Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-21-2001 Planning Packet
Public A ttendance Megtim; D ate ^ A I ■ 3001 □ C ouncil ETPlanning Commission □ Park C ommission □ Other Please fill out tiie intoksution KEguE<nEO BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (frum agenda) NAME (pleafc print) ADDRESS iTlViic iji\r L Lilg.^lb£ C-fKgl NAME OR NUMBER m 3. 0^^\X luH PL P fi X J I r AA A/ il* 'mmemnmyh 9. 10. /^A>vw^ \%V ^rr /?Ay, U Ak/)) ^ II. Q .L| L A y 1^*11 / si* I2..3fepf Su^gxrten. IL41 Kfiw4.Ad6.^. SS4C/^ lArL-6> 13. ^CsZLA^ IcSTOMrf^Pl^ (f 9T2.-*^»7Z-3J ?Z ci/'^ .iV-^A/fr f/'K 43~7 3^‘>3 t'7 sr. '/ j<jm^j)i t'$^pj3fC/J ?fec OA«oo ^^ineJ^ /S-0 l^oJtJe*f 4 B^^hvHA. ‘Nti> Public A ttendance Meeting D ate 5 '2-1 ~ 0 I □ Council )P'T*lanning Commission U PARK COMMISSION □ Other Please eillouttiie LsroiLMATioN requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (nriMD agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS V l.-UiXf NAME OR NUMBER ft ^ oi - J./.1 JqUfv yJ/vi^i VAy.^^s^. A>«^au «.4. t>. o/‘ e^7A ~~~ r dt-^07^ 7. ^rry\i7r m ^Oi-^L 8. ^ IcEi,^\L a ti < tt/l *|ds 9. AZ> /J hfjJL'f). ^ .P^ 2 Q / J-4^ 10. _____________________________________________________________ 11._________________________________________________________________ 12._________________________________________________________________ 13._________________________________________________________________ 15.______________________ BrlW.li»lil«iiil I ■ CM*vraUtm-BUCJETT ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday May 21,2001 6:30PM 2750 Krilcy Parkway - Council Chambcn AGENDA Council Rcpic.^inlalivc: Jay Nygard AUDIENCE MEMBERS: PIcaic lign in for the public record at the front podium if you w ish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisoiy body to the City Council. If action is taken on any Hems on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the June II, 2001 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS UlbMt Gary and Susan Cable, 3532 h-y Place, Variances (SlalT: I’aul Weinberger) /2. M)l«2668 Manley Bros. Consiruclion, 1973 Eagerness Point Road, ' Variances (SlafT: Paul Weinberger) V0I>2671 Alistair and Kristin Jacques. 645 Old Long Lake Road, Variances (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) >L M)l-2667 North Shore Marina, 3222 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit (Suin': MikeGafTron) NEW BUSINESS II01-2674 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1420 Shoreline Drive, Variance Renewal (SuilT: Paul Weinberger) (W)I-2675 Donna Lilc, 2765 Ethel Avenue, Variance (Suin': Wendy Bottenberg) M)l-2678 Kristi Roesler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, Variances (Suin': Wendy Bottenberg) Mil-2679 Shorratt and MacDonald Design Company, on behalf of 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road, Conditional Use Permit (SUifT: Wendy Bottenberg) 1 r- ^ (Sto I W ^“*® **“*“* **®***» Variances 10. #0i-26, I Hay wind Christian Church Municipal Code Section 10.42 Zoning Code Amendment (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COMMISSION COMME^ ' •. 11. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council mectincs April 23,2001 and May 14.2001. 12. Other issues for discussion. 13. Plorming Commission approval of minutes for March 19,2001 and April 16, 2001. ’ 14. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on May 29,2001 and June 11 • 2001 • ADJOLKNMENT ' • f*, «tU- •4*^. «-ilia' City of Orono, Minnesota Street Numbering Index Map N\OTE • JlOl SiTr SPcCiFiC. uJTsiSr OKO.no rLAN.MNG C0.>LM1SS10N Monday May 21. 2001 6:30I‘M 2750 Kcllry Parkway - Council Chambcn a(;i:ni>a af vtifQ. Mn U»t rc» »,OM •** I. *-*•.<*« M. w.Ma I**! «a Ma ir.itM Council Keprrsentativr: Jay Nygard AUDIKNCE MEMUEKS: Please sign in for Ihe public record al Ibe front podium If you wiiti to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when Ihe Chair announces Ihe application. The Planning Coinmissiun is an advisory body to Ihe City Council If action b taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for Ihe June II, 2001 City Council meeting unless ollierwL e noted by the Chair. oi.D nusFNnss 1. 112636 Gary and Susan C able, 3532 Isy Place, Variances (SlafT: Paul Weinberger) 2. NOl-2668 Manley Bros. Construction, 1973 Fagemess Point Road. Variances (StafT: Paul Weinberger) 3. II0I-267I AlisUir and Kristin Jacqites, 645 Old Long Lake Road, Variances (SU/T: Wendy Dottenberg) 4. #01*2667 North Shore Marina, 3222 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: MikeGoffron) NEW BUSINESS 3. #01-2674 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1420 Shoreline Drisc, Variance Renewal (StalT: Paul Weinberger) 6. #01 *2675 Donna Lite. 2765 Ethel Avenue, Variance (Suff. Wendy Botlenbcrg) 7. #01*2678 Kristi Rocsler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, Variances (Staff: Wendy Boltenberg) 8. #01*2679 Sharratl and MacDonald Design Company, on behalf of 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road, Conditional Use Pennil (Suff Wendy Bottenberg) 9. #01*2677 Terry and Dorothy Erwin, 2715 Casco Point Road, Variances (Suff: Paul Weinberger) 10. #01*2676 Baywind Christian Church Municipal Code Section 10.42, Zoning Code Amendment (Staff: Paul Weinberger) PLANNING COM.M1SSION COMMENTS 11. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings Awil 23,2001 and May 14,2001. 12. Other issues for discussioiL 13. Planning Commission q>provaI of minutes for March 19,2001 and April 16, 2001. n Council meetings on May 29.2001 and June ADJOURNMENT AppUralion Dale: Ucadliac: 10/17/00 Wttived TO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Kon Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Adminisirator/PIanncr DATE: May 3.2001 SUBJECT: «2636 Gar> and Susan Cable 3532 Ivy Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: List of Elihibils: I.R-IC One I'amily Lakcshorc Residential District (1/2 acre) A Approved Site Plan (Building Permit dated 11/13/00) B Plaiming Commission Minutes (November 20,2000) C Applicant Letter D Temporary Certificate of Occupancy I£ Stafl'Report (Is^oN ember 13,2000) • Biickground: The Planning Commission rev iew ed and tabled the variance request for the applicants on November 20, 2000. Minutes are attached The request is a variance to the requirement that an accessory building (ice house) can not remain on the property absent a principal building. 'ITie building was legal non-conforming because it is liKated within 75* of the lakeshore. however the principal building was removed to allow construction of a new house. The property owners were issued a building permit with the understanding they would agree to uphold the decision by the City regarding the future use of the ice house. A Temporarv ’ Certificate of Occupancy for the new house was approved on April 19,2001. A condition of approval was the ice house must be removed or get City approval, by variance, to remain on the property within 90 days or a final Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued and the house not occupied. The total hardcover permitted on tlie property is 25®/* of the land area in the 75-250' setback. The City's hardcover policy reduces the amount of hardcover that is pemiitted in the 75-250' setback by the amount of existing hardcover in the 75* lakeshore setback. A variance is required to allow the ice house to remain on the property and to create minimal functional driveway apron and front sidewalk as noted below. Driveway Apron Layout In order to reduce hardcover in the 75-250’ to 25®/i, applicants have proposed a dri\ eway apron that only provides access to two garage doors and would not provide access for a future third. If additional driveway is requested at some lime in the future the property owners shall be placed on notice the hardcover regulations would not permit additional hardcover. •26>6Car>*<Mt^«»«C'aMc J5321»> Pl«c* Natl Sidewalks In order to reduce hardcover to meet the 25% limit, no front sidcvvalk is proposed between the front entry and the driveway. Stall feels this is unreasonable given Uial I) there are front steps leading to the lawn, and 2) this or a future homcowticr may add a sidewalk a: a later date, exceeding hardcover limits. Land Area <75-250*1 setback 13.182.8 s.f. 2SV« of Land Area 3,296 s.f. (Total hardcover allowed on property) Proposed Hardcover 0-75' setback 75-250' setback Total Hardcover Allowed * Variance = 96 s.f. 3.2S0 s.f. 3.346 s.f. (Total hardcover proposed) 3 J96 s.f. (50 a.f.l The proposed site plan, including the ice house w ould be 50 s.f. over the total hardcover permitted on the property'. City policy is any hardcover within 75* of the lake (during new construction) is deducted from the amount allowed in the 75-250* setback. Additional Hardcover for future driveway and sidewalk = 150 s.f Total hardcover would be (26.5^'i) including the following hardcover: % s.f ice house 3,250 s.f house, garage and driveway 150 s.f additional sidewalk and drivcvsay for third stall of garage 3,496 s.f Total hardcover Issues for Dbciission: 1.Should the structure be permitted, by \ ariance, to remain on the property? The lee house was required to be removed from the property when the principal building was removed. The proposed site plan for new home construction requires greater than the allowed 3.296 s.f Keeping the ice house would require an additional 50 s.f of hardcover. Should the foundation be permitted to be replaced/repaired extending the useful life of the structure? Should the City accept the plan without additional plans to provide additional hardcover for a larger driveway and sidewalk? •2636 C«> mJ Smm Cabk 3532 Ivy PUKt P^2 ll 1 Planning Comnibiion Opiioni for Action: A. 1. IL 1. 2. 3. Accessory Buildina Recommend approval of variances lo permit the accessory building to remain on the property; and determine if the existing foundation of the building should be allo\\’cd to be repuired/replaced. To deny variances. Accessory buildings are not permitted on properties without the presence of a principal building. The principal building w’as removed in September, 2000. Other Action. Driveway and Sidewalk Issues To approve variances that would permit the applicants to expand the driveway and include a sidewalk. To recommend the plan eliminate hardcover elsewhere on the proper!)' to expand the driveway and install a sidewalk. Other Action •26M C«> Cabk J5J2 W) nact 9a. 4T . > ny} 1 1/ 1 .. cnrofodoiiovi1 D APPROVED WITH REVISIONSi 5/1 MTk y // /3 *cjl> / -.1’-Ji « -i-z.9i?.7 ocT;it ,70^0^^'^ fsairro oar. n^ae 0 □ - WOOD STAKE PLACED B.M.- BEAniMQS ON ASSUMED DATUM jri^y p6/)c^ O •inONMON. SET PROPOSED INFORMATION 111 FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. —► • DRAINAGE 000.0 ■ EXIST. ELEV. (oOO.oj* PROPOSED ELEV. • • IRON MON. INPLACE OARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. L oTS /7f AND no SuSifiy/r/em rrei07o P4tjc Ltrs fffwf.r' 2 r04fnr. HMO/OCet/t/t 000 0 • scHOBona iND SURVEYING INC. •ftiai C90/ Or. ru 11 SE IMM.MN MUt I liiriby ctrlify Ihit Ihli plan, lurvay or rtporl wai prapartd by mt or undar my diract auparvlilon and that I am a duly Raglilarad Land Surrayor undar lha lawi of tha Slala ol Minnasoia. *^1 A Dila; Oc7“ /3 2000 _ Registration No. H700 JOB! Book - Paga Scala / ao* Sfie^r /. OF z MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.NLMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (#2633 JEROME LAGUE, Continued) Stoddard commented it uos his understanding there was no ramp previously. Hawn stated that was her understanding as well. Lindquist stated the Planning Commission generally will allow replacement of what is e.visting. Hawn stated the building permit docs not show replacement of the ramp. Weinberger stated the existing deck was built quite a few years ago and the City does not have a revised plan showing the ramp. Hawn stated since the picture obviously shows the ramp did exist, she dues not have a problem allowing replacement of the deck and ramp. Smith commented this appears to be a replacement situation rather than an increase in hardcover. Hawn stated the hardcover figures contained in the Planner’s Report apparently are incorrect, noting they are dealing with 84 square feet. Hawn stated since tlic deck and ramp have been removed, it will be difficult to verify- the previous hardcover. There were no public comments relating to this application Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application It2633, 2138 Shadywood Road, granting of a variance to hardcover in the 75-250* zone and a variance to the average lakeshore setback to permit replacement of a deck and ramp to be no more than 588 total square feet. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Hawn noted the Applicant has previously indicated to Staff that he would be willing to remove tlic existing landscape fabric and rock Hawn inquired whether they arc still w illing to do so Lague stated they would be. («4) #2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3235IVT PLACE, VARIANCES, 7:07 p.m. - 8:02 p.m. Gary and Susan Cable, Applicants, were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to allow hardcover in excess of 25 percent for a new house and driveway. The Applicants had previously been granted a demolition permit to remove the principal and accessory buildings on the property. The house has since been removed. The property owners have requested a variance to keep the e.xisting 8’ by 12’ ice house located on the property. PAGE 6 X B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEl'lNG Monday, No%’ember 20,2000 (W2636 CARY AND SUSAN CABLE. Continued) of SH' *>«" "iih Suff to develop a plan >vhich meeu “!1‘^ ordnances of U,e City. Weinbeiger staled originally the ApplicsSa wnducled of the ice house indicates that teplacemenl of the foundation niay be icquitcd at some time in the near fun,te. lypicall, the City of Otono tequims latiances to do anythinroth S mfl r! ni"® f' •“« been considered cosmetic ivork Ihil ivould not foundation ilftl St "™S .™lX“nei^■" 73 '« Weinberger staled another issue for consideration is the driveiiay. file Applicants at the lime ui ding permit was issued, h.id agref.f) to remove the third stall to the garage which WOI..J ha%x been needed to be $er%cd b;. the driveway Weinberger statedihe Lount of and additional E|”sHS~=ES3r^ilh the proposed house being built at approximatd> 26 percent hardcover with the third gar^e Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a longer driveway ii . . u, uuNcci utc SbiTcommen? '®® ”‘>*‘"8 ‘t existed sinfe the 1800s PAGE? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (M2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Stoddard stated the Planning Commission tends to limit structural coverage on new construction to 15 percent and 25 percent hardcover. Ha\Mi concurred that the 15 percent structural coverage will need to be adhered t-1. Hawn stated the Cit>- iNpically does not allow any Uardcover within the 0-75’ aone, noting the i ^ has ordinances in place which permits replacement of those structures only under certain circumstances. Hawn commented she personally is unsure about what plan is being presented to the Planning Conrmission tonight, noting the Planning Commission is not here to design the Applicant’s house and driveway. Hawn stated she would like to know exactly what hardcover the Planmng Commission is being asked to consider. Hawn stated if the ice house remains, the third staU of the garage and driveway will probably not be approved. Berg inquired whether there w ill be a front sidessalk between the front entry and the driveway Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing a sidewalk. Weinberger stoted the building permit does not show a sidewalk. Smith inquired whether the sidewalk is included in the 100 additional square feet of hardcover. Weinberger stated that is included in the 100 square feet. Weinberger stated the 50 feet of excess hardcover does include the ice house. Smith commented it is her opinion if the Applicants w ish to keep the ice house, they may do so, but that they will need to come back before the Planning Commission at the time the foundation of the ice house is proposed to be replaced Smith stated tspically the City docs not approve leplacemcnt of foundations for stmcturcs located within the 0-75’ 7onr Lindquist commented in his view the ice house should be removed if the Applicants want the additional hardcover. Smith stated the decision to keep the ice house is up to the Applicants. Lindquist stated if the ice house remains, the amount of hardcover should be limited to 25 percent Smith stated she would be in agreement with the 25 percent lurdcover limit. Hawm inquired w hether they need to look at »op of the bluff requirements, noting there is a steep dropoff. Weinberger stated there is no bluff situation on this property. Lindquist inquired how many square feet they are over on the hardcover. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (#2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Weinberger slated the total amount of hardcover proposed w ithout including the sidewalk based on the building permit, with no driveway to the third stall of the garage, is 50 square feet over what is allo>ved. Weinberger stated in order to complete the driveway and sidewalk, another additional 100 square feet of hardcover would be required, which brings it up to 150 square feet over what is allowed. Smith commented the Applicant will need to decide whether he would like to keep the ice house or have the additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk. Nygard stated just because the foundation of the ice house has teen damaged by tlie elements over the >*ears, the Applicant should not be restricted from replacing that foundation in the future. Nygard stated the remainder of the structure appears to be fairly solid and the Applicant should be allowed to make improv ements to the foundation if he so desires Nygard stated he does hasx some concerns regarding the third stall to the garage and no drivcv^ay. There were no public comments relating to this application. Mrs. Cable commented the neighbor would like to see the ice bouse remain as well Smith stated it is the responsibility of the City to protect the lakeshore by limiting wliat is allowed to be built within the 0-75* zone. Berg stated the City’s present Code requires tlic building to be removed if the foundation needs to be replaced Hawn commented the hardcover is contingent upon whclhcr the ice house remains. N>gard stated he would like to sec the hardcover remain within the 25 percent limit with or w ithout the ice house. Smith moved to recommend approval of Application ##2636,3235 Ivy Place, granting of a hardcover variance to permit 100 square feet over the 25 percent limit, which would include a sidewalk but not a driveway in front of a third stall, for total hardcover in the amount of 3,396 square feet. NO SECOND. Hawn stated in her view since this is ncs\ construction, there is no justification for the additional hardcover. Smith inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the house relocated Hawn stated she would like to see the ice house removed and their plans revised to exclude the third garage stall in order to meet the 25 percent limit. Stoddard staled in order to keep the ice house, the Applicant will need to reduce the size of the garage or house somewhat. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 («2636 CARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Nygard slated the Planning Commission is firm on the 15 percent structural coverage limit and the 25 percent hardcover limit on new construction. Cable staled they would like to keep the house in the proposed location in order to preserve the existing trees. Cable stated he is doubtful whether the size of the house can be reduced any further. Mrs. Cable commented they have five chile , en, with some bedrooms being located above the garage. Hawn stated she is unsure exactly what they arc being asked to approve since they do not have a plan in front of them outlining all of the items being requested. Smith stated what is in front of them docs include the ice house, with the amount of hardcover being in excess of the 25 percent limit. Hawn stated she can either make a motion denying the application or table the matter to allow the Applicant time to decide whether to keep the ice house. Hawn inquired why a building permit was issued prior to the variance being approved Weinberger stated a building permit was issued on the revised plan, noting that they were under the 25 percent hardcover limit and met all the required setbacks. Weinberger staled the Applicants are requesting the additional hardcover in order to keep the ice house and expand the driveway area, along with a sidewalk. Berg noted Uie plan has changed since the building permit was issued. HawTi commented in her view she does not see a hardship. Berg commented she also is confused by exactly wliat is being requested since there is no plan outlining the changes before them Lindquist stated he would be in favor of denying the variance and letting Uie building permit stand. Hawn stated she was in agreement with Lindquist Hawn noted the demolition permit called for the ice house to be removed. Mrs. Cable stated they were never informed the ice house had to be removed. Gafl&on inquired whether the City had a survey at the time the demoUlioo pennit was issued A gentleman in the audience indicated he does not know. Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend denial of Application 263d, 3235 Ivy Place, based on the additional hardcover being requested in excess of the 25 percent limit from the time the original building permit was Issued. S. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (02636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, Continued) Stoddard noted if this application is denied, he utwld need to wait for six months before submitting a new application. l b%vn inquired whether the Applicant would prefer to have his applieation tabled. Hawti stated that would allow the Applicant to redesign his plan if he so desires. Mrs. Cible inquired whether they could still proceed with construction of the residence as originally proposed liawn stated they could proceed w ith construction in accordance with the building permit. Hawn stated if this application is tabled, it would not come back before the Planning Commission until January at the earliest. Mrs. Cable stated she would be willing to remove the ice house in order to be allowed the additional hardcover for the driveway and sidewalk. Hawn inquired w hether a plan could be developed showing the third stall of the garage with the driveway and sidewalk meeting the 25 percent hardco^or limit and removal of the ice house. Weinberger stated in his view they can, with the side\%alk possibly consisting of stepping stones. Lindquist stated if this application is denied, they could still proceed under the b , . wit. Lindquist staled they need to sta\' within the 25 percent hardcover limit on the Smith conimcnted if the ice house is removed, that would give the Applicants ^n additional 96 feet of hardcover. Hawn reiteiated the Planning Commission tspically does not grant any variances to structural coverage or hardcover on new construction Hawn recommended the Applicants revise their plan to show the additional hardcover to avoid any confusion with the building otHcial. Mrs. Cable inquired w hether the ice house would need to be removed in the future should they decide to keep it at this time. Smith stated the City would require the structure to be removed if more tlian 25 percent of the foundation is replaced. Hawn stated it is her understanding if the cost of the repairs exceeds 50 percent of the value of the structure, the repairs are not permitted. Gaffron stated it would be 50 percent of the value at the lime it became non-conforming. Lindquist inquired whether the Applicant would prefer this application to be tabled. Cable stated they would like their application tabled. Lindquist rescinded his motion. PAGE 11 iLJlL MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 20,2000 (1/2636 GARY AND SUSAN CADLE. Continued) Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application 1/2636,3235 Ivy Place. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 p.m. (N8) //2634/263S G & G Holding Company, 1130 & 1140 Loma Linda Avenue, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variance, 8:03 p.m. - 8:54 p.m. JoEIIcn Hurr, G & GI lolding Company, appeared on bclulf of Stanley and Luella Goldberg The Certificate of Mailing and AITidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated this is a two-part application, with consideration being given to a lot line rearrangement of the property, vacation of a platted undeveloped alley, and a variance request to permit construction of an accessory structure between the principal structure and the front property line. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting vacation of the platted alley. The alley presently is undeveloped and has not been used for public travel. The only public purpose the alley currently serves is to provide sewer scrv ice. The City of Orono docs not intend to develop or maintain this alley. A portion of the alley would not be vacated because it senes as the only public access for the lot located at 1140 Loma Linda A condition of the vacation would require an access and utility casement over the portion of the v acated alley that is used for sewer service. Weinberger stated v acation of the alley may be justified since it does not serv e a public sen ice outside of the sew er scn ice Weinberger stated if the vacation of the alley is approved, the lot line rearrangement would be between the two parcels shown as Parcel A and Parcel B. Parcel B is currently developed with a cabin consisting of approximately 500 square feet in size. The second parcel is currently vacate, with a possible request in the future to construct a structure on this property. Weinberger stated half of the v acated public alley would be transferred to Parcel A, w ith the other half being vacated Weinberger stated there are four parcels in common ownership in this area by the same property owner, with an amendment being completed to allow the entire 20 feet of the vacated alley to become part of Parcel A. Weinberger slated a portion of the v acated alley would also be transferred to Parcel B, with a small portion of Parcel A becoming a part of Parcel B as part of the lot line rearrangement. Weinberger stated Parcel B would be increased by 30 feet and would result in a developed 8,500 square foot parcel. Parcel A would increase in size by appro.ximatcly 1,500 square feet. Weinberger stated both parcels would be developed subsequent to the v-acalion and lot line rearrangement, with both lots being under the minimum one acre requirement for this district. These lots would then be considered as record lots, which would require variances to lot width PAGE 12 /^bJ0^h!^ !(e,7(X.O 10 rt& Cd<j : -/n 'C^'prd 'fe 'f^£. i<3f hi^. or, c>^ pfcpc/ia. &^jfFC^Cei / Uj^ 4- ^^iSon - mSkii iMM^iililiiitiiii^^ r^nifiil TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SITE ADDRESS OWNER MAILINCADDRESS City of Orono Building and Zoning Department 3532 Ivy Place Gary & Sue Cable P.LD. BUILDER DATE APPROVED: 2011723420033 04/19/01 Lee-Lvn 3532 Ivy Place BUILDING PERMIT: NO. P02074 DATE ISSUED 04/19/01 THE FOLLOWING ARE NOTED AS INCOMPLETE OR MISSING. THESE MUST BE CORRECTED OR COMPLETED AND REINSPECTED WITHIN SQ DAYS OR THIS CERTIFICATE WILL BE VOH). Failure to correct these dcncieecies will cause occupancy violation dtiatioos to be bsucd. 1. Provide final grade______________ 2. The shed must be removed or get approval within 90 days from City. ____________________ Silt fence must remain In place until landscaping Is Installed. I hereby agree to maj^ the above ejections and to call for reinspection within the time allowed: Owner/Conlractor START BILLING FOR: City Sewer City Water Building Official n*nd^AprUt9,29$l VSHcOiMKfylWier Cfttn: BeWitCkrk UOinr Hk ^ L Application Date: 60 Day Deadline: 10/17/M 12/16/00 TO: Chair I lawn and Orono Planning Cennmission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Ad>n.nistrator/PIanncr I)ATF: November 13.2000 SUDIKCT: «2636 Gary and Susan Cable 3532 Ivy Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Distriet: Application: I) LK-IC One Family laikeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Request fur a variance to permit an accessory' building to remain on a property following removal of the principal structure. Variances to permit future structural maintenance to a non-conforming structure and to permit 3,346 s.f of hardcover on the property where 3.2% s.f is allowed. Pertinent Code Sections: 1 Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 and 2 limits the location of structures and hardcover within 75' of the lakeshore. 2. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 limits the hardcover allowed on a property. 3. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 limits accessory buildings to being constnicted on lots only after construction of the principal building. The City of Orono has required accessory buildings to be removed when principal buildings arc removed. (A permit was issued by the City of Orono to demo the principal dwelling on the property on 9/7/00 - The building has since been removed for construction of a new residence) Building Permit: The application received on 10/24/00 requested variances to allow hardcover in c.xcess of 25% for the new house and driveway. Revised plans were received from the contractor on 11 /13/00 that have reduced the liardcovcr in the 75-250' setback to under 25"/o (3,250 s.f.). The contractor has requested a building permit for construction of the house not requiring any variances. As noted in the follow ing paragraphs, the methods for reducing the hardcoN er leave questions regarding the viability of die proposal, since needed sidewalks arc elimiiuted and driveway apron reduced to a questionable layouL •2M G m) Md Suud CiM« 35321%> PItce Vvunccs - PuMk IkJtint PV I Lht of Kxhibils: A B C D U F G II Appiication/HariLship Statement Flat Map Permit Record Photo of lee House Sur\ ey and Enlargement of Driveway iarage I.ayoul Elevation Views of the Proixised House (for infonnalion purp<ises only) Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Properly Owners Notification Eisl Revised Variance Request: On 9/7/00 the City of Orono issued a demo permit to remove the principal and accessory buildings on the properly. The house has since been removed. The properly owners and have requested a variance to keep the existing 8' X 12’ “ice house” located on the property. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 states that no accessory’ building be located on a property without a principal building. The ice house is located on the lakeside of the property approximately 47 ’ from the lakcshorc. On lakeshorc lots, accc.ssory buildings arc not permitted to be located closer to the lakeshore than the principal building on the property, not within 75* of the lakeshore and not within the average lakeshore setback. A visual inspection of the ice house indicates replacement of the foundation ma> be required at some lime in the near future. If the building is permitted to remain on the property a determination should be made on whether the foundation shall be pennitled to be repaired or replaced. Typically, the City of Orono has required variances to do anything other than replacement of siding or the roof which liave been considered cosmetic work that would not extend the life of the structure. Repair to the building would not intensify a non-conformity. Hardcover Review: The total hardcover pennitled on the property is 25% of the land area in the 75-250* setback. The City’s hardcover policy reduces the amount of hardcover that is permitted in the 75-250 ’ setback by the amount of existing hardcover in the 75 ’ lakeshorc setback. A variance is required to allow the ice house to remain on the property and to create minimal functional driveway apron and front sidewalk as noted below. Driveway Apron l.avout In order to r^uce hardcover in the 75-250 ’ to 25%. applicants have proposed a driveway apron that begins to narrow immediately outside the triple garage doors, requiring much maneuvering to make use of the two outer stalls. At the center of the third stall, the apron ends only 10’ from the building. I'his in StalTs opinion is not feasible and will result in this or a future owner soon adding driving surface to make this situation workable. An option is to allow the added hardcover now. The •26M Gao ■*< Cable }5): U> Place Vananen - Pu Mk lkaiii« Pate 2 1 i minimum apron would extend at least 8* straight out from the doors before tapering. The additional hardcover extending from the edge of the door openings would require at least 100 s.f. added hardcover. Sidewalks In order to reduce hardcover to meet the 25% limit, no front sidewalk is proposed between the front entry and the driveway. Staff feels this is unreasonable given that 1) there arc front steps leading to the lawn, and 2) this or a future homeowner may add a sidewalk at a later date, exceeding hardcover limits. I.and Area (75-250*) itelback 13,182.8 s.f. 25% of Land Area 3,296 s.f (Total hardcover allowed on property) Proposed Hardcover 0-75* setback 96 s.f. 75-250' setback 3.250 s.f. 3,346 s.f. (Total hardcover proposed) Total Hardcover Allowed 3 J96 »,f. * Variance = (50 s.r.) Additional Hardcover for driveway and sidewalk = 100 s.f. Total hardcover would be (25.4%) Issues for Discussion: 1. Should the structure be permitted, by variance, to remain on the property? Tlie ice house w as required to be removed from the property when the principal building was removed. 2. The proposed site plan for new home eonstnaction requires greater than the allowed 3,296 s.f Keeping the ice house w ould require an additional 50 s.f. of hardcover. 3. Should the foundation be pemutted to be replaeed/repaired extending the useful life of the structure? 4. Should the City accept the plan without additional a plan to provide additional hardcover for a larger driveway and sidewalk? Planning Commission Options for Action: 1. 2. 3. Accessory' Biulding To approve variances to permit the accessory building to remain on the property and determining if the building should be allowed to repair/replace the existing foundation. To deny variances. Accessory buildings arc not permitted on properties w ithout the presence of a principal building. The principal building was removed in September, 2000. Other Action. ■:<>rb G»> and Susan Cable ' 3532 Iv) Place Vanances - Public Ikarmf Pace 3 t. Driveway and Side^^*alk Issues To approve variances that would pcrmil the applicants to expand the driveway and include a sidew’alk. To recommend the plan eliminate hardcover elsewhere on the property to expand the driveway and install a sidewalk. 3. Other Action C6M C«> Md SuiM CM* 35J21«) nice Vwunccs - Pu Mk Ikariog P«|C4 ^■^>1 e lOWl ' h CITY OF OKONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Aflcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppBcatioii H 2(^ 3 ip Date Rectbcd~fo/nloG Amount Paid _JL^ 5" 0 PROPERTY INFORMA Site Address Property Identificotion Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to a^Iicntion Date Property Acquired____%f%l f I (do) (do not) also owtti the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: J^_iesidential ___other (specify)^ Zoning District:_____________________________________ if not included on required survey. OO ________________^(month/year) APPLIC Name ______________________________ Address: HOftUX OA Phone (home) _____ Phone (work) City: Zii OWNER (if dilTcrent than applicant) Name Address: Phone (home)_ Phone (work) Cit>-:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST estimated uoj^ruction Lost $ t r-aitOU^J Describe request in detail: Nfe W> Uo*v\g Ptopf* Estimated Construction Cost $ M^StOOO,^^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side yS-ZSO y Hardcover _Lot Coverage Rear ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or pracrical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ___________________ __(attach additional^eets if .nccqssaryX-j.^ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All nf the follnwinp information muU be submUte d hv the application dcadlint ditt in nrtler for %our npplicatinn lo he comidcrcd complclt i Cotuplclcd Application Form Corlificd Property Owners List of ow-ners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Dcparlmcnl of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Surscy (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/j" x IT for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11 for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include nanie(.s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. . Additional items as may he requested by City siafl. The Applicant and Property Owner nuist sign this application. Please remember that ymu: %nriiincg anpiicniinn is not compleic if th e abovc informntion haa not been indudc iL APPLICANTS SIGNATURE u u v The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (stalT time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infonnation supplied is tme Ad correct jo^the best of hisher knowledge. 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. Date tooApplicant’s Sign&turcJ _ OWNER ’S SIGNATURE \ . . . The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable enuy onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request ^ - lofte./o6Owner’s Signature Applicant must base all submitt Date ...........into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Coimnission Meeting. Planning CoStnIssion Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must bo present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and »o advise flic Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. B 6rV>8t^ >1(21 5??U '^>^-1 \ "A ’ ? s s B (6)% ^;p?ARTOF IS LOT 185 ,73 13t •10± $/ O 0/^ l< 14.87 ^ \ ro &V S ^ I ^ (34) ^ V' u c- n M 1«J^V i'»<#«■ ^106.75 e 'i® (») '• -«• 2 .6 /O' hi fcI^V.„«IS0 „ >. '^'Ji(55LA ^iP >67 •&'•% 12'& '»>. - --^- \/ X 4B (8) W' V*'VxvV ?, ‘’“'- I ' >6.% U.I. Qi o fC5 1 ■ 7r ^ 'ij) O 1 Perait Wo, I3>a~l pQZ<?7 I PBRHIT RECORD Pat« tg -l8^(a(o A-^-17 I, -t4~13 7- 00 itoti'itfii i- r t Type of Permit ^"»-o<y4QAAjo / UmXL/% D<.w\ f> - Prirt> cry Mifii n f t ! •i-. JJ j ;ji.. oct3/ ,i<foo AC£^ u§if£o oer. nj^e*mmm « 1I^^.6 MkMm a .lAQiiUOM .;PT • ■ fdtaCcaf^A o.‘b*2 b mOfIMON. INPLACe ^££ rH£nr- 2 HAi J.^<=.S-> 330' 9a. 4r-mrwpr /••-/o ’ j. r m\. --m.•• .*V:>. • ;i‘. K/f.»— ., ■ • .: V •. . * ; V^V C•.!:.' '-V '*- V •“ .**' *' '. >. * •* . • ■j' *. f ,'i • f» •'- '.-'r; ;f::-..'V '■ -..V.• / . 'AlV-i' :.. ■'■•, ■ ■. . .■'; .■‘■Y'a: ,4f?fr7 '' t V*i:' . ;. . V- viV P -S- V.V- -K., C'- :. i •*-‘f..‘ '•-■**• -.1 ^ :'ilF • • ■• -sx'** .'v (i- 1REAftAELEVATION * * 6^ \ • • •s;' ■ K •' ->3'^:. .'1881 ii-v'Vo • " i ^ „ ( «.,• - _ I ... r’* . - .. I • 9 ' *, ••»• \.,••• w *>- •.. 14.V, ■ - / ■•• :V.v '»«■■ .TX-.^~->7r ; O •.: v'^ »-? .• / a: A^l r,AdtI ^.*CS. ^-. .. .:■ . •.'1'^^ -X -T" \ ; . ■». ■ ^ ■• I I — - - r -il-, r:xv.::i:5 r, —Tizrru ‘ - “^:: _ ,_:v^ ^ ,X- • -r — ■ 9’*^ ^ ~:u^’V^2cjr — L -Xiraiiij: K or 3il ‘’*1: i-<st:'lU2flH<S;I.aSi^iamPj] Sll ftl i! lEiii :j(,.‘: ■•!;;'.■ ’si»; -'•-::5:-Ji-'>5'5 -a *4 • ? j r '■*' ^ t M •« » *¥^y*• ! •It tl za «£■' i 'rK’"' rirTiTf! la irfi-i, ii OOii:Jni Its L >r - i:jr:.50 ii v-: :]-, - nf-rf v SETBACr 'i.ONK: (ClHt.Lt. UN bl 7T25t» >G HARDCOVER IN ZOWE A. H ou M UnfUi /4-. Z B. G«nfe C. Drivcwsy 2J1. D. Sidewalk E. Pttio^eck J£L 2^*5- F. I jndicape Underliin By Plutic Or Fabric yy .7 fc J±2- C. Orber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY .\REA IN ZONE ' A Uo4^,4 ’ ® i * 100 • yHQfpicrn WAPnrnvER IN ZONE A. Hottia ____________ X Occ/r LinfCi WMdi (Poficih = B. Oanfe _ C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Undacape UoderUio By Plaitle Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN------ A ’12.^0 w B /V9Z-i ,100 - 76y.y S.F. ________S.F. ^‘P. A S.F /3/r?. ^ S.F. % __________S.F. __________S.F. Z6i7 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 325(0 S.F. 3/^^ S.F. S.F. Ar • -y .' bM ■UN OATf lt/19/«t BATCM Itt NOMEPIN COUNTY POOPCRTV INTOOtMTION SVSTIN PaOftITV ONNUS LIST ■CPOOT NO. PX4SMtl P«CC 4 poor Aoot ONNC* NAME TAMPAVEImm/um U 2t-117-2S 4t •SS4« IVY PI A N JCWCTT CTAL ANTNUO N JCMCTT SMA IVY Pt NAY2ATA IM ASS91 5A 20-117-2S 42 mV •S&S4 IVY PL TCO I NANCY CAPRA TED CAPRA 1404 EDOENATER AVE ARDEN HILLS HH MUt SR 24-II7-2S 42 M22 tSSIA IVY PL J A S UNITE JAMS N A SMMtV ■ NNITE SS14 IVY PL HAYZATA Ml SSS91 PROP ABOR OMNER NAM TAXPAYER NAM/ABOR U 2«*U7-2S 42 lt2S •SSlt IVY PL STEPHEN ■ WILSON STEPHEN S WILSON SSM IVY PLACE WAYZATA NN SSS41 M 2R-U7-2S 42 SR24 •SSM IVY PL STEPHEN ■ WILSON STEPHEN S WILSON SSM IVY PLACE WAYZATA Ml SSS4I SO 29-117-2S 42 0024 •SStS IVY PL D L CUNNIHBS • N N CUNIDm DANICL L S NAtniA N SS2S m PL HAYZATA HN BSSSl PROP AMM OHMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOOR SO 2t-ll7-2S 42 toss •SS32 IVY PL 0 A CABLE I S H CABLE BARY A S SUSAN H CABU SBS2 IVY PL WAYZATA m SSS41 SO 20-I17-ZS 42 0IS4 •SS4B IVY PL JEPFREY A BIBRA BAMERRY JEFFREY I DEBRA BANBERRY SB45 IVY PL HAYZATA m ESS41 SO 20-117-25 42 OtSf •5SSB IVY PL B D LZNDBREN 0 E A LJ B B LINOQREN SEA LXNDOREN SSSS IVY PL HAYZATA Ml SBSn PROP ABOR OHMR NAM TAXPAYER NAM/AOOR SO 20-117-2S 4S ftSO •5S«4 IVY PL LEISEL R COX LEISEL R COX SS«4 IVY PL WAYZATA Ml SSS41 TOTAL BATCH BI2 •••!• 1 CERTIFY THAT TM PACTS REPRESENTEB AM AN ACCURATE AND TRUE MPRESENTATIOH OP 1M0MIATXSN AS H APPEARS THIS BATE ON TM HECORRS OP TM NENMPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION, TO TM BEST OP NY KNOHLEOGE AND BELIEF. eo DATE 05 Applivuliun Dale: 4/6/01 |>radlinc: 6/5/01 TO: Choir llaun and Urono Tlanning Commissiun Members Ron Moorsc, City Adminbiraior FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATF: . .001 SL'UJtCT; <*2668 Manley HriMliers Consiruciion 1973 Fagemess Point Rt»ad Aficr the Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: List of Exhibits: LR-IC One 1 uimly Lakesliurc Residential Diitriet (1/2 acre) A Application B Applicant I etters of Request C Plat Map D Site Sure ey U Ciarage !!levalion - Proposed F Photo Rix)f G Railing Photo 11 Dormer Plan - Proptised Flevation I Lakeside Photo J Property Owners List Description of Requests: A. Applicant has requested an aRer the fact conditional use permit and variances to permit construction of two retaining walls within 75' of the lakeshore. Ihe retaining walls were constructed to help stabili/a; the lakeside of the residence and create an improved walkout. I he applicant has indicated the retaining walls were replacement walls. llowc\er. photos taken by the City of Orono and a sur\ ey submitted by a previous applicaitt did not indicate retaining walls in 1998 on the property. In the applicant ’s memo, dated I :bruao 21,2001 Gar> O’Dell of Manley Brothers Construction indicates the retaining walls are replacement walls. D. Tlie second part of the request is to pemiit two donner w indow additions w ithin 75' of the lakeshore and within the average lakeshore setback. A variance is required Ivcause the dormer windows would be an expansion of the building within a required setback. C. Tlie third reque.st is to pcmiit replacement of a deck and 3' hand railing around the detached garage within a required street setback. l*lie original deck was removed from the top of the garage so the roof could be replaced. The deck w ould be a replacement structure. Only item A above is an after the fact request. B and C have not been constructed. *2668 Manie> Drutftcri ConiUuctKNi Discussion: hems U and C arc variances that can be reviewed independently from item A. Fxhibit I is a photo of tile existing house showing one donner window. Tlie plans shown in Fxliibit H show two dormers windows being added, llie variances required are to permit an expansion to the building within die 75’ setback from l ake Minnetonka and the average lakeshore setback. However the proposed expansion would not increase the use of the property, ru>r have an impact on the view^ from adjacent residences. The lumse was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. rxhibil G is a photo of the detached garage prior to the roof and deck being removed. I he deck railing would be replaced te a similar character and style ns shoxm in the old photo. Ilie garage is built into a hillside. Access to the deck Is even w ith the grade locatc*d to the rear of the garage. No stairs are required to the roof of the garage, 'nie railing would be required for safety since access to the roof is not restricted. 1 he variance would allow a deck and railing to be located 2 ’ from the street property line and 6* from the side lot line. No expansion to the prex ious use of the structure is proposed, llic garage w as constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-conforming structure that has not reached the end of its useful life. The hill side and size of the lot would make construction of a new garage further from the street dilTicult. In the early 1980s the Council approved a variance to permit die garage to be refurbished in its existing location. I wo primary conditions were placed on that approval. One. the garage would have to be reduced in si/e and cut back to meet a 2 ‘ setback to die street, and secondly, the garage would liavc to be rebuilt widi a flat roof to not block die view of the lake from the neigliK)ring residence. Further review of the retaining walls will require some additioiral infonualion to be submitted by the applicant. 1 lowever, staffhas adv ised the applicant rev iew of the variances for the dormer window additions and deck can be rev iew as all the required plans .ire available. No h.irdcover v arianccs are required City policy allows second story additions when not increasing the foot print area of the building regardless of hardcover excesses. No hardcover variances are required. SlafT Kccnmnicndalion: Staff recommends approval of the variances to permit the two dormer window addition and construction of the replacement deck over the detached deck based on the following finding and hardships: 1. The house was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. Ilic proposed dormer windows will not change the character or use of the property. 2. The garage was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-confonning st.mcturc that has not reached the end of its useful life. Topography of the land creates a situation where the garage is built into the hillside allowing the roof to be walked out on without the need for stairs. A 3 ‘ safety railing would allow the property owners to have continued use of the garage roof as a deck area. The hill side and size of the lot would make construction of a new garage further from the street dinicuit. ■?66S MmIo Ufothcit Cuntlroctioa P^2 SiafT recommends Uibltng of ihc conditional use permit and variances for the retaining wall and request the sur\ ey work to be updated to include revised hardcover calculations for the 0-75 ’ setback including the retaining walls and provide additional information as to the preexisting retaining walls. Final engineering review shall be completed by the City Engineer w hen w all construction plans have been su^itted to the City. L MMicy Bntken CoMMctioa #2668 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . Application U Date Rccch’c^ j/u/oJ Amount Paid Vz oo inC, Site Address /?73 Property Identification Number (P.roT t*4 oOO^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey f—_________________________________;___(monlh/year) I (do) |go nolj also own the ^acent parcels of land. Present use of property: <<^idcntial ___^othcr (specify) Zoning District: ^ g-1 e__________________ ______________ y 2> /? •/ / (home)^^ 9^^ /8/i^ _ C Phone (work) Address:^j^:__V^r;>./ ^ Cily:^^,^^_________Zip: OWNER (if different fifan applicant) 'AiName______ Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST^__ Estimated Constmetion. Cost S Dc.scribc request in detail: .5^,f (attach additional sheets If necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Lot Width _ 4^etback: ^Front ___Side Otlier (specify) 75^ Hardcover ___^Loi Coverage ______________ Average Lal'eshore ILUlDSHIP/DES^RIpf ^N b^NlJS^A^L ?»RdpE^RfY COMMT^ONS Describe undue hardsliip or practical difficulty or ur^ual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: . ______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) .1J /T5 iTiiif o Manley Brothers, Inc. 646 Lexie Court Eagau, MN 55123 Office: 651/905-1814 Memorandum TO:Paul E. Wctnbcrgcr, Zoning Administrator/lMonner III City ofOrono FROM:Gary O’Dell, Construction Supervisor Manley Brothers Construction, Inc. DATE: RE: February 21,2001 1973 Fagemess Point Rond, Orono, MN Upon starting the project of remodeling this property, w e observed the deterioration of the original retaining walls including ground erosion of the property washing to the lake. We have since replaced the retaining walls tviih interlocking retaining block. Please feel free to contact me at 612/250-91 08 to discuss variances. Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter. GO/bd B-l Manley Brothers, Inc. 646 Lexic Court Eagan, MN 55123 Omce: 651/905-1814 B-2 Memorandum , TOi Paul E. Weinberger, Zoning Adminislralor/Planner III City of Orono FROM; Gary O'Dell, Construction Supervisor Manley Brothers Construction, Inc. DATF.: February 21,2001 RE: 1973 Fagemess Point Road, Orono, MN Remodeling existing home - run down by >cars of neglect. In remodeling and removing interior sheet rock and plaster v/c’vc found the attic bedrooms and bath need special addressing on structural repair. We would like to upgrade the attic bedroom and bath, structurally, by removing the existing roof and replacing the rafler s>’stem with new materials and engineering, plus the addition of two (2) dormer window’s to the w’cst - lake view. Wc will not be gaining any living space; altering the original footprint of the house; the elevation of the house. Our only goal is that we want to comply with building structure codes, while improving the structure of the house and also adding a view of the lake. Please feel free to contact me at 6 12/250-9108 to discuss variances, llionks in advance for your consideration in this matter. GO/bd Enclosure: Blueprints on alleged changes to the second level. Manley Brothers, Inc. 646 Lcxic Court Eagao, MN 55123 OfTicc: 651/905-1814 Memorandum I TO: Paul E Weinberger, Zoning Administnitor/IManner lU City of Orono FROM: Gary O’Dell, Construction Supervisor Manley Brothers Construction, Inc. • • DATE: Februaiy 21,2001 RE: 1973 Fagemess Point Road, Orono, MN 1-3 In order to remodel or refurbish the residence, we have removed the existing deck over the garage and to the house in order to rcroof the garage. We would like to replace the deck with new cedar decking, following code specifications. We will not be enlarging this area (approximately 880-sq. ft.), only upgTEding it. Please feel free to contact me at 612/250-9108 to discuss variances. Thanks in advance for your consideration in this matter. GOftxl Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department C Parcel Information Parcel ID 1811723140008 Houae Number 1873 Street Name PA08IINE8S POINT NO Cendemlalum ... ^ m»hnot»l$gatynooid$dmap. It npnsart$ a eematabon o/In/onnubon , anddatthcmOty. County. $ndStat9n§dmMhorib9S and oltmrtoufs. // 'M?7/^46. X. GRAPHIC SCALE 90 40 ’ rt?P I^C/T OF F/RF JfWRANT £LBVAriO//=^933,4a t IN RET ) S;:sii? 4fefsSM r iiiihffTIff I '#r#"AJSiMMSagB^^^al^jalBaBfe jB»Btfsi:! ill ■K« txfflihfe-yf-.ii^lk iia. .»■-: * f-'mt ^15 wm G cl^cV f y y y*\s s s X s X * y y y . yi NEW H FS/ATVM i/r \ • A. 4^ = fM- ■-.,i!Jcir^Si| Va ' 'VJ ^ U:» L ■ .iDr\' W’ i.;^ Zok^s iftc //ocUJ^ X w• i 'j;-> RUN DATC M/M/tl HUMCPZN COUNTY fROfCRTV INTORfUTION SYSTEM PROfERTY OWNERS LIST •ATCII 504 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0004 OlOBS FACERNESS POINT RO A Z OPNEIN t H V OPHEIN ALAN 1 OPHEIN ZOOS FACERNESS POINT RO MAYZATA MN SSSOZ SB 1B-1Z7-2S 14 0005 014B1 FACERNESS POINT RO H T WHITTINCTON, J A 6R0EMRE MICHAEL T WHITTINCTON JULIE A CROENKE 1401 FACERNESS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55341 SB IB'117-ZS 14 0000 01475 FACERNESS POINT RO .KNM K PUROY ETAL JOMN K PURDY 1475 FACERNESS PT RO MAYZATA m S5S91 REPORT NO. P14SS401 Pace 11 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0007 01471 FACERNESS POINT RO M L DELAY OLA OfUY WILLIAM L 0 LORI A DELAY 1471 FACERNESS POINT RO MAYZATA MN 55141 .na 1B-117-ZS 14 oooa 0197S FACERNESS POINT RO MANLEY BROTNERS CONST INC HANLEY BROTHERS CONST INC 147S FACERNESS POINT RO WAYZATA MN 55S41 SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0004 014A5 FACERNESS POINT RO C L EKLOF t C F LEE CARY EKLOF / CATHY LEE 1445 FACERNESS PT RO MAYZATA MN 55341 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0010 01455 FACERNESS POINT RD N S IVES I K F CEMPLER MARIS IVES t KARLTON CEMPLER 1455 FACERNESS POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55341 SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0011 01451 CONCORDIA ST J B WALDRON B L H WALDRON JOWI B 1 LYNN H WALDRON 1451 CONCORDIA ST MAYZATA MN 55341 SB 1B-117-ZS 14 0012 01445 CONCORDIA ST R W RACATZ B J I RACATZ RICHARD W B JILL RACATZ 5704 AYRSHIRE BLVO EDINA m 5543* PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 1B-117-ZS 14 001* 01450 CONCORDIA ST W F B X A PETERS WILLI H F B KARA I A PETERS 1450 ..ONCOROIA ST WAYZATA MN iSS41 TOTAL BATlN 504 OOOIB I CERTIFY THAT TNE FACTS REPRESENTED ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OP NY RNOWLEOCE AND BELIEF TO: Chair I lawn and Oruno Planning Commission Nfcmbers Ron Moorsc, Cily Adminislralor FROM: Wendy Boitenhcrg. Zoning Adminislraior/PIaniier DATE: May 15,2001 SL'BJECT: #01-2671 Alistair and Kristin Jacques 645 Old Long Lake Road Variances-Public Jlcaring Application #01-2671 is incomplete. The applicants need to submit septic testing anu design work to complete the application. They wish to have their application tabled and be on the June 18,2001 agenda. ' StafT Kccommcndatioo Motion to table application #01-2671 and continue to the next available nusiting. To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members Mike GafTron, Planning Director May 18,2001 #2667 North Shore Marina. 3222 North Shore Drive - CUP (REQUEST TO TABLE UNHIL JUNE MEETING) Mr. .\ndcrson was provided witli the attached Notice of Planning Commission Action on April 25. As the additional requested information has not been submitted, we will be extending the application review period an additional 60 days to August S, 2001. This item should be tabled without discussion at your May 21 meeting. I hMe Saffron - NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION and Reg^nseTbVour E-Mail From: To: Date: Subjact: Mike Gaffron DICK ANDERSON 4/25/01 0 56AM NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION and Response to Your E-Mai? Rich- Here ’s a punch lisi of the comments from the neighbors as gleaned from the draft minutes of the Plannino Commission meeting ^ 1. A number c/ neighbors are concerned about the traffic impacts on North Shore Drive 2. A number of neighbors are concerned about impacts to boat traffic on the lake, crowding, added pollution due to more traffic in the bay (I assume by pollution they mean fumes, trash, noise, visual clutter from more boats, etc ) 3 Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore Drive was concerned about noise from the ^Jded dry stack activity, also was unhappy with the bell that calls someone to the gas dock, also unhappy with his view of the back sido of the buildings, needing paint etc Also noted occasional problem with people cutting 4 Robert Waade indicated concern about the debris and storage along west side of service building, and suggested a fence would help, also had concerns about dogs m his yard 5 Dennis Libby. 3210 North Shore Drive had a concern about late partying at the manna dockf Rich, all things considered I think many of the problems expressed by the neighbors are solvable * h^^ ^'9*' Fence along both lot lines will stop people and dogs from trespassing onto the b) Clean up the storage/debris behind the service building and plant some arbor vitae that will provide screening to the west side of the building during all seasons c) Clean up whatever stuff is behind the office building and paint the backs of all the buildings that need painting d) Come up with something other than the bell for the gas dock a) Keep after yow customers about being rowdy late at night' The "impacr of the added dry slack usage on vehicle traffic and on actual boating activity on Maxwell Bay is not easy to measure, other than for you to keep a dail y recod'd of how many dry stack boats you put on the water I agree that adding 52 dry slips will not immediately result in 52 more boats on the Bay every day. nor will it add 62 car trips a day to North Shore Drive But we don’t know the impact until we have some actual numbers Why don’t you call Gabe or Rockvam and see if they can tell you what wo should expect in terms of how often a given boat will typically be used PLANNING OMMISSION ACTION Planning Commission voted 5-0 to table the application at your request in order to give you time to 1) put together a formal parking plan layout, 2) put together an updated landscaping plan, and 3) address specific, neighbor concerns as noted above Plann.ng Commission seemed very posibve about approving a phase-in of the additional dry-stacks over a period of a few years. The next Planning Com nicsion meeting is May 21. and I know you are gettmg busy The deadline for gettinn r-o -ew info (landscape plan, parking plan) would be May 15 at the latest However, there is no *•' "^mpleted for that meeting, you can delay until June if you wish, or even later if lect Mever. I do neeo to have you sign a waiver of the 60 day review period required by State statu* 53 days from the date of complete submission cf your application, which was Apnl 5. to Pag«1|1 [Mike cWfron • NOTi^^ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION and ^Mponse to Vour E-Mail ^age2| approve or deny your request). I wBI send the waiver form out and vou need to skin anu return it If you want a copy of ttie minutes I will send the draft minutes out also. iT Appikalioa Dale: Deadline: 4/17/01 6/16/01 Chair Hawn and Orono Hanning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SURJECT: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Admini *traior/l'lanncr May 4. 2001 A2674 ITcnnis and Dianne Killian 1420 Shoreline Drive Variance Renewal - Public Hearing Zoning District: LUI of Exhibits: I.R-I A One Family I akeshorc Residential District (2 acre) A Approved Site Plan B SiafT Report and Resolution (SeptemWr 9,1 999) C Planning Commission Minutes (September 20, 1999) D City Council Minutes (September 27, 199^) Summary- of Request: Applicants request renewal of a blufT setback variance. The variance was approved by the Orono Council on September 27, 1999 and since a building permit was not requested within one year of variance approval the variance expired. The variance was to the section that prohibits structure within 30’ of the lop of a bluff. The variances approved in 1999 permitted a 20’ encroachment on the top of bluff setback ba.scd on the following findings and hardships: I.A previous residence was located on the property until 1997 following volunUiry removal by the property owner. 1 he property is narrow with a limited building pad. 1 he proposed house location best utili/cs the existing building pad and area of disturbed soil. 3.A house located behind the bluff setback would encroach into the required 50' rear yard .setback from County Road 15. The garage and residence arc proposed U be located on the lot well screened by topography and natural vegetation not impacting lake \ iew s for the marina or other residential pro|K*rt» *s. Tlte property has not been tillered or condit.on.s on the property have not changed since variance approval in 1999. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the v’ariancc renewal subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono Council in the resolution approving the v-ariance in 1999, including rcmoval/rclocation of the garage and hardcover outside of the 75' lakeshore setback. 4 A. 1 TO:Chair Ha\vn and Orono Planning Comm* ion Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning Adminislrator/Planncr DATE: September 9, 1999 SUBJECT: «5I6 JelTMartineau I42U Shoreline Drive Variances-Public I learing Zoning DutHrt: LR* 1 A One Family Lakcshore Residential District (2 Acre) Lot Area: approximately 2.0 acres_________________________________ Last month the Planning Commission tabled Zoning Application #<2416 for JelTMartineau without discussion. Mr. Martineau arrived shurtly after the meeting had adjourned. Summary of Request: In 1997 the residence was removed from the property. All that remains on the lot is a detached garage and driveway. The applicant has applied to the City for variances to allow the lot to be redeveloped as a residential site and to pcmiit the detached garage on the property to remain. The Code would not al'ow in accessory building to remain after the principal building has been removed without the Council granting a variance. Applicant also requests variances from blufl* setback to pemtit a new residence to be constructed w ithin the 30' bluff setback. I.ol History: The lot was 2.9 acres in size prior to 1983 when .9 acres wus divided off and joined with an adjacent property leaving the existing 2.0 acre parcel. Previous property owners ha\e inquired about extension of sewer to the property This is one of the few lakeshore lots in the City that is no; within the MU.S.A area to allo v for the provision of sanitary sewer. There is interest in connecting this property to sewtrr. Sewer connection would require the property demonstrate it is not suitable for a primary and alternate septic site, or apply for a MUS.A expansion which would require approval of the City and Metropolitan Council. •.'5/0 Jiff Uarutram I tVMxrri 5/0 99 Pdfr I Lakcsho*^e Setback Tanagcr Lake is located on the west side of the property and Brown ’s Bay of Lake Minnetonka b on the cast side of the property across Shoreline Drive. Ilic lot has two 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zones. There is a small portion of the driveway within the setback along the cast side of the property. Obviously this amount of hardcover (120 s.f.) is required for driveway access to the property from Shoreline Drive. A garage and small portion of dri\ eway is located w ithin the 75 ’ lakeshore setback on the northwest comer of the property. Hiis building was required to be removed when the principal residence was removed from the property. Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 prohibits accessor) buildings on lots absent a principal slructua*. It could be assumed the garage would not require a hiirdcover variance at this lime K’cause it is a legally existing non-conforming building, however it may be appropriate to grant the variance for hardcover if the Planning Commission and Council determines the building can remain on the lot. Bluff Setback A bluff rises from the Tanagcr Lake shoreline to approximately to the %0 ’ contour. The Shoreland Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 30 ’ to the lop of bluff for a simclurc. Refer to the attached survey/site plan (Lxhibil D) the plan indicates a limited building pad on the property outside of required setbacks and allowing for a 30' lop of bluff setback. Surveyor has depicted on the surve) a proposed house layout over the high point on the property dial could not meet the blulf setback. The residence however would be within the actual building pad on the properly as defined by the typical yard setbacks (absent the blulf setback). A variance may be appropriate in this case to allow building wiiliin 30' of the lop of bluff setback due ir the limited building pud on the 2.0 acre properly. The proposed location of the rc.'iJcncc would lake advantage of the previous building pad and not require the removal of trees necessary for protection of the property between Uie proposed hous«“ and Shoreline Drive. Building in the proposed location w ould also allow a future property owner to lake advantage of building ov er the higlicsl portion of the property. If a house were built further to the north on the h>l the existing drive would be required to be realigned and result in removal of mature trees and stune extensive regrading. Septic It is unknown if the property could sustain two conforming septic sites. The steep grades and lakeshore .setbacks may require the property owners to request sewer extension from the City- Council. The property is outside of the MUSA area, but to its benefit it is adjacent to other sewered 16 Mff Martuteau l4:0Shor*h>wDrM »jtiamctt fl/6 99 Putt 2 properties and is a lakeshorc lot. Hardcover Mark Gronberg has complcled proposed hardcover calculations and has demonstrated the property could sustain and house and garage combination close to 5,000 s.f. w ithout requesting any variances 1 he existing drive would meet City requirements and require only a small amount of grading t>n the property. Distance from Shoreline Total Area in Setback Existing Hardcover Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 1 Viriamv Requested 0'-75* Tanagcr l,akc 1,236 s.f.1.236 s.f (4.0®/o) none (0*/«) 1,2.36 s.f (4.0‘!'o) All hardcover in this setback is existing and is not scheduled for removal 0'-75' Brins n's Bay 4,800 s.f.120 s.f (2.5%) none ((Wo) 120 s.f (2.5%) Hardcover is required for existing driveway 75'-250' Proposed 48,400 s.f oppro.v. 12% 12,100 s.f (2-^%» 11.205 s f (23.1.^%) No variance would be requested for hardcover within the 75'-250' lakesiiore setback for Dlsvuasittfl 1. The pro|vriy has a limited building pad for a two acre lot due to the increased impact of the top of blulTsetback, llie applicant has requested a variance to allow an encroachment into the 30* setback. 2. A garage structure is located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback. The building by Code should ha\ e been rcmo\ ed at the time the propertv ’ owner voluntarily removed the residence in 1997. The applicant intends to maintain the building at its present site 3. The lot is subject to two 75' lakeshorc setback zones. 4. The variance from bluff setback would allow the property to be developed over the area already graded by the existing house. The area is clear of trees and driveway alignment is established. Jtjf UjrttnMt n:o Shotting UrM «/6W Patti STAFF recommendation Slaff recommends approval of ihc variances to permit encroachment into the top of bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed on the site over the previous building site based on the following hardships: 1.The proposed location of the residence would take advantage of the previous building pad and not require the removal of trees necessar>' for protection of the propert)' between the proposed house and Shoreline Drive. Building in the proposed location would also allow a future property owner to take advantage of building over the highest portion of the property. If a house were built further to the north on the lot the existing drive would be required to be realigned and result in removal of mature trees and some extensive regrading. Attachments A Application B Applicant's Stalenienl of Hardship Survey Location Map Topographic Map Hardcover Worksheets Plat Map Property Owners List Penn it Record n:o Skonlute Dmr I'anaitcti BI699 ApoBcttion # _ Date R*celv*d35ZiiIlL Amoufit Paid Z S \ ■ \ CITY OF ORONO - VA^lAIiCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee (^SO.Q^ (S50.00 per each additional variaiicc) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from ori^al application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /i/2D Property Idendfication Number (P.I.D.)_________________^________ Attach legal description to ^jpUcatio^^ not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired^_(month/year) I (do not) also own the abjacent parcels of land. . Present use of property: 2>< reridential ___pother (specify). Zoning IXstrict: _________________ APPLICANT Name Phone (home ) CZf Phonefwork i ^7 3'3^ Address: lOJ €.c4K( J7 City: M*y7^T4 Zip: rf39/ OWNER Of different than applicant) Phone (home). Name /______ iPhone (work), twaif^Qp lUi\Zip;,3^£0 Estimated Construction Cost $DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: l/AfUAhycc BiciFP ^C'tOAfk. ~fO (4S( A(\(A AI AfAA¥ /i'i CA//T/<//£ /'iu'tjSf (iiuch additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ Setback; ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcoyer Rear Lot Coyerag6^ ^ 'iAverage Lekeshore ^ Other (specify) Buiff ^(^76ACk -=fe HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: //i/ CU aa ^t tc Acsu,i/) /A' <^C4r/^Ay u//,/Lf Our f//c 7T'r^SA(K. /A.^t OF /iLtfpF jrr/ACk /A ^//rt/A^CA (attach additional sheets if necessary) AppDcilion#__£SM^ _ Date lUcdvrf^SIlEiL Amount Paid tSO^ \ : \ CITY OF ORONO - VA^lliCC APPLICATION Initial ApplicaUon Fee 1^50^ (SSO.OO per each additional variaiice) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from ori^al application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /t/20 Propertv Identification Number (P.I.D.) ___________^________ Attach legal description to^pplicatio^^not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired^_(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. . . Present use of property: X readential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ^ A-1A________________________ APPLICANT Name Af4A7/A^fALi Address: lOJ €.cAK( J7 Phone (home) / ____ Phonefworic i C City: i///7 7 AT A_______Zip: S'!??/ OWNER Of different than applicant) Name t_____ Address: [AiT 6wlnf^0D j2£ll City DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: RuiFf ^CrdAck -ro 14)^ Af\iA /1 Af>Jt A •/ '"rAktCA /j'i CAZ/T/^//? ____________________________________^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) p f | VAMANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverag6^L'i__ Average Lakeshore X Other (specify) Buiff TfTaACK -=fe HARDSMIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliaiKe wi»h Zomng Code requl’'tmcnts: /a/_ CA//Ayr r/> Aesufi/) /jaetfC /a/ TJA4C~FfA,‘(ML C^CAmA^ _ Our jf f/7c 7T' rtnSAfK. /ftifff ffTMCk /-f (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1:r A'JJK < /I / ( Cf/ CL) IITALClh.ATION WOIUvSUEETHARDCOVrU SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) fO-75^ 75.250* 250-500* 7-Zf-99 500-1000* EXISTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE CTfr CCAuf MrkA) A. H oum _____________ \ _________L Ltn|lh B. Ounge C. Drivewty D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Uodertain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - D PROPOSED HARDCOVKR IN ZONE A. House _____________ Ltnsth B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Palio/Deek F. Landscape Underlain ByPUstie Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IT.* ZONT TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - 13 WitfL'l xlOO W.Jih /ZO Sf. S.F. 2. SO S.F. SJ. ;s.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. S.F. SF. XlOO - S.F. SI. % 1 S.F. SF. SF. SF. SI. SF. SE SF. S.F. S.F. SF. ‘S.F. CO '5; i d . ; C'2 % i MAtir/AyCl^f. (SfJLL) CSlHARDCON'EK CALCULATION WOIU<SHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) Co 'iD J T 75 25n’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE. TAU*Cif< l^*^r A. House _____________ ' ____________ 250.500’ 7-u.^y SOO-IOOO' Length B. Otrage C. Driveway r,z 70. ^ D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain . By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN /ONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - II PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lcnfih B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other ______SF. ______SF. PZ. SF. 10.Z. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B 600 S.F. SJ. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SE SJ. /AlLsf. X100 - yo.Pi?o sj. y.o/ H SF. S.F. SF. SJ. SF. SJ. SF. xtOO SJ. ‘SJ. ;sj.CO r*“ : -- V * SJ. SI. Cl SJ. SJ. H i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONT. A. House _____________ A/Jlt'l (J*UJ nARDCONT.K (; \LCl LATION WOUKSUEET U.75 ‘ L*B|th B. Ovege C. Drivewiy D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE- a PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patt^^^ •’5-:5T7’250-S00’S00.1000' SE. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. 'S.F. SJ S.F. SF xlOO 2(P-5-Z /2 OO 7^<P ■59 Vo S.F. _____S.F. SF. SF.CO // Z9 0 SF. SF.r., • F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric SF. SF. !sf. 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONT A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - H XlOO /4 2^^SF ^5HV£i]SF. 13. IS H - Mil ilippjfi M MTt t7/19/99 MTCM SU nomphi county ptorcm mriMUMTiaN system niOfCRTV ONNCn list KPOMT NO. riRSSRSl PMC 43 PROP MOR OMCR NMC TMPAYIR MMC/MM SR R2‘117-2S 33 RRIR R141R SNOnilNi M A NARMISON AIL HARRISON ALPRCO t INORIR L NARRlSflN 141R SNORELIMC DR MAVZATA MN S339I SR R2-117-2S 33 RR12 RMSR ABME3S UNASSIONCO TNC CITY OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO P O ***** 4fc CRYSTAL SAY HN SSS23 SR 11-117-23 21 Mtl RRRSR AOORCSS PCNOINO MWUR IMOUSTRICS INC RINBS COM lOAT SALES INC ATTN STEVE OATES 4 STATE NHY NO 41 NASTINOS NN SSR3S OHMER NAME TASPAYER MANE/ABOO SR 11-117-23 22 RIR4 R144R SHORELINE DR JANES P RIVERS ETAL JANES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE DR HAYZATA m 5SSY1 3R 11-117-23 22 MRS R1442 SNRRELIHC OR JANES P RIVERS ETAL JANES P RIVERS 1444 SHORELINE OR HAYZATA HN SfSRl SR 11-117-23 22 MR4 ‘ R1444 SNORELIMC DR J P t N A RIVERS JAMES P A NARY A RIVERS 1444 SNORELIMC OR HAYZATA NN SSSRl PROP ADOR OHNCR NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/Am SO 11-117-23 22 RRR7 RRRSR ADDRESS UNASSIONCO J P I N A RIVERS JAMES P R NARY A RIVERS 1444 SNORELINE DR HAYZATA m SSS91 SR 11-117-23 22 RRIR RRRSR AOORCSS UNASSIONCO J P A N A RIVERS JANES P A NARY A RIVERS 1444 SNORELINE DR HAYZATA NN SSS91 SR 11-117-23 22 RRIS RRRSR ADDRESS UNASSIONCO THE CITY OP ORONO CITY OP ORONO P 0 ROX 44 CRYSTAL DAY NN S5S2S PROP AROR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER HANC/AOOR SR 11-117-23 22 M14 R14S2 SNORELINE DR L E A J L DORN TRUSTEES LAUREN C A JOYCE L DORN 1452 SNORELINE OR HAYZATA m SSSTl SR 11-117-23 22 RRIS R142R SNORELINE OR S D A A 0 SILL STEVEN 0 A ANAMOA 0 SILL 142R SNORELIMC OR HAYZATA NN SSS91 TOTAL SATCH ill ARRll I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRCSCNTCO ARC AM ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRCSCNTATION OP INFORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TNC RECORDS OP TNC HENNEPIN COUNTY OCPARTMENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION. TO THE REST OP NY RMOHLEOeC AM RELIEF. DATE • n #2516 li»» stiff Jin*. PERMIT RECORD Pernit No..Date • * Type of Permit /06 V nZ^On/T/dAJ VfcS' /is-ta <frPTtr Ji^!///'<j9'S ’^JU14. -f3^_______.__./'V9o qTL ^OS" „__ A-3-9h \’^La .A.O ^'P'9/i tyC^i0^ 33tX 9'^'9d 'inj’c^ %Vb n-^-^-7 i r A RKSOLt riON GRANTINi; VARIANCt:S TO MUMUI’AL ZONING CODi: SKCl ION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) (2), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1(B) AND TO DENY VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.09, SUBDIVISION 9 (A); SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (A) AND 1 (B); AND SECTION 10J6, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (1) AND TO PERMIT SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION TO THE PROPERTY FII.E NO. 1^2516 WHEREAS, David Sill and Amanda Sill (hereinafter "ihc applicants") are ouTiers of the properly located at 1420 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2. Block I, Dragonfly Hill. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Slamtcs and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 20, 1999, at which limes all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (C) (2) to permit construction of a new residence on the lot encroaching 20* into the top of bluff setback. Section 10.22. Subdivision I (B) to permit the garage and residence to encroach into the average lakeshore setback; Section 10.09, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit an accessory structure to remain on the lot without principal structure. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) to permit a garage to remain within 75‘ of the lakeshore. Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (1) to permit 1,236 s.f. (4.01%) hardcover to pemiit the existing garage and driveway to remain in the 0*75* lakeshore setback, where no hardcover is allowed; and WHEREAS, the applicants have requested connection of sanitary sewer to the property for a lot not within the MUSA boundary; and Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Page 1 of 5 FINDINGS 1. Tliis applicuiion was reviewed as Zoning File #<2516. 2. The projK’rty is lucalcd in the LR-IA One Funiily Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 20, 1999 and recommended approval on a vote of 4 to 2 for a variance for bluff setback and to deny variances based upon the following findings; A. A previous residence was located on the property until 1997 following voluntar)’ removal by the property owner. B. The property is narrow with a limited building pad. The proposed house location best utilizes the existing building pad and area of disturbed soil. C. A house located behind the blulT setback would encroach into the required SO" rear yard setback from County Road 15. D. Existing soils and extreme slopes will not support two drainficld sites on the property. Property owners have requested the City of Orono approve extending sanitary sewer to tlic site. E. A garage is located within 75 ’ of the lakcshore. The building was required to be removed following removal of the principal structure. The Planning Commission has recommended the garage be relocated behind the 75 ’ lakeshore setback. F. The garage and residence are proposed to be located on the lot well screened by topography and natural vegetation not impacting lake views for the marina or other residential properties. 4. The City Council finds the property is not within the MUSA, however it is located immediately adjacent to sewered property within the MUSA. The Comprehensive Flan recognizes Lake Minnetonka lakeshore properties as a priority for providing seww ser ’ c. The proposed Comprehensive Plan indicates Page 2 of 5 5. 6. 8. ihe subject lot is scheduled to be in the Urban Service Area following adoption. Provision of sanitary sewer requires the City provide one sewer unit to the lot located outside of the MUSA. Following adoption of Utc Comprehensive Plan the sewer unit will not be required to provide service to the lot. The lot is 2.0 acres in svfc and is located in the LR-IA zoning district requiring 2 acres per building lot. Subdivision would not be allowed on this property unless the lot would be rezoned, llic Comprehensive Plan has guided the lot for two acre density. Due to slope and disturbed soils the lot can not demonstrate two suitable drainfield sites. The City Council flnds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difTicuity; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning C^e and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of S CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (2) to permit construction of a new residence on the lot encroaching 20* into the top of bluff setback. Section 10.22, Subdivision I (B) to permit the garage and residence to encroach into the average lakeshorc setback; and denies variances to Section 10.09, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit an accessory structure to remain on the lot without prirKipal structurc. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A) to permit a garage to remain within 75' of the lakcshore. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (I) to permit 1,236 s.f. (4.01%) hardcover to permit the e.xisting garage and driveway to remain in the 0-75' lakcshore setback, where no liardcover is allowed based on the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. A compliant sewage disposal system is located on the property or property is allowed to connect to sanitary sewer prior to building permit being issued for principal residence. Garage is removed or placed behind the 75’ lakcshore setback. Sanitary sewer plans arc reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Serv ices prior to building permit. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but ore permissive only and must be exerci^ by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (September 27, 2000). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 4 of 5 3. 11ic undersigned applicanls have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota r.t a angular meeting held on the 27th day of September, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabriel Jabbour, Mayor Property Owner (s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of September, 1999 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above dale with the following members present; Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Dale Lindquist, Elizabeth Hawn, William Stoddard, Sandra Smith, Daniel Kluth, and Commissioner Jay Nygard arrived at 6:33 p.m. The following represented City Staff; Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Senior Planning Coordinator Mike Gaffron, City Council Representative Richard Flint, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. ^ NEW BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. S2S16 JEFF MARTINEAU, 1420 SHOREUNE DRIVE • VARIANCES, €:32 p.m. -7:00 p.m. The Certificate of Mailing and Afndavll of Publication were noted. Jeff Martineau, Applicant, was present on behalf of the property owner. Weinberger stated the Applicant Is requesting variances to allow the lot to be redeveloped as a residential site and to permit the detached garage on the property to remain after the principal structure has been removed. This lot is unique in that it has two 0-75 foot lakeshore setback zones. Weinberger stated a garage and small portion of driveway is located within the 75 foot lakeshore setback on the northwest comer of 'he properly. The principal structure was removed in 1997, and City Code prohibits accessory buildings on lots without a principal structure. A variance is needed to allow the structure to remain within 75 feet of the lake, a hardcover variance, and a variance to the average lakeshore setback. City Staff is recommending approval of the variances to allow the garage to remain In its current location. Weinberger stated that this lot does meet all the zoning requirements for the LR*1 A zoning district and consists of approximately 2.0 acres. The Applicant is proposing to have a building pad on the portion of the property outside the required setbacks but would, however, enaoach into the bluff setback. The proposed location of the residence would take advantage of the previous building pad and not require the removal of trees necessary for protection of the property between the proposed house and Shoreline Drive. If the house was constructed further to the north on the lot, the existing driveway would be required to be realigned and result in the removal of some mature trees and some extensive regarding. City Staff is recommencing approval of the variances to pemiil encroachment into the top of bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed on the site since the proposed location of the residence would take advantage of the previous building pad and not require the removal of trees as well as avoiding the need to realign the existing driveway. Page 1 • : ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1999 (92S19 Jtrr Martintau. Continued) Martineau stated the property owners purchased the property with the idea of renovating the existing residence but through the process of renovation, the owners decided to tear the existing structure down and constnjct a new residence on the lot. Martineau staled the garage is In good shape and the property owners would like to keep H. Smith inquired whether the use of the existing garage would change. Martineau stated the use of the garage would remain the same. Smith inquired whether there would also be a new garage constructed along with the new residence. Martineau staled a new garage would be constructed as well. Weinberger stated the new residence would not encroach within the 75 foot setback but would encroach Into the bluff setback as proposed. Hawn inquired whether the residence could be located outside of the bluff setback. Weinberger staled if the house Is moved out of the bluff setback. It would encroach tnlo the 50 fool setback to the street. Hawn Indicated that In the past the Planning Commission has not allowed encroachmen. ?nto the bluff setback and that this ordinance should be strictly enforced. Martineau stated most of the vegolalion has already been removed where the existirtg house was lo^ted^nd that additional vegetation would need to be removed should the proposed residence be Hawn suggested that the properl/ to lessen the impact on the bluff ^ fers consider relocating the house 20 feet closer to the street Smith Inquired virhether relocation of the residence would have any impact on the drainage. Weinberger stated that Staff has a concern with relocating the residence much closer to the roadway due to the fact that County Road 15 is a heavily traveled road and If the residence Is relocated 20 feet closer to the road, it would then be located 30 feet from the street. Weinberger commented that the current plan is taking advantage of the existing driveway and the highest point on the properly. Stoddard stated that the previous residence existed within the bluff setback on this property for approximately 75 to 100 years. Weinberger staled the previous residence did encroach into the 75 foot setback. Stoddard stated given the history of the location of the previous residence, he would not be opposed to the new reside 'ce encroaching slightly into the bluff setback. Lindquist stated he would not be opposed to allowing the residence to encroach into the bluff setback, but would tike to see the existing garage relocated out of the 0-75 fool setback or removed altogether. Weinberger Indicated that this property Is being considered for possible connection to City sewer, and that connexion to City sewer could be a condit.on of approval on this application. Page 2 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20,1990 (#2516 Jeff Martineau, Continued) Marlineau stated that he would recommend to the property owners that they hook up to City sewer since the majority of the site would not be able to accommodate their own private sewer, and that they are willing to work with City Staff on this issue. Hawn and Smith indicated they would also like to see the garage relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback. Martineau stated there is a hardcover issue if the garage is kept within the 0-75 foot setback. Weinberger remarked If the existing driveway is kept basically the same, there would not be a hardcover issue if the current garage Is relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback. Martineau stated that this lot contains a limited building pad and that the property owners are attempting to preserve the lakeshore as much as possible. Martineau remarked if the residence is relocated closer to the roadway, It would Impact negatively on the site, and that additional land may be taken In the future to accommodate widening of the highway. Hawn commented In her opinion the house could be relocated slightly to lessen the impact on the bluff, noting that the ordinance was drafted to help control the runoff into the lake. Klulh slated in his view the Planning Commission needs to do a balancing job between working with the hardships that exist on the property and protecting the bluff, but that moving the residence much closer to ttie roadway might not be the best solution to this problem. Nygard commented in his view the runoff from County Road 15 will be more than the runoff that the the property owner might experience from the bluff. Hawn indicated she was not sure a hardship exists to allow encroachment Into the bluff, but that there does appear to be a consensus regarding the relocation of the existing garage. Smith commented she was in favor of perhaps relocating the house ten feet closer to the roadway, which could signiHcantly lessen t.he impact to the bluff. Hawn stated she would like to see a new plan showi'^'j the proposed residence closer to the roadway. Stoddard indicated he would be willing to vote on this application tonight. Lindquist moved, Nygard seconded, to approve Application #2516,1420 Shoreline Drive, to grant a variance to permit encroachment into the top of bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed on the site, to grant a variance to the average lakeshore setback, subject to the condition that the existing garage is either removed or relocated outside of the 0-75 foot setback prior to the first building permit being issucc on this properly, subject to the condition that hardcover not exceed 25 percent in the 75-250 foot retback, and further subject to the condition that City sewer is available to this site. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Smith and Hawn opposed. Hawn Indicated she was opposed to allowing encroachment into the blu’f setback since in her view no hardship has been demonstrated, but was In agreement with removal of the existing garage from the 0-75 foot setback. Smith indicated she was In agreement with Hawn. Pages ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 20.1991 (#261S J«rr Martintau, Continuad) Hawn staled this Is a public hearing, noting that she failed to ask for public comment on this application prior to the motion being voted upon. Hawn stated she would like to havirig the Planning Commission revote on the motion following any public comments. There were no public comments. REVOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Smith and Hawn opposed for same reasons. 2. #2519 MATTHEW AND ROBIN STALOCH, 4705 WATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCES. 7:01 p.m.-7:10 p.m. The Certincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Matthew and Robin Staloch. Applicants, were present. Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance to permit the construction of a horse bam between the principal structure and the street. This properly lies within the RR-1A. five acre district. Horses and bams are permitted accessory uses in the RR-1A District. A variance is needed to permit the bam as an accessory building to be located closer to the front yard setback than the existing principal structure. The proposed accessory building does meet all the required setbacks for oversized structure. The proposed location is basically the only feasible spot for the accessory structure. City Staff is recommending approval of the application with the condition the property owners file a restrictive covenant on the properly which would slate that if the property is ever subdivided In the future, the bam may be required to be removed. Smith commented that this is a similar situation to one that the Planning Commission had approved in the past. Mrs. Staloch staled it was their opinion that this was a six acre parcel. Weinberger staled this is a six acre parcel but it lies within the five aae zoning districL Hawn commented that the Planner’s Report does not indicate the size of the parcel. Smith Inquired whether there were any septic issues relating to this property. Mrs. Staloch stated they recently constructed a new mound system approximately one year ago and that there are other possible secondary septic sites. Weinberger recommended that the secondary septic site be located outside of the fenced In pasture area. Hawn Indicated she does not have a problem with this application. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Nygard seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2519,4705 Watertown Road, to grant a variance to permit the construction of a horse bam between the Page 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MLNUTESroRJUVmliH 2 7, *(M4) «510 DOUGLAS AND CLAIDIA \MI1TELEY/DAV1D AND HEIDI HUST, 60 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH AND 45 SMITH AVENUE - CLASS 1 SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 4352 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to ipprovc and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4352, a Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement for Properties Located at 60 Orono Orchard Road South and 45 Smith Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0. (45) 42516 JEFF hURTINEAU, 1420 SHORELINE DRIVE - VARIANCES AND REQUEST FOR SEWER UNIT - RESOLUTION NO. 4353 JcfT Martmcau, Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variaitces to allow the lot to be redeveloped as a residential site and to permit the detached garage on the property to remain. Cit>- Code docs not allow an accessoiy building to remain after the principal building has been removed without the Council granting a vanance The Applicant is also rcquestuig variances from bluff setback to permit a new residence to be constructed within the 30 feet bluff setback. The A;; iicant is proposing to construct a new residence 20 feet into the bluff setback. Weinberger stated the propert)' owners have considered other possible building sites for the new residence, but due to the fact that this propert>' abuts Count>' Road 15, placement of the residence out of the bluff setback would place the structure within the 50 foot street setback. The Planning Commission, on a 4 to 2 vote, recommended approval of the bluff setback variance and average lakeshore setback variances to permit construction of a new residence on the propert>’. Weinberger indicated that the previous residence was removed in 1997, with a garage located within the 0-75' lakeshore setback remaining on the propert). According to City Codes, accessory structures arc not permitted on the property- without a principal structure. The Applicant is requesting variances to allow the garage to remain in its present location. The Planning Commission, on a 4 to 2 vote, recommended denial of variances to allow the existing garage to remain within the 0-75’ lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission recommended removal or relocation of the garage out of the 0-75’ lakeshore setback. Weinberger stated that this area is tentatively scheduled to be included in MUSA ne?rt year, with the Planning Commission recommending that one sewer unit be made available to this property. Martineau stated a letter from Steve Schirmers was received which indicates that it is difficult to locate nvo viable septic sites on this property, noting that City Staff is recommending approval of the connection to City sewer for this property. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 24.1999 PUBLIC COiUMENTS Jcrr>- Kemp, 28 W Fannw Lane, inquired of the City Council whether the City has a contingency plan m place to handle the possible problems that may occur with the Y2K problem. Kemp stated be works for Cwgill and that the>- have been working oo this problem for many >-cars, noting that they are proposmg to have excess staff on duty in the event that problems arise. Kemp commented that the City should employ extra staff people in the evxnt that problems arise, for example, with street lights, power outages, and emergency services. Mayor Jabbour stated that he is not able to provide a thorough answer to this issue tonight, noting tjwl the City has appointed the City Clerk to be in charge of this situation. Jabbour commented that It IS his understanding that some Public Works emplov-ees will be on duty the night of December 31, 1999, to handle any problems that may arise. Gappa^ted that e.xtra Public Works employees as well os extra police staff will be on duty the mght of December 31, 1999, and that a review of all equipment has demonstrated that it is b comp ^ce and should function normally. Gappa stat^ that portable arc available to power sewer Utt^tions and the water plants to handle any possible power outages that may occur and extra staff will be on dut>- to answer phones in the event of an emergency. The City offices are equipped with an emergency power generator. Ma>or Jabbour stated that the Cit>- has recently installed a new phone system which hopefully will accommodate the switch from the year 1999 to the >rar 2000. Kroip suggested that ambulance services be reviewed as well as a contmgency plan be b place to handle any possible problems that occur. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT AND eSJom waTwe Tom Baactt, City Attorney, stated that he is still workbg with the Applicant’s attomcv' on arriving at art agreement regai^ding the Cit>’s future access onto this propcrt>'. Barrett stated that the pplicMt s attorney hiu bdicated he will not be present at tonight’s mcetbg, notbg that the time penod for this application docs extend to the next City Council mcetbg. Banett stated he would like to discuss this issue further b executive session. Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to table Application H2492,2490 Old Beach Road, to the October 11, 1999 City Council meeting. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 0. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 24,1999 (W2516 Jeff Martineau, Continued) Martincau commented that he like the City Council to consider approving variances to permit the garage to remain in its present location as it is in relatively go^ shape, noting that it is unlikely that the garage would survive a move. Martincau commCTled that tte City docs permit boathouses within the 0-7^' setback. Sansevere inquired whether the property owners would be constructing a house without a garage. Martineau stated that according to the generic house plans that they are conlonplating for this property, the house would be constructed with an attached garage. Mayor Jabbour stated that the Planning Commission has taken the position that hardcover should not be allowed in the 0*75' setback. Nfartineau commented that he has doubts about what is permitted to be built on this property, and inquired should this resolution be approved, whether it could be amended or changed in the fiiture. Martincau stated that some of the previous structure does still e.\ist on the property*, and inquired what constitutes a remodel versus a new structure. Ma. or Jabbour stated that the property owners would be able to apply for variances on this property six months after today-’s ^tc should the application be denied, and are entitled to submit a new application at any time following tonight’s meeting for variances should the application be approved. Jabbour stated that if the majority of the residence has been removed, it is regarded as new construction. Mayor Jabbour inquired about the sewer costs connected with this project Weinberger stated this area was assessed in 1980 for sewer. Gappa stated it is probably pan of the Muuieionka Bluffs sewer project, noting that it will be approximately S10,000 to $ 11,000 for the connection fee per unit, but figure will need to be verified Kelley commented that he would rather not approve the bluff encroachment. Kelley expressed a concern that the Applicant may request additional variances m the future if the h^ing plans are not definite at the time construction begins. Jabbour commented it was his understanding that the new residence was being buil» on the old building pad. Martineau stated that he wo*ild like this application approved with the understanding that an a new application may be submitted by the Applicant for review by the City Council. ORONO CITY COUNCIL IkfEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 24,1999 (F2516 JefTMutincau, Continued) Stoddard stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Coounission recommended that hardcover in the 75-250' setback \\xMild not exceed 25 percent. Weinberger remarked that it was understood that the property owners would not need a hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone. Peterson stated she agrees with Kelle>’ regarding the blufTencroachment, and inquired whether the drivxw-ay could be relocated. Weinberger stated the property is fairly wxxxied and relocadon of the driveway would result in the removal of a number of trees. The proposed site takes advantage of the highest point on the lot as well as the existing driveway. Kelley requested that the minutes reflect that this City Council is strongly recommending that no further variances be allowed on this property*. Kelley moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4353, a Resolution Granting Variances to Permit Construction of a New Residence on the Lot Encroaching 20' into the Top of Bluff ^Iback, and to approve one sewer hookup for this residence, with the understanding tlut all existing hardcover in the 0-75' setback, including the driveway, be removed. Mayor Jabbour stated that the Applicant is requesting a variance and wants to know whether this City Council wxxild be agreeable to approving that variance. Jabbour stated in his view the Applicant has dcnKMistratcd a hardship, noting that no matter where on the lot the residence is constructed, a variance to the top of the bluflF w ould be required. Peterson inquired whether the residence could be constructed less than 20 feet into the bluff, Martineau commented tlut this is a very difficult piece of property to work with and that he is attempting to comply witli the requirements of the City as much as possible but that it is not possible to comply with all of the requirements without a variance. Mayor Jabbour indicated that the City Council is giving direction to the Applicant that they would like the hardcover in the 75-250' zone to adhere to the 25 percent limit. Martineau noted that the e.\isting garage would be remov*ed if this resolution is approved. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 1, Peterson Opposed. •(#6) #2519 hUTTHEW AND ROBIN STALOCH, 4705 W.ATERTOWN ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 4354 Kelley moved, Peterson seconded, to approve and adopt RESOLUTION NO. 4354| TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cily Administrator Wendy Uoltcnberg. Zoning Adminisirator/Planncr May IS. 2001 SUBJECT: «01 -2675 Donna Lile 2765 Ethel Avenue Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) 7.462 s.f. (.17 acre) tut orExhlbiU A D C D E F G H I J Analysis Worksheet Application Site Plan'Sursey Elevations Hardcover Calculations Photo of Property Location Map Plat Map Permit Record Properly Owner's List Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.25. Subd. 6 (B): Yard Requirements: The minimum requirement for side yard adjacent street setback in the LR-IC zoning district is 15 feet. To permit the roof line to be 13.4’ from the street where 15’ setback is required. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to replace a deteriorating porch and add a gabled domier above it. The porch has deteriorated over the years and has become a safety hazard. The dormer is to be added above the porch and provide cover from inclement weather. The dormer is decorative and will not add additional living space to the residence. The property is located within the 500-1000* hardcover setback zone. The expansion of the roofline will not increase hardcover. Also, structural lot coverage will not increase with the roofline expansion. The property is served by sewer. *01-2675 Donna Lite 2765 Ethel Avenue yariance 5/15/200! Paget Statement of Hardihio; The front door of the residence needs steps/porch for entry/exil. The dormer addition jvill keep the steps from becoming a safety hazard by directing roof runoff to the sides. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Iiiuea for Coniideratian: 1. The residence was built in its present location in 1969, having been granted a lot area and width variance to build a new residence a year earlier. 2. Hardcover and structural lot coverage is not increasing with the proposal, 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. UOt‘2675 Donna LiU 2765 EiMAvtime yarlanc* 5/15/2001 Pagt2 ANALYS S WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 7,462 s.f. (.17 acre) Hardcover Calculations; Structural Coverage ! Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 500-1000’7.462 s.f.2.611.7 s.f. (35%) 1,957.7 s.f. (26.2%) 1.957.7 s.f. (26.2%) No Change Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 7,462 s.f. (.17 acres)Allowed: 1,119.3 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,567 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 1,567 s.f. (20%) No Change 6 / ••f;Applkation 0l-2U7^ Date Recch’cd *^JiB/oi Amotinf Paid S Z SO CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 2o-ff7,'pj gw oOi B Attach legal description to application if not includ^on required surv'ey. Dale Property Acquircd_ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: \/ residential ___other (spccify)_ Zoning District: /■ 4^- I C_____________________________ _(month/ycar) APPLICANT Name A Cl L£> AddrcssT^^(/3^ o~Thg I Phone (homc)^5t^‘ ^"7/ _____ Phone (work ) 61 U ■ tSOj^> City: Ovonh Zip:_65^3J. OWNER (if different tlion applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (homc)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF RE(}UEST Describe request in detail: ^ An rf\pjT U rntta Estimated Construction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area__ ___Ut Width Setback: ___Front ___Side __Other (specify)___________________ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage __ Average Lakeshore IIARDSinP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (atideh additional'sadditional sheets if necessary) A :z CKCO AVENUE PLtTTPLAN %AE;N:H jjz 4f^ :£•> Trr' <fC; ^ a % J OWWITHt •ril'i <:it. -SYMOLOFOIMLmr MMMMMTMM MMNALUU tmwnm.Mmm 9mm,mum MK»47iain m7«M14.1iM JMNUMWh UU Mumavi KYMF. Mm 'Al' mmmm ,i' . .54\#«. R V4- n“ PI?(7NfELEVA T1^ sc« i/e'-r-o" D 4 WINDOW STAR NOM MMOMHBIT JMMUnUb Ua OMNNiri iTMr. BATIl UMMwriWMwni •T. Lovn PAM. M IMIt 'A2' p) LEFfELEVAT1(9M '(Ai I * ^•i P(N 1) i/.cuwiM.'wm vt« wuAw>imM'iK*r>w/ II vtjatA^ A iA\ 2) m ri -i -.11 n mnYWr.v «/ "'lOWIfl' W.fftfAU AWlikTm t(-)yuu'. me o! ■/ UM aviv RIEiHf EL EVATION 30H£ i/f»"-r-rr- 5675 WINDOW STAR iMNUMHAi Uto IlYl RYMF. MTlt StMMHrriMMUTM ■T. LOgit FiJHI. M U4U 'A5' IIA» COVER CALCULATION WORK EET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLb ONE) 0-75* KXI.STINC: HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House _______________ X 75-250 ’ iMgih WMth B. Garage * C. Driveway D. SidewaUc E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _________________ ♦ B _____ _________________ ♦ B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE Cl'\CUnC^ A. House * J Umih Widik B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Palio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE aO-SOO*500*1000' LSr^yj! S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. _ _ _ _ _ _S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /// S.F. 7 S.F. A S.F. B S.F. S.F. S.F. #eBy5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. H r-xti"”'- .:. m -V- Ol-:i(e'/: i Xl(i'5 B ! A-enctC g|;| *-'u pr^pi ^ n-----^---■m m- ■if - .«L.3 m'W S2Sgre.\^i "'•^Vr-.■;54i^'*«^- ; -•-.'i?t^li-*? • ■ '• * &r.'^£fe:' v^4 Oys/a/ r-Cj \ ] . • .• : : !»xU • Bay I:. ^ w <o I V ■••.; - rr- Henriepin County Ta>cpayer^.ervices Department r-^ 1 ■vast; arce/ Mmjmfton p>wpi ID 20ir^Swia Mem Number 2W^' •l^t Name ITMK^VI Cemtomliilum hSSSMixkd « Y :^Thislsnol» j^dato/irtmqilKggp^ mtp.lf • cavfOBlIonotlnfoanatfon authonbu »nd other MOurcM. PERMIT RECORD Permit Mo, '^d\oC> ■VS 9 / -0*7 ^.'r?(<» »4!>9 n-ib-81 Type of Permit If ^ L/ QjomflQd^ (y RUN DATE M/18/11 RATCH 501 ICNNERIN COUNTY PRORCRTY INTORNATION SYSTEN rilOfCRTV OWNCM LIST PROF AOOR OWN* T NAHC TAXPAYER NANC/ADOR L L L L. M 28-117-2S 25 0080 •00S« ADDRESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY DF ORONO P 0 BOX AA CRYSTAL BAY tlN 55323 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 3B 20-117-23 23 0012 0277A CASCO POINT RO CAHXLLE N WESCNAN CANILLE N WESENAN 277A CASCO POINT RD MAYZATA NN 553^1 PROP AOOR OMNCR NANC TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 20-117-2S 28 0017 02755 ETHEL AVE HICNAEL 0 RtlTNCRFORD NICHAEL D RUTNERFORO 2755 ETHEL AVE HAYZATA rW 55301 PROP AOOR OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 30 20*117-23 28 0020 02750 CASCO POINT RO DALE A CNRXSTCNSEN 0 WIFE DALE A CHRISTENSEN 2750 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN 55581 AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAIS/AOOR 50 20-117-25 51 0011 0005B ADDRESS UNASSZONCO DEAN V CREINANN DEAN V CREINANN 3778 CASCO AVE WAYZATA NN 55381 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR 30 20-117-23 32 0017 0201S CASCO POINT RO TAHNY L WOOOIS TAHNY L WOOOIS 201B CASCO POINT ROAD HAYZATA NN 55581 REPORT NO. P183580I PAGE I 30 20-117-23 23 0010 00030 ADDRESS UNASSXCfffO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O BOX A* CRYSTAL BAY NN 55323 30 20-117-23 23 0011 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 88 CRYSTAL BAY IM 55323 30 20-117-23 28 0010 02780 ETHEL AYE L L VICKNAIR « R L VICRNAIR LANCE L I RHODA L VICKNAIR 2780 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA NN 55381 30 20-117-23 28 0018 02785 ETHEL AVE BENJAHIN R 0 LISA A JENSEN BENJANIN R t LISA A JENSEN 2785 ETHEL AVE HAYZATA ft< 55381 3B 20-117-23 28 OOIB 02785 ETHEL AVE DONNA L LILE DOfMA L LILE 2785 ETHEL AVE HAYZATA NN 55381 30 20-117-23 28 0018 02750 CASCO POINT RO DALE A CHRISTENSEN I WIFE DALE A CHRISTENSEN 2750 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA NN 55381 10 . J' ^8 50 20-117-23 28 0080 02720 ETHEL AVE JOHN WAYNE 0 JOYCE E NANM.ET JOHN H B JOYCE HANBLET 2720 ETHEL AV HAYZATA NN 55381 30 20-117-23 31 0010 03758 CASCO AVE BRUCE 0 NADOEN ETAL BRUCE D HADDEN 3758 CASCO AVENUE HAYZATA NN 55381 30 20-117-23 31 0088 03778 CASCO AVE DEAN V CREINANN DEAN V CREXNAMI 3778 CASCO AVE HAYZATA NN 55381 30 20-117-23 31 0071 03750 CASCO AVE HART! L BOEHMER HARTI L BOCHNER 3750 CASCO AVE HAYZATA NN 55381 '■O' % j 30 20-117-23 32 OOU 03788 CASCO AVE ROSCNARY C IVERSEN ROSENARY C IVERSEN 3788 CASCO AVE WAYZATA NN 55381 TOTAL BATCH 501 00017 q TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Mourse. City Admiriisiralor FROM; W'endy Ri>ttenbcrg. Zoning Administrator^Ianner DATE: May 15.2001 SI) H.li:CT: UQI -2678 Kristi Koesler 1169 North Arm Drive Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: 1.01 Area: Ust ofEsbibils i.K-in One Family Fakcshorc Residential District (I acre) ll.lOOs.f. (.255 acre) A Application H Site Plan'Survey C Planning Comniission/City Council Minutes for 1153 Elmwood Avenue D Special Lot Combination Agreement L Map of neighlH)rhiH>d F Plat Map G Location Map 11 Property Map I Property Owner’s Ust Sunimary: This is a twx» part application. The applicant owns two properties, 1169 North Arm Drive (olT-Iakc parcel with residence) and Lot 7, Block 1 of “Skarp and Lindquist’s Fcmhill, Lake Minnetonka” addition (vacant 50' lakeshorc lot). The two parcels are not legally combined and arc separated by the lilmwood Avenue right-of-way. and arc ofl’sct by abtmt 100'. The applicant purchased the properties approximately two years ago and has since learned that a dock is not allowtrd on the lake lot because there is not a principal structure on the lot. The first part of the application is to review variances for lot area^vidth regarding the lake lot to permit future residential construction. If the Planning Commission concludes it will recommend denial of port one of the application (lot area/width variances), then it is asked that they review port two of the application. 1 he second part of the application is to permit combination of the two properties through a ’’special lot combination agreement ” to allow lake/dock access for the property. Par! One: 1 he applicant is requesting lot area^vidih variances to Lot 7. Block 1 of Skarp and Lindquist's Fcmhill Addition to pemiit future residential construction. The lot is appro.ximatcly 11,100 s.f. or .255 acres where the minimum lot area requirement is 1 acre; and approximately 50* wide where 140' is the minimum lot width required for the LK-IB zoning district. •01-2678 Kristi RiwUr 1169 Elmwood Avenue Variances 5/15 2001 Page t Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B); Lot Width: Ihc lot is 50' wide at Ute shoreline where NV ts the minimum lot w idth for the LR-IB zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5(B); Lot Area: The lot is 1 1.100 s.f or .255 acre where 43.560 s.f. or I acre is the minimum lot area for Ihc LK>1B zoning district for new construction. Part Two: The applicant is requesting a variance to pennil a lot combinatii>n of a propert> not adjacent to the building lot for lake'dock use. Tlie two properties are separated by 1 Imwood Avenue. (See H.xhibit I- ). The applicant is reque.sting the ability to have lake access'dock via l.ot 7 which is not c»>mbined with 1169 Ni>rth Arm Drive nor does the lot have a principal structure. Tliis can be permitted through a special lot combin.ition agreement which would function as a covenant requiring the two parcels to remain in ct>mmon ownership. Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.03. Subdivision 6(B): Combination of Separated Parcels Prohibited: No lot or parcel of land w hich is divided by a public, private or platted road or road casement, w hich results in any segment thereof being less than the minimum acreage required for that zoning district, shall be allowed to be combined with any separated parcel of land across the road for purposes of qualifying under the minimum acreage. 2. Section 10.03. Subdivision 9(A): Accessory Uuildings-Time of Construction: No accessory building or structure {inchiJinf! a Jock), shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to w hich it is accessory. History of Property: The lakcshore lot is and has been vacant for many y ears. In 1971 Gaiy Btito (die owner at the time) applied for lot width and lot area variances. The variances were denied by the City Council and die lot was considered unbuildable. Since the 1970 ‘s, the lot has been used for dockage and lake access by the owner, llie lot docs not have a principal residence so such dockage is technically a v iolation of City code prohibiting accessory structures without a principle structure. The lot abuts undeveloped Hlmwood Avenue. A City sewer lift station is blocking the right of way on the south end. Access to this lot for building purpose would require an easement from an adjacent property owtrer. The lot was part of and .served by the 1970 Forest Lake sewer project. The lot received lateral sewer assessment for 50 ft, but vv^s not assessed unit charge or sewer plant chaise. Thus the lot w^ considered to be unbuildable at the time sewer was installed. ^K)t-267S Krult Roesler 1 169 Elmwood Avenue I’ariances 5 IS 2001 Page 2 1 When ihc lot area^width variance application was reviewed in 1971, hardship was discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. A finding for hardship for development of vacant lots would include no adjacent vacant land is available for development. This is not the case for this property. In 1971 and today, the lot adjacent to the north wos/is vacant (and is being used similarly for lake access by the owners of 1135 North Arm Drive). Statement of Hardship: I hc applicants ha\ c included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ; 1. Variances for lot area and lot width were denied in 1971 stating the lot \S‘os unbuildable. 2. The lot was part of the 1970 Forest Lake sewer project. The lot was not charged a sew er unit charge or sewer plant charge. 3. ITic lot abuts undeveloped Elmwood Avenue. A City sewer lift station is blocking the right of way on the south end. 4. There have been other properties in Orono that were granted Special Lot Combination Agreements for loke'dock access. Most if not all arc directly across from the lot containing the principal structure. 5. One of the primary reasons docks and accessor)’ structures arc not allowed on \ acont lots is that there is nobody present to provide security at the site, and it becomes attractive to vandals, etc. is the pro.ximity of Lot 7 to the homestead parcel sulTicient to alleviate this concern? 6. The similar sized lot at 1153 Elmwood Avenue was granted lot area/width variances to permit residential construction six months after Mr. Bcito was denied in 1971. llie basis for approval was that tlie propert)’ was in “single separate ownership ”, sec E.\hibil C. 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation: SlafT recommends variances for lot area and lot width be denied for the following reasons: 1. There is vacant land adjacent to the property. The adjacent property is also 50* wide. If the two properties were combined the lot would meet DNR width standards for lake lots, be comparable to other nearby lots and be closer to the required HO* width in Orono ’s LR-IB zoning district. ‘2678 Kristi RotsUr 1169 Elmwood Avenue yariances SIS200I Page 3 2. City Council denied lot arca/width variances and considered the lot unbuildablc in 1971. 3. The lot was part of a 1970 scw-cr project but a sewer unit or sewer plant charge were never paid. 4. The area w’ould become very dense if the lot were allowed to be built on because it is only 50' wide. Many other lots in the immediate area are about 100* wide or more. Staff recommends a dock be permitted without a primary structure by means of a special lot combination agreement. 1'he lots are not adjacent to each other but are within the neighborhood. The location of the vacant lot, access to it, and within sight of the owner’s other property, the property owner would be able to control use of the vacant lot. Options for Action: 1. Approve variances for lot area and lot width declaring it a buildable lot; or 2. Deny variances for lot area and lot width declaring it an unbuildablc lot. If denial, then: 1. Approve variance lo allow a dock without principal structure by means of a special lot combination; or 2. Deny variance to allow a dock without principal structure by not allowing special lot combination. §01-2678 Krisli RoesJer 1169 Elmwood Avenue Parlances S/I5/200I Paged L #9678 Applkatioa # O ! ^ ^ Dale Rccch’cd H 'H'O / Amount Paid h^l^\o6 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee 5130.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ________ o 7- /i O. • Property Identification Number (P.I.D,)_ Attach legal description to application if lUDt included on required survey. Date PropcrtyAcquircd________________________ I (do) (don^ also own t^adjacent parcels of land. IH 00^1 _(monlli^year) Present use of property: Zoning District: residential _other (specify). APPLICANT Name___ Address: . /X A , Phone ftiome)95c3 7 _nnn KoesLcr Phone(wnrk) 9 - Q T7 7 Aj /jiPm O/P City: HgOnn Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_. Address:City:, DESCRIPTION OF RF:(}UESX quest in detail:^ ( PDescribe request in .detail: 'ih^ ■ I mmnii\p rrwiL^+ 2' Estimated Construction Cost $_ Ln-t- -i.¥nujf\ LsltHend VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage Setback: Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) Com biOlAj L\(\COt\{\eAj'^d ^fC»p^r4|^ lIARDSmP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance wi^Zonmj^ode requirements: V^rv^QU\iK 1^*1( (attach additional sheets if necessary) JOTI tesip' A *««HaHragiTOPQ ----- ^ « ©® i OI/OI/QI II «» •imillM coumt »*!«m K1!<ET 1»»1 flERTiPICATB OP BPIlVElL Mt^ii !•** — ' ' ~ 1 L triii. DifW’mesi. AitA - M.^r. - 0.H Aim tifim ej (ouadattw ml0O. .;. - ^:n:::rnr:r:- .ML! ^ 313 BMatM Kf—* •Initio* 8»fwUB •urfBO*^ ^ iUITB^ »•••—»w !lu« .MMW U-» <•“»“ -U-tl** f-tw- ftf.r.MBTlIO bhctiiyqb t»«e o««w> tjaf L«**> !•»•**• •#*• ^ u-t tM !•»• •* — aM/u»’ - i&tti J'*4d* n«J5 t5^ I I: • • MINUTBS OP A RBGULAR MBBTING HELD FEDRUARY 7, 1972 Page S C »/. Herfurth aovtd. Elliott aeconded, that after lifteniag to ail the teetiaony he wae of the opinion the canp ifould cause no excessive trnHic, no decrease in property value, and •xcept for the two contiguous property ownorfl* noise would be no factor. He felt the pernit should be allowed for one year, to be renewed thereafter and that a legal intorpretation of 34.023 be obtained fron the Vlllsge Attorney. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nayst(4). Gascli,Kullberg, Poisson, and Seafi«> Nay.•Couacilnsn McCarthy suggested fron the floor that the Planning CoaMission nenbers and the Village Council and interested adjacent property owners neet at the site next Saturday rorning to view the probleas involved and look at the natter objectively. PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) : f : } li • a Poisson moved, Searles seconded, that such a neeting should.be held Saturday, February 11, 1972 at 10:00 A^ M. Motion, Ayes (7) • Hays (0). Charles Carl represented hiaself in a variance on lot site and width on Lot 8, Sharp I Lindquist, Fernhill. The lot in question is 50* X 190* and the zoning requirenents are .one acre and 140* width. The.half-section nap showing the density of the area was studied by aembers. C(oivuuisstcm? VMIANCB Discussion was now held on the luitter of ’'single separate ownership". Searles explained to nenbers that this does not refer to persons owning the property but to the property itself--thus, if the property had been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property having the sane ownership, it would be in "single separate ownership". Mr. - Carl was asked that if one of tlie adjacent empty lots were available at the sane purchase ..price as Lot 8, he would buy it. He said he would not have the neans to do so. I^erie moved, Elliott seconded, that if Hr. Carl could prove the property was in single separate ownership as required by Municipal Ordinance 31.2b0, approval should be recommended. Motion, Ayes (6) - - Nays;(1). Herfurth Nay •.*.v I Robert Birkeland represented hiaself in an application to dredge a lagoon on his property at North Shore Drive and Nildhurst Trail. He stated the lagoon was presently about 2* deep and.he wished to dredge out 416 cu. yds. to keehlthe lagoon usable for his boat. The dredgings would be only used as a top dressing ovwr .the clay fill placed on the premises at CONDITIONAL USE !**!"*«IT Robert Birkeland Nlldhurst Trail - V (Continued) tilu CovA.r\C^{ /IINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1972 Page 2 Butler moved, Dorn seconded, that the request of Charles Carl for a lot size variance, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0). The following voiced opinions on the Casco Circle park; Fred Poisson, deed restrictions are too restrictive^ with marshlands, we have lots of open space in Orono now; Mrs. Charles Davis, 2795 Casco Point Rond, no advantage or use for most of the citizens of Orono; Wilbur Anderson, opposed to taking the property off tax rolls; Gloria Nelson, should be given without any restrictions. The Village would have to maintain and cut weeds; Val Elliott, opposed to tax loss and cancellation of $23,000 in special assessments; Marge Gasch, could we use 60' right of \iay for street for parking area on Casco Circle? Walter Massengale, how many similar gifts can the Village afford for open space? Mary Butler, deed restrictions disallow Village discretion in use of this property. The Village, with the advice of its Planning and Park Commission, should have total control over all public lands within the Village. On the other hand, if it is the hope of the present ot/ners of this property that through these restrictions, the park be "not quite totally public", then perhans it should be kept ns a private park, as it has always been, at their expense. Massengale moved, McCarthy seconded, that tiie Casco Circle Park deed restrictions, be approved. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (1). Butler Nay. Dorn abstaining. Massengale moved, McCarthy seconded, that Resolution #433, A Resolution Deleting Special Assessments For Sewer And Water On Casco Circle Park, be adopted. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), McCarthy moved, Butler seconded, that the Village Hire a professional planner, subject to the Village Attorney modifying the contracts. Motion, Ayes (S) - Nays (0), Divid Opheim appeared concerning a snowmobile problem at l/est Arm and Crystal Bay. The Village Council referred the problem to the Park Commission. McCarthy moved, Dorn seconded, that the sealcoating of Willow Drive as a MSA 1372 Project, be approved. Motion, Ayes (5) - Nays (0), VARIANCE Carl Lot 8, Skarp 6 Lindquist CASCO CIRCLE PARK RESOLUTION #433 Casco Circle Park Assessments VILUGE PLANNER SNOWMOBILE PROBLEM MSA PROJECT Willow Drive D SPECIAL LOT COMBINATION AGREEMENT This indenture is made and entered into this , , by and between day of their heirs, successors and assi«jns (hereinafter collectively referred to as "GrantorCs)”) and the City of Orono, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, its successors and assigns (hereinafter referred to ns “Grantee"). WITNESSETH! WHEREAS, Grantor(s) are the owner(c) of real property in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows (and hereinafter collectively referred to as the “properties"): See Attached Exhibit A (hereinafter described as “Parcel A"); and See Attached Exhibit B (hereinafter described as “Parcel B“); and WHEREAS, Parcel A and Parcel B are physically separated from each other which prevents their being combined into one legally described lot or parcel, and/or for the same or other reas'”' the Hennepin County Assessor can not combine Parcel A and Parcel t' one parcel for tax purposes; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding the above it is the intent of Grantor(s) and Grantee that Parcel A and Parcel B are and shall hence forth be continued in common ownership by the same person or persont and further that Parcel A and Parcel B are intended to be used and/or developed in common by Grantor(s) as if they * ere in fact one parcel instead of two. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, Grantor(s) hereby covenant, grant, gift, quit claim and convey to grantee the right to restrict, and Grantor(s) hereby agree to restrict, limit and preclude the ownership, use, improvement and development of Parcel A and Parcel B according to and under the conditions and covenants herein contained, as follows: 1. Grantor(s) agree that Parcel A and Parcel B shall henceforth be contained in common use and ownership even If recorded as separate lots or parcels* and that Parcel A and Parcel B will not be used* conveyed* sold* leased or otherwise encumbered except together as If they were a single parcel. 2. Grantor(s) and Grantee agree that Parcel A shall be considered the primary parcel which may be used or developed for any principal use as may be permitted in the zoning district, subject to all performance standards and approvals required therefore. 3. Grantor(s) and Grantee agree that Parcel B shall be considered accessory to Parcel A* and that Parcel B may be used or developed for accessory uses as may be permitted in the zoning district* but only at such time that a principal use is established on Parcel A, and subject to all performance standards and approvals required therefore. 4. Grantor(s) agree to restrict and limit the use and/or improvement of Parcel B as follows: 5. Grantee shall not issue any building permit* zoning variance or conditional use permit for any structure or use on the properties inconsistent with the covenants contained herein. 6. Grantor(s) hereby grant to Grantee the right to enter upon the above described properties for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of the covenants contained herein* and to cause to be lawfully removed from these properties without any liability any structures* uses* substances and natural or unnatural materials inconsistent with the covenants contained herein. 7. In addition to any other remedy Grantee may have* the covenants and restrictions contained herein may be enforced by injunction. Grantor(s) who are in possession of these properties shall pay to Gruntee all costs and expenses including attorneys fees incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this indenture. 8. The terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified# amended or extinguished and thereafter Parcel A and Parcel B may bo subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by Grantor(s) to Grantee for approval of a "Subdivision'' in accordance with the platting code of the City in effect at the time of such application. 9. Grantor(s) agree that recording of this indenture shall not vest any property rights in the properties and that any zoning or development authorities granted herein or hereinafter because of this indenture shall remain subject to future regulation, modifi cation and/or limitation by Grantee or other regulatory bodies in accordance with legally applicable and enforceable zoning or other ordinances of Grantee. 10. Grantor(s) do not intend that the public should have any interest in the above properties by virtue of this indenture or otherwise, except as hereinabove set forth. All provisions hereof shall run with the land and shall extend to and bind the heirs, successors, representatives, grantees or assigns of the respective parties hereto. CITY OP ORONO GRANTOR(S) Mayor And City rk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss.(City Acknowledgment) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 19_, by _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SB. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) (Individual Acknowledgment) On this _ _ day or _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _, oeioi Public within and for said County, personally appeared Ir day of 19_t before me, a Notary known to me to be the Derson(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, _ _ _ _t _ _ _ _ _ _ _V., _ fcAAand acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES This document is being recorded for the benefit of the City of Orono per Minnesota Statutes 386.77. State Deed Tax Due Hereon: Exempt This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 II gbit JNUliN I A~CM fO & TRfP RESERVED (jc><>o^iwsmtVTw 0 26 .,. t 1 '55 33 s a g 25=* (57)V'' 26 o,x S / 155 s\ 29 o 155 S 23 ., S --------------------- S 22 (<''g ^5)3, , J 1 ^20 ;/iD 33 d fMyccAWLi vi^pr AV L m ^ 'i^,C_(36)C I* .1 0?RUN DATE §4/lS/il BATCH SOS HOMCRIN COUNTY PRORCimf INFORNATION SV3TCN rROPCRTY OWItllS LIST RCPORT NO. PXASS40I PACE 7 PROP ADDR OtMCR NAHt TAXPAYER NAIK/AOOR SB 07>117’23 IS 021S OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORfEXTEO LAND CITY Of OflONO P 0 BOX CRYSTAL DAY HN S5S2S SB 07-117-2S lA 0014 00058 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORfEXTEO LAND CITY Of ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN SS525 SB 07'117-ZS 14 002S 01101 ELHWOOO AVE HARTIN T SARCNPA HARTIN T SARENPA 1101 ELIWOOD AVE HOUND HN 5SS44 PROP ADDR OMNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 38 07-117-23 14 0024 011S7 ELHWOOO AVE C 0 WEXLER B R S HEERXXNS RENEE S HEERXXNS 1157 ELHMOOD AVE HOUND HN 5SS44 58 07-117-23 14 0027 00058 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO KRXSTX ROESLER KRISTX ROESLER 1144 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 5S544 58 07-117-25 14 0024 01141 ELHWOOO AVE 8 E S R X CARLOCK BRUCE E OARLOCK 1174 ELnWOOD AV HOUND HN SS544 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 58 07-117-23 14 0030 01174 ELHWOOO AVE B E CARLOCK IRK CARLOCK BRUCE CARLOCK 1174 ELHWOOO AVE HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-23 14 0034 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY Of ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN SS52S 58 07-117-23 14 0054 00038 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO B E B R X CARLOCK BRUCE CARLOCK 1174 ELHWOOO AV HOUND HN SSS44 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADOR 38 07-117-23 14 0048 01144 NORTH ARH OR KRISTX ROESLER KRISTX ROESLER 1144 NORTH ARH OR HN 5S544 38 07-117-23 14 804S 01121 ELHWOOO AVE TIH JAYNES TIN JAYNES 1121 ELHWOOO AVE HN 55344 38 07-117-23 14 0044 01135 NORTH ARH OR C 0 WEXLER t R S HEERKINS RENEE S HEERXXNS 1135 NORTH ARH DR HN 55344 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AODR 58 07-117-23 14 0045 01125 NORTH ARH DR VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN VALERIE JULIANNA PETERSEN 1125 NORTH ARH DR HOUND HN 55344 38 07-117-25 14 0044 01153 ELHWOOO AVE RICHARD JANES NEXT RICHARD JANES NEXT 1153 ELHWOOO AVE HOUND HN 55344 I TOTAL BATCH 503 00014 ■ rs ft o cV TO: Chair 1 lawn and Orono Planning Commission Mcml>crs Ron Moorstf. Cilv Adininistralor FRO!»l: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Adminislrator/Planncr DATK: May 15.2001 SUBJECT: WOI-2679 Sharrail &. MacDonald lX*sign Comj»any on behalf of in Garncit 450 & 480 Orono Orchard Road Variancc/Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning DbiricI: KR-1B One Family Lakcsliore Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area: 637,806 s.f. (14.73 acre) I.UI urEkhibili A Application B Site Plan'Sur\e> (l:\isting and Proposed) C tlexalioiisi hH>r Plans ' D Septic S>Mem lmeiUi*ry F Letter from S-P lesting, Inc. F Photos of Properts G Location Map II Property Map I Permit Record J Property Owner’s List Application Summary : 11tc applicants have filed a conditional use permit application for a "guest hou.se ”. I he lot is appro.xiinately a 1 4.73 acre site. Then: are currently two residences on the property. The principal residence and bam arc addressed 450 Orono Orchard Road. The e.xisting camtaker house and detached garage are addressed 480 Orono Orchard Road. 1 he two properties were legally combined in the laic 1970 ’s with the diflerent addresses remaining. Stafl's research has concluded lltal no conditional use pemiit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the properly was legally combined fhe applicants are proposing to demolish llie c.xisting caretaker house and garage (480 Orono Orchard Road) and construct a new "guest house ”. The new guest house will be located where the garage is currently located. (See H.vhibit B ). Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 (G) allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as "a separate dwelling constructed on an e.xisting undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the princip;il buildings, including tiieir donicslic cmploN ces or their non-pa\ ing gucsis." A condition of approval shall be tlie property owner flic a re.stricti\e co\cnanl on the property that slates the gues! house will only K* used and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property. The gue.st house can not be used for a Home Occupation Site .Analysis: I he property contains about 14.73 acres of w hich over 1 3 acres arc contiguous dry* buildable land. 1 ots in the RR-1B district require two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house •0/*26 “9 Shttrratl d MacDonald Design Company 4i0 and 480 Orono Orchard Road I'arianctCUP 5 IS/2001-P I CUP requires an additional two acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan densit)’ of not more than one dwelling unit per 2 acres. The RR-IB zoning district requires the following: RRIB (2 acre) Lot Area Lot Width I-ronl Yard Side Yard Adj Street Rear Yard Required 2 acres plus add. acres for a guest house 200*50'50*50* Existing/ Proposed 13-^ acres 663'50*50'800 f The propert)' docs meet the minimum area and width requirements for a guest house. Further, the guest house and principal residence will be separated by more than 60', i.e. more than double the required side setback. Cucst llou.se Variances: Guest houses must meet minimum principal building setbacks. l*he guest house does meet this requirement. Also. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (D) states that an accessory structure {guest house) shall not be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. The guest house requires a variance because the guest house is proposed to be closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. A second variaticc is required for a second oversized accessory structure. An “Oversized Accessory Structure" is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1.000 square fee.. Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed on a property . fhe intent of this is to reduce visual massing of buildings on a site. Section 10.03, Subd 9 (C’X2) states: Lot Area 9.01 acre or more Max Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on Property' 3,000 s.f. Maximum Allowed Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on Property 6,000 s.f The proposed guest house is approximately 1 .500 square feet and the existing bam is approximately 2,000 square feet. The guest house and bam arc both accessory structures, however the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dwelling on the property for people to reside. While the letter of the code might be met by constructing a 1 000 s.f guest house w ith a 500 s.f detached garage, on this site the separated garage might add to a perception of clutter on the site whereas the proposed layout is relatively compact. HOI-2679 Sharrall MacDonald Design Company 450 A 480 Orono Orchard Road VarianceCUP 5/I5/200I-P.2 Septic: A new on-silc sewage treatment system was installed on the property in October, 2000. One treatment system is currently used for both residences. The treatment system is sized for eight bedrooms. The main residence has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. The proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate location will need to be located on the property per a letter provided by the treatment system installers. (See Exhibit E). Hirdfhte; The hardship supporting allowing an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure is the existing layout of buildings and driveways on the site and the desire to provide sufficient landscape buffers around the guest house. WTiile it could be moved to meet the principal structure setback, that would place it directly adjacent to the driveways with less ability for landscaping. The justification for allowing the second oversize accessor>’ structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but would result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthousc/garage combination. Staff Rgconnaendationt Stair recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their non-paying, guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house could not be used for a home occupation. WI-2679 Sharratl d AfacDonatd Dtsign C o»i^hb ^ 450 A 480 Orono Orchard Road Variance/CUP 5/1X2001- PJ i April 20.2001 City of Orono Munidpai OffiGM 2750 Kelly Partcwey Oroira. MN. 55356 Attention: Paul Wineburger. Department of Zoning Re; Request for a Conditional Uae Pennit Our client. Mr. Kevin Garnett, requests a Conditional Use Pennit for the constniction of a new guesthouse on his property. Demolition of an existing guesthouse in the general vidnity of the new building is required. The existing house is cunently outside of the required front-yard and side-yard setbacks. The new house will be located within the required setbacks Based on our understanding of the Zoning Crdinanoe. due to the fact that the two properties. 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Rd So. were at one time combined Into one property, 450 Orono Orchard Rd. 8a. a Conditionai Use Permit is required to construct a 'guest house* within any 'RR-1B' One Family Rural Residential District. A 'guest house' is a defined acceptable use as induded in the 'List of Permitted Uses' for the R-1A Orie Family Residential District as item G. Therefore, since all of the design criteria (setbacks, grading, larxlscaping, hardcover requirements, sewer/septic design etc.) can and will be met for a new guesthouse on the properb;. the Owner respectfully requests the granting of a CondiUonal Use Permit for the construction of the proposed guesthouse. Sincerely, Jeff Sweitzer AIA JS:js End. SHARRATTt UACOONALD DESIGN COMPANY •-----------------------------------a---------- 27B WamrSPmt ExoMNor, NUn*55331 1541 Hftntpr Avrm Mm$wob, MN 65403 (953) 4709730 F»m (813) 47G940T (813) 333-1833 Pat (613) 333-3146 #2679 ^ ; ri J •, -\___ii_£i^ yl- 'J\U \\V-; , r y V V V oBiKj “'•*1 •, \ •.. . • \ : ^ ■• LXwW \ ■; i • j CERirCATE OF SURVEY FOR JYLANO DEVELOPMENT. INC. M AUO. sua NO. „ le BLOCK )2. MMCTO»«A BLlTFS hennepw county . MNNESOTA • — • i- i-ZJr:. SEE DETAIL nwirr •“I r%««» IN FLtT i («ti« turn ,\ y/;Z ■. ■■ ///'///ih ) iiS I J’^ i0: yjy. /I y •" ii..~.«.s^- -f 'Sca'**' Dki»<^^lt^M*E7! i°'T1 ! ,,-^\U iSwS?^- i m I *?'-'» '^nT/ti '•fS5.|/lf L« ■«5f5 ^:!?-'L-^''Cr;:r^ fcViST^ ajfeT- I HOJ&E • '-'yXSVSUB F1^ c.\ •/> t:; -f. EXISTING BARN 7 7" 6W4ABTT RlXAe ^ ^iSOOliOtJO OWHMe-O pp. CPOMO WjJ. PPofbseo fijBstHxee. ^ /PWL-zi -tcoi 9HNM«MT Ms MavoMS) . * 1-JScn.e. r«-io'-p" . ‘^:'y •. 7^*'' A ‘^~. J. m,. r -4. ......... . m . r L\ TPT^lpohlT f»i9 r«ib<i.<3 ou- \ i 6K 16 t t«»A^ .»..■»*«<*■'% fKwiTtS I «Tpk/r «-\ c. WM^t. ^ OA.V o«<.*«>'«o •«» C«*»- 9 ri*wec> t >4MA6t)e ,9er>iG is or t»i.v. «>Al'. -1 CL*rtuA C^AmALU* «^»t>**>*» C«/» #*«j»r»o -a iki*..>*- •{« 4o>th u^A-no^ ort K.V y -«e* «*»- •l^. <9AMTC& ,€>f*:«TT eOecT »«J{>e eter^TIDUft C*»£iC <5rrel^» “zir::"- • • . m llta7HtlE7Ki 5^4 V jp ^t e_EArv»a CyMM^ETT HCM.B 450 CP-OUO CPCH^PO P*D, opoiao mkj _ ________ ______,%l'-'< o /AKSDOMAvUD OE&\<&hA CO. ArML. ^1|01 SiJ6e.THou&e_ -so^e y&"rr-o ( I r«Piiaa SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y Address: 480Orono Orchard Rd. S. PID: 02-117-23 31 0047 Building Typ residence #BRs/OPD: 8 ^Systems 1 Units Billed 1 Permit#: 4442. P031 Date of Permit: 6/25/92,10/2 Installer: Jerry Johnson, Patnode B System Type mound Experimental: no Appliances Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 1 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: low SEPTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 30 Capacity: 1000.1000,1500,1500,2000 Cesspool: no DRAINFIELD Length of Lines 100 # Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 146*50 Type of Filter rock,clean sand Soil Boring: yes Tile Size: 1.5 Under Tile 9 PercRate: 13.8 Setback DF-Bldg: 100 DFHt above Wl: 3 Soil Type: loam, silty clay loam Limitations: w?*er table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Pump Type: Well-DF: Report in File Depth: Diameter: Method: INSPECTION RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION 9/8/92 installation 4/11/94 no surfacing 7/23/98 no surfacing 8/1/00 no surfacing 10/31 /OO install 2000 gal pump tank PUMPOVT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS 11/11/94 1500 5/29/96 1500 3/20/98 2000 1 April 24.2001 City of Orono Municipal Offices 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 Attention: Paul WineburBer. Department of Zoning Re: Request for a Conditional Use Permit Information Pertaining to Secondary Septic System Alternative Site SMOC has received a memo from S-P Testing (also sent to the City of Orono) Indicating that due to the amount of land disturbance created by the demolition of the existing house and the construction of a new guest house, there will not be sufficient land left in the area of the new guest house to provide on-site sewage treatment A back-up alternative site would have to be created somewhere in the field along the northern side of the property. Sincerely, Jeff Sweitzer AlA JS:js End. SHARHATTt MACOONAID DESIGN COMPANY • p ---------------k |. 77%YiNMfSOMI ExoMor.MnmeM SSS31 1641 H9f>r»phAvmHmMt»mfoai.MN 85403 (9S7) 470-9750 F» (612)470^407 (819303-1022 P»M (61i) 330^146 #2679 ^ i • < 4 04/23/2001 18:54 FA7 7034978011 SP TESTING INC S^P T£ST1NGg INCm SlflfvanB.8chinn8rBftDtbriM.8Ghinnef» “ 951 KUydM Une • StlMiChatl. MN 55376 • (763} 497-3606 FAX(763)497<5011 QDoi FAX COVER SMggr i’ £.»-v5e- ot*- 'TVi’E- Mo Ae--e-A- so»-tA-bw ^ v/mt-W vj^\-u **£>V. oM-SnVL C-t ,v; .'v (^-r >v>V- *-\W l.ii/- ToW pages = _l_mduc< .g isver IritlBr #26 -4r*1 *■ ^ : t'‘m i ■/I ( I - ^(/>79 '/50 O/Vno 0)CkMd f^i ;t rv ^ . r“‘ f/(?i. \A> Vi»’»^0 “fiojn / ICUS6 6\^A//'J (1< /I (x r^/U^ ■^sfpr-'^•iv ^ Av'r Wl 4.--S ■^o\-9-(on^ Li^) 6<yip OiCl^hfi T^ 1^ -tiv^ ''■M[kli^ iii'k m W-: ■ 'iv^f •V. >• .^^xr•• Vr*s4^i \ ' V/l :3K.' W. ■% ‘-600WO OfCt^^ol €d I' -i ’ ii y ■ '' :Vi ;i*: '•" -^V- -UMv M; ■ : iVao /n"" Shcef Oroiu: Orcl^'-“^ "Hon-d. i ,.4i fi^nepinjCounty Taxpayer Series Dep^^ent #26^ fe I- ^ (T\ Parcel Informaiiort^ Parcal ID 0211723310047 House Number 4S0 Street Name ORONC Cendemlnlum CHAIID NO 8 This is not a kgsBy ncoixtdd m»p. Umnstnisa and data from Oty. County, andStata road ants a compBation authof^^ott -/r-S—Vtr Po y <?-/. e-O pouSnG ’2,0'C^ gP02LS^I /o-2ha^ Sc •),i')'f^/ W. CfO ?^)/A ■f0 3o?y P^O .3 /O,/ P^O 3-aJ ’3 2=^&. CrD /b-9-cr> /^-gp fe «o o £i(K/?cK^c/'S -X Pernit No. _^»t: PERMIT RECORD Date • Type of Permit tucetr .A790 H^S-13 Res, lO-Atr- Ml j^wer/c 3(r<?Ji 4^V5/9-50'«?c/ '73SC-.^'/\’ 9 ^ /'Z2/ ■/- </- !.-/sy /A / -/jUCn4- -/u^, c4\jc^t>^jtJL B Ccv>^CiAjg^ / ^Ut. MM DATE aA/ZS/tl BATCH SOI IICfMEflN COUNTY PtOPfRTY INTOimATION SYSTCfl fBOPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSAtl PACE 1 PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAItE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR L, SB 02-117-23 13 OOOB 00315 WOOONZU RO W H HCCUIRE • N N HCCUIRE H H NCCUIRE INN NCGUIRC SIS WOOOHIU RO WAYZATA HN 5S3RI 3R 02-117-23 23 0004 00SB7 ORONO ORCIURO RO S D 0 I K N NACNILLAN OAVIO D NACNILLAN P 0 BOX 542B NPLS NN SSA40-542B SB 02-117-23 2A 0004 00340 ORONO ORCNARO RO S SIN OSBORN STEELE B OSBORN SbO ORONO ORCHARD RO WAYZATA NN 553^1 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SB 02-117-23 24 0004 01240 WOOOHILL AVE CBN NAILE CHARLES W I NARLA C NAILE 1240 WOOOHILL AVE WAYZATA NN S5S41 SB 02-117-23 24 0010 •0355 WOOOHILL RO T E HCNELLIS I R J NCNELLIS THOMAS E NCNELLIS 355 WOOOHILL RO WAYZATA NN 55341 SB 02-117-23 31 0002 01230 DICKENSON ST H W NCCUIRE INN NCCUIRE W H NCCUIRE INN NCCUIRE 1230 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA HN 553*1 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 02-117-23 31 0003 004BO RUSSELL AVE JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER JOSEPHINE B CARPENTER BOX 454 I4B0 RUSSELL AVEI WAYZATA NN 553*1 SB 02-117-23 31 0005 00540 ORONO ORCHARO RO B SANDRA S LARSON SANDRA S LARSON PO BOX 544 WAYZATA NN 553*1 SB 02-117-23 SI 0004 00550 ORONO ORCHARO RO S PAULETTE PICKARD STUURNANS PAULETTE PICKARD STUURNANS 550 ORONO ORCNARO RO S . WAYZATA HN 553*1 3B 02-117-25 31 0014 00521 HANLON AVE C P CURLER I B CURLER CHARLES P CURLER 521 HANLON AVE WAYZATA HN 553*1 SB 02-117-23 31 0015 00537 HANLON AVE R V I N E KOEHNEN ROBERT I HICHEL KOEHNEN 537 HANLON AVE WAYZATA HN 553*1 SB 02-117-23 31 0027 01255 DICKENSON ST HARION J DCTTLOfF NARION J OETTLOFP 1255 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA HN 553*1 3B 02-117-23 31 002B 0053* KEENE AVE B A PAINE I V E PAINE BEVERLY PAINE S3* KEENE AVE WAYZATA HN 553*1 SB 02-117-23 31 0034 OOOSS ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 1027-NC SB 02-117-23 31 0037 00530 HANLON AVE L W THIES ET AL TRUSTEES LUCILLE WOOOVILLE TNIES 530 HANLON AVE WAYZATA M« 553*1 SB 02-117-23 31 0038 00520 HANLON AVE KONRAD C KRUCER KONRAD C KRUCER 4831 HANITOU RO TONKA BAY HN 55331 38 02-117-23 31 003* 012*5 DICKENSON ST R S NILLER/K E STENSO HILLER RICK S HILLER 4*55 PERKINSVILLE RO NAPLE PLAIN HN 5535* SB 02-117-23 31 0040 01205 DICKENSON ST ANY L RLAERS I JOHN KLAERS ANY L KLAERS I JONN KLAERS 1205 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA HN 553*1 #2679 Cv J RUN DATE M/2S/R1 BATCH 5*1 HCNNCPXN COUNTY PROfCRTV INrORHATION SVSTCN PROPERTY OVNCRS LIST REPORT NO. PIASMIl PACE 2 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 02-117-25 51 0041 00550 RUSSELL AVC J P nCALPlN 8 II n NCALPIN JOHN P I mCHELLC.H NCALPIN 550 RUSSELL AVE WAYZATA NN 55501 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 02-117-25 51 0047 00450 ORONO ORCHARD RO S KEVIN GARNETT KEVIN GARNETT 450 ORONO ORCHARD RO 5 WAYZATA NN 55501 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 02-117-25 51 0050 002O0 WOODHILL RO JOHN C 8 LOIS A O'HALLEV JOHN C 8 LOIS A O’NALLEY 200 WOOOHILL RO WAYZATA NN 55501 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR 58 02-117-25 42 0011 00058 ADDRESS UNASSICNED CITY OP ORUNO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 58 02-117-25 51 0042 00548 KEENE AVE WALKER NOTORS INC SEARS INPORTEO AUTOS INC 15500 WAYZATA 8LVO NZNNETONKA NN 55505 58 02-117-25 51 0044 00540 BARRETT AVE R T JAFFRAY 8 V H JAFFRAY R T 8 V H JAFFRAY 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATA NN 55541 58 02-117-25 51 0048 01225 DICKENSON ST B N YOUNG TRUSTEE W/L EST FAYE LILKE 1225 DICKENSON ST WAYZATA NN SS591 58 02-117-25 51 0044 00500 ORONO ORCHARD RO S S S 8 J E WEBSTER STEVEN S 8 JO ELLEN WEBSTER 500 ORONO ORCHARD RO S WAYZATA NN 55591 58 02-117-25 51 0051 00500 HANLON AVC P A 8 N N BENNETT PAUL A 8 NE6AN N BENNETT BOO HANl'N AVF WAYZATA NN 55541 5B 02-117-25 52 0001 00485 ORONO ORCHARD RO S EDWARD H HAtn TRUSTEE EOHARO H HANN 408 ST PETER ST 0474 ST PAUL NN 55102 58 02-117-25 42 0012 00058 ADDRESS PENDING WOOOHILL COUNTRY CLUB WOOOHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOOOHILL RO WAYZATA NN 55541 TOTAL BATCH 501 00024 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORNATION AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST or NY RNOWLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE F. . ^ AppUcatioH Date: DcadUae: 4/6/ei 6/5A)l TO: Chair Haun and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administraior/Planner DATE: May 16. 2001 SlJlilKCT: no I -2677 I crry and Dorothy Brsiin 2715 Casco Point Kond Variances Zoning District: Lbt orKabibils: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) A Application B Variance Application Addendum and Statements of Hardship C Plat Map D llioto - Streciside E i*hoto - Lakeside F l»hoio - Shed G Proposed Street Flevatiun H Proposed Lakeside Elevation I l*roposed South Elevation J Proposed North Elevation K Main Floor Plan L Second Floor Plan M Hardcover Calculation Worksheets N Surve) Site Plan 0 Surve> Indicating Setbackslincroachments P Property Owners NotiFication List Summary of Request: 1 he applicants propose to renovate and refurbish the existing house. 'I he renovations include some work to the existing foundation and removal of the second floor and replace with a new floor plan. All of the proposed renovation would be within the e.xisiing foundation. The building envelope would be expanded in two ureas, one over the existing den and another over the existing dining room. Tlie areas of the expanded house arc highlighted on the elevation views attached to this report. It is not entirely clear from the information that has been provided where the foundation work will be required The house encroaches into the av erage lakeshore .setback and within the 75* lakeshore setback. Any structural work within 75 ’ of the lakeshore and the average setback requires variances. ■01-2677 T ctt > and Oorodiy En»m 27l5C«coPo«MR(Md Pifclord This application requires the following sclbaek variances: • Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and St%tion 10.56, Subdivision 15 (C) (6) To permit alteration to structure within 75* of the lakcshorc and the average lakeshorc setback. • Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit structural work to the house within the 10* side yard setback. Additionally, variances should be approved to permit the structural work to the foundation. The applicants have submitted their Description of Request and I lordships statements. I hey are attached as Exhibit B. Setbacks: The property is located on Casco Eoint and is located within tlte LR-IC zoning district. Requircd setbacks in the district arc (Section 10.25, Subdivision 6): Sneet Side Lakcshorc Average Lakcshorc Required Actual 30' 211.1’ 10* 10.8' south lot line - 5.9’ north lot line 75’ 66’ • The house encroaches 5’ into the average setback at the .southwe.st comer. Tliere is relatively no change to the building envelope within the 10' setback encroachment on the north side of tlie house. Primarily, the areas where changes occur meet the required 10' setback. A .second story w ill be e.xpanded above the single level. No variances would be required to expand the second level living areas up to the 10' setback, as proposed. One concern with the proposal is the expanded roofline to the north side of the applicants house that may effect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property. (Another factor contributing to potential draiiuge issues is the total existing hardcover on the property.) The changes to the house within the lakeshore setbacks would not expand the building within those areas. The mass of the house would increase due to the sccond-story protrusions over the existing den and another over the dining room. Again, neither would be encroaching into any required setback. Hardcover 0-75 75-250 1,132 s.f (23%) • 145 s.f (landscape plastic) 987 s.f. (20«/o) 6,316 s.f (55%) - 42 s.f (landscape plastic) 6,274 s.f (55%) 250-500 1,656 s.f (26%) KOI-2677 Tcn> MHt Dorothy Emin 2715 C»co Pom Road Pa|e2or4 A large portion of the cxisling she hardcover is due to tlie ver>’ large parking area between the driveway and house. The surface of the parking area is a red rock surfaced pad with average dimension of 75' X 50*. In many instances when variances have been requested hardcover reductions have been required even at times when no hardcover variances have been applied for. Based on the fact some foundation work will be required with this project it could be argued standards should apply for new construction. Under “new construction” the new house would be required to meet the current zoning standards. Current standards would relocate the house to meet setbacks and the lot could not exceed the hardcover limits. The lot does require a lengthy driveway ns the building area of the lot is located significantly lower than the elevation of Casco Point Road. No area located along the hillside is usable for structures or parking areas. It would not be entirely reasonable to remove all of the parking area. A turn around should be provided to avoid having to back up the hill. No parking is permitted along Casco Point Road so parking should be made available on site. A photo of the shed located on the north property line is attached. The shed will require repair at some time in the near future. Construction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located within the side setback and within 10' of another structure, lire applicants should be asked about the future of the shed and/or if the shed is to be removed or relocated. Issues for Discussion: 1. The house is non-confomiing as it is liKatcd within required setbacks. The propcrt> ow ners had two options to consider; remodel the existing house which requires the removal and replacement of the second storx and some structural work to the foundation or renuw e the existing residence and build new. They have chosen to remodel and renovate. Is the proposed foundation work of such a magnitude that this project should meet the standards for new consiruciion? 2. If variances are granted should some hardcover be removed from the site to reduce the total hard surface on the propertx. 3. What is the future of the shed? Should it be relocated if repairs arc required? 4. The applicants and contractor should provide evidence to indicate if tlie foundation work is necessary to allow the replacement and expansion of the second story or if the foundation work would be required if not expanding the house. Will the house have to be raised oITthe foundation to do the nc*cessary work? How much of the foundation w ill be replaced? •01.2677 T«f> Md Oorotfi) 2715 CaKO Point Road Pa|a3or4 Staff Recommendation: StafTconcurs Uial the site topography challenges any substantial revisions to the house location. The steep slope to the road dictates results in the need for a long driveway, and significant site regrading and alteration of drainage patterns i the immediate neighborhood would be necessary to move the house to a location where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, with no expansions where it encn>achcs required setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. In reviewing the applicant ’s hardship statement, plea.se note that the 75' setback and hardcover requirements arc City concerns, not just DNR standard.s. The F3NR has established a 50' setback for Lake Minnetonka, but the City has required 75' since October, 1973. Orono’s hardcover ordinance is, by design, more restrictive than that of the DNR. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow renovations and remodeling of the house conditioned upon the following; 1 . Applicant must demonstrate and confirm the foundation work is not required only to allow the expansion of the second stor>‘, but would be needed even if no expansion was planned. 2. Hardcover removals within the parking area should be required to provide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building envelope shall be permitted w ithin required setbacks. The recommendation is based on the follow ing findings and hardships: 1.The existing structure is a legal non-conforming .structure that was built prior to the current zoning ordinances. 2. No further expansion of the non-confonnitics (setbacks) would occur. The expansions are being completed within the required setbacks. Applicants Statements of Hardship Are attached as page B2. •01-2677 Ten) and DonKti) En»ia 2715 CaicoPowi Road Piacdord .‘•j #2677 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application ft Date Rccehed*yy/A/0 / Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address poiUT Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) IH- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__A<M>v^T , ______________________________^(month/year) I (do)|(do not)^also ovwi the adjacent parcels of land. Presenifuse et property; X residential ___pother (specify)_____ Zoning District:, APPLICANT Phone (home) Name ^M> IbWiT Phone (ux>rk) * Address: ZIlS PoM> Citv: OtJ>\Jo ______Zip: ^3^1 O^^NER (if diffcrciit than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ 500|t)00^*_______ Describe request in detail: ?ad0\/^ Ha/$g (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Lot Width ^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front -I X Side Rear X Average Lakeshorc X_Other (specify) 79 HARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: (attach additional sheets if necessary) • vr>- ;• V CITV OF OKONO - VARIANCE ArFLICATION AppUcalioo « - ADDENDUM TO APHUCATION FOR: |Addcniluml Dorothy and Terry Erw in Residence 27IS Casco Point Road. Orono, MN SS391 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST History St Current Slluallon The applicant lias lived in the house on this property since August of 1987. It is a relatively small parcel, long but very thin. The street-side portion of the lot has a large slope from Casco Point Road down to the current house and shed, making driving treacherous in the w inters, and all but eliminating the possibility of a garage or shed up on the hilled area. As the slope of the hill begins to taper, the minimal drivew*ay w idens to provide turn-around space in front of the garage and shed areas. The current house is situated in a location that is somew hat hanging into both the neighboring line of sight setback as well at the 75 foot setback from the Lake Minnetonka Ordinary High Water Mark. Because of the extreme drop in grade as well as the narrowness of the lot, the hardcover calculations are understandably well over the ordinance guidelines. The portion fiom 0-75 ft is at 23.0 •/• (including 297.1 square feet of the house), the ponion from 75-250 feet is at 55.5%. and the portion from 250-out is at 26.6%. Proposed Project The applicant has developed a design to renovate and refurbish the existing house in tlic location in which it sits now. Plans and elevations arc attached with this submission, that demonstrate the plan as outlined below: 1. We will utilize the current 2221-square-foot footprint of the house to develop the renovations. No additional hardcover will be created because of the plan. 2. We plan to refurbish the main level and upper level areas that arc currently projecting into tl e line of sight and high-water setback areas by* installing new windows, siding, roof shingles and stone veneer. The existing envelope of the h^se will be maintained in its entirety, with the exception of the upper level shed roof w hich w ill be clipped (into a hip-style rooO to reduce further the impact of the hang -over into the setback areas. Portions of the foundation in this area w ere examined over the winter and were found to vary in depth from 12 to 24 inches below grade. Because of this, we w ill also underpin these areas to prevent any further ruination of foundation integrity. 3. In the areas of the house outside the sideyard and lakeshore setbacks, we will renovate the main level of the house to include similar ceiling heights as they cunently exist. The sueetside portion of the main level will include a raised ceiling height in the garage area, as well as the further definition of the “w rap-around" overhang around the garage. Cunently. the overhang is above concrete walks on either side of the garage. We w ill add a cantilevered portion over the front of the garage to tie the two roofs together, creating no additional hardcover because the existing concrete apron and red rock driveway currently qualify the area in front of the garage as haidcover to begin with. 4. The second floor w ill be removed in its entirety and replaced w ith a new floor plan that adds character and chann, as well as provides additional ceiling height. Two new second-story protrusions (one over the existing den and another over the existing dining room) will add width to the house at two differing intervals, making the house appear “squattier" than it is. to minimize the impact of the long, iianow and tall floor plan. The new second floor and attic space above it is designed to sit above the cuaent footpnnt of the house, and it will not require any variances except for the master bedroom and guest room portions, which sit in the some locations they currently do. hanging into the lakeshore setback areas. As noted in item 2 above, the envelope of space in the non-conforming areas will be maintained (and'or reduced) to minimize the impact in the setback areas. #P69'7 IIARI)Sllir/I)ESCKll>TION OF IJN.’i'SUAL PROPEim' CONDITIONS Unique lo llie land In quetllon The current house and property conditions already qualify as non-conforming. The hardcover ordinances are already exceeded in two of the three hardcover zones. This is due to. in large part, to the narrowness (65 foot width) of the lot. With only 1 1,375 square feet in this zone, the 25”'« hardcover ordinance allows for only 2843 square feet for house and driveway. If, assuming a new conforming house were to be built at the 75* setback point, an approximately I IS foot driveway would be required to get to the 250-foot setback point. Assuming this driveway would be 12 feet in width (not taking into occount a widening at the garage nor a tum-around space), it would result in a minimum of 1380 square feet of hardcover, leaving less than 1500 square feet for the house and garage structure. THE HILL In order to safely utilize the property, it could be argued that use and garage should not be moved away from the lake towards the street. In order to ntaintain ;• acceleration space lo gel cars up the driveway lo Casco I’oini Road, it wx>uld be undesirable to move «<ie house backwards on the site (as it is already difTicult during extreme weather conditions). Moreover, because of the slope of the hill at the street side of the pmperty, it it unrealistic (as well as undesirable) to place a new garage within this area (as it would require lots of treacherous steps and walks lo gel down to the house area). The benefit would be lo have more hardcov ..-r available for a new house in the 75-250 foot hardcover zone, but it would be a long and treacherous walk in the winter from the house if this were the case, putting both the owrrers and guests at risk. Unique lo the existing structure location The existing structure is non-confomiing. Sitting 70.6 feet from the OlIWM, it encroaches into the lakeshore setback, as well os the line-of-sighi setback ordinance. Again, because of the extremely narrow property w idths in this area of tow n, it is undesirable lo place a house any farther back from the lake than the ordinances allow for. Moving the house back, especially with the Northern neighboring property only 61.4 feet ftom the OlIWM will put significant limitations on the lakeshore view. People in this area choM lo live in these homes to **be on the lake.” To move the house backwards would in effect put "blinders ” upon the view, accentuating the "bowling alley ” feel of the property . The house is non-conforming already, and no additional non-conforming elements are being added by the proposal. The house needs u|>dafing. structural repairs and a great airiounl of work on the inside. In order lo update the house the w ay it should, bringing charm and beauty lo the neighborhood, there are two options before us; 1. Use the existing footprint, or A good portion of the foundation is in good shape, and the portions that are not can easily be repaired and underpinned. The non-conforming issues will be maintained as they exist today. No additional non-conforming issues w ill be created by the renovations, and therefore, seem to be an understandable and accepuble route for the project. 2. Tear down the house in its entirely. If w e w ae lo pursue this direction, it is assumed that we would be required lo meet all of the ordinances established for the property. Mentioned above, if the garage is attached and the lakeside view is not negatively impacted by setting the house back, we will be left with a 1200-1500 square-fool footprint for the new house, as well as no opportunity' for patio or deck sp.'.ce. If the garage is detached and kept up by the road, a treacherous and long path would be necessary to get to the house, puning an element of unnecessary danger into the mix. 3. Further Arguments The intent of the line-of-sight ordinance is lo prevent houses being built closer lo the lake than their neighbors, thus cuning peripheral views from neighboring houses dramatically. As noted above, the narrowness of these lots already place import on the w estern side of the houses as really the only lakeside views. The houses neighboring this house, as well as nearly all the others in this area are oriented directly at the lake, knowing already that decent peripheral views are not attainable. i #26 i ( The 75*foo( lakcihore setback ordinance, established well after the construction of this bouse, only slightly displaces the current house footprint. However, the nearly 300 square feet of house that is affected by this ordiiuuKC plays a dramatic (and necessary) role in the successful utilization of the house. The effect on the landscape and DNR needs for the 7S-foot setback seems somewhat arbitrary (isn't 70.6 feet far enough?). Moreover, in temis of rainwater and re-saturation of the drainftelds, allowing the bouse to be maintained in iu current location has no further negative impact on these issues. We are simply leaving the situation as it is. The owners would be perh^s willing to eliminate some areas of patio, walks, and driveways to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property, thus improving the lot, as far as the DNR would be concerned. Unique to the current conditions This property, as noted above, is currently a non-conforming property. The renovations will not create any new hardcover nor encroach any ftirtlier into lokeshore and line-of-sight setbacks. Tkb U $tmpty m request to allow the current conditions to be maintained in order to refurbish and remodel the existing house. APPLICANTS' LEGAL NAMES Dorothy Leidiger Erwin wife Terry Alden Erwin husband r ^,H(^hepin County^xpay^Servi^g Department 41 '.iC.;-. '■•v .•: AO-in- f^-S^ ^arcelln^atlon^. ; F^el ID 20im323000S TtnsisnolalSSlfyncoixMm^Mnpnstntsaoq^b^ and data tmapjl^.Coun fy. and other aourcM. XV Co u^c 'P/. aW r',' •*v ’M 11 »*4t. r//'J Cccfc aV. - #-i ^m////nsiiiiiwi 11 Hi 11 w- Hi i' iL'j& ■'__yJ *..>;■ ■ -rK;*^^' ’I'fP/Lsp. ; ^ rr r. ]^s«aps:v^^: mm W «iPias5 L A V<e Ca^'O^' OA . "V '« / •*' ’ssmijt. V3I ?T^ ,»':n •t!b i^^eer-s\x>e *1 mm <K teusti ivM <All( (illfci |/1 f*»4l'| — /^Ucf •fi^t Y*% fVoftg0> i/itesioe isLeJnmJ • /■*•• • •>........ 7/ Y' HI #2677 #2877 ' I ■ M y .r /..... .. ^ , - ^•, 4.'f. li. ISlIWINi IIARL JOVER CALCULATION WORKS»x£ET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) | 0.75' A 75-250’250-500* FXI<a-fNG HARDCOVER IN 7.0NK A. Home (»f/) Lcn|lh WMdi B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck 41 o l«-2- 1^ ‘t (AV) F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other r ^ • A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •(» B _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF. Qlp A. Home _____________ x ______ LentUi WUlth B. Oarage C Driveway D- Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain i?S677 By Plastic 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______________ + B ____X 100 500-1000’ "ZM.» K.a.4- (Hot.n 4.a 4-P SF. S.F. SJr. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. »» S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. M I S.F. S.F. ST. A ST. B I SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 HARIiCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ‘ / 75.250*1 250-500 ’ EXISTINC H A. House B. Garage tPCOVER IN ZONE LcnfOi 4l A 0-1 n XA Lsa __lk> (o X ^ 2a .4 K14.5 _ \Vldtf« x^(§>z2±JLlLt^ X C. Driveway^ D. Sidewalk E. Patio/'Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other bl.5k38«> 'Z'lS 3z-^x3y.4 »*S.ex\4.S SO 4> 1-^ a) 3- • 500-1000* /4M.g : C-lo.i)S.F. S.F. SF. in.4 loo.p "i-B-o 42.0 A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE G>^tfc».U + B ^B .o X 100 - X too - 6»4|b.(i> o S.F. ,S.F. ST. ,S.F. S.F. ,S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'SS.S PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE CHA^J6sJ A. House ______________ X Lenfth Width S.F. S.F. % A B SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 EXISTING HARDCOVER TN TONf A. House _ ____ HARbCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250 ’ R^ 250-S^500-1000’ Unjth Widtfi B. Otnge •X m S.F. C. Driveway \^%.D X IL m ' IbS^.o S.F. X m S.F. D. Sidewalk X m S.F. X m S.F. E Patio/Dcck X m S.F. X m •S.F. F. Landscape X m S.F. Underlatn X m S.F. By Plastic X m S.F. 0. Other X m • S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE.S.F. TOTAL PROPER1T AREA IN ZONE .UZ2JL.O S-F. A ♦ B X 100 ■ii A ♦ B X 100 -% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NP A. House S.F. Length Width X m S.F. X SF. X m S.F. D. Garage X m S.F. C. Driveway X M S.F. X ^ ----------S.F. D. Sidewalk / if -•'■'-A / ^.S.F. .X- -J~S.F. E. PatioDeck 7f / rt -----u m S.F. X m S.F. F. Landscape X m S.F. Underlain X m S.F. By Plastic X m S.F. G. Other X m ST. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ST. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE m ST. A ♦ B X 100 -1 _H S.F. SF. S.F. A B A B y/.; • J^SVSG / oSui?nwi ««UNt or tor .iTw5!fVJ« '■w WIHM 005* rttl) ! J —JJ0.49 — S 69-28 ’15- E EXISTING OWELUNC /r .11 !F^ P¥ *?S -* . •' y /r* RIM RATE M/lft/ei RATCH S«5 lICNMErXN COUNTY PUgfEITTY INFORNATION SYSUN rROPERTV OUNCRS LIST REPORT NO. PlASSAOl PACE A PROP ADDR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NAnC/AOOR M 2R-117-25 2S Mt2 #2641 CASCO POINT RO WILLXAN P NILLER ET At MILLIAN F NILLER 2A«1 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA MN 5SSA1 5A 2R-117-2S 2S RttS 02ATS CASCO POINT RD JOHN T RCDNONO JOHN T REONONO 2AR5 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA NN S5ST1 Sa 20-117-2S 2S RROA •2kA7 CASCO POINT RO A I C RANE A LAWRENCE RANE 2AA7 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN S5S«1 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR sa 2f-117-2S 23 OOOS 02715 CASCO POINT RO TOO ERWIN TERRY A t DOROTHY L ERWIN 2715 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA NN 555*1 sa 20*117-2S 2S 0000 027A5 CASCO POINT RO S R PETERSON ORA PETERSON STEVEN R PETERSON 2705 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN 555*1 sa 20-117-25 25 0007 02755 CASCO POINT RO D S ■ J RREITNER DAVID S I JANA RREITNER 2755 CASCO PT RO WAYZATA NN 555*1 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SR 20-117-2S 2S 000* 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIONED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P O BOX bO CRYSTAL BAY NN 55525 SB 20-117-2S 2* 0001 OZbSA CASCO POINT RO D L RUNRLE t L F RtMRLE OAVIO L RUNRLE 2ba* CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN 555*1 SB 20-117-2S 2* 001* 02750 CASCO POINT RO DALE A CHRISTENSEN I WIFt DALE A CNRlSTENStN 2750 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA NN 555*1 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR sa 20-117-25 2* 0020 02750 CASCO POINT RO DALE A CHRISTENSEN A WIFE DALE A CHRISTENSEN 2750 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN 555*1 5R 20-117-25 2* 0021 02710 CASCO POINT RO C H t B J PALHER CURTIS H I BARBARA J PALHER 2710 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA NN 555*1 sa 20-117-2S 2* 0022 02700 CASCO POINT RO D P BUESINO SLR RUNNING DANIEL BUESINO/LINOA RUNNING 2700 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA IM 553*1 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER TOTAL BATCH SOS 00012 NANE/AOOR #9.67 *7 ______________ 1 A|)pliciiliun Dale: Dcailline: 4/imi 6/17/01 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Muorsc, City Administrator FROM:Paul N\ cinbcfgcr. Zoning AiJininislralof/PIunner DATF:May 16. 2001 SUBJKCT:HOI-2676 Franklin J. Svoboda Daywind Christian Church Zoning Code Amendment to B-4 Standards Section 10.43 - Add nturclies to list of Conditional Uses Lbt of I'xhibits: Applicaliun Applicant's Letter of Request Legal Descnption'Properts- Ow ner Plat Map (2477 Sliad>wo«^ Rood) Navone Plat Map Nasarre Zoning Map Piupcriv Owners Nutiricatiitn List Application Supplement (Packet from Da> wind Church) Summary of Request: Franklin J. Svoboda. owner of property located at 2477 Sludywood Road, has reque.sled an amendment to the Municipal Code that would list “churches" as a conditional use in the B*4 zoning district. Churches are allowed by conditional use only in “R” districts. ITie request is made on behalf of the Bay wind Christian Church who has an interest in the applicant's property to use of a portion of the existing building for church u.se. This particular request is for the amendment to the B-4 district. Should the City approve the amendment, a conditional use pennit application would be required to consider the Bay wind proposal for the use of this site for a church use. Pertiacnl Code Seclion/Standards SFC. 10.43 OFFlCn AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINFSS DISTRICT. Subd I. Purpose. The "B-4" Office and Professional Business Is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the liK'ation of administrative ofTicc buildings and related offices. The oflice uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of mercliandise to the general public. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. •01-3676 Franklin J Svotwda Ba>«Md Ctmsuan ClMrch Zoning CoJc Amendment lu B-4 Standardt I of 5 Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any OfTicc and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Pennitted Uses. Within any "U-4" Ollice and Professional Business Disuicl, no structure or land shall be used e.xcept for one or more of the following uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an ollice use. B. OlTices. Professional onicc*s and ofllces of the general nalua*. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care on an out- patient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Oflices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" OfTice and Professional Business District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses e.xcept by conditional use permit: A. Nursing Homes. Hospitals. Nursine homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site sliall contain not less tlian 600 square feet of lot aa*a for each person to be accommodated and Uiat no building be located less than 35 feet from the side lot line. B. Schools. Private academies, schools, trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. C. Research Centers. 1). Veterinarx' Clinics hospitals, clinic or kennels. K. Libraries. F. Museums. Cl. Galleries. Ftc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. 11. Restaurants (Class I). Restaurants which are hKaleJ within and mainly servicing an office building pn>viding there is no outside display or advertising ofthe restaurant use. I. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the- "B" or”!" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10 61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. J. Public Services Public service structures, including, but not limited to. electrical transmission lines and_ buildings such as telephone exchange stations, boo.stcr or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory' Uses. Professional Business District, pennitted accessory uses: Within any "B-4" Office and the following uses shall be any accessory use as regulated in the "B-r Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard. Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,(X)0 square feet. *01-2676 Fr«iilui I SvotMKU ChriMiM Churdi Zoning Code AmenJmem to B-4 SumUkIs rv2ofS B. Lol Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feel. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. 1 he minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet and unless llie rear yard has access from a publie street or- alley, a side driveway of 12 feel sliall be provided to assure access. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feel to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lol line, 35 feel to any side lot line adjacent to street; c.xeept when abutting or across the street from an "R" Di.strict, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. >Micrevtr a "B-4" OfTi^e and Professional Business District abuts an "R” District along the side or rear lol line, a fence or compact e\ ergreen hedge not less than 50®'o . opaque nor less Uian sL\ feel in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along tlie abutting lines except w ithin the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. 10.40, Subdivision 6. Subparagraph G. II. Drainage. No land shall be 'Jeveloped and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submilled by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runolT mas be required to be prv>{vrl\ channeled into a natural water course. jx>nding area, stonn drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherw ise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. 1. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feel in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Purpi»se and Intent of B-4 District The "n-4” Office and Professional Business Is Intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact w ith the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public. The only area in the City of Orono where property is zoned B-4 is in the Navarre area and. like most commercial properties in Orono. are located adjacent to residential properties. Please refer to Exhibit •01-2676 FranilwJ S»o6o4a Ba> wind Chrittian Cluircli ZoMMii Code Amcndncnt lo B-4 Standaidt 3 ofS F, zoning map of Navarre. B-4 is the only district that is available tliat would have ollice use as the priinar) intent of the district. Only two areas are zoned as B-4. Ihe areas are along Shady wood Road (C.R. 19) south of the Shoreline Drive (C.R.I5) intersection, developed properties arc the Na\arre Bank. Tonkawest Ofllccs (Svobota property) and Freshwater Center office building. Ilic Casco Run OlVices on Shoreline Drive are also zoned B-4. All properties in the B-4 district are cither in a general ollice use or undeveloped. The undeveloped properties arc adjacent to the Svobota site, llie Svobota office building (known commonly as the fomier Rcma.\ building) could accommodate a church use. However, it is one of only a few office buildings in the City. If the property were to redevelop into a church building the future ability of the site for office use would be limited at best. Likely, the site would have to be redeveloped to revert back to oflice use. ITie adjacent vacant land and Svobota property has the potential to redevelop as a planned ollice development. A church building on the property could prevent future redevelopment of the site w iih the adjacent properties as demand for olTicc space in the Navarre area increases. Use of Kxisting Buildings for a Church Use I he Baywind Christian Church has used space w ithin the f reshwater Building in the past as a tenant. It is not known if other ehurches have used other buildings in the district luve used space for die proposed use. The church use would not normally conflict widi oUier uses in die oflice buildings, lypically. churches see the heaviest use during evenings and weekends. Parking and demand for other building amenities would not coiniicte during weekday business hours. CUP Standards Churches are only allowed by a conditional u.se permit within "R" districts. Tlicy are allowed per the following; "Churches including those related structures located on the same site which are an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes' for persons related to a religious funclion on the same site provided no building other dian a residence shall be located within fifty feel of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District." (Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (D)). Other standards that apply to churches: Parkilie One space for each four seats in flic main assembly hall. Signs The B-4 district allows four square feel for each front foot of building and an additional one square foot for each front foot of the lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign can c.xceed 50 square feet. The height for signs in the district allows a sign to extend two feet above the highlcsl outside wall of the principal building. A church use in a "R" district would allovy one sign not to exceed 12 square fc*ct per surface. fOI-2676 IrvillinJ S«oboda Hj>wina OwiiUm Owrth Zomng Code ArocndmciU lo B-l Sumlaids P^4or5 i No other standards arc listed os applying to church uses. It may be appropriate to develop a list a conditions that would apply to a church use if it is determined to be on appropriate use in the B-4 district. 1'hose conditions can apply to such items os, lighting, lighting, landscaping, hours of operation, how church con use on existing building (i.c. percentage of olTice space that can be devoted to the church use or whether the church should own the building) and any other standards by which the public health and welfare aa* protected. Issues for Dbcussion 1.is the orfice disuict an appropriate zoning district for church use? Do churches meet the intent or purposes of the district? Should additional standards be placed upon church uses in Uic limited ofTicc areas of the City? 3. 4. Arc the required setbacks that apply to the B-4 district adequate for a church use? Are there any long term redevelopment issues that construction of new church may restrict the City from providing for an increased demand in oflice space in Na\ arre? Stair Rccommcndalion Planning Commission should review the application in terms of the follow ing: • Potential impacts on properties adjacent to B-4 districts (visual, noise, trafTic, landscaping, general site plan issues) • Conditions that would apply to church uses in the B-4 district. • Future office planned development concerns, need for future office space in Navarre. • Churches as primar> tenants or owners of building.s. Options for Action I.Recommend approx al of the request to add "church" uses to the list of conditional uses within the B-4 district, stating conditions by which churches would be allowed to operate. 2. 3. Recommend denial, stating re,isons. Table for further information. •01-2676 Frankim I S^oboda B«)«in4 ClwiUian Chinch ZcMung Code Amcndmcnl lo U-4 Suodardt r^soTs Ai>«i i #9.^-7 6 Application# 01 -"ZlplUf Date Received" y//fl/o/ Amount Paid ^iso CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE Al^PLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 2»77 Kt J. ^. M// Type of Application to be Fifed 2ohfAp* #»»./- Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Hl-^3 // o» ^ APPLICANT Address Name Clkt^ hs A Ck e/ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ 9i~^• 900 9-ra.- W7/• oey/ Zip ssj3f OWNER (if different than applicant icKpName J slfsbst/<^ Address (Ps 5>/e City Phone (home) 95 ‘g.-y7«/.os-y.g- Phone (work) 95-<-w?^- ^jtc<7.aro<r~____Zip_ Date Property Acquired 7j/ ^ )^9C 1 ,(do)^o not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. , (month/ycar) FEES - COiNUniONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutiorml (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments . _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshorc PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Cunent Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vocation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision . $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ■ $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____,$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule ^350 C^eU mi APPl.lCATION REQUEST h fr ..- V ‘ ./'i 'i 6 Baywind Christian Church is a small independent congregation temporarily meeting in a public school in Excelsior. From October, 1997 to April, 2000 they met in the Fresh Water Biological Institute Building near the intersection of Highways 15 and 19, but ran out of space and moved to their present meeting place. The church members live in that area, making it very unsatisfactory to continue meeting in Excelsior. They have entered into a purchase agreement to buy the Svoboda building ( 2477 Shadywood Road) across the street from F.W.B.I., contingent, of course, on obtaining necessary governmental consent. The present owners, Frank and Joan Svoboda, would continue running Frank ’s business in the building and the rest of the space would be used by the church. By Orono ordinance, churches arc allowed to operate under conditional use permit where the zoning b residential. The building Baywind would like to buy is Zoned B-4. Both Baywind and the Orono planning staff would like to sec the R4 zoning retained. This could be done were the B*4 zoning ordinance (Chapt 10, Sect 10.43) amended to add as one of the conditional uses under Subd. 4, ’’churches'* and subsequently a conditional use permit granted to operate the church in the Svoboda building. Application b hereby being made for the amendment of the B-4 zoning ordinance to include ’’churches” as a permitted use. #2676 DgSCRIPTlOW The legal description of the property at 2477 Shadywood Road, Orono, Minnesota is as follows: Tracts A and B of Registered Land Survey No. 88, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGAL OWWERflHIP The legal owners of the above-described property are: Franklin J. Svoboda and Joan Svoboda, husband and wife The Applicant is a Minnesota non-profit corporation: BayWind Christian Church. nnepin County Taxpayer Services Departmeilt mv/s see.so r. rui s.ss A. OnONO-3S 8PRINO PARK-17 MM DATE M/XS/Ol DATCH SIS HENNENN COUNTY PROPERTY 2NFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIA35AI1 PACE 11 PROP AODR OWNER MAKE TARPAYER NAMEyAOOR PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADDR PROP OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SR 2R-117-25 11 OOOA 02SIS LVDXARD CIR S r KAROLEWSXX RON EPSTEIN STEVEN P KAROLEWSXX RARIARA N EPSTEIN 2515 LYDIARO AVE EXCELSIOR MN 5SSS1 SR 20-117*2S 11 0007 02540 KELLY AVE KIRK K NELSON KIRK K NELSON 2540 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN S53S1 3R 20-117'23 11 OOIR 02455 SHAOVWOOO RO P n EN6LUND ET AL TRUSTEES PAUL N t JEANNE N ENCLUNO PO SOX 05 NAVARRE HN 55302 so 20-117-2S 11 0021 02S4S LYOXARO AVE JAMES T WILSON JAMES T WILSON 2545 LYDIARO AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 SR 20-117*2S 11 0027 02477 SHADYWOOO RD P J ■ J L SVORODA PRANXLIN J R JOAN L SVORODA 25500 NELSXNE OR SHOREWOOO MN 55331 3R 20*117-23 11 0021 02535 SHADYWOOO RO CLAIR T ROOD CLAIR T ROOD S2R0 NAVARRE LA WAVZATA MN 55301 SO 20-117-23 11 0020 02545 SHADYWOOO RD CLAIR T ROOD CLAIR T ROOD 3200 NAVARRE LA WAVZATA MN 55301 SR 20-117-2S 11 0030 02525 SMAOVVOOO RO CLAIR T ROOD CLAIR T ROOD 3200 NAVARRE LA WAYZATA MN 55S01 SO 20-117-23 11 0031 02445 SHAOVWOOO RO 1ST NATL RX OP NAVARRE 1ST NATL BK OP NAVARRE P 0 ROX 123 NAVARRE MN 5SS02 J J SO 20-117-23 11 0032 0003R ADDRESS UNASSICNEO DAVID J DELANEY DAVID J DELANEY 4000 CASAMITA RD EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 SR 20-117-25 11 0054 02500 SNADYWOOO RD PRESHUATER POUNDATXON FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 2500 SHAOVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR MN 55SS1 SO 20-117-23 11 003R 02520 SHAOVWOOO RO FRESHWATER FOUNDATION FRESHWATER FOUNDATION 725 CO RO 4 WAVZATA MN 55301 SO 20-117-23 14 0001 02405 LVDXARD CIR 0 L MALTZEN 0 R J LERVUC CARY L MALTZEN RONNIE J LERVIK 2405 LYDIARO CIR ORONO MN 55331 TOTAL BATCH 505 ORRIS #?,676 J D 3 D D p oRRtitt MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 ROI.I. The Orono I’lanning Commission met on ihe above date wih the following members prc«ini: Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Dale Lindquist, Daniel Kluth, Sandra Smith, and Jeanne Mabusth. Commissioners William Stoddard and Janice Berg were absent. The following represented City Staff; Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Dottenberg, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Richard Flint was present. Chair Hawm called the meeting to order at 6;30 p.m. OLD BUSINESS (M) Ml-2664 MITCH AND KIM OLSON, 3265 CARMAN ROAD, VARIANCE Mitch and Kim Olson. Applicants, were present. Dottenberg stated the Applicants appeared before the Planning Commission at their March 19, 2001 meeting where they requested it be tabled to allow them time to resnse their plan. The Applicants are proposing to construct a 360 square foot atuched garage on the street side of the residence. As a result of discussions with Staff, the Applicants have reduced the size of the garage from what was originally submitted. The depth of the garage has been revised and will be located appro.ximately 36 feet from the front property line where 35 feet is required, which has eliminated the need for a setback STtriancc. Variances to hardcover and lot coverage are being requested The garage addition is located in the 75-250’ setback zone Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone is currently 4,6S5 square feet or 54.4 percent (excluding rock/plastic w hich must be removed). The Applicants are proposing to remove a large portion of the deck on the lake side of the residence in order to reduce hardcover and structure, and w ill be rearranging dri*. . way and sidewalk hardcoser. After the proposed removals, hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone will be 4,501 square feet or 52.2 percent, which is a reduction of 2.2 percent. Dottenberg slated hardcover in the 0-75’ zone would also be decreased due to the removal of deck portions as well as a stairway and some retaining wall sections. Existing hardcover is 5S4 square feet or S 3 percent. The Applicants ate proposing 249 square feet or 3.5 percent hardcover in the 0-75’ zone. Dottenberg stated the Applicants notified City Staff via fax last Friday that they w ished to keep a portion of the retaining w alls in the 0-75’ zone, which w ill increase Ihe amount of hardcover in this zone to 288 square feet or 4.07 percent. Currently the structural coverage on the lot is 3.416 square feet or 21.8 percent. The garage addition and remoN-al of a portion of the decks w ill result in structural coverage of 3,280 square feet or 20.9 percent. The deck and pool comprise 8.1 percent of this amount, with the remaining 12.8 percent consisting of the existing house and garage addition. Dottenberg staled this property was granted a variance in 1978 to allow construction of a pool three feet from the side lot line. The previous property owners also received an after-the-fact permit for decks constructed around the pool area and along the lake side of the house w ithout permits. The Council, as a result of that variance appros'al, requested rcmostil of certain portions of the new decks, while certain segments of the deck were considered as non-hardcover due to height above ground, board spacing, and permeable grass below. A third application was approsxd in 1997, for a conditional use permit to PAGEl MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (IfOI>2664 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued) reconstruct retaining walls in the 0-75* zone. Bottenberg stated the current sur\ey received by the City shows that the required deck removals were never completed by the previous property owner, although the decks were inspected in 1986. The current owners have agreed to remove all unapproved portions of deck as w-ell as additional portions os part of the current request. 'I he deck segments approved as non-hardcover in 1985, are now considered hardcover under current code, and have been included in the hardcover calculations. City Stafl' feels the Applicants have made a good faith effort to reduce the size of the garage addition and bnng the decks into confonnity with the prior approvals. Although hardcover and lot coverage will still exceed City standards, the Applicants* proposal does result in slight reductions of hardcover and lot coverage. Staff would like the Planning Commission to determine whether the proposed reductions arc adequate and appropriate given the stated hardships and the nature of the site. The Applicants had no comments in addition to Staffs report. Lindquist inquired what the hardcover would be in the 0-75 ’ zone. Bottenberg staled the hardcover in the 0-75* zone would be reduced to 288 square feel rather than 249 square feet. Bottenberg stated the Applicants have indicated they would like to retain some of the retaining walls in this area. Hawn inquired what the hardcover would be had the previous property owner complied with the agreement pursuant to the v-ariance request. Bottenberg stated the portion of the deck that was to have been removed amounts to 384 square feet. Hawn questioned whether the rock and plastic arc included in the hardcover numbers. Bottenberg stated the Applicants are plarming on removing all existing rock and plastic underlayinent. Hawn inquired whether the rock located at the rear of the house is the rock that will be removed. Olson stated they would be removing all rock and plastic. Olson sUted they w ere unaware of the requirement to remove a portion of the deck until only recently. Mabusth inquired whether the two keystone retaining walls arc the walls that will be removed. Olson stated the keystone wall bordering the two properties would not be removed. Mabusth inquired whether the small deck would be removed. Olson stated that it would be. Mabusth inquired what the orange-colored structure located under the deck was. PAGE 2 MIMrrtS OF I HE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (#01-2664 Mlfch and Kim OKoii, Cuntimicd) Olson stated it is a hot tub. Olson indicated he is unsure at this time where exactly the hot tub will be located. Olson stated the current garage has a ceiling height of 6.S feet with a post in the middle, w hich makes it impossible o park two cars in the garaj’C. Olson slated the foundation is also cracked, with the garage d'xv not acing able to close level with the driveway which allows raccoons and other aninuls access into the garage. Olson stated they also expenence wnter runoff into the garage at the present time. Hawn commented the structural coverage and hardcover on this lot are already high on this property, which makes it difl'icult to approve a variance. Hawn stated in order to approve the vanance, the Planning Commission needs to have a hardship demonstrated which is imposed by the land. Hawn inquired what hardship the Applicant has. Olson stated quite a slope docs exist which causes w ater runoff into the garage. Hawn inquired whether it would be possible to renosTiic the existing garage. Olson stated in his view it w ould not be possible to renovate the e.xistmg garage due to the height of the garage and a pole being located in the middle of the garage. Hawn noted the Applicants' proposal does reduce the amount of hardcover and strucmral coverage on this lot from w ha« currently exists. Hawn inquired w hether it really is a reduction if the new part of the garage is offset against the additional amount that ihe Applicant has indicated he is w illing to remove. Olson stated he was told to remove as much hardcover as possible to offset the new garage. Gaffron stated Exhibit A shows the existing lot coverage of 3,416 square feet, which docs not include portions of the deck that arc illegal. With removal of a portion of the deck, the lot coverage w ill be reduced to 3,2S0 square feet, w hich results in a reduction of approximately 150 square feet. Gaffron stated the Applicants would be removing a portion of the deck that is legal. Hawn inquired w hether a drainage plan has been submitted. Olson stated he w os not aware a drainage plan was required. Olson stated in his view* he does not feel the drainage will be affected. Lindquist stated the Applicant, as a condition of approsal, wnll need to submit a drainage plan for review and approval by City Staff. Hawn inquired whether a conditional use permit would be required in connection w ith this project. Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is not needed. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kluth Slated he would like to see additional hardcover removed. PAGE 3 MINirrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (#01-2664, Milch and Kim Olson, Continued) Lindquist inquired what the time period is for rcmo\‘aI of the illegal portions of the deck. Olson stated he was told the deck had to be removed by the end of construction or the garage addition would not be approved. Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2664, Mitch and Kim Olson, 3265 Carman Road, granting of a variance to lot coverage and hardcover In the 75-250' setback zone, subject to all plastic and rock being removed on the properly, a drainage plan being submitted for review and approval by City Staff, the portion of the illegal deck being removed prior to completion of the project, and with the understanding hardcover will be limited to 288 square feet in the 0-75* setback zone and 4,501 square feet In the 75-250* setback zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. NEW BLSINESS (2) #01-2673 GARY GERMIWDSEN.4101 HIGIIWOOD ROAD, RENEW AL OF VARIANCES, 7:00 pm. - 7:05 p.m, Gary Gennundsen, Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and AfTidavit of Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated the Applicant has applied to renew variances for street setback, west side setback, east side setback, lot area and lot \s idth to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. On April 22, 1996, owners of this property w ere granted the vanances and were renewed on April 28. 1997. Bottenberg stated the current property owner is planning to make some revisions to the floor plan but will be staying within the size previously approved. Bottenberg noted a suitable drainage plan will need to be submitted for review and approval by City- Staff. City Staff is recommending approval of the renew al. Germundsen indicated he has recently purchased this property but has resided elsew here w ithin the City of Orono. Germundsen stated he has met with both adjoining property owners to discuss the drainage situation, which is a problem along that street. Germundsen stated he intends to continue working with the neighbors in an effort to improve drainage in this area. Germundsen indicated he would like to start construction this y^ear. Hawn inquired whether it waj the intention of the Applicant to stay with the same outer perimeter as previously approved. Germundsen said it was. There were no public comments relating to this application. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (#01-2673 Gary Ci*nmindicn, Continued) LindquiU moved, Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2673, Gar>‘ Cermundsen, 4101 lllgbwood Road, renewing of variances for street setback, w est side setback, cast side setback, lot area and lot svidlh to permit the construction of a nesv residence to replace the existing residence on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#3) #01-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGER.NESS POINT ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:05 p m. - 7:05 p.m. The Applicants were not present. Mnbusth moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application #01-2668, Manley Brothers Construction, 1973 Fagerness Point Road, at the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na>'s 0. (#4) #01-2669 RICHARD J. WETT, 1396 BALDER PARK ROAD, AFTER-THE-FACT VARJ/VNCE, 9:06 p.m. - 7:09 p.m. Richard and Marge Well, Applicants, and John Miller, Contractor, were present. The Ccrtincate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Dotlenbcrg staled the Applicants are requesting an after-the-fact vanance to permit a four foot overhang that was added over an e.\isiing sidewalk. Over the past winter the Applicants had some remodeling done to their residence. At that time it became evident that the sidewalk leading to the front door of their residence was covered with snow, ice, and was dangerous to walk on. Dottenberg stated the four fool overhang does not increase the amount of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone. The current hardcover is 36.3 percent where 25 pciceni is allowed. In 1991, a variance was granted to allow the hardcover to be at 36.3 percent. Tlie overhang does, however, increase the structural lot coverage. The existing lot coverage is 13.8 parent where 14.6 percent is proposed and 15 percent is allowed. City Staff recommends approval of the application. Mrs. Wett had no comments in addition to Staffs report Hawn inquired why this application was before the Planning Commission since the structural coverage is under tl.c allowable 15 percent limit. Hawn stated a vanance is not required since the structural coverage does not exceed the maximum allowed. Hawn requested the City Council make applications similar to this subject to administrative review. Haw n moved, Kluth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2669, Richard J. Wett, 1396 Bnidur Park Road, to permit a conversion from hardcover to structural coverage to allow the four foot overhang but still remain under the IS percent structural coverage allowed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGES A MIMJTFSOFTIIK ORO.NO PLANNLNU COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 2001 (IfOl-2669 Richard Welt, Conlinucd) Miller inquired whetiier Ihc Applicants’ fee could be refunded. Lindquist staled the Planning Commission does not have the authority to grant a refund of the application fee and a request would need to be made to the City Council. (W5) HOI-2670 CHERYL AND PETER KRAMER, 2140 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 7:10 p.m.-7:37 p.m. Peter Kramer, Applicant, was present. The Certincate of Mailing and AfTidavit of Publication w ere noted. Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance to permit a six foot fence along the south property line, which is located along North Shore Drive-County Road 51. In this location fences arc only permitted to be 3.5 feet in height within a required street yard setback. The Orono Zoning Ordinance does not allow a fence greater than 3.5 feel in height within a required setback to a property line adjacent to a street. The KR-IU zoning district as a required 50 feel setback to the south property line. Weinoerger slated the property is located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood, with streets bordering the property on three sides. Three portions of the property require the 50 fool setback for the construction of a fence in excess of 3.5 feet in height. Access to the property' has been relocated to Arbor Street Weinberger slated the zoning ordinance does permit fence six feet in height along the street lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, as North Shore Drive is designated. A higher fence is permitted along the street on the lake frontage lots because the rear of the house is usually where outside storage is located and that portion of the property generally functions as a rear yard. Weinberger staled also located along the property line is a row of shrubs that are between four to six feet in height. The fence would be located between the shrubs and the house to minimize the usual impact of the fence from the road. Weinbager stated a small portion at the end of the shrubs is actually located within the county right-of-way. Weinberger stated at the present time the County has no plans to upgrade or w iden North Shore Drive. The lot line along North Shore Drive is defined as a “side lot line adjacent to the street". The property lines along Arbor Street and Briar Street are both considered front lot lines due to the fact they both equally front on roads and are narrower in width than the fronuge along North Shore Dnve. WeinbCTger slated the Applicant has indicated he would like to construct the fence due to the increase in traffic and noise being expcnenced in this area as well as safety concerns he has for his children. NVemberger stated to protect sight lines at each intersection, a 30 foot “sight triangle" is required. The sight triangle is measured as a 30 fool setback from the property comer adjacent to an intersection that is to be protected from any structures and'or fences from heights to exceeding three feel. No part of the land area within the entire sight triangle shall has'e fences that exceed the three feet height. Weinberger indicated the fence would be located behind the slirubs. PAGE 6 MINirrES OF THE ORONO PLANMNG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 2001 (#01*2670 Chcr>l Peter Kramer, ('ontiniied) Weinberger slated issues for the Planning Commission to consider are as follows: 4. The fence is in a side yard adjacent to a street and is not the primary entrance to the property. Established vegetation is located on the property that would form a natural screen outside the fence. The vegetation should be required to remain in place and maintain a minimum height of si.x feet to screen the fence. The property fronts on tiuec streets, which is highly unusual, eliminating the property owners from constructing a fence greater than 3.5 feet along virtually the entire perimeter of the property. Nearly every other propeny that fronts on a major thoroughfare would have other portions of the property where a pmucy fence could be constructed. The subject property is one of the most southern lots in the Cry stal Bay neighborhood A visual impact would be apparent if a fence greater than 3.5 feet would be constructed on the tw o side streets because the streets have seen u development pattern that has not included fences in the front yards. Weinberger stated a sur\ey would need to be submitted by the Applicant. Kramer indicated along Arbor Street and Dnar Street there are very* tali lilacs and other shrubs, which makes the property look very natural. Kramer stated he has concerns regarding the noise and the tralTic along North Shore Drive and would like to ci-nstruct the fence on the side of the shrubs closest to the house. Kramer indicated he would be w illing to taper the fence down to the 3.5 foot maximum if it was required. Kramer stated he has attempted to trim the bushes and shrubs along the property lines in order to prevent a visual obstacle. Mabusth inquired if the Applicant is aware of the boundary along North Shore Dnve on the south side. Mabusth inquired if the mail bo.xes are located within the nght-of-way or within the Applicant's property. Kramer stated he is unsure. Weinberger stated Staff has taken some measurements from the road, and it is his understanding that the majority of the shrubs arc located w ithin his projKrty. Weinberger staled it is a situation where half of the shrubs lie w;thin the right-of-w ay and half arc located on the Applicant’s property. Mabusth commented in her view there might be a sight problem along Briar Street. Kramer stated the shrubs are a nice natural barrier and in his opinion docs not really create a sight problem for traffic along Briar. Kramer reiterated he would be willing to taper the fence down if required, but w ould like to construct the fence due to the noise and safety issues. Mabufih stated once a surv ey is provided to the City, Staff will be able to help the Applicant determine the exact location of the triangle areas. Mabusth suggested the survey be submitted prior to this application proceeding to City Council. Hawn stated if the Planning Commission should approve this application, submittal of a survey w ould be a condition of approval. 1 'i PAGE? MINimiSOF TIIK OWONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRII. 16,2001 (#01-2670 Cheryl and Pelcr Kramer, ('on'inued) Smith inquired whether the Appheani has eonsidcred eonstrueling something other than a solid wood fence. Kramer stated due to the irafnc and noise, he would like to construct a solid wood fence Kramer commented the problem with the noise does eontinue into the night-time hours. Lindquist eommented if the Applicant is interested in blocking the noise, he could probably achiesr that by planting a row of arborvitae trees. Lindquist slated he has a concern that if this fence is approved, other fences in the neighborhood will be erected and will create a tunnel effect. Kluth inquired whether the fence could be located closer to the house and still be six feet tall. Weinberger stated the fence would have to meet the principal building setback in order to be constructed six feet in height w iihout a variance. 1 lawn commented in her view if the property owner wants to keep out environmental noise and pollution, he docs have a right to do so, especially since a public owned marina is located in the area, and Ilut the City may fiavc an obligation to reduce that impact to the homeowners. Kluth stated if the Applicant is interested in erecting a fence for his children, he could possibly accomplish that by constructing a fence closer to the house which would not need to be six feet tall and address the noise issue by planting a row of arborvitae trees. Kluth indicated he is concerned approval of this application may set a precedent and that each projKny owner needs to be treated consistently. Kramer slated he is aware of the need to avoid creating a tunnel effect, but in his view he is unsure whether planting some arborvitae will solve the problem. llicre were no public comments relating to this application. Hawn moved, Mabustli seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2670, Cheryl and Peter Kramer, 2140 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance to setback standards to allow the construction of a fence six feet In height, to be located behind the vegetation bordering North Shore Drivc/Couuty Road 51, with the understanding the fence will be limited to three feet within the two sight triangles, and subject to the Applicant submitting a survey for review and approval by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 2, .Nay s 3; Smith, 1 indnuist and Kluth Opposed. Kluth stated in his view approving this fence would set a precedent. Lindquist and Smith concurred that they f.cl the fence would set a precedent and that planting of vegetation would help alleviate the noise nrobicm in this area. PAGEt MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLiVNNINO COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (IJf.) WOI-2671 ALISTAIR AND KRISTIN JACQUES, 645 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, \'ARIANCES, 7:37 p.ni. - 7:37 p.m. The Applicanti were not present. Lindquist moved, llnsvn seconded, to table Applicaltoii IIOt-2671, Alistair and Kristin Jacques, 645 Old Long Lake Road, at the request of the Appiicants. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#t7) ItOI-2672 JIM AND SHARON WALKER, 2685 NORTH SHORE DRI\T, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. 7:38 p.ni. - 7:59 p.m. Jim Waiker, Applicant, ard Dave Erotas, Contractor, were presem. The Cemficatc of Mailing and Aifidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger slated the Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit and a variance to hardcover in the 0*75’ setback area. Currently there is a residence on the property that ssns originally constructed in 1903. The house is scheduled to be removed and a new house constructed on the site. Presently the property contains two unique accessory buildings that would reiriain on the parcel dunng the time the principal structure is removed and the new building is constructed. One building is a screen house located near the lakeshore within the 0-75* setba.k and the second is a jwer approximately 50 feet in height that has been on the property for many years. Both structures are in good condition. The Applicants arc requesting a conditional use permit for a non-rental guest aparii..eiit that would be locate ! within the new proposed residence. Weinberger indicated there would be an internal walkway whic** vould l e part of Uic main structure leading out to the garage area. Located above the three-stall garage would oc a g*-est aparlmert, w ith a third story being added for additional living space for the guest apartment. Weinberger stated Orono's Zoning Ordinance defines a non-rental guest apartment as “an apartment w itliin the principal residence structure on a iot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal rr.sidrr.ee, including their domestic employees or non paying guests Iberc shall be at least one access dooi to the ap.irtment from within the principal structure, and such door slull be the prinury a''ceis to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method.*' Weinberger staled there would also be a main entrance to the guest apaitmcpt. WemlKrger stated typically the guest apartment is located entirely w*»»hin the principal 'truciure. Weinbergc' oui.-d technically a variance is required because a door that would function as the pnmary entrance to the guest apartment is located on the cxtenor of the structure. There will be access from w ithin the primary part of the residence, howevet. the access is via a corridor betw een »hc tw o residential .xrrtions of the house. Weinberger staled the issues for consideration by the Planning Comimssion are the accessory buildings, the guest house, and access to the guest house. Erotas had nothmg to add to SufTs report. PAGE 9 MINIITKS OF Tin: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16.2001 (#01-2672 Jim and Sharon Walker. Conlinued) Hawn inquired whether the walkway is completely enclosed. Hrolas stated it is. Kluth commented in his view there may be o problem with semantics here. Klulh inquired why the guest house is not considered a part of the mam residence. Weinberger staled the requirctnent for guest apartment is looked af as an Individual unit within a prinury structure, with the primary ac'c— k. that guest apartment being located w ithin the residence. Weinberger staled in this insta.tce the ^ artment could be looked at as a separate dwelling unit, and m reality functions more as a guest. . Weinberger stated a conditional use permit is still required in this case Walker comme.^* J the reason they arc requesting the lower to remain is that in his view it is appealing to the property and many neighbors have commented that they would like to see the tower remain. Walker stated they would like to maintain the history’ of the property by keeping the tw o accessory structures. Lindquist inquired how- many square feet there arc when tlic principal structure and the guest apartment are combined. Frotas stated there would be 7,400 square fee*, of living space. Hawn stated she has some concerns regarding the screen house, which is located in the 0-75’ setback. Hawn inquired why the Applicant would like to keep the screen house. Welker slated due to the hardcover requirements, they were required :o locate the house back further on the property, which reduced their view to the lake. Walker stated his family has used the screen house frequently ard would like to sec it remain. Mabusth requested Gaffron discuss the ordinance that regulates cntra.nces to guest apartments and guest houses. Gaffron stated the City Ordinance w as adopted in appro.ximately 198') or 1990. One of the applications lliat brought that ordinance forward was where an attached garage had an apartment located above it and the only access was via a stairway located in the garage to the apartment. Gaffron stated to his recollection that application was approved, and discussion followed whether *he City wanted to create guest apartments that look like a secondary dwelling unit on the property or docs the City want to maintain the integrity of the single fa.mily rcsideuUal neighborho^ and allow access to a guest apartment through the principal structure. Mabusth stated at the time the Ordinance was adopted, the City was faced with a number of requests for mother-in-law apartments and the like. Mabusth stated one of the concerns of the City w as that these apartments would be used for rental property and how the City could regulate that. Lindquist stated he docs not have a problem w ith this application. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF Tire ORO.NO PIANMNG COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 2001 (>>01-2672 Jim and Sharon Walkvr, Continued) Kluth inquired whether the screen house located within the 0-75’ setback could be relocated to another ipol. Walker slated it would be difTicuIt to move the screen house since it consists mainly of a floor and screens, with a foundation underneath. Walt cr slated they would like to maintain the screen house, which is in good condition at the present time, due to the historical significance. Walker stated they do plan on maintaining the tower and the screen house. There were no public conunents relating to this application. HawTi commented in her view she does not see a hardship for keeping the screen porch. Kluth moved, Hawn srcontled, to recommend approval of Applicaiion #01-2672, Jim and Sharon Walker, 2685 North Shore Drive, granting of a vai i.mce and conditional use permit to allow the lower to remain as an accessory structure and non-rental guest apartment, w ith the understanding that a restrictive covenant will be placed on the land to prevent the use of the guest apartment as rental property. The restrictive covenant ssill be subject to review and approval by City Staff. VOTE: A>cs5,Na\sO. Kluth meved, Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #01-2672, Jim and Sharon Walker, 2685 North Shore Drive, granting of a variance and conditional use permit to allow the screen house to remain as an accessory structure because of the historical sigiiiflcance of the structure. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, iiawn Opposed. Hawn stated she voted in opposition to the motion because the structure is located svithin the 0-75’ setback zone, and on new construction, the Planning Commission typically docs not give s^anances without a hardship. (#8) #01-. .» RICHARD ANDERSON OF NORTH SHORE MARINA, 3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PEILMIT, 8:00 p.m. - 9:20 p.m. Richard And son. Applicant, svas present. The Certificate oi* Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron stated the Applicant is requesting formal approval for the use of 72 e.xistmg dry-slack boat storage spaces for on-demand public boat launching. Historically the use of the 72 spaces has been limited to 20 boats for lake use by a 1977 stipulated agreement between the City and a former owner of the property. The LMCD, however, has for nuny years required that all 72 spaces be licensed for boats that arc for lake use. I asi fall the Council indicated it may be appropriate for the City to allow use of all 72 spaces for on-demand launching per the LMCD licensing. Gaffron indicated the Noilh Shore .Manna site has been used for commercial purposes since the 1950s or even earlier. The property was first zoned in 195 / for commercial use. In 1966, the City chose to rezoric it to residential. The property owrer at that tune sued the City with the courts ruling that the PAGE 11 MINUTES OK THE ORONO PI ANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16, 2001 (MOl-2667 RIcliard Amicr&oii, CouUtiucd) rczoning was arbitrary artd capricious. As a result the City whs ordered to rezone it back to commercial in 1967. As part of the 1975 City-wide rczoning. the site again was rezoned to residential based on the directives of the Comprehensive Plan, claims that access to the site was dangerous for vehicular use, increased commercial use would intensify the IrafTic hazard, and 'he marina is surrounded by residential uses. In 1977, the construction of a dry-stack boat storage system began on the site. An agreement was reached with the City allowing construction of a pair of two-tier, 24 space storage units without roofs, and a storage height tor the second tier of boats not to exceed 15 feet at the deck line of the stored boats. The storage units were onginally constructed to contain a third tier, but did not have a roof. In 1984, the property was rezoned again to B-2 Lakeshore Business District, as it is today, and at that lime permits were issued for the service building and for the roof on the dry slack units In 1994, Rich Anderson, current owner, purchased the iiurina. Since 1988, the LMCD has been licensing all 72 of the dry stack spaces for boats intended for lake use as opposed to boats **for sale”, \S aiting for sers'ice , “company boats” or other boats not owned by customers for on-demand launching. The Applicant pays annual LMCD license fees for the extra 52 spots even though he is not currently utilizing them. Gaffron staled the Applicant has over the years made a number of improvements to the site. The Applicant IS working with City Staff to continue his landscaping improventents and has expressed a Willingness to improve stormwater management facilitie* on the site in conjunction with a long-term site renovation plan that he is planning to bring in later this ye.ir Gaffron staled the North Shore Marina has more than adequate space asuilable for parking to serve the dry ’-*lacking needs as well as the slip customer needs. Orono's ordinances require six parking stalls per ten boats, plus eight additional spaces for the srrvicc/reiail con’jwnent of the business. Total required parking is 103 spaces. City Stafl feels there is sufTicient parking for the current use and requests that the Applicant submit an updated parking and land' aping plan. Gaffron indicated the Applicant is only requesting a change to the number of storage units that tray be utiliiizcd on the site and not any other improvements at this time. Gaffron stated the Applicant has indicated he intends to continue to improve the property and is willing to work with Staff on these issues Anderson stated he did count the number of parking stalls available on his site and armed at 106. Gaffron stated the City at this time does not have a formal parking plan for 106 spaces. Gaffron suted the City would require the approved landscape plan be adhered to, with the possibility of additional landscaping being added in conjunction with this request. A revised, updated parking plan is also required. Gaffron reiterated that the Applicant does have enough room available for parking to accommodate the additional storage units but would need to provide a formal parking plan to the City. Gaffron stated the Pianning Commission would need to address issues relating to traffic, drainage, and impact to the neighborhood. PAGE 12 ......... MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (001-2667 Richard Anderson, Continued) Anderson staled he has been a resident of Oronu for 47 years. Anderson stated m hts view the additional storage units will not heavily impact the trafTic in the area. Anderson commented he has chosen to limit his business by not adding retail sales or sponsoring boat shows. Anderson stated in the past on his heaviest day he has accommodated 124 cars on his property, and has made efforts to define each parking spot available on his property. Andersen remarked it was his opinion following the Council meeting that this is merely a housekeeping matter that needs to be taken care of. Anderson stated in his view the City would rather have dry storage units available than to have the boats stored in people's yards throughout the community. Anderson stated he is intending to contmue with the improvements to his property and is addressing the non-compliant issues that have been brought to his attention as quickly as he can. Anderson stated he attempts to keep his facilities clean and wants to be a good neighbor. IIuxMi inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application. Fred Pacovsky, 3186 North Shore Dris’C, commented that the Applicant has taken steps to improw this property and that he is happy with the way things have been progressing tp date. Pacovsky stated he docs, however, have some concerns relating to the impact on traffic that the additional storage units would have. Hawn noted for the record the City did receive a letter from Michael and Donna Wallace, 3160 North Shore Drive, c.xpressing then concerns relating to the traffic issues. Dennis l.ibby, 3210 North Shore Drive, commented he also has seen the Applicant make some improvements to this property and he personally finds the marina to be an asset to the community. Libby inquired whether additional storage units were being constructed or whether he was merely utilizing the ones that are cu.rently there Libby staled he has no current objections to the traffic, but was wondering what the City was anticipating in terms of additional traffic to this property. Libby staled he was aware he bought next to a marina at the time he purchased the properly. Anderson stated he docs winter storage of boats and w ould like to increase the number of storage units that he utilizes to 72 total. Anderson staled he is unsure how the impact to the traffic in the area can be determined. HavMi stated the City is looking at a potential of 52 additional boats if this application is approved. Anderson stated it is his intention to get nd of the boats that are in disrepair and that arc not being launched. Mabusth indicated the City's current agreement with the Applicant allows him 20 units. Mabusth stated the Planning Commission needs to get an idea of the Applicant's business. Anderson stated the average boat user that utilizes his marina would launch his boat ten to fificen times during the season. Mabusih inquired whether the number of boat slips used for dry-stack customers would be increased. PAGE 13 J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ArRIM6,2001 (Wl-2667 Richard Andcrton, Conlinuril) Ander&on stated he currently has 16 boat slips for dry-stack and docs not expect that number will need to be in» reased. Rick Windenburg, 3200 North Shore I>ri\-c, stated he has concerns regarding the increased trafTic and noise that would occur if these additional storage units are approved. Windenburg expressed frustration with a loud bell that rings quite frequently for people who wish to purchase gas at the marina. Windenburg conunented his property faces the back side of the marina and it is not a pretty sight. Windenburg noted the back side of the buildings arc not painted at the current time. Windenburg stated he was aware he bought properly next to a manna at the time he purchased his residence. Anderson commented he would like to be a good neighbor and is w itiing to work with his neighbors in order to resolve their concerns. Anderson stated he was not aware of Uic concern relating to the back side of his buildings until tonight. Windenburg commented he also experiences problems wnth people cutting across his property in order to access the marina. Hawn stated the Planning Commission would prefer to let the neighbors work out their problems amongst themselves. Hawn stated if the problems cannot be resolved that w'ay, the res'dents arc free to come back to the City. ..Irs. Windenburg commented that pollution is also a concern. Libby stated he would like to know what the impact w ill be to the boat traffic on the lake as well as the additional traffic going in and out of the manna Kluth stated in his view the traffic limit in this area should be lowered. Kluth stated in his view the impact on the traffic will be difficult to deteimme and that one of the w ays the City can control the traffic in and out of the marina is to restrict the amount of parVinc available. Robert Ritter, 3260 Bohns Point Lane, slated he has many oi the same concerns that his other neighbors have already e.xpressed Ritter comme;;’ed there is a lot of debris and garbage located on the west side of the serv ice building, which in his > icw should be cleaned up. Ritter stated in his opinion 'f a fence were erected on the marina property that woul.! eliminate the problem of people trespassing through the adjoining properties. Ritter stated in addition he also experiences problems with dogs coming into his yard. Libby stated they also are experience g a problem with people partying at the marine until the early morning hours. Hawn indicated it was her understanding the marina is supposed to shut down at 10:00 p m Anderson stated there are very few boats that stay out late and that he is not aw are of any people partying until the early morning hours at his marina. Anderson stated he also attempts to limit the size PAGE 14 i r |A I MINUTES OF THE ORPNO PLANMNO COMMISSION MFETING APRIL 16,2001 (001-2667 Richard Anderson, Cuiillnucd) ut Ihc boats that arc sto ed at his marina. Anderson commented he docs not wish ta be at odds with his neighbors and tliat he is willing to work with them to address their concerns. Hawn inquired whether by the end of the evening there are a number ofboats tha*. are waiting to be returned to the dry-stack storage. Anderson staled he has not had any complaints about that. Anderson indicated the new fork lift he has purchased makes his operation run better. Mabusth noted the Applicant has been following the direction of the City and has taken steps to improve the property. Mabusth inquired w hether the number of storage units could be increased in phases rather than all at one lime in order to better monitor how the add '.ional storage units will impact the neighborhood. Anderson indicated he would be agreeable to increasing the number of storage units in phases. Mabusth commented Ihc main problem facing the Planning Commission is the lack of informaiion they have concerning the impact the increase in storage units will have on the Applicant’s operation. Anderson indicated he does have signs posted w hich says no dogs are allowed on his property without a leash, .\nderson commented he is aw are that some of the neighbors do own dogs themselves and that he really cannot stop people from trespassing across the adjoining properties. Hawn slated from her view it sounds like there are some irritants to the neighbors which need to be addressed. Hawn requested that the neighbors attempt to work with Anderson m order to come to an acceptable resolution of the issues raised. Hawn stated in her opinion the Applu -nt will be appearing before the Planning Commission in the future as he continues to improve the property and that the City will be monitoring what occurs at the marina. Hawm s'aicd she likes the suggestion by Commission Mabusth. Hawn requested that the Applicant provide a formal p .rking plan to City Stafl*. Kluth indicated he also was in agreement w ith the suggestion by Commissioner Mabusth, which would help the City monitor the impact the increase m storage uni‘.s would have on the marina’s business and the neighborhood. Kluth stated another option the Planning Commission could consider would be to allow a test period. Kluth indicated he is unsure how the City or Applicant would be apply to measure the impact the additional storage units would have. Hawn stated the number of cats going ~.n and out of the mat ina could perhaps be counted. Gaffron stated a consulting firm could perhaps assist in that. .Anderson indicated he would like to w ithdraw his application. Anderson stated in his view the City would prefer to have the additional .storage units available in order to reduce the number ofboats being stored in perqile’s yards. PAGE 15 I MINUTES OF TIIK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16. 20U1 (^0I>2667 Richard Anderson, Continued) Kluth stated his comments were not intended to be critieJ of the Applicant’s operation but that the Planning Commission needs to discuss the issues that affect the neighbors and the marina. Kluth commented he understands the complaints of the adjoining property owmers but that the manna was there prior to many of the residents moving there. Kluth stated in his view the Applicant can perhaps do little things like changing his bell or erecting a fence which would help to alleviate many of these concerns. Anderson stated he is trying to be a good neighbor and would like to continue to improve his pro|Krty. Anderson stated he does have certain long-term goals that he is attempting to accomplish at the marina but that they take time and he is financially unable to do all of them at once. Anderson indicated he does not want to pul in a position where he needs to count the number of cars going in and out of his place of business. Kluth encouraged the Applicant to be patient before withdrawing his application. Anderron reiterated he has been making improvements to the property over the past few years. Hawn staled it is her impression that the Applicant is not at odds with his neighbors. Haum pointed out that some of the neighbors have given testimonials about the good that has happened at the manna. HawTi stated the role of the Planning Commission is to address the impact on traffic in the area and the impact to the lake that would result by allowing the additic . storage units. The Planning Commission also needs to be informed about the Applicant’s business prior to making any decision. l.ibby indicated he was in attendance at tonight's meeting for information and has not objected to the application Libby stated he is the adjoining projierty owner and would be the person most affected by this increase Al Scran, 4099 Highwood Road, indicated he used to reside in this area and moved due to the amount of noise and traffic in tiu* area, w hich on an average basis is betw een 300 to 400 cars an hour. Scran indicated tht 30 to 40 additional cars that would result from the increase would not have a significant impact in his opinion on the traffic in the area. Lindquist noteii t! e IMCD has already approved 72 storage units at this location while the City has approved 20 storage units. Lindquist asked who has the authority in this matter. Gaffron stated the City has authority ovc^ the land and that the LMCD has licensing powers over the number of boats stored at the site. Gaffron indicated the Applicant does pay fees on 72 storage units. Gaffron stated the City has attempted to make the LMCD aw are of the reasons why the City limits the number of boat slips and storage units. Kluth stated It is his impression the Applicant is willing to address some of these issues raued by the neighbors. Anderson indicated he has been approved by the LMCD for 72 storage units since 1993. Hawn inquired whether the Applicant would still |iVe to withdraw his application. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16.2001 (^01-2667 Richard Anderson, Continued) Anderson indicated he would. Mabusth suggested the Applicant consider tabling his application in order to givx him an opportunity to discuss his options with City Staff. GalTron stated the City would need a fonnal parking plan and that the property will need to be brought into compliance with the landscaping plan. Gaffron stated in his view the only issue remaining for the Planning Commissio'i to addrers is the impact on traffic and the lake. Anderson commented he does not know how that can be measured. Anderson stated he is the only marina in Orono that does not have a parking issue. Anderson indicated if the boats are not launched at his marina or another marina, they arc laui.ched at public access sites, which causes traffic and parking problems. IIa\sn stated the Planning Commission needs to confine its discussion to issues relating to the Applicant’s marina. Hawai recommended the Applicant have his application tabled so he can discuss it further with City Staff. Gaffron rcconunended the Applicant have his application tabled so they can discuss the issues more indepth. Gaffron suggested the Applicant consider phasing in the additional storage units. Anderson stated he would like his application tabled Han II moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application If2667, North Shore Marina, 3222 r<orth Shore Drive, to allow the Applicant an opportunity to discuss his options svith City Staff and to submit a formal landscaping ami parking plan for reviesv and approval by City Staff. The IManning Commission reconiiiiendcd the Applicant discuss the option of phasing in the number of storage units over a period of lime. \ OTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Anderson inquired whether he vsmild be getting a wTitten list of the items he is lo address. Lindquisi requested a copy of the minutes be provided to the Applicant. llaun inquired whether the Applicant svould like his neighbors to contact him in order lo discuss their concerns. Anderson stated his main focus is to address the concerns of the neighbors. Smith encouraged the adjoining property owners to work with the Applicant in order to resolve these issues. Hawn staled in her view she concurs the City should consider reducing the speed limit in this area. Gaffron indicated the City Council is addressing the parking situation in that area and could also address the speed limit. PAGE 17 1 ^^NUTESOFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#I 1) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19.2001 IU ah requested the minutes for the March 19.2001 meeting be amended to reflect that the Planning Commission is also opposed to any priv’atc or commercial use of the two oversized accessory stnictures other than for horses • it relates to the Alshouse application. Hawn further requested that the minutes specifically reflect thai the accessory structures should not be used for private or commercial storage. Smith requested the minutes be amended to reflect that she was selected to attend the April 9 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission tabled the March 19.2001 minutes. («9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 26,2001 AND APRIL 9. 2001 Kluth staled he attended the March 26* Council meeting and that all the items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Smith indicated she attended the Apnl 9* Cpuncil meeting. The Council acted on the Watertown subdisision and basically discussed the same issues raised by the Planning Commission. (»12) SELECTION OK REPRESE.NTATIN'ES FOR CIl V COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 23,2001 AND MAY H, 2001 April 23 - Mabusth May 14 - Lindquist (itlO) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION IlaN^n inquired whether the Planning Commission needs to be informed about any action taken by the Council at one of their work sessions relating to the Stormwater Management Plan. Council Member Flint stated the Council did discuss the Stormwater Management Pirn and that there needs to be a formal presentation given to the public. Mabusth commented there was discussion about incorporating language regarding the fees into a resolution rather than the ordinance. Gaffron stated they are waiting for some information from Bonestroo on the Stormwater Management Plan before it can be brought back before th* Council. Hawn inquired whether the plan would be brought back before the Planning Commission. PAGE 18 St •4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^^S$ION MEETING APRIL 16,2001 (Other Isiucs, Continued) Gaffron indicated it probably would not. Council Member Flint stated he is impressed w ith the great job the Planning Commission does in handling the applications. Flint indicated it allows the City Council to place a large number of the applications on the Consent Agenda. Hawn requested the Council look at the ..pplication for the residence located on Baldur Park concerning the four foot overhang. Hawn stated in her view this is one application that perhaps should be under administrative authority to avoid the need for the applicants to appear before the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated City Staff is in the process of compiling a list of applications that would not need to appear before the Planning Commission and could be dealt with on an administrative le\*el. ADJOURNMENT Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9;44 p.m. Elizabeth Hawn. Chair PAGE 19 I