owners Notification List
Permit Record
Pertinent Ordinances:
Section 1024, Subdivision S (B): Lot Area: The lot is under the one acre minimum lot size. The
zoning ordinance allows lots to be considered record lots when they meet 805'o of the zoning
requirements for lot area. 80*/« of one acre is 34,848 s.f.
Section 10.24, Subdivision 5(B): Lot Width: The property has a defined width of 145 feet at the 75 ’
lakeshore setback. The required k t width in the LR-IB district is 140*.
Summary of Request:
Applicant has requested variances to lot area to allow redevelopment of a residential property in the
LR'IB, one acre single familv lakeshore district. The individual request is to permit the lot as a
buildable RECORD LOT for the period of one year. The property owners are in the process of
designing a house that would meet all other requirements of the zoning chapter. The property
consists of two platted lots that were combined into one tax parcel in 1993. The total lot area is
29,719 s.f. (.68 acre). The lot combination was a requirement of a conditional use permit and
variance approval for a land alteration project complet^ in 1993.
S2654 Jana Dull
l)MCk«nrna«
VniMa
Pi«alor2
The propcity has been used as a single fiunily residential propert>' since It was developed many years
ago. Lakeshore lots along Cheny Place have been developed and most are the su* of the appUcantt
property, or smaller. All properties on Cherry Place are in residential use. Adj^nttothea^canU
property to the north is a platted, but undeveloped street shown on the plat as Qianl Street Property
lines adjacent to a street or right of way are required to meet a minimum setback of 35'. Odrer
setbacks required are 35' to Cherry Place and KT to the interior lot line.
The City of Orono has approved variances for properties not meeting the lot width standard when
the lot has been developed for single family use. One determining fiictor is the lot must demonstrate
the abUity to sustain redevelopment The lot, weU over V4 acre in size is large enough to aUow new
development and would remain consistent with the development pattern of the neighborhood.
One advantage to the redevelopment would be th-. prop.nty owner is designing the house to meet all
other requirements ofthe zoning chapter. TV i 993 variar,ce and CUP approvals had found the 0-75'
lakeshore setback at 9.4% hardcover and the 75-250 ’ setback at 38.8% hardcover. Staff has advis^
the applicant the property cannot be redeveloped with additional variatKes, arrd that hardcover will
be limited to 25% in the 75-250* lakeshore setback.
Review of Hardship:
1.This is an existing lot that was platted and developed prior to the adoption of the current
zoning standards.
The lot is adjacent to only one other property, located at 1360 Cherry Place. 1360 Cherry
Place is smaller in lot area than the applicant's, property not allowing the possibility of
acqtiiring additional land to create a conforming lot
3.Grant Street is a 5(X wide platted right of way adjacent to the north property lir^ The City
of Orono has had a long rtuming policy of not vacating “fire lanes" to Lake Minnetonka.
StaCr Recommendation:
StafTrecommends approval to the site plan based on the three hardships noted above, subject to the
applicant developing a site plan not requiring additional variances.
t2tS4 Jmaa Bull
lUOCiMnyrtan
Vatam
retort
William Ahem .John Walker Patricia Oroetken
nOOSpiuoeSlieet 1310 Spruce Street 1318 Spruce Street
Mound! MNSS364 Mound. MN 55364 Mound. MN 55364
Dustin Boyd it William Sinclair Theodore Nafitad
Christina Benson 1360 Chetr> Place 1370 Cherry Place
1375 Cherry Place
Mound. MNSS364
Mound, MN 55364 Mound, MN 55364
James Bull Scott and Carol Sandberg
1330 Cherry Place 1310 North Arm Drive
Mound, MN S5364 Mound. MN 55364
. .
mmk
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
ftof noon
OWNCfl KMC
TAXTAVCR
MMB/AfM
31 03 113 23 33 0001
30 AOORCSS UHASSIGMCO
HZMHEMM rtmmTCD UMO
cm or onoMO
r 0 MK ««
CRYSTAL RAY MM SS323
CtnOMM •
30 03 117 23 33 0000
740 NILLOH DR S
J C NAXHCLL 4 L A MAXWELL
JCmUEY k UCOMTYME NAXMCLL
201 RARSVin TtR
COLOn VALLEY Ml S5416
COMDMN •
30 03 117 23 33 0007
MO MILLOH OR S
NQRNAM H THXISTE CTAL
NORMAN H TNSlSTt
000 0 NILLON OR
HAYSATA MR SS391
COHOMI I
RROR AOOR
OHHtR HANt
TAXTAYn
MAMB/AOOR
30 03 117 23 34 0002
2105 WEBBER HILLS HO
NARCARET A CIRMUHMIM
MARGARET A CSRMDHOSEM
2105 MERRER RILLS RO
MAYEATA HN 55391
CONOMM 0
30 03 117 23 34 0004
2135 SHEVLIN DR
E MARTIMOSZI
J HARTIMOZZI
ERIC 4 JENMirtR NARTINOZZI
2135 SHEVLIN OR
WAYZATA MM 55391
COHtMN I
30 03 117 23 34 0005
2145 SHCVLIM OR
VILLIAN M TOLES
JAMBS R DANIELS
C/0 JILL T B DANIELS
2145 SHEVLIN DR
MAYZATA Ml 55391
CQNONN •
rROR AOOR
OMNER NAME
TAXPAYER
MAMB/AOOR
30 03 117 23 34 OOOO
2155 SMEVLIH OR
J 4 J PAOLSOH
JEROME T 4 JODY R PAULSON
2155 SHEVLIN ORIVE
HAYZATA MM 55391
30 03 117 23 34 0007
2175 SKEVLIN DR
R P RAKOS 4 N N COSTATSOR
R P RAKOS 4 M N COSTArSOM
2175 SHEVLIN OR
HAYZATA Ml 55391 o
PROP AOOR
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYRR
NAMR/AOOR
'■ t ))
Q
I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE
REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPERARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF
^ 4 •«
DATE /*
TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse.Cily Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
February 13,2001
401*2661 Thomas and Ingrid Anderson
3550 North Shore Drive
Variances •• Public Hearing
Zoning DUtricI:
Lot Area:
LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Rcsidcniial District (1/2 acre)
21,174 s.f (.49 acre)
LUli ofEihibils:
A
B
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
Analysis Worksheet
Application
Plat Map
Air Photo
Topo Map
Survey
Surv’cy/Silc Plan
Hardcover Calculation Worksheets
Front Elevation View
Rear Elevation View
Main Floor Plan
Site Photos
Property Owners Notification List
Application Summary: The applicants have requested variances to permit a 20' X 27.5' garage
addition- The addition includes a second story above the garage for additional living space within
the house. Also propt:scd is replacement of a deck on the north side of the house and replacement
of a Jog kcimcl. Hic garage addition will be over the driveway off the end of the house. A small
retaining wall, approximately 2' in height is proposed to be replaced along the side of the driveway.
All the improvements constitute an alteration to existing hardcover over 25%. although the total
hardcover will actually decrease slightly on the property.
The property is unique by the fact the property has frontage to Lake Minnetonka on both the north
side and south side. As a result, there arc two 0-75' lakeshore setbacks that arc accounted for in
determining total allowed hardcover.
Pertinent Code Sections:
1.Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To pennit 4,475 s.f.
(40%) hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback, where 4.687 S-f. (42%) c.xisls and 2,775
s.f. (25%) is allowed.
•OI*266l TkoMH Mil Ingfia An4mM
3S50 Nodh Shore Dnvc
VariMcet
P«iler4
2. Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) (6) and Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B): To permit an
encroachment into the average lakeshore setback on the north side of the house to construct
a new fence exceeding 3 '/j feet in height. A six foot fence/wall system is proposed.
Required Setbacks LR-IC
Front Yard = 30'
Side Yard= 10*
Issues:
I. CoBfonnit\’ to Zoning Code aad CoMPrehensivc Plf
The applicants have proposed to reduce the total hardcover on the property by removing part of the
driveway tlial is not required for maneuvering vehicles, mostly to the east side of the proposed
garage. Ilje building additions have been placed mostly over areas that contain hardcover.
The replacement of the deck and the dog kennel located to the back of the house would encroach into
the average lakeshore setback to the north side of the propcrt>\ The average lakeshore setback
ordinance is intended to protect lakeshore views for adjacent properties. Staff visited the site and
determined this property as well as the other properties nearby have lakeshore access across North
Shore Drive on the south sides of the properties.
The DNR has determined the 929.4 ’ cle\*ation is the high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The
929.4' elevation docs reach the applicant’s property and adjacent properties. A visual inspection of
the site has determined there is no real lake access or water to the rear of this property. It functions
ns a wetland leading to Lake Minnetonka. The north sides of the properties function as back yards
and have been developed accordingly. The primary lake views and docks arc located to the North
Shore Drive side of the property. Please review the attached topographic map and air photo dial
indicate the approximate water's edge of Lake Minnetonka.
A 2 ’ high railroad lie retaining wall that is located along the side of the driveway. The ties arc
necessary to stabilize the ground between the driveway and the elevation of an adjacent house. The
neighboring lot is 2' higher at the property line. Replacement of a the wall is necessary for
maintenance purposes. A variance is only required because the wall constitutes hardcover.
Review of Hardship:
1. The primary factor that support^ some degree of hardcover tmiance is that the 75-250 ’ zone
is reduced in size by hrt\lng lake on both ends of the lot. Additional hardcover may be
required to acconwnodate a turn around on site to eliminate vehicles from backing out to
North Sliore Drive. This is a change to the existing site plan that has a side loading garage
that allows vehicles to maneuver before entering North Shore Drive.
2. The average lakeshore setback ordinance is intended to protect lakeshore views for adjacent
properties. Lake access is generally to the south across North Shore Drive. Access to the
lake is not possible due to the actual lakeshore being located further to the west. The north
•0I-2MI Tliomai Ingna Andcnon
)550NonhSlMMeI>m«
Vananert
Pv2of4
sides of ihc properties have functioned as back yards which would be the appropriate location
for a dog kermel and deck. In this unique case there arc no direct lakeshore views being
impacted. The fact that the 929.4 ’ is located at the edge of the “wetland ” qualifies the lot as
having lakeshore to the north side of the house.
3. The existing retaining wall is necessary because the elevation drops approximately 2’ to the
applicant’s property. Without a retaining wall there would be erosion problems from the
neighboring lot
4. Total existing hardcover on the property would be reduced slightly.
Staff RccoiaendatioB . . .
Staff recommends approval of the v-ariances requested based on the hardships noted above and is
subject to a final drainage icw by the City Engineer prior to Council Action. Staff requested
additional information regarding the drainage plan on the property. It is our understanding the
surveyor is in the process of completing the drainage plan. The information was not received prior
to the date of this memo.
Options for Action;
1. Recommend approval of variances.
2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons.
3. Table for additional information.
4. Other action.
•01*2661 nHmui Md Insnd Andenoo
iiiOHotkSbfonWn
VthMen
n«t3or4
EXHIBIT A
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Ana:
LR-IB Lot Area
Required____________________________21.780 s.f.(l acre)
Actual __21.174 s.f. (.49 acre)
Siruclural CovcrtEC:
Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage
21.174 s.f.Allowed: 3.176 s.f
Existing: 1.163 s.f
Proposed: 2,671 s.f
Hardcover Calculations:
Distance from Total area in Allowed Existing Proposed
shoreline setback hardcover hardcover hardcover
0-75 ’2.500 s.f 0s.f 278 s.f No
South (11%)Change
75-250 ’11.100 s.f 2.775 s.f • 4.687 s.f • 4.475 s.f
(25%)(42%)(40 “/o)
0-75 ’7.574 s.f 0s.f 51 s.f No
North (< 1%)Change
•01-2661 TKmiai aid lafrM Aadmon
3550 NonhSIme DOW
VmMca
ri«(4or4
AprBalfanl l Ol-2i>Cf/
nnteRtccivcd ///fi^_
Amount Paid iZli>
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE^PLICATION
Initial Application Fee 7S * ®
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-thc-Facl Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION ^
Site Address ^
Property Identification Number (Pin) 2^----3i^—. P 55.
•__t- if not incIudcd OQ rCQlU
V.' J
p'-\
jZLa^ f
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). ^ T .7r—.-
Attach legal description to application if not mcluded on «q^d s y. f 'c. ^
Date Property Acquired Pp^hrua/^^—/ a it TJ3.----------------^ \
I (do) |flonqD)also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^
Present use ofpiopei^^ residential ___pother (specify),--------------------------------
Zoning District:____------------------------—----------------------
ou /v« N 952/V‘7/-t?73 7
O^^^TR (if different than appUcant) 5 ---------------------- --
Nair^ _________________________—
MiKO.-.___________________________City:---------------------Zip:.
nonDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constiuction Cost $^.£^
Describe request in detail: fijeft 'ftcn r'f 2
”'"'f (attach additional sbeeu if necessaiy) ■*■ r«fU« v«4«<*"i5
;.>«\\ MnVaA
^re-?f<4.j TiVO..
Setback:Front __Side __Rwr X- Average Lakeshorc
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department
c: •
mm
vf •(•i,# ■•■..mmm.
mm
wmm
IPiiS
'il -s?i''3.
tss,oo0 m i $0.000 o
n/
i-:
•I
H,
•. ••• •»
•V
_ ^ ue
I . - , •■**'*■ ’X'
';;y ”•,
■• • -'X ■■ • X • ■; ■ ' ■ •"
I r n »n MCi
.* c
............................... \ ''■
A
V
w/
t iiiTirrtirriifViiii*
• \ •
* V
/ .•
I •
'•-
• r
.•■ • ..} •
V ‘t .*•
• •* • - •>' . v*
I . .• '• •/ ‘
* ■
■V -v
•..<• ■ • ■■ : ■ 'C-! •»*» > i'-' f ' . ■ . ■ • ♦. •: •••
.. • • ■'/ **• ' -.V. . \J 'A •
;i
■ ■' >•■' ■'.' ■ “ .. ■ .-Sr . •.' \ .’•
Aw«r*y. UVui^ saU.|
• V ‘V ‘ ■'• •• ■ ?* ■ ‘ i ,y
* .\i • • ■ . ■ - ■.
DRIVfe)i
•V
• . »
•
\/ •* .n
w:i/
IS
I
^ ^oor SI
A' V ' •■ ^ ^ .1 •• ■•'
• •. •' ■.• ".*,• ■.*.•■. -Vi .-V »;■ . .V •. V.. * •
V tucfi-A ^ ------
CP. RD. NO. 51
(f^TH S^pRE DRIVE).
- V ..■. 'V.'.t
■.. •'■ . •; ■:•••;.>••> ■ V. '^7* JL^V
^ ^ , M '7i7i -• ^T^*' V
’. V i
. I
h-
..V
s:.\ ,,’i
• S
>r’> .p
■. ■•
* .•■•
*. -' ••/
6'
nV- t
^ ... ':-?m
\
-^oor
5\o'<
•fNo-7SSETB^l^_
U ^ ^ t: ' •. ~,.Jl
•;-.‘
233?*^
/.
-* ¥
•• . 1
existing , ‘/.V
house
••;Vr^
PWOSED
. garage.
\
77iF
. -V- . ' '; /
■; . ‘ ■ .* V ./ •
• \ ■ •• •• • “•
■ . 'V . - *•*:
’ • ‘ ' ' V • “v • . ’’ '
■ - •'■' ■- *• •• ». • . V '•._ *'. -vv: .
. , •
:• • \
■'N‘' ' »*»
..V
.■■. ■•‘i
' '. '5v / . ■
■ •'.'*• ',■■■ • ;•>..» ■• •
||o. f?b. Na 51
.SBORE^DRIVEh
&i»: ' V.,
>6«
SETBACK ZONEt (CIRCLE ONE)
EXISTING HARDCOVER IN TONV
A. House
iK/CRW
5;'^£0 VES^LCULATION WORKSHEET fcy #s Au ^ W /
n.innn> w75-250 ’250^00 ’
Un|(h WMih
B. Oinge
C. Driveway
CO. A#, y/.
D. Sidewalk
-t-TJPoT y M^r /A^w^r^"
E Pab'o/Detdc
F. Landscape
Underlain
ByPlasUo
Or Fabric
e/A/c. Ay
O. Other A>P/Clc 5 A A
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
B ySOO i xIOO -
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NT
K House
Lcn|Ui Wiilih
B. Oarage
C. Driveway
D. SidewalK
E Paiio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
0. Other
TOTAL HARDCOV* P TN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA -TE
A _____________ ♦ B xlOO
BpIs
500-1000'
/02~ SJ.
______ST;
7 sag » SFI233_h
’s.f!
.S F. l > »SF. •
P-P-Mir iS;-.
I?--;
L
HARDCOVERJI^CULATlOiN VVUlOv:)HJb:i:.i
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) (^^A/0nrH ^5-250'25-SJO’
EXISTINC HARDCOVF-R IN ZONE
500-1000’
A. House S.F.
WUA
2..^S.F.-V*tO
__s.F.'Boac ED6CS
_S.F.- •i *
B. Garage
C. Driveway
S.F.
S.F.-!-' ••
S.F.
D. Si^alk
E. Paiio/Deck
S.F.-K5YSWNC vn
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plasilc.
Or Fabric-
S.F.
S.F.
■ S.F.-B«utO»7lS
G. Other
. -
S.F.-L
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A______________ + B .
S.F.
a 100 -
7y?4-t S.F.
%
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House
Lco|Ut Wid*
B. Oarage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Paiio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F. V
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
•S.F.
’s.F.
■pH
CD
CQ
SB..H..
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A -_____ 3 .
_ S.F.
S.F.
X 100 w
S.F.
’ %
" • 14 •
•V
f ^/4f A/
HARDCO VE U CA LC U Ok ICS U E ET
^fifilBACKiONE* (CIRCLE or^) 0-75* Jso-soo*
j^rTTirTTn HARDCOVER IN ZONE
Uagih
B.
C. Drivewiy
D. Sidewalk
E. PatioflDecV
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
B Oarage
C. Driveway
D Sidewalk
E. Pauo/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
^RDCOVEIUNZQNE
♦ B
2T33
qft i r.
0 Other
w.eji
7<?444-
367^92
•i-
\100
20,0'
OS wtOfc
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPER
A W2m.
/7^/PSe»4.
<5==^7T-^
m
IS38 sf-wous E
s
Z3I6
*1^0
2(73
459
SF -SmCD
’ SF-COK. Apctv.
■ S F -Kfj’iTonf
U/M>V(
SF -lirtic'C
• CorSiTS
SF
!sf
SF-e»?»CK
' s F vajp
SF-cn^. ScAtf*®
SF
S F -R»< «»•
" S F -8CVL0C/*5
"SF
5/^g SF
it mn r SF
SF -VA^OA <-0^
\S3S>
I2ZI
2.03
22
SF -H^uSli
?::7AT<i>
SF "
SF-^riFOsF*KEyswvv>
Ptj:«CD
. S F
S F -“Hf^’0<J'vCv,
'SF-RATit UV«iL
S F ^9 “<‘
-SF-^'j5fOCS F -Ce^.-^ytX ®
* pt
ccSF
SF
,sF*ftwuoe*<j
iAo^iUJ Wt
S F ' A»#D
45^
It, ipr?
SF
SF
V,
V- --lAill.^ .
SSial
6/)RA6>E
H’
•:-U’■
: <‘-*-'i'. -i
^i»',.; ■ VU.-.::'
^mmmi
• f-;'"
I^EM*i rLEVATi tsri
feCMi.; i-T^f
1>te AripET^ri P)5^ip£re£
IM
mtiltiMiT
A .u.
b^'
L I
»■ *>«• »*• • i«
■
'■ .
v>u
Ret>^imiki(9 vjAtu
LZ
j ’a
! . Si ' ■;='
m
•,X'(ry
-------------JU5U
SS- ^
- ••S'.i- -I.
|V.'-
F ' ,1-^i > ^
CuRREWT DMVE'^^A'f
C pLANN£0 6rtRrt60
L '5
r-
Hi
f: -
il
-< "i ** •-••■» ir^H *
m
V<'
5'' • ^!i^^" ' J'
i|H
<
\
-Jr* -»-!J
f W • •^itiir.'ilUMBpi -
II
a
?2yr
'.
11
J^fAR HovJSE DECK
[ I
RUN DATE i:/27/M
BATCN S«5
■nMEPIN COUNTY PROrCRTV INrORNATlON STSTCN
PROfERTY ONNERS LIST
PROP AMR
OWNER NAfIC
TAXPAYER
HAnE/AMR
SS •■•117-SS S4 MIY
•557t NORTH SHORE OR
OONAIO JCROHC lANONT
MNALO J LAHONT
C/O DRO NARK LANONT
SS5 HANLINC AVE
ST PAUL NN SSllb
PROP ADDR
OWNER NAHC
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
M •0*117^,25 SA RRtS
ISSAO NORTH SWHtE DR W
L TECERS t H ^CERS ^
LOUIS PECERyNARlLYN FEOIRS
SSA« NORTJkiHORC IMK^
NAYZATA^ SSSAl
PROP ADM
OWNER NAME
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
St M-nr-zs SA rrss
■SSSR NORTH SNORE DR
T C ANDERSON AID ANDERSON
T C A 1 D ANDERSON
S55t NORTH SHORE M
WAYZATA Nil 5SSA1
PROP AOOR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
SB tt-llT-ZJ SA RRAZ
•SSAt N)RTH SHORE DR
LOU B HARILYN E FECCRS
LOU I NARlLYtl E ECCERS
SSAR NMTH SHORE M
WAYZATA HN SSSAl
PROP AMR
OWNER NANE
TAXPAYER
NANE/AOOR
St #B-117-25 AS ttlR
tSSSe IIORTH SHORE M
ALBERT J ACKCRNANN
A J ACRERtUNN
SSSB NM1II SIKMt PR
WAYZATA HN SSSAl
\
REPORT NO. PlASSAtl
PACE 15
U BB-117-Z3 SA MZB
BSSBB NORTH SHME OR
WAOC P DAVIS
WAOC P DAVIS
'Sat NORTH SHORE DR
■AYZATA NN SSSAl
SB M-iir-zs sa/bbzz
BSSAB NOR^N/SHORE M
LBN FEOERSN W
LOU B HARILTN^ FECERS^^^^
SSAB NM^H SHORE M
WAYZATA HN SSsVl
SB BB-117-2S SA M2S
BBBSB ADDRESS UNASSICNEO
REOINALD A SPINOIER
R A SPINOLER
SPRING FARN
BAB2 BURROUCNS RO H
DEER PARK HA AABRA
SB BB-117-2S SA tB2B
OBBSB ADDRESS UNASSZONEO
REOINALD A SPINOLER
R A SPINOLER
SPRINO FARN
SAtZ BURROUGHS M W
DEER PARK WA AABBA
. I
SB tB-117-2S SA BBSA
BSSB7 NMTH SNORE M
S R B J S SIMMY
STEVEN R B JANNA S SIMMY
SSB7 NMTH SNORE M
WAYZATA HN SSSAl
SB BB-117-2N SA MSA
01A26 BALDUR PARK RO
THE HELX ROTH TRUST
KENT B LMX ROTH
1A2B BALDUR PARK RO
WAYZATA NN SSSAl
U BB-117-ZS AS BBSS
BS510 NMTH SHORE M
STEVEN N HART
STEVEN H HART
SSIB NMTH SHORE M
WAYZATA HN SSSAl
SB BB-117-ZS AS BBBA
OSSZB NORTH SNORE M
R E SWENSON B V L SWENSON
ROBERT E B VALERIE L SWENSON
SS2B NMTH SHORE M
WAYZATA fM SSSAl
SB M-117-2S AS ttll
OSSAR NORTH SHORE OR
D N PETTIPIECE ET AL W/L EST
DOLORES H PETTIPIECE
SSAB NMTHSHORE M
WAYZATA NN SSSAl
TOTAL BATCH BBS IBBIA
661
7
TO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administralor/Planner
DATE: Febru^ 15,2001
SUBJECT: #2662 RVC Homes/ Rick Vogelgesing
1080 Wildimrst Trail
Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre)
Lot Area; 43,376 s.f. (.996 acre)
Lbt ofEshibils
A Application
B Site Plan/Sur\ey
C Enlarged Survey of Existing Residence
D Elevations/Floor Plans
E Hardcover Calculations
F Location Map
G Property Map
H Permit Record
I Propert)- Owner ’s List
Pertinent Code Section:
1 . Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B): Lot Width: The lot is 100' wide at the shoreline and 108' wide
at the 75’ setback where 140' is the minimum lot width for the LR-IB zoning district for new
construction.
Application Summary: The applicants arc in the process of purchasing the subject property and
are requesting a lot width variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The e.xisting residence
that was constructed in the early I960's and an accessory building will be removed. A demolition
permit had not yet been obtained as of this writing.
The lot is appro.ximatcly .996 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is 1 acre. A lot area
variance is not required to construct a new residence, because the lot meets 80% of the required area
per Section 10.24. Subdivision 5(B).
The lot is approximately 100* wide where 140* is the minimum lot width required. A lot width
variance is required to construct a new residence.
This lot is a lakeshore lot and is sewered.
§2662 RlVHomes/Rick Vogelgesing
1080 midhurst Trait
Variance
1/15/2001
Page I
!.ot Area and Yards
LR-IB District Standards
ANALYSIS
LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width
Required 1 Acre (80% = 0.8 Acre)I4(T
Actual .996 Acres (No variance needed)100\ 108*
Statement of Hardship;
This is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards.
Imum for Consideration:
1. The adjacent lot to the north is vacant. Will the new’ residence impact its views of the lake?
2. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements.
3. A residence currently exists on the property, and will be removed.
4. Tlierc is no additional land to combine with the property.
5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Recommendation ;
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
To obtain a building permit the applicant must provide an updated surs ey showing proposed
residence, adjacent residences and sewer easement.
The new residence must meet all height requirements, setbacks, hardcover, structural lot
coverage and grading requirements.
•2662 /?l'C Homes/Rick Vogelgesing
1080 Wildhmi Trail
Variance
l/IS/2001
Page 2
l•19-2«P.02 -1
O/^
taiiMt
Ditto ItonKtd
dip (gS,
!!m lot
cmr OF ORONO - variance afpucation
InitU Appliettion Pm S2S0.00
(SSO.OO pM cMfc tddhional variMca)
lUntwtl VtfiMM Fm 1150.00
(00 dtoi y Don ori|iaal appllcxtion)
Vi^tfioe Ibr non-eoofonniiig itiuetum S2SO.OO
Aftor-tht-Pact Fmi (Double ippliMtioa fee)
fropcrty information
T>^<-
neptny i^umuw -----------------;— ----------
Attach legal descripHon to application if not included on required aunrey.
Date Property Acqviifcd ^ —
I (do) (do not) alio own the adjacent parcels of land.
PieacntMCofprapcMy: s^rcaidwiial ___pother (sp6C^^)________
Zoning Diiaikt: 1 t- r-> M,. • f" “* -------
^(moodk/year)
AFPUCANT
Name
AMrtwjs^
p>ioMfltoiiiB icaga-WJ*6Tg> _
___________________ Phonefwortc ) i«i3>
^ S^/k /oal City: Zip:jST3S/_
OWNER (if difrerem than applicant)
Nima _______________
Addrata:City:.
Phone (home).
Phone (wofh).
DESCRimON OF REQUEST Eadmated Construction Cost S
Describe request in deuUt r“^r\t«raoia3- UE*o PT rUitr^TM-V
(attach additional sheeto if necessary)
J^Lot Width
Setback: __From
Odtar (apicify)_____
variances REQVmZ
Lot Area Hardcover
__Side __Rear
Lot Coverage
__ Avemge Lakadiott
HARDSHlP/DESCRlPnON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difflculty or unusual property conditioiu preventmg
yQ
;*■' iti
'.‘c
ea
=tfe
cotnpUanet with Zoning Coda raouiiemaftto: ? «
arfjyt4>tC. A3T lytftLM
v.w 77^.^----■a-SL /<Vo* .
n*4 *
(attach additional dieets If necessary)
kidMtaiaiaMii
Scale r I" « 30'
Date : 4-5-S9
0 ; Iron marker
COFFIM i GROflOERG. 'KC.
^ o
Hark 5. Gronljerg L.'C'. ho. 12755
Engineers. Land Purveyors and Planners
Lon Lake, Minnesota
XI
■mTri nriiiTT <jAl.
Pi.
Hw
____
1080 WILOHURST
ORONO
LOT 6 * 0 TONKA VMtW GAROSNS
i
' * ^
%
7"^a u ti
Lll ■m TT~I2I
mA TTT
N»i
□D TT
LLLU ro]m
REAR ELEVATION
*^•1 r?* IJ*siuaT>
■fi
i,f5i
ii!l'
Ills
WIMMM
.rfi__
L - rm.iirAi'M ,.15^1^11
<agu«i%i*»t
Nores*
ugg.’a^tfr.i n:::;^.tS7ir
ijwvrwxasar-'“
BLOOC wgiwrow gio C»UWT«
li^u
s: ::a
■cdUtMiiitnau VW9^. r
"v*^‘*-o<Rrapw
w
A
mm
HARDCOVER CALCULA
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’
WORKSHEET
250-500'500-1000'
rxiCTINC; hardcover IN ZONE
A. House _____________ *
WMh
B. Garage
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underiafa)
By Plastic
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
- B X 100
B X 100
pnnpnsrn hardcover in zone
A. House
WMdi
B. Garage
C. Driveway
“3/
D. Sidewalk
E- Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plastic
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
Uio>B X too
rtr-
iA.
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
- 30.\
/C,5'0
6^0
J2isa
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
SF.
SF.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
%
%
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
ST.
S.F.
S.F.
ST.
ST.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
ST.
ST. A
ST. B
GITYor ORONO
Mualdpy Ofllm
Sttwtlddritt:
2750 Wki ^mkrntt
OroM, m 55356
llaUk«Mimsi
P.O. Bm 66
Crystil Ui, m 55323H»66
llARRrov^F.M ORDINANCE - In 1975, the Orono City Council adopted an ordinance
limiting the percentage of lot area that can be covered with impervious surface ("hardcover")
such as roofs, driveways, sidc\valks, etc. on properties located within 1,000 feet of a lake.
Studies have ^own that sediments, oils, and debris carried into the lake from highly urbanized
areas have a detrimental impact on the quality of water in the lake. The intent of Orono's
ordinance is to ensure that rainfall run-off will be cleansed by filtering through grassed or
vegetated yard areas before entering the lake.
Hardcover Zones - Allowed Percentages:
0-75 0%
75-250* 25%
250-500’ 30%
500-1000’ 35%
Hardcover includes:
- Roofs
- Sidewalks
• Paved or gravel driveways
• Patios & decks (includes slatted decks)
- Tops of retaining walls & rock walls
- Decorative landscape areas underlain by plastic sheeting or fabric
- .Any other *vrf?c? that d.'fs rot allow direct absorption of rainfall into
the ground
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
1. Circle which setback zone (0-75*. 75-250’, etc.) the calculation is for.
2. For each item of hardcover within that zone, enter the length and width, and multiply
to get square footage (s f.).
3. Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover.
4. Dis ide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get
percentage of hardcover in the zone.
5. If changes in hardcover arc proposed, you should do a "before" worksheet ood "after
worksheet. If either results in percentages greater than those allows contact City staff
before proceeding with your project planning!
1UcplMM(6U) 249-4600 • Fn (612) 249-4616
mo OAK
:Red
I. Oak V
I Golf^
bourse
A
I ■■•;::
# EllCEN ST
SCNKSr^m OK
400
^ ‘: v .
Is
lATS
\ Stubbs
* *•. -.. ■_•____
> SAT I
Course :>*;>
WIST SAAMCN AO
8C0
•5> -'- .•yv"; -<
• ‘"^.7:1 A'OJrwe//
’ • > ^ ^ ^/^^ <Maxwe:i/k' '
•:-V -»•
■f \
^ Skogsbtrg Paint
West
m&^yT^nV V V— I c
(N'
, Arm 0
cmStJ I. /i3'-.i
"I-®/
J600
ORONOr-
^rm
Point
PEERING
lOHNS arowr a
\IA
./p
Crystal
Bay ‘I-
Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 1
llciiiiepiii Miiiuooi;!
i
07.117-23-24-0011
I j i '•! i: :'*ii u <" j‘"<
1.132 fl.43.376 sq It. = 0.996
acres
m..
i.:;
/u8^0 cO//dAuA^ih '/r.
PERMIT RECORD
Pernit No.p«t«Type of Permit
/nS'Sl
373 /-7-^35--7'^'Plb<f.
y-ay-23______
_____
____
M:..S:.23L _____£L6d^Mo^iJt^
Soo-V Du<J °
v5??7 ^-/O'fV
______—
Martin and Nan NUnttfroh
999 midhurst Thai
OronoMN 55364
Mrs. Harritt Morgart
1003 midhurst Trail
OronoMN 55364
'X
Mr. Michael McKtnney
J045 midhurst Trail
OronoMN 55364
I
Mr. and Mrs. Sleff
mo midhurst Trail
OronoMN 55364
Mr. Harvey Schultz
1085 midhurst Trait
Oror.o M5'55364
John and Cindy Culiiton
U31 Wildkurst Trad
OronoM>! 55364
Mr. and Mrs. Lyle Rahn
1146 midhurst Trail
Orono MN 55364
Brian and Sandra Rasmussen
1186 midhurst Trail
OronoMN 55364
Mr. Peter Martinson
4460 Forest Lake Landing
Orono MN 55364
Mr. Jon Blackstone
4465 Fores: Lake Landing
Orono MN 55364
Mr. and Mrs. Richard Walter
4470 Forest Lake Landing
Orono MN 55364
Mr. Ray Hurley
4475 Forest Lake Landing
OronoMN 55364
Mr. and Mrs. Loren Schoenzelt
4480 Forest Lake Landing
Orono MN 55364
«// i» V /7/tirT *
John and Karen Prew
4490 Forest Lake Landing
OronoMN 55364
Mr. & Mrs. Michael Wear
1134 Wildhurst Trail
Mound, MN 55364
FredandJill
4155 Fbf^iTZake Drive
OrondWH5364
Mr. & Mrs. D. Tlmp
1074 Wildhurst Trail
Mound. Mn 55364
To:Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
1
From:Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Date:February 14,2001
Subject:Surface Water Management Plan
AttachraeBts
• Memo of January 11 ,2001
This item was tabled at your January meeting in order that a greater representation of the
Planning Commission could be present for discussion.
Please bring along your copy of the SWMP that was included with your
January packet If yon no longer have that copy, please call and we will get
one out to you ASAP.
Drew Budclis of Boncstroo will be present on February 21 to answer any questions you have
about the Surr^'i; Water Management Plan.
From:
Date:
Chair Haw-n and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
January 11,2001
Subject: Surface Water Management Plan a^S
r
Attachments
• Public Hearing Notice
• Surface Water Management Plan Pinal DraR, October 9,2000 with sample appendices
(complete appendices can be made available if you wish to review them) and
representative section of System Map
Background
The City of Orono concurrently with adoption of the update of the Community Management Plan
(CMP), must adopt and implement the City of Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP),
a final draft of which has been complct^ by the City’s consulting engineers. Bonestroo and
Associates. This is the first comprehensive document for addressing the management of surface
water in Orono since the original Surface Water Management Plan completed by Hickock and
Associates in 1974.
Adoption of the new Plan technically requires a public hearing, as it constitutes a separate element
of the Community Management Plan that was not ready for review and approval at the time the full
CMP was approved by the City Council in September 2000.
Work toward completion of the SW^IP actually began as early as 1992-93 when the City contracted
for T topographic map coverage of the entire City. A first draft of the SWMP was completed in
1997. However, the SWMP has been significantly reworked since the July 1997 draft, in response
to comments and concerns raised by Council and staff during a number of work sessions held during
the past 3 years.
Plan Objectives
The general objectives of the SWMP arc:
• Preserv e Orono’s wetlands, streams and lakes, especially Lake Minnetonka.
• Reduce capital expendimres needed to meet water quantity and quality standards.
• Minimize existing flooding, erosion and sedimentation problems generated by surface flows.
SWMP
January ’ 11,2001
Page 2
Improve stormwater quality in waterbodies by maximizing the amount of areas available for
treatment.
Protect groundwater quantity and qua.ity by allowing for passive treatment and innitration
of stormwater.
Promote groundwater recharge by creating additional ponding areas.
Protect and enhance water recreational facilities and fish and wildlife habitat.
Preserve vegetation around stormwater detention areas by leaving them in a natural state,
thereby reducing maintenance.
The objectives of the Orono Surface Water Management Plan conform with the goals of the MC
plan, and the Orono Plan conforms to all Regional, Stale and Federal requirements for local plans.
PU d Highlights
Highlights of the Plan include:
• Establishment of surface w ater management goab and policies in ChapKf^
• Discussion of Orono’s physical environment in ChantcrJ
Technical background in Chanter 4 including:
o Surface water system design considerations; relationships between land use and
runoff quality/quantity; modeling of runoff rates, storage needs
o Methods and systems for capture, conveyance and storage of runoff
o Systems and design considerations for treatment of runoff
A new section on wetland management has been included tChapter 5). discussing water
quantity and quality impacts on wetlands; assessing the characteristics of 85 selected City-
wetlands in terms of stormwater susceptibility; suggesting strategies for wetland protection:
and proposing a restoration and enhancement program for four specified wvtlands, including
a discussion of estimated costs and potential funding sources.
Chapter 6 discusses each of the 18 major drainage districts in detail, identifying areas with
issues of concern in regards to water quantity and quality, and recommending specific
actions or projects to address the identified problems.
SWMP
January II, 2001
Page 3
^ discusses implementation strategies:
o Water quantity management system • the system of storm sewers, ditches, swales,
emergency overflows and ponds to collect store and convey surface water,
o Water quallt)* management system - aholistic approach that requires water quality
monitoring, public education and involvement, and strategies for determining
appropriate management alternatives for various development conditions as well as
a system of water quality ponds. A wide range of activities is suggested, noting that
wnter quality management requires community cooperation. Note that hardcover
management is only a very minor component of this plan... we will be conferring with
the people at Boncstroo as to how a discussion of our hardcover standards can be
added to the Plan text.
o A cost estimate for completing the system is provided, iiKtuding a 5-year Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP) totaling approximately $2 million (sec pages 7-20 thru 7-
25). Total long term cost of the system is expected to be around $1 1 million,
o Methods for financing construction of the system are discussed, summarized as
follows:
AcilYiix Svatem Finaueing Method
New Development 1) Developer construction of system or components; and or
2) Trunk Fee on a per-acre basis for regional system impacts,
adjusted for land use type
Expansion of
Existing Structure
Partial Trunk Fee based on impacts and site ability to obtain 60%
nutrient removal
Developed Areas 1) Direct assessment of contributing benefitting properties
2) Stomiwater Utility Fee - an annual fee charged to all
based on the amount of stormwater runoff generated by the property
A numberof grant programs for surface water management activities or system construction
are also identified.
Chapter 8 includes a summary and rccommendatioDS for the Council's consideration.
Appendices A thru I conuiin the data for each drainage area, proposed system parameters and cost
estimates, wetland data, and a complete Surface Water System map. (The appendices are rather
voluminous and have not been copi^ in their entirety for you, but can be made available if you want
to review a specific drainage area).
Aside from a few paragraphs that staff proposes be added (primarily in the inlroduclory sections) to
more clearly establish Orono’s historic philosophy on stormwater management as related to the
protection of Lake Minnetonka, the Plan is complete.
SWMP
Januar>’ 11,2001
Page 4
Items for Council Discussion
Tut) significant topics appear to require further discission by the City Council prior to adoption of
the Plan:
1. Acceptance of the 5-Year CIP (refer to Pages 7-1 thru 7-25)
The 5-Yeor Copital Improvement Plan includes the planning, design and construction of a
number of stormwater management facilities including:
a) construction of system improvements associated with new development on parcels
expected to develop in the next 5 years;
b) construction of system improvements in areas of Orono that are already developed;
and
c) implementation and/or construction of techniques or system improvements that are
aimed at protection and/or enhancement of priority wetlands or Lake Minnetonka
bays.
The 5-year CIP has a total price tag of approximately $2 million, a portion of which w ill be
paid for by new development. Staft is relatively comfortable with this ambitious proposal;
it will, however, require ongoing attention and a pro-active approach toward project initiation
and completion, as well as a clear plan for funding. Financial impacts could increase the time
period for completion of the CIP.
Acceptance of the T rank Fee Schedule for the various land use types (refer to pages 7-25
thru 7-30)
Under the proposed Plan, financing of stormwater facilities w ill be via a number of methods.
W'ater quality and quantity projects for developing areas will be financed by Trunk Fees
charged to the developer, which may involve creation of new facilities or expansion of
existing systems. System improvements in developed areas may be by direct assessment of
benefitted properties or by "slomiwatcr utility" fees. Funding grants from various state,
federal or local agencies may also be available from time to time. While the establishment
of a Stormwater Utility is left for future consideration and is not part of the SWT^IP, the
Trunk Fee system is a key element of the Plan.
The Trunk Fee is simply a fee charged to developers on a per lot or per acre basis, similar
to the park fee. The numerical basis for the proposed Trun*. Fee was devised based on 12
parcels City staff expects to be developed within the next 5 years. The cost of stormwater
improvements needed to serve those parcels was estimated, and divided by the total acreage
to get a cost per acre; this figure was then adjusted based on the type of land use, with the
cost per acre increasing as density and surface runoff increases. The result is as shown in
Table 7.20. Council will be asked to determine whether the Trunk Fee schedule as
presented is acceptable.
SWMP
January 11.2001
Pages
Staff RccommcDdation
Planning Commission is asked lo review the SWMP, concentrating on the Goals and Policies section
(Section 2). Staff recommends approval of the SWMP subject to minor text revisions regarding
hardcover and related to protection of Lake Miiuietonka.
CITYOFORONO
2750 KcUc> Parkway. P.O. Boa 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
PhoBC (952)249<4622 Fax (952)249-4616
NOTICE
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers ^ 2780 Kelley
Parkway on Wednesday, January 17, 2001 to review and make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding applicaUon #2656, the proposed Orono Surface Water Management Plan.
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. All persons wishing to be heard will appear at tWs time. Written
comments are solicited. A copy of the proposed Surface Water Management Plan is av’ailable in the
City offi^ for review.
City of Orono
By: Planning Conunission
Michael P. GafTron, Planning Director
To be published the wTeks of December 30,2000 and January’ 6,2001.
tiniii
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
Acting Chair Daniel Kluth. Commissioner Janice Berg. Alternate Commissioners li^ne Mabusth
and Maureen Bellows The following represented City Staff. Senior Planning Coordinate
Mike Oaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Assistant Zoning Administrator Wendy
Bonenberg. and Recorder Jackie Young City Council Representatives Jay Nygard and
Bob Sansevwe were present.
Acting Chair Kluth called the meeting to order at 6.31 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
(«l) <12646 JOHN ADAMS AND CLEA ALTMAN, 4245 CHIPPEWA LANE,
VARIANCE. 6:31 p.m. - 6 p.m.
John Adams and Clea Altman, Applicants, were present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg stated the Applicants arc requesting a lot area variance to construct a
residence on the lot The cxisung residence that was constructed in the early 1960s and an
acccssoiy building wer: removed per a demolition pemiit issued in June, 2000. The lot is
appro.\iniately 4 89 acres, with the minimum lot area requirement being 5 acres. A lot area
variance is r^uired to construct a new residence
Bottenberg stated this is an existing lot which was platted prior to current zoning standards,
with no additional land being available to meet the zoning standards
City Staff recommends approval of a lot area variance
Adams commented they are in tlie process of combining two families and are in need of a
laigci house to accommodate more children
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bctlowa inquired whether the house was on the property at the time the lot was purchased
Adams stated he bought the property after the house had been removed
Bellows inquired whether he knew at the time of purchase that this area was zoned five acres.
Adams stated he was aware of that fact, but figured since it was close to five acres, it would not be a
problem to obtain a variance
Mabusth moved. Bellow* seconded, to recommend approval of Application «2646,
John Adams and Clea Altman. 4245 Chippewa Lane, granting of a lot area variance m
order to construct a new residence on the lot. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGEl
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(«2) H2647 ROBERT ZAUN, 13J7 REST POINT CIRCLE, \ ARIANCE, 6:35 - 6:39 |»m
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Zaun, Applicants. \\«re present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Bottenberg staled the Applicants are proposing to construct an attached two stall garage
consisting of 21‘ by 33*with a second story. The first floor will be a two>stall garage, SNith the
second floor being additional living space. The existing garage wilt also be turned into living
space Bottenberg noted floor plans for the second floor living space over the garage wrre not
submitted by the Applicants.
Bonenberg stated the existing residence was built in the 1960s. with no additions having been
constructed to the residence. The new garage location will allow the existing floor plan and
front entry to remam.
Bottenberg indicated the subject property is surrounded on three sides by road Bottenberg
noted structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application
City Staff recommends approval of the variance
Zaun commented he would like to construct a two*sull garage since he has two cars. Zaun
stated this location fils in best with the existing structure and will allow him to increase theii
living space.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Bellows commented that 21 feet is small for a garage, and suggested the Applicant may want to
consider constructing a slightly larger garage
Zaun indicated he had reduced it somewhat to lessen the impact to the side yard setback.
Bellows suggested the Applicant consider increasing tlie width of the garage towards the side
of the house Bellows stated she would not be in favor of encroaching further into the side yard
setback.
Zaun staled he is somewhat restricted from making the garage bigger since it wtnild obstruct the
\ icw from a w indow on that side of the house Zaun stated he w ill consider it.
Berg moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application W2647, Robert Zaun,
1337 Rest Point Circle, granting of a side yard adjacent to street setback to allow for the
construction of a two-stall garage with a second story. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday. January 17.2001
(#3) <»2658 TIM AND AMY LANDON. 1360 VINE PLACE. VARIANCES.
6:40 p.ni. - 6:43 p.nu
Tim and Amy Landon. Applicanu. were present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottcnbei^ stated the Applicants are requesting a lot width variance and an accessory-
building variance to construct a new residence on the lot. The existing residence that was
built in 1950 was removed per a demolition permit issued in December of 2000. A lot width
variance is required due to the lot being 90 feet wide where 140 feet is required in the LR-IB
zoning district.
Bottenberg stated an accessory building \anance is required because Orooo's Zoning Code does
not permit an accessory building on property without a pnncipal structure Currently tliere is an
existing accessory building located on the property without a primary structure. A variaiKe was
granted in 1976 to allow the oversized accessory building to be constructed on the property The
Applicants plan to construct a new residence on the property with the accessory building remaining
City Staff recommends approval of the vanances
Landon stated he would like to keep the accosory structure since it is in excellent shape Landon
stated his hardcover is below the maximum allowed, with the house being located far enough from
the lakeshore Landon stated to his knowledge his neighbors are not opposed to this project.
Bellow s commented the Applicant’s lot width of 90 feet appears to be consistent w ith some of the
other lots in the area
Lamlon stated the lot widths in this area range between 50 feci to 100 feet
There were no public comments regarding this application
Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application It2658,
Tim and Amy Landon, 1360 Vine Place, granting of a lot width variance and an
accessory building variance to allow construction of a new residence on the lot.
with the understanding the new residence w ill meet all setback, hardcover and
structural coverage requirements for the property . VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#4) H26i\ ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE.
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL (P.R.U.D).6:44 p.m. - 6:54 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffion statec :his is the fifth draft of the zoning code amendment, w-ith the Planning Commission
ha\ ing reviewed various drafts of the amendment at their meetings since October. Gafifron stated
the latest draft has incorporated the recommendations suggested by the Planning Commission at
their January 5"* work session.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, Januai7 17,2001
(W26.*>1 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
GafTron stated the most recent revisions include prohibition of RPUD in the Shoreland District,
with clarification of the extent of the District and an editorial note regarding potential applicability
of RPUD in certain Shoreland areas. GafTron noted the members of the Planning Commission were
not unanimous in their decision regarding the prohibition, with some members feeling this issue
should be looked at more closely in the future
GaHrun slated another significant issue the Planning Commission has discussed at length is
regarding the height a particular structure should be within this district, with a height limitation
of 2 '/»stores or 30 feet for residentiallv guided properties, three story maximum for residential
building in commercially guided areas being incorporated into the amendment
GafTron stated there have been significant revisions to the park dedication requirements. The
language requiring 8 percent of gross lot area to be dedicated to pnvate recreational area has
been increased to 10 percent, and is to be considered a separate dedication in addition to the
standard public park dedication requirement GafTron stated the RPUD district would be subject to the
park dedication requirements, with some possible revisions suggested to allow the City Council to
waive the park dedication for City'assisted projects and/or projects with a public purpose; and to cap
the park fee at
8 percent of land fair market value for higher density residential projects where the park fee per
unit may greatly exceed 8 percent of the per unit land value
GafTron stated the amendment has been revised to include revisions to the minimum landscape
value rates, with higher landscape standards hav ing been incorporated into the amendment.
Language has also been added clarify ing that parking r.iulitics slull he bun‘„ied with landscape
zones and that a development agreement and financial guarantee must to be on file with the City
GafTron stated revised language regarding substantial compliance to omit the 5 percent and
lU percent revision allowances has been added to the amendment, as wril os revised language
regarding major amendments to omit the 5 percent and 10 percent allowances
GafTron stated the City is able to add further amendments if the Planning Commission deems that
appropriate GafTron stated in his opinion the fiAh draft of the amendment has been fine-tuned
to a level where the Planning Commission should feel comfortable approving it
Kluth commented at the most recent work session Commissioners Hawn, Lindquist, and himself
were present where this amendment was discussed Kluth noted the revisions discussed at the
workshop have been incorporated into the amendment Kluth inquired whether the Planning
Commission should look at amending the park dedication code now or in the future
GafTron stated the Planning Commission could adopt the amendment before them tonight with the
recommendation that the park dedication section of the ordinance be looked at in the future. GafTron
noted that rev ising the park dedication ordinances would require a separate public hearing.
Kluth suted in his view giv ing the City Council the option of waiving the park dedication fee on
financially assisted projects is an important feature to the amendment.
There were no public comments regarding this matter
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(W263I Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Mabusth inquired uhen this would go before the City Council if approved tonight b> the
Planning Commission
Gaffroo stated it would probably go before the Council at tl.eir first meeting in February .
Mabusth inquired whether the senior housing project proposed by Ambar would be subject to this
amendment
Gaffron stated tliat project would be, noting the developer has been working with the City on this
project and has been using the draft amendment as a planning guide.
Kluth moved. Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2631, Zoning
Code Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Proposed Residential (P.R.U.D.).
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(#5) #2638 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE,
SECTION 10.45,6:55 p.m. - 7:03 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Gaffron stated thi: zoning code amendment is to revise the B-6 Highwa> Commercial District
standards to incorpo,*aie more detailed landscaping and architectural standards and to revise the
B-6 list of allow ed uses to include clinics
Gaffron stated the landscaping and architectural standards being incorporated into the RPUD
Distnet are equally applicable to the B-6 Commercial Distnet
Gaffron stated another matter included in the zoning code amendment is the addition of clinics
to the list of B-6 permined uses Staff feels it would be appropriate to add ’Clinics for human care
on an outpatient basis onlv" to the list of permitted uses in the D-6 District This would more
correctly accommodate the medical office building proposed at the Dunbar site, and is generally in
keeping with the City's intent for the B-6 District Gaffron stated this change would require a
separate public hearing, which could be held at the City Council level if the Planning Commission
so recommended, or a public hearing could be held at the next Planning Commission meeting
relating to this item
Gaffron recommended approval of the zoning code amendment.
Kluth stated since the addition of clinic use would need to be considered separately, the Planning
Commission will focus primarily on the revisions to the landscaping and ai^itectural standards
being proposed in this amendment.
Kluth inquired whether proper notice has been given on this item
Gaffron stated proper notice has been given relating to this item at all of tlie Planning Commission
meetings where this tern has been discussed.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(M2638 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Mabusth inquired whether there were an\ other zoning districts that should be reviewed in order
to upgrade the landscaping requirements in addition to the B-6 district
Gaffron stated all the zoning distnets could be reviewed in that regard. Gaflron staled that is an
issue that StafT should probably look at in the near future
Bellows suggested that the Cil\ require some bigger tree sizes
Kluth stated it was his understanding these standards are similar to the surrounding communities.
Gaffron stated one reason wh\ cities t\picall> require smaller tree sizes is due to the fact that
smaller trees and bushes tend to thrive sooner than larger ones
Bellows commented that some communities do a mix of both large and small trees based on a
certain percentage, and that perhaps the Ci*\ may want to consider looking a: that issue in the
future.
Gaffron stated Staff will review this amendment periodically to see whether any revisions
are appropriate
Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend Approval of Application W26J8, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Section 10.45 (B-6 District), with the
understanding the revision to the B-6 list of allowed uses to include clinics will be acted on
separately following a separate public hc.iring. VOTE: .A>es 4. Navi 0.
(«f6) M2639 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT, ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE,
SECTION 10.52, 7:04 p.m. - 7:08 p.m.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Gaffron stated this zoning code amendment is necessary to add the RPUD to the list of
avaibblc zoning districts under Section 10 52 Section 10 52 is the section relating to Special
Requirements for Rezoning in the Highway 12 Comdor Study Area Gaffron stated the study area
carries through with the City ’s 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan, with Subdivision 5 rebting to
avaibblc zoning districts that could be developed within the Highway 12 corridor Gaffron stated
the Highway 12 corridor study area allows rezoning to the B-6 Highway Commercial District, the
PRD, Planned Residential Development, the R-IA, One Family Residential Distnet; R-IB. One
Family Residential District, and M-6, Multiple Family Planning Residential District
Gaffron recommended adding the RPUD District to the list of available zoning districts
Bellows inquired whether this area backs up to the new Highway 12 comdor
Gaffron stated the Highway 12 comdor includes all of Orono’s Industrial Park and includes
properties that abut Highway 12 along the north side of the highway from Brown Road to Old
Crystal Bay Road, and includes some other individual properties
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(N2639 Zoning Code Amendment, Continued)
Bc IIoxns inquired whether it goes to the railroad tracks
Gaffron staled the new Comprehensive Plan identifies an area east of Willow Drive between the
tracks and Watertown Road that has been guided for single family/higher density. Gaffron stated that
area could potentially be developed through the RPUD standards and could be included in the
Highway 12 corridor study area
There were no public comments relating to this matter
Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application H2639, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Action 10.52. VOTE: A>es4, NaysO.
(Item Nos. ’’ through 11 follow Item 12)
(«12) #2651 SI EPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS, INC, ON BEHnLi OF ROBIN A
JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE, VARIANCES, 7:09 p.m. - 8:09 p.m.
Jeremx Dupp, Property Owner, and Stephen Longman. Builder, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidaxit of Publication were noted
Weinberger stated the Applicants were issued a building permit on June 20, 2000, ro construct
a new house on this property A temporary certificate of occupancy lias been issued on
January 17,2001, as the house is considered complete subject to a few conditions that still need to be
met befoie the final certificate of occupancy can ^ issued Weinberger stated some grading
issues still need to be completed as well as installation of drain tile and excavation of the
drainage swale
Weinberger stated at the time the building permit was approx ed, the site plan did meet all the
requirements of Orono's Ordinances and the State Building Code A later rcxicxx
of the site plan, w hich occurred after the City received some phone calls from the adjoining
property oxxners, discovered that the onginal site plan submined by the survey or xxas mcorrect xxiih
regard to the 75 foot lakeshorc setback A new suacy xxas submined depicting the correct shoreline,
xxith a small portion of the property being located xxithin 75 feet of the lakeshorc that xxas not
originally deducted from the buildable portion of the lot
Weinberger stated this created a situation xxhcrc the oxxners xxcre required to omit certain items
of hardcover on the property to remain xxithin the 25 percent requirement. The areas that do
rcftect the changes to the site plan relate to a patio, which has not been constructed, and to the
drix cxxay, xxhich has been constructed to a minimal ten foot xx idth It xxas determined by City
Staff and the property oxxners that the ten foot xvidth xxas the minimum xvidth that could be
constructed and still be able to fully utilize the three-stall garage on the property.
Weinberger stated since the mistake on the surv*ey was not found until after the house xxas almost
completed, it xxas difficult to make any revisions to the plan. The grading plan submitted by the
Applicant does address concerns raised by City Staff concerning the property, xxith drainage swales
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(M2639 2U)ning Code Amendment, Continued)
Bcllovxs inquired whether it goes to the railroad tracks.
GafTron stated the nc>v Comprehensive Plan identifies an area east of Willow Drive bct%\‘een the
tracks and Watertown Road that has been guided for single family/higher density. Gaffran stated that
area could potentially be developed through the RPUD standards and could be included in the
Highway 12 corridor study area
There were no public comments relating to this matter
Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application M2639, Zoning Code
Amendment, Orono Municipal Zoning Code, Section 10.52. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(Item Nos. 7 'hrough 11 follow Item 12)
(«12) <t2651 STEPHEN LONGMAN BUILDERS. INC, ON BEHnLi OF ROBIN A
JEREMY BUPP, 2696 CAROLINE AVENUE. VARIANCES, 7:09 p.m. - 8:09 p.m.
Jerem\ Bupp. Property Owner, and Stephen Longman, Builder, were present
The Ccnifiote of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Weinberger staled the Applicants were issued a building permit on June 20,2000, »r* construct
a new house on this property. A temporary certificate of occupancy lias been issued on
Januarv 17, 2001, as the house is considered complete subject to a few conditions that still need to be
met before the final certificate of occupancy can be issued Weinberger stated some grading
issues still need to be completed as well as installation of drain tile and excavation of the
drainage swale
Weinberger stated at the time the building permit was approv ed, the site plan did meet all the
requirements of Orono's Ordinances and the State Building Code A later review
of the site plan, which occurred after the City receiv ed some phone calls from the adjoining
property owners, discovered that the onginal site plan submitted by the surveyor was mcorrect with
regard to the 75 foot lakeshorc setback A new survey was submined depicting the correct shoreline,
with a snull portion of the property being located within 75 feet of the lakeshorc that was not
originallv deducted from the buildable portion of the lot
Weinberger stated this created a situation where the owners were required to omit certain items
of hardcover on the property to renuin within the 25 percent requirement. The areas that do
reflect the changes to the site plan relate to a patio, which has not been constructed, and to the
dnveway, which has been constructed to a minimal ten foot width It was determined by* City
Staff and the property owners that the ten foot width w as the minimum w idth that could be
constructed and still be able to fully utilize the three-stall garage on the property*.
Weinberger stated since the mistake on the survey was not found until after the house was almost
completed, it was difficult to make any* revisions to the plan. The grading plan submitted by the
Applicant does address concerns raised by City Staff concerning the property*, with drainage swales
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING rOMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,20U1
(M2651 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
being constructed on either side of the house to direct \s^er around the house and gutters being
installed on the north side of the house to direct the water toward the lakeshore Drainage has been a
concern with tliis application since the property was more iully develc^d than what had been in
the past and due to the dose proxiniiiy to adjacent structures.
Weinberger indicated the Applicants arc requesting a variance for the dnvewa\ If the dnmvay
is expanded, it would result in hardcover beyond the 25 percent limit Weinberger noted the
Applicants currently arc at the 25 percent hardcover limit with the items tiui have been omitted.
The second item that was omitted is the patio, which is now depicted as a grassy area Ihe
Applicants are requesting a variance to construct the patio. Weinberger stated the onginal plan
had intended for there to be a full patio door with a walkout At the present time there is no wav to
access to the ground, w ith any tvpc of access requiring a variance Weinberger indicated there is
approximately a three to four foot drop from the patio door to the ground
Weinberger stated the State Building Code docs not permit a door to open out witiiout a safe
landing The City of Orono has required that the patio doon be permanently fixed so they cannot
be opened Weinberger indicc ed the natural grade of the land lias been altered to accommodate
a step-down patio in this area Weinberger sta,ed the grading that lus been done in this area
was approv ed Grading in excess of two and a half feet would be considered an encroachment on
the average setback Being tlut it is a ground level patio, that area could be paved (with a
variance) witliout it being an encroachment into the setback
Weinberger stated in order for a variance to be granted, n hardship inherent to the land must be
demonstrated Tlie propertv owners have slated tliat liad thev been aware of the hardcov er
limitations in this area thev windd have been able to redesign the house to meet those standards,
and at this time arc requesting a minimal patio and a liitle additional driveway space to enable
better maneuvering of a vehicle due
Staff is making a recommendation of denial on this application since it is new construction and
the Planning Commission and Citv Council have been consistent in the past on adhering to the
25 percent limit. Staff does not tcel a hardship has been demonstrated that is inherent to the land.
Weinberger stated tlie only possible hardship that could be considered would be the irregular
shape of tlie shoreline, which has caused more of the propertv to be considered within the 0-75*
setback area
Bupp mdicated he understands they arr at 100 percent of 'heir o\c> llov ' cr at this time with
the present design of the house Bupp stated as way of background (his piopcriy aas ess. it.dlv an
unused lor with a small cabin having been located o.. the let Bupp commented it is hii opinion the
neighbors m the area adopted this lanu as a small park and arc having trouble dealing with the
inconvenience or imposiiioi of the construction of a new residence Bupp slated the construction
has caused some distraction to the ne.^hUors as well as some danuge to a grassy aiia wh eh has
upset the neighbors, and which he ha.- apologized
Bupp stated due to the neighbors' .cmc^. iiv, the construction of their residence has been very
carefully scrutinized Bupp stated althoa.h their plans were approved by the City, they were
request^ to resurvey the propertv a couple of times, which resulted in the finding that the
PAGES
hUXUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesdty, Januarj-17,2001
(#2651 Stephen Longman Iluildcrs, Continued)
shoreline was incorrectly identified six months into construction or when the house was 95 percent
complete. Bupp stated ^t finding came as a complete surprise to tlicm and puts them in the
position that they arc presently in.
Bupp Slated, number one, they have acted m good faith with the City and attempted to work with
tlic City in order to comply w ith the vanous requirements, such as reducing the sire of the
driveway and the deck, regrading, and adding of gutters in an attempt to accommodate the requests
of the City. Bupp staled he received a document from the City which includes a sumnury of the
hardcover ordinance and how to calculate hardcover Bupp suited nc where w ithm that document
IS there reference to setback tJ the adjacent property
Bupp stated tlie second point he would like to nuke is Uut the hardcover being requested tonight
is only .44 percent for the driveway and approxinutcly I percent for the patio. Bupp staled
depicted on the approved site plan was tlic patio, the walkout, and llic larger driveway. Bupp
stated currently they have patio doors that open to nowhere, which makes them unuscable at this
time without some type of stairway Bupp stated tlui is their only access to the back yard, with their
house being designed to access the back yard v ia the patio doors.
Bupp commented in his view the irregular shape of the shoreline docs have a negative impact on
the property. Bupp stated if the irregular shape of the shoreline :s taken into consideration w ith the
property line, that results in the 75 foot setback for this area Bupp suted the incorrecUy identified
shoreline was a complete surprise to both the City and himself, and this error of omission should be
shared by the City and himself and should have been caught upfront during the planning process
Bupp requested the Planning Commission take that omission into consideration when considering his
lurdcover variance request Bupp stated due to that omission, they have been placed into an
impossible situation and have attempted to accommodate the City ’s lurdcover limits as best they can
Longman slated he disagrees with City Staff that no hardship exists Longnun staled the f; {the
house has been constructed with a patio door designed to access a patio should be considered a
hardship since they have acted in good faith through the app!;cai.ou rev lew f rocess Longnun seated
the variance law is designed to lundic this type of situation, and requested that the Planning
Commission take into consideration the irregular shape of the shoreline and the fact that the
75’ setback was incorrectly nurked and not discovered until the house was nearly completed
Bupp stated had ti c shoreline been correctly identified upfront, they would have taken the necessary
steps to accommod,. to that Bupp stated in his v iew they have done a good job of comply ing vvitli
the City’s regulations and have tried to respect the neighbors’ opinions throughout this process.
Longman stated they art open to compromise and are noc asking for much additional hardcov*er.
Gary Thompson, Attomey-at-Law, suted he is here on behalf of Joseph and Jane Clemons, noting
he has submitted letters to the City dated January 7* and January 15, 2001.
Klulh indicated the Planning Commission does have the lener dated January-15 in their packet.
PAGE 9
J
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(M26S1 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Bupp requested a cop\ of the letter
Thompson staled the amount of hardcover currently on the property is in dispute and has not been
verifi^ by the City. Tliompson stated the issues relating to hardcover and setbacks changed due
to the problem with the shoreline setback. Thompson stated the actual square footage of the house
is also in dispute, which also needs to be verified Thompson indicated the Clemons were told the
octual lot area would be verified by the City Engineer, w hich has not been completed
Thompson presented some pictures of the new residence the Planning Commission
Thompson stated there arc a couple of items that lu\c been added to the residence which arc not
depicted on the original plans which impact hardcover on the property, such as a column supporting
a roof and the roof overhangs Thompson commented the roof overhangs should be includi^ in the
hardcover calculation when the City’s ordinance calls for that to be included.
Thompson expressed concerns that a drainage plan has not been submitted to the City to solve
the drainage issues resulting from the construction Thompson stated the neighbors have a number
of concerns relating to drainage in this area, which should be addressed
Thompson stated the patio and the retaining walls will also require a setback variance, which has
not been requested by the propertv owner Tliompson stated in his opinion a hardship docs not
exist and the lot has simply been overbuilt, with the City and neighbors not being responsible for
creating this situation Thompson stated the neighbors arc here tonight request .ng the Cit> take steps
to protect their properties from any issues resulting from this project
Joe Clemons, 2690 Caroline Avenue, slated the certificate of survey makes no mention of a deck,
w ith the amount of allowable hardcover on this property being 5,6i5 square feet Clemons stated
the propertv owner is at 5,621 square feet Clemons stated in his view the driveway is equal to or
larger than what it was back in May and should be remeasured Ocmon,v stated in his view the
driveway exceeds the area depicted on the sun e>
Clemons noted the retaining wall has shrunk from 80 feet to 45 feet, and questioned which number
was correct Clemons indicated that Orono’s Ordinances state that whenever a roof extends out
beyond one and a half foot, the additional ovcl.ang should be counted as hardcov er and would
result between an additional 600 to ' 00 square feet in hardcov er
Clemons stated in his view there is not a hardship Clemons stated the building official found several
inconsistencies on the footpr'it that existed during construction Clemons indicated the deck had to be
removed and reconstructed bv.„use it was found to encroach three fe • mto the setback Clemons
Slated in addition to the shoreline being inaccurately measured, the s .y does not include a large
cement planter or a pillar and roof located on the northwest side of the house Clemons stated his
concerns regarding the hardcover relate r ’he drainage, noting the grade of the land has been
changed significantly.
Cleirons stated in addition, his vit*\ of the lake is pretiv much gone Clemons requested the
vanance request be denied
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(M26S1 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Thelma Puivcr, 2691 Caroline Avenue, expressed drainage concerns that might result from this
project, noting she currently experiences water ruitoff from the two roads near her property'.
Peggy Kadlec. 2726 CaroUne Avenue, indicated she did submit a letter to the City e.xprcssing the
concerns of the neighborhood reUting to this project Kadlec stated at the time Uiey constructed
their residence, they wvre required to comply with the City’s regulations and setback laws, which
should also apply in this case.
Kadlec stated they arc a tolerant neighborhood, but in her view the Applicant went ahead with his
construction knowing he will need a variance bter on Kadlec slated due to the constructioii. a
grassy area on their property as well as a 100 year old Oak tree lus been damaged Kadlec
expressed doubts that the actual house built is the same plan that is depicted on the original plans
Kadlec requested the Planning Commission deny the variance request
Weinberger stated the hardcover calculations have been verified, which indicate the Applicant is
currently over the 25 percent limit by four square feet Discussions have been had with the
Applicant regarding where the four square feet could possibly be removed, with there being very
limited options.
Weinberger stated the first issue he would like to address relates to the measurement of the house,
which is actually three feet wider than what was originally depicted on the survey Weinberger
stated there were two architectural features at the end of the house which w ere not depicted on the
survey and are considered in the hardcover. Weinberger stated the columns are depicted on the
newest suney and arc also included in the hardcover calculation
Weinberger stated the issue relating to the grading is valid, noting the area was filled in quite a
bit to bnng the land back to the natural grade prior to the cabin Weinberger stated the*', still is a
fair amount of fill tUt still needs to be regraded in the spring Weinberger stated the survey does
show some corrected figures which the land will need to be regraded to In addition to the
regrading, the property owner will also be installing a gutter sy stem, drain tile, and improving the
drainage swales to direct the water runoff from tlie house down towards the lake Weinberger stated
the house located at 2691 Caroline Avenue should not be impacted by any water runoff from this
project
Weinberger indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy has been issued w ith the stipulation that
no final certificate of cccupancy will be issued until the grading issues are adequately addressed
and done in compliance with City standards.
Bellows inquired whether anyone from the City has compared the approved drawings with the
residence that was actually constructed to sec whether it complies.
Weinberger indicated the actual residence that has been constructed does have a few minor changes
to it *hat arc not reflected on the original plans but is lairly consistent with the approved plans
Bellows stated approved plans arc supposed to be complied w ith and not changed.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(N26SI Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
Weinberger stated the Applicant did receive apprm-al from the City regarding the minor changes
that were done. Weinberger indicated the cliangc relates to the ^rage.
Bellows mquired why the shoreline measurement was not verified and included on the original survey.
Bellow ’S stafid the shoreline setback is not a new requirement, and inquired whether the builder has
constructed other homes in Orono prior to this residence
Longman stated he has
Bellows stated the setback has to do with the lakeshore and has nothing to do with the neighbor's
property. Bellows commented in her view the hardship relating to the patio doors is really not a
hardship and could be changed to windows Bellows stated sh? does not see a hardship iriherent to
the land for this propert}-.
Bellows inquired whether the roof overhangs have been considered m the hardcover.
Weinberger stated the hardcover numbers that ha\e been approved deal with the footprint of the
house.
Bellows commented that the City ma\ hate been remiss with the roof
Weinberger staled roof overhangs t)pically are not included in the hardcover calculations. The
building inspector has indicated that unless the roof line is used for a covered walkway or patio,
it ttpically is not included in the hardcover calculations
Bellows expressed concern that these issues were brought to light back in September and that
perhaps steps could have been taken at that time to limit the amount of hardcover on the property*.
Bellows indicated she is not in favor of granting a hardcover variance on this property.
Berg inquired how many surv eys for this property the City has
Weinberger stated there are four or five in the file
Berg inquired why there needed to be so many surveys done on this property.
Weinberger stated the City would request a new survey whenev-er they* felt something was not in
compliance with the plans Weinberger suded the encroachment of the deck was six inches and
has been relocated out of the setback.
Mabusth inquired whether anything was done regarding the roof overhangs.
Weinberger stated the roof overhangs were depicted on the approved drawings
Kluth commented he is not in favM^ of granting a hardcover variance for this property since the
property owner has bu;lt right up to the ma.ximum allowed, leaving no margin for error. Kluth
indicated the Planning Commission and City Council has iKcn fairly consistent in requiring the
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(M26S1 Stephen Longman Builders, Continued)
25 percent hardcom limit be complied with on newr construction. Kluth stated in his opinion he
does not sec a hardship inherent to the land.
Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of Application <12651, Stephen
Longman Builders, Inc., on behalf of Robin and Jeremy Bupp, 2696 Caroline Avenue,
and not grant a hardcover variance. \’OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS
7;30 p.m.
(K7) #7^50 CHARLES VAN EECKHOUT, 120 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, PRELIMINARY
SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING, 8:05 p.m. - 8 29 p.m.
Charles Van Eeckhout. Applicant, wns present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were rated
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission has looked at various revisions of this basic concept
plan a number of times, w ith the latest revision showing a four lot development Weinberger stated
this area is located within the two acre zoning district This is a 20 acre site, with 14.1 acres being
drv buildable.
The City Council voted to return this item to the Planning Commission to review the new four lot
concept. This matter was also reviewed by the Long Lake Planning Commission due to some road
access issues that need to be resolved Weinberger stated one of the nuin issues with this
development relate to access to the various lots North of the site is the Citv of Long Lake and
Apple Glen Road, which is a private road The Long Lake Planning Commission met on
January 9* and tabled this request to consider access due to some issues relating to notification of
the neighbors and discussions with Long Lake’s City Attorney The application bcfoie the Long Lake
Planning Commission depicted seven lots ratlier than the four lots now before the Planning Comission
tonight.
Weinberger stated what the Applicant is now proposing is a four lot development with scccss
back to Brown Road, which was onginally considered with a cul-dc-sac and a five lot plan. The
revised concept plan does meet a couple of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission
earlv on bv reducing the number of lots to four The Applicant is now proposing two lots at the
north end along with three lots to the south, which would also include the e.\isting house which is
owned by the Applicant.
Weinberger staled this plan is again at the concept plan stage, with the Applicant looking for some
direction and some type of recommendation to move this matter before the City Council for
consideration of preliminary plat Weinberger stated the two main issues that have held this
application up w ere a technical evaluation review of the actual wetland boundaries on the property.
PAGE 13
1
MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(1^550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
which has been resolved this past November. 2000, and access Into the propcrt>- Weinberger stated
the nuin obstacle to gaining access to this propert) is the fact that the propeit>- in which the proposed
road would be located is owned by John Dunn and not the Applicant. The Applicant lias had a
driveway easement over that area for perhaps the past 40 )cars, which has prov ided access to one 20
acre site.
The City Attorney has reviewed the easement document, and it is hi< opinion that a driv eway
access did not impi} that a road could be constructed in the casement to service additional lots
Currently the drivewa) scrv ices Wvo lots in this area At tlic time a third drivewav is added to this
access, the road would need to be upgraded to City standard
Weinberger stated the Applicant is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on
whether they feel this is a good concept plan and should proceed forward with access negotialioiu
w ith the propenv owner to the north Weinberger stated this proposed plan docs address many of the
concerns the Planning Commission and Citv Council have had with the other prior proposals
Van Eeckhout indicated this is the plan of record before tlic City, which was approved by the City
Council at its November 11* meeting, with the message that if Long Lake approves the access, the
City of Orono would approve this pbn Van Eeckhout stated at the December 18*’’ meeting the City
Council reversed itselt and voted 5 to 0 to prepare a resolution of denial due to issues relating to
access off of Apple Glen Road
Van Eeckhout stated another plan he had proposed calling for seven lots was denied due to the
snull lot sizes, which has resulted in a number of different revisions in the plan Van Eeckhout
noted the two main issues relating to this development have primarily focused on access and
the amount of wetlands -r-the property
V'an Eeckhout stated he docs have legal access oil of Apple Glen Rood according to the Attorney
General's Office, but due to the concerns expressed by the citizens of Long Lake, be is attempting
to gam access to this development off of Brown Road Van Eeckhout noted the Long Lake Planning
Commission recently tabled his application Van Eeckhout indicated he would prefer access off of
Brown Road rather than have access disputed by the citizens of Long Lake
Van Eeckhout stated in an effort to move forward, he has contacted John Dunn, who indicated he
would be agreeable to submit to binding arbitration Eeckhout indicated he lias made three offers
to Dunn in the past, who has returned all three offers unsigned Eeckhout stated he has not received
any offer back from Dunn regarding access Eeckhout stated he would like to pursue binding
arbitration on the issue of access
Van Eeckhout stated he is looking for guidance on whether the layout before the Planning
Commission is acceptable Van Eeckhout stated this plan is predicated on access off of Br wn Road.
Mabutsh inquired whether Uiis development would be hooked up to City sewer.
Van Eeckhout stated it has been recommended that this properly be hooked up to City sewer due
to the sensitive environment issues that exist and that there is the capacity to be hooked up to the
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(tfJSSO Charles Van Eeckhout, Continued)
scu-cr line. Van Eeckhout indicated this area is located m the proposed MUSA area.
Bello\^$ asked if her understanding was correct that the Applicant currently has a driveway
easement over a piece of propert>‘ to <e: ve his home located on 20 acres
Van Eeckhout staled he does
Bellows inquired whether Uiat easement would run with his title
Van Eeckhout stated it w ould
Bellows commented that by definition a driveway in Orono can only service two residences.
Gaffron stated once a driveway reaches the level of providing access to three residences, it must
be upgraded to a cit>’ road
Bellows inquired how a private propertv owacr can be forced into arbitration in order to gain
access over his propert)*.
Van Eeckhout stated he is not able to do that unless the property owner agrees to it
Bellows commented she misimderstood the Applicant
Van Eeckhout stated John Dunn did indicate to him that he would be wilting to submit to
arbitration in a phone call
Mr Dunn’s son was present and indicated his rather John is in Flonda at the present time, but that it is
his understanding that his father has not agreed to submit to arbitration
Bellows indicated the question of access is stdl unresolv ed at this time.
Van Eeckhout stated approval would hav e to be subject to access
Kluth commented he is somewhat confused on what plan the Planning Commission is to look at.
Van Eeckhout stated the proposal before the Planning Commission is the four lot development,
and that he is looking for guidance on whether the Planning Commission would be agreeable to
this tvpe of development.
Kluth indicated the Planning Commission is an adv isory body only
Bob Sarsevere, Cit; Council Representative, stated he would prefer not to see this application
again until the issue of access has been resolved, w hich has bMn coimnunicated to the Appliomt.
Sansevere stated it is hii position approval should not be given until access is resolved
Berg indicated she would like to see the access issue resolved as well
PAGE IS
MINUTES OF TIIE ORO.NO PLANMNG COMMISSION
Wcdncsciny, Jnriiinry 17, 20<)l
(02550 Charles Van Eeckhout, Continucii)
Van Eeckhout stated he would like to get some guidance from the Pbnning Commission on his
plan and that he is simpl> following the required procedure.
Kluth stated the Planning Commission has given the Applicant guidance on having smaller
lot sizes and the need to resolve the access issue Kluib stated until the access issue is resolved,
the Planning Commission is really unable to gi\c a recommendation one way or another on the
proposal
Van Peckhoui stated he docs have legal access off of Apple Glen Road but he is attempting to
pro\. Jc access off of Brown Road due to the concerns expressed by the residents of Long Lake.
Berg stated once access has been resolved, she would be willing to review the plan, but at this
point in time, she cannot approve any plan without knowing how the development will be
accessed
Bellows commented in her view this cannot be considered n proper public hearing since the
Plaiuiing Commission was not supplied with the proper documentation on the plan being discussed
by the Applicant tonight
Van Eeckhout reiterated he u mcrelv lookmg for some guidance from the Planning Commission at
this point
Bellows stated the Planning Commission would like tlic Applicant to get the access issue resolved
prior to bringing this application before the Planning Commission or City Council
The Planning Commission took no action on this application
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONTINUED
8:00 p.m.
(08) 02640/2641 ORONO AMBER. LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, P.U.DJ
SUDDIVISION/REZOMNG/CO.MMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW. 8:30 p.m. - 9:17 p.m.
Frank Dunbar. Applicant, was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication w ere noted
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting general concept approval for a two lot plat of a
6.7 acre property under the PUD ordinance The Applicant is proposing a rezoning of the tw o
properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District, to B-6/PUD and RPUD/PUD for multi-Eimily
residential use of the proposed east parcel The intended use of the properties are a three-stoc)
62 unit senior housing project and a 23,000 square foot office building.
W'einberger stated the proposed residential use of the properly would require a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Comprehensive Plan
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday. January 17,2001
(M2640/264I Orono Amber, Continued)
or the proposed new Coinprchcnsi\e Plan
Weinberger iiulicated the subjevi parcel was platted as Outlot F. The parcel being immediately to
the south of the Sugarwoods residential development It was intended at the time this property
was developed that it would need to be rcplattcd to a buildable lot status
The City of Orono has been looking for a development that would be compatible w ith the
sunoundiitg properties, the residential to the north and commercial uses to the south.
The Applicant is proposing to rezone the property from B-1 to B-6 and RPUD. The rezoning would be
a down-zoning of the property , w *:h the lot containing the senior iKXising building being rezoned to
the RPUD Distnet, and the property to the west being rezoned to B-6. which would allow general
office type uses
Weinberger stated the senior building is located w ith the majonty of the building towards the
southern portion of the lot The building is a three story building w hich w ill be platted as
separate condominiums and owned by a non-profit organization The portion of the building
located closest to the residential area will be a twx>-story structure The intent of the RPUD
Distnct u to provide bousing to meet lifecycle and afTordable and moderate cost housing needs
With this ty pe of housing, it may require the buildings to exceed the 30 feet maximum height
standard tlut applies to single family residential homes and office buildings
Weinberger stated the proposed office building would consist of two stories with approxinuicly
23,000 square feet of gross floor space Also being proposed under the building is a 21 stall
underground parking area The building is designed to step down from a two-story stmeture to
one story immediately adjacent to the Sugarwoods neighborhood
Weinberger indicated the general concept approval that is being requested this evening is
required as part of the Highway 12 PUD and the rezoning General concept approval is similar
to prelitr'nary plat approval The City will not approve the preliminary plat until sometime later in the
application process because the developer of this particular development is seeking financial
assistance from the City, with the TIF revenues being utilized to help offset some of the costs
of development, landscaping, roadways, trails, and to help keep the costs affordable
Weinberger staled the pnnury change between this plan and the original plan consists of a trail
connection that would be made through the property eventually connecting out .j the east side
The trail connection is important because of the type of use within the building Weinberger noted
a City trail also exists in this area located north and south along Brown Road, with the proposed
trail ultimately connecting to the regional trail system
Weinberger stated Lot I consists ?f 2 7 acres, which is designated for the office building, and
Lot 2 consists of 4 acres designated for the senior housing facility.
Weinberger stated if the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the general
concept. Staff wtnild prr;i;c a resolution defining all the necessary requirements that wtnild need
to be met by the developer prior to final approval
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, Jamiiiry 17, 2001
(1^2640/2641 Orono Amber, Continued)
Weinberger stated one concern regarding this development involves the intersection of
Highway 12 and Brown Road The Cit> has contact^ Mn/DOT and has requested that this
intersection be provided with a semaphore, which in StalTs view is an important element to this
particular tvpe of housing development
Weinberger stated the Applicant has not yet submitted a detailed landscape pbii for this
development in light of the fact that U k RPUD ordinance has not been formally adopted by the
City. The Applicant is proposing a number of green spaces between the parking area and the
building along with a minimum six foot fence along the rear property line, which would stop
headlights, block the view of the parking lot as well as providing a minimal sound barrier in this
area The Applicant would be required to screen the fence from the residential area to limit its
visibility.
Weinberger stated the drainage from the parking lots will be piped into a Mn/DOT stormwater
management pond located in the comer Weinberger stated the adjacent propert)' owner has
expressed concerns rcgarduig the parlung lot area and snow removal, which will need to be
further addressed
City Staff is recommending approval of the concept plan as proposed
Dunbar indicated he is willing to continue working with City Staff in an effort to address the
unresolved Issues Dtinhar stated he ** for o*i#^tiori« rrinrdioo nroi<^
Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, expressed concerns relating to drainage, noise, and
landscaping Berg stated he would like the Sugarwood neighborhood to be more involved with
this project.
A resident of Sugarwood inquired whether allowing a three-story structure in this area would be
setting a precedent for the rest of Orono
Bellows stated the City has zoned various parts of the City for specific uses, with this area being
rezoned to accommodate multi-family housing Bellows stated the Ciw vv ill not be allowing
three-story structures in all parts of the City.
Sansevere commented tlut the developer on this project lias been very cooperative wnh the
neighbors.
Dunbar indicated he has done a number of similar type projects throughout Minnesota
Jacqueline Ricks. 2108 Suganvood Drive, inquired whether the office building could be pushed
further south.
Dunbar stated they have relocated the office building further south somewhat from the original
plans in order to save a number of the trees in the area, but the building cannot be moved any
further south due to grading issues.
PAGE 18
I
i
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(H2640/2641 Orono A bcr, Continued)
Weinberger indicated Uicrc will be a 75 foot setback from the beginning of the adjoining property’s
back yiird
Dunbar indicated he would be willing to tit down with any interested resident and discuss this project
in more detail
There wxrc no further public comments regarding tliis application.
Mabusth inquired whether this application will appear before the Planning Commission again once the
RPUD Ordinance has been adopted
Weinberger stated it w ill be coming back before the Planning Commission.
Bellows inquired whether this is considered as one project or two, noting that there are two separate
lots being platted with this application.
Dunbar stated there eventually will be tw o separate owners of these parcels but that the two projects
need to be coiutructcd simultaneously in order to make the development work financially.
Mabusth inquired wliat the total lurdcover will be for this project
Weinberger stated he docs not have the exact figures at tins time, but tlut the developer is limited
to 30 percent hardcover for the entire lot Weinberger indicated the 15 percent structure limit does
not apply in this ease because the lot exceeds two acres
Kluth moved. Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application 1^2640/2641,
Orono Amber, LLC, 2060 Wayaata Boulevard, granting of general concept approval for a
two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:17 p.ro. - 9:32 p.m.
(W) «2648 PETER AND NICOLE THOMAS. 1385 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:32 p.m. - 9:38 p.m.
Peter Thomas, Applicant, was present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Bottenberg stated the Applicants are seeking approval to rebuild, build up, repair several retaining
walls and construct steps on the propertv TIk residence was built in 1929, and is in excellent
condition The property is located on a bluff and has significant elevation changes Due to the age
of the property , there are several areas that need to be repaired, repbeed, and added to for erosion
control, soil retention, and safety.
The Applicants are proposing ten different projects on the property in relation to the repair of the
retaining walls and steps. Bottenberg indicated sonic of the improvements arc located within the
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17, 2001
(N2648 Peter and Nicole Thomas, Continued)
75*250’ setback area, uhich will add 85 square feet of hardcover for a total of 25 4 percent, while
the rest of the improxxments are within the 0-75* setback area and will increase the hardcover in
this area by 42.84 square feet.
Bonenberg stated the 1980 Comprehensive Plan contains a number of general land use and
environmental protection goals and policies with which the proposed land alteration would be
consistent Without the retaining walls, erosion or freezing would be a problem The City Engineer
has not reviewed the proposed retaining wall layout from an engineering standpoint because the
Applicants are not adding but merely replacing existing retaining walls A wall higher tlian four feet
must be engineered and appro\cd b> ,iic City’s engineer and Building Official Bottenberg stated
since these walls arc not four feet or higher, review and approval b\ the City Engineer is not
necessary. The Applicants will be required to submit detailed plans prior to issuance of a building
permit
Cit>’ Staff recommends approval of the variances
Thomas stated this residence was originally constructed in 1929, with the previous owners doing
extensive remodeling of the house Thomas indicated he would now like to do a number of
improvements to repair the existing retaining walls and will not be adding anvihing new to the
property.
There were no public comments relating to this application
Bellows commended the Applicant for submitting very detailed plans showing the work to be
undertaken Bellows stated in her v iew the work proposed is reasonable and she docs not have a
problem with the application.
NLibusth stated she is familiar with the property and the improvements arc definitely needed due to
the deterioration of the retaining walls and steps.
Bellows moved, Kluth seconded, to reconiinend approval of .Application tt264S, Peter and
Nicole Thomas, 1385 Orono Lane, granting of a variance for land alterat'ons within 75 feet
of the shoreline, a hardcover variance, and a«-mditional use permit for land alteration to
permit the repair of several retaining w alls and steps on the property, per the recommendations
of City Staff contained in the P'vnner ’s Report dated January 12, 2001.
VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
(MO) M649 CHARLES LEEKLEY, 1525 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD, VARIANCES,
9:39 p.m. - 9:54 p.m.
Charles Leekley. Applicant, was present, along with Marie Weni, Trustee
The Ccrtificaf't oi * failing and Affidavit of Publication wr.e noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to replace a one stall d *tached garage with a
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(IV2649 Charles Leekley, Continued)
20’ by 22’ nw stall garage located five feet off the front property line and five feet off the side
property line. The e.\isting building is 3.5 feet off the front property line and two feet fh>m the
side lot line.
Weinberger stated construction of the garage would require the building to be located along the front
property line due to the property beginning to slope to\\ards the lake. Long Lake Boulevard is
located approximatciv ten feet above the ground elevation of the house If a garage w ere located
attached or near the house, a driveway with slopes at or near 15 percent would be required, along
with extensive grading and installation of a retaining wall syitcm Normally the City suggests
driveway slopes not exceed eight to ten percent slope
Weinberger indicated anciher factor in determining the location of the garage is the well located
on the property State Building Code requires structures or any part of the structure to be located
at least three feet from a well The weU and slope of the land have restricted any garage construction
to the area where the existing garage stands One outdoor parking space is currently located north of
the existing garage. Tliis space is partially off the property into the right-of-way. The space may also
encroach slightly onto an adjacent property. The outdoor space would be eliminated if a new twx>
stalled structure is built
Weinberger stated the building would be a two-le\cl building witli the lowest level access being
located towards the house below tlic hillside. Tlic lowest level is to provide indoor storage on the
property . A small shed would be required to be remoi ed to accommodate the larger building,
resulting in a loss of storage on the property
Weinberger indicated the property will not exceed the 25 percent allowed hardcover in the
75-250’ lakeshore setback The total hardcoxcr would be approximately 1.850 square feet or
21 percent
Weinberger stated Long Lake Boulevard is not a through street and doc< not carry heavy
traffic. Weinberger stating backing up into the street is not a concern due to the minimal traffic
City Staff is recommending approval of the setback variances with the condition that the garage
IS constructed in accordance with llic survey and plans contained m the January 8, 2001 Planner s
Report
Leekley stated due to the small lots, a number of other garages in the neighborhood arc located
in front of the principal residence Leekley inquired whether it would be pemiissible to relocate
the proposed garage slightly, which will result in the garage being located light next to the
property line.
Bellows stated she has a concern the structure will be located too close to the well if rotated
somewhat.
Weinberger stated he would prefer the garage not be located any closer than five feet to the side
and front setbacks.
Kluth indicated the Planning Commission is not in a position to design plans for the Applicants and
PAGE
L
MINUTES OK 1 HE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wrdnesduy, Jniuinry 17, 2001
(N2649 Charles Leeklcy, Continued)
that they need to act on uhat is bang presented before them tonight Kluth stated if the Applicant
w ished to look at his other options, the Planning Commission could table the matter for a month.
Wendt indicated she would like to proceed fomard
Lcckley indicated he would also like to proceed fonxard with the proposed plan
Mnbusch moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application M2649,
Charles Lcckley, 1525 Long Lake Boulevard, granting of variances to the front and side
property setbacks to allow the construction of a two level, two stall garage.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
(Mil) «650 KRISTEN AND PATRICK BURTON. 2601 RAINEY ROAD, VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:SS p.m. - 10:22 p.m.
Dick Peterson, Attomey-at-Law, Herb Baldwin, Landscape Architect, and Bill Himtres, Architect,
were present
The Certificate of M.ailtng and AfTidax it of Publication were noted
Weinberger stated the Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application to permit a
guest house The lot consists of 13 8 acres, with 5 25 acres tlut is consid'^rcd dry buildable land
The lot currently is vacant The Applicants arc requesting to build the guest house prior to beginning
construction of the principal residence Upon completion of the guest house, construction of the
primary residence would begin Both residences arc considered dwelling units, with the guest house
potentially serv ing asprincipal residence
Weinberger stated the Planning Commission did review this application a couple of months ago,
w ith the City Council approv ing construction of the driveway T)ic Applicants have obtained a
MCWD permit which allows them to access the property and to fill in a wetland area on the site
The driveway arrangements and the grading have already been approved by the City and the
Watershed Distnct at this point
Weinberger slated the land furthest to the cast is where the guest house would be constructed
Staff docs not have an issue with the guest house since it would be considered a dwelling unit
and could be used as a principal residence should the other residence not be constructed The
City currently allows guest houses as a conditional use permit A condition of approval would
be that the property owner file a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house will
only be used and occupied by persons who would othenvise be expected to live in the primary
residence on the property Tlim cov enant would be recorded on the chain of title of the property-
should the conditional use permit be approved
Weinberger stated the two proposed residences do meet ail the required setbacks for properties
in the two acre district and setbacks to the septic areas
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMlSSfOM
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(112650 Kristen and Patrick Burton, Continued)
Weinberger stated technical!) a variance is required for the guest house because Orono's Code
states that the maximum buildmg height for structures u two and a half stones or 30 feet in
height The building would require a variance for height becauK part of the house is three ftill
stories One-half stor>' would be the portion of living space within a gabled roof Because the
architectural st>le has a flat roof, it leaves a full three story house 30 feet ui height.
Weinberger stated a second variance is required for a 30 inch high railing that would be located above
tlic roof line. The railing wo*ild be placed on the roof for safety purposes A variance is required
because the railing is considered part of the structure over 30 feet m height
Weinberger stated as it relates to the primaiy residence, the proposed chimney is for a total of
six feel in height where two feet would be allowed The Building/Fire Code requires chimneys
to be two feet higher than any portion of the house w ithin 10 feet The added four feet of height
requires the conditional use permit.
Cit)’ Staff IS recommending approval of the application Weinberger noted the septic design work
would need to be approved b> the septic inspector prior to a building permit being issued
Kluth inquired w hether an>' of the parties had anvthing to add to Staff s report
Peterson stated he is satisfied with Staff s report, noting Weinbeiger did an excellent job presenting
his application
Gaflfron commented from the plans presented it appears the residence mcei-* the 30 foot side yard
setback
Baldwin stated the long building has been rotated somewhat in a more nonh'souih direction and
50 feet to the north to improve tlic neighbor's view
Dave Daniels, 710 Gander Road, stated he is opposition to this project Daniels stated there
has already been constructed two significant roads into each one cf the building sites os well as
some site preparations Daniels questioned whether the property owner was getting ahead of the
permit process
Kluth stated Orono codes do allow guest houses to be constructed on a resident's property if
it exceeds a certain acreage
Bellows inquired v.hy the property owner would like to construct a guest house.
Baldwin stated the property owner would like to move into the guest house while the construction
of the principal residence is ongoing Baldwin stated the guest house will be used as the primary
residence for a short period of time w hile construction is ongoing
Peterson stated they will be constructing the guest house first
Bellows noted the guest house does qualify* as a principal residence so in her view there is not a
problem with the guest house being constructed first. Bellows suted the issue relating to height
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, Januar>‘ 17,2001
(02650 Kristen and Patrick Burton, Continurd)
has to do uith the capabilities of the fire equipment a>-aibblc and that the spirit of the height
ordinarKe is not being violated in her vle^^ even though a portion of the structure \mII be three storio.
Bellows stated the height restriction has been adopts.' by the City for safety reasons.
Kluth commented another reason for the height rcsUiction is to limit the amount of massing done
on a particular property and the impact it has on the neighbor's vieu
Bellows noted this area is somewhat isolated
Mrs Daniels slated in her view this propertj is not isolated and \oii will be able to readily sec
the structure
Mabuflh agreed that the Daniels will be the ones most impacted by this project
Kluth inquired whether the parties present could comment on the need for the height sanance.
Pctciaon stated the railing on the roof will be added for safety reasons
Bellows noted only a portion of the house will be three stories Bellows stated Orono has a Urge
number of residences that arc two and a half stones fall, with the rear of the homes visually
appeaniig as four stories
Weinberger staled the application does meet all the Building requirements
Bellows moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application 02650,
Kirsten and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a conditional use permit to
construct a guest house. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
Bellows moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval for Application 02650,
Kristen and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a height variance to allow
three stories and a height variance to allow a 30 inch high railing, with the understanding
the railing will be as transparent as possible. VOTE* Ayes 2, Nays 2, Kluth and Berg
Opposed.
Kluth indicated he voted in opposition to the motion because the propcits owner has built to the
maximum allowed under Orono's redes and in his opinion the owner will be requesting a
variance for a deck in the hiture
Mabusth moved, Bellows seconded, to recommend approval on Apptici«tion 02650,
Kirsten and Patrick Burton, 2601 Rainey Road, granting of a conditional use permit to
tc the chimney height. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 2, Kluth and Berg Opposed.
PAGE 24
MIM TES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(«13) «2652 RON LAUER, ON BEHALF OF DENNIS ANDERSON, 1720 BOHN’S
POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 10:23 p.m. - 10:31 p.m.
Ron Laucr appeared on behalf of Dennis Anderson
The Certificaie of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Bottenberg are ?o ^^ i^t «**?nd stof> tn the c\istinj
residence, a concrete paver walkivav. and to cnla^ an outdoor stain\«\ The second story
addition is located in two difreiciii areas of (ik ««.>iJcikc auu not co\er the entire residence
One section is 22’ b\ 32' located on the south side oxer the master bedroom and the other is
22’ by 34’ on the noiitheast side over the guest suite
A variance is required to hardcover in the 75-250’ setback to allow 49 3 percent hardcover
where 48 7 percent exists, and a vTiriance to the average lakeshore setback is required to permit
the addition to encroach 88 feet and 92 firet into the average hkeshore setback. The Applicant is
proposing to remove 393 square feet of hardcover consisting of landscape fabric under road This
is considered to be nonconforming and should not be included in the hardcover calculations The
amount of hardcover currently existing in this setback area is 48 7 percent
Bottenberg stated the residence wns consimcted in the early 1950s in its present location prior
to current zoning ordinances There have not been any additions or -.^Hinces to this property
The building official has reviewed the proposed plan and conciudwt*: u: it docs meet the
two and a half story or 30 foot criteria, mcosupng 29 5 feet
City Staff is recommending approval of the hardcover variance in the 75-250’ setback area if
hardcover is removed elsewhere in tlie setback area to maintain the current amount of 48.7 percent.
Bellows inquired what ate height of the structure will be
Bonenberg stated the building inspector has concluded it will be 29 5 feet
Lauer stated he has anempted to minimize the amount of hardcover with this project, and is
agreeable to keeping the hardcover at the existing amount
There were no public comments relating to this application
Mabusth moved. Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application M26S2,
Ronald Lauer for Dennis Anderson, 1720 Bohn’s Point Rond, granting of a variance to
the average lakeshore setback, with the understanding the hardcover will remain at the
esisting level of48.7 percent In the 75-250* setback. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(in4) #2655 ROBERT AND NANCY LUX, 1209 FRENCH CREEK DRIMU VARIANCES,
10:32 p.ni. - 10:42 p.m.
Robert Lu\, Applicant, was present
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted
Weinberger staled the Applicants are requesting approval to construct a 13* by 36* addition to
the west end of the residue, and to replace an existing w ood deck that is deteriorating Both the
addition and the deck a-placcment are within 150 feet of a Natural Environment Lake, which
require a variance to structural setKicks Tlie property is located within 150 feet of the high
water level of French Creek
Weinberger stated the lot was de\eloped m 1985, pnor to the adoption of the Shorcland
Ordintnce, which established a 150 foot structure setback from Natural Environment lakes
Prior to 1992, 75 feet was required *Thc subject property owner’s house currently encroaches
into the required 150 foot setback
Weinberger stated the current septic system is currently compliant and has a cajiacity for four
bedrooms *rhis addition will not add to the total num^r of bedrooms but rather will be
rearranging them w ithin the residence and add a room off the master bedroom suite designated
as an office area Therefore a larger septic system is not required at this time
Weinberger noted structural lot coverage and hardcover is not a problem with this application
and does not negatively impact the neighboring properties
Weinberger stated the two variances for consideration tonight are to replace an existing deck
and also to place an addition onto the existing residence, which will be conditional upon the
drain field area being relocated on the property Staff would recommend that the property comply
with all septic requirements before beginning the addition portion of the project
City Staff IS recommending approval of this application
Bellows inquired whether this property has an alternate septic site available
W'einbcrgcr stated there has been some testing completed, noting the lots in this area are small
and It IS difficult to find another alternate site
Bellows pointed out a minor discrepancy in the application. Bellows stated the ApplicanU are
requesting to replace an existing wood deck and a^ 13 feel onto the residence for accommodate
additional kids bedrroms
Weinberger stated the plans do indicate the bedrooms are being relocated
Lux stated thcr; arc three lower level bedrooms and he is looking to increase the size of the
existing bedroom and will not be adding any additional bedrooms Lux stated he will be working
w ith Staff on determining the exact location of the drain field
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(#2657 Clifford Otten, Continued)
Ottcn indicated he is in agreement witli the easement \acotion
Kluth moved. Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2657,
Clifford Otten, 2J50 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of an easement vacation subject to
the granting of a replacement easement as show n in Eihibit B-3 contained in the
January II, 2001 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#17) #2653 CHAIG ALHOUSE, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD. SKETCH PLAN
REVIEW
Craig Alshouse, Applicant, was present
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan rc\ icw fur a Class III suodivision
for the property located at 4100 Watertown Ro.id The propcrt> consists of .ipproximatcly
37 acres of which approximately two acres is classified os Orono Wetlands and appear on the
City Wetland Maps Tlic propcrt> is located in the RR-IA. One Fanuly Rural Residential,
which has a fue acre minimum lot si/c
V> cinberger stated the Applicants have tv\o pro^xisals to consider, with the primary
diffcrciKC between the two proposals being the sire of Lot 5 Because Lot 5 contains a large
bam and indoor riding arena, the second option would be to create a larger parcel of land to
create an individual lot with more pasture land Proposal one is for a six lot standard plat and
proposal two is for a five lot standard plat
City Staff has had several discussions w ith the Applicant about the future use of the property
as a conununiiy horse farm Proposal number one would ha\e a private road with access
directly off of Watertown Road serving the western four lots. Lots I through 4 Lot 3, which u
an existing developed site, would continue its access off of Watertown Road The sixth lot
would have access off of Orono Orclurd Lot 6 has been legally combined w ith the property
in 1996. and does ha\c an existing house on the property along with a guest house The intent
as part of this particular application that the house and the other structures on the lot will be
removed
Weinberger stated all of the lots meet the five acre standard, with the road arrangement into
the development well suited for this particular area The surrounding area has been primarily
developed as residential, with a large wetland area to tlie north side The prinuiy issue for
consideration by the Planning Commission is the future use of two oversized accessorx
buildings, a 10,000 square fort indoor riding arena and a horse bam approximately 4,000
square feet Currently Orono's Ordinances only allow accessory buildings to hav e a maximum
of 3,000 square feet The proposed dev elopment does change the character and use of these
accessory buildmgs.
Weinberger indicated in the discussions with the Applicant, they have attempted to revievv
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, January 17,2001
(IV26SJ Craig Ahhouse, Continued)
(heir options on how to best maintain the rural character of tins area, maintain the accessory
buildings, and be compatible with the surrounding residential areas Staff had discussed the
possibility of using the property as a community hone fitrm, which »he Applicant has determined
would not be successful
Alshottsc stated he is interested in developii^ a development Uut will work well with the
site and the surrounding area Alshouse stated the previous owner of the property purchased
it in 1971, and erected the 10,000 square foot arena at tliat time on seven acres of land for the
purpose of boarding horses Presemly there is a commercial license under a conditional use
permit for the purpose of boarding horses for the public Alshouse commented there ha\e been
a number of problems experienced with this operation such ns parking along Watertown Road
Alshouse stated the lot to the north was subsequently combined with the seven acre lot. with the
existing residence being rented out at this time
Alshouse stated the goal of this project is to create five or six lots oser the 36 acres in order to
help maintain the rural chracter of the area An interior private road would be created on the
lower area to access this development, with some consideration being given to shortening (he
length of the cul-de-sac. Alshouse stated they will be eliminating a number of the other
outbuildings on the property, and are contemplating clustering the residences towards tlie top of
tlie ndge Alsliousc stated m his opinion the development they arc proposing is in keeping with
the chaia,;tcr of the zoning ordinances and the neighborhood
Berg inquired whether the developer prefers Option I or Option 2
Alshouse stated he prefers Option 1 due to marketing Alshouse stated if he goes with Option 2,
he would be forced to increase the pnee of the houses due to the smaller number of lots that would be
for sale
Gaffron stated he likes the concept plan, but m his opinion the future use of the accessory
building should be limited
Mabusth suggested the future owner of that lot be (old the bam is non-conforming
Bellows stated she prefers Option 2 over Option I because it prefers a little bit more of tlie
larger lot and prov ides more land for Uk* indoor riding arciu Bellows stated the City needs to be
careful about preserving this area, but the City needs to be careful about placing too many
restrictions on the fiiture use of the stnictiire
Alshouse stated he will be re-appearing before the Planning Commission in March with a preliminary
plat and that he is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on whether the
accessory buildings can remain and the basic lay out of the dev elopment
Kluth suited pei>o*ullv he does not see any mqjor problems with the proposal.
Bellows stated the City may be limited in the type of restrictions it can place on this property and
the accessory building since it was originally constructed on a seven acre piece of land.
PAGE 29
i
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING C0M>nSS10N
Wedneiday, January 17,2001
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
(«I5) #2656 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. CITY OF ORONO.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 11:12 p.m. - 11:15 p.m.
Kluth stated it is his understanding the surface \^atcr management plan needs to be submitted to the
Metropolitan Council with the City’s amended Comprehensive Plan Kluth stated he would Uke to get
the input from the other members of the Planning Commission pnor to the submission
There were no public comments regarding this application
Gaffton stated this plan has been put together by the Cit\ Engineer's office GafTron utated the
Planning Commission may want to look at the capital improvement plan and the dollar figures
being proposed for the various items Gafiron stated he would rot have a problem if the Planning
Commission w ishes to table this item for a month
Kluth suggested that perhaps Gaffn^i contact the members (vior to the nc\t meeting to see whether
thev* have an>- changes tbe> would like to see or comments thc> would like to make regarding the plan
Bellows moved. Kluth seconded, to table Application #2656, Surface Water Management Plan.
City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#18) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESEM AT1\ ES ATTENDI.NG
COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 27,2CJ0 AND DECEMBER 11,2000
Tins item was not discussed due to the absence of the Planning f r emission members who attended
the Council meetings
(#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
(#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NON EMBER 20,2000
This item was tabled by the Planning Commission
(#21) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATINTS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 22.2001 AND FEBRUARY 12.2001
Kluth suggested City Staff contact the members of the Planning Commissioa to see who would be
able to attend the upcoming City Council meetings.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMI^ON
Wc4M«4ay. Jamary 17« 2001
ADJOURNMENT
There being no fiuther busmm to dtscim. the meeting ^^-as adiouroed at 11 23 p m
Daniel Klulh. Chair Person
PAGE 31
Chair Hawn md Planning Conumtsion Membera
Mayor and Council
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Planning StafT
From:
Date:
Sabjectt
Mike GafTron, Planning Director
February 14.2001
Residential Building Height FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION ^
(, S)or fiN
Height of residential buildings has again become a topic of discussion due in part to the Senior
Housing proposal, but primarily due to concerns that homes being built today are significantly higher
than those being constructed a decade or two ago. This memo attempts to establish a basis for
constructive discussions of the topic of building height, with a goal of reach ing coiKlusions that w ill
either support modifications to the City code or support acceptance of the existing code.
Exiating Code Language
Detinilion of ‘Building Height* (10.02 DeHnition 13) - '“The vtrlicmt Uskutce
betweem the highest tidfoimimg gretuti level et the hmtUmg or temfeH mhove the
lowest ground leveU whichever is lower and the top of the cornice of aflat roof or
the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch
type roef, or the average height of the highest gahle of a pitched or hipped roof.
Topogn^thic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing
terrain shall not be considered in determining building height."
Note that this definition has been only slightly revised since its first appearance in
the 1967 zoning code; the "10' above lowest ground level" provision was added in
1992, along with the sentence regarding topographic changes. See Sketches A A B.
it should also be noted that this definition is sometimes difficult to interpret based on
the intricate roof designs found in new homes today. For instance:
In a home with multiple gables, it is sometimes difficult to determine
which gable should be considered the highest.
In determining the average height, staff has as a matter of policy
considered that the ceiling of any usable space within a gable that
contains a window, will be considered as the low point of the highest
gable for height determinations. This effectively increases the
defined height of such buildings and acts as a limitation on excessive
height for homes with steeply-pitched roofs with living space in the
roof area. See Sketches E and F. There could still be an issue with
how we would treat an A-frame home, which techiucaliy might be as
high as 60* to the peak and still meet code...see Sketch D.
Building Height
February 14.2001
Pagc2
2.Individual zoning district height limitations (10.20 Subd. 5A and others) - ”So
ttntetmn tr MUImg skatl exceed 2-1/2 aoriee or tkirty feet tm height except os
prodded In SecHom lh.7r. This limitation is applicable to all rwidcniial and
yftlpmgrgUI Tnnintt districts in Orono. The ladiMlrial DUlricl. however, per 10.50
Subd. 5D. allows 3 stories or 49 feet ta heiglit. Note that basements do not count as
a story.
A strucnire that has 3 full stories but is no higher than 30* is considered as not
meeting the 2-1 /2 stories limit. This could happen with a flat roofed structure (such
as the recent Rainey Road guesthouse application); however, it is highly unusual to
end up with three stories and a pitched roof while still meeting the 30* limit
‘Half-story’ is not defined in the zoning code nor in the Building Code. A definition
appearing in The lllustrau?tl Hook of Development Definitions (Rutgers I’niversity,
1981) is:
"A space under a sloping roof which has the line of intersection of the roof
and wall face not more than three feet above the floor level, and in which
space the possible floor area with head riK)m of five feet or less occupies at
least 40% of the total floor area of the stoiy directly beneath".
Under this definition, a space completely within a steeply pitched roof system but
w ith the area of 5*-plus headroom equal to more than 60% of the area of the story*
below, would be a hill story, regardless of window placement or visual perception
from the exterior. Sec Sketch G.
Section 10.75 "Height of Structures" provides for additional height under the
following provisions:
SEC 10,7$. HEIGHT OF STRICTURES
Smhd. I. Speciol ProvbUms. The height liMitotioHs imposed by other provisions of
thb Chopter be increased by conditional use permit by SO percent when
emptied to the following structures:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
/.
/.
Church spires.
Belfries.
Cupolas and domes which do not contain usable space.
Monuments.
Water towers.
Fire and hose towers.
Observation towers.
Flagpoles.
Chimn^
Smokestacks.
Building Height
Fcbniao 14,2001
Page3
L
M.
Parapet watts extemdtag not more tkam three feet above height of
the baUdiag.
Cootiag towers.
Etevator peathoases.
Scarce: OnUaaaceSo. l6t,2mlSerks
Adopted: 5-27-97
Sahd. 2. CoadUicaai Use Permits. Heights ta excess of those attowed aader
Sahdivisioa / above for the ases eaamerated thereto may be pertained oaty by
coadUtoaat ase permit graated parsaaat to the procedares as set forth ia Sectioa
tO.99.
Scarce: Ordiaaace So. Iff
Effective Date: 8-22-77
Sabd. 3. Additioaal Heights oa Siopiag Lots. Om aay iotshpiag dowahUtfrom the
street which has aa average groaadsiope oa thatportioa of the tot to be occupied
by the maia baUdiag of 25% or more (measaredia thegeaerat direetkm of the side
tot tiaes) aa additioaat twehe feet of height may be permitted ia sach amia
buitdiag aad the garage or parkiag space atay be ia the reqaired froat yard
pro vided a yard of tea feet or raore if amiataiaed. **
Subd. I has resulted in a number of recent applications. The Art Center "cooling
tower" at a height of just under 45' was turned do\\n by the Council last year as being
not in character with the residential neighborhood. Last week, the Council allowed
chimneys for the Rainey Road CUP application to be 2' above the peak rather than
6' as requestevv but denied a CUP for a railing exteiKling 30" above the 30’ high flat
roof for the guest house.
Staff notes that there have been a number of recent requests for "widows walks", i.c.
a flat deck at the peak of a pitched roof w ith a railing. In some cases these have been
merely omametual; in others they arc intended to be functional, with an inte-.ior
stairway access and railings meeting the minimum 36" height. Staffhas determir^'d
that these should be considered as creating a mansard roof situation, and in cases
where the top of the railing is higher than 30*, w e are calling them out as needing a
variance.
Subd. 3 has come into play only on rare occasions; a lakeshore resideiKe in the 4700
block of North Shore Drive with a very steep lakeshore lot made use of this section
perhaps 10 years ago, allowing added height and a minimal setback from the street
for the attached garage.
r
Building Height
February 14.2001
Page 4
Note that "antennas and antenna structures ” was removed from the list in Subd. I in
1997; however. Subd ’s 1 thru 3 date back at least to the 1967 code with nearly
identical wording.
Section 10.03, Subd. 9B limits the height of accessory buildings as follow s:
Hciglit RcstrictioMs. No accessory baildhig ia the Dbtrict skall exceed
the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30
feet in height.*'
Prior to 1989, this section did not contain the 30* limit, but did exempt stables and
bams from the principal building height limitation subject to Council approval. The
current language was adopted in 1989 as part of the Ov ersize Accessory Structures
ordinance amendment.
A potential issue with this Section is that an accessory building with a higher pitched
roof than the principal structure, could have a peak height higher than that of the
principal structure while by definition not exceeding the defined height ol tne
principal structure. See Sketch C.
Impact of Exbtiag Codes on Building Height
1.The definition of height and how it is measured results in buildings that visually
greatly exceed 30* in height, but still conform to tlie defined height UmiL For
example:
A walkout home 40 ’ w ide with a 10' high basement, two 9’ high stories, a
12/12 pitch roof and existing high-side grade 2* below main floor level,
would have a defined height of 30 feet but as viewed from the walkout side,
a "lowest grade to peak" height of 40 feet.
2.
3.
The zoning code docs not require greater setbacks as buildings get higher.
The zoning code does not have an "average height" standard to apply to a
neighborhood; i.c. if all homes in a neighborhtH)d arc 1-story’ with 5/12 pitch roofs,
there is no code staiKlard that would prohibit construction of a home with 2-1/2
stories and a 12/12 pitch roof, that would tower ov’cr the existing homes and possibly
be out of character w ith the neighborhood (a good case for neighborhood covenants).
r
Building Height
February 14.2001
Page 6
m. Conprdicnsivc Plan Hciglit Provblons
The 2000-2020 CMP in a number of places directly or indirectly gives guidance on the issue
of building height:
3.
8.
Page 2-13 under General Goals and Policies, Orono Planning Goal 5 is to "preserve
open space, light, air and solar access for all citizens."
Page 2-18, Urban Planning Policy 1 states that "Future ui'uan devciupiiicm will be
careftilly integrated into the existing neighborhoods. No new development will be
perming to conflict with or adversely affect the established neighbortiood
character."
Page 3A-35. Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management. Policy 2. and
Page 3B-20. Urban Land Use Policy 13. state: "Retention of natural vegetation w ill
limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be
limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided...."
Page 3A-36. Urban Area Policy 7 stales; "All developments will be designed to
assure protection of light, air. and solar access for ncighK>ring properties.
Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks,
and ma.\imum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values
for all urban residents."
Page 3B-14, Land Use Goal 4 is to "protect neighborhoods from encroachment of
incompatible land uses".
Page 3B-20, Urban Land Use Policy 10 slates: "The design and density of urban
development will be controlled to assure protection of light, air, and solar access for
neighboring properties. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space,
minimum yald setbacks, and ma.\imum building heights will be designed to asstire
protection of these values for all urban residents."
Page 3B-24, Lakeshore Residential Land Use Policy 5 states: "The increase in
massing of structures on the lakeshore shall be limited."
Page 3B-55, Solar Access Protection, states that the City of Orono will protect access
to direct sunlight for solar energy systems "by requiring minimum standards fur lot
sizes, amounts of open space, yard setbacks, and maximum height of buildings for
urban and rural residents. Land uses should not preclude the possible use of solar
energy systems. Land uses should preserve and maximize the amount of sunlight on
paved surfaces in winter, reducing the costs of snow and ice removal and improving
safety."
Bunding Height
February 14.2001
Page?
9. Page 3C-21. Urban Housing Policy 7 slates; "The City will promote development or
rehabilitation that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The City will
encourage all homeowners and developers to be conscious of the neighborhood, the
site and the environment in the design and improvement of residential properties.
The City will encourage, and in many cases, require the retention of woods and
vegetation, open spaces, light, air and scenic views. No new development will be
permitted to conflict with or to adversely aflect the established neighborhood
character."
IV. Consumer Tastes and l>emands Related to Height
The typical rural residence constructed in Orono in 1980 was a one-story ’ ranch style home
with roof pitch of 4/12 or 5/12. or a 2-story New England saltbox w ith perhaps 6/12 or 8/12
rx>of pitch. On lakcshore lots, 2-stoiy homes were more common, partially due to the need
to gain floor space while minimizing the footprint, and to have more rooms w ith lake view s.
TwxHStall garages were the norm.
Today, tlic typical rural home is significantly larger in finished fliHir area, invariably has two
stories rather than one. has higher ceilings, commonly includes a great room, and has n>of
pitch of 8/12 to 12/12 or even steeper. Lakcshore homes have followed a similar pattern, and
commonly display a walkout facade exceeding 40* feet in height from ground level to the
peak. Both lakcshore and non-lakeshore homes today almost always include a 3-stall or
larger garage.
Inherent in the height equation for lakcshore homes is the balance beUvwn high land value
and the land use restrictions tlial limit house footprints. A 50’-100’ wide $250,000 lakcshore
lot w ill typically ha\ c a $500,000 house built on it; such a house will undoubtedly be multi
level. not only to take advantage of lake views from as many rooms os possible, but to
maximize square fiH>iagc within a limited allowable footprint The tendency toward 3-stall
garages on the main floor also forces more of the living space to be on upper levels.
In the past, many homeowners planned their custom "dream homes" with long-tcnn
practicality in mind; for instance, maximizing amenities on the main level so as to avoid
climbing stairs whci* became aged. B> contiast. Orono's relatively affluent
residents today are significantly more mobile, and at the point they can no longer climb stairs
or mow the lawn, they will probably either sell the home or modify it to meet their needs
(adding elevators or lifts) and hire outside assistance for maintenance chores.
L
Building Height
Febniary 14.2001
Pages
V. Deflaiaf BaiMing Height Maaagcinenl Cionb
In listening to recent Planning Commission and Council discussions regarding building
height, staff has concluded that there are a number of goals that have yet to be clearly
verbalized in relation to the building height issue. Plaiming Commission and Council should
consider how the following statements illustrate the City's goals and values regarding
building height:
Not
AMm Sib Wwirw
The City should restrict residential bull *mg heights within neighborhoods so
that no new homes or home additions constructed in a neighborhix)d w ill be
out of character w ith the neighborhood.
A new home or home addition should not exceed the height of the existing
homes on either side of it.
New homes and home additions should not be restricted by the height of
neighboring homes as long as all current code requirements are met.
New homes and home additions should be subject to more restrictive height
limitations when they are near adjoining lot lines or adjacent residence
structures.
Existing homes should be granted greater rights in terms of open space, air.
light and solar access than new homes.
New homes or home additions should be located and designed so as not to
block direct sunlight from any portion of any adjoining lot. even if that means
the new home or portions of it must be setback further than the standard
requirement.
Building height restrictions should be used os a tool to limit massing on
lakeshore properties (such as greater setbacks as building gets higher).
Building height should be mea.surcd diilerently than the cunenlly defined
code method.
The 30’ height limit should be revised downward while retaining the current
methods of measuring height.
^ •
BuikUng Height
Febniary 14,2001
Page9
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
Controls on massing of buildings should be 3-dimensional rather than 2-
dimensiooal; i.e. take into account the \ievn from adjoining properties rather
than just the views from the street or the lake.
The 2-1/2 story limit should be eliminated, and take into account only the
height, not the number of stories.
The 30' height limit should be eliminated, and take into account only the
number of stories.
Building height should be limited based on the capabilities of die local fire
department.
Building height should not be limited by Hre department capabilities when
specified fire prevention/suppression methods (such as sprinUers) are used..
naiainra
:• r t ^ J ^ -r- f* “* .--t--- »• * • • f *•*“*? * *
I I : 1 •
}.L1.^..X.4......•-.-i-.l-l 1^10-: f-i .! L.
j tA)fA*0U)S -j 4
p.. ^. ...-^ , ^ .- 4_ ,... I-
SKeTcrt r
,....u -i
f- r-*^—^^ - i--i ...a.
...I.. I
-'t -4-- {■•
■ .! . ! .,1. I ' ' •
_ I /F iTL vmvf LNAiM
>V* *>V /yr 4
; W IfH |W(M»k6vJS tJfV/tM A I ,
<e«>»r, *P#e«
rHe . CarlU^K, OF 4 SfBAY
IS ftHKiT
0P^r}te
• s ft€(i.irpr t(F^uf. \ ^
, Tw 6lAs«.; «<A ^iAc~y /i'.rtfA^ -jrrf0wtrw uvm^a
' sffiAX. //u TTfA -t- St®4Y FhM^ -rVAT STOW' ytivAU-V /nottg"
//fmAuve.
J !..
/W tfA' SIOffCH 47« 0UllM/Ai(r lUtTH Ut/UtiotMS
Ott. U>|«JTM.««-S WjrUlM TH« I«*0A S'/^'TWA. M45 a
OF y 'Ttn Bi//^-C/*J<; iajitho ^t W/wbous <»c
Ve(LvAjrA5 HAi F 2>eF/AJ^ OA "So', -to tAtr TTffi
fevict gu/Lb(M« Atv7&.Hr/tArS e«w .Tt>«OKArS.
ftovnne*-, ;r- /n/*«fr /m«a«- FfeuPtuArw rt» D^/oe
f>edce*^r OF AMf<ut) A “4 stw»y"c<aj
gef^F*^ ir /s c«/^4r/bttet<^ As A Awt.^ ^toa,v... 50^ ?seif
CM r. •».; /w-'*4r«An!^ as pmxou>s ;
■
-----i
: . I .*• 1 • •
.:• i ■
\ .
SK<rt^ (m
f
. i,L’_______\P rt«#K. AK«A *A* V* AT LAA«r
-I— - ••• —”* »-♦ — I «• t
J • •
TM^ »A* >« A «TM.y.
Likl