Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
06-18-2001 Planning Packet
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday June 18,2001,6:30PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council ReprcsentatKc: Robert Sansevere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for Ike public reund al Ike front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the Cit>- Council If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they w ill be scheduled for the July 9, 2001 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. NEW BUSINESS Res’iew of these items will commence before or between scheduled public hearings. 1. hOI-2682 Timothy I'. Olson. 2510 Old Beach Road, Condilional Use Permit (Staff: Wendy Douenberg) 2. tfOI-2683 Rick Benson. 776 North Brown Road, Variance (SiafT: Wendy Bottenberg) 3. hOI-2676 Baywind Christian Church, B-4 Amendment, Performance Standards (Staff; Mike Gaffron) 4. hO 1-2680 Rick Windenburg & Shirley Hendrickson. 3200 North Shore Drive, Variance (StalT: Wendy Bottenberg) 5. hOl-2681 Roger A. Day. 1205 South Brown Road, Variance (Stafl*: Wendy Bottenberg) 6. hOI-2684 Teresa Koch. 2225 Bay^iew Place, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 7. hOl-2685 John Culliton. 1131 Wildhurst Trail, Conditional Use Pennit (Staff': Wendy Bottenberg) 8. #01-2686 Suzanne and Terry Johnson, 543 Park Lane, Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7:30 PM 9. #01-2688 Kirtland C. Woodhouse. 1780 Shoreline Drive, Rearrangement of Common Property Lines (Stafi'; Wendy Bottenberg) ■ll PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings May 29,2001 and June 11.2001. 11. Other issues for discussion. 12. Planning Commission approval of minutes for March 19,2001, April 16,2001 and May 21.2001. 13. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on June 25.2C01 and July 9.2001. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance Mkkting DAT*; Lf- I ^ C‘'> I □ Council [SCANNING Commission □ Park Commission □ Other PI.EASE HLLOUTTIIE INFORMATION REgi'ESTEU BELOW FOR OCR CITF RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) N/VME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NTMBER OK/ . Ty^/ ihlTTfu^if I SC- J A S I o ()t D *j > Vc^^A I 'H 01 '■^C* 7 (o3. ^6 Kj A $ 5.f}li^ {ji M _____C I ~ ^(i' 7C' 6. 7. T i‘'»u «• AS.>lU'/U*>.____^ /2c *;r.v 8. r:^ f)tj S M > C|i I ?. ^ j liJL 9.__ fe».^ o/-Z^7^ ''' ' ^ ^ ' ' JK- )!■. L1. ---------U—^ U 1------i—Y= ^ii^i//'/ :tu 'i-L Ptc/ii L,3S /^uk't^ wtS’ <-’i- <"^1^ 14. /'o. 7 g-) - ,?.o P r nt-^/Tv- ijj. •,'V\ ,W r U11 n¥^A/UjL^Lw- b/, X %m«r«rA4«»rtxx»iaamnMJi.4n Public A ttendance Melting Date □ Council □ Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please nLLouTTHELNFo»UTioN requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (from afenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1.- 2.. t lL^ - /•'M *J (J^/l n C I ~ ZeHM > 7.. 8.. 11.. 13.. 14.. kAAnv wr«PM»«nMKTiiNi«n n tuc.Mi City of Orono, Minnesota Street Numbering Index Map I norxs^ aaca, > umc.ic M> i«M H»t fIM , A>i« ».••• t. )•••••••••■A bM ir,«M tm. •«.•*»»M UKO.NO PLANMNG CUMMISSIUN Monday June IH. 2001,6:30PM 2750 Krltry Parlway - Council Chambm AGENDA Council Kcpmcnlati^r: Robert Sansevere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: PIcatc sign in for the public record at the front podium if you ttiih to address the Planning Commission. Applicants ssill be asked to muse to the front tabic to anssscr questions sshen the C hair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an adsisnry body to the Cits Council. If action is taken on any items un this agenda, they Hill be scheduled for the July 9, 2001 City Council meeting unless utherHise noted by the Chair. NEW UUSINI SS Hesiew of these items Hill commence before or bctHcen scheduled public hearings. I tt0l>2682 Timothy F. Olson, 2510 Old Beach Road, Conditional Use Pcnnil (Suff: Wendy Bottenberg) 2 M01>261I3 Rick Benson. T76 North Bronn Road, Variance (StalT; Wendy Doltcnbvrgl 3- 001-2676 Bayuind Christian Church. 11-4 Amcmlmenl, Performance Standards (*^uir MikcGoiTron) 4 «0l-2680 RickWinJenburg A Shirley Hendrickson. .1200 North Shore Drisc, Variance (Statf. W endy lloiicnberg) 5 *01-2681 Roger A Hay. 1205.South llruHn Road, Variance (Suit Wend) Bottenberg I 6. *01-2684 Teresa Koch, 2225 IlayvIcH Pbee, Variarxe (Suit Wendy BoiienK-rg) 7. *01-2685 John CuIIiton. 1131 Wildhurst frail. ( uiidiiiunal Use Permit (Suff Wend) Bottenberg! 8 *01-2686 Su/anne and Terry Johnson. 543 Park Lane, Variance (Stair Wendy Bottenberg) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 30 PM 9 *01-2688 Kmland C Woodhousc, 1780 Shoreline Drisc, Rearrangement of Common I'topeny Lines (S jff: Wendy BoUenbergI PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10 Repon of Planning Commission represeniaiivcs attending Council meetings May 29.2001 and June 11.2001. * 11 Other issues for diKussion. 12. Planning Commission approval of minutes foe March 19.2001. April 16 2001 and May 21.2001. 13. Selection ofrtprrsentatises for City Council meetings on Jutk 25 2001 and July 9,2001. adjournment TO: Chair Hav^n and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator FROM: Wend) Butlcnberg, Zoning Adminisirau>r/Planncr DATE: June 5.2001 SUBJECT: «0l-2682 Tim Olson 2510 Old Beach Road CUP - Public Hearing Zoning Dislrtcl: LR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 53,634 s.f. (1.23 1 acres) LUtofEsliibiU A Application B Site Plan/Sursey C I Ians D I lardcover Calculations E Photo of Paipcny F Location Map G Property Map H Propert) O^snet's List 1 Permit Record PiTtincBl Code Section: I. Section 10.03, Subdivision 10: Condilionat Use Permit • Accessor>’ Building: All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R” Districts shall require a conditional use permit. Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to construct an accessory storage building 20* 24* (480 s.f.) behind their residence. The applicants are proposing to locale the accessory building approximately 50’ from the side property line as indicated on Exhibit B. A conditional use permit is required because this lot is considered a "through*’ lot. By Zoning Code definition a *Through “ lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting tw o substantially parallel streets, and which is not a comer lot. On a through lot, both street lines shall be from lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets on two sides: Mapleridge Lane and Old Beach Road. Pnmaiy access to the residence is from Old Beach Road. There is on undeveloped access from Mapleridge Lane. No new driveways are proposed. The property is sewered. 1 he sewer location is not a problem with tlte proposed accessory' building. Structural lot coverage and hardcover arc not an issue with this proposal. run oho» 2510 Old Beach Road CLP &5 2001 Pttgt I ANALYSIS The Planning commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit if die following findings arc made: Vhtt the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoninfi Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The proposed conditional use is in accordance w ith the Municipal Code because an accessory structure on a through lot located in a "R" District is listed as a conditional use. That the proposed local ion of the condiiional use and the proposed condition under which it would be ofKraledor maintained would not he detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to profn-rties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The proposed accessory building Is 20' ,x 24* or 480 s.f. An accessory structure of this sl/e is to be liKated at least 10* from the side property line. ITie accessory structure is proposed to be located 50 ’ from the property line as shown on the surscy (l-xhibit B). It meets setbacks and does not exceed the height of the principal building, therefore is considered as conforming. Further, it will be located at least 70* from the nearest roadway and will not appear as an encroachment of any rcquirc*d street yard. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the 7.oniny Chapter The use w ill not conflict with other provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Issues fur Considenilion; I. Does Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood? 2. The accessory building meets setbacks from both Old Beach Road and Mapleridge Lane. 3. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Stiff Recommendation; Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct an accessory building on the property as proposed, meeting all required setbacks. »0i :6S: Tun Olson 2510 Old Beach RoaJ CLP 6 5 2001 P^t2 A 4 ’ ./ /-v\ ^ /'Jrr ^ «> rr‘^ /*'<•>Application U ^ 'Z. Date Rccch’cd~ S/xi IcTl Amount Paid / 7.^^ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ZS'lCs Type of Application to be Filed_____ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) APPLICANT^ Name ^ (0(.Sc>^ Phone (home) Addressi^:^^ <^^c> ^Shr^,t 4 City Phone (work) Zip 0\>TS'ER (if difTcrcnl than applicant) Name_____ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address Date Propc^ Acquired______/________________________________ I (do) (diT^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____S325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____S250.00 Land Alteration _____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule _____SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Aftcr-thc-Faci Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____S300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schcdole) _____S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____ Si00.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule 1 Plat of Sxirvey for Keith C. Olson of Lot 22, Shore Kills Hennepin County, Minnesota CertlHcste of Sux-k-ey: I h«reb>- certify tl-at this is a true and correct repre sentation of a survey of tr.e bous- \darles cf Lot 22, Shore hi I is, and the Iccatior. of all exislini; tuildinta therecr.. It does not purport tc she- other inprovczients or encroachxenta. Scale: lata : o : 1" = 60' 12-1-7S Iron aarVer p Gordon K. Coffin Keiff Nr.. 6C64 Alvin R. Rahdar Re,;. No.13295 Lana Surveyors and Plar-ners Long Laka, hinnesota f A-J --.J H) tr tsiih c. S. HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (Rm«i) 2510 Old Beach Road Lot Ejdaiing hardcover paroantaga TcUl propoaad hardoovar paroentage 1.39acfa/60540ff. 8.28% ♦- t.07%+- EaMng Hanioovaf 5016 tf Propoaad near hardoovar 460 a f. New hardcover total 54M a.f. Exiatinq hardcover Detail: Home 26X62 1612 Attached Garage 22X25 550 Screen Porch 16X20 320 Patio 15X26 390 Oecki 6X8 48 Oack2 8X16 126 Shad 6X16 96 Wale way 2X50 100 Offoaafay Apron 18X22 396 Driveway 16x86 liZfi 5016 a.f. Accaasory building 20X24 480 Propoaad total for near hardoovar 5496 a.f. £T V 'fV R-'i^fefesWI ‘ fe® f'TS ■: ‘• -h ■•n* .1 -j*- I mi- - v -g- -*-'—^ r . •■ 3T"- ' 4 *t: i, -■'J: i? ^f:r G RUN DAIC 0S/21/R1 RAICH SI2 PROP ADDR OHNCR N/NC TAMPAVCR NAtlC/AOOR PROP ADDR OMNCR NAHE TAXPAVIR NAItC/ADDR PROP ADDR OWNER NAttC TAAPAVER NANC/AODR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAHPAVIR NANE/ADDR HENNEPIN COUNIY PROPERTV INEOM.ATION SVSUN PROPERIV OWNERS LIST PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAKPAVIR NAHE/ADDR SR 21-li;-25 71 RRRR •7AAS NAPLERIDCE LA C N SNOOT 111 S C A SNOOT CECILIA/CIURIES P SNOOT 111 7l>hS HAriTRlDCr LA INCILMIIN INI '•••All PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SR 71-117-7S 77 RMS 07A«R OLD REACH RO R A LUZAICH I C L LU7A1CII RICIURO A t CAIL L LU7A1CH 7SRR 010 REACH RD WAVCATA HN SSS<*1 SS 71-117-7S 77 oats ecssa OLD reach ro LAUREL PARIRIOCE'STAURLY LAUREL PARTRIDGE-STAURLY 7SSa OLD REACH RO WAY7ATA TttI SSS**! SS 21-117-75 75 RARS a7R5S PHEASANT RO r T rORRER JR I 0 C rORRER J T rORRER toe rORRER 7bS5 PHEASANT RO EXCELSIOR HN SS551 sa 71-117-75 7« aasa 074.SR HAPLERIDCE LA RARRARA X ARONS RARRARA X ARONS 7»S0 NAPLERIOCE LA EXCELSIOR HN SS551 50 71-117-75 7A SaS5 87475 SHADVWOOO RO CARY E KECENES CARY HECINES 7k7S SHADVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55551 50 71-117-75 71 aaas 07485 HAPLERIDCE LA ERIC H PAULSON ERIC H PAULSON 7h85 NAPir Rirr.r ia I HI I I '.HIM IttI •.MU 50 71-117-75 27 8184 8748k OLD REACH RO 0 X CARLSON ■ 0 H CARLSON CERALD X t DIANE CARLSON 7>*8k OLD REACH RD WAY7ATA HN SSS81 50 71-117-75 77 8888 87Sl8 OLD REACH RD 0 H SCHNEIOER t N H LEAP 0 N SCHNEIDER INN LEAF 7540 OLD REACH RO WAT/AIA Nil SS281 50 71-117-75 75 8827 87448 PHEASANT RO L R JERPRAX t L H JERPRAK LIOVO JERPRAK/LINDA JERPRAK 7bbB PHEASANT RD EXCELSIOR HN 55551 50 71-117-75 74 0851 87bb0 NAPLERIDCE LA X J YEACCR t J T YEACER KARL J I JULIE T YEACER 7887 HALSTEAD LA NOUNO NN 55544 TOTAL RATCH £12 ROOU REPORT NO. PI4SS4I1 PAGE 57 50 71-117-75 21 0RR8 07418 NAPLERIDCE LA PHILLIP J SHITH ETIAL PHILLIP J SHITH JINNIITR A PASIRtCX-SniTH .■i.lb HAmMIIM.1 LA iHtlLSlOR HN 55551 50 71-117-25 77 8007 07S10 OLD REACH RO KEITH C OLSON ETAL KEITH C OLSON 7518 OLD REACH ROAD WAVEATA HN 55J81 50 71-117-75 77 R810 07540 OLD REACH RO JAMES R KRCY JAHCS R XREY 7540 OLD REACH RD NAY7AIA HN SS581 5R 71-117-75 25 RR75 07455 SHAOYWOOO RD T J HADOEN t J H JOHNSON T J HADOtN t J n JOHNSON 2455 SHADVWOOO RO EXCELSIOR HN 55551 SO 71-117-75 74 8857 07478 HAPLERIDCE LA P I A LITTLE IV PHILIP IV t AHANOA S LITTLE 7470 HAPLERIDCE LA EXCELSIOR IM &SS51 <^S7^) 0/d X TO: C hair Maun and Urono Planning Commission Members Rt)n MiHir-ur. City Administrator FROM: W ends Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator Planner DATE: March 15.2001 SUBJECT: «0I*26«3 Richard Benson 776 Broun Road North Variance •• Public Hearing Zoniog Dblrici: Lot Area: Lbt of Eihibits l.R-1 A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre! 74.960 5 f. (1.72 acre) A Anal) sis Worksheet B Application C Site Plan/Suncy D Average Lakeshore Setback (l opographic Map I |£ llordcoser Calculations F Photos of Properly G Location Map H Properly Map I Permit Record J Properly Owner’s List Pertincnl Code Section: I. Section 10.22. Suhd. I (R)andSection 10.56.SuhJ. 16(C)(6): Average Lakeshore: Theave.agc lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakcward protrtisions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. To permit a var.ance to encroach 70* into the average lakeshore .setback. Application Summary : I'he applicants are proposing to replace the existing decks on the lakeside of the residence. Ihe decks arc old and deteriorating, Fhe new decks will be the same size and in the same location as the existing decks The applicants are not increasing structure or hardcover. The structural coverage on the lot will remain at 5.221 s.f. (6.7**/o). The hardcover amount in the 75’ - 250’ setback area will remain at 9.237 s.r (24.06%). The applicants seek approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. *OI-26Si RichurJ Btnson 776 Brown RoadS Vanance 6 ’5 2001 Pag* I SWwmf fffHfirrifhip: The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Considemtion ; 1. The decks have existed for many years in the locations of the proposed new decks. 2. Are any neighbors* views of the lake negatively impacted by replacement of the existing decks? 3. The house and decks were constructed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Iltere have not been any additions or changes to the residence since is was built in 1978. 4. Structural lot coverage and hardcover is not changing with replacement of the decks. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for average lakcshore setback. n0t~268S Richard Bemon 776 Brown RoadS Varianct6/5/200l Page 2 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area: LR-IA Lot Area Required 87.120 s.f. (2 acre) Actual 74.960 s.f. (1.72 acre) Hardcover Calculalionc Distance from shoreline Total area in sctl>ack Allowed hardcover Existing hardcoser Proposed hardcover 0-75'18.110 s.f.0 s.f. (0%) 196 s f (1.08%) 196 s.f (1.08%) No Change 75-250'38.390 s.f.9.598 s.f. (25%) 9.237 s.f (24.06*/o) 9.237 s.f (24 06%) No Change 250-500*18.460 s.f 5.538 s.f (30*o) 2.553 s.f (I3.83“i) 2.553 s.f (13 83%) No Change Stmcluitl Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 74.960 s.f (1.72 acres)Allowed: 11.244 s.f (15%) Existing: 5.221 s.f (6.7%) Proposed: 5.221 s.f (6.7%) No Change #2683 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE API Application # Ol' Date Rccehrd ^ -‘23^- c^i Amount Paid PLICATIONCITY OF ORONO - Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^-Vt» M AOAQ yJtdUe{ MV <6? ffe ♦ 5#41 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.I 1^ oOol Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. Date Acquired ___________________________^(raonth/year) f/UcT > I (do)(^o n^) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present um of property: residenti^ ___pother (specify) Zoning District:___________________________________ applicant Norn. Address: N htiintJhi G^Atb Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) 0^4 \ Citv: LoUd UUg Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone 0tome)_ Phone (work)_ Address:.City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S lOfOt^ Describe request in detail: lIlCKML ________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)________________ .Lot Co\'erageHardcover _ Rear Average Lakeshore IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) CERTrCATC or SURVEY FOR RtCK eCNSON or TRACT a RL^ NO t2/S MfACPM co^a<ty. mmcsota c Th« »«>«r *«>•• I** •* m itM atte**! i»>a- titt it» •! <»< k«m i»«a ««»». 'katcrx*' a •••« «(Y •• »«Ma • CROHEKtr-CRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. ISC ■r« %m M 3 vM i«4. m na$ Ml •««»•«• »> 4 » ««:• % • M* ua«» l«i «« •« # •« «M # «ra* Ml ^*Xi« < r^ia 1/n/c- 0’-l34 ' I HARDCOVER CALCULA1 lOiN WUKK5M±,tl' * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500'500-1000* sni/o/ E EXTSTINO HARDCONTR IN 70.NT A. House____________ L«n(Ui WidUl S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. B. Oarage C. Driveway S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck o.S S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric S.F. S.F. ’s.F. G. Other tota ;. hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ’ A _ __ _ _ _ - B _X 100 ISIIO f.oaVa S.F. S.F. f. PROPOSED HARn'. A. House rv ZONE Widih S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Of Fabric S.F. S.F» S.F. G. Other TOT^ t. HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ B a 100 • s.F. S.F. ' % StTBACK ZONE: (CmCLE ONE) 0-7S’ HARDCOVER CALCulAftu.N VVtlKlCb HP (T5-2Sj ) iMlEbl 250-500* EXISTING Ha RDCQ\TR fN 70NT A. Houie Wide* A X C >^£4. B. Carafe * C. Driveway SSy Z & -R- ^ D. -Si^ewefk E. Pati«/OMk F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOT..:. HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROF--TV AREA IN ZONE J2-21Z.- B X 100 - PROPOSED HARDCr ' ~K IN ZONE A. House B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________ * B X 100 - 500-1000' 2 5*0 % 75 9V37 .0££,K.. s.F. 5iv . s.F. P»€c,i1 S.F. SPtCL\AJAVi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. ©.r-r/Aftfrf s.F. S.F. 6T45r- SfOe S.F. ■ ’ , S.F. 2^.o€ S.F. SF. % 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. % i SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75‘ EXISTING HARDCOVER PC 70.NT A. Houic__________ HARDCOVER CALLbLA^?lul(^V^KlCbHh.fcl B. Cva|e C. ‘ Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pitio/Oeck F. Landscape Underlain By Pla: .c Or Fabric G. Other PROPOSED HAnnCOVER IN ZONT A. House _____________ B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . A____________ 7S-2S0‘ r250'.S00~*^500-1000* 31/ WKJlfl 0 5 /zoo o. r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ' - B X 100 /£4^0 VViddI '•■■gjfr. j-,' ■•■,100 A _____ "jT W-' f3.SS S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • a- S.F. s,p, S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. pooc. S.F. S.F.S^A'd S.F. T‘/Atg£0 S.F. S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. [S.F. S.F. ]S.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.* A " S.F. a "" % • ''"V C-. -• aJ >,.- • h;Ar> " *.>r V' '' ' .• ; t •■ oit r' r r L .i!L^ £ ^' * i ■ m ^^y\ ■. >».L«tev .1^1 '■ ^iiiimr . -.•4‘- >■ Alt I ' l:i aV- aiSij tiW tATA ---- cACM g Se riATom « Sys IlilBCIf »• \ii *0 0 THOAOt^ ■^’3 lAfO DIMA LA COUH lOAimWCM a* .>.*.mC ......••;SI! f .••*'** -«••••• i j f-v STkEET FILE *7~7A . A~)_ _ _^ PERMIT RECORD PERMIT WO. zno3- DATE /-:ys-~75? TYPE OF PERMIT inf=ld f/) ^-aS-78 nrierh^nirPil R-arsa ~^lhri uk? 5R\'o 9-y?-7g ------------- MM DATE 0i/2H/0l •ATCN Stl HLNNiriM COUNTV II < .i TV INrORNATION SVSTCH PROrCRTV OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PXASMRl PACE 1 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAVER NAHE/ADOR sa SA-ii8-:5 11 aon aa77a brown ro n R D BENSON I B A LUIKEKS BARBARA A LUIKCNS RICHARD B BENSON 77A BROWN RO N LONG LAKE MN (SSSw SB 3^-llS-2S 11 #882 88788 BROWN RO N DALE E LINDQUIST B WIFE DALE E LINDQUIST 788 BROWN ROAD LONG LAKE HN 5SSS8 58 S8-118-2S 11 8885 88838 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO DALE E LINDQUIST B WIFE DALE E LINDQUIST 788 BROWN ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55558 PROP AODR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAfIC/AOOR 58 58-118-2S 11 8888 88838 ADDRESS UNASSICNCD NARY L STEIL ET AL NARY L STEIL ET At 788 BROWN RO N LONG LAKE NN 5S3Sb 58 S8-1IB-2S 11 8887 88888 BROWN RO N VXD STEIN VICTOR N STEIN 888 BROWN RO N LONG LAKE NN 5S3S8 58 58-11B-25 12 8888 88778 BROWN RO N H B I NUTTER NEINZ F NUTTER 778 NORTH BROWN ROAD LONG LAKE HN 555S8 PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 38-118-25 12 8887 88888 BROWN RD N ERIC J LARSON ERIC J LARSON 888 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE NN 55358 TOTAL BATCH S8I 88087 #2683 I tINIIIV niAT nil lACir. HIl'iriMNIlD AML AN ACCUHAIL ANO TRUt REPRESENT*'ION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST or MV KNOWLEDGE ANO BELIEF. DAT M To: From: Date: Subject: Chair H uxsti and Planning Commissioners Michael I*. Gaffron. Planning DireclQi^^^lf^ June 14.2001 #01-2676 Bay wind Church • Amendment of B-4 District - Council Reque>: for Recommendation on Performance Standards Lbl of Exhibits A • Memo and Selected Exhibits of 6/6/01 B • Letter of 60-Day Review Extension C - Excerpts from ”Advanced Zoning Applications W’orkshop" rc: Conditional L'ses D - Excerpts from Cit> of Minnetonka Zoning Code E - Selected Maps of B-4 District Summary Bayw inds Church was successful in their request that the Council review this application on June 11 absent a formal Planning Commission recommendation. On June 11 Council reconxcr.eJ the public hearing begun at the Planning Commission, took public comments, and closed the hearing. After much discussion. Council voted 5-0 to conceptually approve the addition of "Churches" as a Conditional Use in the B-4 Office and Professional Business District, directing that the P'o.".ning Commission make a recommendation regarding appropriate performance standards for that use. and directing staff to bring back an Ordinance for adoption on June 25. Conditional Uses in General Please review Exhibit C for a quick refresher course on the do ‘s and don'ts of Conditional I .mts. The practical definition of a "conditional use" is a rvrmitted use to which reasonable condition? mav be attached based upon factual evidence contained in the public record . Approval of a Conditional Use Pemiit is essentially an administrative function, i.e. the review process is a formal confirmatton that the code-specified standards arc met. The CUP review prov ides an opportunity to place conditions on the use that will mitigate anticipated adverse impacts of the use. to protect the value of other property wiiliin the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Denial of a CUP for an allowed conditional use can only occur if it can be shown that the proposed use does not comply with the standards required in the Zoning Code. A CUP must be issued for the use. not for a particular user; the CUP runs with the land, and regardless of the owner, if the conditions are Kring met, the permit remains valid. Performance Standards A given conditional use may be deemed appropriate within a given zoning district onl> under specific conditions and when certain standai^s arc met. These specific perfonnanee standards are Ml-2676 9 4 Ancndmenl: Churches u a Coaditkmal Use J. .le 14. 2001 Paft2 in addition to the general performance standards to which all permitted uses in that district ore subject The specific performance standards must be incorporated directly into the Zoning Code entry for the conditional use. B-4 General Standards Within the B-4 District, general D-4 standards are in place that apply to oil D-4 uses, and include: - Minimum lot si/e of 20.000 s.f. - Minimum lot width of 100 feet - Minimum front yard (i.e. green space) of 20' - Minimum rear yard of 30' • Side driveway 12' min. width for access to rear y ard if no alley or side street access • Building setbacks; 35 ’ front. 35' rear. 15' side. 35 ’ side street, 35' from any lot line abutting an *R* District • Fence or compact evergreen hedge at least 6’ high and at least 50®/p opaque required along side or rear lot lines that abut an ‘R* District (but not required in front yard) - Maximum building height 2-1/2 stories or 30 feet except as provided in SectionlO.75 • Exterior wall finishes to be a) face brick, or b) natural stone, or c) specially designed precast units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or lexture. or d) factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are any of those in a), b) or c); other materials as approved by Council. - All subsequent additions and outbuildings must be architecturally comparable with the original architecture - No temporary buildings allowed except as needed during construction of permanent buildings Drainage Plans must be in accordance with City and other agency requirements Certain general standards that apply to all zoning districts and to certain classes of lots will have an impact in the B-4 district, such as hardcover in the Shorcland zones, or 15% lot coverage for all lots less than 2.0 acres in area. For most of the undeveloped B-4 sites along the southwest side of Shady wood Road, only the back half of the lots arc in the Shorcland district, and subject to a 35% hardcover limit; the front half of these lots has no limit under current code. In Minnetonka, hordsurface for churches is limited to 70**/a of the site. Specific Church Impacts \kliat potential impacts of churches in B-4 may require special conditions? The conditional use listing for churches in Residential ‘R’ Districts includes merely a definition (that church use includes "those related structures located on the some site which ore on integral port of the church proper. ; ? U r (HII-2676 D-4 Amend neat: Churclics at a Conditional Um Jane 14.2001 PateJ convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site") and a specific condition related to location ("provided that no building other than a residence shall be located within 50 feet of any abutting lot line in an ‘R’ district"). Thea* arc no other specific standards for a church in an R District, hence the general underlying ‘R’ District standards would apply in terms of lot area, width, setbacks, hardcover in Shoreland area.s, etc. 1 he church would also be subject to the general performance standards that apply to all uses and properties in the City. Impacts on Adjacent Residential Uses . The impacts on an adjacent residential neighborhood created by a church in the B*4 District arc probably no dilTerent than if the Church w as in on ‘R’ district. Therefore, Ike same 50* strudurat setback for any building other than a residence, should appfy. Since the City places no other restrictions on churches in *R* districts that pertain to impacts on adjoining residential neighborhoods, it would perhaps be arbitraiy to create any new 'residential impact* standards in the B-4 church use without also adding them to the *R* District church use standards. However, the impacts of parking lots serving conditional uses in residential zones is not dealt with adequately in the zoning code, and a greater setback should be required as will be discussed below. Impact on Adjacent Commercial Dses . In terms of protecting adjoining property values, the Commission should consider whether adjacent commercially zoned property in the B-4 District will be impacted as to value if a church is located on a B-4 site. Orono’s B-4 zone is very small, comprising only 1 1 ta.x parcels and a total of about 17 acres. If the development of a church in the middle of other developable parcels makes the comprehensive future development of a larger combination of B-4 sites less fea.sible, some value might be lost, but this is only speculative. There has been some concern raised by the Planning Commission that churches ore a use that tends to grow and e.xpand. The commission may wish to consider whether or how such e.xponsion should be limited. Will expansion of a single church use to multiple properties in B-4. or development of more titan one church in B-4. be in conflict with City goals or tend to impact property values? A somewhat related topic is the lack of tax revenue to pay for public services provided to property used by tox-e.xempt organizations. The City has no ordinance requiring a Payment in '.ieu of Taxes for such uses, although such uses ore provided with public serv ices. It may be appropriate to request such a payment on an annual basis, but this should apply to all churches, not necessarily just those in a B-4 zone. In reviewing other conditional uses in the B-4 zone, few specific perfomiance standards are currently in place. The "Nursing Homes, Hospitals" conditional use. which also includes rest homes or retirement homes, requires 600 s.f. of lot area for each person intended to be accommodated, and requires a 35' setback from the side lot line. There arc no specific standards listed for schools, research centers. vctcrinar>’ clinics or kennels, libraries, museums or galleries in the B-4 zone. Restaurants are limited to those w iihin and mainly serving on office building (i.e. an office cafeteria) and there con be no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. ^ MI-2676 IM Amendment: Churches as a Conditional Use June 14.2001 Pate 4 Parking. TrafTic Impacts. The issue of greatest concern to Ihc Planning Commission and Council regarding churches in B-4 has been parking and pedestrian safety. Any use allowed in B-4 should be required to provide adequate parking on site, or on adjacent property. No B-4 use should be approved that inherently requires pedestrian crossings of major roads at uncontrolled intersections. Orono Zoning Code Section 10.61 establishes parking requirements (number, size, UKation, design, maintenance, etc.) for all districts and uses. Church parking requirements are based on the design seating capacity of the main assembly hall, requiring 1 parking space per 4 seats per Orono Zoning Code. However, it has been suggested lliat this is an outmoded number, since family sizes have decreased significantly since the Orono code was adopted (this section dales back to at least 1967). In fact, the City of Niinnetonka uses 2.5 seals per parking space for churches (the 2000 census indicates Orono households currently contain an average of 2.7 persons). A typical assembly hall has seating at a ratio of around I seat per 10 square feet; a 3,000 s.f. assembly hall would have a capacity of around 300 people, requiring 75 parking spaces per Orono Code or 120 spaces by Minnetonka code. By contrast, a 3.000 s.f. olTice building would require only one space per 200 s.f net floor area, or no more than 15 parking spaces for the same size building. The church use will inherently require larger parking lots, and this may become critical in the existing B-4 areas which are partially in the Shoreland and subject to hardcover limits Traffic impacts to avoid include routing traffic on local residential streets. While only one property in the existing B-4 District abuts a local residential street, it may be appropriate to require that churches w ith potential access onto both local streets and collector or arterial roadways, must not access to the local street. Note that we currently have 8 church properties in Orono. and 3 of the 8 access to local streets (Glendale Drive; Togo Rood; Dunwoody Avenue) with the other 5 accessing onto collectors or arterials iNorth Femdale; Co. Rd. 6; Co. Rd. 84; Shoreline Drive; Highway 12) Parking location impacts on adjacent residential properties should be minimized. Orono code (10.61 Subd. 5 A, B) allows B-4 parking to within 10 feet of a residential lot line adjoining the B-4 rear yard. Church parking in the R Districts under current code could be as close os 10' to a side lot line and 3' from a rear lot line abutting a residential property. This may be too close to protect adjacent residential neighbors; Minnetonka requires a 25' setback from residential property for church parking regardless of zoning district. SiaiT recommends a 25' rear yard setback for parking for a church (and other similar B-4 uses) when that parking abuts a residentially zone property. This would also require a change in the ”R" District conditional use standards... Use of Existing Buildings vs. New Construction Perhaps worthy of discussion is whether there is a difference between a church moving into and remodeling on existing building (which may or may not meet B-4 general standards or B-4 church standards for setbacks, etc) and a church constructing a new building on a B-4 site. Should there be relaxed standards for the use in an existing building? MOI-2476 B-4 AMtndincnl: Churchn ai a Coadilional Um Jmm 14.2001 Pat* 5 Consbtenc)’ with Comprehensive Plan It has been suggested that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan may be in order if churches arc allowed in B-4 zones, since Uiis amendment introduces an institution^ use into a commercially planned area. Since Orono has never had an "Institutional District" zoning classification, and since schools, libraries and museums could all be considered institutional uses that have been allowed in the B-4 since its inception, it can be argued that this is not a change in the intent of the B-4 District and therefore probably docs not rise to the level of requiring a CMP amendment. SiafT Recommendatioii Consider recommending the following specific performance standards for the Church use in the B-4 District: I. All buildings shall meet a setback of 50* from lot lines abutting a rcsidcntially zoned property. The applicant shall demonstrate that parking requirements for the c.xpected level of use will be met without necessitating pedestrian movement across a major thoroughfare. Churches shall be IiKated on a collector or arterial roadway as identified in the Orono ComprehensiN e Plan or otherw ise located so that access w ill be provided w ithout conducting significant tralTic onto local residential streets. (An allcmalive is to require that if a church property abuts both a local residential street and a collector or arterial roadway, the access shall be onto the collector or arterial). 4. 5. Parking areas in side or rear yards shall be .set back 25 feel from residenlially zoned property. One parking space shall be provided for each 2.5 seals of capacity in the main assembls hall or sanctuars'. with additional parking required per the standards of the Zoning Chapter for other facilities such as classrooms, licensed day care facilities or offices. 6. (Any additional standards that Planning Commission deems appropriate). Also consider whether the entry should be listed as "Religious Institutions and Facilities", rather than simply "Churches". A number of other cities use this terminology. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Dale: June 6.2001 Hem No.: ^ Department Approval: Kame: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Adminiilrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Detcriplion: *^01-2676 Baywind Chrisiian Church - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment: Add “Churches*' to l ist of B-4 Conditional Uses Atlachmcnta A - Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 21.2001 B - Planning Commission Comments Compilation C - Additional SialTComments re; Church Use in B*4 D - Staf!' Memo & Fxhibits of 5/1 6/0 1 E-Staff Memo of 5/24/01 On May 29. Council agreed to consider the Baywind application on June 11 absent further Planning Commission re\ iew. directing staft'to pi>ll the Commission and compile the individual comments. Individual Planning Conunission comments are included in Exhibit B. Stall's May 1 6 memo (Exhibit D) is still applicable for Council's rcN iew. Additional stalTcomments responding to some of liic issues raised by Planning Commissioners ore included in Exhibit C in a Question/Answer format. Hearing Process The Planning Commission did not fomullx close the public hearing on May 21; the Council's review should include an opportunity for public comments. The hearing notice has not K*en re published. However, staff believes that the members of the public present on May 21 were advised of the request for and potential for review by Council on June II, hence we do not believe the hearing process is Hawed. You may wish to ask the City Attorney for his opinion. Performance Standards If “Churches" is added to the list of allowed conditional uses in the B-4 /one. it would be appropriate to consider what specific performance standards should be required to obtain that use in order to minimize any negatix e impacts that might accompany that use. An option would be to send this back to Planning Commission for further study of performance standards if Council chooses to conceptually approve adding the use to B-4. «01-2676 Bay\%ind Church Request for B-4 Amendment Jume 6,2001 Page 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the attached exhibits, and determine whether the B-4 District should be amended to include “Churches ” as a conditional use; if so, provide staff with direction as to what specific performance standards should be required in order for an applicant to obtain that use, or refer the matter back to Planning Commission for further review. iiju^ i Planning Commissioner Comments Jan Berg: - Concern about potential for expansion within and outside of site... - Parking is a primar> safety issue - any expectation that a use will require its users to walk across a Count) Road, especially where there is no controlled intersection, is not good... - Doesn ’t want adjacent B-4 properties to become parking lots for the church use... - Would prefer that the highly underutilized area zoned B-4 be used for townhomes. which would be more compatible with existing adjacent single-family rcsidential development... Dan Kluth: - Feels that PC’s consensus at May meeting would have been to table if quorum had a*mained. to give PC and staff a chance to further explore the potential impacts of a chuah use in B-4; i.c. compare the standards for churchc*s in R- Districts w ith those of the B-4. - .Also concerned .ibout safely and the future impacts on the B-4 District if chuahes arc allowed. Bill Stoddard: - B-4 is intended primarily for Office/Professional uses that operate 9-5 weekdays and are shut down on evenings and weekends, and as such is a good fit adjacent to asidenlial .'ones. The chuah use is just the opposite, operating on evenings and weekends.. .perhaps some of the other conditional uses allowed in the B-4 District don ’t make sense except in a setting where there is much more land available. - Parking is an issue of concern, along with the potential for expansion to adjoining properties... • Should the City allow tax-exempt entities in the high-value B-4 district? Would it be better to expc*ct that churches inhabit lower-value residential real estate that will not have such a tax loss impact? Jeanne Mabusth: • The Church use is inconsistent with the B-4 district • The performance standards of B-4 do not match the requirements we place on churches in residential zones - This is one more example of the City being askc*d to respond to individual requests to tweak the Navarre area zoning without having completed a comprehensive land use study of the area... - Adding churches to B-4 probably should be the subject of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; it could be construed that the request is simply a method of gaining a zoning v ariance, which is not allowed... - Considering the nature and and location of our B-4 District, allowing a church use there has the potential to deter the comprehensive future development of the B-4... Sandra Smith: Liz Hawti: Dale Lindquist: (No commenu receiv ed as of press time) m s Planning Commissioner Comments Jan Berg: - Concern about potential for expansion within and outside of site... • Parking is a primar>- safety issue - any expectation that a use will require its users to walk across a County Road, especially where then: is no controlled intersection, is not good... - Doesn ’t want adjacent B-4 properties to become parking lots for the church use... • Would prefer that the highly underutilized area zoned IM be used for townhomes. which would be more compatible with existing adjacent single-family residential development... Dan Kluth: • Keels that PC’s consensus at May meeting w ould have been to table if quorum had remained, to give PC and stafl’a chance to further explore the potential impacts of a church use in B-4; i.e. compare the standards for churches in R- Districts w ith those of the B-4 - Also concerned about safety and the future impacts on the B-4 District if churches arc allowed. Bill Stoddard: - B-4 is intended primarily for OtTice/Professional uses that operate 9-5 weekdays and arc shut down on evenings and weekends, and as such is a good fit adjacent to residcmtial zones. The church use is just the opposite, operating on evenings and weekends, perhaps some of the other conditional uses allowed in the B-4 District don't make sense except in a setting where there is much more land available. • Parking is an issue of concern, along w ith the potential for expansion to adjoining properties... - Should the City allow tax-exempt entities in the high-value B-4 district? Would it be better to expect that churches inhabit lower-value residential real estate that will not have such a tax loss impact? Jeantte .Mabusih; - The Church use is inconsistent with the B-4 district - 1 he performance standards of B-4 do not match the requirements we place on churches in residential zones - This is one more e.xample of the City being asked to respond to individual requests to tweak the Navarre area zoning without hav ing completed a comprehensive land use study of the area... - .Adding churches to B-4 probably should be the subjc*ct of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; it could be construed that the request is simply a method of gaining a zoning v ariance, which is not allowed... - Considering the nature and and location of our B-4 District, allowing a church use there has the poiciuial to deter the comprehensive future development of the B-4... Sandra Smith: Liz Hawn: Dole Lindquist: (No comments received as of press time) O' Additional Staff Comments re: #01-2676 Baynind B-4 Proposal Questioof/Answers Q. Historically, vhy were churches allowed in all of our residential /ones but not in any commercial? A. We don't know for sure; the zoning may Iuinc reflected what existed at the time; the first Orono zoning code reference to "churches" as a use appears in the 1%7 cinle. which makes churches a CUP in residential zones and not allowed in ctmimercial or industrial. Q. Wljere do other cities allow churches? A. The two t> pical scenarios are; 1. In Sinji'e l amily Residential districts as a conditional use. such as occurs in Orono; 2. In an Institutional District tlut would include churches, schin^ls. museutns. libraries, clinics, nursing homes, rest homes, and municipal facilities such as administrative ofTices. essential ser\ ices such as public works police and fire, and parks'plas grounds, etc.; .According to Consulting Planner John Shardlow. churches are not commonly allowed .as a peniiitted or conditional use in commercial zones. Some cities do allow churches in neighborhood-oriented business districts, or even in light industrial districts, given the propensitN for some churches to become extremelv massive operations...in other words, it's all over the board... Compare contrast the standards for a church use in "R" districts as. if allowed m tlte B-4. .mpu/ed to the standards A. A church in the"R" districts is inherently subject to the same standards as a residence; the onlv special CUP standards in elTect are listed as follows: "Churches including those related structures located on the same site which arc an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within 50 feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an R District". The B-4 standards relate primarily to the intent and location of the B-4 district: "...intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative otTicc buildings and related ofllces. The office uses allowed in this di.strict are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merch.indise to the general public...". The B-4 standards provide for screening from adjacent residential uses, as well as slightly greater setbacks where adjacent to residential properties (example; 35 ’ rather than 30 ’ to rear lot line), and standards for exterior wall finishes The difTerence in Cily standards between the "R" and "B-4” districts is actually relative!) minor. Ihe minimum lot size in B4 is 20.000 s.f. (about'/: acre), although most of our B-4 abuts the LR-IB. I-acre zone. The lot coverage standard would apply to an> B-4 lot less than 2 acres in area. Hardcover limits would appl> in B-4 identical to those in R districts. Most of the B-4 district is either within 500-1000’ of Lake Minnetonka (35® i hardcover allowed) or is further than 1000’ (no hardcover limit). The last new structure built in B-4 was the Casco Run oRice building in 1 981 ; the ReMa.\ building that i 'ay w ind Church wants to acquire was built in 1969 witli additions in 1978. A. How docs the church use compare with other B-4 pcmiitied or conditional uses in regard to potential neighborhood impacts? Pennitted uses are municipal buildings, ofllces, clinics, banks and insurance offices. All these arc primarily daytime uses, with little or no activity in the evenings or weekends. The church use occurs primarily on weekends and evenings, so it h;is potentially different limes of traffic activity than would be the nonn for the B-J. Conditional uses in B-4 include many of the types of uses that would be considered as "Institutional" and which in some instances may be open on weekends or evenings (nursing homes, hospitals, libraries, museums, galleries) as well as during normal business hours. Churches tend to have "e\ ent" activity (regular ser\ ices, weddings, funerals, etc.) rather than a day-long distribution of traffic typical of the other B-4 uses. This can create traOic impacts that other B-4 uses are less likely to create. I'oi instance, it adds the potential for ofT-sitc parking needs A .3.00 • i.f.. 300-seai assembly hall would require 75 parking stalls per Orono code; the same si/e 3.000 s.f. ofllce building would require 15 stalls. The impacts of a church use on the adjoining neighborhotnl w ill be the added noise, glare, and congestion from \ chicles during certain times when the office use would have little such actis ity. The potential for pedestrian traffic across a major thoroughfare is a second potential impact in the B-4. since all Orono properties currentKThistorically zoned B-4 abut a major thoroughfare. 2‘.is is only .significant if the intended overflow parking is across that thon>ughfare. Staff is \er> concerned about allowing a church on a site that docs not have sufllcient parking, particularly if the additional parking is to be located across a busy county highway. (Related to the RcMa.\ site, not specifically to the B-4 amendment) Does the proposed church use require the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system in the building? Lyle Oman has briefly reviewed the proposal and believes the building would not have to be sprinkled. i Appikatioa Date: 4/18/01 Deadliae: 6/17/01 TO: Chair ilaun and Orono Planning Commissitm Members Ron Mouim;. City Admini:>lrator FROM: Paul Weinberger. Zoning AdministraiorTlanner DATE: Ma> 16.2001 SLUJECT: «0l-2676 Franklin J. SvoK>dn Dayuind Christian Church Zoning Code Amendment to B-4 Standards Section 10.43 • Add Churches to list of Conditional Uses b 4'L-o/ Ust of EibibiU: A Application U Applicant s Letter of Request C Legal Inscription Property Ouner I) Plat Map (2477 Shad> wood Road) F Nasane Plat Map F Navarre Zoning Map G Propen, Owners Notification List II ApplicUiion Supplement (Packet from Bay wind Church) Sumnur)' of RequrM: Franklin J. S\ oboda. owner of property located at 2477 Shadywood Road, has requested 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. The 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 use. This particular request is for the amendment to the B-4 district. Should the City approve the amendment, a conditional use permit application would be required to consider the Bay w ind proposal for the use of this site for a church use Pfiiincnl Code Secliun/Standards SI C. 10 4.3 Ol FICi: AND PROII SSIONAL BUSINI-SS DISTRICT. Subd. I. Purptvse. The "B-4** Office and Professional Business is intended to rj jvide a district which is related to and may ’’djoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district arc those in vvhich there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. •fli 267ft SuOiudi Cluiuun (. )uifch /tMM| Coik AmctiOmaM hi il-4 SunOardi Page I ol 5 Subd. 2. Applicalion. All applica:;ons fcr a building pcrmil in any "B-4" Office and Professional District shall be reviewed b> the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Pennitted Uses. V ithin ar.;. ’’U-4 * Oftlce and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used c.xcept for cr.e or more of the follow ing uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipa: buildings where the use conducted is cusionurily considered to be an olllce use. B. Oflices. Professional olTices ani offices of the general nature. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care cr. an out* patient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Cunditiunal Uses. Within 'J-.e "B-d ” Office and Professional Business District no structure or land shall be used for the follow-.ng uses except by conditional use perntit: A. Nursing Homes. Hospitals. Nury.nu homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes. pro\ ideJ the site shall contain not I^*^ than 600 square feel of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no building re hH:a:ed less than 35 feet from the side lot line. B. Schools. Private academies, schccis. trade schools, colleges and uni\ ersities for teaching. C. Research Centers. P. Veterinary Clinics hospitals, clinic or kennels. E. Libraries. F. Museums. G. Cialleries. Etc. Historical huild:r ;>. museums, art institutes, galleries and pla\hou>es H. Restaurants (Class I). Restaur-.'-^ which are located within and mainly ser\icing an office building providing there is r. . utside display or advertising of the restaurant use. I. Parkine OIT-street parking when ‘..' c principal site of the off-strect parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "T Distr..: and is in the same ownership as the land in the- "B" or T District and subject to those c» * istions un set forth in Section 10.61. Subdiv ision 4 and other such conditions as found nece* arv b> the Council. J. Public Services. Public service 'tructuro. including, but not limiied to. electrical transmission lines and_ buildings s.:h as telephone exchange stations. Kvoster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift statiuiL- ^id electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Professicri! Busi.'’.ess District, permitted accessory uses: Within anv "B-4" Office and the fc\ .nvine u>es shall be any accessory use as regulated in the "B-r ' Subd. 6. Area. Height. Lot Width, Yrd. Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size sha! be 20.000 square feet. •0|.;676 tfinUin I C hnaun I hui.;h Ztfnmi Cu«k AmenCiiKiu lu B-4 Sumlvds P«|c 2 or » B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front > ard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard sliall be 30 feet and unless the rear > ard has access from a public street or- alley, a side drixeway of 12 feel shall be pro\ ided to assure access. E. Setback Requirements. No building sliall be nearer than 35 feet to any from loi line. 35 feet to any rear lot line. 15 feel to any side lot line. 35 feet to any side lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "D-4" Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50® o opaque nor less than six feet in height (no le>s than three feet nor higher than fi>ur feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. 10.40, Subdivision 6. Subparagraph G. II. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permiMed that results in water runotTcausing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council ar.J those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council lor approval. Such runoff ntay K* requi- *1 to Kr proper!) channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or «uner public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent propertv or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and .subject to the approval of other agencies having juri.sdiciion over the aroa affc'cted by the drainage. I. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. Purpose and Intent of B-4 District The "B-4" Office and Professional Business Is Intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other busine-ss districts for the location of administratix e office buildings and related otTices. The otTice 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. arc located adjacent to r».jidcntial properties. Please refer to I'xhibii •0IO676 (rjnMuiJ Stotiodi lla\»in«l Otfiviun Chktfch /.<oMf Co<k AmcfHlmtni u> B-4 Simdarib P««c 3 ur 5 F. zoning map of Na\ arrc. B-4 is Ihe only district that is available that would havr olllcc use as the primary intent of the district. Only two areas are zoned as B-4. The areas arc along Shad>wood Road (C R. 19) s«ujih of the Shoreline Drive (C.R.15) intersection, developed properties arc the Navarre Bank. Tonkawest Onice.s (Svoboia property) and freshwater Center office building. The Casco Run Oflucs on Shoreline Drive arc also zoned B-4. All properties in the B-4 district arc cither in a general office use or undeveloped. Hte undeveloped properties arc adjacent to the Svobota site. The Svobota office building (known commonly as the former Remax building) could accommodate a church use. However, it is one of only a few olVice buildings in the City. If the property were to redevelop into a church building the future ability ol the site for office use would be limited at best. Likely, the site would have to be redeveloped to revert back to oflice use. The adjacent vacant land and Svobota property has the potential to redevelop as a planned office development. A church building on the property could prevent future redevelopment of the site with the adjacent properties as demand for office space in the Navarre area increa-ses. Use of Existing Buildings for a Church I'sc I he Bay vv ind Christian Church has used space within the Freshwater Building in the past as a tenant. It is not known if other churches have usc*d other buildings in the district have used space for the proposed use. I he church use would not nomvally conflict with other uses in the office buildings. Ty pically. churches see the heaviest use during evenings and weekends. Parking and demand for other building amenities would not compete during weekday business hours. CUP Standards Churches arc only allowed by a conditional use permit within "R" districts. Tliey are allowed per the following: "Churches including those related structures located on tlic same site which are an integral part of the church proper, conv ents or homes' for persons related to a religious function on the same site prov ided no building otlier than a residence shall be located within fifty feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District." (Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 (B)). Other standards that apply to churches: Parkine One space for each four seats in the main assembly liall. Siens The B-4 district allows four square feet for each front .foot of building md an additional one square foot for each front fool of the lot not occupied by a building. No individual sign con exceed SO square feet. The height for signs in the district allows a sign to extend two feel above the highiest outside wall of the principal building. A church use in a "R" district would allow one sign not to e.xceed 12 square feet per surface. •01-2676 Franilin) S^oboda ClHitUOT Cbitfch ZoAint Code AracndmcM la B-4 Suodard* 4 or f i No other standards arc listed as 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 an appropriate use in the B-4 district. Those conditions can apply to such items as, lighting, lighting, landscaping, hours of operation, how church can use an existing building (i.e. percentage of ofTice 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 are protected. Issues for Discussion 1.Is the B-4 office district 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 the limited otTice areas of the City? 3. 4. Are 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 ma> restrict the City from providing for an increased demand in office space in Navarre? Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should review the application in terms of the follow ing: • Potential impacts on properties .adjacent to B-4 districts (visual, noise. tralTic, landscaping. general site plan issues) • Conditions that would apply to church uses in the B-4 distnet. • Future olTice planned development concerns, need for future office space in Navarre. • Churches os primarv tenants or owners of buildings. Options for Action i.Recommend approval 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 reasons. Table for further information. ■UI>2676 IrjniliiiJ StoSt.'iU Ui>Min<l OuiuiJHi caturch /onuis CoJc Amtitdmtml k> B-i SUiia»di Pact 5 of 5 t'o ^04. A GITYoT ORONO Municipal Offices StMtIMresj: 2750 Kelley Perkwey OroM. MN 55356 Mdrtti: P 0 Boi 66 Ciy^tal Bey. MN 553230066 June 14. 2001 HAND DELIVERED 6-14-01 Pastor Hclmor Hcckd Baywind Christian Church 2477 Shady wood Road Excelsior. MN 55331 Re: File /iOI-2676 Baywind Church Request for Antendment of D*4 District Notice of Council Action / Review Period Extension Dear Pastor 1 Icckel: On June 1 1, 2001 the Orono City Council voted 5-0 to conceptually approve the inclusion of "Churches" as a Conditional Use in the D-4 Office and Professional Business District Hie Council directed that the Planning Commission consider this matter at their June 18 meeting and make a recommendation regarding appropriate performance standards for such use in the B-4 District. Council further directed that this item be brought back to Council in the fomi of an ordinance amendment for adoption at the June 25 Council meeting. The Planning Commission meeting will be held on Monday. June 18 at 6:30 p.m. Item 1^01-2676 is scheduled to be the third item on that agenda, so I expect review will commence shortly after 6:30.p.m. Minnesota Statutes require that applications requiring certain land use decisions be acted upon by local government bodies w ithin 60 days of receipt of the application. Statutes also allow the City to extend the review period an additional 60 days when the Council will not be taking action within the 60 day period. Application #101-2676 was received on April 18. 2001 and the initial 60-day review period ends June 1 7. 2001 . Because the City Council will not be able to take action on the final ordinance ordinance until June 25 at the earliest, you arc hereby advised that the city is extending the official review period an additional 60 days to August 16.2001 . If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely. Michael P. Gdffron Planning Director TekptMMc (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 www.d.oronojnn.us F. A subdivision may be denied if it fails to meet the performance standards in the ordinance, even if those performance standards are very discretionary in nature. Swanson v. City of Bloominpon. 421 N.W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988). The City must approve a subdivision that complies with the subdivision ordinance. National Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights . 222 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 1974). The stanite provides that the subdivision regulations may require that any subdivision creating parcels be planed and that the regulations must require planing in subdivisions which create five or more lots which are 2-1/2 acres or less in size. Plats should conform with the requirements of Chapter 505 of Minneso'^a Statutes. In a municipality where subdivision regulations are in effect and have been recorded, no conveyance to which the regulations are applicable may be filed or recorded if the land is described by metes and bounds or by reference to a registered land survey or plat not approved by the municipality, except for cenain exceptions noted in the statute. There are financial penalties imposed on the seller for failure to comply anddr failure to inform a buyer (in the purchase agreement) of such property of the need to comply. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, Subd. 4 a. Permitted Use. Conditional Use Permits. In order for a use to be allowed in a specific zone or use district, it must be listed in the zoning ordinance as either a peimined or conditional use. or be similar enough >o such a listed use so as to be included by city staff, planning commission, or council interpretation or by application of common sense. See Frank’s Nursery Sales Inc, v. City of Roseville. 296 N.W.2d 605 (Minn. 1980), Farmington Township v. High Plains Cooperative. 460 N.W.2d 56 (Minn. App. 1990). If the use is not so listed as a peimined or conditional use. it is not allowed and the statute prohibits the granting of a variance for it. Minn. Stat. § 462.357 subd. 6. If the use is a peimined use. the property owner can usually develop the propeny for such a use upon filing of an application for a.building permit with plans show ing compliance with the state building code and the performance standards in the zoning code. In the cjbw* of a permitted use, there is normally no review by the planning commission or city council and if all of the listed performance standards are met. the building permit must be issued 490WBOM 49010 BDM Minn. Sun. § 462.3595. suM. 1. provides: The gov erning body may by ordinance designate certain t>T)es of developments, including planned unit developments, and certain land development activities as conditional uses under the zoning regulations. Conditional uses may be approved by the governing bodv or other designated authority by a showing by the applicant that the standards criteria stated in the ordinance will be satisfied. The standards and criteria shall include both general requirements for all conditional uses, and insofar as practicable, requirements specific to each designated conditional use. Supreme Court in the case of Chanhassen Estate Rcsideni? Vr ClW-fif 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984) held: When a city designates a specific use as permissible in a panicular zone or district, the City has exercised its discretion and determined that the permitted use is consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare and consonant with the goals of its comprehensive plan. Until the district is rezoned or the zoning ordinance is either amended or successfully challenged, that determination is conclusive. A special use is the same as a conditional use in Minnesota. r^p«mction Cnmnanv V Ci*v of Rloomineton. 292 Minn. 374. 195 N.W.2d 558 (Minn. 1972). Such additional standards arc listed in the zoning code and normally include Uie effect of the use upon the health, safet)*. morals, and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, the effect on utility and school capacities, the effect on property values in the surrounding area, and the effect on the comprehensive plan. The standards vary from city to city. Some liii. ordinances are drafted by the city to impose almost impossible tests that the applicant must meet. You should not assume that a unique and onerous test is necessarily a valid one. You should review the case law to determine which tests may not be legal and so argue to the city and reviewing court. This is especially true if the standards are those which have already been addressed in state law. Usually, state law standards preempt the right of the city to adopt similar standards on the same subject. Welsh v. City of Orono 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1984.); NSP v. City of Granite Falls 463 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. App. 1990), review denied; Crooks Township v ValAd Cn 504 N.W.2d 267 (Minn. App. 1993); Canadian Conneaion v. New Prairie J p 581 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. App. 1998). review denied. The city will frequently seek to impose off-site conditions of approval such as right of way dedications, road upgrading, etc. These special type of conditions are frequently found to be illeg^. especially in other sutes, and the validity of each such proposed special condition should be legally researched based upon the facts of the each r‘»sc. Frequently, the applicant agrees to such conditions to ensure approval, and eliminate the need for costly litigation and delay. As can be expected with such subjective performance standards, there have been numerous judicial decisions relating to the validity and interpretation of such standards. See annotations to Minn. Siat. §462.3595. The city council may grant a variance to the listed performance standards based upon the standards for the granting of a variance listed in the zoning ordinance. In the event that the use requested is neither a permined nor conditional use in the zone or use district, the applicant can apply for a rezoning to a zone or use district in which it is a permitted or conditional use or request that the city amend its zoning ordinance to allow the use as a permitted or conditional use in the zoning or use district where the property' is located. If the development of the property requires a subdivision of the property, then the applicant must also comply with the subdivision ordinance. Minn. Stat. § 462.3595. subd. 4 requires that the conditional use permit be filed by the City with the county recorder or registrar of titles in order to place subsequent buyers on notice. The general legal principles apphed on appeal of a conditional use permit are as follows: 40010 BD.M 1 . The granting of a conditional/spccial use pcmiit is a quasi-judicial determination. 2. Standard of review is the same as a rezoning: is the zoning auihorii>'s action reasonable, is there a rational basis for the decision? However, in the granting or denying of a special or conditional use permit, the inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning authorit> is applying specific use standards set by the zoning ordinance: In other words, in legislative zoning, the municipal body is formulating ^ blic policy, so the inquiry focuses on whether Lhe proposed use promotes the public welfare. In quasi-judicial zoning, public policy has already been established and the inquiry focuses on whether the proposed use is contrary to the general welfare as already established in the zoning ordinance. Consequently, the reviewing courts, in determining what is reasonable, should keep in mind that the zoning authority is less circumscribed by judicial oversight when it considers zoning or rezoning than when it considers a special permit or a variance. Hnnn v City of Coon Raoids. 313 N.W.?d 409 (Minn. 1981) at 417. See also f^yper America Group. Inc, v. CiO’ Pf Liflle Canada. 539 N.W. 2d 264 (Minn. App. 1995). review denied; SL_CI212 nevelonmeni Inc v Citv' of Annie Vallev. 446 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. App. 1989). pet. for rev. denied; Nonhoointe Plaza v. Cit\_of Rochester. 465 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1992). Rezoning is lujislative in nature. A conditional use permit is quasi-judicial in nature. 3. Denial of a special use permit is arbitrary if it is esublished that all standards specified by the ordinance as a condition of granting the permit have been met. Hav v. Township of Grow. 206 N.W.2d 19 (1973): 7vlka V. Citv of Crv'Stal. 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). 490WBDM 4. A conditional use permit may be denied on the basis that it is in conflict with the comprehensive plan. Hubbard Broadcasting. Inc, v. City of Afton. 323 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. J982); BBY Investors v. Citv of Maplewood. 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. App. 1991). 5. Where no standards are provided in the ordinance, the decision on the application should be accompanied by fmdings of fact specifying reasoning on which decision was based. If no findings are made, a prima facie case of arbitrariness is established. Zvika v. Citv of Crystal . 167 N.W.2d 45 (Minn. 1969). 6. The reviewing coun will assess the legal sufficiency of the reasons given by the cit>' and determine whether, if legally sufficient, they had a facnial basis in the record. Trisko v. Citv of Waite Park. 566 N.W.2d 349 (Minn. App. 1997). review denied; C.R. Investments. Inc, v. Village of Shoreview. 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). 7. The appellate courts will review the decision of the cit>* council independent of the fmdings and conclusions of the district court. Northwestern College v. Citv of Arden Hills. 218 N.W.2d 865 (Miim. 1979). G. Variances. A variance permits a particular propeny to be used in a manner oiherw ise forbidden by the ordinance by varying one or more of the performance standards of the ordinance, such as lot area, setbacks, lot width or depth. Zvika V. Citv ofCr\stal. 283 Minn. 192. 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969). There is a statutorv- test of "undue hardship" which must be met. Miim. Stal. § 462.357. subd. 6(2) states: Undue hardship . . . means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofrlcial controls, the plight of the landow ner is due to circumsunces unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This test was liberally construed on behalf of the applicant in Rowell v. Board of Ad|U5tment. 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. App. 1989) and in Saystetter v. Citv of St. Paul. 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1995). Most public planning staff, planning commissions and governing l^ies still believe that the government may only legally grant variances if a very narrow and difficult test is met by the 490MBOM C'2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Communities frequently misunderstand both the level and the nature of the discretion that they have in the review of conditional use permits They often treat their review as though they were legislative approvals like a rezoning. rather than the administrative decisions that they are rONDITIONAl. rSE PERMIT nFFINITION STANDARDS ORDINANCE DEFINITION The following is a good example of an ordinance definition and the standards for its approval (A) ijMli Purpose. “Conditional use” means a land use or development as defined by ordinance that would not be appropriate generally but may be allowed with appropriate restrictions as provided by official controls upon a finding that 1) certain conditions as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance exist. 2) the use or development conforms to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City and 3) is compatible with the existing neighborhood Application. Public Hearing. Notice and Procedure The application, public heariig. public notice and procedure requirements for conditional use permits shall be the same as those for amendments as provided in Section 10-5-6 of this Chapter, except that the permit shall be issued on the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Council Although specific submissions required to complete an application for a conditional use permit may vary with the specific use and the district in which it is located, all applications for such permits must include at minimum a site plan that clearly illustrates the following proposed land use. building mapping and functions, circulation and parking areas, planting areas and treatment, sign locations and type, basic lighting concerns, the relationship the proposed project to neighboring uses, environmental impacts and demand for Municipal services Standards The Planning Commission shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall issue such conditional use pr^nits only if it finds that such use at the proposed location Will not be detrimental to or endanger he public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific objectiv es of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and this Title Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area - 6 - 4. 5. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and Hre protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community W'ilt not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors Will have vehicular approaches to the property w hich do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares Will net result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance Will not depreciate surrouru' ng property values Conditions In review ing applications for conditional use permits, the Planning Commission ; nd the Council may attach whatever reasonable conditions they deem necessary .o mitigate anticipated i.averse impacts associated with these uses, to protect tne value of ot‘''’r propcay vvithin the district, and to achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive him Such conditions may include, but are not limited to. the following Controlling t. : number, area, bulk. ^ .ight and locat’un of such uses Regulating ingress and e^^ress to the property and the proposed structures thereon with parti ular reference to vehicle and pedestrian safety and con\ enience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or other catastrophe 3 4. 5 Regulating off-street parking and loading areas where required Utilities with reference to location availability and compatibility Bt fining, fencing, screening landscaping or other facilities to protect nearby property. r r [ r [ - 7 - J -I J (H) Compaiibility of appearance. In determining such conditions, special consideration shall be given to protecting in-mediately adjacent properties from objectionable views, noise, traffic and other negative c*,aracteristics associated with such uses Denial for Nor.:ompliance If the Planning Commission recommends denial . a conditional use permit or tlie Council orders such denial, it shall include in its recommendation or determination findings as to the w,.ys in uiiivh ‘.e proposed use does not comply with the standards required by this Title Perminee; A conditional use permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person Periodic Review; A periodic review of the use may be attached as a condition of approval of a conditional use permit Revocation Failure to comply with any condition set forth in a conditional use permit, or any other \iol.v.ton of this Title, shall be a misdemeanor and shall also constitute cause for the termination of the conditional use permit by the City Council following a public hearing Expiration If substantial construction has not taken place within one year of the date on which the conditional use permit was granted, the permit is void except that, on applicatio:i. the Council, aftei receiving recemmendation from the Planning Commission, may extend the permit for such additional period as it deems appropriate. If the conditional use pemtit is discontinued for six (6) months, the conditional use permit shall become void This provision shall apply to conditional use permits issued prior to the effective date of this Title, but the six (6) month period shall not be deemed to commence until the effective date of this Title. Minor Alterations Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan No change may increase the cube of any building or structure by more than ten percent (!()•/•) PRAmCAL DEFrVITIQN A permitted use to which reasonable conditions may be attached based upon factual evidence contained in the public record i \ - 8 - HOW TO USK THK i^ONDlTIOXAL tlSF PFRMIT TOOL Do not list uses as conditional uses in a district if you believe it is generally unacceptable there Remember the question about the right to the use is basically off the table It is a matter of how the use may be modified, or its adverse characteristics may be mitigated. NFVIT!^ REQUIREMENT The courts have made it very clear that there must be a direct connection or nexus between the problem and the cure If you have reviewed evidence that suggests that a fast food restaurant with a drive through window will have up to eight vehicles stacked waiting for food during peak periods, it is acceptable to condition the permit to require spatt; for eight vehicles to stack on site It is not acceptable to use the fact that a use is listed as ccnditional to require architeaural design features, building materials or landscaping that is not requiud generally in your ordinance, or to restrict its sign area to less than the amount available to other uses in the district TIMF I.IMITS, PKRIQDIC REVIEW Another rampant abuse is the attachment of time limitations to CL'Ps The only permit that can legally be attached a time limit or “sunset provision” is an interim use permit Conditional use permits are land use permits that run with the land. They cannot be automatically revoked when a particular applicant sells, or a specific time period elapses nriiinnir RFVIFWS. CRQITNDS FOR REVOCA i ION There is nothing \vTong wi;h the idea of scheduling annual .i biannual re\iews of CtJPs (or other time interval of your cho -'ng), but. understand that this is simply an administrative convention that you have established You cannot require an applicant to renew his/her permit at a prescribed time You can at virtually any point, based upon evidence or even concern that conditions are not being met, provide legal notice and hold a public hearing to review a CLT If there is sufficient evidence of serious violations, you may have grounds to revoke a CUP SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Conditional uses are permitted uses to which reasonable conditions may be attached The need for these conditions must be supported by evidence in the record As part of your community’s planning and zoning administration program you may decide to conduct periodic reviews of CUPs However, CUPs are land use permits that run with the land, not the land owner or applicam and as long as the conditions are being met. the permit remains valid - 9 - i! If there are very tpecific aspects of a use that cause >*ou to want to classify it as conditional, consider setting forth standards directly in the text of the ordinance to address these problems It may be possible, for instance, to identify a sue threshold for a use at which it becomes a problem, due to traffic or some other characteristic. You may be able to list it as a permitted use up to a certain size and have it become a conditional use beyond that point. Another approach that is regularly taken is to tie specific performance standards or mitigative measures to certain uses and thereby allow it to be listed as a permitted use. To say this another way. if you can identify* specific concerns about a use. try tc create a standard that would address that concern to your satisfaction. If these same concerns apply to several uses, consider establishing them as a set of standards that cover the entire district or group of districts. Be careful of CUPs. Use this tool judiciously and understand that you are in an administrative mode when you arc reviewing this permit. - 10 - American Legal Publishing 3. Specific Standards. C- iry r^F’ -rutif'^ Pagclonsr: In addition to the standards specified in subdivision 2. no conditional use f^rmit shall be granted unless the city council determines that all of the specific standards contained in this subdivision will be met. a) Educational institutions and facilities: 1) located on a collector or arterial roadway os identified in the comprehensive plan or otherwise located so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on local residential streets; the use is not permitted on properly which has access only by way of a private rood or drivewa) that is used by more than one lot; 2) buildings set back 50 feet from all property lines and parking lots set back 15 feet from streets and non-residential property and 25 feet from residential property: 3) school bus pick'Up and drop*olT areas kKated outside of the public righl-of-wa\ and designed to enhance vehicular and pedestri.in safety; 4) recreational areas designed for group outdoor activities set back 25 feet from residential properly, suiuibic bulTering provided to protect neighboring properties from noise and adverse visual impacts, and lighted playing fields permitted only upon demonstration that ofT-site impacts can be mitigated substantially; 5) no more than 60 percent of the site to be covered w ith impervious surface and the remainder to be suitably landscaped; 6) site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section 300.27 of tliis ordinance; and 71 noLcunnip^ted to. or part of. ony residential dwelling. _________ ___ b) Religious insti:Utions and facilities: I) located on a colk'ctor or arterial roadway os identified in the comprehensive plan or otherwise liKated so that access can be provided without conducting significant traffic on Kical residential streets; 2) buildings set back 50 feet from all property lines; 3) parking areas set back 15 feet from streets and non-residential property and 25 feet from residential property; 4) one parking space shall be provided for each 2.5 scats in the main sanctuarv- with additional parking required as provided for in section 300.28 of lhi> ordinance for other facilities, including classrooms, licensed day care facilities or offices; 5) no more than 70 percent of the site to be covered with imperv ious surface and the remainder to be suitably landscaped; and 6> site and building plan subject to review pursuant to section 300.27 of tliis ordinance. c) Single family homes on 15,000 square foot lots: http://209.48.87.250/minnetonka_ma^lpext.dil/Info../62c?fn=document-frame.htm&f=template 6/13/01 American Legal Puhlishing Page 4 of7 public open space 20*20*1 20'1 20’20’20’20’20’ right-of-way 20*20* 20*20’20’20’20’20’ Lund use of adjacent property is us designated in the comprehensive plan. Where a mix ofland uses is indicated on the comprehensive plan for adjacent proivny, the most restrictive applicable buffering requirement shall be observed. 1 he requirements of this table may be waived at points where shared access is utilized. 5) All parking and loading areas, aisles and driveways shall be bordemd with raised concrete curbs or equivalent approved by the city. Single family and two family dwelling developments shall be exempted from this requirement. 6) All parking, loading and driveway areas shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or equivalent material approved by the city except single family homes which arc subject to the driveway prov isions of section 1105 of the code of city ordinances. 7) Hxcept in the K-l and K-2 districts, all parking stalls shall be marked with painted line^ot less than four inches wide in accordance with the appr'ved site and building plan. 8) All parking lots shall provide blonds for tratlic control as needed. ^ ^ |% c) Tlie number of required parking spaces shall comply witli tlie foltoNjiAl I) Calculating the number of spaces shall be in accordance witlnhe follow ing; action, each fraction of one-half ora. if the number of oil-street parking spaces results in a more shall constitute another space; ________ b. in churches and other places of public assenjj|4v in which patrons or spectators occupv benches, jvews or other similar seating facilities, each 24 inches of such seating shall be counted one seat lor the purpose of this subdiv ision; c.except III shopping centers or where join*, parking arrangements have been approved, if a structure contains two or more uses, each use shall be calculated separately in dctemiining the total olT-street parking spaces required; d. for mixc*d-use buildings, parking requirements shall be determined by the rity based on tlte existing and potential uses of the building. In cases where future potential uses of a building will generate additional parking demand, the city may require a proof of parking plan for the dilTerence between minimum parking requirements and the anticipated future demand; and e. if warranted by unique characteristics andor documented parking demand for similar developments, the city may allow reductions in tlie number of parking spaces actually constructed a.s long as the applicant provides a proof of future parking plan. 1 he plan must show the IcKation for all minimum required parking spaces in conformance with applicable setback requirements. The city may require installation of the additional parking spaces whenever the need arises. 2) The minimum number of olT-street parking spaces »)f each use shall be ;is follows: a. single-family dvvelling and two family dwellings: two parking spaces for each dwelling For single-family dwellings, a suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 xhich docs not require a variance shall be provided for each dwelling unit. For two-family unit. f.et which docs dwellings, a suitable location for a garage measuring at least 13 feel by 24 feet, which does not require a variance, shall be provided lor each dwelling unit. Such spaces must be shown on a survey or site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing space; http://'209.48.87.250./minnctonka_ma Ipcxt.dlLInf.../ d49?fn=document-frame.htm&f-templatc 6/13/01 ' -1 1 i American Legal Publishing Page 5 of 7 b. multiple family dwelling: two parking spaces for each dwelling unit, of which one space per dwelling unit shall be completely enclosed. The two required parking spaces may not include the space in front of garage doors Additional spaces for visitor parking shall be provided based on the specific characteristics of a development and the anticipated demand for visitor spaces us determined by the city. These characteristics may include, but shall not be limited to. the project size, the number of enclosed narking spaces, the accessibilitv of open parking spaces, access to on-street parking, topographical characteristic.s, the preserv ation of significant trees, the impact to sunounding ry, and the site and building design. Developments of 12 or fewer dwelling units, where each unit i‘»as two enclosed parking stalls, must have a minimum visitor parking ratio of 0.75 spaces per dwelling unit. Visitor parking may include spaces in front of garage doi>rs for individual units; c. senior citizen housing develonments; one p;uking space for each unit sliall be required. / The city may require proof of parking of two spaces per unit if conversion m g*mei^ housiA appears possible. At least 50 percent of the required parking spaces shall be witl{[n ;|«ncl|s3F we;|hc^p|lc^ controlled structure connected to the principal structure. l1ic^is^)rj^^^^l^reqJrements|fo^* multiple dwellings shall apply; d. boarding or lodging house; one parkin accommodations are provided; e. convalescent or nursing home: one accommodations are olTeied. plus three spaces for each f, hospital; one parking space for each two L- park jchMi 1 lp.'*pi each twit pci horn sleeping jiing spitce lei each four bed.s for which »ur emplovees on the major shift; .spiial beds plus one space for Cuvh emplovee church: one parking space for each 2.5 seats based on the design capacity of the main \dditional spaces mav be a*quired by the city to accommodate the demand generated by y sanctuary. classrooms, day care centers or other uses operated on church groiuid>. h. senior high school: one parking space for each cl.issri'orn plus one >pace for each 10 students based upon design capacity; i. elementary , junior high school or similar school; two parking spaces for each classroom; j. Citnditionaliv permitted schools which are not covered bv paragraphs h. and i.: one parking spee for every thnre students, plus one spee for each instnK'tor. k. municipl administration building, community center, public library, museum, art gallery. jHxst office or other nuiniciptil service building: It' parking spaces plus one space for each 500 square feet of floor area plus one spee for each vehicle customarily kept on the premises 1. golf course, golf clubhouse, o'untry club, swimming club, tennis club, racquciball club or handball club: 20 spaces plus one .space for each 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure; m. general ofTicc building, batik and savings and lo.in assvviation; one parking space for each ?. 0 square feet of fioor area will, a minimum of 10 ..pact ' rcqiu-eti. For class A office buildings cxeecdi.ig 100.000 square feet of tloor area. p.trking requiremi.-nis may be reduced based on parking studies of the anticipated parking demand of the specific building. I’orking .studies arc to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer or certified planner. n. minimum mc*dical and dental otTice: one parking spee for each 175 square feet of tioor area with a 20 spaces required; o. sltopping center: 1. regional - a minimum of 5.5 spaces pr 1,000 square feet cf gross area; http://209.48.87.250'minnctonka_mn,'lpxi.dinnf...^d49 ’fn=document-frame.htm&f=tcmplatc 6/13/01 i -■“’lijiSC' ) {y) Chair I fawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cii> Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Wendy Boticnberg. Zoning Administrator/Planner June 12.2001 rtOI'2680 Rick Windenburg and Shirtey Hendrickson 3200 North Shore Drive Variance — Public Hearing SatTreviewed application SO 1-2680 and it was determined that a variance was not needed. The application has been withdrawn and a refund will be issued. i ”? TO:Chair liaun and Oruno Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: \Vcnd> Boilcnbcrg. Zoning Administrator/Planner June 14.2001 <»i>l-2688 1780 Shoreline Drive I.ot Line Rearrangement Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA Une hamil> Lakeshorc Residential Distriet. 2 acre. Septic East Parcel 4.24 acres Middle Parcel 4.39 acres West Parcel 2.17 acres list ofEihibiu A B C D E F G II I J Application Applicants Faiposal Survey (Exis'ing) Survey (Proposed) Topographic Map Plat Map Septic Report Resolution <^1864 Location Map RI.S «245 Survey Summary of Request The applicant has proposed a lot line rcarning'Tncnt i • * properties located at 1780 Shoreline Drive. The property consists of three separate building lots which were created by P •giatcred Land Survey- No. 245 in 1953. The three lots w«rre separated from the remainder of the land in RLS 245 with the plat of Foxhill in l%5. The east parcel and middle parcel have residences existing on them. The west parcel is vacant and has been since 1953. The lot line rearrangement is requested to fulfill r ^uirements outlined in Resolution ^ 186*1 adopted at the time the guest house on the east parcel w.us granted a CUP .ii 1985. (Exhibit G). I'he intent of the rearrangement is two-fold: I) to create a conforming side setback for the existing home on the middle parcel: and 2) to make the west parcel slighMv wider at the intended building site. »~f-26SHK WooJhome rSO Shor-lme Dnva Lot L.iue Rearrangement 614 01 Pag* I i .4 4 ANALYSIS Lot ronfiguration LR-IA (2 Acre) Required Actual - Dry Actual- Wet Total Acres (Existing) Dry Acres Total Acres (Proptvsed) Fast Parcel 2 acres 2.85 acres 1.4 acres 4.25 acres 2.83 acres 4.23 acres Middle Parcel 2 acres 3.4 acres .99 acres 4.39 acres 2.76 aercs 3.57 acres West Parcel 2 acres acres —2.17 acres 2.83 acres 3.01 acres LR-1A Zoning Standards for Lots Lot Area jl.H Width Front Yard Siae Yard Side Yard Adj Street Rear Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 leet 50 feet Septic All three properties are serviced by on-sitc sewage s ,*ems. Matt Bolterman, C -i-Sitc Septic Manceer. has reviewed the septic sites 'Jid has dctcn.Kru * both the primary and alternate drainfield sites meet all Cicy and f 'lie standards. The site evaluations were completed by Swedlund Septic Service. 1 he existing on the cast parcel and middle parcel arc cotifomiing systems and would not be .Mpacted by the lot line rearrangement. Access All three lots currently luxe access by a private driveway olT Shoreline Dnxe. This access would remain the same. The driveway is located over Tracis IZ. 11. and C of RLS 245. No more Uian three homes will be served by this driveway. Similar to other existing developments along private easement roads in Orono, the City would not require upgrade of the driveway to road status unless this was a replat (an e.xample is the private 14‘ driveway scrv ing 20 plus homes on North fcmdalc Road). Mt-26S8K Woodhomt 17S0 Shorelttue Dnvt l.ol Lint Rearrangemeni 614 01 Page 2 1 Easements The suncy docs not show any existing easements along interior lot lines which will be moved. Any existing easements should be vacated along areas no longer serv ing as property lines. Since this application is not a plat, no new drainagc'ulility easements are proposed nor requested; except that where such casements do exist along lot lines being moved, they shi.uld be rededicated along the new lot lines. Issues The vacant west parcel is a buildable lot of’record, assuming it meets the 200* width standard. W idth is measured at the front 50* setback line But where is the front lot line? The private curved drive surrounds the west lot on the north, south and west. The front, rear and side yards need to be established in order for setbacks to be applied to the lot. and to confirm where the lot w idth should be measured, fhe slope of the w est lot defies strict interpretation of what is fronl'side/rear based on the zoning code definition. From a practical standpoint, the east parcel and middle parcel residences have both been develop^ ’ with the residence oriented towards the lake. For these two properties the lake side is considered the front yard and to the north is the rear property line. To be consistent with the yards of the other two properties, the yards lor the vacant west parcel could be defined a^ follows: • Front - lake side along driveway, beginning at the southern point of tiie reconiigurcd west parcel and extending northward along the curve tothe point where the driveway straightens out • Rear- north as shown by surveyor. • Side yard- west side along driveway and along ea.st property line adjacent u> the middle p;ircel. It is questionable whether the west side lot line adjacent to the d.ivev .e. .hould be ire .Med as a “side street.” Stall recommends that it be simply a side lot line. If these setbacks are acceptable. »'»c city accepts the yard setback demarcation as shown by the surveyor on the survey. Only the ea.vt parcel will have lake access. SlufT Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rcamincemcnt as proposed on the survey, completed by Gronberg & Associates. Inc. May 2a. 2(<i'l based on the following conditions: 1 . City accepts yard setback demarcation as shown h;* surveyor on survey and neithci lot width nor setback variances will be nec*dcd to build on the west lot. 2. The applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements, to replace any such existing easements which will no longer follow lot lines. >t0l-268SK H'ooJholue I “SO Shoreline Drive , Lol Line Rearrangement 6 14 01 Pages J Easements Tlic survey docs not show any existing easements along inlenor lot lines which w ill he moved. Any existing easements should be vacated along areas no longer serv ing as properly lines. Since this application is not a plau no new drainage/ulilii) casements are proposed nor requested, except that where such easements do exist along lot lines being moved, they should he rcdcdicated along the new K/t lines. Issues The vacant west parcel is a buitdable lot of record, assuming it meets the 200* width standard. W'idih is measured at the front 50* setback line. But where is the front lot line? The private curved drive surrounds the west lot on the north, south and west. The front, rear and side yards need to be established in order for setbacks to be applied to the lot. and to confirm where the lot width should be measured. The slope of the west lot defies strict interpretation of what is front/sidc/rcar ba.sed on the zoning code definition. I-rom a practical standpoint, the cast parcel and middle parcel a*sidences liave both been develop* ‘ with the residence oriented towards the lake. For these two prop«.rties the lake side is considered the front yard and to the north is the rear property line To be consistent with the yards of the other two properties, the yards for the vacant west parcel could be deluied as follows; • Front - lake side along driveway, beginning at tlie southern point of Uie reconfigured west parcel and extending northward along Uie curve totlic point where the driveway straightens out. • Rear- north as shown by surveyor. • Side yard- west side along driveway and along ea.st property line Jj.iceut to the middle parcel. It is questionable whether the we.<l side lot line adjacent to the d.iveway should be ^re^tcd as a ‘’side street." SialTrecommends tli.it it be simply a side lot line. If these setbacks are acceptable. »Fa: city accepts the yard .setback demarcation as showa by the surveyor on the survey. Only the cast parcel will have lake access. Staff Recommendation Staff is rec ommending approval of the lot line rearranuement as proposed on the survey , completed by Gn nberg & Associates. Inc. May 2j. 2t/iM ba.s-d on the following conditions: I. City accepts yard setback demarcation as shown b ' surveyor on survey and neither lot width nor setback variances will be needed to build on the west lot. 2. The applicant shall grant drainage and utility easements, to replace any such existing easements which will no longer follow lot lines. »OI-26SSK Woodhous* I “80 Shoreline Drne * Lot Line Rearrangement 6 14 01 Pages Application # ( Date ReceiTcd Amount Paid ) :> CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION _ ^ . Siteaddrcss /7?Q Q Property Identification Number (PID) Please check one - Property____abstract or S Jc. toriens? Attach legal description to application. Address ^ ^3 t/yj, City 6*“^^ ^ ^ Phone (home) y?-ygisI MWIIV ^tiWUAV/ 9^^ ^ • » r o * ^ Zip553f/ Phone (work) 74^-SyS- fco^ OWNER (if dilTcrcnt than applicant) Name Pcvvv J^ ^ Address Q>s>vt^ City tu^ JgL .Phone (home) Sa a a City Jg., (attach list n more than one) Zip yyj>/phone (work)6r»- - 3 ^ EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size ‘^2- Present use (check) Present Zoning District /C L%-lA Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units ^3 Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes yy' Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) _________ Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites Existing Units ’New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) _/____Units per*^-^^Acres B7/2.Q Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land yy Residential ________Other (specify)_________ i LL..«ka d«iii MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. Piyment of fees (refer to "appUcatioo (ccs* listed below. 2. Completed applicetion fom. 3. Pnliminafy plat infonnatioa on Certincate of Survey. 4. **”**m7 j ^) ” ***** ’**‘^*" 350* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-403 5. As an addendum to this application, please atuch a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this applicadon ZoningOfllciari Signature _____________________________________ ____________ MINIMUM MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR COMPLETE FINAL APPLICATION 1. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval resolution and park fees if appicable). 2. Signed CertiAcate of Survey or mylar copies of formal plat 3. Title opinion. 4. Easements, covenants, etc. 5. Developen Agreement and LeUer of Credit Zoning OfTIciars Signature _____________________________________ p^e____ APPLICATION FEES (Zoning Administrator to check (XJ those which apply) A. Application Base Fees: _____ Sketch Plan Review (Class I. IIA IIQ S275.00 _____ Subdivision ofa Lot Line Rearrangement S3SO.OO _____ Subdivision Application (Class IA II) $350.00 _____ Preliminary Subdivision Application $400.00 $30.0<Vlot (Class III A all non-resldential) _____ Final Plat' plication (Class 111) $225.00 _____ Legal Review and Filirig: _____Subdivision only $100.00 _____Subdivision w/easements and cov enants min. $200.00 _____ Park Fees (to be determined per Section 11.62) _____ Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as incurred) _____ Renewal of Class I and II Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from orighal application) _____ Renewal of Class III, Preliminary Subdivision Application $200.00 (No change from original application) _____ Renewal of Final Class III Subdivision Application $150.00 (No change from original application) B. Special Improvement Fees: _____ Proposed Private Roads $650.00 ♦ $.50/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 - $______ _____ Proposed Public Roads $950 00 ♦ S.SO/lineal ft.;_____lin. ft. x .50 - $______ _____ Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road $950.00 _____ Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension S275.00 ♦ $25/stub Proposed Watermain Extension $275.00 S25/stub _____ Prs^osed Storm Sewer System (excluding culverts) $250.00 _____ On-Site System, Site Evaluation Review (applicable to rural subdivision applications) $60.00/per lot x_____new lots C. Flexible Application Fecs/MIsc Fees Variance $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Ifiiali Easement Vacation Associated with Subdivision $100 00 __ PRD Application with Subdivision $35.001>welling Unit The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, City Engineer. City Attorney. Planning Commission and Council necessary to process this applicaUon and further agrees to pay all addiUonal fees erjiblished by ordinance Applicant's Signature ___________________________ ______________Due________________ Owner’s Signature _ Applicant must have alt submituls into the City Office 25 days before the Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission mcetingt are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plaiuiing Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Lot Line RcaiT.ingcmcnl Proposal Mr. and Mrs. David M. Winton. Ihc properly owners, and Kirtland C. Woodhouse. Ihe purchaser, jointly request permission for a lot line rearrangement of the Winton property at 1780 Shoreline Drive, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. There arc three separate building lots located at 1780 Shoreline Drive. The lots were created by Registered Land Survey No. 245 in 1953. The three lots were separated from the remainder of the land in RLS No. 245 when Foxhill was platted in 1965. At the present time there arc houses on two of the lots. The third lot is vacant. The third lot is a buildable lot. The first lot line rearrangement is between the two lots with houses on them. The proposed dividing line makes a minor change at the north end so that both houses meet Orono setbacks. The requirements for this lot line rearrangement were outlined in 1985 in Orono Resolution No. 1864. Ttie second lot line rearrangement makes an adjustment at the north between the middle lot and the undeveloped lot to the west. It makes the three lots more equal in size. It also makes the building area for the westerly lot more regular in shape because of the unusual shape of the lot. Since the lots have existed since 1953, we believe they arc grandfathered lots under Orono Code Section 10.03 (Subd. 6). Each of the lots has its own tax identification number The changes requested arc minor and solely for the purposes of fixing the 1985 lot line issue, making the lots more equal in size and enabling a house on the undeveloped lot to fit the shape of the lot better. b ; CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KIRT WOODHOUSE IN R. L. S. No. 245 HENNEPW COUNTY. MNNESOTA £xis+rn LAKE .SURVtY^ Minnetonkam* owTM u« & \ r-.‘" ^ X —=(^ L L irai ecsoii^noi or mcmivs AM IMI »«>l •( Tract * lyiaa SMiMrI. •• • Mac ttwm u »«ial aa |M SawtltactUrl« Mac •( tract A AMtaat iO tact tiartAaa.lcrI. at tt>a <*••1 latlarli caraar at tract t.ta a m>aI aa IM MariMaatartf Iiaa at aatA Tract A aittaat M teal NirlAaa.iarla at a J«aicta) larraiarA ata**A at lAa talar.acitaa at IM Catl aaC MarlAaaalarlf Maat at taia Tract A. SaalMcitarlf icr at fata at MarlMcalarlr All lltal M*t at Tract • lylaf SaalMrif at a Mm ara«t traa a aai*! aa la. Saat llna at aaii tract • attlaal fO taat liarIMaalarly at laa aail SaalMrIy caraar a Tract ■, ta a aaial aa IM M'lMaalarly iiaa at tu*4 tract • aiilaal n leal Mar at IM aval Caalarly carMr at laiA tract Tracia C, 0. C aaa I; Traci N aacaat IMI aarl tMraat lylaa Mlaaaa Iracia C aaa J aa4 SawIMaalarly al a Iiaa 4»mm a«'a'lal a<ia aaa 10 tael M.tarly at IM Caalc'ly at aaia Traci N; All la Oaolalaraa laM taraay Ma la}, rtiai al Aa«>ttrar at tillaa. Caaaly at Maaact raa aarlar aarlafa aMa* art AaiaA aaaa aa aicaata Aalira ^ ;')0 Tala aar.tr <a|taat It tAaa |at aaaaaarita at IM aM*t aatcr.ata artaarly. IM lactliaa at aa taltitat aaait aaa aaaalKaait. a«a laa artaaiat lacaMaa at laa artatiaa ai.iaiaa Maat latrtaa l| Aatl aal aa'»arl la »aaa a*, ataar Invra.aatal. ar aacraaiaraalt m ill ^-|o oJ^o J !!*;i!Ill in ■ § ! I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KIRT WOODHOUSE IN R. L. S. No. 245 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA Proposed r-*A ^ 4-^ m >\jj OKOEp SS iI ;!i> Ii! [ill || Henn^n Co^y Taxpayer ^^yice^epartment]^|^ . .* *1“^* '♦ I A V tr-t -.2 Fare«l ID 1011729. C*.Nous« Numb«r M. 1^ StTMt Nam* t,i Condomlnlyw akgtfyneoahdmtfi. ttni ww Ofy. County, and SUI» n m U 1 fe' '^1'• :•' RVHIMOn fiMMCM. J CITYorOSONO M—idyl Offlcw Strati tUnti 2750 Mtim Patinray Oram, m 55356 ■aUtf Mirm: P 0. Bn 66 CnrsUl Bay. MN 553230066 TO: Wendy Botlenbcrg FROM: Malt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE: June 14. 2001 SUBJECT: Septic Review for Kirt Woodhousc Lot The proposed I lot subdivision requires the use of on-site sewage treatment systems Soil Ix'rings and percolation tests were performed by Swedlund Septic Services to identify primary and alternate draintield sites for the new lot The other two lots have existing septic systems on them already The new lot has a primarv and alternate site fur an in-ground septic system The intbrmation provided indicates that both drainfield sites meet all Orono and Minnesota 7080 standards for location No design information was provided for the new septic sites Based on the above information, staff recommends approv al of the subdivision in regards to septic location lUcplMNK (952)249-4600 • Fu (952) 249-4616 wnrxLtraMJMMM mm City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^86-1________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (G) PILE #955 WHEREAS, David M. Winton (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1780 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Ai * that part of Tract A lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Southwesterly line of said Tract A distant 80 feet Northwesterly of the most Easterly corner of Tract B, to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Tract A distant 80 feet North westerly of a judicial landmark placed at the intersection of the East and Northeasterly lines of said Tract A; and All that part of Tract B lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Southwesterly line of said Tract B distant 80 feet Northwesterly of the most Southerly corner of said Tract B, to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Tract B distant 80 feet Northwesterly of the most Easterly corner of said Tract B; and Tracts C, D, E, and I; and Tract K except that part thereof lying between Tracts G and J and Southwesterly of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet Westerly of the Easterly line of said Tract H; all in Registered Land Survey No. 245, files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, (hereinafter "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction of a guest house on a separate 2.2 acre parcel historically considered and used as a part of the principal dwelling property, per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File 1955. 2. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. On September 16, 1985, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application as proposed and recommended approval, finding that: •• Page 1 of 4 i City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^864_ _ _ _ _ a) The guest house parcel contains 2.2 acres of dry build- able land, meeting the LR-IA 2-acre minimum lot area requirement. The remainder of the non-combined parcels contains 6.9 acres of dry buildable land and includes the main house. The lot width at the building site is somewhat less than the required 200'. b) The guest house is proposed in a location within the 2.2 acre parcel which meets all setback requirements within that parcel, and which will maintain in excess of the minimum setback required (60*) from the adjacent structure. c) Access to the guest house is via the existing driveway serving the main house. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a guest house will not be detri mental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) to permit the construction of a guest house on a separate 2.2 acre parcel historically considered and used as a part of the principal dwelling property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The guest house shall have a separate well and septic system. 2. Applicant is placed on notice that if P.I.D. 110-117-23 14 0002 (the 2.2 acre parcel with guest house) is ever sold off separately from the main property, the guest house shall at that time be considered the primary residence for that parcel, and construction of a second dwelling on that parcel will* require a further conditional use permit review. Page 2 of 4 City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1864_________ ' dm 3. Applicant is placed on notice that Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03* Subdivision 6 (C) prohibits the sale cr transfer of any parcel or combination of adjacent parcels which singly or in combination are non-conforming in area or width; cr which sale or transfer makes the retained property or properties non-conforming; without Council approval. 4. Applicant is further placed on notice* that based on the survey submitted with the application* the existing main house at one point appears to be only 23* from the side 1 :t line where a 30' side setback is required* hence sale of the guest house parcel would cause the main house parcel to be non-conforming, in violation of S10.03* Subdivision 6(C). A simple lot line re arrangement would remedy this potential future problem. Alsc* the survey indicates that the lot lines could be arranged so that while maintaining a 30* setback to the existing house* the let width of the guest house parcel could be increased to approxi mately 195'* nearly meeting the required lot width but still requiring a slight variance. 5. Applicant is further placed on notice that if the guest house parcel was sold off separately* that an access easement would re required over the existing driveway on the main house property. €. The applicant is advised to check on the relative property tax benefits of combining or not combining the 9 properties held in common. 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terras ar.d conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code* shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein* and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant has read* understood and herety agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself* his heirs* successors and assigns* hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 7th day cf October* 1985. ATTEST: lallih* City Clerk Mary C. Bugler* “------ L * ^ ___S<T\r. \C (1) Property Owne^J MayorV \C ■ IOil Paae *1 nf city of OROINO STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1864_________ COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) 8S. ) On this 74L day of /C^/:avry 198^' before me a No^ry Pub^c ^within and for said county* persona 1 ly appeared the person(s) described _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the sar>e as his (their) free act and deed. /M-cMyji OF ORO^O • lEMNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 1 ‘5;?* 5 ..»* v.> /iV //#/ •■on /T ere 0s»^-.-nea' tron S^*oni>frte.r* Jutf>e e; Lone S^ferk 'es S'teen.red 0> if once 'ofes P'at O.ifonee Coi^eo .>nei /jS,» etre*e -*’•*> fo>*» eosoiryenfi bo4no * feef »r ece>t s<m‘e e/ '*»e» un’ea o*herm%e »ho^n on on.net At'^o ^ r/-A ■_ I’LC ^-L vN V Torr-i,vr' OUT. • l M - TO: FROM: DATE: Chair llaun and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator \\ end) Boitcnberg. Zoning Administrator Planner June 8.2001 SCBJECT:sUI-2681 Roger A. Day I2U5 Broun Road South N’ariancc - Public I tearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB One l-amily Lakeshorc Residential District (2 acre) 7.W6s.f. (.184 acre) List ofEshibits A Appluaium Site Plan Surx ey Elesnons/FUx>r Plans PhoK's of Property Location Map Property Map Permit Record Property Owner’s List Peninrnt Code Section: I. Section 10 28. Subd 5 (U): Side Yard Adjacent Street Setback: Tlic minimum requirement shall be observed lor side yard adjacent street setback; 50 feel. To pennil u residential addition to be 20' from the side yard adjacent street property line where 50‘ is required. 2. Section 10 28. Subd. 5(B): Side Yard .Adjacent Street Setback: Tlie minimum requirement shall be observed for side yard adjacent street setback 50 feel. To pennit a porch to be 23.2* from the side y ard adjacent street property line where 50’ is required. 3. Section 10 28. Subd. 5 (B): Side Yard Setback: ITte minimum requirement Nhall be observed for side yard seth.iek : 30 feel. To permit a residential addition to be 22' from the side K'l line where 30’ is required Application Summary : The applicants requests a variance to permit construction efa 16* x 6' (06 s.f ) addition to the rear of the existing residence and a 12' x 6 ’ (72 s.f.) porch to the front of the residence. The existing residence was constructed in 1053 prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. Required setbacks for the property are 50’ from Lakeview Avenue (side adjacent street). 50’ from the rear lot line and 30’ from the side lot line Variances requested are to penmt the kitchen addition to be located 20' from Lakcv iew Avenue where 50’ is required and 22’ from the side lot line where 30’ is required and permit the porch to be located 23.2' from Lakeview Avenue where 50’ is required. A site plan showing the properly and setbacks is atiac.ted as Exhibit B. ^h268t Rogir.A Day 1205 Bornn RojJS I'ariance 6 B 2001 Page I J Surrounding Properties: The property is located in the Cr>stal Bay neighborhood where most lots are similar in size and dimension to the applicant's property. A platted, but undeveloped, alle> is located immediately west of the property. The City of Orono has no intension to open the allev for construction of a public right of way. The alley is u.sed for utilities (overhead electric poles >. Hardskip: The residence was built 3.5* and 6.85’ from Lakesicw Avenue in 1953 before the 50* setback for new construction was adopted. And 8.5' and 9.2 ’ from the side lot line before the 30 ’ setback for new construction was adopted. No addition could be placed on the hou>e without requiring variances. The existing floor plan favors placing the kitchen where it is proposed on the plans. Typically, staff will recommend a minimum 10’ setback for lots under'; acre in the RR-IB. two acre zoning district. Lot Coverage: fhe property is allowed 1.500 s.f of structural coverage. The total structure would be 1.083 s.f No variances arc required for lot coverage or hardcov er. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approv al of the application for variance to pemiit coniuuction of the kitchen addition and the porch. Wh268l Roger A Day 1205 Brou n RoadS Variance &B200I Page 2 A Application DateRccchcd "" g/i//o7' Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonming structures $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address 3. Qrg?>>c> S'S'S^y/ Property Identification Number fP.l.D.I /c; ^ ________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ey. Date Property Acquired________y ^ ^____________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propert y: residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District:, applicants KoName * _____ Address: I'Zj^S’ S / City: Phone (home) Phone (work ) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _____________________ Phone (home). Phone (vvork)_ Address:City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST iqucst in detail: ______ Estimated Construction Cost Svrr v i^anuimcu ^wouw.uuu yvat j Describe request in detail: ^/S7ooo (att&ch additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback; __Front Other (specify)_____ Sc Side __Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properfy* conditions prevcnlina compliance with Zoning Code reguittments: C^'/’ r ^ ft (attach additional sheets if necessary) b ^3- vJ lAlAi mull I o 5't } cLgy'A, 1^., I *l-g^ ** .A...■Mitt o 7-‘ O'' ' /-r^', lO'j ^ssr\ £ C ^ 2. JHL « 1 r-r^■S ••S •' /■" ^ ^ y v-'* ^ r ::---------- OtVUlU V*" / iwimwcii ......../’'few... y.- Ji- T 'Browns ,yj.'■ Bay f./^awAVZ/ t> S 5 "-----5 I s a •cimo* 5 « jL— • r. ]?■’"* rr* .** **’■-'’. **| H •“ H •• .* 1 ^■•••■•- [ ■ ** •■ . •*‘* J . • • ;• • ’.«• •• »' ■*•••’* . 1 livi#’'"''' Lka . 1 :y;T-;:. .‘ i?,-.. • . .HH9 i- ■• ■ • D ^B. i ■ • • : Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department I’i' MINNETONKA AVE *•* •*•.1 a •••» II a ••J* I a ■ tiMlJJ' > ,:l S '* Q MTM 7 t)j> • q:>l* »r*. • m a * *<*• * ■ ly iM w • a• 00 * ,J«I *. jUi * 1 i:t » f 3 iS >mm (?»' ^ * 9>«4»» i fN a * ♦ ^ • *10 •m i.'*> 3 Q: •• « I • a ♦ O »<*__* •*'•• 3 ^ : CRYSTAL AVE ^ -------~iM -T*^ai— I ‘ • (Wl, ____« »• •• »» ___ PRObPECTAVB * * <$r|/?r. * * kV/ L4E • I tn Xf "<5 =3v—u:.xw__ ________________________________. « r- ‘N \ •: ParceUnformatlon Parcel ID 101172331OOM , . House Number 120S ‘ f . tireet Name DNOIVN HO • Condominium TNs ts rm • legaOy nconitd mtp. It npiwstnts a comptlsbon of mfotmatlon • •ndMafmmOfy. County, and Sltfm*dmjlhoiili0STdoltmr9ounm». /' • ADDRESS PERMIT RECORD Peflt Wo.Date 3-J-S>l Type of Permit «2’i)-77 hjo -70 ^JhJ:EZ£/. SZIjiU44£^2dJtA mOC uM^u r mM DAIE tS/f//«l MNNCriN COUNTY PROfCRTV INTOmMUON SVSUH mOfCHTV OWNCM LIST RCfORT NO. ri^SSIRl rAcc 1 OATCII Ml mof AOOR OMNCR NMC TAMPAVCIT NANC/AOIMI a« 1I-1I7-2S 11 COtZ •MM AOOMSS UNASSICmO NCLCOO CNTV MO MIL AUTH DAKOTA MIL INC 2§ ADAMS ST N IKfTCNlNMN HN SSSSt aa 1I-X17-2S 2A ••)• • 122* LAMVICW AVC D0U6LAS PAUL SCNNOO* I MtPE OOUCLAS t NORMA SCHNOOR 122* LAKCVICM AV MAV2ATA MN SSSM M lt-117-25 2A 002« • HAS DROMN RO S MRREN R I SHfLLEV L DARREN K B SHELLEY L lUS BROUN RO S WAV2ATA MN SSS«1 RNOP KNOP PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAMPAYER NAMC/AOOR SR 1S-117-2S 2S ••22 •1212 ARBOR ST J R CADY B S R CADY S R CADY B J R CADY 1212 ARBOR ST WAV2ATA MN SSSYl SB 1B*117>2S 2A ••23 •122S LARCVIEW AVE W A JOHNSON BAH M A JOHNSON BAN 122S LAKEVIEM AVE MAVZATA MN MSRl SR M-117-2S 2A ••.**«• •12AS LAKEVIEM AVE VIRGINIA NORO GRITMTHS VIRGINIA NORO CRimiHS 12AS LAKEVIEM AVC MAVZATA MN SSS«I PROP AOOR OMNCR NAME TAMPAYER NAME/AOOR SR M-I17-2S 31 •••% •I2B5 DROMN RO S ROGER A MY ROGER A MY 12VB BROMN RO S MAYZATA HN SS3«1 SB 1V-117-2S 51 •••$ •1225 BROMN RO S CURTIS R OUAOY ETAL CURTIS OUAOY BOX 127 CRYSTAL MY MN 55525 5R IB*I17-2S SI •••• •I2A1 BROMN RO S H T BROMN B N E BROWN MONICA r B MICHAEL C BROWN 12W1 BROWN RO S MAVZATA MN SS3«I ••AY PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAMPAVER NAME/AOOR SR 1B-1.7-2S SI •I2SR ARBOR ST P 0 MARTIN B C M MARTIN P C MARTIN B C H MARTIN 12SS ARBOR ST MAVZATA MN SSSYl TOTAL BATCH SBl •••!• I CERTIEV THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTfO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESEHTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RCC0R3S OF THE HEHNEPIN COUNTY OCPARTHCNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOMLEOGE AND BELIEF. # o TO: Chair llaun and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Ciiy Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Admini>iratorTIanncr DATE: June 5.2001 SUBJECT; «01 -2684 Teresa Koch 2225 Bayview Place Variance - Public Hearing Zoning DbIricI: l.R-IC One Family I.akeshnrc Residential District (.5 acre) Lol Area: 7.515 s f (.173 acre) List orEshibiU A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Site Plaa'Sursey D Site Plan Surs cy \s/additional dris cssay E ElcvationsTliH>r Plans F Hardcoser Calculations G Photos of Property II Location Map I Property Map J Property Owner’s List Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B); Lot Area: Th^ lot is 7.515 s.f. (.173 acre) where 21.780 s.f. (.5 acre) is the minimum lot area for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 2. Section 10.25. Subd. 6(B): Lot Width: The lot is 50’ wide at the shoreline where 100' is the minimum lol width for the LR-IC zoning district for new construction. 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(LK2): Hardcover in 250-500': WiUiin250- 500’ of the shoreline there shall be no gnrater than 30^*' o hardcover. Variance Request: To permit 314 s.f. (42"b) hardcover where 224 s.f. (30’o) is allowed. Application Summary: The applicant owns the subject propert; and is requesting lot vs i Jth and lot area variances to construct a new residence on the lot The e.visting residence that was built in 1900 will be demolished Most of the lol is in the 500-1000* setback area. A small portion by the street is in the 250-500' setback area The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance to allow 314 s.f. (42® >) in the 250-500’ setback area. The additional hardcov er is to allow the driveway to be straight to the street rather than tapered, as shown in Exhibit D. The tapered driveway as shown in Exhibit C would meet hardcover requirements for 250-500 setback area. The hardcover would be 224 s.f or 29.99®/o where 224.1 s.f or 3Wb is allowed. *01-2634 Thtnsa Aot/i • 2225 Place 6 5 2001 Panel The lot is approximately . 173 acres and the minimum lot area requirement is .5 acres. A lot area variance is required to construct a new rc.Mdcnce. The lot is approximutcly 50' wide where 100' is the minimum lot width required. A lot width variance is required to construct a new residence. This property is scia iced by sewer and water. Stalement of Hardship; The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ; 1. The lot was platted prior to current zoning requirements. 2. A residence curremlv exists on the property in a non-conforming locution too close to tlie side lot line, and will be removed. 3. The new residence will meet all required setbacks. 4. There is no additional land to combine with the property. 5. Other Issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendatlon r Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. ftOl-2694 Theresa Koch 2225 Baxxiew Place yariance 6 5 2001 Page 2 Lot Arci: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 4 LR-IC 1 ot Area Required 21.780 S I* 5 acre! Actual 7.515 SI* 173 acre) HTdcovcr Calculations; Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Proposed Hrdcox er Proposed Hardcover 250-500*747 s.f.224.1 s f (30%) 224 s.f. :9.99%) 314 s.f (42%) Add’l Drivewax 500-1000*6.768 s.f.2.368.8 s.f. (35 “o) 790 s.f :6.4%i 1.790 s.f (26.4%) Stnictwril CovtiiEc: Total Lot Size Total Str\..‘riral Coxerage 7.515 s.f (.173 acres)Alloxved: ‘..500 s.f E.xisting: 834 s.f Proposed '..133 s.f ■a O -O A t>V- B 1 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AFPUCATION 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 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # O / -J? 6 g Date Rccthcd S’/2i/o / Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION p Site Address v>v. V\ Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) \ \V' \ • Z^A Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ’ey. Date Property Acquired______K . L S-;t__________|______________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also oun the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specif)'). Zoning District: ^ ^ • f C____________________________ APPLICANT Name T \ -'V \\ Address: «- (H TV Phone (home) -V «^ _____ Phone (work ) ^ *-*t~ < VoS* City: ■ .Vi ______Zip: "“iv OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Address:.City:. Phone (home). Phone (\%ork)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Esiimnied Con^niction Cos: S ? U o Vn Q o ^O Describe request in detail: C<)vX::AlCxc.-crvc>i[^_______________________. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIREDTLot Area Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)__________________ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage __ Average Lakeshore H.ARDSHIP/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) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, V/ALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA *•'» 'i I • t, legal DESCRPT iQN of pre ».<ses Lot 25. WALLACE’S ADO<TiOs TO ThE V5.L*GE r!-:- O : d«not*t irO*\ tnorktr t*l o . denotes iron marker found (908 3): denotes tiistin.} spot e'evot*on. meon seo ttve: catu-- Becrtr.gs snonn ore Posed opon on ossumed datum ^ denotes distence cs s^o«n on the plat of walla CE 5 as ' ' fey. o US. s ■»?!. I r» fS.ep , V intends *lc Show the fcoundc^les of tne jco.f : i^operty. fe locct on of on eiistmg shed, the locotion of oa visde "n:i.:a.«* . :na the proposed loco*, on of a proposeo house tnereon. it does not pu'pcrt s‘: 'y other improvements or erKrocchments^ • I/.'crri f OOmi|tOKM|BaG.II(C omtOBmUWMCqggMMB MUMtaoOU tOCU«,lll)UI U-47V4MI I !•«, arVf Kd M !>.«, >a i, n u«* •MV oe M I • Cif'rfi'etj C» x:;y. ' u»ar e« Kct *1 Ok tie* «i v.*n r»p<r 4-12-01 u.l «C 01-1C8 \ '0 '.') ■ife 01-1C9 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY fZR THERESA KOCH OF LOT 25, WALLACES ADD. TO THE VILLAGE OF MTKA. BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNES:~A LEGAL CESCRPTON Of PREMISES : Lot 25. WALLACE'S AOCHTON TO Th E VLLACE CE - fi-!- , fr,.. f<T. o T'r s. 3 J O : denotfs iron morkor t«t O : denotes iron mcrktr fownd (906 3): denotes eiisting spot cie^otion. mecn sea itkel dotw" Beorir.9S shown ere bosed upon cn ossufned datum denotes distence os shown on the ptot of wall *C£‘ : -I! his ^survey^1ntends'*)c show the boundaries ef tne stoti r*cperty. tne location of on tsisting sh<#d. the locotion of ofl visibie ‘’h'r.::.** . :*c the preposed locotion of 0 proposeo house thercoa It does not purport i*;^ ;-*/ other improvements or eneroochmenls.• »>.> err« i oomi|*ORoi(BaaiHc eaiiac oocA 166 um n MNB MUNUanOU tflCUAWtiSSI Bl-ID-IUI I k«ei c»W^ M iH nr-ti •» yeeij if -« • .v : r. ue* •im *6 M l«v« 4i^ Iigrgtj M T. '.-.•.ji *>jt Bt IM tl »t Sld« •! IO*«MU ri Cfwewa grw^<r-. -7^. ;*Tt 4-12-01 xe m. 01-106 ___njxr "0 01- :a •/II •»tM <M Xkrti mxt — «flU HMMS n> RBQQQQQOQEHKIIliFinirinni 11 mi i I L. FRONT ELEVATION ICALl t/rmt-tr n .* \ r i • .• y • Bg&£:122fi=SS9fi CQ' /O /'-3-a I ;• j " \l/'W-'.v. =lfe SECOND aOQR PL^_ KAt •/•••r-*- . yjim '■ CO CQ nRST_n.ogR_Pu^_ /7/CAcrA HAiu)COvi:u c.\i.( i i.A I ION \\ oi:ksuxix setback ZOiVE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER fN ZONE A lloujc _________ 0.75*75.25I*' .j)SOU-1000' Un|th B Csrage C. Dnvcivay D. Side^vslk E. Paiio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabric C Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - D PROPOSEn HARDCOS EU IN 70NS; A House ______ L»nflh B Oarage C Driveway D Sidewalk E Paiio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc 0 Other TOTAL KARDCO'.TR trf TONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA !N ZONL A _______________ - B IOC - #2684 ^7- ^9^ 9 9 SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF. SF. SF SF V. SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF V. : - - :• * A B 4.<jo 4e TUC'A^tA koCH UAllDCOVEU CAI.CUI.A I lU.N U UKKSdEET SETBACK ZO.VE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN /ONE A Hou»e____________ 0.75* u*rA B Oarage C. Dn\eway D. SidcAvalk E. Patio/Deck F. L^tcape Underlain Bv PUsttc Of Fabric 0 Other * B PROPOSED HARnCQVER IN ZONE' A. House _________ B Oarage C Dn\cway D. Sidewalk E Pauo/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc 0 Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______ - B 75.:5ii* WtJ-Ji TOT.\L HARDCOVER IN ZONL TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 50.500‘ no W.401 2Z.it 160 SF -HffUSE SF SF SF -SHgO SF SF SF SF SF -\M09o vrsp^ SF SF SF. SF SF •COHCKtT£ SF A SF B H 116& sf-hMe sr -fatten SF SF ^ p Rgmcv'C SF-oov&uAT SF SF - SF SF “DlTdl< SF SF SF SF ____SF \ lito .2ft.2L2_ r\C C S F A SF B i G V- ?v . *■ -■* 4 f‘*’t #-■ Pv !^J-:. ■ • ‘mi u' ‘'% .1 ■. ■/ ■/f^i -V » . . ^-1'- i ■'■ ■. ^ • • • .. " “vA I* i Afaw^ I V:--_^Va *■•; • ••• **.•' . ■, Arm A \ \;»-^f.-.r^ ^ :•: . • . .ra/v/UT.,: ,...-ii •‘.**-. ^: r. • • •• /C\‘ : N\ ’i‘ ••• • ^ ORONO Arm ^ vg*L*V J600 ood Point DEERINO j^isuvND ^—ra—!V WO^l, . Fagerness Point JF, _________h^mommKl assjfInS pg c^GOOSE ^‘^r^JSLAND f^SHADY . _W>v ISLAND V af DM I 1. Henra^in Cq^y Servicos l^r^^rtnr^r^ f' * J >■. - • -i .7 .V ' ■ 1.,2^ ^ 'w' <®: i,»omO<y. T11TM440W7 .«Yv.«,Pt m«>. /I npfostnU a compOstion clinloimalki%.^, Stal9m»dmanrilmmnJ<0mr9purMjt^f h RUN MTC fV2t/*X ■ATCH S«2 NUMflH COUNTY flWflllTV INrOKfUTlON SYSTCIt PROKRTV OMNCIIS LIST KPORT NO. flASMtl PAOf 4 ■ PROP AOOR OMNCR NANC TAXPAVIR NANF/AMM PROP ADOR OWNCR NANC TAXPAYER NANC/ADDR PROP AODR OWNER NANC TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AODR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SR 17-117-23 44 RKS 022RS BAYVIEW PL CICHENT P BIRCH JR ET AL CLEHENT 7 BIRCH JR AND BARBARA J SIPPRELL-BIRCII 22IS BAVVIEM Pt NAV2ATA NN 55S41 . Sa 17-117-2S 44 BI2A •221S BAYVIEW PL RAJ HAZARO ROBERT RAYMOND HAZARD BAYVIlW Pt WAV/AIA NN SbSYl SR 17-117-2S 44 0027 0222S BAYVIEW PL TERESA ANNE KOCH TERESA KOCH 2774 BAYVIlW PEACE MAYZAiA m sssn PROP AOOR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/A0DR SO 17-117-7S 44 0028 0224S BAYVIEW Pi eiNA 1 sumcRS GINA I SUTR1ERS 2245 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA IWI SSS41 SO 17-117-23 44 0024 02253 BAYVIEW PL e n LIWIN • C N OLSON-KOSXA GREG LEWIN/CAROL OLSON-KOSKA 2253 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA NN 55S41 SO 17-117-23 44 0030 02245 BAYVIEW PL BART E POnCRLEAU BART E POHERLEAU 2245 RAYVIEW PL WAYZATA HN 55341 PROP AODR OWNER NAM TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 17-117-23 44 0031 02275 BAYVIEW PL JANES R ANDERSON JANES R ANDERSON 2275 BAYVIEW PLACE WAYZATA NN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0041 02250 BAYVIEW PL KRIS A t BRETT FERRELL KRIS ANN FERRELL 2250 BAYVIEW PL WAYZATA HN 55341 30 17-117-23 44 0042 02240 BAYVIEW PL T J NALLOCK/T N POOL NALLOCK TERRY HAUOCK I TIFFINY POOL NALLOCK 2240 BAYVIEW PL WAYZAIA NN 55341 30 17-117-23 44 0043 02344 OLIVE AVE ROSS E HILLER ROSS E HILLER 2344 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0044 02S3S OLIVE AVE PAUL NACRINNCY PAUL J HACKINNEY 2330 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0045 02320 OLIVE AVE J T JACOBSON OLD JACOBSON J T JACOBSON OLD JACOBSON 2320 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA IM 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0044 023IS OLIVE AVE PATRICK W SULLIVAN PATRICK W SULLIVAN 2310 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0047 02314 OLIVE AVE LOUISE B DAY LOUISE B DAY 2314 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA HN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0040 02304 OLIVE AVE W S NATUSKA 0 R H NATUSKA W S NATUSKA 0 K N NATUSKA 2304 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA HN 55341 SB 17-117-23 44 0012 02200 BAYVIEW PL DALE NATSON ETAL DALE NATSON ETAL 2200 BAYVIEW PLACE WAYZATA NN 55341 30 17-117-23 44 OOBS 02230 BAYVIEW PL J L SCHNECX 0 P N SCMECX. J L B P N SCNMCX 2230 BAYVIEW PL S WAYZATA Ml 55341 30 17-117-23 44 0004 02350 OLIVE AVE GARY L WILL GARY L WILL 2350 OLIVE AVE WAYZATA NN 55341 S O>r w O O’ "'ji: i.—r:> J - . . b •UN OATE •S/Z»/*l •ATCN MZ NCNNCriN COUNTY PITOfCRTV INrORtUTION SVSTCH r«OfERfV OMNCRS LIST RCrORT NO. riRSMRl PMI S U 17-117-ZS RIM ftOP ABM IZZAR •AYVICTf ft OMNCR NAM C f BLOCK t C R BLOCK TAMfAVER CHRIS A COURTNEY BLOCK NAHE/AOM ZZ4R BAWIEM ft MAVZATA NN 55SR1 TOTAL BATCH fttZ MtlR X CttTTfY THAT THE FACTS BEfRESENTIO ARE AN ACCtJRATE AND TRUE RCfRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT AffEARS THIS BATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HCNNlflN COUNTY DCfARTHENT OF fROfCRTV TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEOGE AND BELIEF.EF. ^ 7 TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cits Administrator FROM: Wendy Uottenbe^. City Planner/Zoning Administrator DATE: June II. 2001 SUBJECT: «OI-2685 John Cullilon M31 Wildhurst Trail CUP • • Public Hearing Zoning Dtstrici: LK-1B One Famils Lakeshore Residential [^strict (I acre) Lot Area: 208.065 s.f. (6 843 acres) LbtorEihibiti A Application B Site Plan C Applicants Responsibility Letter D City Engi ieer Letter E Photo of Property F Location .Map G Property Map H Permit Record I Property OxsTter's List Pertinent Code Section: Section 10.03. Subd. 19: Land Alteration Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to approve land alteration on the property in e.xcess of 500 cubic yards to construct golf tees and greens. The tees and greens are proposed to be located on the rear of the property behind the residence. The owner lives in the residence and will use fill from road construction at " Wl'dhurst Woods", an adjacent subdivision. The applicant has agreed to remove the till if the land alteration is denied. (Exhibit C). The fill will not change the hardcover coverage on the property. >^01^2685 John Cutlilon 11 SI H'UJhurst Trail PC-yJune N. 2001 P.l Revicwi The City Engineer. Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the plans and provided the following comments per his letter of June 11.200 1: I. Silt fence should be in place prior to any grading or remoxal activities. 2. The grading and (ill will impact the drainage onto the Brcn>hell Homes site. A drainage area map that encompasses the entire subject property and the Bremhell Homes site should be submitted for review along w ith corresponding drainage calculations. 3. Haul routes to the fill site should be identified on the plans. 4. The proposed elevation of the fill area xxill obstruct or obscure views to the north and east :rom some lots on the Brenshell Homes site. The City should rex iexv to determine if this is an issue. 5. The grading on the north end of the project may be in the Muflf area of the existing ravine. The City should rex iexv any impacts to the existing bluff area and any bluff setback requirements. At a minimum, heavy-duty silt fence should be installed alone the north end of the project to protect the ravine from sedimentation. 6. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should review and approve the plans. Staff xvill reviexv the bluff status of the slope and report to the Planning Commission on Monday. Staff Rcconncndation: Staff recommends approx'al of the conditional use permit proxided the applicant submits a plan that addresses the concerns raised in the city engineers letter for reviexx and approvt! prior to going to the City Council. not -2685 John CutlHon 1131 WUdhunt Trad PC-June II. 2001 P 2 I ] i Rcvkwi The City Engineer. Tom Kellogg, has reviewed the plans and provided the following comments per his letter of June 11. 2001: I. Sill fence should be in place prior to any grading or rcmoxal activities. 2. The grading and fill will impact the drainage onto the Breibhell Homes site. A drainage area map that encompasses the entire subject property and the Brcibhell Homes site should be submitted for review along with corresponding drainage calcubiions. 3. Haul routes to the fill site should be identified on the plans. 4. The proposed elevation of the fill area will obstruct or obscure views to the north and east ;rom some lots on the Drenshcll Homes site. The City should rev icw to deiemiinc if this is an i.ssue. 5. The grading on the north end of the project may be in the KufT aa*a of the existing ravine. The City should review any impacts to the existing bluff area a.nd any bluff setback requirements. At a minimum, heavy-duty silt fence should be Installed alone une north end of the project to protect the ravine from sedimentation. 6. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should review and approv e the plans. Staffwill review the bluff status of the slope and report to the Planning Commission on Monday. Staff Rcconamcndation: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit provided the applicant submits a plan that addresses the concerns raised in the city engineers letter for review and approval prior to going to the City C.>uncil. M01-268S John CuUihm IlSl WUdhunt Trait PC-June It. 2001 P.2 i #2685 Application # ^ Dale Recehcd s/ti/ot Amount Paid St.SO CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Uc>l ^vvdVWrfeT Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)U7- Z3-P-M CLOU'S APPLIC Name Address Phone (home)_ Phone (\vork)_ City yvy&vwcL Zip OWNER (if difTerent than applicam) Name *^«Wvv C jJVV v V u 'Name____**N^eKv\, C jJ\\v ?uv \ Address l\3V va ^ vV^Vu/^sV''~T?w\city Phone (home) TS'Z.-* tb Phone (work) *ir5'2.-?7*<j~ Zip Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _ $200.00 Duplc.x Crcdit/Bldg 2-S325.0G CommcrciaLlndustrial Use S250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling • designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ___ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lokeshore PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aficr-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______S300.00 Vacation ______S200.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______S350.00 Rc’oning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______SI00.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule fj #2(13 ’a' 1 c V *.y-.GITYorORONO MwkiHOfflca 2750 Mkf Parkwty Onns. MN $5350 P 0 Bm 66 Ciystti Ml 55323^ RE: APPLICATION MM-268S I have submitted a land use application for a conditional use permit to permit land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards. I agree to the terms of the City ofOrono that should my application for a CUP be denied that I will assume responsibility to remove all fill from the property in a timely manner. Property Owner - 11 51 Wildhurst Trailro^Date (■AAl IHepbooe (952) 2494M0 • Fax (952) 249^10 tfltsonestroo g^Rosene v5Anderiik& |\|| Associates Engineers & Architects June i 1.2001 ••n«i|r»a •oivn* AntfrHik «ntf AiipctMvt. tnt •% an MtamstKia AtlMfl/ l«u«4 Oppo«lwnMf Implpy** «nd |inpla|r«» Ownpp PtMWipptt CII'I u •o^ii'oo ri •W.v.ml iot’rMa at •Otrtna Coo* at • a<4J€<i O C<»<uo*chl at • irf'f A BouKton. at lofMof Con*ull«i«t »oO*»t * •owo* »l • C Andr*** »l • tHi*o>d I konoi at • kn<»' M lbrt-«> C aA Al»o««ol* ••oMtpoIr A VjntoMi at • A Ovdon Of • lo(>*<t • ^ • PHnjrd A' »oU»* M • 0*»«1U lOMOt* • •oOo't C AIA • A Hjrnoo ft • MxrvHi t loutnionn fi • frit ■*•*44 at • «*ro*tHf An4r>ioo at • M*»» » to<*i f| • Ox-4 A a<i«ruf.t) U4 A • w><r) f « »jf~w>o fI I i • A^rot M Ml A • AAtn t«k tanAdI fi Oi)>C*t \t ajAji tl C>ou4 *o<"**l*« fn4W"Om** MN • Wl UMIUI* o ^obo'rK'OO (WO Wendy Boitenbcrf! A<isistant Zoning Adminisimtar City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: i 131 WiidhurM Trail File No. i 39 0 i-2685 Dear Wendy: We have reviewed the proposed grading plan lor the construction of a fairway tMi the property Icvated at 1131 Wildhurst Trial. The grading plans call for placing fill ah>ng the west side of the pro|H*rty adjacent to the Brenshell homes subdivision We have the following comments in regards to engineenng m.itters: • Silt fence should be in place pnor to any grading or removal activities. • The grading and till w ill impact die drainage onto the Ba*nshell Homes site. A drainage area iiup that encompa.sses the enure subject property and the Brenshell Homes site should lx* submitted for review along with corresponding drainage calculations • H.aul routes to the fill site should be identified on the plans. • The proposed elevation of the fill area w ill obstruct or obscure views to the north and east from »ome lots on the Brenshell Homes site. The City should review to determine li this is an issue. • The grading on the north end of the pa»ject nuy be in the blult area of the existing ravine. Tlic City should a*view any impacts to the existing bluff area and any bluff setb.ick requiiements M a minimum, heavy-duty sih lence should be installed along the north end of the project to privtect the ravine fmni sedimentation • The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District should mview and approve the plans. Please contact me .it |65h f>04-4863 if you have any questions regarding this matter. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSb.NL. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. /CT^ Tom Kellog Cc: Greg Gapp.i. City of Orono 2335 West Highway 36 - St. Paul, MN 55113 • 651-636-4600 • Fax; 651-636-1311 W ^ sA Itf * •:VH /•y I »l"V '• -^j^’ CSs?:*"' i'..^ I \ *'X 8C0 r 0 r - T t^^(UCW€ll V. \Forest ■.\J. i$? • ^ siwawr. • * *'. •• ■ iCvT'^Moxwe> / S200/»V «.* 0 ORONO/'= Arm ®1 I Boh Shadftood Point DEERING "-7>V ISLAND iuo^i*i\»' S^eTsnSr.__-—l*--=r^ lo MO o I^yssl J[£S5Miif _______ ■! Off **M'!^t ■niuciui Spring nuwlo«»ai5 ^8K/______ ifwc ttf i?r\ ^ fu^ I r\ 3 G ElSijCoun^axpapr Ser^s Departrr^il^gJ;^ - - -_JI‘ f\ -------------------*---------V 1 *■ji—1: n . n wa-----T—tun —t ■ —j- fi Parcel^orrna(/m real ID q^m3240043^v Numj^llSI ^ MMm0^LDHUMTjX!CTu .•-^1 Tfii$i$rtontl^fatyncon/$a/nSfi!/tf9prtS0nts§^opMtonofMonruUk)n ^ ' 9ndd»l» l^pfy, County, madmMho iWm tndoOmaouK9*. . i 1 Address: / /i\’ Ini i~ /^rmeirltj /J31 cOildHuxs-f- PERMIT RECORD Permit Wo. loleb ^ Date Type of Permit J!sJ oz£^ tn\ _y3.(o.V-______________HzJ. 517^2 ________^Lu^nhiriJ^^ ------------------------2zl9^JU__________'RLtDansJ.U.^ -------------------i^=.i::i</_______jjauiom— _____________^.9-DJ_______liAnAuf^ __y.Ue________________~b-S >-Ui/_______ 'j^lL:^Cj KtH_______ 5H-!_______ //•7'5 (f_______ P. i~)0 7:______ /■I -W.'‘'V________ £c2Ji±jL__ ■V ^ 3 ^C‘ ______ ^ ^ 6r .p 0_ cP ' ^ _________ V-Jc '73___________________ <:i '•■<};. hn ___ !.j J :■ :><. c y ■■ , ^ - f-i^:,;( ■/ 4/L "T^ // 1 J v\RUN DATE OS/Sl/01 BAKU Sll HENNCriN COUNTY ntOfCTTV INrORTUTlQN SVSTCN PROPERTY OWNERS LIST PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAKPAYER NAUC/AOOR SB BP-I17-2S S3 OOtSB AOORESS UNA3SICNCD CITY or ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX AW CRYSTAL tW 5SSSS PROP ADDR OWNER NAItE TAXPAYER NAnC/ADDR SB BP-117-S3 SS BOSS BOB.. AOORESS UNASSICNIO CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO P 0 BOX bW CRYSTAL BAY ttN S&3S3 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NA*1E/AOOr SO B7-L17-23 Sb BOU BIBBO WlLOHURSr TR RVC HONES INC RVC HONES INC ISSBO WAYSATA BLVO WAYZATA tIH SSS^l PROP AOOR OHN'R NANE TAXrAYER NANE/AOOR SO B7-117-S3 Sb BBSS Bbb7S FOREST LAKE LANDING J BLACKSTONC I 0 BLACKSTONE JON A CAIL BLACKSTONE bbbS FOREST LAKF LANDING NOUNO NN SS:bb PROP AOOR (OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AIIOR SB 07-II7-TS Sb OOST BIBBS WILOHURST TR H A SCHULTZ ETAL HARVEY A SCHULTZ IBBS WILOHURST TR NUUNf m SSSbb PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO B7-117-2S Sb BBSb BBBSA AOORESS UNASStCNEO CITY OF ORONO CITY or ORONO P 0 BOX bb CRYSTAL BAY NN SSSSS SB B7-117-SS SS OBSB BBBSO AOORESS UNASSICNED CITY r. ORONO CITY OF ORONO P O BOX bb CRYSTAL BAY NN 55SSS SB B7-117-SS S3 BBSl BBBSO AOORESS UNASSICNEO CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX bb CRYSTAL BAY NN 5S3SS REPORT NO. PlbSSbBl PACE Sb SO B7-117-S3 Si BOSS Olial WILOHURST TR BRENSHELL DEVELOPNENT CCRP BRENSHELL OEVCLOPTUNT CORP P 0 BOX 1S5 NOUta NN SSSbb SO B7-I17-SS Sb BBB7 BllBb WILOHURST TR B 0 RASNUSSEN/S J RASNUSSEH BRIAN D t SANDRA J RASNUSSEN llBb WILOMURST TR NOUNO NN SSSbb SO B7-117-SS Sb BBIS Obbbb FOREST LAKE LANOTT« P V NARTINSON/I N NARTINSOH PETER V hARTlNSON bbbO FOREST LAKE LANDING NOUNO NN SSSbb SO B7-II7-2S Sb BBU BbbSB FOREST LAKE LANDING R L I V A WOLFF ROBERT L A VELNA A WOLFF bbSa FOREST LAKE LANDING NOUNO NN SSSbb SO B7-I17-SS Zb BBSb 0bb7S FOREST LAKE LANDING J BLACKSTONE B C OIACASTONE: JON A CAIL PLACKSTONE bbbS FO. ZST LAKE LAHOINO IRNIND NN SSSbb 50 B7-I17-SS Sb BBS7 Bllb* w:-**.IUR5T TR LYlE C RAM ETAI LYLE E RAHN llbb WILOHURST TRAIL HOUND NN SSSbb 3f B7-H/-S3 :b .TSB B.BbS WILOHURST TR NICNAEL V NCKEN.YEY NICHALL V IK KEiNE*. iBbS WlLDTRmsr T».1L NOUNO TIN SSSbb SO B7-II7-SS Sb BBSI BIbSS WILOHURST TR CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX bb CRYSTAL BAY NN SSSSS SO B7-II7-S» Sb BBSS OOBSA AOORESS UNASSICNEO cm or iRONO CITY or ORONO P 0 BOX bb CRYSTAL BAY NN SSSSS SB '71I7-SS Sb BBSb B.«S4 AOORESS UNASSICNEO RAD NENNESSY RICHARD L NENNESSY 7bSB BLOONINCTON AVC S Richfield nn ssbss if < J )-v-.‘O O -1 iiL J v\irUN DATE CS/Zl/Ol DAIUI &11 HENNEPIN COWII• PHOPERTr IMTOP- I'KuriHiv iiNinit:. ii •ON ilEM PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAKPAVER NAHC/AOOR PROP ADDR OWNER NAME TAKPAVER NANE/AOOR PROP AOOR owner name TAXPAYER NAnC/AOOR REPORT NO. PlASSARl PACE Ail PROP AOOR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR M •7-117-Zl 2A M57 OAASS FOREST LARE LANDINO S H A H J ERIKSON SANFORD A ItAROARET ERIRSON <i^SS FOREST lARE LANOINC nouNo m SS5M M 07-117-2S 24 OBIS 0444S FOREST LAKE lANOlNO JON D BLACKSTONC IT AL JON 0 BLACKSTONC 444S FOREST LAKE LANOlNO nOUMO HN SSSb4 SR •7~ll7-2S 24 RB40 B447B FOREST LAKE LANOlNO R H WALTER JR A J H WALTER RICHARO W WALTER JR 447B FOREST LARE LANtLNO ONONO NN S5544 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NAHC/AOOR 50 BP-llP-ES 24 BB41 B444R FOREST LAKE LANOlNO J n PREW A K L PRIH JOHN A KAREN PREW 444B FEWEST LARE LANOIHC HOUND HN SSS44 50 07-117-2S 24 1042 044BO FOREST LAKE LANOlNO LOREN F SCH0CN2C1I CT AL LOREN F SCNOCNZCIT 4400 FOREST LAKE LANOlNO HN SSS44 50 B7-l‘7-/5 2«< 0045 •1151 bTLDHURST 14 J A C CUl ‘TON JOHN N A CINOV L CULLITON 1151 HILONURST TR nOUIO HN S5504 50 07-117-25 24 0044 01154 WILOHURST TR HICNAEL S WEAR A BRIT S HEAR HICHAEL S WEAR 1154 WILOHURST TR nOUND HN 55504 SO •7-117-25 24 ••44 •1^74 WILOHURST TR ILONA J PETERSON KENNETH C PETERSON 14B2R ISTH PL N PLVnOUTK HN 55447 50 R7-117-25 51 RRSA •1214 HILONURST TR CARY W WELSH CTAL GARY W WELSH 1214 WILOHURST TRL HOUND HN 55544 50 •7-117-25 51 •057 •12^^ WILOHURST TR SANDRA J HOLLENHORST ET AL SANDRA J NOLLENFWRST A HICIUCL J HOLLENHORST 12RS WILOHURST TR HOUND NN 55544 SO •7-117-.*5 51 RRSO 01241 HILDEURST TR SCOTT HICHAEL HE»MSSV SCOTT H MENNCbSY 1241 HILDIAWST IR HOUND NN 55544 50 07-117-25 52 0045 •••50 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED J D OOLCEAL A J A ROSTAO J D OOLEZAL A J A ROSTAD 5»44 BARTLETT BLVO HDUNO (IN 55544 50 07-117-25 52 0047 •44«0 TONRAVICW LA HAS BULL WILLTAH A BULL 44<»B roWAVlEW LA HOUND HN 55544 TOTAL BATCH 511 OBBSl , t I « • • ' *. V n ' 4 • t!' / diliMilii t TO: KKO.M: UATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator \\ end) Uoticnberg, Zoning Administrator Planner June n. :ooi SIBJECT: «0l-:686 543 Park l^ne Variances •• Public I learing Zoning District: l.ot Are**: LR'IB One Family l-akeshore Residential District (I acre) 10.128 s f. (.23 acre) Lbt orEsbibits A Anal)MS Worksheet Application Site Plan'Surve) (lAisting and Propisscd) Elevations ! loor Plans Neighborhood lots Hardens er Calculations Photos of Proper!) LiKation Map Proper!) Map Pennit Record Proper!) Owner’s Ms! Pertinent Code Section: I. Section i0.03. Subd. 14(C): Structural Lot Coverage: The total combined footprint areas ofall principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15*? b ofihe lot area. To permit a variance to allow 2.195.55 s.f. (21 6®/b) structural lot coverage where 1.792 s.f. (17.7*/o) exists and 1.519.2 s f (15®o) is allowed. 2. Section 10.22. Subd. I (B)and Section 10.5(..Subd, 16(1.)(2): Hardcover in 75-250': Within 75- 250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25“o hardcover. To permit a variance to allow 3.767 55 s.f (53. To) hardcover where 4.474 9 (63. l“o) exists and 1.772.75 s.f (25“o) is all* • d. 3. Section 10.24. Subd. 5 (U): Side Yard Setback, ihe following minimum requirements shall be observed for LK-IB district-10 feet. To permit a variance to allow i.... garage to be 5' from the S'de lot line where 10' is required. 4. Section 10.24. Subd. 5 (B). Side Yard Setback: The folla.ving minimum requirements shall be observed for LR-1B district -10 feel. l o permit a variance to allow Uie entry way to be 6.6' from the side lot line where 10' is required. 5. Section 10.24. Subd. 5(B): Rear Yard Setback: The following niinimuni requirements shall be observed for LR-1B district - 35 feel. To permit a variance lo allow the garage lo be 8.8 ’ and 14,6’ frun llic rear yard lot line. ttOl-26S6 TtrryA Suzantu Johnson !>4i P irk Lane 6 n :ooi Page I 6. Section 10 22. Subdivision I (D)and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16<CK6): AvcraRc Lakeshorc Setback: No principal or accessorj structure shall be located closer to the lakeshorc than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lets. To permit a variance to encroach 20' and 32 ’ into the average lakeshore setback. Description of Requests: A. Applicant has requested variances to permit construction of an attached garage to the street side of the residence. The nc\^ garage \n ill be 24’ x 24’. A wriion of the existing garage will become the new master bedrintm The new garage will extend It ’ cIo.wr to the street than the existing garage. \'arianees are needed bceau.se the garage encn>acKes into the rear .setback, side yard setback, increases the structural co\erage on the lot oxer the allowed 151b. and hardcover in the 75*250’ setback area is ttxer the allowed 25%. B. The second part of the request is to permit including the steps into the existing entry way on the south side of the residence. The entry xx^y is already covered and the applicants xvish to include the steps as part of it. Variances are needed because the entry xvay encroaches in the side yard setback hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area is over the alloxvcd 251b. The entry xvay will not increase the structural lot coverage. 1 he existing entry xvay and steps are already ron.tidered structure. C. The third part of the request is to permit enclosing a ground level patio, t he patio will be enclosed to be a screen porch. A variance is required because it is encroaches into Uie average lakeshore setback. I he screen porch will not increase the hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area or structural lot coverage. Backgruuiid: Ihe applicants’ initial proposal xxas more expansive than the plan now in front of the Claiming Commission. After reviewing the application, staff discussed hardcover calculations and structural coverage on the lot with the applicant, explaining that structural coverage on the lot x>as increasing and was already over the allowed 151b by city code and the amount of hardcover in the 75-250’ .vetback area is well oxer the allowed 251b by c.tx code. Ihe applicant decided to go forward with the plan but with sx'me modifications The entry xvay remains the same, as does the screen porch and side loading garage, however the garage wall was moved 8’ into the residence reducing the si/e of the house but still constructing a 24’ x 24’ garage. The applicant also committed to remove sub.stantial amounts of hardcover to lower the hardcover coverage in the 75-250' setback area • I he structural coxerag. oi. the lot will increa.se with the addition from 1.792 s.f. (17.71o) to 2.195.55 s.f. (21.61b). above the allowed 1.519.2 s.f. (15lo). Nloving the wall 8’ into the residence reduces the existing house by 169 s.f. but the 24’ x 24’ garage adds 576 s.f. to the residence. A net increase of 407 s.f (3.91b). The hardcover in (he G-75’ setbaeV area is not changing. 242.85 s.f (6.3%^ The existing 0-75' hardcover is • Th is 4 0OI-26S6 Ten, 543 Park Lane 6 13 200! Page 2 .aver Vs.f ' iuT • .50* setback area is decreasing. The existing 75-250' hardcover I decreasing to 3,767.55 s.f (53.1%). The garage addition to the east side of the residence will be located 5’ Irom the side property line where 10’ is required. The existing garage meets side >ard setback standards. The garage addition also will be located 8.8* from the rear lot line where 35* is required. Tlie existing garage is liKated 22' and 28* from the rear lot line. The entrx way addition to the south side of the residence will be located 6.6' from the side lot line where 10* is required. The existing entrx wny is 6.6 ’ from the side lot line. The enclosure of the existing patio to a screen porch will not increase har .co\cr or structural coverage on the lot. It w ill only change the use of the area. The applicant is proposing to remove substantial amounts of hardcover on the propem. Included is the concrete patio on the west side, concrete sidewalks on the north side and a large portion of the drivewax . Neighborhood: Hie properties in the neighborhood on the north end of Park Lane arc 100' wide lots. The applicants propertx is 50’. (I:.\hibit L). The lots at the south end of Park I inc arc 50’ w ide. Since 1990 sexeral properties on the lakeside of Park Lane have applied for \ariances. 577 Park Lane* (50’ wide lot) In 2000 the owner of the property was approx ed for xariances to ‘'onslruct a family rintm addition where a deck was located and to allow improxements to a screen ptuch. Variances were approved to allow 55.l*o hardcover in 75-250 setback down from 58.2°o. side vard setback to allow the addition to be 6' from the property line and to permit structural cove;.ige of 1.881 s.f and encroachment into the average lake>hore setback. The structural coverage on the proper!) was existing at 1.881 s.f The .structural improvements were replacing existing structure. 537 Park Lane-1 100’ wide lot) In 1994 the owner of the property was approved for variances to build a new residence on the property. The variances approved were :o allow the structure to be 6 ’ fami the street, hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area at 26 4% and a bluff setback. The proposed improvement was to be consistent with the existing improvements of the properties to the immediate east and west of the property. 583 Park Lane - (50 ‘ wide lot) In 2000 the owner of the property was approved for variances to construct a second story to the existing residence. The variance approved was side yard setback. The existing residence was 3' from the side yard lot line therefore requiring a side > ar J setback variance. The structural lot coverage and hardcover were not increasing on the property. The existing structural coverage is 2l.7°/oand the liardcover in the 75-250 setback zone is 65°b. •OI-26S6 Terry A Suzanne Munson 543 Park Lane A / ’ :m Page 3 Slatcmcnl of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: I. The structural coverage on the lot is inercasing. 2. The residence uas built in 1960 in its present location, prior to cunent i -ang ordinances but generally in compliance with all current codes. 3. The adjacent lots arc both 100* wide. While this lot is 50* and small for the ER-1B zoning district standards. 4. The hardcover in the 0-75' setback area is not changing. 5. The hardcover in the 75-250' setback area is decreasing. 6. Will the 25 ’ backup apron serving the side loading garage leave enough maneuvering room" The side loading garage will allow for parking on the driveway rather than the street. However, doors facing the street will lowtrr the hardcover and will force parking to occur on the street. Park Lane is not a heavily traveled street. 7. A permit was issued in 1964 for construction of the porch. 8. Other issues raised by die Plorming Commission. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons. 3. Table. 4. Odicr action. *0!-26S6 TtrryA Suzanne Jt^mon 543 Park Lane 6112001 Page 4 i >!«kCL ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IB Lot Area Required 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 10.128 s.f. (.23 acre) Hordco\<r Calculations; Stniclunil Coverage: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*3.862 s.f.0 s.f. (0-/i) 242.85 s.f (6.3»o) 242.85 s.f (6.3*0) No Change 75-250 ’7.091 s.r.1.722.75 s.f. l25».o) 4.474.9 s.f (63 1%) 3.767.55 s.f (53.1 »•) Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 10,128 s.f (.23 acres)Allowed: 1.519.2 vf (15*/i) Existing 1.792 s f (17.7*i) Proposed: 2.195.55 s.f (2l .6*i) .4 1 • A i 4 ■■■s r<^- ’ •*v'*/•■** / 7 86 3 Application # Of ~^L>SCp Date Recch'cd 3 ~0/ Amount PaldiV^ oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Facl Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address PakIl, _____ Property Identification Number fP.l.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________7/^3_____________-___________ I (do) n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify)_________ Zoning District: ______________________________________ _(month/year) APPLICANT Phone fhomc) ^iSo Name , Av^ATtfryj 3o/fi^tg/l(r>Mnrf ed)Phor.e(work) n A/4,ir«cc> c/j■> . City: ^Or6ie\R___________Zip:Address: fiiirk. OWNER (if different than applicant) Nan e SamL' ____ ______ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^OfOOO Describe request in detail: Arid a. ».#kA/*r OLOfiLY 4* cu ^ — « (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width %/Setback: y/ Front j/. Side __Other (specify)___________________ j(/Hard Rex- cover . Lot Coverage ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: //vf /%y\b ^l\t lA/SLj, ou^ /V J"ij uMcdon % cur Lar Xii/.h •filAr 4h€ A A Tit rJ ______________ fikn/€- hry**rfMaCiA. u/\fijLy\e*4y^pfnlA 1\6hkp. tAi\(Vi^ I additional shee^ Oravt a £rf*itniMn«*fyr ^ artd -fhe/e r-t^thc w/itr imIu ^ r€iiae*\{^ /'>1 a^Vr-trv^ f 6 o D f I- • - • • • V • ♦ ^ fi.............- - - O ... I '*. '»•• t */;<>•.■ j . '••-*• I -id 1 -S.,* •• I ■ ■■ r»~ r nP'Bnw ^ >'i kJflfeMI i. iMM •-•i— - rk'r^ -r «l»taa k;:.' L,. HARDCOVER SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)WCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250’250-500'500-1000' EXISTING HARnrOVER IN TONP A. House ___ Lcagih WiAli B. Oarage C. Driveway O. Sldewal^4^4a^ E. PMio/Deck F. Landaaape _ UBtliriain _ By-RUit«c _ o.fy O. Other \.r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAi^OPERTY AREA IN ZONE _______________ ♦ B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Len|th Wi(Sd> B. Oarsge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PatitVDeck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 1X.JL5 zXz _ST. S.F. S.F. -ST. S.F. S.F. ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. V* ST. ST. ST. ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. H P ST. ST. S.F. CD CO CQ f\lock)iififnfoseQ Aiuuicuvjui c AL.v>mA;uU0L>^ unKft ar.iu A 8£TBACKZCK«E: (CnCUCOND »-7S* UO-SQO* . ^ .. B. O km * %u\» wAttn^ftym ar zone A. How ^ afa.l » lit ^4^ LiwiI WA 4\t4 4* L.(i »5»TS 4- 4X^ ■ ' - ■ X - ______________ X _____________ ^.J AM C. Dilvtwiy __niu D. SldtwaDc E. Batlonkck F. Liadicap* IfodotUla B/FUitle OrFAde i. i\< I l.S_____ * O. OAw tO^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY Al^ IN ZONE A + B .■10<fl KlOO PROPOSED HARDCQIVER Pf ZONE A. How ____________ B. Ov«|< C. DfWc«rnjf D. SIdtwr: 1, pattomkk _ X X X X > X 4 F. Uodaeapc Vodtilila By PUitk OfFabdc O. Oihcf fOO-1000* iQkS,.^ R P. ^ S.P. --- !_ M.W. i' 4^.:^ 3.F. :4 S.P. ;S.F. JS 3.P. ^^S.F. jJ3:i S.F.TEsrrs.F. S.F. ’S.F. ■S.F. W14J 103 i 4i3.T S.F. S.F. ’ » S.F. 8.F. S.F. I S.F. S.F, s.f* S.F. S.F. VuV 1>'- * S.F. ------------"S.F. ----------^S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER BC ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ABBA Of ZONE' A ♦ B. rip siw - ^ 8.F. *^S.F. _% le 3SVd ^c>IS^a v>»oi3^iw 99e»»-iZl9 az:9T 108Z/ZI/98 G i*.. i k - -.4^ . >, I i’.J^ •-■it:.-'• /»•/• * : 'y* * f-r,. . >• • :: • . • T'.. *» •mm m •.V-'v-V.-vr .••>• • . • • •^. - '-V • *.■• ■ • '■•’l.‘ * . *G' ■ ■• :*■•.■ % ’ -. ■ 'G# ym * • I tllHW ST 400 T Stubbs . ' i ) I \ ../ .7^;* G)urse#4 # ------- WIST iiniuicil BO 8C0 V ■ / Kl • g( » }v^, ' • ; i « .. ' \ Noerenbcrg /^: . Aiaxwell.X^’^l''\ K—s’ .* A Maxwe.l ^v'- ■'. '^,-• \ / A /-n' MaxweA ' , ■ \\5 ;■ .: .'.1.1 ' ■■ \\V-'V ^Arm - K\V', y*£;S^ % \ Skogsberg Pant § | ^ L i“ w'"' ORONO/sf A l'*M 4 - I I ^ '' VI • Crystal .. Bohns Point _L Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 20 40 , ;■''Vi "^*T^rcel Infamiation Parcel ID 061172S41CNM3 Nomm Number S43 Street Name DARK IJt . ' Coodomlnlum This i$ not ahgsfyrwconitd map. It npfasants a compilation of Mommboii'. and data hom City, County, aoaStatanadauthohUos and olhar aouroaa.' , ' ■T PERMIT RECORD Permit Wo. yo*f/______ IHHI________ Pate ILL^O Type of Permit /^o/ ys-^iL. ______________________ C RUN DATt RS/ZZ/tl ■ATCH III HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TNPORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIRSS4SI PACE 1 rtOf AODR OWNER NAHC TAXRAViR NAnC/AOOR 5R RA-lir-ZS A1 IIAI RRS2S PARK LA LOIS N RREOANL LOIS N RREOANL S2S PARK LA LONG LAKE NN SSS5A SR RR-117-2S AS SSAS RASAS PARK LA TERRY R JOHNSON TERRY R JOtRCSON SAS PARR LA LONO LAKE NN S5SSA SI RS'llT-ES R1 RRAA ••SSR PARK LA JANES A NULVANNY JANES A NULVANNY SSR PARK LA LONG LAKE NN SSSSR RROR AOOR OWNER WANE TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SR RA-U7-2S A1 ERAS •IBA7 PARK LA AUDREY OVERRY AUDREY OVERRY SA7 PARK LANE LONG LAKE NN SSSS* SR •A-117-2S A1 OOAA ••S77 PARK LA DENISE L DUENOW DENISE L DUENOW S77 PARK LA LONO LAKE NN SSSSR SR RR>117>2S R1 •••• •RISR ELN ST T P CARROLL ASK CARROLL TNONAS PETER CARROLL RISK ELN ST LONO LAKE IM SSSSR * PROP AOOR OWNER NAME M •A-117-25 A1 Rtkl •••SR ADDRESS UNASSICNED KAREN E DUENOW KAREN E DUENOW SSS PARK LA LONG LAKE NN SSSS* SR •A*117-2S A1 RRAA •••SR ADDRESS UNASSICNED N J A N R ALRERS NITCHELL J/NELISSA R ALfCRS AIRS OAK ST LONO LAKE NN SSSBA SR RR-I17>2S R1 RRRS ••SRR PARK LA HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND • NANE/AOOR CITY OF ORONQ P O ROX A4 CRYSTAL RAY NN SSS2S • PROP AOOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SS •••117-2S A1 REAR ••S5S PARK LA KAREN E DUENOW KAREN E DUENOW SSS PARR LA LONG LAKE NN SSS5R SR •A-117>2S A1 R1S2 •05S7 PARK LA OAK OLSON DOUGLAS A KAREN OLSON SS7 PARK LA LONO LAKE NN SSSSR TOTAL RATCH SRI •••!! I CERTIPY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INfORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTNENT Of PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE DEST Of NY KNOWLEOCE AND RELIEF.< i \ #2686 :h ------~ iTrii MINUTES OF THE. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday,May2L200l ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above dale with the following members present; Acting Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners Janice Berg. William Stoddard, and Daniel Kliith. Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth. Elizabeth llawn. and Dale Lindquist were absent Ihe following represented City Staff: Planning Director Michael Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger. Zoning Administrator Wendy Boltenberg. and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Jay Nygard was present. Acting Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. OLD BUSINESS (Utl) «636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, 3532 IVY PLACE. VARIANCES. 6:37 p.m. - 7:04 p.m. Gary and Susan Cable. Applicants, were present. Weinberger staled this application was reviewed and tabled at the November 20.2000 Planning Commission meeting, lire Applicants are requesting a variance to the requirement that an accessory building can remain on Ihe property without a principal building. 1lie accessory building in this case is an ice house located near the lakeshore. A variance is also required to allow hardcover in excess of the 25 percent limit in the 75-250* setback. Weinberger staled 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 Ihe decision bv the City regarding the future use of the ice house. A1 emporary Certificate of Occupancy was approved on April 19. 2001 . A condition of approval was the ice house must be removed or get City approval, bv variance, to allow the ice house to remain on the property within 90 davs of the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a final Certificate of Occupancy could not be issued and the house not occupied. Weinberger stated the permitted hardcover in the 75-250* setback is 25 percent of the area, with the hardcover in the 0-75* setback being deducted from what is allowed in the 75-250 ’ setback. The Applicants have proposed a driveway apron that would only provide access to two garage doors and would not prov ide access for the third stall. Tliat arrangement eliminated the need for a variance that they had requested in the past. The City then issued the building permit to the Applicants because they were under the 25 percent hardcover limit. Weinberger stated when the 96 square feet of structural coverage for the ice house is included in Uie hardcover calculations, they arc in excess of the 25 percent allowed by 50 square feet. The Planning Commission at its Nov ember. 2000 meeting had requested that if the Applicants choose to keep the ice house on the property, they would need to appear tefore the Planning Commission, w ith the advice that the City does not approve replacement of foundations for structures located within the 0-75* setback. The Applicants were also adv ised that if they wished to increase the amount of hardcover on the property, they would need to remove the ice house. The decision on how to use the 25 percent hardcover was left up to the discretion of the Applicants following the November meeting. PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21.2001 (W2636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, CONTINUED) Weinberger staled the issues for discussion by the Planning Commission this evening are related to the variances w hich would allow the ice house to remain on the property and the lack of a driveway to the third garage stall and the lack of a sidewalk to the front door of the house. Weinberger staled if those items were to be added in the future, they would cause the e.xisting hardcover to be in excess of the 25 percent allowed. Weinberger requested the Planning Commission give some direction on where additional future hardcover might be allowed on this property to accommodate an expanded driveway and/or a sidewalk to liie front door. Coble indicated they have removed a fireplace in order to reduce the hardcover somewhat. Weinberger noted the remov al of the fireplace would amount to approximately 10 to 12 square feet of i.ardcover. Smith inquired what the Applicants’ plans are relating to the ice house, the lack of a sidewalk, and the lack of a paved access to third garage stall. Smith stated she would like to know how it is the Applicants chose to use this particular design for their house and garage. Cable indicated they have changed their plan three times during this process. Cable stated if they had located the house closer to the road, it would have required the removal of some trees, which they elected not to do. Smith inquired what the Applicants intended to use the third stall of the garage for. Cable stated he would like to use it for storage. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be driv ing over the grassy area in order to gain access to that third stall. Cable commented they probably would someday. Smith indicated once the Applicants drive on the grassy area, the soil then begins to act as hardcover in that it does not allow for permeation and in essence becomes hardcover much like a paved surface. Smith inquired about the lack of a sidewalk to the front door of the residence and the Applicants plans in the future regarding that access route. Cable stated it is their intention to leave it as it presently is. Mrs. Cable commented that nine times out of ten visitors to their residence would enter through the garage. Smith stated it is not the function of the Planning Commission to design the Applicants' home, but in her view the lack of a sidewalk to the front of the house and the lack of a paved driveway in front of the third stall of the garage are issues that need to be considered and w ould eventually result in those areas becoming hardcover. Smith encouraged the Applicants to consider the addition of a sidewalk to the front of the house. Smith stated in her opinion this is a situation where additional hardcover is likely to be added in the future, which would make the property in excess of the allowable hardcov er. PAGE 2 1I' j MINUTES OFTIIE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mowlay. May 21,2001 (02636 GARY AND SUSAN CABLE, CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether the Applicants would be w illing to consider the addition of those two items. Cable indicated the construction of the house is completed. Cable stated they reduced the hardcover down to what they were allowed at the time they built Ute house. Berg indicated the need for a sidewalk and paved access to the third stall was discussed at the November Planning Commission meeting. Berg stated in her view a sidewalk and paved access will eventually be added on this property, which will bring the total hardcover on the property over the allowable 25 percent. Kluth inquired whether the City's Ordinances require a front sidewalk and paved access to all garage stalls. Weinberger stated there presently are not Code requirements pertaining to that. Kluth noted the City did issue a building permit up to the maximum hardcover amount without allowing for a sidewalk and additional driveway to the third stall. Weinberger stated that issue had been discussed at Uic time the Applicants applied for the building pemiit, but since this site plan did meet all the requirements of the City, the building permit was issued. Gaffron stated in quite a number of instances Applicants will approach the Cit> with site plans that arc in excess of the allowable hardcover, with Staff working with the Applicants in order to reduce the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being proposed on the property. Gaffron stated Staff did question the lack of a sidewalk and lack of access to the third stall of the garage at the time they applied for the building permit. Gaffron stated the Applicants would be able to place a wood chip sidewalk to the house if they so choose. Stoddard stated it is his understanding of the November Planning Commission meeting that they were debating whether the ice house should remain. Stoddard stated since this application did not reappear before the Planning Commission, he had assumed the Applicants had taken steps to address the issue of the sidewalk and access to the garage. Cable stated at the time they appeared before the Planning Commission, the building permit had already been issued. Stoddard stated the function of the Planning Commission is to help insure Uiat the site plans are in compliance with the City's ordinances. Stoddard stated in his view the sidewalk and access to the third stall will be added in the future. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicants would be able to reduce hardcover somehow and provide for a sidewalk to the front door. Weinberger stated currently the hardcover in the 75-250' setback is under the allowable 25 percent limit by 46 square feet w ithout the ice house. Weinberger stated the Applicants could provide a paver stone system for a front sidewalk rather than a full sidewalk. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (M26J6 CARY AND SUSAN CABLE. CONTINUED) Stoddard noted the Applicants are entitled to another 12 square feet because of the removal of the fireplace, which would bring it to 58 square feet. Stoddard commented that is one option the Applicants could consider. There were no public comments. Stoddard staled he would be w illing to allow the ice house and have the Applicants provide some type of sidewalk to the front di>or. Stoddard stated he would be against any type of vehicular access to the third garage stall. Smith slated that means no mulch, no pa\cr stones, no fabric would be allowed relating to the third garage stall. Smith reiterated that on;c that area is driven over, the soil then starts to act os hardcover. Mrs. Cable indicated they arc planning to store a Corvette in the third garage stall, which currently is not in operating condition. Kluth commented in his opinion the hands of the Planning Commission arc somewhat lied since the Applicants have proceeded to consiruci a house to the maximum hardcover allowed and then In hli V icw w ill later come in and request v ariances for Items that probably should have been included in the original site plan. Mrs. Cable slated at the lime they pur.;hased this properly and began this process, they were somewhat ignorant of Orono's rules and regulations regarding hardcover and structural coverage. At tlie time they purchased the property, the ice house was one of the attracting features of the property. Mrs. Cable suied they did not deliberately attempt to manipulate the sy stem and had the understanding they would be able to keep the ice house when they purchased the property. Kluth commented the Planning Commission tends to see other applications where they have constructed a house up to Uie ma.\imum hardcover and structural coverage allowed and then later request additional hardcover. Smith staled all Applicants should provide for reasonable amenities in their site plans, such as sidewalks and driveway s, because chances arc. in the future, those w ill be added. Cable commented the house that was removed was considerably in excess of the hardcover and structural limits and in place they have constnicied a house that is in compliance with the hardcover limits. Cable stated they did not dcliKrratelv try to manipulate the system Stoddard stated typically on new construction the Planning Commission has been very strict about the 25 percent hardcover limit and has not approved any that exceed that number. Smith inquired whether any restrictions could be placed on this property limiting additional hardcover in the future. GafTron stated one option would be to ask the Applicants to place a covenant on the property restricting additional hardcover, which would explain to this property owner and future property PAGE 4 MIMTES OF THE ORONO PI^NNTNG COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2001 («636 GARY AND Sl^SAN CABLE, CONTINUED) o>%'ncrs uhal can and cannot happen on this property with respect to hardcover and structural coverage. Smith commented she is in favor of a covenant. Weinberger stated if the ice house is to remain, a variance would need to he granted. Siixldord stated it was his understanding they were under the hardcover limit by 58 square feel. Weinberger staled that is without the ice house being included. With the ice house they would be SO square feel o\cr. which would require a variance. Kluth slated if the ice house remains, they would not be allowed to construct a sidewalk or driveway to the third stall. Sliuldard inquired what steps the Applicants have taken to reduce hard cover since the November meeting Cable slated they have removed the fireplace. Smith inquired whether the sidewalk and driveway were included in the site plan at the November meeting. Mrs. Cable stated they were not. Stoddard stated he had misunderstood the situation and thought the Applicants were under the 25 percent lim I with the ice house. Kluth stated this application was tabled in November to allow the Applicants time to make some changes to their plan to enable them to keep the ice house, which have not been done and that he would like to make a motion denying the application Kluth moved to o recommend denial of Application #26J6. Gary and Susan Cable, 3532 Iv^- Place, for a hardcover variance and variance to allow an accessory structure located in the 0-75 ’ setback to remain on the property. Kluth stated the application was tabled in older to give the Applicants time to reduce the hardcover in order to keep the ice house, which have n.’. been done, and by constructing a residence without a sidewalk and driveway access to the third stall of the garage was simply delay ing a request for additional hardcover into the future. Kluth stated in his opinion protective covenants have only limited value since it only puts the nc.xt property owner on alert to what is or is not allowed on the property, with the City having limited means of monitoring these types of properties. Stoddard stated the Applicants also have the option to table this application in order them to reduce the hardcover further. Stoddard commented he had the understanding the Applicant was going to consider reducing the garage somewhat in order to lower the hardcover. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mowlay.May2l,200l (W6J6 CARY AND SUSAN CABLE. CONTINUED) Smith noted the Applicants ore 38 square feet over with the ice house, but lack a sidewalk to the front of the house and driveway access to the third stall of the garage. Smith inquired whether they would like to table it or have the Planning Commissitm vote on the motion that has been made denv ing the application. Cable indicated he would like the Planning Commission to vole on the application. Smith seconded the above motion. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION; Ayes 4. Nay s 0. (W2) ttOI-2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD. VARIANCES, 7:05 p.m. - 7; IS p.ni. Curt Manley. Applicant, was present. Weinberger stated this is a three-part application, with t' : Applicants requesting an aOer-the-fact conditional use permit and variances to permit construction of two retaining walls within 75 feet of the lakcshore. a variance to permit two domicr window additions within 75 feet of the lakeshore and within the average lakeshore setback, and a request to replace a deck and three fiHM hand railing around a dct.u'hcd garage Weinberger stated the retaining walls were constructed approxinia .’ly one year ago to help slabili/c the lakeside of the residence and to improve the walkout area. WcinlK'rger staled the City is unable to v erify that there retaining walls in that area prev ious to the construction of the new ones Weinberger stated it is pcwsible sv>me very low level boulder walls may have e.xisted in this area which were completely covered by vegetation and do not appear in llie City’s photographs. A previ ms variance application in 1998. which included a survey, did not depict retaining walls in that portion of the property. The City also does not have any documentation showing when the original retaining walls were constructed. The second part of the application is a request to allow the construction of two dormer window additions within 75 feet of the lakeshore and within the average lakeshore setback. A variance is required because the dormer windows would be an expansion of the building within a required setback. Tlie dormers would be an expansion of the building envelope within 75 feet of the lake and an expansion of the building envelope within the average setback to the two adjacent residences I he third part of the request is to permit replacement of the deck and a three-foot hand railing that is liKaied on top of the detached garage. Weinberger indicated there was an original deck located on the garage depicted in a photograph taken in 1998. along w ith a hand railing. Tbe original deck was remov ed from the lop of the garage so the roof could be replaced. The Applicant is proposing to replace the deck and railing in a similar style to what had been there previously. Weinberger recommended the Planning Commission consider the retaining walls separate from the other requests. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MoBday.May2l.200l (M01.2668 MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. CONTINUED) Weinberger staled in the early 1980s, the Council had approved a variance which allowed the garage to be refurbished in its existing location. Two of the conditions the Council had placed on that approval was that the garage be reduced in size and cut back to meet a two foot setback to the street and to be rebuilt w ith a flat roof so as to not block the view of the lake from the neighboring residence. Weinberger noted this property has double frontage on the lake, flie railing is required for safety reasons since access to the i\x)f of the garage is not restricted. City Stair is recommending approval of the variances to permit the two dormer window addition and construction of the replacement deck over the detached deck. Weinberger noted this residence was constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinances. Weinbciger stated the addition of the two dormer w indows would not change the character or use of the property. City Staif is recommending tabling the request for the conditional use pennit and variances for the retaining wall and would request that the survey be updated to include revised hardcover calculations for the 0-75’ setback. Manley commented construction of the two dormer windows would not increase the building envelope and would allow them to do some rc-enforccmcnt construction in this area. Manley stated the construction in this area is poor and needs to be improved to make the structure more stable. Manley indicated it was the intention at the time the deck was removed to fix the nxd and that a railing is required for safety reasons since the roof of the garage can be accessed from the ground. Manley noted the size of the deck is being reduced somewhat. Manley stated he is in possession of some pictures which show the original retaining wall consisting of two courses of railroad ties and shale, which was considerably overgrown Smith inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to separate the retaining walls from the rest of the application to allow additional survey work to be completed. Manley stated he is fine with that. Bill Delay. 1971 Kagemess Point Road, commented he is in favor of the plan being prop»>sed. Stoddard moved, second by Klutb. to recommend approval of AppUcatioB WOl-2668. Manley Brothers Construction. 1973 Fagerncss Point Road, granting of variances to permit the construction of two dormer windows and construction of the replacement deck above the detached garage based on the findings and hardships contained in the Planner's Report dated May 3.2001. and to table the request for a conditional use permit and afier-tbe-fact variances for the retaining wall to permit additional survey to be submitted for review and approval by City Staff. Smith inquired whether there were any structural or hardcover issues associated with the retaining walls. Weinberger stated there is an issue with hardcover relating to the retaining walls. Weinberger stated Staff would like to review the area in on effort to determine what had existed previously. PAGE? MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday. May 21,2001 (M1.2MS MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. CONTINUED) Smith inquired \«hcthcr the interlocking retaining rock tliat has been utilized to construct the new retaining walls is acceptable. Weinberger stated typically Suit would request that an engineer review what is there in order to determine what is necessary. Weinberger stated since it is an ar:i*r-ihc-fact variance. Staff will need to find out what the recommendation of the engineer is for what e\:jtv today. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (M3) MOI-2671 ALISTAIR AND KRISTLN JACQUES, 445 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:19 p.m. - 7:19 p.m. Snilk moved, second by Berg, to table Application MOI-2671. .\listair and Kristin Jaeqars, 645 Old Lone Lake Road, at the request of the Applieants. \ OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (M4) MOI-2667 NORTH SHORE MARINA, 3222 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:20 p.m. - 7:20 p.m. Smith moved, second by Kluth, to table Application M0I>266*. North Shore Marina, 3222 North Shore Drive, at the request of the ,\palicant«, and to extend the application review period to August 5,2001. VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 6. NEW BUSINESS (M5) MOI-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. 1420 SHORELINE DRI\T, VARIANCE RENEWAL, 7:21 p.m. - 7:26 p.m. Gary Peterson and Dennis Killian. Applicant were present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were nc:^l. W'einberger stated the Applicants are requesting renewal of a bl.T setback variance. The variance was approved by the Council on September 27, 1999. and since a building permit was not requested within one year of variance approval, the variance e.xpired. The variances approved in 1999 permitted a 20 foot encroachment on the top of bluff setback. Weinberger slated this property is located along County Road If and Tanager Lake, with double lake frontage. Weinberger stated the bluff setback variance was approved with die four condition:; contained in his May 4,2001 Planner's Report. Weinberger stated the property his not been altered and conditions on the property have not changed since variaiKe approval in 1999. P\GE8 MINITTFS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2001 (Ml-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. CONTINUED) Staff recommends approval of the renewal with the conditions contained in the resolution appro\ing the variance in 1999. including rcmoval/rclocaiion of the garage and hardcover outside of the 75' lakeshorc setback. Killian stated he lias nothing to odd to SlaiVs report. Tlicrc were no public comments relating to this application. Stoddard inquired whether the Applicant was the new owner of tlic property. Killian stated he is the current owner of the property. Stoddard inquired whether there is any proposed building permit application In sight. Killian stated he has had the property for sale and someone has recently purchased the property with the condition that this variance Iw renewed. Klulh moved, second by Berg, to recommend approval of Application W01<2674, Deanit and Diane Killian, 1420 Shoreline Drive, granting of n vnriance renewal to bluff setbnek subject to the conditions as approved by the Orono City Council in Resolution No. 2516. VOTE: Ayes 4. NaysO. Stoddard suggested the City Council consider allowing variance approvals to be good for two years rather than one year. Galfron stated there is no statute limiting the effective life of a variance to one yvar and that it could be e.xtended to two years. Gaffron commented another option would be to have the variances automatically be renewed once or twice before it needs to come back before the Planning Commission. Stoddard suggested tliis item be placed on the agenda for the ne.xt work session. («6) #01-2675 DONNA LILE. 2765 ETHEL AVENUE. VARIANCE, 7:26 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. Donna Lilc. Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Dottenberg stated the Applicant is proposing to replace a deteriorating porch and add a gabled dormer above it. llte porch has deteriorate 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 li\ ing space to the residence. PAGE 9 MINirTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (001-2674 DENNIS AND DIANE KILLIAN. CONTINUED) Dottcnbcrg staled a side yard adjacent to jircet sariance is required to permit the roiiOinc to be 13.4 feet from the street where 15 feet is required Boticnberg noted structural lot coverage would not increase with the rix>fline expansion. City Staff recommends approsal of the application. Lile had nothing to add to Staff s report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith moved, second by Bcfr, to recommend approval of Applkation MOI-2675, Donna LIlc, 2765 Ethel Avenue, granting afa side yard adjacent to street variance to permit the roof line to be IJ.4 feel from the street where a 15 foot setback is required. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (h7) Mll-2678 KRISTI ROESLER, 1169 ELMWOOD AVENUE. VARIANCES, 7:30 - 8:03 p.m. Kristi Rocsler. Applicant, was present. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit ot Publication were noted. Bottenberg stated this is a two-part application. The Applicant owns two properties located ot 1169 North Ann Drive, which is an olTthe lake parcel with a residence, and Lot 7, Block I of Skarp and Lindquist's Gemhill. Lake Minnetonka" addition, which is a vacant lot consisting of 50 feet of bkeshorc. Bottenberg stated the two parcels have not been legally combined and ore separated by the Elmwood Avenue right-of-way and arc offset by approximately 100 feet. The Applicant purchased the properties approximately two years ago and has since learned that a dock is not allowed on the lake lot because there i> not a principal structure on the lot. Bottenberg staled the first part of the application is to review variances for lot a^ca width regarding the lake lot to pennit future residential constrcction. The lot is approximately I l.lOO square feet or .255 acres where the minimum lot area requirement is one acre, and approximately 50 feel wide where 140 feet is the minimum lot width required fer the LR-1B zoning district. Part two of the application is a request for a variance to permit a lot combination of a property not adjacent to the building lot for lake/dovk use. The two properties are separated by Elmwood Avenue. Tlie Applicant is requesting the ability to have lake acccss'dock via Lot 7. which is not combined with 1169 North Arm Drive. Tlte lot docs not have a principal structure. Bottenberg indicated a structure could be constructed on the property threuch a special lot combination agreement, which would function as a covenant requiring the two parcels remain in common ownership. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow the two lots to be combined and a variance to accessory buildings at time of construction. 1 PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PlJlNNINC COMMISSION Moaday, May 21,2001 («0|-2675 UONNA IJLE, CONTINUED) Bottcnbcrg stated the lakesliore lot has been vacant for many >ears. In 1971 a prior property owner applied for lot width and lot area variances. The variances were denied by the City Council, and the lot was considered unbuildabic. Since the 1970s. the lot has been used for dockage and lake access by the owner. The lot docs not have a principal residence, so such dockage is technically a v iobtion of City Code prohibiting accessory sinicturcs without a principal structure. Bottcnbcrg indicated the lot abuts undeveloped kimwood Avenue. A City sewer liB station is blocking the right-of-way on the south end. Access to this lot for building purposes would require an easement from an adjacent property owner. The lot received lateral sewer assessment for 50 feel, but was not assessed unit charge or sewer plant charge As a result, the lot was considered to be unbuildabic at the time the sewer was installed. Bottcnbcrg stated when the lot areaWidth variance application was rev iewed in 1971. hardship was discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. A finding for hardship for development o*" vacant lots would include no adjacent vacant land is available for development. Tltis is not the case for this property. In 1971 and today, the lot adjacent to the north was'is vacant and is being used similarly for lake access by the owners of 1135 North Arm Drive. City Staff is recommending denial of the variances for lot area and lot width on pan one of the application, and is recommending a dock be permitted without a primary structure by means of a special lot combination agreement. John Waldron. Attorney-at-Law. reviewed Stafl's report, noting that the paved street ends in the nppro.ximate location where this property begins, with an c.xisting driveway to the property . Tlie lift station is located very close to the adjoining property owner’s neighbor and apparently straddles the two property lines. Waldron stated in his view the lift station is really not an issue in determining access to this lot and would nut require an easement from the adjoining property owner. Waldron stated with respect to the prior application in 1971. based upon the records they’ve reviewed, at the time the sewer was installed, there was not an issue at that point that the lot was unbuildable or buildabic. In 1971. when there was an application made by a previous owner, the lot was then declared unbuildable and it was determined the owner did not have to pay the sewer assessment. Waldron stated this property has been a lot of record since 1933. and was a Torrens property originally registered in 1933 Waldron indicated the prev ious property owner made a similar application to Roesler’s application requesting variances to lot area and width, which was denied. Waldron stater*, one of the reasons that application was denied was the fact that there was an adjoining lot which ,ould be combined. The property owner of the lot immediately to the south then made a similar application to the City. That lot consists of 50 feet of lakeshore. The City Council at that time approv ed the lot area, lot w idth variances to allow the construction of a residence on that property. Waldron stated they have been attempting to find differences between that application and this application. Waldron staled in his view there are really no differences between that application that was approved and tonight’s application. Waldron stated Exhibit C is the best record av ailable that demonstrates what happened in that application, which notes tliat the zoning requirements are one acre PAGE It MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moiday. May 21,2001 (HOI-2675 DONNA LILt, CONTINUED) and 140 fool width. Waldron stated those zoning requirements still e.xi l today according to Staff s report. Discussion was also held on the matter of “single separate ownersJiip*. and it was indicated had the proper*;, been standing alone and not been adjacent to another property hav ing the same ownership, it would be considered single separate ownership, which was the case with the neighboring lot. Waldron stated Mrs. Roesicr diKs not own a lot adjacent to the lot she owns on the lake and has single separate ownership as the lot that was granted approval of the variances previously. W'aldron stated in his opinion there is no basis for distinguishing those two properties and that this application should be approved os well. Smith inquired whether the Applicant is considering those two lots the same for comparison purposes. Waldron stated that is correct. Waldron indicated the lot that was granted variances is actually slightly smaller than the subject lot. Bottenberg stated at the time the approval was granted, the lot was 50 feet b> 190 feet. Waldron stated if a structure was permitted to be built on this property , the neighborhood uniformity would remain the same. In terms of a hardship, aside from the fad that this application docs not differ from the application that was approved, if a building is not allowed to be placed on the lot. Waldron indicated the property ow ner is being deprived of all practical use of that property. Waldron noted the Applicant at the present time is not even able to place a dock on that property There were no public comments regarding this application. Smith inquired whether the Applicant's ultimate objective is to place a dock on the lakeshore lo*. Rocsier stated at the time she purchased the property, she had intended to construct a residence, and was not aware that the lot had lieen declared unhuildabic. Smith inquired whether the Applicant’s intentions were lo construct a house on the take lot. Rocsier staled that it was. Smith commented she is little confused why the other lot was approved at tlie time, and inquired whether Staff has any additional information regarding that application Gaffron stated that application was approved appro.\imately 28 or 29 years ago and the records in the City’s possession at this lime give very little indication what the rationale was for the approval. Gaffron staled City Staff could do an analysis of similar si/cd lots which were approved or denied. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission were to approve this application, his recommendation would be to only allow the standard hardcover and require that the residence meet all the applicable setbacks. Gaffron recommended this application be tabled if the Planning Commission is headed PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (WI-2675 DONNA LILE, CONTINUED) towards the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a she plan demonstrating how they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. Smith inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for applications in the future. Gaffron staled most lots of this size currently have a house erected on the property or has e been considered unbuildable for years. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could sec similar lots in the future when those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. Stoddard staled he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving an application where there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only SO feet wide where 140 feet is required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a diK*k for the lakcshore lot. Klu Ji inquired how a prospective buyer might become aware that the lot has been deemed unbuildable. Klulh noted that decision by the Council is not tiled with the County Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s. the City Council did not file variance approvals or denials. Since that time the City has filed them on the chain on title, fhe property owner could find out tlut information by asking the City to rev iew that file. Smith inquired how many lots that have been deemed unbuildable the City has approved in the pa.st with no sewer. Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property, there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. GafTron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildable at the time the sewer was installed, the City more than likely would not have assessed them the 50 foot frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approved, the .Applicant would owe the updated unit and plant charge. Smith inquired if a small cabin had e.xistcd on this lot at the time sewer was insulled in this area, how that property would have lo.vn treated. Gaffron staled they would have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with i unit charge and a plant charge. Stoddard inquired whether there is a dock currently on the lakcshore lot. Roesicr staled the dix'k is not legal. Rocsicr staled her mam purpose m purchasing the property was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if the first part of the application were tabled and the second part approved, whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first part of the application w ith the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first part of this application. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 2I« 2001 (#01-2675 DONNA LILE, CONTINUED) to\^auls the direction of approving this application in order to allow the Applicant to submit a site plan demonstrating how’ they plan to meet the setback and hardcover standards. Smilli inquired whether it would be helpful to have an analysis done of other similar lots for applications in the future. Gaffron stated most lots of this si/e currently have a house erected on the property or have been considered unbuitdable for years. GafTron staled the Planning Commission could sec similar lots in the future when those property owners come before the City requesting to rebuild on the property. Stoddard staled he is not aware of the Planning Commission ever approving on application where there has not been a sewer assessment and where the lot width is only 50 feel wide where 140 feet is required. Stoddard indicated he would not be opposed to granting a dock for the lakcshore lot. Klu.li inquired how a prospective buyer might become awaa* that the lot has been deemed unbuitdable. Kluih noted that decision by the Council is not filed with the County Gaffron stated prior to the early 1980s. the City Council did not file variance approvals or denials. Since that time the City has filed them on the chain on title, fhe pn>pcrty owner could find out that information by asking the City to review that file. Smith inquired Itow many lots that have been deemed unbuildabic the City has approv ed in the past with iu> sewer. Gaffron stated it is understanding because there was no house on the property , there was no unit charge assessed or the plant charge. Gaffron stated if this lot had been declared unbuildabic at the time Uie sewer was installed, the City more than likely would not Itav e assessed them the 50 fvx>t frontage. Gaffron stated if the lot area and lot width variances were approvcl. the .Applicant would owe the updated unit and plant charge Smith inquired if a small cabin had c.vistcd on this lot at the lime sewer was insulled in this area, how that property would have '.<ecn treated. Gaffron stated they would have been assessed the 50 feet that they were assessed along with i unit charge and a plant charge. Stoddard inquired whether there is a dock currently on the lakeshore lot. Rocsicr stated the diK-k is not legal. Risesler stated her main purpose in purchasing the pt «perty was to construct a residence on the lot. Stoddard inquired if tlie Hrst part of the application were tabled and the second pan approved, whether the Applicant would have an opportunity to discuss the first pan of the application with the City Council. Stoddard commented he would like to get the input of the City Council on the first pan of this application. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI-.\NNING COMMISSION Monday. May 21.2001 (MM.267S DONNA LILE. CONTINUED) Weinberger slated he Mould prefer the Planning Commission make a recommendation on both parts of this application rather than tabling one part of it. Stoddard reiterated he Mould be Milling to approve the second part of the application but that he Mould prefer to gel some input from the Cit> Council on Die first part before acting on it. Stoddard stated he Mould be hesitant to approve the first part of the application given the small si/e of the lot and the zoning requirements for this area. Weinberger stated bi>ih options w'uld be presented to the Council. Kluth commented the Planning Commission has only been presented M ith one example of Mhat might be a similar situation, with StalT indicating that there might be other examples that exist on both sides over the years regarding other similar properties. Kluth slated in his view the Planning Commission should look at this application in today's tenns and look at recent precedent and how the City Council would deal with this. Smith staled if port one of the application were approved, the Applicant would be UH>king at some very sev ere restrictions on what could be constructed on the property due to the small si/e of the lot. Kluth inquired if this property were deemed to be buildable. whether they would be retroactively assessed the sewer charge. Gaffron stated they would be. Siisddard inquired whether the Applicant would be willing to table part one of the application or have the Planning Commission act on both parts tonight. Stoddard noted he probably would not be in support of approv mg part one at this time. Stoddard stated if part one was tabled, that may allow the Applicant time to conduct further research to determine whether other similar applications have been approved in the past. Roesicr stated she would like the Planning Commission to act on both parts of her application tonight. Berg stated if the two lots were combined, the Applicant would not be able to build on the lakeshore lot. Berg statexi the Applicant could build on the back lot. Smith commented the Planning Commission needs to act on what is before them tonight and not what happened twenty some years ago. StixJdard noted Orono’s Comprehensive Plan has changed over those 28 years. Waldron stated he understands it is the City ’s desire not to have residences constructed on these 50 foot lots, but the point that the Applicant is making is that this application cannot be looked at in isolation due to the history of the other similar lot and that the applicable ordinances have not changed. Waldron stated this is the exact same fact situation and exact same request and exact same ordinances as that situation which existed a number of years. Waldron stated they would like the City to explain how they differ. PAGE 14 •**n r-» MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moaday, May 21,2041 (MOI-2675 DONNA LILE, CONTINUED) Derg stated severed lots are treated dilTcrcntly than unsewered lots. Berg stated she needs to deal with the present and not what happened twenty some years ago. Smith stated it is her feeling from the discussion so far that part one of the application probably would not be approved but that part two might be approved. Smith stated the Applicant still has the option to table the application or a pi>rtion of it if she would like to do so. Roesicr stated she would like the Planning Commission to vote on bot! parts of the application. Smith moved to recommend approval of Part One of Application ttOI-2678, Kristi Rocsler, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, granting of variances to lot area/width to permit future residential construction. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. KInth moved, second by Stoddard, to recommend denial of Part One of Application tt01>2678, Kristi Roesicr, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, and not grant variances to lot area/width to permit future residential consiructioo. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Stoddard moved, .second by Kluth, to recommend approval of Part Two of Application #01*2678, Kristi Roesicr, 1169 Elmwood Avenue, granting of a variance to permit a lot combination of a property not adjacent to the building lot for lakc/dock use. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (#8) #01 2679 SIIARR.\TT AND MACDONALD DI SIGN CO.MPANY ON BEHALF OF 450 AND 480 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, CONDI I lONAL I SE PER.MIT. 8:04 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Michael Moiuc and JcTrSwcil/cr appeared on behalf of Sharratt and MadXmald Design Company . Tlie Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted Boitenhcrg staled the Applicants have filed a conditional use permit application for a "guest house**. The lot is approximately 14.73 acres and currently has two residences on the propeny . The principal residence and bam are addressed as 45 J Orono Orchard Road and the e.xisting caretaker house and detached garage are addressed os 480 Oroius Orchard Road. The two properties were legally combl.ied in the late 1970s with the d'frcrent addresses remaining. Siafl's research has concluded that no conditional use permit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the property was legally combined. Tlie Applicants are proposing to demolish the existing caretaker house and garage and construct a new guest house. I he new guest house will be located where the garage is currently loc'ted. City Code allows guest houses as a conditional use permit. A guest house is defined as a "separate dwelling constructed on an existing undiv ided lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests." A condition of approval shall be the property owner file a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house will only be used PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MoBday, May 21,2001 (001-2679 SHARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY. CONTINUED) ond occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primoiy residence on the property. The guest house cannot be used for a home occupation. Bottenberg stated over 13 acres of the 14.73 acres are considered to be dry buildabk land, with this district requiring two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house conditional use permit requires an additional two acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than one dwelling unit per two acres. Tire property docs meet the minimum area and width requirements for a guest house. Uottenberg stated two variances arc required for the guest house. A variance is required because the guest house is proposed to be closer to the front lot line than the principal structure. A second variance is required for a second oversized accessory structure. An oversized accessory structure is defined ns an accessory structure of footprint area in c.xcess of 1,000 square feet. Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed «)n a property. 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 aa* Kuh accesst>rv structures; however, the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dwelling on the propertv for people to reside. Uottenberg noted a new on-site sewage treatment s>stcm was instjllcd on the property in October. 2000. The treatment s>slcm is sized for eight bedrooms. Die main residence has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. Hie proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate location will need to be located on the propcrt> per a letter provided by the treatment s>stcm installers. City StalTrecommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive ciwenant in the chain of title of the propertv that would limit use of the guest house to iKcupants of the pcincipal structure and their non-paying guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house not be used for a home occupation. Stoddard inquired why a second variance is required for the guest house if the proposed guest house is 1.500 square feet and the bam is 2.000 square feet. Stoddard noted they have a maximum of 6.000 square feet allowed. Weinberger stated they sre only allowed one oversized accessory stmeture on the property . Bottenberg stated both structures are considcrH to be acceswiry structures and both are oversized. GafTron stated they are allowed one oversized accessory structure, with the 2.000 square foot bam being oversized, and any other accessory structures on the property need to be 1.000 square feet or less. GafTron stated the guest house is 1.500 square feet Sweitzer stated they have nothing additional to add to Suff s report. Sandy Osborn, 360 Orono Orchard Road, stated currently there is no fence along the front side of the property or on Dickenson Street. Osborn stated there are presently nine dogs which arc being trained PAGE 16 nliiMtfiill MINinrS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Moflday. May 21,2001 (MH-2679 SIIARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY, CONTINUED) and raised on the property. Osborn commented these dogs have gotten out from time to time due to the lack of fencing Osbi>rn inquired when and if fencing would be erected on this property. Moore stated there is fencing on Dickenson Street on the back side of the bam Moore staled they have discussed the issue with the dogs before with the City Council and that i> not on the agenda tonight. Osborn inquired how long the property would be unfcnced. Osborn stated she has safety concerns regarding the dogs. Smith stated the resident would like to know whether any additional fencing would be erected in the future. Miwre stated they are anticipating the main residence will be completed in August, with the site plan showing proposed fencing and berms with trees along the whole front of the property. Moore stated following completion of the project, the residence and guest house will not be v i^iblc from the street, Mix)re stated that fencing and trees would continue along Dickenson Street. Smith suggested they discuss this further with the neighbor following tonight's meeting. Smith inquired whether the Applicant had considered mov ing the guest house further back to be in line with the principal residence. Sweiuer stated they have not considered that possibility. Slixldard stated if the guest house w ere relocated, a variance may not be needed. Sweitzer stated they could look at that option. Sweit/er stated tiie current driv eway works well as far os drainage. Gaffron pointed out the guest house would need to be moved appro.ximately 40 feet back in order to be in line with the principal residence. Smith and Stoddard commented they were not aware the guest house would need to be moved that far back. Weinberger indicated L.vhibit F shows the view of the guest house from the street. Weinberger stated the guest house would not be visible from the street. Weinberger stated the guest house has been designed to meet a SO foot setback each way so it meets all principal building setbacks in the event this lot is every split. Smith stated if this property were ever subdivided or sold, the City has required in the past that the oversized accessory structure be removed. Smith inquired whether that was the case in this situation. Gaffron stated the City requires a standard covenant for every oversized accessory structure, which includes that language. Gaffron stated if the property is ever divided in the future, the div ided property would need to have the required acreage to support those accessory structures or they would need to be removed. PAGE 17 I mm, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (001-2679 SIIARRATT AND MACDONALD DESIGN COMPANY, CONTINUED) Smith inquired whether Ute Applicants hod any comments or concents about that restrictive covenant. Moorse stated they would need to speak with the property owner regarding that, but that he does not have any intentions of selling or suMividing the property at this time. Smith inquired whether the Applicants would like the Planning Commission to act on their application tonight or table it. Moore stated they would like to proceed forward. Smith inquired whether the requirement that the guest house not be used for a home occupation was a standard requirement that the City has imposed in the past. Weinberger stated that is a standard condition. Klatb moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application MOl-2679, Sharratt and MacDonald Design Company on behalf of 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road, granting of a conditioaal use permit for a guest house and a variance for a second oversixed accessory structnre subject to the property owner filing a restricthe 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 nonpay log guests or domestic employ ees, and that the guest house not be used for a home occupation. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (89) 801-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN, 2715 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:31 p.m.-9:l3 p.m. Sid Levin. Builder, and Terry and rx^olhy Frwin. Applicants, were present. 11te Certificate of Mailing and AfTidavit of Publication were noted. Weinberger stated the Applicants are proposing to renovate and refurbish the existing house. Tlte renovations include some work to the existing foundation, removal of the second floor and replace with a new floor plan. All of the proposed renovation would be within the existing foundation. ITte foundation of the house will not be increased. The building envelope would be expanded in two areas, one over the existing den and another over the existing dining room. Weinberger slated in the area where the residence currently is one story, a second story will be added, making the entire house two stories. Weinberger staled the residence does encroach into the average lakeshore lakeshore setback aitd within the 75' lakeshore setback. Any structural work within 75 feet of the lakeshore and the average setback requires variance: A variance is required to permit alteration to structure w ithin 75 feet of the lakeshore and the average lakeshore setback. A second variance is required to permit structural work to the house within the 10 feet side yard setback. In addition, variances are also needed to permit the structural work to the foundation. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (001-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Weinberger staled the existing hardcuser on the property consists of 987 square feet or 20 percent in the 0-75* setback and 6.274 square feet or 5S percent within the 75-250’ setback. The hardcover in the 250-500’ setback consists of 1.656 square feel or 26 percent. The hardcover within the 0-75’ setback includes a stainvay. a walk down to the lake, a large patio, and a small portion of the house. The hardcover within the 75-250’ setback consists of a driveway, a large parking area, he house, some walkways, and a storage shed. Weinberger noted there would be relatively no chancre to the building env elope w ithin the 10 fool setback encroachment on the north side of the house. Pr.marilv the areas where changes would occur meet the required 10 feel setback. No variances are required to expand the second level living areas up to the 10 fool setback. Weinberger stated one concern with the proposal is the expanded roof line to the north side of the Applicants' house that may .iffect sunlight and drainage to the adjacent property . Another factor contributing to potential drainage issues is the total existing hardcover on the property . Weinberger stated the house is non-conforming as it is located within the required setbacks The property owners have two options to consider with this application One is to consider remodeling the existing house, which requires the removal and replacement of the second story and some structural work to the foundation: or two. removal the existing residence and build new The Applicants have chosen to remodel and renovate. One question to address is whether the proposed foundation work is of such a magnitude that this project should meet the standards for new construction. The Applicant has indicated the majority of the foundation work consists of ss>me repair work to the lakeside of the residence, with the remaining foundation being intact ard in gi>od condition Weinberger slated the Planning Commission should consider whether the total amount of hardcover should be reduced if the variances are granted and whether the shed should remain. W einberger commented the shed would require repair at some lime in the near future. Ccnsiruction of the shed was prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards and is located within the size setback and within 10 feet of another structure. Staff concurs that the topography of the site makes any substantial revisions to the location of the house challenging. Tlie steep slope to the road results in the need for a long driveway and significant site regrading and alteration of drainage patterns in the immediate neighborhood would be necessary to move the house to a location where hardcover standards could be met. Renovation of the existing house, w ith no expansions where it encroaches requiad setbacks, would appear to be a reasonable approach. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow renovations and remodeling of the house subject to the following conditions: 1. Tlie Applicant must demonstrate and confirm the foundation work is not required only to allow the expansion of the second story , but would be needed even if no expansion was planned. 2. Hardcov er removals w iihin the parking area should be required to prov ide additional absorption areas on the property. 3. No expansion of the building env elope shall be permitted w ithin required setbacks. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^nSSION Mowlay,M«y2l,2001 (/MH-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Weinberger gtated the recommendation of approval is based upon the fact the existing structure is a legal non-conforming structure that was built prior to the current zoning ordinances and that no further expansion of the non-conformities would occur. The proposed expansions arc being completed w ithin the required setbacks. Levin stated he has reviewed the entire foundation of the existing residence and found that the area underneath the porch areas on the front of the house needs to be repaired. Levin stated the depth of the foundation is not adequate and need to be at 42 inches. Levin stated the house has a full basement and the remainder of the foundation is in good condition and would be able to accommodate the expansion. Levin stated due to the steep slope to the rood, a turnaround area is necessary. I1ic Applicants are proposing that the driveway area would be reduced by 800 square feet, reducing the ha^coser in that setback to approximately 47 percent from 55 percent. Levin stated the improvements would add character to the house and more aesthetically pleasing. Lev in stated the main level of the residence is scheduled to be fully remodeled, with a new floor plan being proposed. Levin indicated some walls will be removed and some windows will be relocated. Smith stated one item the Planning Commission would like the Applicants to consider is possible removal of the shed due to the amount of hardcover on the property. Mrs. Envin stated the shed is used fur storage at the present time, with gasoline for their boat and lawnmower being stored in there as well os other items Erwin stated they would like to make some improvements to the shed to make it match the appearance of the house. Kluih inquired whether the Applicants could address the concrete patio. Klulh stated in his view the builder will need to do some work in the area of the patio to work on the foundation. Kluth inquired whether the patio would be replaced following the foundation work. Levin stated they would be w illing to consider a reduction in the size of the patio. Weinberger stated they currently have a two-stall garage. Weinberger slated the City has had a problem with outdoor storage and would prefer having a shed for storage on this bkeshore lot as long as the Applicants are below the structural coverage limit. Weinberger stated the Applicants could consider possibly relocating the shed. Kluth stated he does not have a problem with the shed. Stoddard stated he would like to see the shed brought into conformance with the setbacks. Kluth noted the shed currently is on a concrete pad. Levin stated in his view the shed could be rotated slightly to moke it more square w ith the house os well as having some improvements done to it Lev in commented he would be hesitant to say they would be able to move it enough to meet the ten foot setback siivrs it would encroach into the turnaround area, but they would be willing to relocate it possibly three to five feet off the lot line. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE. ORONO PlJ^NNINO COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (WOl-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN, CONTINUED) Stixldard inquired »hcihcr the Applicants could come into conformance \sith tlic average lokeshore setback. Weinberger stated the largest encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is two to three feet. Levin indicated the encroachment docs not impact the neighbiHs* view of the lake, which is the intent of the setback. Kluih slated the average lakeshore setback lends to vary among the houses in a given area. Kluih staled since there is only a two to three hx>t encrsachment. he dinrs not have a problem with it Weinberger stated the intent of the av erage lakeshore setback is to protect v iew s of tlic lake. Mrs. Erwin stated the neighbors do approve of this project. Smith inquired how much of llie foundation is being replaced. Weinberger stated he docs not have a percentage of the foundation that is being replaced at this time. Weinberger inquired whether any repair of the foundation is required to add the second story. Lev in staled the foundation work is required regardless if a second story is added to the house Weinberger inquia*d whether a structural engineer's report could be submitted on the foundation work prior to the City Council meeting. Levin stated he has submitted that already. Weinberger slated he would review that repi^rt prior to the Council meeting. Art Kane. 2697 Casco Point Road, indicated he is in support of this pavject. William Miller. 2691 Casco Point Road, commented all the houses in this area are non-conforming, with 12 out of the 14 requiring variances. Miller stated the Applicants have taken steps to reduce the amount of hardcover on the property. Miller stated he is in support of this project because it would help to improve the neighborhood. There were no further public comments regarding this application Kluth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application wOI-2677, Terry and Dorothy Erwin, 2715 Casco Point Road, granting of a variance to permit alteration to structure within 75* of the lakeshore and the nverage lakeshore setback, and a variance to permit structural work to the house within the 10 foot yard setback, subject to the conditions outlined in the May 16,2001 Planner's Report, subject to the sire of the patio being reduced, and with the understanding the shed will be relocated off the property line a reasonable distance prior to the completion of the project. PAGE 21 MINIJTKS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (MM-2677 TERRY AND DOROTHY ERWIN. CONTINUED) Stoddard inquired what the hardcover numbers are on the driveway. Levin stated they would be reducing the driveway area by 800 square feet. Stoddard inquired what si/e the patio is and how much it would be reduced. Kluth stated the patio consists of 520 square feet. Kluth inquired how much the patio could be reduced. Weinberger slated a ps>rtion of the patio will be removed in order to do the foundation work, and lecimically replacement of the patio would require a hardcover variance since it is located within the 0»75* setback Weinberger inquired how much of the patio would be remov ed. Lev in stated approximately four feet along the length of the patio would need to be removed In order to do the foundation work. Levin stated they would not be remov mg the rest of the patio. Weinberger stated the rest of the patio could remain, but any replacement would require a variance Levin stated the 520 square feet might also include the sidewalk and deck area, but he would be willing to reduce the patio by 150 feet. Levin stated the S20 square feet is just the patio area. Kluth staled the Applicants would need a hardcover variance in order to replace the portion of the patio that is removed in connection with the foundation work. Smith commented the I'lanning Commission likes the amount of hardcover in the 0-75* to be limited as much as pt>sNible Kluth amended the motion. Ilerg seconded, to include reduction of the patio by 160 square feel. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (010) 001-2676 HAVWIND C HRISTL\N CHURCH, MUMCIP.AL CODE SECTION 10.42, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT. 9:15 p.m. - 9:56 p.m. Ilelmer lieckcl. Pastor, and Don Grecnley. Attorney-al-Law. were present. Weinberger staled the Applicants are requesting an amendment to the Municipal Code that would list “churches’* as a conditional in the B-4 zoning district. Churches are allowed by conditional use only- in "R” districts. The request is made on behalf of the Day-wind Christian Church, who has an interest in the Applicant ’s property . which is owned by Franklin J. SvoKxlx to use a portion of the existing building for church use. This particular request is for the amendment to the B-4 District. Should the City approve the amendment, a conditional use permit application would be required to consider the Bay-w ind proposal for the use of this site for a church use. PAGE 22 MLMTES OF THE i>RO.NO PI ANN INC CO>LMISSION Monday, .Ma> 21,2001 («01'2676 BA^'WIND CHRISTIAN CHIRCII, CONTINIED) Weinberger staled the U>4 UiTice and Professional Business District is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative olfice buildings and related ofllces. WeinK’rger staled if the Appluant w ishes to have a church at this location, a conditional use permit would be necessary following approval of the amendment to the B-4 District. Grecnley stated they are requesting that one more conditional use be added to the B*4 District. Greenley indicated the building can presently be utilized as a school, and in his opinion a church would have less impact on the neighborluxNJ since most of the acliv ity occurs on the weekend. Ileckcl stated they are curreiilly liKaled in Excelsior and would like to relocate in this area. Heckel commented the building would serve their needs well, with the church being a goi\2 improvement to the neighborhiKMl. Heckel stated the building has been on the market for approximately one year, with the inside of the structure not well suited for office use Kluth inquired why churches were not included in the B-4 District to begin with Gaflron stated the B-4 Zoning District giKs back to the 1960s. and it is his uridersunding no chuiches were Uxated in that area at the time the zoning district was created so they were net included Frank Svoboda slated the majority of the building is constructed out of precast concrete and is an extremely solid and well built building Svoboda staled a sprinkler system would not be required Rodney Beesirom added that a sprinkler system is not required by Code unless there are more than 300 people in attendance. GafTron stated one of the issues that was raised early on was whether the change in occupation from an office to a church would require significant changes to the building because of the Building Code. GatTron stated the City has not investigated that yet and he is unsure whether the church members have consulted with the City's building oiTicial regarding that issue. Stoddard requested StalT follow up on that possible conversion to see what changes would be required. Smith stated other issues to address would be traffic, noise, lighting, and signage. Smith inquired what discussions have taken place regarding those items. WeinKrger stated StalT would need a complete site plan in order to detennme whether there is adequate parking and appropriate signage and lighting for this site. Weinberger suted Staff has not gone into those issues at this time. Berg stated she has a major concern w ith the traffic in this area and the speed of the traffic as it gives down County Road 19. Berg indicated she has a concern with parking across the read from the church and then attempting to cross County Road 19. Berg stated she would prefer that people not cross that road due to the high speeds of the traffic. PAGE2J »■«>— MINUTES or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21,2001 (<MU-2676 BAYWIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CONTINUED) Stoddard stated if churches are added to the B-4 area, it would apply to all other B-4 Districts w ithin the City’. Kluth pointed out issues dealing with trafTic and parking and lighting would be addressed at the time the Applicant approaches the City w ith a request for a conditional use permit. Ileckcl stated at the time they were considering purchase of the Grace Baptist Church, they had discussed parking with the pres ious City Administrator and they were informed at that time that they* could use the municipal lot across the street. Berg stated the traffic going south on County Risad 19 is more significant than the trafTic going north. Smith stated at the lime the Applicant requests a conditional use permit, he will need to address those concerns. Smith stated the issue before the Planning Commission tonight is whether churches should be added to the B-4 District. Stoddard commented the church would be used primarily during the esemngs and on weekends, with the B-4 District being primarily businesses that operate during the day. Stixidard slated he would like more research done on the Uniform Building Code and the reasons why churches were omitted from the B-4 District Smith slated the other uses allowed in the B-4 District, such os nursing homes, hospitals, scIkhiIs, restaurants, and libraries also have weekend and evening activities to stnne extent Kluth staled he personally docs not base a problem with the hours of the church and other uses currently in the B-4 District. Kluth slated he would like to know what regulations the “R” District requires for churches and whether some of those regulations would be left out by adding churches to the B-4 District. Ileckcl staled historically in this country churches have not been associated with businesses but have usually been located in residential areas. Ileckcl stated in today ’s society, churches arc becoming more dy namic and are beginning to be located in business districts. Beestrom stated he lives in this area and it is his understanding the Covenant Church near Lord Fletcher's was permitted parking on the other side of County Rood 19. Beestrom stated a majority of Lord F letches is also on the other side of Coun>y Road 19. Smith inquired whether the crossing of County Road 19 and the parking could be addressed with signage. Berg staled there is a significant amount of traffic on IS and 19. with minimal trafTic going sooth compared to what is going north. Berg stated the safety of any pedestrians in this area is a major concern of hers. y^' Kluth reiterated the parking and signage is an issue to be discussed xsiih the conditional use permit. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 21.2€01 (MI-2676 BA WIND CHRISTIAN CHURCH. CONTINUED) Kluth staled he has not done enough research to determine \«hether churches would be appropriate in this district. Kluth slated he would like to table this application in order to give the memt^rs of the Planning Commission and Cit> StafTlime to compare the **R’’ District w iih the D-4 District to insure that they are compatible. Greenicy suggested that if it is approved tonight, they could simply make it subject to the same requirements os the “R" District. Stoddard inquired whether the church has a specific time frame they would like to followr. Heckei stated the church would not be a hindcnince or an obstacle to the neighborhood. Heckel stated they are currently located at the Excelsior Elementary School and they arc losing families because that is not their target area. Heckel staled they would like to relocate back to this area os soon as lliey con since a large number of their parishioners come from this area. (Jaake Berg leaves at 9:52 p.m.) Smith staled due to one of the commissioners leaving, there no longer is a quorum prevent on the Planning Commission, which means this application must be tabled to the June meeting. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to table this application. Weinberger suggested the Applicants meet w ith City StafT to discuss some of these issues prior to the City Council meeting. Gaffron suggested this application be discussed at the 29* City Council meeting to see whether the Council would be w illir:g to hear this application at their June meeting w ithout a formal recommendation from the Planning Commission. Smith noted a City Council member has been in attendance at tonight’s meeting, and it w ill be clearly communicated to the Council why there is not a formal recommendation on this application. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 23.2MI AND MAY 14.2MI This item was not discussed. (#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None PAGE2S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MoBday,May2L200l (N13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 19,2001 AND APRIL 16,2001 This item was not discussed. («U) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON MAY 29,2001 AND JUNE 11.2001 None ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:S6 p.m. Sandra Smith. Acting Chair PAGE 26 Li.